Sea Salt Mine - here there be chimping over the lawsuit

  • Twórca wątku Twórca wątku damian
  • Data rozpoczęcia Data rozpoczęcia
Wyróżnienie
Big props to @Desu Mountain for turning me on to the GameFAQs threads because they have some WILD shit

842256
 
Allanon powiedział(a):
Every time people misuse Occam's Razor to sweep the obvious civil conspiracy under the rug, I die a little.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

All but one of the real accusers appear to have lived under the same roof. I'm sure they never talked about any of this though. (Not counting weird nobodies like Emmett Plant trying to insert themselves into the case.)
 
Lens Serial# 0000713d7c powiedział(a):
Big props to @Desu Mountain for turning me on to the GameFAQs threads because they have some WILD shit

Wyświetl załącznik 842256
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

I have to alternatively believe that numerous people just straight up allowed women and children be victimized because they were not only cowards, but for some reason still pretended to be friends with him throughout despite knowing his misdeeds or otherwise "hearing the rumors" that would invariably hold more weight regardless of their certainty thereof.
 
AnOminous powiedział(a):
All but one of the real accusers appear to have lived under the same roof. I'm sure they never talked about any of this though. (Not counting weird nobodies like Emmett Plant trying to insert themselves into the case.)
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

Furthermore, my deep dive indicated not only do the original rumors appear to have come from angry fujo, but the earliest rumors of Vic being a diva that assaults underage fans appear to be coming at least in part from an "AMV coordinator". Like maybe even one of the irrelevant nobodies involved has been pushing this behind the scenes for years and just never got traction until now.
 
Disheveled Pizza powiedział(a):
Wyświetl załącznik 842546
So saying something under oath isn't evidence now? Weird the Kick Vic exceptional individuals have been asserting since this case began that testimony is evidence, which the only thing people took issue with is that second/third/fourth hand or anonymous testimony (i.e 99% of the claims) is hearsay and/or inadmissible.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

The key detail that anyone seems to omit in that statement above, is that they're talking about the TCPA only. The burden of proof only stays on the plaintiff for the duration of the TCPA, and doesn't shift to the defendant.

These fucking goons keep clinging to a half-truth and don't elaborate so it makes their point seem stronger.

Once the TCPA is ruled on, and things proceed to trial, that idiotic statement of the burden not shifting is out the window and they'll have to cook up a new plate of bullshit.

Law Twitter is so stuck and dug-in on the TCPA, but still want to discuss the lawsuit as a whole and all the possible outcomes, but when people talk about the possible lawsuit, they dunk on anyone with a dissenting opinion because they strictly focus their counter-argument on things pertinent to the TCPA, without explaining themselves.

It's an example of Law Twitter smokescreening their points so they can change the rules of their engagement whenever it suits them.
 
Disheveled Pizza powiedział(a):
Wyświetl załącznik 842546
So saying something under oath isn't evidence now? Weird the Kick Vic exceptional individuals have been asserting since this case began that testimony is evidence, which the only thing people took issue with is that second/third/fourth hand or anonymous testimony (i.e 99% of the claims) is hearsay and/or inadmissible.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

This person is a moron. It literally does. That's what a burden of proof is. That's what evidence is.

Immaculate Ape powiedział(a):
The key detail that anyone seems to omit in that statement above, is that they're talking about the TCPA only. The burden of proof only stays on the plaintiff for the duration of the TCPA, and doesn't shift to the defendant.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

It shifts numerous times.

The burden is initially upon the defendant. The defendant must show that the action impinges on free speech rights. This is pretty easy in a defamation case, and the defendant certainly meets this burden, as it's obvious on the face of the complaint.

Thereupon, the burden shifts to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must show one of two things. The first is that the suit does not actually impact free speech rights. This is a non-starter, as it's a defamation case, and those will always impact free speech rights in one form or another. The second, which is applicable here, is the plaintiff must show by "clear and specific evidence" that a prima facie case exists.

However, once the plaintiff has done that, the burden shifts again if the defendant is arguing that an affirmative defense is so clearly valid that even despite that, the case still must fail. The defendant must then prove the affirmative defense.

However, there may be even more burden shifting. Suppose the affirmative defense itself, if brought to trial, itself has burden shifting rules? There may be additional burden shifting within the proof of the affirmative defense itself. This may seem unnecessarily technical and speculative, but in fact, more than one potential affirmative defense exists in this case that might trigger such an issue.

Here's a fairly recent analysis of this issue, although it might make your head spin. It's certainly given me thought over the past couple months.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Lens Serial# 0000713d7c powiedział(a):
Big props to @Desu Mountain for turning me on to the GameFAQs threads because they have some WILD shit

Wyświetl załącznik 842256
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

Allanon powiedział(a):
Every time people misuse Occam's Razor to sweep the obvious civil conspiracy under the rug, I die a little.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Agreed 100%. That being said, I think Occam's Razor actually does apply here - the problem is that the morons at KV are overly simplifying the situation in order to draw the conclusion they already made.

Instead of a comparison between:
  • A civil conspiracy between a number of "essjaydubs" VAs and woke journalists (either over many years or grasping a current opportunity) in order to get a man they don't like destroyed by making accusations of the man being a rapist
  • The man is simply a creeper and diva, deserving of being fired (although apparently not actually a rapist because nobody has pressed charges or even expressed an interest in seeing the man in prison)

When it should actually be read as:
  • A civil conspiracy between a number of " essjaydubs"VAs and woke journalists (either over many years or grasping a current opportunity) in order to get a man they don't like destroyed by making accusations of the man being a rapist​
  • A criminal conspiracy between that man, several convention staff, and many anime industry staff where the man is able to rape and pillage freely both in public and in private for decades that somehow has yet to result in a single video or piece of communication serving as evidence of these acts - leaving the only possibilities being that the man has a Watch_Dogs hacker level of awareness when it comes to strategically avoiding cameras, or that the industry(including the VAs described above) have either directly covered for the man's acts or looked the other way (although apparently not actually a rapist because nobody has pressed charges or even expressed an interest in seeing the man in prison)
    ​

Let's go ahead and use Occam's Razor, Legends Kuja. See where that leads us.
 
I found something curious on the-- urk-- "Threadnaught":

(Context: they're talking about and around Nick's discussion of consent)

844631


For context, here's the message he's self-quoting:

844639


and here's the Texas statute he's "citing".

It kind of looks like the guy can't read despite being a professional reader of law, and practical critical thinker...

...either that, or he tried to delude someone into believing his intentionally shoddy interpretation of law because he's the lawyer.
 
Zero Day Defense powiedział(a):
I found something curious on the-- urk-- "Threadnaught":

(Context: they're talking about and around Nick's discussion of consent)

Wyświetl załącznik 844631

For context, here's the message he's self-quoting:

Wyświetl załącznik 844639

and here's the Texas statute he's "citing".

It kind of looks like the guy can't read despite being a professional reader of law, and practical critical thinker...

...either that, or he tried to delude someone into believing his intentionally shoddy interpretation of law because he's the lawyer.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

They really love to cherry-pick and omit key things, and hide behind their credentials to say nobody can question them.

I think Law Twitter is getting close to earning it's own thread at this rate, these "lawyers" are exceptional
 
Wyróżnienie
Musisz się zalogować lub zarejestrować, aby odpowiedzieć.
Wstecz
Top Na dole