Akilah Hughes v. Carl Benjamin (2017)

[AnOminous]

Here's to hoping she tries to stiff her legal team on their fees and we get an arc for that. She's arrogant and dumb enough for it.

Well, if they actually advised her this lolsuit was a good idea, she should. Because that would have been malpractice.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Well, if they actually advised her this lolsuit was a good idea, she should. Because that would have been malpractice.

Pleading unnecessary facts in the complaint that expressly establish the Defendant's primary affirmative defense is considered good practice, right?

 

[AnOminous]

Pleading unnecessary facts in the complaint that expressly establish the Defendant's primary affirmative defense is considered good practice, right?

Well, you're not supposed to omit facts relevant to claims or defenses, but given that counsel clearly knew these facts, as they're included in the complaint itself, it was at least bad practice even to file the case at all, and for the second lawyer, to continue pursuing it when the claim was obviously precluded by an affirmative defense. Benjamin's response, even before he retained counsel, raised these issues immediately.

Considering the entirely predictable bad outcome Hughes received, if they didn't tell her this was likely to happen and advise her not to take this course, I'd say it was malpractice. We don't really know what they said to her of course. They could have had her sign a waiver or some sort of representation agreement. You can't have an agreement that waives malpractice claims, but it wouldn't actually be malpractice if they informed her how bad her chances were. It would still be bad faith litigation imo.

 

[Water-T]

Well, you're not supposed to omit facts relevant to claims or defenses, but given that counsel clearly knew these facts, as they're included in the complaint itself, it was at least bad practice even to file the case at all, and for the second lawyer, to continue pursuing it when the claim was obviously precluded by an affirmative defense. Benjamin's response, even before he retained counsel, raised these issues immediately.

Considering the entirely predictable bad outcome Hughes received, if they didn't tell her this was likely to happen and advise her not to take this course, I'd say it was malpractice. We don't really know what they said to her of course. They could have had her sign a waiver or some sort of representation agreement. You can't have an agreement that waives malpractice claims, but it wouldn't actually be malpractice if they informed her how bad her chances were. It would still be bad faith litigation imo.

I wouldn't be surprised if her lawyers said, "You do know that pursuing this suit is pants-on-head retarded, right?" and she screamed, "Help me fight white supremacists or i'll tell everyone you're white supremacists too REEEEEEEEEEEEE"

 

[Shaka Brah]

I wouldn't be surprised if her lawyers said, "You do know that pursuing this suit is pants-on-head retarded, right?" and she screamed, "Help me fight white supremacists or i'll tell everyone you're white supremacists too REEEEEEEEEEEEE"

My hunch was that she fired the first lawyer for telling her she couldn't win.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Well, you're not supposed to omit facts relevant to claims or defenses, but given that counsel clearly knew these facts, as they're included in the complaint itself, it was at least bad practice even to file the case at all, and for the second lawyer, to continue pursuing it when the claim was obviously precluded by an affirmative defense. Benjamin's response, even before he retained counsel, raised these issues immediately.

IIRC, they expressly stated that Ser Carl was doing it to mock Akilah, which is more of a question for the trier of fact to evaluate than an objective fact like "On Date X, Ralph's gunt entered into Blackacre without permission of the owner." At the very least not something you would typically stipulate to.

 

[Dyn]

Unfortunately perception is reality, and that "I wouldn't even rape you" joke got retconned by the msm

What? He told a politician "I wouldn't even rape you" and openly admitted he was trying to make some autistic point that she'd take it as an actual threat of rape. That meets all the standards of a criminally actionable rape threat and he's lucky he wasn't charged for it because it would have been a slam-dunk conviction.

 

[Feralcheese]

based
is this the beginning of a redemption arc for carl of swindon? or will it just get to his head and inflate his ego? time will tell i guess

No, he's still a cunt, the same cunt he was before. All he did is ask his brown-nosers for money, and paid someone with actual skills to beat a moronic case.

 

[Doctor Placebo]

What? He told a politician "I wouldn't even rape you" and openly admitted he was trying to make some autistic point that she'd take it as an actual threat of rape. That meets all the standards of a criminally actionable rape threat and he's lucky he wasn't charged for it because it would have been a slam-dunk conviction.

No it doesn't. "I wouldn't rape you" is not in any way a criminally actionable rape threat. Taking legal action against someone by arguing they meant the opposite of what they said would open up the biggest can of legal worms in existence. You'd need a ton of solid evidence that he was somehow intentionally and maliciously signaling he wanted to rape her by saying the opposite, because otherwise a ruling in favor of that would irreparably fuck people's freedom to say literally anything at all.

It's terrible optics when you're trying to be a serious politician and he handled it horribly by doubling down, but it's definitely not going to hold up as a credible rape threat in court.

 

[Dyn]

No it doesn't. "I wouldn't rape you" is not in any way a criminally actionable rape threat. Taking legal action against someone by arguing they meant the opposite of what they said would open up the biggest can of legal worms in existence. You'd need a ton of solid evidence that he was somehow intentionally and maliciously signaling he wanted to rape her by saying the opposite, because otherwise a ruling in favor of that would irreparably fuck people's freedom to say literally anything at all.

That's not how it works. All the legal thresholds for utterance of threats are based solely on whether the person making the threat intended for the recipient to take it as an actual threat. Whether or not they do doesn't even legally matter. Carl, like an idiot, openly told everyone he did it because he thought she'd take it as a legitimate threat, so it would be an even easier case to prove than a known mafioso saying he hopes somebody's kneecaps don't get broken for not paying him money.

 

[AnOminous]

IIRC, they expressly stated that Ser Carl was doing it to mock Akilah, which is more of a question for the trier of fact to evaluate than an objective fact like "On Date X, Ralph's gunt entered into Blackacre without permission of the owner."

It's also, if you take it as an admission of fact, literally proof of Carl's affirmative defense. If it was for the purpose of criticism and was transformative, clearly on its face, and only used a small part of the original in a way that blatantly obviously didn't substitute for the original, there was no good faith argument against it being fair use. Actually admitting they knew it was for the purpose of criticism was just the cherry on the shit sundae.

Carl, like an idiot, openly told everyone he did it because he thought she'd take it as a legitimate threat, so it would be an even easier case to prove than a known mafioso saying he hopes somebody's kneecaps don't get broken for not paying him money.

This is the UK. If there was any remotely legitimate argument for it being a true threat, they would have gone after him. I don't see how "I WOULDN'T even rape her" could possibly be a threat. Whether Carl thought it would be for some reason doesn't make it one.

 

[Trig.Point]

That's not how it works. All the legal thresholds for utterance of threats are based solely on whether the person making the threat intended for the recipient to take it as an actual threat. Whether or not they do doesn't even legally matter. Carl, like an idiot, openly told everyone he did it because he thought she'd take it as a legitimate threat, so it would be an even easier case to prove than a known mafioso saying he hopes somebody's kneecaps don't get broken for not paying him money.

You should consider the context he said it in. At the time Jess Phillips was getting hauled over the coals for downplaying the Cologne sex attacks on an episode of Question Time. This was days after the full extent of the attacks became known, and the fact that they had been planned before hand. She lives in a Pakistani dominated consituency (that she doesn't represent) she was savvy enough to know what the UK's wonderful Muslim community wanted to hear. Which was that White Men in the UK are the real sex pests (that's essentially what she said)

Afterwards however she started getting such shit from the general public, that she started to retweet 'threats' from twitter accounts with a half dozen followers. For a back bencher she is extremely well connected, so the media started to cover for her.

When Sargon tweeted he wouldn't even rape her, she made a big deal of it initially, then for whatever reason, declared she wasn't worried about it, and never mentioned it again untill the European Parliament elections. It was her at the time that said it wasn't a genuine threat.

 

[Dyn]

This is the UK. If there was any remotely legitimate argument for it being a true threat, they would have gone after him. I don't see how "I WOULDN'T even rape her" could possibly be a threat. Whether Carl thought it would be for some reason doesn't make it one.

Bongistan doesn't follow that 'true threat' doctine. All that matters is if the offender intended for it to be taken seriously. Carl intended for it to be taken as a serious threat to make some retard point about how spastics will take any ridiculous shit as a serious threat, and he publicly said as much. If he just shut up and didn't admit that, it would be a monstrously hard case to prove and no prosecutor would ever think about touching it.

I think the real reason they never charged him was because he was rolling with dankula at the time and they learned their lesson with the nazi pug trial and didn't want to make another crowdfunded alt-right folk hero martyr over the stupidest possible shit.

 

[AnOminous]

When Sargon tweeted he wouldn't even rape her, she made a big deal of it initially, then for whatever reason, declared she wasn't worried about it, and never mentioned it again untill the European Parliament elections. It was her at the time that said it wasn't a genuine threat.

By then, Soygon was already doubling down on it over and over again, and busily self-destructing, so I'd guess she figured no reason to intervene while he was already fucking up his own shit without her doing anything.

Bongistan doesn't follow that 'true threat' doctine. All that matters is if the offender intended for it to be taken seriously. Carl intended for it to be taken as a serious threat to make some retard point about how spastics will take any ridiculous shit as a serious threat, and he publicly said as much.

Stating you wouldn't do something is never going to be a threat no matter what you think about it. There are three elements to it in the UK. A person must:

• without lawful excuse
• make a threat
• with the intention that it be taken seriously by the victim

So even with the intention that it be taken seriously, he still didn't actually make a threat at all of any kind.

 

[Trig.Point]

By then, Soygon was already doubling down on it over and over again, and busily self-destructing, so I'd guess she figured no reason to intervene while he was already fucking up his own shit without her doing anything.

What was he meant to do, he couldn't apologise. In fairness his one major TV interview with Victoria Derbyshire didn't go too badly.

Don't get me wrong Sargon fucked over UKIP, and he did it after Gerard Batten put him at the center of Party in the hope it could get around the hostility the party was getting from MSM. Sargon did nothing to promote the party or other candidates, I don't think I even heard him mention the other UKIP candiates that were running by name. It was purely about what UKIP could do for him. Batten is a Tucker Carlson style conservative with some really great ideas. It's just his judgement let him down when it came to Sargon.

 

[Ooonkeh]

What was he meant to do, he couldn't apologise. In fairness his one major TV interview with Victoria Derbyshire didn't go too badly.

Don't get me wrong Sargon fucked over UKIP, and he did it after Gerard Batten put him at the center of Party in the hope it could get around the hostility the party was getting from MSM. Sargon did nothing to promote the party or other candidates, I don't think I even heard him mention the other UKIP candiates that were running by name. It was purely about what UKIP could do for him. Batten is a Tucker Carlson style conservative with some really great ideas. It's just his judgement let him down when it came to Sargon.

The vast, vast majority of UKIP voters have no clue who Sargon is. The target demographic is older eurosceptic right wingers who don't follow any social media other than shit facebook or whatsapp forwards.

 

[teriyakiburns]

By then, Soygon was already doubling down on it over and over again, and busily self-destructing, so I'd guess she figured no reason to intervene while he was already fucking up his own shit without her doing anything.

Stating you wouldn't do something is never going to be a threat no matter what you think about it. There are three elements to it in the UK. A person must:

• without lawful excuse
• make a threat
• with the intention that it be taken seriously by the victim

So even with the intention that it be taken seriously, he still didn't actually make a threat at all of any kind.

I mean, when you get down to it, the fact that not even our triggered-happy police went after him for it is a pretty good sign that no offence occured.

 

[AnOminous]

What was he meant to do, he couldn't apologise. In fairness his one major TV interview with Victoria Derbyshire didn't go too badly.

He could have shut the fuck up about it, or said it was obviously a joke and let it go mate. None of that would have involved apologizing. Instead he kept repeating it and doubling down on it like a moron. It made it clear how completely nonserious he was as a candidate.

Don't get me wrong Sargon fucked over UKIP, and he did it after Gerard Batten put him at the center of Party in the hope it could get around the hostility the party was getting from MSM.

To be fair UKIP was more or less fucked when Nigel Farage more or less made it irrelevant just by leaving it. It could have remained at least a fringe party for uttering certain viewpoints though. Now it is a complete laughingstock instead.

 

[soy_king]

IIRC, they expressly stated that Ser Carl was doing it to mock Akilah, which is more of a question for the trier of fact to evaluate than an objective fact like "On Date X, Ralph's gunt entered into Blackacre without permission of the owner." At the very least not something you would typically stipulate to.

I don't actually think intent would go against Carl in a copyright infringement suit. In fact, it would probably bolster his affirmative defense of fair use under Campbell v. Acuff-Rose.

 

[RichardMongler]

*smuckles in radical centrism*