LogFAQs > #923000037

AvantgardeAClue posted...

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.

You shouldn't assume what I think, then.

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.
He's commenting on federal 1st Amendment caselaw. And as is well established, federal law > state law. Supremacy clause, yo.

Also I can't help but notice that you neglected to respond to the main gist of what I mentioned - that the lawyers were already looking at materials like the Original Petition. This is.... what, the second, third time you've deliberately ignored a point like this? And all just to get in a dig at the dude. Shame.

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

-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?

"Designed to ruin Vic's reputation" is not the same as "designed to defame". Because defamation requires proven falsity. We've been over this.

It also doesn't qualify as tortious interference based on what I've been told from two different lawyers.

-The tweets were done with actual malice behind them.
-The tweets are not protected opinions because they don't contain confirmed factual information.

Neither of these have been proven as of yet, and no amount of bragging from Beard and Rekieta that they totally have proof will change that until they actually put up.

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.

They still have yet to prove defamation, as I've kept saying here.

And are you seriously relying on them winning with a game of whack-a-mole?

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.
Which would still match with Funimations's statement.

https://twitter.com/FUNimation/status/1095087701735419904

Unless you're suggesting that Funimation is lying about why they fired him, Monica's statement would be substantially true and not made with actual malice.

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.

As far as I can see (having gone back as far as Feb), Shane has put out the following.

A. Public filed court documents that he's compiled in a Google Drive. As in, the sort of stuff you could get off PACER and the like.

B. Threat letters from the Beardgang

C. Mentioning other evidence like seeing a full tweet thread with Kamehacon that implicated Beard in threatening them into inviting Vic back. If it's not in A and B however, he does not directly tweet out this evidence himself, explicitly because it would break the trust of those who shared it with him.

https://twitter.com/shane_holmberg/status/1111474702525100032