LogFAQs > #922997651

You're literally the one who got the screencap from Rekieta saying that they would prove falsity by having Vic go onto the stand and say under oath that the statements are false. Or did you already forget this?

You misunderstand. What I said was what you think Vic and Ty was gonna do in court; appeal to ethos as their sole evidence that he didn't do it.

I'm really not sure why you keep spouting this tired, outdated characterization.

For one, a fair chunk of Law-Twitter has already reviewed the original petition and other filed documents. I personally sent a few of them a link to a Google Drive containing all publicly filed documents thus far. One lawyer even made a whole 50+ minute video going over the original petition bit by bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOvK9aYMlow" data-time="

Who the fuck is this guy and what is his credentials besides "reading laws from a book that he thinks are relevant to the case"? You have to forgive me for thinking a guy with 59 subscribers, admits he doesn't know Texas law, and who is friends with Greg is somehow the more credible source here.

Good for him, he's wrong.

Only because you want him to be. You have absolutely nothing to prove he can't do what he said he's gonna do.

There is basically no other legal professional besides Rekieta and Beard and maybe one or two stragglers they managed to lure in that those tweets would constitute defamation. Your continued baseless discrediting of the other lawyers who gave their input does not change this.

Holy shit, you're really putting all your chips in the opinions of some lawyers who aren't Nick and Ty.

-The tweets were designed to ruin Vic's reputation. Do you honestly believe you can convince the court that all these conventions canceled simultaneously based on anything else?
-The tweets were done with actual malice behind them.
-The tweets are not protected opinions because they don't contain confirmed factual information.

It's defamation. Parrot your new lawyer friends all you want, they aren't gonna be able to bullshit every single Tweet put out against Vic was some form of protected opinion.

I'm fairly sure defamation needs to be on statements of objective fact. If you say someone's incompetent, for example, that's not defamation, even if you could "imply" a false underlying fact. If you say someone was fired from their job because of said incompetence, however, that would be defamatory.

Luckily for you, there are Tweets that insinuate just that. Monica said he was fired from his job because of his past behavior numerous times, which fits in pretty well with what you said fits the definition of defamation.

What makes you think they won't?

You seem to have such blind faith in Rekieta's blustering confidence, but how are you aware that they do not evidence of their own that they would have submitted to, say, Sony or Funimation?

Ron has been leaking literally everything and anything that appears damning to Shane. If they had any killer evidence, it would've already been one of the earliest discovery pieces and Ron wouldn't have been able to help himself. If you are implying that I think I know how Ron thinks, it's because he has a pattern of behavior and confirmed evidence of tortuous interference with Kamaehacon. You have no evidence of how Ty operates besides random little things written in the petition that he has addressed on stream already.

I'm going to bed. Guess we'll see if anyone has any skeletons in the closet on Monday.
---

Sometimes I say things and I'm not voice acting.