I feel like the laws do less of the “prevent people from silencing others through legal action” thing and more of the “allow people to commit torts and beat the rap without proper consideration of the evidence” thing.Yes. Most states have overturned theirs because of how it practically violates the 7th Amendment extremely.
Very rarely do laws serve the interests of the common man. This becomes increasingly true the more recent the law.I feel like they laws do less of the “prevent people from silencing others through legal action” thing and more of the “allow people to commit torts and beat the rap without proper consideration of the evidence” thing.
I would insert a joke about Army/Navy/Marines but during a Commander's Call about the Don't ask Don't Tell repeal, we had a guy actually stand up in front of everyone and ask "What if during urinalysis the urinalysis monitor is gay? Can I opt out of testing?". So all services have their dumb people.
And there is Exhibit 2 for the Air Force and it's an OFFICER no less, we better stop though we will definitely derail the thread if we keep posting stuff like this. There is a ton of cringe worthy stuff out there.
You're gonna set a new record at appeals for the quickest kick in the ass.
Amen.Not that I don't enjoy the commentaries from fellow Kiwi's, but to see just one thread have 125+ pages in only 3 days can melt one's mind if not properly disciplined
This reminds me. Did any of us from the hearing mention that Mr. Beard stood up there for at least five minutes, unable to find all of Marchi's tweets in his own pleadings?So Marchi's been removed from the lolsuit entirely?
The 2nd amended petition I can understand however a TCPA case is supposed to be the plaintiff presenting his evidence to a prema-facie while all evidence of the non-movant party is to be believed. The other thing to note is that the Plaintiff is supposed to present their evidence first, therefore they are just required to prove there is a good possibility that their claims are true.To start off, I'd like to thank @5t3n0g0ph3r , @Far Queue , @Tipsy Tea Cup , and @damian for keeping up great reference indexes of the case, the events, and the players. It immensely helps me (and others I'm sure) to navigate around to the important parts of this case. Not that I don't enjoy the commentaries from fellow Kiwi's, but to see just one thread have 125+ pages in only 3 days can melt one's mind if not properly disciplined (or inclined to read the shitfights between Kiwi's for that matter).Yep, this is a bit TL, so DFR it if you're so inclined...
I will quote this, and keep it in mind for the way forward regarding this case:
The first problem with the hearing was the two things that happened BEFORE the hearing. The Plaintiff's 2nd Amended Petition that was filed 3 business days prior to the hearing bloated the Original Petition by 429 pages, and you're expecting a Judge/his people to read, understand, and inflect on the evidence end-run by BHBH in just 3 days? It's no surprise to me he denied it's admittance into the record, sans the affidavits. Add in the 1188 page Plaintiff's MTD Response 5 business days before the hearing, trying to address all the TCPA's at once, and IMHO, you just showed the Judge that you've stepped down to opposing counsels level of legal filing bloat. Were they necessary? Maybe. Could it have been avoided and/or slimmed down? Again, maybe. Moving on to the hearing itself...Before I get to the TCPA hearing itself, I did say the #metoo card getting played would have some kind of effect on this case, and IMO it appears that it did, a little. The Judge is an elected official, and is thus vulnerable to backlash/lost votes/an opponent from the screech movement should he seek re-election in 2022, should this case not go their way. Not that he should be concerned really, as he's run unopposed in the last two elections, and he got almost 300k more votes in 2018 vs. 2014. But, I've put it out there to be thought upon...
My overall impression was that the Judge didn't have all the information (or was ignorant of the evidence) to make an informed decision on one matter (Marchi Defamation/Conspiracy), and not enough information (or again ignorant of said evidence) on another matter (the two TI Counts). Both are due to the Defendant's discovery games pre-TCPA, the Defendant's bloat of a TCPA itself, the automatic wish-granted halt to discovery post-TCPA, and the Judge's denial of the 2nd Amended Petition.
The Judge tossed both TI counts, but IMO with a decent reason. I didn't say a good one though. The Plaintiff only provided one instance of TI, but didn't specifically say how much that one instance cost him. IMO, the Judge was looking for more than one specific instance of TI to establish a pattern of conduct, and to see the actual cost of damage(s) for any/all of the instances that it occurred. You can again thank the discovery games and the TCPA discovery freeze largely for those counts being tossed.
So Marchi's been removed from the lolsuit entirely?
She was an outlier to begin with, just chirping and mimicking Rial's words, stories, and actions to bolster Rial's “claims”. With that in mind, her attorney played the game of “less is more”, add in a mis-step from either the Judge denying the 2nd Amended Petition or BHBH not getting that evidence into earlier filings, and he got his client out of the shitshow. Counts A & D of the Plaintiff's Petition applied to her, and to remove her from one gave the Judge the authority for her to be removed from the other. Bad decision by him, as the evidence still clearly shows that Marchi was involved in the Civil Conspiracy count. It might come back to bite him later, but time will tell. So yes, her attorney gets paid, and by his efforts shown, it won't be very much.Not surprised by that one, as she was my prediction for the "play the #metoo card, get out of court" winner.
So remember that appeals quote? I have a feeling she'll be back, just not soon enough for people here. Be it by either an appeal, or the Judge having a moment of clarity to realize he screwed up in letting her out of it.
For now, we'll just have to wait for the Judge's Opinion on the TCPA's regarding the remaining counts on the remaining players, and it's going to be mighty interesting one to read given his decisions and comments from Friday...
Both Washington State and Minnesota have thrown out anti-SLAPP statutes for doing what this appears to do, i.e. having a judge make factual determinations that plaintiffs have a constitutional right to be heard by a jury.Several states have done that or something close to it. You never know.
If it conflicts with the 17th amendment does that make it a civil or human rights violation? Or neither? Admittedly I know even less about the american constitution than I do law and that's already a pretty shallow pool.Both Washington State and Minnesota have thrown out anti-SLAPP statutes for doing what this appears to do, i.e. having a judge make factual determinations that plaintiffs have a constitutional right to be heard by a jury.
I believe this is the 7th Amendment (right to being heard by a jury for civil disputes), not the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment is about Senators. It would be classified as a civil rights violation if that's the case. Ultimately, the manner of remedy would still be an appeal, it would just be different grounds to use.If it conflicts with the 17th amendment does that make it a civil or human rights violation? Or neither? Admittedly I know even less about the american constitution than I do law and that's already a pretty shallow pool.
And if it's a violation does that strictly mean the ability to appeal or would Vic be able to do something a bit stronger or more high risk/high reward?