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

[TenMilesWide]

What the fuck is a FUD and could y'all quit it with the spergfights.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

What the fuck is a FUD and could y'all quit it with the spergfights.

Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

You’re very hard to please.

Its a burden yes.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

*YOUR

You had to have known that there was nothing to correct when you pasted that.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

There's also a related doctrine which is more applicable known as comment on a matter of public interest, another general exception to defamation law that requires actual malice. It's a trifle confusing as an identically named standard is used to determine whether the TCPA even applies at all to a case.

In general, accusing someone of being a public safety hazard to the point the public needs to be warned of them is defended on these grounds, but taken to an extreme, it is an exception that eats the rule, as simply by claiming someone is, for instance, a sex predator, one can claim to be nearly immune to defamation law. In fact, the more defamatory the claim, the graver the allegation of misconduct, the more they can claim it's in the public interest to expose such a monster.

There is no public interest served by false accusations of incredibly criminal deviancy against an innocent person, though.

If somebody is legitimately just making up an interaction with you, then proving it false is also enough to prove actual malice (since, if they were the other witness, so they must have also known it was false). Public figures also generally receive more damages for something like this than a private individual, by nature of the fact that any harm will also harm their "brand". Basically just comes down to public figures must sue the source of the false claim, you can't just sue somebody for repeating it if they claim to believe it.

If you have evidence that the person made it up (like they claimed you attacked them but you can prove you weren't even there), you can get past it. It becomes a lot tougher if you and that person are the only witnesses. It becomes almost impossible if a third person that was not witness to the event starts sharing the story.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

You had to have known that there was nothing to correct when you pasted that.

*THEIR

Anyway, look forward to someone tearing apart my post and showing me why I was right to help finance this courtroom unpreparedness. It would make me feel better.

 

[tuscangarder]

Yes. I was bored by hugbox posts.

But you stay making them tho...

 

[Sheryl Nome]

If somebody is legitimately just making up an interaction with you, then proving it false is also enough to prove actual malice (since, if they were the other witness, so they must have also known it was false). Public figures also generally receive more damages for something like this than a private individual, by nature of the fact that any harm will also harm their "brand". Basically just comes down to public figures must sue the source of the false claim, you can't just sue somebody for repeating it if they claim to believe it.

If you have evidence that the person made it up (like they claimed you attacked them but you can prove you weren't even there), you can get past it. It becomes a lot tougher if you and that person are the only witnesses. It becomes almost impossible if a third person that was not witness to the event starts sharing the story.

Wow it would be really unfortunate if someone claims you did something and that someone else witnessed it, and then that person came out and said 'that never happened'

 

[DinkyCowSow]

Wow it would be really unfortunate if someone claims you did something and that someone else witnessed it, and then that person came out and said 'that never happened'

I'm looking through the various filings for the text "that never happened" or "never happened" and I can't seem to find it. Could you help me by pointing to which filing has it?

 

[Zero Day Defense]

*THEIR

Suddenly you being new is (even more) relevant.

 

[Allanon]

If somebody is legitimately just making up an interaction with you, then proving it false is also enough to prove actual malice (since, if they were the other witness, so they must have also known it was false). Public figures also generally receive more damages for something like this than a private individual, by nature of the fact that any harm will also harm their "brand". Basically just comes down to public figures must sue the source of the false claim, you can't just sue somebody for repeating it if they claim to believe it.

If you have evidence that the person made it up (like they claimed you attacked them but you can prove you weren't even there), you can get past it. It becomes a lot tougher if you and that person are the only witnesses. It becomes almost impossible if a third person that was not witness to the event starts sharing the story.

Sucks for Monica that there was a witness who refutes her story. It double sucks that when it comes to TCPA if only she and Vic knows the answer, then Vic's answer is presumed to be the truthful one.

 

[TenMilesWide]

I'm looking through the various filings for the text "that never happened" or "never happened" and I can't seem to find it. Could you help me by pointing to which filing has it?

Dahlin's affidavit, should be plaintiff's response to whatever motion had monica's hotel story in it. He doesn't say "never happened," in those words, but something like "I don't remember such an event happening and I would have if it did."

 

[AnOminous]

Sucks for Monica that there was a witness who refutes her story. It double sucks that when it comes to TCPA if only she and Vic knows the answer, then Vic's answer is presumed to be the truthful one.

Well, that's what would happen in an actual TCPA hearing, not whatever actually happened on Friday.

 

[Allanon]

Dahlin's affidavit, should be plaintiff's response to whatever motion had monica's hotel story in it. He doesn't say "never happened," in those words, but something like "I don't remember such an event happening and I would have if it did."

He establishes a simple if:then flow.

If: event happened
Then: would remember
And: would have behaved accordingly

He: doesn't remember, and did not behave accordingly
Therefore: event didn't happen.

Well, that's what would happen in an actual TCPA hearing, not whatever actually happened on Friday.

I suppose I am making the assumption that the legal system follows its own rules. My mistake was not operating off of clown world logic.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

Ah, I see. Ty really should have caught that, because saying "I have no memory of the events described in bullet point 4 of the Response" is pretty close to exactly the wrong thing to say in your affidavit. Rather, it should say something like "I remember the events, and they did not happen like that", or possibly "I remember that day, and no such events happened." If you have no memory of the events, then you can't possibly say anything about it.

"If I had noticed Monica Rial being distressed leaving Victor Mignogna's room, I am certain that I would remember it" is slightly better for Vic's case. Still two really big glaring problems. One is, that if he didn't notice it, he wouldn't remember it. That is entirely consistent with it happening but him not noticing it. Better would be, "If Monica was distressed after leaving Victor Mignogna's room, I am certain that I would remember it." The second thing that would be helpful is establishing why he would specifically remember not noticing something. For example, if I ask you, "Do you remember Jacob being angry ten years ago when you walked by him at work?", you will need to put up a really good case for why you would specifically remember Jacob not being angry, or why you would have remembered it if Jacob was angry (establishing why you have a habit of remembering something, to show that your lack of memory of it happening is in fact evidence that it doesn't).

Side note: this ties in indirectly to the rules for character evidence. You can't put in evidence towards somebody's generic character, but you can put in evidence towards a habit.

 

[Basil II]

Ah, I see. Ty really should have caught that, because saying "I have no memory of the events described in bullet point 4 of the Response" is pretty close to exactly the wrong thing to say in your affidavit. Rather, it should say something like "I remember the events, and they did not happen like that", or possibly "I remember that day, and no such events happened." If you have no memory of the events, then you can't possibly say anything about it.

"If I had noticed Monica Rial being distressed leaving Victor Mignogna's room, I am certain that I would remember it" is slightly better for Vic's case. Still two really big glaring problems. One is, that if he didn't notice it, he wouldn't remember it. That is entirely consistent with it happening but him not noticing it. Better would be, "If Monica was distressed after leaving Victor Mignogna's room, I am certain that I would remember it." The second thing that would be helpful is establishing why he would specifically remember not noticing something. For example, if I ask you, "Do you remember Jacob being angry ten years ago when you walked by him at work?", you will need to put up a really good case for why you would specifically remember Jacob not being angry, or why you would have remembered it if Jacob was angry (establishing why you have a habit of remembering something, to show that your lack of memory of it happening is in fact evidence that it doesn't).

Side note: this ties in indirectly to the rules for character evidence. You can't put in evidence towards somebody's generic character, but you can put in evidence towards a habit.

N E W F A G
E
W
F
A
G

 

[Wilhelm Bittrich]

You’re very hard to please.

Which part of "women" shall I explain to you in detail?

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Ah, I see. Ty really should have caught that, because saying "I have no memory of the events described in bullet point 4 of the Response" is pretty close to exactly the wrong thing to say in your affidavit. Rather, it should say something like "I remember the events, and they did not happen like that", or possibly "I remember that day, and no such events happened." If you have no memory of the events, then you can't possibly say anything about it.

How the heck is he supposed to remember an event that didn't happen in a different way?

Secondly, he's effectively saying that the event didn't happen/Monica's lying. He 1) doesn't remember the event, 2) would have treated them differently had he known about the event, and 3) reports that Monica did not tell him about this event, implying that he wasn't at the supposed context of the event and would have had to be told... except that he wasn't.

Unless Monica wants to claim that she did tell him... which totally explains why Stan was giving an unforced affidavit for Plaintiff and why she demonstrably didn't contact him at any time before or after her dropping of his name.

N E W F A G
E
W
F
A
G

He just has a contrary opinion, as far as I can tell.

That said, I heavily disagree with the logic he's employed thus far and his understanding of the law at play in this context.

 

[AnOminous]

Ah, I see. Ty really should have caught that, because saying "I have no memory of the events described in bullet point 4 of the Response" is pretty close to exactly the wrong thing to say in your affidavit. Rather, it should say something like "I remember the events, and they did not happen like that", or possibly "I remember that day, and no such events happened." If you have no memory of the events, then you can't possibly say anything about it.

I would have preferred different wording, but witnesses are supposed to write their own affidavits, not have them obviously written by counsel, and affidavits like that (which the defense produced) are completely non-credible to me when they include identical language from multiple witnesses, language obviously drafted just to include legal magic words and other mumbo-jumbo, and are purely and blatantly crafted to elicit a certain response.

Monica Rial clearly indicated in her testimony not just that Stan Dahlin had been there, but specifically that he had noticed something amiss and responded accordingly, yet he has no recollection of any such dramatic and memorable event. Such a striking event would not only have been remembered, but he would have altered his behavior immediately as a result of it, and he did neither.

 

[terra nulius]

Ah, I see. Ty really should have caught that, because saying "I have no memory of the events described in bullet point 4 of the Response" is pretty close to exactly the wrong thing to say in your affidavit. Rather, it should say something like "I remember the events, and they did not happen like that", or possibly "I remember that day, and no such events happened." If you have no memory of the events, then you can't possibly say anything about it.

"If I had noticed Monica Rial being distressed leaving Victor Mignogna's room, I am certain that I would remember it" is slightly better for Vic's case. Still two really big glaring problems. One is, that if he didn't notice it, he wouldn't remember it. That is entirely consistent with it happening but him not noticing it. Better would be, "If Monica was distressed after leaving Victor Mignogna's room, I am certain that I would remember it." The second thing that would be helpful is establishing why he would specifically remember not noticing something. For example, if I ask you, "Do you remember Jacob being angry ten years ago when you walked by him at work?", you will need to put up a really good case for why you would specifically remember Jacob not being angry, or why you would have remembered it if Jacob was angry (establishing why you have a habit of remembering something, to show that your lack of memory of it happening is in fact evidence that it doesn't).

Side note: this ties in indirectly to the rules for character evidence. You can't put in evidence towards somebody's generic character, but you can put in evidence towards a habit.

Explain how "If Monica was distressed after leaving Victor Mignogna's room, I am certain that I would remember it." is functionally different from "If I had noticed Monica Rial being distressed leaving Victor Mignogna's room, I am certain that I would remember it."

It still directly contradicts Monica.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

Explain how "If Monica was distressed after leaving Victor Mignogna's room, I am certain that I would remember it." is functionally different from "If I had noticed Monica Rial being distressed leaving Victor Mignogna's room, I am certain that I would remember it."

It still directly contradicts Monica.

Because the second statement includes the scenario where Monica was distressed but he didn't notice it. It's possible that Monica was distressed, thought he noticed it, but he didn't notice it.

Judge is going to have to do some heavy lifting to interpret this all in a way that clearly establishes the defendants lied.