lawtwitterthrowaway
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 10 Wrz 2019
Well for one thing, this thread is missing the goddamn transcript. (Released yesterday, btw)
P.S. Doucette's info on Chupp treating the hearing like a trial (i.e. it technically is one)
TCPA Hearing 9/6/19 - Marchi ran from the Law, TI crumbles, conspiracy still on the table, and collective autism from all sides.
- Twórca wątku Pope of Degeneracy
- Data rozpoczęcia
-
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack).
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
P.S. Doucette's info on Chupp treating the hearing like a trial (i.e. it technically is one)
- Dołączono
- 4 Mar 2019
It's technically nothing of the sort. A TCPA hearing isn't a trial, it's a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff has an answerable case. It is not a hearing on a motion for summary judgement. We already have the transcript. Doucette is a moron.
Ostatnio edytowane:
- Dołączono
- 26 Wrz 2017
TCPA is NOT a trial. Its absolutely not a trial.
- Dołączono
- 5 Sie 2019
The hearing was to establish whether or not there would be enough evidence to move forward. The TCPA in itself is a shitty law but exists to avoid a frivolous lawsuit. Which means....starting with whether or not it's actually worth pursuing.
It's not about picking up the pile of dogshit just yet and deciding which dog took a shit on the carpet, it was about establishing that a dog shit on the carpet and it needed to be cleaned up.
It's not about picking up the pile of dogshit just yet and deciding which dog took a shit on the carpet, it was about establishing that a dog shit on the carpet and it needed to be cleaned up.
lawtwitterthrowaway
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 10 Wrz 2019
TCPA IS a trial. It absolutely is a trial.
And now that your level of argument out of the way, maybe go read the materials in the link. Namely, the bit where it refers to summary judgement hearings (I think you'll find with some reflection, TCPA is nothing if not summary judgement) and how they're trials under Rule 63.
- Dołączono
- 26 Wrz 2017
No its not. A TCPA hearing is not a trial. You can claim that until you're blue in the face but unless you have actual authority stating that its just a claim.
Its impressive that the link in question is talking about an amended counterclaim, and not an amended petition, but you'll just be sweeping that distinction under the rug i'm sure.
The TCPA is much more akin motion to dismiss. Infact thats what Anti-Slapp laws are, expedited motions to dismiss, NOT motions for summary judgement.
Ostatnio edytowane:
theworstkindofeurofag
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 23 Kwi 2019
From what I've gathered, TCPA laws are fucking cancer and possibly unconstitutional.
- Dołączono
- 19 Cze 2019
i didn't know "no child left behind" was extended to the bar exam. scram, goofy ass.
- Dołączono
- 5 Mar 2019
TCPA is Texas only (Texas Citizen Participation Act). You probably mean anti-SLAPP.
But in any case at least two states, Nick's very own Minnesota and Washington, had their anti-SLAPPs struck down as unconstitutional.
- Dołączono
- 4 Mar 2019
It's specifically not summary judgement, though, otherwise it would rely the same standard of evidence as summary judgement, rather than on a prima facie case even existing.
Tgreggs cite is not remotely what you or he think it is.
- Dołączono
- 6 Wrz 2019
That's no way to earn useless stickers, friend.
I am going to assume that, within legal threads, we can say if we are lawyers or not because that's relevant to the conversation as opposed to "power-leveling". Are you a lawyer?
IANAL. However, let's take a look at T.R.C.P. Rule 63.
Parties may amend their pleadings, respond to pleadings on file of other parties, file suggestions of death and make representative parties, and file such other pleas as they may desire by filing such pleas with the clerk at such time as not to operate as a surprise to the opposite party; provided, that any pleadings, responses or pleas offered for filing within seven days of the date of trial or thereafter, or after such time as may be ordered by the judge under Rule 166, shall be filed only after leave of the judge is obtained, which leave shall be granted by the judge unless there is a showing that such filing will operate as a surprise to the opposite party.
With that text in mind, consider the following exchange:
MR. BEARD: But, I mean, we always intended to file an amended petition with everything attached. It wasn't -- if I had known that our amended petition was required by the Rule 11 agreement, we would have gotten it in.
It really simply just re -- you know, reshuffles the information that's already there. It did -- it did add some exhibits and stuff, that's true, but again, we're -- we're allowed to -- I always thought we were allowed to amend our pleadings.
THE COURT: Yeah, I mean, how soon -- can you amend them the day of trial without leave?
MR. BEARD: Not a trial, but this isn't a trial. This is a hearing.
THE COURT: Well, this is -- this could dismiss your case, and at some point you've got to stop amending pleadings so they can actually file a motion to dismiss on this. And that has to happen at some point in time, doesn't it?
MR. BEARD: I think it does, but if they could claim they were surprised, I would suppose so. But they're not surprised. We've been wrangling about this --
THE COURT: Well, I think they're surprised about the content more of your petition, than the affidavits. You actually have more complaints in your petition than you did the other one.
MR. BEARD: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Is that not true?
MR. BEARD: Well, I -- you'll have to ask them. I --
THE COURT: I'm asking you.
MR. BEARD: No, I don't think it's true at all.
THE COURT: Okay. So they're the exact same petition, the first amended and the second amended, except they're --
MR. BEARD: There are some exhibits added that actually show the emails rather than quote them. That's the main difference. We did -- we did use unsworn declarations, because by the time we put that together, we were aware that the affidavits had a problem. Your Honor, amended pleadings are routinely used to defeat summary judgment and dismissal hearings. I mean, it's --
THE COURT: They don't -- they won't defeat a summary judgment. Amended pleadings will not defeat a summary judgment. You can allege a new cause of action, or you can remove a cause of action, but if you've got a cause of action within your pleading, a summary judgment requires a response with evidence.
MR. BEARD: Right.
THE COURT: It's not your pleading that's going to support your summary judgment motion.
MR. BEARD: Right, Your Honor, but the -- the difference here is this is a TCPA action where the pleadings --
THE COURT: You brought up summary judgment. You don't need to tell me the difference. I didn't bring it up.
MR. BEARD: Well, I'm trying to analogize, I guess.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BEARD: What I'm saying is that it's routine to amend pleadings before trial outside of -- not within seven days without permission. There's no -- this is a hearing. There was no reason to assume that we were under any particular burden. We got it in as quick as we --
THE COURT: Let me ask you this. So if you were always intending to file a second amended petition, why did you wait until September 2nd to get them to sign these unsworn declarations?
MR. BEARD: Because I found out that the -- what would have happened is the defective affidavits would have gone into it, but we found out about it. Opposing counsel notified us. I checked into it, and went, you know, so I mean, that's -- that's why we did it.
THE COURT: Okay. Point me to the evidence that says that a statement by Marchi related or referred to the plaintiff. I want to see his name in something that you filed with regards to either your response or your first amended petition.
It really simply just re -- you know, reshuffles the information that's already there. It did -- it did add some exhibits and stuff, that's true, but again, we're -- we're allowed to -- I always thought we were allowed to amend our pleadings.
THE COURT: Yeah, I mean, how soon -- can you amend them the day of trial without leave?
MR. BEARD: Not a trial, but this isn't a trial. This is a hearing.
THE COURT: Well, this is -- this could dismiss your case, and at some point you've got to stop amending pleadings so they can actually file a motion to dismiss on this. And that has to happen at some point in time, doesn't it?
MR. BEARD: I think it does, but if they could claim they were surprised, I would suppose so. But they're not surprised. We've been wrangling about this --
THE COURT: Well, I think they're surprised about the content more of your petition, than the affidavits. You actually have more complaints in your petition than you did the other one.
MR. BEARD: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Is that not true?
MR. BEARD: Well, I -- you'll have to ask them. I --
THE COURT: I'm asking you.
MR. BEARD: No, I don't think it's true at all.
THE COURT: Okay. So they're the exact same petition, the first amended and the second amended, except they're --
MR. BEARD: There are some exhibits added that actually show the emails rather than quote them. That's the main difference. We did -- we did use unsworn declarations, because by the time we put that together, we were aware that the affidavits had a problem. Your Honor, amended pleadings are routinely used to defeat summary judgment and dismissal hearings. I mean, it's --
THE COURT: They don't -- they won't defeat a summary judgment. Amended pleadings will not defeat a summary judgment. You can allege a new cause of action, or you can remove a cause of action, but if you've got a cause of action within your pleading, a summary judgment requires a response with evidence.
MR. BEARD: Right.
THE COURT: It's not your pleading that's going to support your summary judgment motion.
MR. BEARD: Right, Your Honor, but the -- the difference here is this is a TCPA action where the pleadings --
THE COURT: You brought up summary judgment. You don't need to tell me the difference. I didn't bring it up.
MR. BEARD: Well, I'm trying to analogize, I guess.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BEARD: What I'm saying is that it's routine to amend pleadings before trial outside of -- not within seven days without permission. There's no -- this is a hearing. There was no reason to assume that we were under any particular burden. We got it in as quick as we --
THE COURT: Let me ask you this. So if you were always intending to file a second amended petition, why did you wait until September 2nd to get them to sign these unsworn declarations?
MR. BEARD: Because I found out that the -- what would have happened is the defective affidavits would have gone into it, but we found out about it. Opposing counsel notified us. I checked into it, and went, you know, so I mean, that's -- that's why we did it.
THE COURT: Okay. Point me to the evidence that says that a statement by Marchi related or referred to the plaintiff. I want to see his name in something that you filed with regards to either your response or your first amended petition.
The TL;DR version:
THE COURT: Is there anything new in the second amended petition other than swapping out the affidavits for unsworn declarations?
MR. BEARD: No. Well, a little.
THE COURT: Okay, well, we can bypass all the legalese. This is a surprise to the defense, so I'm not allowing it.
MR. BEARD: No. Well, a little.
THE COURT: Okay, well, we can bypass all the legalese. This is a surprise to the defense, so I'm not allowing it.
Listen, yesterday I followed the references back to a case. (I'm not going to link it, do your own research for this one.) This case didn't reference others when talking about Rule 63. The way it referenced Rule 63? The rule clearly didn't apply for a specific reason to something happening in summary judgment. Somehow this is translated to the rule definitely treating summary judgment as a trial. No logician is going to buy that shitty argument, but who is going to argue with an appeals court?
Again, as a layperson? I suspect that decision is just so there's a clear rule and they can avoid wasting time with constant appeals.
I hope you two are enjoying this argument. Judges appear to do everything in their power to avoid arguments like this, to the point where they make rules up and hope no one challenges them. Me, I think "the law" is hilariously disorganized, chaotic, and bogus ... but seems to work okay enough to avoid a revolution.
- Dołączono
- 16 Kwi 2019
A bit of it may have been him playing it up for the audience in the court too since it was much more full in there.
Either that or Chupp's been huffing his farts for too long.
- Dołączono
- 4 Sie 2019
He also graduated from the same school as Ty Beard, then?
- Dołączono
- 28 Gru 2014
Arguably, the defense might be surprised by any substantive new arguments in the petition. However, in no way were they surprised with the substitution of unsworn declarations with identical content to what were submitted days previously as affidavits.
- Dołączono
- 26 Wrz 2017
Yeah I think that Ty actually has pretty strong arguments on an amended petition being allowed, and they are allowable under Tx law so.
- Dołączono
- 13 Cze 2019
First, thank you for being honest about your identity and intent.
Second, sure, a proceeding held in a courthouse with a judge and attorneys arguing could be called a "trial." The same way Monica's story could be called "proof of sexual assault." There's a reason you insist on using this term, and it's not to inform or enlighten. Before the Napoleonic Code was fully instituted, severe punishments were put handed out for officers of the court who mislead the public about the nature of proceedings. I can't decide if you would have been a better candidate for an auto-le-fe or a quartering, I think the later was more for people that matter.
Third, using "throwaway" in your name signifies a lack of imagination and absence of character. It's a little more than cliche, it's a signal that communicates the appearance of taking some risk while conforming to pattern shared by many. While I applaud your honesty, did you really need to create an account to argue about the proper classification of the proceeding? Are people here going to get the nuances of that classification, or are you just going to look stupid and pedantic for taking the time to argue about it?
People like you are evidence of the failure of Enlightenment ideals and present a compelling case for a return to mass capital punishment against a privileged elite. You use social media to mob up on legal issues few people can really understand, in order to perpetuate an injustice through the volume and complexity of the poo being flung. Monica and Ron are liars, Funimation grossly breached its contract with Vic, and we have tiny arguments about words to keep everyone distracted from what really happened...
I take it back, an auto-le-fe would be too good for you. We'd need something more medieval.
- Dołączono
- 28 Gru 2014
Summary judgment is a dispositive motion filed after discovery has been completed, not a threshold hearing on whether the case even gets to go to discovery at all.
- Dołączono
- 27 Mar 2019
Or in this case, finish discovery.
...I think the fact that discovery was allowed to happen at all should have been grounds to disqualify TCPA. If a case is frivolous, why bother participating instead of trying to drop the TCPA ASAP?
- Dołączono
- 28 Gru 2014
It doesn't make sense to allow one party to engage in dilatory motion practice while flat out refusing to provide discovery, and then file a TCPA.
- Dołączono
- 5 Sie 2019
Damn you could be charged with murder for that post.
Absolute destruction.