#KickVic Legal Defense Strategies - Top Strat Revealed: Cite Tumblr and PULL and Defame Vic directly in Legal Filings

[Skeptical Idiot]

I'm pretty sure "he personally raped me" isn't "hyperbole." This dumb motherfucker doesn't even know what allegations Vic is claiming are defamatory.

Exactly. "He personally raped me" is a statement of fact and the person making it is providing the factual basis for which people are supposed to believe it's true. For me, the strongest statement in the Original Petition to support a defamation claim is found in paragraph 28 of the Petition.

Now, these statements,

-He assaults fans in public
-He makes cons dangerous
-He's assaulted over 100 women

If you take them alone without context, which is how you win a 140 character per tweet Twitter war, you can make an argument that they are not defamatory. If Ron just said Vic assaults fans in public and nothing more, a Court might dismiss the claim on the same grounds the judge dismissed the Stormy Daniels defamation case:

Trump said,

A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!

The court found Trump's tweet not actionable “because the tweet in question constitutes "rhetorical hyperbole." Another example is the Supreme Court explanation why accusing someone of “blackmail” is not necessarily defamatory, despite the fact that blackmail is a crime.

You could argue that "he makes cons dangerous" is just a matter of opinion. Birds flying over head make cons more dangerous. They shit on cars and people. But it's not defamation.

But if we provide context to show that Monica and Ron were claiming these weren't just matters of opinion or that they were talking about assault in the legal sense, not just that he hugged women wanting photographs without a notarized consent form, those statements can become defamatory. I think paragraph 28 of the Original Petition is strong, because it provides the context needed to understand how defamatory their claims were (assuming they cannot be proven false).

What I see the Twitter lawyers doing is focusing on a very narrow part of the Original Petition or in one case, the GoFundMe without looking at the broader context and then arguing that if you just look at these four or five or eight words, see, Vic loses.

Vic may lose. I don't know. But it won't be because Monica and Ron's shit-talking never crossed over the line to become defamatory if false and it won't be because you cannot prove the falsity of an assault or rape charge at trial. Defamation cases are tricky and easy to lose. But when you hit, you can hit really big.

This is very, very true in Tarrant County Texas where juries have awarded multi-million dollar defamation judgments in the past.

 

[Commander]

I think we all already know this but I'm going to pretty explain why Toye and Rial are so confident on Twitter (ignoring the advice to shut up) which has to do with this logic:

Akiva Cohen on Twitter: "Under these exact circumstances? Litigate, b…

archived 14 Jun 2019 19:09:48 UTC

archive.fo

I pretty much said if the settlement was half the lawyer fees, what would you suggest? I knew the exact answer, but this is what I'd consider a typical lawyer answer. I'll translate for are more exceptional people reading:

Why on earth would a lawyer give a shit what's best for you? This is typical sales pitch tactics in order to encourage someone to pursue and action they normally wouldn't. Let's just go with an example which is way off for the sake of people understanding. Let's say settlement is 20k and the attorney fees would be 40k. 20k is a lot of money and not something people would willingly turn over. Now let's say there's an 80% of your lawyer being paid by the opposition for winning the TCPA. That's still a 20% chance of having to pay not only 40k but possibly a total $340k. Do the math and the net outcome is -48k. Yeah, even with a good chance it's expected to be a net loss as 20% is still high.

Of course lawyers need clients to eat at a dining room table and a settlement initially is a lot less money (barely pocket change) than fighting it as one guarantees 40k in their pocket. And since they feel confident they can use the TCPA of course they are going to say fight it knowing this could ruin your life entirely (it's much easier to part with 20k than 340k). 20% chance you are going to be miserable for a decade if not longer. Maybe I'm not a risk taker or anything. But just imagine telling your client they have a good shot of stopping this without them getting their money back only to have that backfire. That TCPA is going to fail and that's when we'll see chickens with their heads cut off running around. The lawyers are just buttering it up.

 

[AnOminous]

Why on earth would a lawyer give a shit what's best for you?

Because if they screw you over their word of mouth goes to shit as people talk to each other, so your reputation will end up being that slimeball who ripped my buddy off, and you won't go to that guy when you have an issue.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Because if they screw you over their word of mouth goes to shit as people talk to each other, so your reputation will end up being that slimeball who ripped my buddy off, and you won't go to that guy when you have an issue.

Not to mention that I'm pretty sure a lawyer putting their own personal profit not just ahead of their client's interests but in fact directly opposed to their client's interests would basically be legal misconduct.

 

[AnOminous]

Not to mention that I'm pretty sure a lawyer putting their own personal profit not just ahead of their client's interests but in fact directly opposed to their client's interests would basically be legal misconduct.

You can also generally call it into question by filing a dispute with the bar association if a lawyer screws you, at least if they screw you in some illegal way.

 

[Kosher Salt]

You can also generally call it into question by filing a dispute with the bar association if a lawyer screws you, at least if they screw you in some illegal way.

Yeah, it struck me as the sort of bar complaint that actually might get investigated.

 

[Stoneheart]

Call the bobs in accounting to bill those clowns, i have found the only viable defense for those clowns...

Im pretty sure that you just can defame people if you chose a medium a sane person could possible trust.
as an example: an insane homeless person with a a sign cant defame people on his sign.

now for the argument, make it clear to the judge that the medium of twitter is the modern equivalent of writing on the toilet stall of a public toilet and that you cant defame people on twitter.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Call the bobs in accounting to bill those clowns, i have found the only viable defense for those clowns...

Im pretty sure that you just can defame people if you chose a medium a sane person could possible trust.
as an example: an insane homeless person with a a sign cant defame people on his sign.

now for the argument, make it clear to the judge that the medium of twitter is the modern equivalent of writing on the toilet stall of a public toilet and that you cant defame people on twitter.

Even if they could somehow convince a judge that you automatically can't believe anything you read on Twitter (even if it's coming from a verified person who ought to know), it still wouldn't help them evade the TI claim. Those were made via text messages to a convention that clearly believed the messages enough that it was willing to breach its contract with Vic.

 

[Stoneheart]

Even if they could somehow convince a judge that you automatically can't believe anything you read on Twitter (even if it's coming from a verified person who ought to know),

Well they will be able to quote a supreme court case for this. a little bird told me that CNN will use the same strategie in the case of that catholic boy,
and CNN is willing to go all the way.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Even if they could somehow convince a judge that you automatically can't believe anything you read on Twitter (even if it's coming from a verified person who ought to know), it still wouldn't help them evade the TI claim. Those were made via text messages to a convention that clearly believed the messages enough that it was willing to breach its contract with Vic.

And I imagine that because of the way that the TI was handled (using some of the same defamatory statements made outside the instances of TI), and because the evidence for TI is right there and plain as day, the defamation is invariably actually defamation.