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

[Jamestyalor4312]

Nonsense. Vic himself was there and was a witness, and disputes the material facts stated by Monica, and disputes of fact are resolved in favor of the nonmoving party.

It's clear what really happened. Vic dicked her down and she came back for seconds. Defamation suit granted. The end.

I wish that's what the judge would say.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

Nonsense. Vic himself was there and was a witness, and disputes the material facts stated by Monica, and disputes of fact are resolved in favor of the nonmoving party.

Technically, the judge doesn't even have to take what Monica says into account at this point at all, he only has to listen to Vic. I'm just pointing out that this potential clash of fact wouldn't matter at the TCPA stage anyways, because "third party saw me and noticed I was upset" is not, I assume, the statement of fact he is suing for. He is suing for defamation based on the accusation of sexual assault.

 

[Padoru]

Technically, the judge doesn't even have to take what Monica says into account at this point at all, he only has to listen to Vic. I'm just pointing out that this potential clash of fact wouldn't matter at the TCPA stage anyways, because "third party saw me and noticed I was upset" is not, I assume, the statement of fact he is suing for. He is suing for defamation based on the accusation of sexual assault.

it is very much related to defamation though. She says "He tried to rape me and Stan Dahlin happened to stop it and NOTICED I WAS DISTRESSED" (a part she later changed to "oh i guess he might not have noticed because i totally hid, in which case he still would have noticed you hiding from him). So let's break the legal shit down

We all agree everything is seen as most favorable to Vic here since TCPA. So the story has 3 Actors. 2 of which we can completely disregard for now since Vic would obviously say "didn't happen" and Monica's side is irrelevant in total. We ONLY look at Stan now. He has no stake in this but is named as a Witness and said "Didn't happen" so what's the most favorable way to look at this for Vic? Correct. Stan is telling the truth entirely and this didn't happen.

 

[AnOminous]

Technically, the judge doesn't even have to take what Monica says into account at this point at all, he only has to listen to Vic. I'm just pointing out that this potential clash of fact wouldn't matter at the TCPA stage anyways, because "third party saw me and noticed I was upset" is not, I assume, the statement of fact he is suing for. He is suing for defamation based on the accusation of sexual assault.

It's relevant to her credibility as a witness which, similarly, isn't technically relevant at this stage, but considering people are objecting to Ty supposedly not being prepared for presenting a standard of evidence that wouldn't even be possible before discovery, it would be nonsense to complain at the same time that he brought too much evidence.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

It's relevant to her credibility as a witness which, similarly, isn't technically relevant at this stage, but considering people are objecting to Ty supposedly not being prepared for presenting a standard of evidence that wouldn't even be possible before discovery, it would be nonsense to complain at the same time that he brought too much evidence.

I think the problem is that he presented all this extra evidence for the one claim he didn't need to, and did not present good enough evidence for the rest of the claims.

At this stage, unless he wins an appeal, Vic is on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars because of all the TCPA dismissals. This number could increase if the judge's written motion denies any more claims.

 

[Allanon]

I think the problem is that he presented all this extra evidence for the one claim he didn't need to, and did not present good enough evidence for the rest of the claims.

At this stage, unless he wins an appeal, Vic is on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars because of all the TCPA dismissals. This number could increase if the judge's written motion denies any more claims.

I know people are being diplomatic and saying that they have to consider whether it's worth appealing, but considering just how improperly the judge behaved and how ridiculous his dismissals were (his best reasoned dismissal was Jamie's, and even then he later seemed to agree that her case should make it past TCPA without realizing it) and the fact that TCPA requires paying the defendants, I see little reason not to appeal those decisions either immediately or after final judgement. His reasoning and method for dismissal on those counts were so poor that it's unlikely appeal would fail.

ETA: It may be worth waiting for after the end of the case for every charge but Jamie's, depending on their strategy, because if the court says 'pay these people $50,000 for these dismissed charges' but then tells them 'pay Vic $10 million for your defamation', then he's not really paying them anything after all.

 

[Long-time Lurker]

I see little reason not to appeal

If Judge Chupp seems biased against Ty now, wait until he's been ordered to change his mind on some of Ty's points. Someone already mentioned that An Lee Hsu warned Ty Beard that an appeal might upset this judge, and I can confirm that happened after the hearing ended.

 

[Immaculate Ape]

I can confirm that happened after the hearing ended.

And how can you "confirm" that? Were you past the bar, close enough to eavesdrop on the conversation?

 

[Long-time Lurker]

And how can you "confirm" that? Were you past the bar, close enough to eavesdrop on the conversation?

An Lee (new laywer-Plaintiff) had appeared before Chupp a couple times. After the hearing he seemed to be coaching Ty on how to better handle Chupp.

I thought Twitter's HerExcell mentioned An Lee Hsu / Ty Beard discussing appeals afterward at some point, but I don't recall if that was in Mr. Rekieta's chat or the show she was on. So, no real evidence there unless you want to contact her about it.

I wasn't intending to eavesdrop at all, I was just processing the court hearing before I left. Seems pointless to keep quiet if two other people overheard it too.

This was probably fifteen minutes after the hearing in the third floor lounge. The BHBH legal team was in the corner next to the men's bathroom. This is roughly the south corner of the Tom Vandergriff Civil Courts Building.

The southwest wall of the building is glass overlooking a courtyard and, past it, the Tarrant County Court building. Quite a nice view. Said courtyard is recessed into the ground at least one floor, with stairs on the south / southeast side leading down. On each side of the stairs is running water over short waterfalls lined up with the stairs.

 

[VicMontana]

I thought Twitter's HerExcell mentioned An Lee Hsu / Ty Beard discussing appeals afterward at some point, but I don't recall if that was in Mr. Rekieta's chat or the show she was on. So, no real evidence there unless you want to contact her about it.

I wasn't intending to eavesdrop at all, I was just processing the court hearing before I left. Seems pointless to keep quiet if two other people overheard it too.

This was probably fifteen minutes after the hearing in the third floor lounge. The BHBH legal team was in the corner next to the men's bathroom. This is roughly the south corner of the Tom Vandergriff Civil Courts Building.

The southwest wall of the building is glass overlooking a courtyard and, past it, the Tarrant County Court building. Quite a nice view. Said courtyard is recessed into the ground at least one floor, with stairs on the south / southeast side leading down. On each side of the stairs is running water over short waterfalls lined up with the stairs.

I wouldn't put a lot of faith in that. Could just be stating something. Like if your car doesn't start your like "Hope it's the battery" and your friend is like "Could be the starter". Your friend is just stating the possible options/outcomes not hoping its the starter. Same with An lee, doesn't mean not to do the appeal just giving Ty reasonable feedback/opinions about the case.

 

[Imperial Agent]

I wouldn't put a lot of faith in that. Could just be stating something. Like if your car doesn't start your like "Hope it's the battery" and your friend is like "Could be the starter". Your friend is just stating the possible options/outcomes not hoping its the starter. Same with An lee, doesn't mean not to do the appeal just giving Ty reasonable feedback/opinions about the case.

I took it as just general thoughts and strategizing.

I highly doubt they were laying out concrete final plans minutes after the hearing. It was just a point Hsu made, and in general simply reflects that serious consideration is being given both to appeals and possible drawbacks.

 

[Immaculate Ape]

I thought Twitter's HerExcell mentioned An Lee Hsu / Ty Beard discussing appeals afterward at some point, but I don't recall if that was in Mr. Rekieta's chat or the show she was on. So, no real evidence there unless you want to contact her about it.

I wasn't intending to eavesdrop at all, I was just processing the court hearing before I left. Seems pointless to keep quiet if two other people overheard it too.

This was probably fifteen minutes after the hearing in the third floor lounge. The BHBH legal team was in the corner next to the men's bathroom. This is roughly the south corner of the Tom Vandergriff Civil Courts Building.

The southwest wall of the building is glass overlooking a courtyard and, past it, the Tarrant County Court building. Quite a nice view. Said courtyard is recessed into the ground at least one floor, with stairs on the south / southeast side leading down. On each side of the stairs is running water over short waterfalls lined up with the stairs.

Just watch how you word things, because that is how quickly misinformation can build up. If you heard it from a 3rd party, or assumed it, you can't "confirm" anything. You can speculate. Unless you were 1st party to the conversation, you don't know for sure.

There's enough people claiming to "know" and "confirm" wrong details all over the place, and that's how exceptional spergs wind up getting motivation to pozload my neghole.

 

[AnOminous]

If Judge Chupp seems biased against Ty now, wait until he's been ordered to change his mind on some of Ty's points. Someone already mentioned that An Lee Hsu warned Ty Beard that an appeal might upset this judge, and I can confirm that happened after the hearing ended.

Well, if he hates appeals, I bet he'd really hate being flat out removed from a case for open bias. It's certainly a matter for consideration but far from the only one.

 

[quickthrowaway]

I wasn't at the hearing so I can't tell the tone but Chubbs sounds like a such a colossal faggot. Sounds like a professor who thinks he's too good for his community college than like a judge.

 

[Long-time Lurker]

Just watch how you word things, because that is how quickly misinformation can build up. If you heard it from a 3rd party, or assumed it, you can't "confirm" anything. You can speculate. Unless you were 1st party to the conversation, you don't know for sure.

There's enough people claiming to "know" and "confirm" wrong details all over the place, and that's how exceptional spergs wind up getting motivation to pozload my neghole.

I was there and personally overheard the discussion.

I apologize for my lack of clarity, and appreciate the intelligent advice @Immaculate Ape. Adding to the misinformation would be counter to why I joined.

 

[Allanon]

'The judge might be mad you forced him to overturn a stupid decision he made flagrantly ignoring procedure and the law' seems like a poor reason not to appeal it. That does lend weight to the idea that he was super pissy about his previous decision being overturned that week and vented it on the hearing, but...you know...maybe if he doesn't want his decisions appealed so hard, he should actually follow the law, and not make snap decisions based on nonexistent legal standards?

I do get maybe feeling him out a bit more before committing to any appeals, but if he's already misbehaving, there seems little benefit to trying to placate him by not objecting to it.

 

[WarJams]

That does lend weight to the idea that he was super pissy about his previous decision being overturned that week and vented it on the hearing

That turned out not to be wholly accurate, that overturning in Chupp's misapplication of church law over actual state law occurred two years ago.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

That turned out not to be wholly accurate, that overturning in Chupp's misapplication of church law over actual state law occurred two years ago.

Maybe he's still salty about it.

 

[No Man's Burrito]

Also want to point out that none of this part matters at the TCPA stage, because Stan is not the one suing. Vic has to prove a clear and specific prima facie case for each element of defamation against himself. The only false statement of fact that we may have determined, or at least agreed there is a difference of fact on, is whether or not Stan noticed Monica being upset.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm going to be parroting what Nick and Ty have both said in regards to "Clear and specific evidence."

The law itself doesn't actually specify what that was. Luckily, the Texas Supreme court has already ruled on this years ago in a case between a gentleman named Lipsky vs. a company called Range. Lipsky filed a suit because they did some horrible job and contaminated his well. Range countersued for defamation and business disparagement due to Lipsky badmouthing the company during the case.

The court ruled that clear and specific evidence isn't clear on circumstantial evidence (I.e., "simply indirect evidence that creates an inference to establish a central fact,) and it is allowed to meet the prima facia burden. Ty met that on all counts. The affidavits, the tweets, ect all met that burden. Whether or not he was able to explain that clearly to the judge is another matter (as well as whether or not the judge cared to even hear the explanation.)


On the flip side, the moving party needs to "establish by a preponderance of the evidence each essential element of a valid defense to the nonmovant's claim" in order to get the TCPA to apply. They need evidence that the defendants exercised 1) their right of free speech (which is defined under that law as "a communication made in connection with a matter of public concern," and includes public figures,) 2) the right to petition, and 3) the right of association. The defense, quite frankly, didn't do any of that (despite Chupp's ruling that Vic was a limited purpose public figure.) (https://wittliffcutter.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/bench-bar-TCPA.pdf)

To even qualify as a LPPF, Vic has to be "voluntarily and prominently participate in a public controversy for the purpose of influencing its outcome." (https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/limited-purpose-public-figure.html)

Vic hasn't been participating in any of this controversy outside of filing the lawsuit. Literally, he hasn't actually done anything publicly or even spoke about the case. He isn't well known enough to be a public figure.

That's why Nick and Ty were so confidant this all would go past TCPA. The other side doesn't have a valid defense against any of it. Ty just has to bring inferences that point to specific facts, and the defendants have to have evidence towards a valid defense that prove, with a greater than 50% chance, that their claim is true. Marchi (as far as TI is concerned) and Funimation (as far as TI is concerned) are the only two parties that would have claims that fulfill that burden.

The issue is convincing the judge that. And Ty couldn't do that.

Either way, this is all speculation and arm-chair lawyer-ing. I should be taken with about as much salt as a twitter-lawyer. That said, this was just what I understood from what Nick and Ty explained in the past streams.

 

[Not A Bug]

To even qualify as a LPPF, Vic has to be "voluntarily and prominently participate in a public controversy for the purpose of influencing its outcome." (https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/limited-purpose-public-figure.html)

Vic hasn't been participating in any of this controversy outside of filing the lawsuit. Literally, he hasn't actually done anything publicly or even spoke about the case. He isn't well known enough to be a public figure.

This what's confused the hell out of me. I worked around Vic and tangentially with him and had no idea who he was until a colleague turned me on to STC and I thought,"I think that's the guy at the con." I watched FMA and still didn't have a clue he had anything to do with that.

So along comes Chupp and jokes (I hope) that of course he's a public figure because of a full court room. And Lemonhead asserts he's "inserted " himself into the controversy because of what? Two maybe three tweets saying he didn't do it and don't be mean to others is enough?

I am a layperson but am I missing something?