- Dołączono
- 4 Gru 2018
What if her account gets deleted by twitter?
#KickVic Legal Defense Strategies - Top Strat Revealed: Cite Tumblr and PULL and Defame Vic directly in Legal Filings
- Twórca wątku JosephTX
- Data rozpoczęcia
-
🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
-
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
- Dołączono
- 31 Gru 2018
They’re all archived and twitter saves them even if they’re “deleted”.
I just don’t see any way Monica or Jamie settle with a retraction of statements and any type of statement their statements were false and defamatory. Their careers would be over since no one in their right mind would want to employ or work with someone that would do something like that.
Their career would be better off if they went to trial and lost, but didn’t admit any wrongdoing. The court can force them to remove statements it feels are defamatory, but I don’t think they can be forced to apologize or admit wrongdoing. There are plenty of cucks that would support and hire Monica and Jamie.
- Dołączono
- 28 Gru 2014
Not if Funimation owes millions for their libels, loses all its licenses, goes bankrupt, and gets replaced by a competent company.
Who would hire someone who could cost you millions just by being a completely insane psycho?
- Dołączono
- 22 Sty 2019
Thirsty cucks.
- Dołączono
- 10 Lip 2017
Based on today’s filings it must be said, we have been seriously underestimating the defendants ability to go felony stupid on all fronts.
- Dołączono
- 31 Gru 2018
Looks like “full retard” is the plan.
- Dołączono
- 21 Sty 2019
We see it time and time again but we never truly learn, do we? Why the fuck us, of all people, would still put faith in lolcows doing things right?
- Dołączono
- 4 Gru 2018
It's so stupid I want to commit suicide due to the sheer level of stupidity that I thought were impossible that I've just been exposed to
- Dołączono
- 21 Kwi 2019
Picking up on the concept of "felony stupid":
1. in paragraph 20 of his answer Casey stated that the request for correction, clarification or retraction was sent on April 12th referring to statements made from January 24th - i.e. 78 days after the first statement was made.
2. in paragraph 22 Casey declares that the request was not within 90 days of Vic learning of the statements - so 78 is more than 90
3. At the end of the answer it is stated specifically that Casey S. Erick declared under oath that paragraphs 19-23 are true and correct
Now I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm wrong -> but could it be argued that Casey has perjured himself by declaring under oath that 78 > 90?
Paras 20 & 22 :
Verification:
1. in paragraph 20 of his answer Casey stated that the request for correction, clarification or retraction was sent on April 12th referring to statements made from January 24th - i.e. 78 days after the first statement was made.
2. in paragraph 22 Casey declares that the request was not within 90 days of Vic learning of the statements - so 78 is more than 90
3. At the end of the answer it is stated specifically that Casey S. Erick declared under oath that paragraphs 19-23 are true and correct
Now I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm wrong -> but could it be argued that Casey has perjured himself by declaring under oath that 78 > 90?
Paras 20 & 22 :
Verification:
- Dołączono
- 28 Gru 2014
I think it's obvious that he's just a complete moron.
- Dołączono
- 20 Kwi 2018
Is it possible for MoRon to appeal a ruling against them for their defense being pants on head exceptional?
Gaat
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 18 Maj 2019
Wouldn't you have to prove that Casey gave such shit advice and council that any other lawyer would have gotten a better or more favorable result?
Grant you some of his actions are questionable as hell.
While they can appeal it, they'd have the same burden of proof that Casey's actions were detrimental to the case and not just either an ass-pull 'or' the aw crap we don't wanna pay defense.
- Dołączono
- 10 Lip 2017
It’s actually very hard to do in a civil case. Remember MoRonica selected and hired the lawyer. They are active participants in their case. The lawyer’s shortcomings are transparently obvious to observation. It is entirely their option to hire or continue to employ said lawyers. Hiring a stupid lawyer, because you yourselves are stupid is not generally something you can win an appeal on. The only exception is criminal matters and public defenders, where the defendant is not selecting their lawyer and is more or less forced to operate with what they get.
- Dołączono
- 28 Gru 2014
No. If they lose because of his stupidity and incompetence, they can sue him for malpractice. With this, it's so obviously just stupid, sloppy drafting that nobody is going to be confused what he actually meant to say, it's just that what he actually said is pants-on-head retarded.
So for instance if they won or settled favorably they wouldn't have been harmed proximately by malpractice.
Really, that fuckup is the least that's wrong with that miserable excuse for a legal document. And to be fair, if you struck the completely extraneous "factual background" section, it would be merely below what I'd expect in quality, not completely atrociously dumb and bad.
ETA: This isn't a continuation of the response, I just had another thought and didn't want to double post.
I just noticed this in the TCPA: (6) "Legal action" means a lawsuit, cause of action, petition, complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim or any other judicial pleading or filing that requests legal or equitable relief.
"Legal action" is what you file a TCPA on. A TCPA would itself be "any other judicial pleading or filing that requests legal or equitable relief." I'm not sure whether a dismissal under the TCPA would be equitable, legal, or some combination (my gut is like other types of dismissal it would be legal), but it would definitely be at least one.
So there's nothing stopping you from filing a TCPA against a TCPA filing itself. Just a thought. I actually think it might be appropriate if they file a TCPA in relation to the tortious interference claims, because the speech in question on that, specifically the threats and actually carrying out the illegal action of breaching their own contracts, isn't even arguably protected speech.
I also think it's possible that some of the more ludicrous kitchen sink bullshit affirmative defenses might qualify for such a motion.
Ostatnio edytowane:
- Dołączono
- 10 Mar 2019
It further states that the party may file a motion to dismiss the legal action.
Can you file a motion to dismiss a motion to dismiss? That seems... recursive.
- Dołączono
- 4 Gru 2018
Correct me if I'm wrong @AnOminous but isn't the verification clause at the end of legal filings mostly just a meaningless formality?
- Dołączono
- 28 Gru 2014
No, those aren't required for most filings. It's a special requirement for responding to the required retraction letter. They're also performed by the actual lawyer in the case, so ethics rules apply as well.
While it doesn't explicitly say the word "perjury" like some oaths, it probably constitutes perjury to make a false statement in such a verified declaration.
"The obvious intent of Rule 93 is to deter certain frivolous or untrue claims by requiring that they be sworn to. It is evident from the cases that the verification is not to be taken lightly and that false verification is a form of perjury. See Davis v. Young California Shoes, Inc., 612 S.W.2d 703 (Tex. Civ.App.--Dallas 1981, no writ). Davis states that a proper Rule 93 verification must be "so direct and unequivocal as to subject the affiant to perjury if untrue." Id. at 704. While this case is concerned with the definiteness of the assertions required to comply with Rule 93, the obvious implication is that a false verification is perjurous."
This goes on to cite a couple other cases including another appeals case regarding perjury.
That said nobody is going to prosecute what looks like just sloppy drafting for perjury. It doesn't say anything good for the level of professionalism Casey is showing in this case that in the one four paragraph long section required to be sworn under oath, he didn't even bother getting two major details correct.
First, he accidentally swore to the first paragraph of the next section, despite the verified section only being four paragraphs long. Nice fuckup, Casey.
Second, he swore in two paragraphs right next to each other to completely contradictory "facts," the first of which literally disproves the defense made in the second. Great shooting yourself in the foot, Casey.
- Dołączono
- 10 Mar 2019
Isn't that how alternative pleading works, though?
- Dołączono
- 28 Gru 2014
I'm not seeing the alternate. It's not two defenses. It's one defense, and it relies on the retraction letter being sent over 90 days after the defamation, and he testified to the retraction letter being sent no more than 79 days after the earliest defamation it addressed in the immediately preceding paragraph.
That's not alternate pleading, that's just pure stupidity.
There's a tiny four paragraph section of this required to be filed under oath that subjects you to perjury, and this dumb bastard can't even get that section right.