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

[Jamestyalor4312]

If the Judge applied an erroneous standard of evidence, thats the Judge's fault and why appeals exist.

You're assuming Ty would have gotten any new evidence, but fail to provide any reasoning why a party who could themselves be sued by Ty would provide an affadavit of their own free will.

So Vic never saw the contracts that he signed and would have no clue whether they were breached or not? Big claim. Especially since you possibly wrong being that a 2nd round of defamations has been rumored involving the cons. I guess only one of us watches nicks streams faithfully.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

So Vic never saw the contracts that he signed and would have no clue whether they were breached or not? Big claim. Especially since you possibly wrong being that a 2nd round of defamations has been rumored involving the cons. I guess only one of us watches nicks streams faithfully.

Oh my god you are so stupid.
Vic can argue that yes, but getting someone's statement that they breached a contract, that they were the breacher is like, a death sentence to them if you decide to sue

Do you have a lemon for a brain?

 

[Jamestyalor4312]

Oh my god you are so stupid.

Vic can argue that yes, but getting someone's statement that they breached a contract is like, a death sentence tot hem if you decide to sue

Do you have a lemon for a brain?

I'm so stupid, because I said that Vic would most likely know if they breached a contract he read and signed or not. Okay then. Also more evidence=bad. Gotcha.

 

[Immaculate Ape]

Sigh. Every time.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I'm so stupid, because I said that Vic would most likely know if they breached a contract he read and signed or not. Okay then. Also more evidence=bad. Gotcha.

You are stupid because you can't fathom why someone wouldn't want to make themselves unarguably liable, yes. Why would you admit to a tort?
You're also stupid for assuming that the evidence would be gotten, and that it wouldn't have been a waste of Ty's time, and therefore, the Go fund me money.

This is why you're not a lawyer, and Ty is. Watching Nick's streams does not make you a lawyer, peanuts.

 

[Jamestyalor4312]

Sigh. Every time.

Wyświetl załącznik 937464

Yeah and I'm such a KV supporter as mentioned above. I posted jamie marchis possible DUI and forcible entry, Sean Schemmels second sexual accusation, and a bunch of other anti-KV stuff but nah I fucking love KV.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

This is why you're not a lawyer, and Ty is.

Ty's pretty cool and all but recall that Doucette is also a lawyer

 

[Immaculate Ape]

Yeah and I'm such a KV supporter as mentioned above. I posted jamie marchis possible DUI and forcible entry, Sean Schemmels second sexual accusation, and a bunch of other anti-KV stuff but nah I fucking love KV.

Just because you're essentially SenpaiSHome doesn't mean anyone is going to cut you any slack, champ. Nobody on this board appreciates an attention seeking sperg, beyond laughing at how stupid they are.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Ty's pretty cool and all but recall that Doucette is also a lawyer

Doucette isn't even stupid enough to go 'why didn't ty ask other conventions' because even he knows why.

 

[Jamestyalor4312]

Just because you're essentially SenpaiSHome doesn't mean anyone is going to cut you any slack, champ. Nobody on this board appreciates an attention seeking sperg, beyond laughing at how stupid they are.

Okay then, yeah I just wanted attention I didn't want to genuinely discredit Major KV players for purposes of tossing them into the dumpster fire they started. Gotcha. Really apologize for even implying Ty could of found some more evidence. I thought the whole end goal was to win the case? Or at least do well? Idk man.

 

[Immaculate Ape]

Okay then, yeah I just wanted attention I didn't want to genuinely discredit Major KV players for purposes of tossing them into the dumpster fire they started. Gotcha. Really apologize for even implying Ty could of found some more evidence. I thought the whole end goal was to win the case? Or at least do well? Idk man.

Because someone having a DUI has literally anything at all to do with Vic's lawsuit. You're an idiot. You'd do as much good for Vic's case by experimenting with different metallic items and a light socket.

 

[Jamestyalor4312]

Because someone having a DUI has literally anything at all to do with Vic's lawsuit. You're an idiot. You'd do as much good for Vic's case by experimenting with different metallic items and a light socket.

Actually someone having a criminal background can be used against them in a case. That's really day one shit my guy. Rage harder.

 

[Immaculate Ape]

That's really day one shit my guy.

Says the troll who has literally spent 0 days in law school

 

[Jamestyalor4312]

Says the troll who has literally spent 0 days in law school

I really want to hear this, how does someone having a criminal background not effect the case? Literally one of the first things if it gets to that phase of the case the plaintiff side will do is attack the defense side credibility by bringing up criminal charges. Please enlighten me

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Actually someone having a criminal background can be used against them in a case. That's really day one shit my guy. Rage harder.

Character evidence is largely inadmissible in a civil trial, so no her DUI likely couldn't be used against her, nor could her burglary.

If they're over 10 years ago, they definitely can't be used. It would also have to have probative value greater than its prejudicial effect, I can find no probative value in either of those crimes to this case.

 

[Jamestyalor4312]

Character evidence is largely inadmissible in a civil trial, so no her DUI likely couldn't be used against her, nor could her burglary.

I don't know Texas State laws but in my state criminal history can't be used to impeach a witness but it can be used to discredit one, even in civil cases. This also goes for plaintiff and defendants

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I don't know Texas State laws but in my state criminal history can't be used to impeach a witness but it can be used to discredit one, even in civil cases. This also goes for plaintiff and defendants

Texas rule of evidence 609 is right here. It states.

"(a) In General. Evidence of a criminal conviction offered to attack a witness’s character for truthfulness must be admitted if:

(1) the crime was a felony or involved moral turpitude, regardless of punishment;

(2) the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to a party; and

(3) it is elicited from the witness or established by public record.

(b) Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have passed since the witness’s conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is later. Evidence of the conviction is admissible only if its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect."

If she got a pardon or got a cert of rehabilitiation, it can't be used. especially if they've completed probation.

 

[indianshedevil]

Rage harder.

Nope. I rather laugh at you instead.

 

[Jamestyalor4312]

Texas rule of evidence 609 is right here. It states.

"(a) In General. Evidence of a criminal conviction offered to attack a witness’s character for truthfulness must be admitted if:

(1) the crime was a felony or involved moral turpitude, regardless of punishment;

(2) the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to a party; and

(3) it is elicited from the witness or established by public record.

(b) Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have passed since the witness’s conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is later. Evidence of the conviction is admissible only if its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect."

If she got a pardon or got a cert of rehabilitiation, it can't be used. especially if they've completed probation.

Hmm good to know, but when did this "burglary" charge happen? I never heard of that one. So you seem to be correct on that note, a DUI wouldn't be relevant enough to really bring in. Maybe something like falsifying police reports or something that involves lying would be worth bringing up.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Hmm good to know, but when did this "burglary" charge happen? I never heard of that one. So you seem to be correct on that note, a DUI wouldn't be relevant enough to really bring in. Maybe something like falsifying police reports or something that involves lying would be worth bringing up.

Yes, a charge relating to fraud would likely have probative value if it was admissible.

Burglarly thing came up elsewhere I don't exactly remember it so i might be wrong lol I don't have an autistic database for this shit.