TCPA Hearing 9/6/19 - Marchi ran from the Law, TI crumbles, conspiracy still on the table, and collective autism from all sides.

Nuke twitter?

  • Yes

    Votes: 109 19.3%
  • No

    Votes: 3 0.5%
  • Look at those faggot ass clothes! Faggot! Faggot, fag! Fuckin fag, my son's a fag!

    Votes: 320 56.7%
  • Apply the sacred ointment!

    Votes: 132 23.4%

  • Total voters
    564

Sheryl Nome

Listen to my song
kiwifarms.net
Hmm good to know, but when did this "burglary" charge happen? I never heard of that one. So you seem to be correct on that note, a DUI wouldn't be relevant enough to really bring in. Maybe something like falsifying police reports or something that involves lying would be worth bringing up.
Yes, a charge relating to fraud would likely have probative value if it was admissible.

Burglarly thing came up elsewhere I don't exactly remember it so i might be wrong lol I don't have an autistic database for this shit.
 

Jamestyalor4312

kiwifarms.net
Yes, a charge relating to fraud would likely have probative value if it was admissible.

Burglarly thing came up elsewhere I don't exactly remember it so i might be wrong lol I don't have an autistic database for this shit.
Well I never heard of that, some idiots on twitter and other places have been reposting the "forcible entry", civil suit as a "breaking and entering", criminal charge. I do cut them slack as it has a really stupid name for basically just being an eviction so I somewhat understand the confusion but a simple google search solves that so idk if that's what you thinking of.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: JohnDoe

Sheryl Nome

Listen to my song
kiwifarms.net
Well I never heard of that, some idiots on twitter and other places have been reposting the "forcible entry", civil suit as a "breaking and entering", criminal charge. I do cut them slack as it has a really stupid name for basically just being an eviction so I somewhat understand the confusion but a simple google search solves that so idk if that's what you thinking of.
Thats probably it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indianshedevil

5t3n0g0ph3r

Resident Archivist
Supervisor
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Unpopular opinion: I do not have high hopes for Vic now. IMO Beard made a few major mistakes. Let me elaborate.

1. Why not contact conventions and get a affidavit or at least a notarized statement of why they cancelled Vic. The Judge has been body slamming prima facie like he's the undertaker and prima is Rey Mysterio. If any of the I can't remember but it was 13-18 conventions that cancelled him said "yes we were influenced by funi and or monica/jamie/rons tweets or funimations decision". That would prove defamation there. Would not win the case alone but would be a good start.

3. This kinda goes along with #1 but it wouldn't of hurt to get a affidavit/statement from Rooster Teeth. As far as I know they didn't do an investigation they just piggy backed off of allegations alone no investigation at all. So if certain VA's tweets were part of that decision, yada yada yada.
There's been a discovery stay because of the TCPA. Besides, Beard would probably need a Motion to Compel as those conventions are now hostile and we don't know if Rooster Teeth handed over any further communications.

EDIT: Cougar'd by @Allanon.
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Unpopular opinion: I do not have high hopes for Vic now. IMO Beard made a few major mistakes. Let me elaborate.

1. Why not contact conventions and get a affidavit or at least a notarized statement of why they cancelled Vic.
Why the FUCK would they admit doing shit they could be sued for if they didn't have to? Have you considered maybe they fucking hate Vic?

3. This kinda goes along with #1 but it wouldn't of hurt to get a affidavit/statement from Rooster Teeth.
Why the fuck would a potential defendant just offer a statement admitting they're guilty? Are you absofuckinglutely retarded?
 

Allanon

kiwifarms.net
@Jamestyalor4312 I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you're speaking truthfully just for now, though I don't know if I believe you. If it's the case that you're not just another insincere lawtwit dummy, you should try to educate yourself more, because you're saying nonsense that sounds like you took it directly from law twitter, stripped what little sense exists in that nexus of dumb, and ran with it. Instead of getting pissed off that people are telling you you're wrong and that your suggestions are dumb because they simply wouldn't work, just adjust your theories accordingly.
 

Mr. Sandwiches

Oh well, whatever, nevermind.
kiwifarms.net
Unpopular opinion: I do not have high hopes for Vic now. IMO Beard made a few major mistakes. Let me elaborate.

1. Why not contact conventions and get a affidavit or at least a notarized statement of why they cancelled Vic. The Judge has been body slamming prima facie like he's the undertaker and prima is Rey Mysterio. If any of the I can't remember but it was 13-18 conventions that cancelled him said "yes we were influenced by funi and or monica/jamie/rons tweets or funimations decision". That would prove defamation there. Would not win the case alone but would be a good start.

2. Improperly submitted affidavits. Nuff said, that was some seriously eye rolling shit.

3. This kinda goes along with #1 but it wouldn't of hurt to get a affidavit/statement from Rooster Teeth. As far as I know they didn't do an investigation they just piggy backed off of allegations alone no investigation at all. So if certain VA's tweets were part of that decision, yada yada yada.

Even as a ISWV supporter, on the youtube videos he was like "We don't have to prove anything, prima facie, blah blah". It just made me roll my eyes. He has been more than well paid for this case, I like Ty but I just don't think he put in his A game here and no one should be butthurt about that.
I originally thought Ty goofed too, but after reading the transcript Chupp's acting like he didn't get his morning coffee or some shit, with everybody.
 

Dumb Bitch Smoothie

Any time now, faggots.
kiwifarms.net
I originally thought Ty goofed too, but after reading the transcript Chupp's acting like he didn't get his morning coffee or some shit, with everybody.
He just seemed....off to me. Like a high school math teacher on a Friday knowing the entire day would be a headache so he switched on autopilot instead.
I mean seeing a PowerPoint in the modern day and age really puts you in that classroom mindset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allanon

Immaculate Ape

It was ME... DIO!
kiwifarms.net
He just seemed....off to me. Like a high school math teacher on a Friday knowing the entire day would be a headache so he switched on autopilot instead.
I mean seeing a PowerPoint in the modern day and age really puts you in that classroom mindset.
Well, looking at things plainly, Ty went in prepared to use his 2nd amended petition. He didn't seem to take into account the possibility that it could be struck, despite him having a copy of the amended petition on him.

He spent a lot of time trying to explain himself, and playing catch-up and Chupp wasn't giving him a single inch and only kept railing on him, when Chupp literally just pulled the rug out from under his preparation.

So, yes, Ty didn't rebound very well until late. Ty also needed to let go of the fact that he clearly seemed bothered that Chupp wasn't going to play ball. Hindsight and all, he would have been better served to call a recess to regroup, come back and pressed on.

He spent most of that hearing just catching up, and of course you're going to look like an idiot when you're 3 steps behind everyone else and your opposition has 3 chances to make it that much harder for you.
 

Ivan Shatov

Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
kiwifarms.net
Unpopular opinion: I do not have high hopes for Vic now. IMO Beard made a few major mistakes. Let me elaborate.

1. Why not contact conventions and get a affidavit or at least a notarized statement of why they cancelled Vic. The Judge has been body slamming prima facie like he's the undertaker and prima is Rey Mysterio. If any of the I can't remember but it was 13-18 conventions that cancelled him said "yes we were influenced by funi and or monica/jamie/rons tweets or funimations decision". That would prove defamation there. Would not win the case alone but would be a good start.

2. Improperly submitted affidavits. Nuff said, that was some seriously eye rolling shit.

3. This kinda goes along with #1 but it wouldn't of hurt to get a affidavit/statement from Rooster Teeth. As far as I know they didn't do an investigation they just piggy backed off of allegations alone no investigation at all. So if certain VA's tweets were part of that decision, yada yada yada.

Even as a ISWV supporter, on the youtube videos he was like "We don't have to prove anything, prima facie, blah blah". It just made me roll my eyes. He has been more than well paid for this case, I like Ty but I just don't think he put in his A game here and no one should be butthurt about that.
Welcome to the Farms.

You ask some simple questions that deserve simple answers. I'll try to address them and have a few questions for you.

1) You need a subpoena to reliably get affidavits from third parties in other states who are hostile to the plaintiff. There was a discovery stay, which prevented this from happening.

2) Improperly submitted affidavits had no effect on the hearing. Ty made a mistake, it happens. Importantly, the facts of the sworn statements did not change.

3) Vic isn't suing Rooster Teeth, he's suing Funimation. There are emails in the record from Rooster Teeth stating they would not provide any information about why Vic was fired. Hence the need for subpoenas, which the Plaintiff had no power to obtain.

Here are some questions for you (and any other KickVic schills who might want to chime in):

1) Monica and Toye publicly claimed 100s of people were coming forward with accusations. Where are they? I only see a small clique that has been together since their time at Viz, along with roommates and hangers-on.

2) Several of the accusers claimed the investigation was thorough and involved dozens of witnesses, but the record states Sony's investigation only involved 3 people and happened over the phone. Sony nor Funimation have presented any evidence to the contrary. Where's the investigation?

3) KickVic has made use of a number of photos to bolster claims of sexual assault, where Vic was kissing someone on the cheek. To my knowledge, for each one, the person being kissed has stated the kiss was fully consensual. Why are the defendants mischaracterizing the nature of fan interaction?

If you want to say, "hey, I'm only here to talk about the TCPA hearing," fine. But help us understand why simple questions of fact like this are so commonly overlooked by people on the KickVic side. The whitewashing is the reason why some of us have given so generously to the GFM campaign, a little bit of scrutiny reveals obvious inconsistencies in the accusations that underlie the suit.

I just don't understand the fervency of the support for these defendants. They come across as liars, cheats, wife-beaters, and misandrists with no interest in the truth. I'd really like someone to explain how you reconcile their public statements with the causes of action in this case.
 

Dumb Bitch Smoothie

Any time now, faggots.
kiwifarms.net
Well, looking at things plainly, Ty went in prepared to use his 2nd amended petition. He didn't seem to take into account the possibility that it could be struck, despite him having a copy of the amended petition on him.

He spent a lot of time trying to explain himself, and playing catch-up and Chupp wasn't giving him a single inch and only kept railing on him, when Chupp literally just pulled the rug out from under his preparation.

So, yes, Ty didn't rebound very well until late. Ty also needed to let go of the fact that he clearly seemed bothered that Chupp wasn't going to play ball. Hindsight and all, he would have been better served to call a recess to regroup, come back and pressed on.

He spent most of that hearing just catching up, and of course you're going to look like an idiot when you're 3 steps behind everyone else and your opposition has 3 chances to make it that much harder for you.
I should've clarified I meant Chupp and not Ty there. I'm working on 5% power thanks to insomnia.

Ty definitely was a fish out of water but it wasn't necessarily his fault. He had a perception of how things were supposed to go and Chupp went in the opposite direction with apathy towards the case as a whole.

I'm not sure about Chupp but I think Ty did what he could even if it felt disjointed at times. It's hard to adapt to something like that. By the end he seemed to be more in his element especially after figuring out Chupp.

Really though, I think the start to Chupp's week set the tone for the rest of it. But that's just my opinion.
 

Ivan Shatov

Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
kiwifarms.net
I should've clarified I meant Chupp and not Ty there. I'm working on 5% power thanks to insomnia.

Ty definitely was a fish out of water but it wasn't necessarily his fault. He had a perception of how things were supposed to go and Chupp went in the opposite direction with apathy towards the case as a whole.

I'm not sure about Chupp but I think Ty did what he could even if it felt disjointed at times. It's hard to adapt to something like that. By the end he seemed to be more in his element especially after figuring out Chupp.

Really though, I think the start to Chupp's week set the tone for the rest of it. But that's just my opinion.
Really starting to question how much of this had to do with Ty's preparation.

Have been researching Anti-SLAPP appeals. This one is in the news right now:


The trial judge affirmed the motion to dismiss under an Anti-SLAPP statue, it was appealed, the appeal court overturned the judge. Notice this sentence on the first page: "The complaint meets the low burden of alleging facts supporting a minimal plausible inference of bias."

Not at the point where I'm ready to present any conclusions, but I'm looking at a few others like this. The common thread is the standard of evidence used in hearing the Plaintiff's evidence, that's the grounds for many successful appeals.

On the one hand, yes, attorneys REALLY need to wrap their evidence up with shiny paper and put a bow on it to get past an Anti-SLAPP hearing. Even then, Anti-SLAPP decisions get appealed frequently by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant who have reasons for wanting to pursue them. I've spoken with 3 attorneys who handle defamation suits that won't take a case unless the Plaintiff budgets for appeals on Anti-SLAPP motions. They are not always concerned about losing the Motion, sometimes they are worried about Defendants appealing the decision - who will invest a lot of money to prevent discovery and reach a settlement.

On the other hand, judges seem to have a hard time applying Anti-SLAPP laws correctly. I'm looking for analytics around appeals and finding a wide range of estimates on the number that succeed. While it's pretty to get metrics around criminal convictions for various US courts, it's hard to collect data about Anti-SLAPP appeals because there are many definitions for what constitutes a success. I've heard numbers as low as 30% and as high as 80% of Anti-SLAPP appeals succeed on at least one claim, which is really weird to think about. Even if just one-third of all appeals go through, isn't that a really high number?

Will be presenting some metrics at some point, but as regards this case: feels like we're just seeing the process play out. Ty's presentation may have been flawed, but my sense is that doesn't matter as much as defects in the application of the law itself.
 
Really starting to question how much of this had to do with Ty's preparation.

Have been researching Anti-SLAPP appeals. This one is in the news right now:


The trial judge affirmed the motion to dismiss under an Anti-SLAPP statue, it was appealed, the appeal court overturned the judge. Notice this sentence on the first page: "The complaint meets the low burden of alleging facts supporting a minimal plausible inference of bias."

Not at the point where I'm ready to present any conclusions, but I'm looking at a few others like this. The common thread is the standard of evidence used in hearing the Plaintiff's evidence, that's the grounds for many successful appeals.

On the one hand, yes, attorneys REALLY need to wrap their evidence up with shiny paper and put a bow on it to get past an Anti-SLAPP hearing. Even then, Anti-SLAPP decisions get appealed frequently by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant who have reasons for wanting to pursue them. I've spoken with 3 attorneys who handle defamation suits that won't take a case unless the Plaintiff budgets for appeals on Anti-SLAPP motions. They are not always concerned about losing the Motion, sometimes they are worried about Defendants appealing the decision - who will invest a lot of money to prevent discovery and reach a settlement.

On the other hand, judges seem to have a hard time applying Anti-SLAPP laws correctly. I'm looking for analytics around appeals and finding a wide range of estimates on the number that succeed. While it's pretty to get metrics around criminal convictions for various US courts, it's hard to collect data about Anti-SLAPP appeals because there are many definitions for what constitutes a success. I've heard numbers as low as 30% and as high as 80% of Anti-SLAPP appeals succeed on at least one claim, which is really weird to think about. Even if just one-third of all appeals go through, isn't that a really high number?

Will be presenting some metrics at some point, but as regards this case: feels like we're just seeing the process play out. Ty's presentation may have been flawed, but my sense is that doesn't matter as much as defects in the application of the law itself.
it sounds like in trying to put in the Anti-Slapp laws they basically made something that could be solved with a Judge's common sense into a gigantic cluster fuck that only benefits the lawyers who get paid to untangle it.
 

MCG_Raven

kiwifarms.net
it sounds like in trying to put in the Anti-Slapp laws they basically made something that could be solved with a Judge's common sense into a gigantic cluster fuck that only benefits the lawyers who get paid to untangle it.
Welcome to: All of the law. Let's be real here. No law was designed to help anybody but lawyers. If it was meant to be helpful to you, me or anybody in need of it it would be written in a way idiots like me could read and immediately understand everything but it isn't. I need to ask people and do more and more research about everything because i'm not SUPPOSED to get this.
 

Allanon

kiwifarms.net
it sounds like in trying to put in the Anti-Slapp laws they basically made something that could be solved with a Judge's common sense into a gigantic cluster fuck that only benefits the lawyers who get paid to untangle it.
They made a law designed to rely on a judge's common sense. Unfortunately, it relies on a judge having common sense.
 
Tags
None