💤 Inactive Pretty Ugly Little Liars: Weeb Wars Edition - Stupid thoughts from stupid THOTs

[TheClappening]

Wyświetl załącznik 916948

She's actually right. Sabat's not party in the suit.

Yet.

 

[teriyakiburns]

I think this moron doesn't realize you only fully cite a case the first time it appears. While it's nice one of these children realizes citations are a thing, failed attempt.

First sentence: "from what I've heard"

She hasn't read it, she's just parroting what lawtwitter said about it.

 

[Aria]

how? but i thought to you guys testimony is evidence.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Wyświetl załącznik 917145

how? but i thought to you guys testimony is evidence.

The KC affidavit demonstrates the literal definition of TI. I hope this idiot doesn't drive with eyesight that bad.

 

[BHWuser]

Wyświetl załącznik 917145

how? but i thought to you guys testimony is evidence.

It really doesn't walk it back

People shit talking Vic behind closed doors doesn't mean he has a bad reputation. Remember that guy who won the fucking defamation case when he had been called a Pedo, as a joke, for years. And libel-proof isn't a fucking defense you morons. It's a legal theory that's never been tested because the theorists who bring it up say the best case is likely Donald Trump and the likelihood of getting it to fucking work is still, at best, unlikely. You all fucking latch onto this libel proof nonsense because you want to believe, so badly, that Vic is this monster while the truth is most of this shit was in the corners of the internet as nothing but rumors no one took seriously and a bunch of assholes who pretended to be his friend who clearly didn't take what they said too seriously. You're fucking morons.

And yeah. That's what TI is. Gotta love when PULL drops some hot takes and shows just how fucking mentally incompetent they are.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

It really doesn't walk it back

People shit talking Vic behind closed doors doesn't mean he has a bad reputation. Remember that guy who won the fucking defamation case when he had been called a Pedo, as a joke, for years. And libel-proof isn't a fucking defense you morons. It's a legal theory that's never been tested because the theorists who bring it up say the best case is likely Donald Trump and the likelihood of getting it to fucking work is still, at best, unlikely. You all fucking latch onto this libel proof nonsense because you want to believe, so badly, that Vic is this monster while the truth is most of this shit was in the corners of the internet as nothing but rumors no one took seriously and a bunch of assholes who pretended to be his friend who clearly didn't take what they said too seriously. You're fucking morons.

And yeah. That's what TI is. Gotta love when PULL drops some hot takes and shows just how fucking mentally incompetent they are.

People who are libel-proof are people who have such insanely bad reputation that nothing anyone could possibly say about them could damage them further.
Vic clearly suffered damage, therefore he cannot be libel-proof

Thats the first thing you look at in a libel-proof argument. Was there damage? If yes, not libel-proof.

 

[BHWuser]

People who are libel-proof are people who have such insanely bad reputation that nothing anyone could possibly say about them could damage them further.
Vic clearly suffered damage, therefore he cannot be libel-proof

Thats the first thing you look at in a libel-proof argument. Was there damage? If yes, not libel-proof.

It's still not a practiced defense.

Also, the only way I can imagine damages could never occur is if the statement is actually proven true. In which case it's not libel. In all honesty, there is a reason why libel-proof is just a theory. In practice... there can always be some sort of damages that occur at some point. The defense will never work.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

Wyświetl załącznik 916948

What do I expect from someone who is a fan of the Lemon Fuhrer.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Wyświetl załącznik 917145

how? but i thought to you guys testimony is evidence.

Slatosch literally saying that Ron lied to him and tried to bribe him with money and the non-breach of contract of others even after he told them that if he uninvited Vic he would be in breach of contract...

...does not do anything for the TI.

He--

He literally lays out the prongs for TI. He actually describes Ron committing fraud. He has the texts, and we know that Vic wasn't criminally charged, and that there wasn't even a criminal investigation.

I guess this person has a traumatic brain injury, too.

 

[ChucklesTheJester]

Slatosch literally saying that Ron lied to him and tried to bribe him with money and the non-breach of contract of others even after he told them that if he uninvited Vic he would be in breach of contract...

...does not do anything for the TI.

He--

He literally lays out the prongs for TI. He actually describes Ron committing fraud. He has the texts, and we know that Vic wasn't criminally charged, and that there wasn't even a criminal investigation.

I guess this person has a traumatic brain injury, too.

You are talking about someone from pull. Of course they have brain damage. It's one of the requirements to signing up for a account there.

 

[AnOminous]

It's still not a practiced defense.

Yes it is and it was originally articulated in this case: Cardillo v. Doubleday Co., Inc, 518 F.2d 638 (2d. Cir. 1975).

For we consider as a matter of law that appellant is, for purposes of this case, libel-proof, i. e., so unlikely by virtue of his life as a habitual criminal to be able to recover anything other than nominal damages as to warrant dismissal of the case, involving as it does First Amendment considerations. See Urbano v. Sondern, 41 F.R.D. 355, 357 (D.Conn.), aff'd, 370 F.2d 640*640 13 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1034, 87 S.Ct. 1485, 18 L.Ed.2d 596 (1967); Mattheis v. Hoyt, 136 F.Supp. 119, 124 (W.D.Mich.1955). See also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. at 349, 94 S.Ct. at 3011 ("States may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages . . ..").

It is reserved for people whose reputation is so bad they are essentially pariahs.

Nobody who routinely, even after being defamed, attends conventions with lines of fans around the corner is going to qualify under this.

It is laughable and pants-on-head retarded to think this is even a possibility.

 

[BHWuser]

Yes it is and it was originally articulated in this case: Cardillo v. Doubleday Co., Inc, 518 F.2d 638 (2d. Cir. 1975).



It is reserved for people whose reputation is so bad they are essentially pariahs.

Nobody who routinely, even after being defamed, attends conventions with lines of fans around the corner is going to qualify under this.

It is laughable and pants-on-head exceptional to think this is even a possibility.

I'm not great with legalese... but it sounds like the court basically said, in that, that no one should ever be considered able to be libeled and defamed no matter their history and have it unable to matter. In otherwords, it looks like they said libel-proof isn't actually a thing.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm not great with legalese... but it sounds like the court basically said, in that, that no one should ever be considered able to be libeled and defamed no matter their history and have it unable to matter. In otherwords, it looks like they said libel-proof isn't actually a thing.

I'm not sure what you read, but that's not what it said.

appellant is, for purposes of this case, libel-proof

That case is usually cited as the origin of the doctrine by other cases.

 

[Superman93]

I'm not great with legalese... but it sounds like the court basically said, in that, that no one should ever be considered able to be libeled and defamed no matter their history and have it unable to matter. In otherwords, it looks like they said libel-proof isn't actually a thing.

You can't read for shit.

 

[BHWuser]

You can't read for shit.

I just looked at it again. He was libel-proof for the purpose of that specific case. But it does say in there something close to what I said as well.

 

[MrRavellon]

Libel-proof makes it impossible to sue someone for damaging your reputation because there can be no further damage to your reputation, there is nothing left to damage it's so bad.
If you suffered actual damages as a result of defamation then you weren't libel-proof at the time.

 

[Superman93]

I just looked at it again. He was libel-proof for the purpose of that specific case. But it does say in there something close to what I said as well.

No even close, blutto. It says bringing this case to court would be a waste of time because even if he had won that civil case the compensation for the damages done to him would have amounted to next to nothing.

Your reading comprehension is worse than the average PULL user.

 

[BHWuser]

No even close, blutto. It says bringing this case to court would be a waste of time because even if he had won that civil case the compensation for the damages done to him would have amounted to next to nothing.

Your reading comprehension is worse than the average PULL user.

We by no means intend to suggest that prison inmates can be deprived of access to federal diversity jurisdiction to obtain redress of wrongs, including libels, committed against them whether they are in or out of prison.

If you're gonna compare me to Pull at least be right, idiot. Stop or you're gonna take @Shane_Yes_That_One job.

How does "for the purpose of this case" go over your head?

 

[Superman93]

If you're gonna compare me to Pull at least be right, idiot. Stop or you're gonna take @Shane_Yes_That_One job.

How does "for the purpose of this case" go over your head?

You assumed the courts said that libel-proof isn't a thing ,

In otherwords, it looks like they said libel-proof isn't actually a thing.

,when the courts clearly said it is a thing and even further discriminated this specific prisoner for this specific case so that in future court cases, lawyers can't make the claim that prisoners are automatically libel-proof just because they committed crimes. You're wrong and off the mark.

Nice revenge-ratings by the way.

 

[Far Queue]

How close are we to identifying who Nya.nko is?

There was a possible person that might be that poster and we did dox them, but beyond that name, there's nothing else that ties the person to that account. Typically there are enough other details to link a person to the online identity that they use, but the posts on by that person are such complete and utter fabrications that it wasn't possible to draw connections to any real person, because no such real person who had any of those experiences likely exists.

Several weeks ago I'd made a post that I think pretty thoroughly takes the entire story apart and shows why it's just a work of fiction. Too many red flags that scream it's fake, especially since the poster hasn't bothered posting again. If it came down to it, the information about the person's identity could reach those who would need it and could possibly verify (to some degree) if it's actually them if they were to subpoena IP logs.

The conclusion was that it's better just to let it die. The story on PULL was pure bullshit no matter how you slice it and it's unlikely that it will matter at all who the person who wrote it actually is in much the same way it doesn't matter who wrote any of the other ridiculous posts (I'm talking the dream rape kinds of posts that are just beyond all belief) on PULL or that tumblr site.