Richard Meyer v. Mark Waid (2018) -

Waid Livestream - What will happen?

  • Talks about the lawsuit.

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • Further incriminates himself.

    Votes: 18 48.6%
  • Defames YaBoi again.

    Votes: 5 13.5%
  • Doesn't talk about the lawsuit nor CG.

    Votes: 2 5.4%
  • Host disagrees with Waid on something, chimpout insues.

    Votes: 7 18.9%
  • Normal interview. (no drama)

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Now this document is just sort of a recommendation from another judge to Judge Yeakel about what he should do and why, right? These motions haven't actually been denied or granted yet until Yeakel gives the say so, right?
Correct. Waid is almost certainly going to challenge all the denials, and Meyer is going to challenge the one grant. I would generally anticipate the judge is going to go with the recommendations of the magistrate without a good showing the magistrate is wrong, though, so I hope to see a strong argument from Meyer on why pendent jurisdiction clearly applies here.

This is assuming there isn't a trip to the Fifth Circuit. I believe Waid hinted that was coming as well. And I also anticipate a TCPA motion despite the Fifth Circuit saying there isn't such a thing in the Fifth Circuit.

There just isn't enough yet to connect the Huston defamation to the General defamation in the filings.
I don't believe he clearly directed his actions toward Meyer in Texas to interfere with his contract, then suddenly became a completely agnostic evil twin when he went online and defamed him while announcing his intentions of interfering with the contract, defamed him while announcing he was actively interfering with the contract, then defamed him while announcing he had successfully interfered with the contract, and that this somehow was a completely different set of actions.
 

AprilRains

Not Dicking Around
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I'm not sure what you mean. What else could we possibly be talking about but Waid's motions?
I'm not thinking very clearly and ask your indulgence. Why is it nonsensical for the Texas court to decide it doesn't have jurisdiction over internet defamation?
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
I'm not thinking very clearly and ask your indulgence. Why is it nonsensical for the Texas court to decide it doesn't have jurisdiction over internet defamation?
Because it has jurisdiction over every other aspect of Waid's conduct with regard to the same person based on its intentional direction to the forum, but yet declines jurisdiction over conduct which derives from a common nucleus of operative facts related to the very same pattern of conduct.

Obviously the federal judge disagrees with me and is a federal judge, though. So I guess we'll have to see what the other federal judge superior to that federal judge thinks.
 

Jigglyjogglers

The Doctor Bashir guy
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I'm not thinking very clearly and ask your indulgence. Why is it nonsensical for the Texas court to decide it doesn't have jurisdiction over internet defamation?
Texas has jurisdiction over everything by virtue of being Texas. First thing you learn on first day of Texas Studies, man, were you fucking sleeping?
 

RodgerDodger

kiwifarms.net
Correct. Waid is almost certainly going to challenge all the denials, and Meyer is going to challenge the one grant. I would generally anticipate the judge is going to go with the recommendations of the magistrate without a good showing the magistrate is wrong, though, so I hope to see a strong argument from Meyer on why pendent jurisdiction clearly applies here.

This is assuming there isn't a trip to the Fifth Circuit. I believe Waid hinted that was coming as well. And I also anticipate a TCPA motion despite the Fifth Circuit saying there isn't such a thing in the Fifth Circuit.



I don't believe he clearly directed his actions toward Meyer in Texas to interfere with his contract, then suddenly became a completely agnostic evil twin when he went online and defamed him while announcing his intentions of interfering with the contract, defamed him while announcing he was actively interfering with the contract, then defamed him while announcing he had successfully interfered with the contract, and that this somehow was a completely different set of actions.
Didn't the Judge reverse the Magistrate once already?
 

RodgerDodger

kiwifarms.net
Not as such, since he isn't really "reversing" anything. The magistrate delivers a report and recommendation, not an actual ruling.
Fair point. What I meant was didn't the Judge elect not to rule in accord with one of the Magistrates recommendations in the first go round?
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Fair point. What I meant was didn't the Judge elect not to rule in accord with one of the Magistrates recommendations in the first go round?
The judge allowed the plaintiff to amend the pleading but that's just a routine thing. He wasn't saying the magistrate was wrong. Unless I missed something. This case has been so mired down in the same boring bullshit for over a year I easily could have glazed over something.
 

DragoonSierra

kiwifarms.net
Correct. Waid is almost certainly going to challenge all the denials, and Meyer is going to challenge the one grant. I would generally anticipate the judge is going to go with the recommendations of the magistrate without a good showing the magistrate is wrong, though, so I hope to see a strong argument from Meyer on why pendent jurisdiction clearly applies here.

This is assuming there isn't a trip to the Fifth Circuit. I believe Waid hinted that was coming as well. And I also anticipate a TCPA motion despite the Fifth Circuit saying there isn't such a thing in the Fifth Circuit.



I don't believe he clearly directed his actions toward Meyer in Texas to interfere with his contract, then suddenly became a completely agnostic evil twin when he went online and defamed him while announcing his intentions of interfering with the contract, defamed him while announcing he was actively interfering with the contract, then defamed him while announcing he had successfully interfered with the contract, and that this somehow was a completely different set of actions.
So what does this mean for discovery?
 

5t3n0g0ph3r

Resident Archivist
Supervisor
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Absolute fucking nonsense especially in light of the Houston defamation ruling considering it's absolutely part of the same pattern of conduct. Presumably by this logic if someone traveled around the country stopping at an airport in every one of the 50 states, defaming the same guy, you'd have to sue him separately in every single state.

Still there's time to challenge it considering the HEFTY time delay before trial with the scheduling order, and everything else, as expected, is going to trial. I can't believe we had to wait this long for such nonsense. Welcome to federal pound me in the ass court!
I agree.
How is defaming someone in a public setting like a convention any different than defaming someone on a public social media platform?
There shouldn't be a difference.
The ruling makes no sense.
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
I agree.
How is defaming someone in a public setting like a convention any different than defaming someone on a public social media platform?
There shouldn't be a difference.
The ruling makes no sense.
Waid to Internet: I'm going to call up Antarctic about this fucking Nazi and get his contract canceled for being a Nazi. (Meyer has to go to California to sue for this.)

Waid to Antarctic: This Meyer guy is a Nazi! Cancel his contract! (Meyer can sue in Texas for this.)

Waid to Internet: I just called Antarctic about this fucking Nazi and got his contract canceled. (Again this is somehow completely and utterly unrelated to the TI and he has to go to California to sue for this.)

Waid to Texas audience: This Meyer guy is a fucking Nazi! (Totally completely unrelated to him calling Waid a Nazi anywhere else and he can sue in Texas for this.)
 

I can't imagine

kiwifarms.net
So what does this mean for discovery?
Assuming the judge agrees with the decision, it'll still cover everything related to the claim of tortious interference with Antarctic, which should cover quite a lot. Certainly enough for us to sink our teeth into, I'd imagine. It'll also include the claim of defamation in Texas, which probably won't be as interesting at a discovery level, but it's still there.
 

Harvey Danger

getting tired of this whole internet thing
kiwifarms.net
I agree.
How is defaming someone in a public setting like a convention any different than defaming someone on a public social media platform?
There shouldn't be a difference.
The ruling makes no sense.
The magistrate says it's because each one is an individual publication, therefore each one is an individual tort.

Screenshot 2020-01-13 at 11.46.08 PM.png


So the Houston convention statements are different from the Internet statements referencing that act. Unless it was an exact reprint of his con statements, this seems like a valid analysis.

Note that this doesn't mean the internet statements weren't defamatory, just that the court doesn't think it automatically has jurisdiction over Internet statements made towards a broad audience. It wants defamation targeted at a Texas forum, and Meyer didn't show that.

Screenshot 2020-01-13 at 11.53.10 PM.png


I partially agree and disagree with @AnOminous above. This isn't a ridiculous position for the court to take, if they are supposed to treat each case of defamation as an individual tort and consider jurisdiction accordingly. But yeah, there should be enough of an argument to join the two into one case in front of one court.

I'm not familiar enough with pendent jurisdiction to say whether it should be a no-brainer in this case. Social media audience is broad enough that its publications shouldn't be presumed to be targeted at a specific venue. If you're already treating it as a standalone tort, then the audience should also be considered in isolation. It's a legitimate argument, at least. (And in other cases, this logic could be applied to the Plaintiff's benefit as well.)

This may be yet another instance of the Internet moving too fast and the law hasn't caught up to how it works.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: TexOffender

pearlslam

kiwifarms.net
Waid to Internet: I'm going to call up Antarctic about this fucking Nazi and get his contract canceled for being a Nazi. (Meyer has to go to California to sue for this.)

Waid to Antarctic: This Meyer guy is a Nazi! Cancel his contract! (Meyer can sue in Texas for this.)

Waid to Internet: I just called Antarctic about this fucking Nazi and got his contract canceled. (Again this is somehow completely and utterly unrelated to the TI and he has to go to California to sue for this.)

Waid to Texas audience: This Meyer guy is a fucking Nazi! (Totally completely unrelated to him calling Waid a Nazi anywhere else and he can sue in Texas for this.)
Yeah, I agree, it goes to show a pattern of conduct, and this is something that the Court of Appeals might have to smack down the Magistrate on it.
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Reading that legal description, it seems like it would apply in this case. Are any of Meyers claims federal torts?
No, they're all based in state law. I'm probably misusing the phrase pendent jurisdiction when I mean simply that Meyer's minimum contacts and personal availment of the forum of Texas is sufficient for all the defamation claims, not just the ones he personally physically entered the state of Texas to commit in person, as they were all intentionally directed toward causing harm in the forum.
 

Jigglyjogglers

The Doctor Bashir guy
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
No, they're all based in state law. I'm probably misusing the phrase pendent jurisdiction when I mean simply that Meyer's minimum contacts and personal availment of the forum of Texas is sufficient for all the defamation claims, not just the ones he personally physically entered the state of Texas to commit in person, as they were all intentionally directed toward causing harm in the forum.
Seems like the simplest argument to make on that one would be "People in Texas have the internet, people in Texas no doubt read the posts, this is valid as a Texas defamation case".
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Seems like the simplest argument to make on that one would be "People in Texas have the internet, people in Texas no doubt read the posts, this is valid as a Texas defamation case".
Texas doesn't exercise jurisdiction that way.
 

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino