Current Events > KickVic failing. Long lines to meet Vic

(+) Yeah! (+)

Darmik posted...

all of his defenders who got their legal knowledge from YouTube

Yeahhhhh youtube is the last place anyone should get information

Jesus Christ

I can't wait for the rest of this document to become available

Vics fucking lawyers are setting themselves up to be annihilated off the face of the Earth in the funniest fucking way I've ever seen

Lmao

Just to add according to the letter that Vic's lawyer sent the defamation case is based on;
- The defendant tweeting "Vic admits that he wronged women times and in his own words said he messed up" which is allegedly false (I thought he did apologize for that?)
- The defendant tweeting "Lets see who will walk away a sex offender" and that he "intimidates people" is false and defamatory because it states he is a criminal
- That saying "That's why he has been fired from every anime studio" is false and defamatory because he was only fired from two anime studios
- That calling him a piece of shit is false and defamatory because he can't literally be a piece of shit

This seems to be the document that is being mocked by lawyers.

I'm no legal expert but to me it looks like they're trying to get gotcha's by taking everything literally.
---

A few random Twitter lawyers looking at one document with immense context behind it doesn't really mean much. Especially when one has been liking KickVic tweets months in advance.

Nick Rekieta's videos do cover a copious amount of content regarding the case not seen in tweets or other social media. It's how I found out about the GoFundMe IOTA, deposition dates, and overall strategy Ty Beard was planning to use. I usually tune in if I'm not going to bed early. He's pretty funny when guests are around too.

Lol@ that one lawyer saying Vic won't go back to work at his previous areas. Fucking duh, Funimation and RT made that fairly clear. It's about determining truth and lies that could inhibit him from future roles and con appearances. He still has several roles he's credited for in 2019 from other studios.
---

Rekeita is the one currently being mocked by several lawyers. To the point where one of them offered to talk privately. The fact you're advertising his GoFundMe is probably why it doesn't really matter that he's wasting Vic's time or money.

What context do you think they're missing? Why would context fix the issues with the document that has been revealed so far? If anything the implication here is that the full thing is even worse.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

It's about determining truth and lies that could inhibit him from future roles and con appearances.

Is that the role of the court though?

It seems like it's more simple than that. Hell by the looks of it I don't think it's even going to get that far and it'll just get thrown out for the sheer misunderstanding of Texan laws and what is eligible for the claims being made.
---

Darmik posted...

Rekeita is the one currently being mocked by several lawyers. To the point where one of them offered to talk privately.

Ty Beard also offered to give him a call. You'd rather have them try to explain everything in several 240 character posts? They're a little more professional than that.

Darmik posted...

What context do you think they're missing? Why would context fix the issues with the document that has been revealed so far? If anything the implication here is that the full thing is even worse.

The fact that it's one portion of a TDMA including approximately 400 defamatory statements and are taking it as indicative of the entirety of the claim. It's like if I walk into the middle of the ProJared scandal and wonder why people are kink shaming him for cosplaying.

The guy is also an IP AND a business litigation lawyer, and still couldn't identify that document wasn't a Complaint. He also thinks Nick is Vic's lawyer, which is an automatic red flag.

Darmik posted...

Is that the role of the court though?

It seems like it's more simple than that. Hell by the looks of it I don't think it's even going to get that far and it'll just get thrown out for the sheer misunderstanding of Texan laws and what is eligible for the claims being made.

Nick clarified that truth (or lack thereof) isn't a recognized defense to tortious interference with contract.

The Texas Supreme Court expressly refused to adopt the restatement of it in 2016 and it hasn't been brought up since.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sbQrMUm4Cg" data-time="

They (Nick/Ty) are live right now. Give a listen. I promise you'll learn something new. Ty straight up called out the lawyer (Doucette) for being a pussy (exact words lmao).

He also offered legal counsel to Jessie Pridemore in public view and without even getting paid. OOPSIE
---

Darmik posted...

his defenders who got their legal knowledge from YouTube

AvantgardeAClue posted...

They (Nick/Ty) are live right now. Give a listen. I promise you'll learn something new.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

They're a little more professional than that.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Ty straight up called out the lawyer (Doucette) for being a pussy (exact words lmao).

Man you're really just setting yourself up for disappointment here.
---

You just gonna ignore everything else responding to your line of questioning because YOUTUBE, huh?

Nick does livestreams regularly. Outside of that he's an actual Minnesota registered lawyer. KickVic and Ronica tried disbarring him several times and naturally it didn't go anywhere.

Ty's been at this for 22 years and has a 4-lawyer firm which includes a Texas senator. 150 years of experience between all of them. I don't think his credibility needs to be questioned here.

I'm getting all of my knowledge of the case from these two. I don't see why that would be an issue seeing as how one is Vic's actual lawyer and the other is closely involved with the case despite not being a part of it. Nothing on Twitter is a greater primary source of the case than these guys. I'd watch and source Casey if he showed up on YouTube too. It's not like I'm gonna see them in person or anything, does the internet really matter here?

The two of them are dealing with a coward who'd rather gain clout on Twitter than inquire about the case personally. Ty said he hates going at a fellow lawyer like that, but there's no evidence that his guy is even practicing right now.
---

What inquiry do you think he is missing?

https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1136687481624170501?s=19

Hell why don't you tweet him and correct him?

You need to remember that the defamation lawsuit is the only thing that matters.

I think this echo chamber streamer bubble you're in is going to just let you down. It's not just one lawyer mocking this. The lawyers you are following are clearly benefiting from the attention and following so why would you rely on them to be honest?

Then again maybe TurginTyrant can sue you for defamation because you didn't in fact end his career.
---

The simplest issue seems to be proving which statement here;

https://www.scribd.com/document/406767091/Plaintiff-s-Original-Petition

Is provably false, injurious and made with actual malice.
---

Haha, they're literally tearing about the document that all these lawyers think is the only thing they're bringing into the defamation suit.

Darmik posted...

Hell why don't you tweet him and correct him?

I'm restraining myself from stepping into this nonsense personally because I have connections in the VA industry I'd like to retain.

Darmik posted...

You need to remember that the defamation lawsuit is the only thing that matters.

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/texas-defamation-laws/

To win a defamation lawsuit in Texas, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant:

Made a false statement or fact about the plaintiff to a third party;
Made a statement that caused the plaintiff reputational or material harm;
Acted either negligently or purposefully.

Ty just said on the stream he's confident he can prove actual malice. One of the many false statements includes calling Vic an actual criminal, and this is where Ronica is gonna have to put their money where their mouth is in testimonies. And it's apparent that all the statements put out so far have caused Vic both reputational and material harm.

You have some random Twitter lawyers doing "drive-by lawyering" and you're gonna take their word over Nick and Ty's because they support KickVic? How many months have passed before they could even find lawyers that supported that resolve? Listen to the stream and you'll see that neither Ty or Nick are concerned with these hot takes, so neither am I.
---

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Haha, they're literally tearing about the document that all these lawyers think is the only thing they're bringing into the defamation suit.

Do they? So which claims in the defamation suit are they doing to prove with other stuff?

AvantgardeAClue posted...

One of the many false statements includes calling Vic an actual criminal, and this is where Ronica is gonna have to put their money where their mouth is in testimonies.

So if I call Trump an actual criminal he can sue me for defamation?

And it's apparent that all the statements put out so far have caused Vic both reputational and material harm.

So they're going to prove that all of the statements in the defamation suit are negligently false and made with malice?

AvantgardeAClue posted...

You have some random Twitter lawyers doing "drive-by lawyering" and you're gonna take their word over Nick and Ty's because they support KickVic?

I'm going to take their word because they have no investment in this story at all. Unlike the GoFundMe lawyers you're currently watching a stream of.
---

Darmik posted...

Do they? So which claims in the defamation suit are they doing to prove with other stuff?

The document you saw was part of the "proving malice" phase. Their actual defense is based around the stuff that the Sony rep investigated that actually got Vic kicked, since that's what Monica and Jamie are basing their stories off of.

Darmik posted...

So if I call Trump an actual criminal he can sue me for defamation?

Sure probably

Darmik posted...

So they're going to prove that all of the statements in the defamation suit are negligently false and made with malice?

Uh-huh, or specifically in this case, the ones made by Monica and Jamie. If Monica and Jamie want Vic to stay kicked they're gonna have to actually provide evidence of one or more of Vic's encounters they confessed on Twitter to negate that defamation point, at all costs. Like Ron's 100 women claim. All 100, gonna be named or fail trying.

Darmik posted...

I'm going to take their word because they have no investment in this story at all. Unlike the GoFundMe lawyers you're currently watching a stream of.

Holyfuckingshit didn't I already say that the GoFundMe is going directly to Vic's legal fees and nobody can touch it because of the IOTA?

You're also trusting lawyers who saw ONE document out of 400 and are already reaching a conclusion based on it, without inquiring with anyone despite invitations to do so. Lawyers who don't actually hold any clients at the moment and do the exact same live-streaming shit on YouTube, in Doucette's case.

"Yeah, I don't know anything about this case apart from this one single tweet, but Nick Rekieta is a grifter that should be disbarred. What do you mean there's more? I don't care. This case is hopeless and any lawyer that would advise a client to pursue legal action in this situation has the brains of an especially underdeveloped sea slug. Also, Nick Rekieta, the client's lawyer, is a grifter. SMH at all the anime nazis tweeting at me. Must have been sent to harass me by the client's lawyer, Nick Rekieta."
---

AvantgardeAClue posted...

The document you saw was part of the "proving malice" phase. Their actual defense is based around the stuff that the Sony rep investigated that actually got Vic kicked, since that's what Monica and Jamie are basing their stories off of.

Wait defense? Aren't THEY suing for defamation?

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Sure probably

Is there a case of this then? Celebrities get insulted in that way all the time.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Uh-huh, or specifically in this case, the ones made by Monica and Jamie. If Monica and Jamie want Vic to stay kicked they're gonna have to actually provide evidence of one or more of Vic's encounters they confessed on Twitter to negate that defamation point, at all costs. Like Ron's 100 women claim. All 100, gonna be named or fail trying.

According to the lawyer thread I linked to that isn't true at all. It's up to Vic to prove that it's false.

Like going by your logic their lawyers have to prove that Vic is a literal piece of shit in court in order to prove that they're not defaming him? This claim is on the first page of the document.

Is that what you're expecting?

Just some relevant tweets to your post here;

If someone said "You're a goat-fucking piece of shit" they wouldn't have defamed you, even though goat-fucking is criminal

Plaintiff goes first in a trial. He has to prove falsity first, before the Defendants present any evidence at all whatsoever

The Defendants can choose to claim truth as an affirmative defense, and then would present evidence of that

---

Darmik posted...

Wait defense? Aren't THEY suing for defamation?

They are, but as I posted, they need those three points to successfully prove defamation, and proving malice is point 3.

Darmik posted...

Is there a case of this then? Celebrities get insulted in that way all the time.

https://www.ranker.com/list/celebrities-who-sued-for-defamation/jacob-shelton

Darmik posted...

According to the lawyer thread I linked to that isn't true at all. It's up to Vic to prove that it's false.

You're misinterpreting that reading. Think about what you just said for a moment. How would that even work in an actual court case? What could Vic possibly say in court that would prove his innocence? If he was the defendant he would have to prove it, but Monica and friends would still have to prove he's lying about innocence. That's why they were content with just letting him be judged in public opinion. Clean and with no repercussions.You're leading me into saying that he has to prove his innocence so you can say that he has no case. Because you think he's guilty as shit. Nope. All he has to prove is that his accusers are full of shit.

And if he can't do that, I'll easily switch to KickVic. No fuss.

Darmik posted...

Plaintiff goes first in a trial. He has to prove falsity first, before the Defendants present any evidence at all whatsoever

The Defendants can choose to claim truth as an affirmative defense, and then would present evidence of that

Again, Nick clarified that truth (or lack thereof) isn't a recognized defense to tortious interference with a contract.

The Texas Supreme Court expressly refused to adopt the restatement of it in 2016 and it hasn't been brought up since.

Plaintiffs bringing a defamation claim in Texas must prove:

There was a published statement;
The statement was defamatory and concerning the plaintiff, &
The defendant acted with either actual malice if the plaintiff was a public official or public figure or negligence if the plaintiff was a private figure regarding the truth of the statement.

There you have it. He has no obligation to prove his innocence. Why would the plaintiff be on the defense?

You're reading too deeply into the "piece of shit" quote. That's the malice evidence. Nobody is trying to say that one quote is Vic's entire defamation case, sheesh.
---

AvantgardeAClue posted...

They are, but as I posted, they need those three points to successfully prove defamation, and proving malice is point 3.

Who needs what? As I said earlier Vic needs to prove his claim first.

If you're saying that they're basing their claims on a Funimation report that already proves that they had a basis for their claims no? Like Vic can't sue me for calling him a rapist pedophile because I can say I'm basing that opinion on articles I read. On top of that I'm posting it on GameFAQ's.

None of the gossip rag stories you linked are comparable. I'm sure they were able to prove falsity quite easily.

Think about what you just said for a moment. What could Vic possibly say in court that would prove his innocence? You're leading me into saying that he has to prove his innocent so you can say that he has no case. Nope. All he has to prove is that his accusers are full of shit.

Yes so how does he do that?

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Again, Nick clarified that truth (or lack thereof) isn't a recognized defense to tortious interference with a contract.

Which contract?

You're reading too deeply into the "piece of shit" quote. That's the malice evidence. Nobody is trying to say that one quote is Vic's entire defamation case, sheesh.

It's an example of it being nonsense. How is that proof of malice?

This tweet seems relevant

https://twitter.com/mpark6288/status/1136760018244657152
---

Yo I was reading through that link you posted and deleted and found this!
https://www.minclaw.com/texas-defamation-law-state-guide/

The court found the distinction was necessary in order to promote uninhibited debate of public issues and the First Amendment.

Public plaintiffs: Think of celebrities, politicians, and other notable figures in the community and media. These are considered public persons and public plaintiffs. Public plaintiffs are persons who have availed themselves to a higher degree of scrutiny by the general public. In the best interest of furthering free speech and open discussion, the law grants a higher degree of protection to persons discussing hot-topic issues and criticizing certain figures. In order to succeed in a defamation of character claim, public persons are required to prove a defendant acted with actual malice when publishing or communicating a false statement.

So now we follow that to;

If a public official or public figure believes that he or she has been defamed, he or she must prove with convincing evidence that the statement is false. The public official also must prove that the defamer showed reckless disregard for that falsity, either because the defamer knew the statement was false or should have known. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979).

It is important to note that while Court decisions regarding this rule have primarily addressed issues related to freedom of the press, the rule applies to any statement, whether made in a newspaper or to an acquaintance on the street. Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 133 n. 16, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2687, 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979).

This is what the lawyers are questioning they have.
---

Darmik posted...

Who needs what? As I said earlier Vic needs to prove his claim first.

No. He. Really. Doesn't.

He's suing for defamation (which doesn't require proof of innocence), tortuous interference (which truth isn't a valid defense) and that their influence within Funimation meant that they're liable for Monica and Jamie's actions, which is why Funimation is involved now.

Darmik posted...

It's an example of it being nonsense. How is that proof of malice?

This tweet seems relevant

It's not, he's just full of it.

Their statements aren't protected under opinion.

https://www.minclaw.com/texas-defamation-law-state-guide/

What is Defamation Per Se? What Type of Statements Does Texas Consider Per Se?

Texas defines defamation per se as words that are so obviously harmful to the person aggrieved, that no proof of their injurious effect is necessary to make them actionable. Alaniz v. Hoyt, 105 S.W.3d 330, 345 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2003).

Texas considers four types of statements so injurious, that the defamation plaintiff need not actually prove they suffered harm, such statements include:

Statements imputing the plaintiff committed a crime;
Statements imputing the plaintiff possesses a loathsome disease;
Statements imputing injury to the plaintiffs office, business, profession, or calling; &
Statements imputing the plaintiff has engaged in sexual misconduct. Downing v. Burns, 348 S.W.3d 415, 424 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 2011).

Two of the four statements apply to Vic and therefore it's more than an opinion, especially since discovery apparently have found proof of an civil conspiracy (legal definition, not a tinhat phrase) where they tried to get Vic removed under the rug, without an investigation. So they can't fall back on pretending to believe the evidence and therefore just expressing an opinion. They knew what they were doing when they made this public on Twitter.
---

AvantgardeAClue posted...

No. He. Really. Doesn't.

Public plaintiffs: Think of celebrities, politicians, and other notable figures in the community and media. These are considered public persons and public plaintiffs. Public plaintiffs are persons who have availed themselves to a higher degree of scrutiny by the general public. In the best interest of furthering free speech and open discussion, the law grants a higher degree of protection to persons discussing hot-topic issues and criticizing certain figures. In order to succeed in a defamation of character claim, public persons are required to prove a defendant acted with actual malice when publishing or communicating a false statement.

That's from the link you gave me

Texas considers four types of statements so injurious, that the defamation plaintiff need not actually prove they suffered harm, such statements include:

For private or public?
---

https://www.scribd.com/document/406767091/Plaintiff-s-Original-Petition

Check the Interrogatories. Those are all the things that Monica and Jamie are gonna have to produce in discovery, or at the very least the actual trial, to prove that Vic is the monster they claim he is on Twitter.

Like this one: Identify all persons who witnessed Plaintiffs assault which you alleged in the tweet you posted to @marchimark on February 8, 2019 for Jamie.

Or my favorite for Ron Toye: Identify each instance comprising the assaults the public isnt aware of as you alleged in the tweet you posted to @RonToye (replying to @nightblur, @marchimark, et al) on February 23, 2019.

So no, Monica and Jamie aren't gonna have to sit there any deny everything to get away with it. The court is gonna force them to produce this stuff or they lose their credibility.
---

Wariodorf posted...

AvantgardeAClue posted...

I'm restraining myself from stepping into this nonsense personally because I have connections in the VA industry I'd like to retain.

You have connections in the VA industry? Lucky. Voice work is something I've always wanted to do.

Two of my actual voiceover senseis are thankfully far away from this mess. I love them even more for that.
---

INTERROGATORY NO. 6.

Identify each instance of the [o]ver 100 accounts of assault you alleged Plaintiff committed in the tweet you posted to @RonToye on February 4, 2019 (Figure 3 in Plaintiffs Original Petition).

INTERROGATORY NO. 7.

Identify each of the 100+ ladies you asserted had come forward or were coming forward in the tweet you posted to @RonToye (replying to @tylerripley2 and @Rialisms) on February 6, 2019

AHAHAHA I almost forgot how stupid some of these were

No wonder they're trying to delay deposition as much as possible

If they can't provide this to the court then their defense is shot

You make big claims, gotta give big evidence.
---

AvantgardeAClue posted...

So no, Monica and Jamie aren't gonna have to sit there any deny everything to get away with it. The court is gonna force them to produce this stuff or they lose their credibility.

Why do they need to do that under this;

Public plaintiffs: Think of celebrities, politicians, and other notable figures in the community and media. These are considered public persons and public plaintiffs. Public plaintiffs are persons who have availed themselves to a higher degree of scrutiny by the general public. In the best interest of furthering free speech and open discussion, the law grants a higher degree of protection to persons discussing hot-topic issues and criticizing certain figures. In order to succeed in a defamation of character claim, public persons are required to prove a defendant acted with actual malice when publishing or communicating a false statement.

And this;

When speaking on public issues, speakers need not prove the substantial truth of opinions about their opponents views and qualifications. Einhorn v. LaChance, 823 S.W.2d 405, 411 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1992).

In order to determine whether a statement is false or fact, Texas uses the substantial truth test. Such test considers:
The totality of the statements or publications made, &
Whether as a whole, the statements or publications were more damaging to the plaintiffs reputation than truthful statements would have been. Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52, 63 (Tex. 2013).

The substantial truth doctrine looks to the overall gist or sting of the statement, even if it errs in minor details. As long as the material matter of the statement is true, then a defendant(s) will be able to validly rely on the defense of truth. Turner v. KTRK TV, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103, 115 (Tex. 2000).

Additionally, so long as material facts are not omitted and true facts are not presented in a misleading way, a defendant will not be held liable for the defamatory inferences other people make.

and this;

According to many courts, a public official is a government employee who has, or appears to the public to have, a significant role in the business of government and public affairs. Such people are considered to be held in a position that would draw or even demand public scrutiny. They also are considered to have significant ability to defend themselves regarding such public scrutiny and therefore cannot claim defamation unless the statement is not only proven to be false, but the defamer is proven to have shown reckless disregard for that falsity. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.

This rule also applies to public figures. Not all courts have not specifically defined public figure, but they do identify candidates for public office and people who have achieved pervasive fame or notoriety as fitting this description. Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967). A public figure could also be someone who voluntarily enters the public eye because of a particular public issue or controversy.

Courts have upheld this rule based on the U.S. belief that the public should be able to freely discuss national issues without fear of repercussions. If a public official or public figure believes that he or she has been defamed, he or she must prove with convincing evidence that the statement is false. The public official also must prove that the defamer showed reckless disregard for that falsity, either because the defamer knew the statement was false or should have known. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979).

---

Your answer is right in that passage (second passage makes no sense because Vic isn't a public official):

The substantial truth doctrine looks to the overall gist or sting of the statement, even if it errs in minor details. As long as the material matter of the statement is true, then a defendant(s) will be able to validly rely on the defense of truth. Turner v. KTRK TV, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103, 115 (Tex. 2000).

Additionally, so long as material facts are not omitted and true facts are not presented in a misleading way, a defendant will not be held liable for the defamatory inferences other people make.

Ronica and Jamie right now are lying their asses off, and by some miracle they're not, the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure says they have to answer those interrogatories under oath. They can't answer the interrogatories in a way that doesn't contradict themselves, their allegations have no weight. They lie their ass off about an interrogatory, that's perjury. And a big yikes.

You're so sure that what they're saying is true. And it could be. But if it is, they have to answer the questions under oath and provide actual details.

And one more time for the peeps in the cheap seats: Nick clarified that truth (or lack thereof) isn't a recognized defense to tortious interference with contract in Texas. It hasn't been one since 2016. The contracts in this case are the roles he had with Funimation as well as the con appearances he had booked.
---

Wariodorf posted...

What's it like working in the industry and with them? I really don't mean to derail the thread or your convo w/ Darmik,

No please, derail. Derail with a jumbo jet at full blast.
---

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Your answer is right in that passage (second passage makes no sense because Vic isn't a public official):

He's a public plaintiff so these rules apply to him.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Ronica and Jamie right now are lying their asses off, and by some miracle they're not, the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure says they have to answer those interrogatories under oath. They can't answer the interrogatories in a way that doesn't contradict themselves, their allegations have no weight. They lie their ass off about an interrogatory, that's a big yikes.

They only have to answer that if Vic and his lawyers can prove that they made those claims maliciously and recklessly. How are they doing that? How can they prove she wasn't contacted by 100 people over Twitter? How can they prove she wasn't speaking with hyperbole on social media?

The burden on proof is on them as he is a public figure.
---

Wariodorf posted...

What's it like working in the industry and with them? I really don't mean to derail the thread or your convo w/ Darmik, it's just that a career in voice work is a dream and I'm curious to what it's like.

Ironically they had us practicing dubbing lines for a show that I don't know if I'm allowed to say, all I know is that I was going "They still make new episodes of this?" Ironically, the character I was redubbing was originally dubbed by Vic.

I don't really know Vic for his roles outside of Persona as Junpei, though, and in that game he's not even the main character. I just know that he's a big name in the VA industry for a lot of other roles.
---

Darmik posted...

He's a public plaintiff so these rules apply to him.

No they fucking don't. But since this is your new angle now:

They also are considered to have significant ability to defend themselves regarding such public scrutiny and therefore cannot claim defamation unless the statement is not only proven to be false, but the defamer is proven to have shown reckless disregard for that falsity.

Ronica and Jamie have been shitposting about their experiences on Twitter to hundreds of thousands of potential followers without the concern that it could impact his career, there's the "reckless disregard". They're gonna prove it false by requesting interrogatories for all 3 of them on each of their numerous claims, which they have to answer under oath.

Courts have upheld this rule based on the U.S. belief that the public should be able to freely discuss national issues without fear of repercussions. If a public official or public figure believes that he or she has been defamed, he or she must prove with convincing evidence that the statement is false. The public official also must prove that the defamer showed reckless disregard for that falsity, either because the defamer knew the statement was false or should have known.

See that celebrity article on defamation I posted? Notice how almost all of them won as the plaintiff? That's because either the publication responsible for the defamation realized they fucked up, or the judge ruled it in their favor. The judge or jury is gonna see Ronica and Jamie shitposting on Twitter about claims they can't back up, and revealing details that their lawyer advised them not to say publicly, and they're gonna realize this was one big smear campaign.

If you argument boils down to "well they don't have to actually prove what they said" no no wonder Ty is so confident, because he plans on doing just that in the interrogatories.
---

Wariodorf posted...

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Wariodorf posted...

What's it like working in the industry and with them? I really don't mean to derail the thread or your convo w/ Darmik, it's just that a career in voice work is a dream and I'm curious to what it's like.

Ironically they had us practicing dubbing lines for a show that I don't know if I'm allowed to say, all I know is that I was going "They still make new episodes of this?" Ironically, the character I was redubbing was originally dubbed by Vic.

I don't really know Vic for his roles outside of Persona as Junpei, though, and in that game he's not even the main character. I just know that he's a big name in the VA industry for a lot of other roles.

That's actually really cool that you're now on the show. I hope the career works out for you!

Aw, thanks. That show actually already aired with Vic's lines but it was really good practice.

I do a lot of casting calls for online projects, but once I get some money together I hope to make a professional demo reel.
---

Why isn't he considered a public plaintiff? What makes you say that?

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Ronica and Jamie have been shitposting about their experiences on Twitter, there's the "reckless disregard". They're gonna prove it false by requesting interrogatories for all 3 of them on each of their numerous claims, which they have to answer under oath.

They don't get to "gonna prove it false"
They need to "prove it false" right now otherwise it's going to get thrown out. That's what the lawyers are saying.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

See that celebrity article on defamation I posted? Notice how almost all of them won as the plaintiff? That's because either the publication responsible for the defamation realized they fucked up, or the judge ruled it in their favor.

Yes publications that posted bullshit that was disproven by the celebrities. They didn't have to interrogate a journalist in court to prove it.

So again where's the specific claims in their suit they have proof for right now?

If you argument boils down to "well they don't have to actually prove what they said" no no wonder Ty is so confident, because he plans on doing just that in the interrogatories.

It's not my argument. It appears to be Texan law. It's said right there in the links you posted and the stuff I quoted. It's said by several different lawyers.

You are just saying "they've got it under control" and that's about it.
---

If you're doubting anything about this Darmik, you are welcome to DM Nick questions on twitter. Nick wouldn't lie about anything he's covering. His license can be revoked at any time if he makes any lies without retracting any statements. I know I'm not contributing much to this but I would find it crazy that he'd be willing to risk losing his job. I mean I know KickVic is crazy so there's already proof people are capable of getting to that level but there's just no way given how Nick has been right about everything that's been revealed so far. Kickvic didn't believe Nick when he said there was tortuous interference. Guess what? He was correct like always, all the time.

Darmik posted...

It's not my argument. It appears to be Texan law. It's said right there in the links you posted and the stuff I quoted. It's said by several different lawyers.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/texas-defamation-laws/

Both public figure defamation plaintiffs and public official defamation plaintiffs must prove that their respective defendants acted with actual malice,meaning the defendant knew the statement was false, but publicized it anyway.

Actual malice is the standard of proof, which public figures must satisfy, to win defamation lawsuits. It means that the defendant knowingly printed, spoke or otherwise communicated a false statement of fact about the plaintiff. Reckless disregard for the truth satisfies the actual malice test in some states.

The proof Vic has to show is that Ronica and Jamie are lying their ass off, which will happen in the trial when they testify about the interrogatories on the Tweets they made. There's no evidence shown in the initial claim because they haven't even done a deposition yet or finished discovery. Stop believing that Vic already has to have some sort of "I didn't do it" smoking gun going into this lawsuit. It'll be produced soon enough.

Darmik posted...

It's said by several different lawyers.

Several different lawyers whose entire knowledge of the case is one document calling someone a piece of shit and a bunch of KickVics telling them that Nick and Ty aren't real lawyers and that Nick is Vic's lawyer. Give. That. Up.
---

AvantgardeAClue posted...

The proof Vic has to show is that Ronica and Jamie are lying their ass off, which will happen in the trial

If they don't have proof now why will it even go to trial?

It's not guaranteed it'll get that far. All of those lawyers are saying it won't. You're saying that's because these lawyers don't have the full context. But why would the judge be any different?

Even if it did go that far what's stopping them from saying they didn't keep a record of who told them? That it was hyperbolic? That Twitter isn't a place to make a literal declaration? How are Vic's lawyers going to prove that the tweets were maliciously posted and completely false without evidence of their own?

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Stop believing that Vic already has to have some sort of "I didn't do it" smoking gun going into this lawsuit. It'll be produced soon enough.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Vic isn't the defendant here.

He needs to prove everything I've quoted. He needs to prove that Twitter posts are purposefully malicious and false and again, according to several lawyers that is not going to happen with that suit they have produced.

Think of the comedian who roasted Bill Cosby. Would you claim that Cosby could have sued him for defamation and that the comedian would need to provide Cosby and his lawyers every person who made an accusation to him otherwise it's defamation? That seems to be what you're arguing.
---

Conflict posted...

Can someone tl;dr this topic

Famous voice actor got Me Too'd and he's fighting back with a lawsuit against his main accusers since it was primarily founded on anecdotal evidence

In the meantime he's been invited to new conventions and meet ups to immense success in terms of turnout. The side dedicated to ruining him has been plagued with in-fighting and turning on each other once they realized they might be a part of this lawsuit.
---

mareepgod posted...

If you're doubting anything about this Darmik, you are welcome to DM Nick questions on twitter. Nick wouldn't lie about anything he's covering. His license can be revoked at any time if he makes any lies without retracting any statements. I know I'm not contributing much to this but I would find it crazy that he'd be willing to risk losing his job. I mean I know KickVic is crazy so there's already proof people are capable of getting to that level but there's just no way given how Nick has been right about everything that's been revealed so far. Kickvic didn't believe Nick when he said there was tortuous interference. Guess what? He was correct like always, all the time.

Why would his licensed get revoked? Where did I claim he's lying?

He's working for his client and nothing more. The case being dismissed doesn't mean his licensed is revoked.

Where is the proof that there was torturous interference? Has that been decided anywhere?
---

AvantgardeAClue posted...

I already DM'd Rackets about this. I'll post what he says if he replies.

Did you ask him about why Vic doesn't have the burden of proof first(aside from the I didn't do it, then shifts to defendant)? I was debating with a gamefaqs lawyer earlier and he kept saying Vic has to prove what they said is false. He was using the logic of " If someone sues me but can't prove whatever they are saying about me, why should I bother trying to prove what they said is wrong when they already failed to find the evidence".

Basically what he said is since Vic is suing moronica, it's on him to prove the defamatory statements are wrong because he's the one that engaged the lawsuit. I know there's something seriously wrong about this but I just can't find the reasoning why he's wrong.

Here: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/2000121-anime-and-manga-other-titles/77754355?page=21

Page 22-25 was the debate. I know he's obviously a troll but it's hard to debate when I'm clueless with the law.

He's working for his client and nothing more. The case being dismissed doesn't mean his licensed is revoked.

Nick. Is. Not. Vic's. Lawyer.

Darmik posted...

If they don't have proof now why will it even go to trial?

Because they just have to prove that Monica and Jamie are lying. They will do that in the actual trial. This isn't a criminal case where the defendant is automatically innocent if you can't prove them guilty.

Darmik posted...

It's not guaranteed it'll get that far. All of those lawyers are saying it won't. You're saying that's because these lawyers don't have the full context. But why would the judge be any different?

Because there have already been multiple hearings in front of a judge on this and a deposition for both parties is set for later on this month. It's happening.

Darmik posted...

Even if it did go that far what's stopping them from saying they didn't keep a record of who told them? That it was hyperbolic? That Twitter isn't a place to make a literal declaration? How are Vic's lawyers going to prove that the tweets were maliciously posted and completely false without evidence of their own?

Tortuous interference is another thing he's suing them for. "With negligent disregard for their truthfulness" fulfills the "actual malice" requirement in Texas as well. Doesn't matter if they were wrong. What matter was the intensity of how wrong they were. To the point where it costed him jobs and appearances.

Darmik posted...

He needs to prove everything I've quoted. He needs to prove that Twitter posts are purposefully malicious and false and again, according to several lawyers that is not going to happen with that suit they have produced.

And he will. When they have Ronica and Jamie testify as to all their Twitter stories, including the ones that they said were their own personal experiences with him. They're gonna have to provide names, dates, and times to the best of their ability, or risk committing perjury. And the scary part is some of us aren't even sure if they would go that far.

Darmik posted...

He needs to prove everything I've quoted. He needs to prove that Twitter posts are purposefully malicious and false and again, according to several lawyers that is not going to happen with that suit they have produced.

Those fucking lawyers saw a document saying that "Vic can't be a piece of shit because he literally isn't a piece of shit". Anyone would roll their eyes at that without context. The context here being that he isn't a POS because Ronica and Jamie are presumably falsifying their allegations.

Darmik posted...

Think of the comedian who roasted Bill Cosby. Would you claim that Cosby could have sued him for defamation and that the comedian would need to provide Cosby and his lawyers every person who made an accusation to him otherwise it's defamation? That seems to be what you're arguing.

The Supreme Court ruled that in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell "freedom of speech requires some 'breathing space' for the press to ensure that no chilling effects block important speech about public figures...Furthermore, as Rehnquist explicated in the Hustler opinion, a showing of 'actual malice' must be present to allow any recovery for libel of public figures."

A comedian would fall under first amendment rights because his joke was a joke and didn't actually intend to harm Cosby's reputation. No, he kinda did that all on his own, huh?
---

Darmik posted...

Why would his licensed get revoked? Where did I claim he's lying?

He's working for his client and nothing more. The case being dismissed doesn't mean his licensed is revoked.

Lying can have consequences for lawyers. Never said you were lying, you are just over-analyzing things that Nick is confident about.
Darmik posted...

Where is the proof that there was torturous interference? Has that been decided anywhere?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GokH6T8EkGg" data-time="&start=2203

Ron himself even admits these texts are real too.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Because they just have to prove that Monica and Jamie are lying. They will do that in the actual trial. This isn't a criminal case where the defendant is automatically innocent if you can't prove them guilty.

They can't go to trial because "they just have to prove it there"

Do you understand the flaw here? Why would a Judge go to trial if they have no proof to offer?

AvantgardeAClue posted...

When they have Ronica and Jamie testify as to all their Twitter stories, including the ones that they said were their own personal experiences with him. They're gonna have to provide names, dates, and times to the best of their ability, or risk committing perjury. And the scary part is some of us aren't even sure if they would go that far.

Says who?

I don't know how many times I can repeat this.

The burden of proof isn't on them. It's on Vic.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Those fucking lawyers saw a document saying that "Vic can't be a piece of s*** because he literally isn't a piece of s***". Anyone would roll their eyes at that without context. The context here being that he isn't a POS because Ronica and Jamie are presumably falsifying their allegations.

The context is in there for all to see. Which is why it is mocked. Which is why these lawyers are saying it'll be thrown out.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

The Supreme Court ruled that in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell "freedom of speech requires some 'breathing space' for the press to ensure that no chilling effects block important speech about public figures...Furthermore, as Rehnquist explicated in the Hustler opinion, a showing of 'actual malice' must be present to allow any recovery for libel of public figures."

This isn't the press.

The actual malice being proven is the issue. That needs to be proven now. Tweets calling him a POS isn't proof.

A comedian would fall under first amendment rights because his joke was a joke and didn't actually intend to harm Cosby's reputation. No, he kinda did that all on his own, huh?

So where would Twitter fall under? How do they prove that they intended to harm his reputation by lying?

If it involves getting the defense to prove it for them that sounds like it's not going to work.

We all know where this is going to go. It'll get dismissed and you'll continue to cry about such an injustice and continue to follow your streaming lawyers until you're finally over it.
---

Darmik posted...

They can't go to trial because "they just have to prove it there"

Do you understand the flaw here? Why would a Judge go to trial if they have no proof to offer?

You've been watching too much Law and Order. The judge in this defamation suit doesn't have to decide if a case is "worth it", he sets up the timelines for discovery (which is currently ongoing) and the deposition (which is happening later this month) and they go forward with a jury trial from there.

Darmik posted...

The context is in there for all to see. Which is why it is mocked. Which is why these lawyers are saying it'll be thrown out.

They saw ONE PAGE and thought that was the big lawsuit claim. And seeing as how you already made your decision on his innocence based on ONE PICTURE I can see why you would want them to have the moral high ground here. They don't. Nick and Ty were mocking them to the point of inviting one of them onto their show tonight. He instead decided to just bitch some more on Twitter.

Darmik posted...

So where would Twitter fall under? How do they prove that they intended to harm his reputation by lying?

Calling him various sexual creep terms, calling him a criminal, calling him a sick man who needs help and not roles, stuff like that.

Darmik posted...

It'll get dismissed and you'll continue to cry about such an injustice and continue to follow your streaming lawyers until you're finally over it.

Oh, you'd like that wouldn't you?

I'm already not expecting any sort of concession from you if he wins. You'd just post the hugging photos and go on about how "oh if he wasn't doing inappropriate behavior he wouldn't have gotten fired in the first place". That's okay, though. I already said I'd switch sides if some damning evidence comes out in the trial so no, I'm not loyal to Vic. I'm loyal to the facts and evidence surrounding this case.
---

What happened to Avant vs TurgidTyrant?

Nobody wants to see Darmik from Lolstrailia argue. Guy is too far up his ass and takes shit way too seriously.
---

Is it true that all courtrooms in Australia have kangaroo bailiffs

Get it

because it's a kangaroo court
---

mareepgod posted...

Here: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/2000121-anime-and-manga-other-titles/77754355?page=21

Page 22-25 was the debate. I know he's obviously a troll but it's hard to debate when I'm clueless with the law.

The funny thing is so is he since he's not a lawyer but just pretends to be one on Gamefaqs.
---

*mic drop*
---

AvantgardeAClue posted...

*mic drop*

Thanks for this. Also, does he ever sleep?

I would have a damned FIELD DAY if all my clients had to do is take the stand and say "that's not true"

https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1136871846358519808
---