Current Events > KickVic failing. Long lines to meet Vic

Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Zikten 06/08/19 10:32:14 PM #305:	Regardless, Winn Lee was an idiot cause she thinks every single woman on Earth eventually gets raped. And that is just stupid as shit <cite>Zikten posted [p:922987039] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote>Regardless, Winn Lee was an idiot cause she thinks every single woman on Earth eventually gets raped. And that is just stupid as shit</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LightHawKnight 06/08/19 10:33:00 PM #306:	Shadow20201 posted... TurgidTyrant posted... I get my information from places like ResetERA TurgidTyrant posted... because really that's mostly you showing that you've locked yourself up in an echo chamber. Well that explains a lot. Its funny how he complains about an echo chamber when he goes to reeeesetera. The site that literally bans you for having another opinion. --- The Official Odin of the Shin Megami Tensei IV board. "You know how confusing the whole good-evil concept is for me." <cite>LightHawKnight posted [p:922987062] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow20201 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>I get my information from places like ResetERA </quote> <cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>because really that's mostly you showing that you've locked yourself up in an echo chamber.</quote> Well that explains a lot.</quote> Its funny how he complains about an echo chamber when he goes to reeeesetera. The site that literally bans you for having another opinion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LightningAce11 06/08/19 10:33:49 PM #307:	TurgidTyrant posted... LightningAce11 posted... I think Australia does it better, as the accuser would need a lot of evidence before going against the accused, so in this case Rial, Toye and the others would need to prove that they weren't being malicious. Except Rial, Toye, and others aren't the ones filing the defamation lawsuit. Vic is. Rial, Toye and others came out with public accusations against Vic, along with several other people who did so before and after them. Vic in response filed a defamation suit against Rial, Toye and others. This is why lawyers commenting on the petition and other aspects have stated that the burden of proving falsity rests with Vic - because he is the plaintiff, and the burden of proving falsity rests with him. I know that, I'm just saying once he filed the suit, here in Australia they would have to prove that they weren't being malicious and what they were saying was true. It wouldn't be on Vic to prove his innocence, he would already be seen as such until proven guilty. --- "I'm an atheist too but still believe in hell. That's where you're headed pal." - Mr_Karate_II <cite>LightningAce11 posted [p:922987093] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LightningAce11 posted...</cite> <quote>I think Australia does it better, as the accuser would need a lot of evidence before going against the accused, so in this case Rial, Toye and the others would need to prove that they weren't being malicious.</quote> Except Rial, Toye, and others aren't the ones filing the defamation lawsuit. Vic is. Rial, Toye and others came out with public accusations against Vic, along with several other people who did so before and after them. Vic in response filed a defamation suit against Rial, Toye and others. This is why lawyers commenting on the petition and other aspects have stated that the burden of proving falsity rests with Vic - because he is the plaintiff, and the burden of proving falsity rests with him.</quote> I know that, I'm just saying once he filed the suit, here in Australia they would have to prove that they weren't being malicious and what they were saying was true. It wouldn't be on Vic to prove his innocence, he would already be seen as such until proven guilty.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/08/19 10:41:10 PM #308:	Shadow20201 posted... TurgidTyrant posted... I get my information from places like ResetERA TurgidTyrant posted... because really that's mostly you showing that you've locked yourself up in an echo chamber. Well that explains a lot. I keep this forum in my own back pocket specifically for the purpose of finding alternative viewpoints, and testing myself against them. I can't say many people here have tested me all that thoroughly. A shame, really. LightningAce11 posted... I know that, I'm just saying once he filed the suit, here in Australia they would have to prove that they weren't being malicious and what they were saying was true. It wouldn't be on Vic to prove his innocence, he would already be seen as such until proven guilty. So in Australia they essentially make the defendants put forward truth as an affirmative defense, then. Do they have any criteria for public figures filing suit? Because in the US, public figures also have to prove that the statements were made with "actual malice" - that the defendants either knew the statements were false or were made with a reckless disregard for the statements' truth or falsity. It's not the same definition as the "malice" most laymen would be familiar with. <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:922987368] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow20201 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>I get my information from places like ResetERA </quote> <cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>because really that's mostly you showing that you've locked yourself up in an echo chamber.</quote> Well that explains a lot.</quote> I keep this forum in my own back pocket specifically for the purpose of finding alternative viewpoints, and testing myself against them. I can't say many people here have tested me all that thoroughly. A shame, really. <cite>LightningAce11 posted...</cite> <quote>I know that, I'm just saying once he filed the suit, here in Australia they would have to prove that they weren't being malicious and what they were saying was true. It wouldn't be on Vic to prove his innocence, he would already be seen as such until proven guilty.</quote> So in Australia they essentially make the defendants put forward truth as an affirmative defense, then. Do they have any criteria for public figures filing suit? Because in the US, public figures also have to prove that the statements were made with "actual malice" - that the defendants either knew the statements were false or were made with a reckless disregard for the statements' truth or falsity. It's not the same definition as the "malice" most laymen would be familiar with.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LightningAce11 06/08/19 10:45:41 PM #309:	There are people wanting the law to be changed, since it does let people open up frivolous lawsuits against media. Sydney is called the defamation capital of the world for a reason. It's an interesting law to study here. There needs to be a better balance, but for individuals, it works better than for corporations. https://www.slatergordon.com.au/commercial-litigation/defamation To claim compensation for reputational damage, you must be able to prove three things: That the defamatory material was published, and that the statements in the publication are not substantiated by facts That you or your business were clearly identified in it That it caused or is continuing to cause harm to your reputation. and Some common defences against defamation include: That the publication was an honest opinion, rather than statement of fact That the publication was of public concern or substantially true That the publication was obligatory for a legal, social or moral reason That the aggrieved party is unlikely to sustain any harm to their reputation That the defendant did not know or ought not to have known that the published material was defamatory (e.g., a bookseller may not have known the contents of a publication placed on display) That the publication was made in a privileged context such as a parliamentary debate, in court or in a tribunal judgment. --- "I'm an atheist too but still believe in hell. That's where you're headed pal." - Mr_Karate_II <cite>LightningAce11 posted [p:922987550] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote>There are people wanting the law to be changed, since it does let people open up frivolous lawsuits against media. Sydney is called the defamation capital of the world for a reason. It's an interesting law to study here. There needs to be a better balance, but for individuals, it works better than for corporations. https://www.slatergordon.com.au/commercial-litigation/defamation <quote>To claim compensation for reputational damage, you must be able to prove three things: That the defamatory material was published, and that the statements in the publication are not substantiated by facts That you or your business were clearly identified in it That it caused or is continuing to cause harm to your reputation.</quote> and <quote>Some common defences against defamation include: That the publication was an honest opinion, rather than statement of fact That the publication was of public concern or substantially true That the publication was obligatory for a legal, social or moral reason That the aggrieved party is unlikely to sustain any harm to their reputation That the defendant did not know or ought not to have known that the published material was defamatory (e.g., a bookseller may not have known the contents of a publication placed on display) That the publication was made in a privileged context such as a parliamentary debate, in court or in a tribunal judgment.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Shadow20201 06/08/19 10:45:41 PM #310:	TurgidTyrant posted... I keep this forum in my own back pocket specifically for the purpose of finding alternative viewpoints, and testing myself against them. Some viewpoints are more entrenched than others but I can appreciate the value of testing one's beliefs and ideas against other viewpoints. --- czzzzzzzzzz[]:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/ 'Sir we are surrounded!' 'Excellent, then we can attack in any direction.' <cite>Shadow20201 posted [p:922987551] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>I keep this forum in my own back pocket specifically for the purpose of finding alternative viewpoints, and testing myself against them.</quote> Some viewpoints are more entrenched than others but I can appreciate the value of testing one's beliefs and ideas against other viewpoints.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PrincessCadance 06/08/19 10:47:31 PM #311:	I would like to get an autograph too. --- Donkey Kong Country 2 ~ Clouds Away > https://youtu.be/hMZVa6JFQj8 http://error1355.com/ce/PrincessCadance.html <cite>PrincessCadance posted [p:922987617] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote>I would like to get an autograph too.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AvantgardeAClue 06/09/19 2:30:26 AM #312:	LightningAce11 posted... TurgidTyrant posted... LightningAce11 posted... I think Australia does it better, as the accuser would need a lot of evidence before going against the accused, so in this case Rial, Toye and the others would need to prove that they weren't being malicious. Except Rial, Toye, and others aren't the ones filing the defamation lawsuit. Vic is. Rial, Toye and others came out with public accusations against Vic, along with several other people who did so before and after them. Vic in response filed a defamation suit against Rial, Toye and others. This is why lawyers commenting on the petition and other aspects have stated that the burden of proving falsity rests with Vic - because he is the plaintiff, and the burden of proving falsity rests with him. I know that, I'm just saying once he filed the suit, here in Australia they would have to prove that they weren't being malicious and what they were saying was true. It wouldn't be on Vic to prove his innocence, he would already be seen as such until proven guilty. What Tungid thinks is gonna happen in the trial is that Vic is gonna go in there and be expected to say how much of a nice person he is and therefore he can't be guilty of the accusations. Then they're gonna pull up the one part of a 400-part document that all the drive-by lawyers think is their entire defamation argument, saying that "Vic isn't a POS because he's not a literal POS". No wonder some of KickVic think there's no case for this. No, Ty Beard says he's confident he can prove actual malice, as well as prove it individually, which is required in Vic's case. Ronica and Jamie can't hide behind "Well it was an opinion" because that defense isn't as bulletproof as they're making it out to be. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. The court will see everyone's shitposting and realize that maybe they weren't just thinking out loud; they were actively trying to defame Vic in the process. Neither can their opinions be protected. If a statement implies some false underlying facts, it could be defamatory. At that point, Monica and Jamie are gonna have to explain their statements and back them up concretely. They're not gonna sit on their thumbs the entire trial and just go "nuh-uh" to everything Vic said, especially when Monica already said she wanted this case to be as open as possible for whatever reason. --- Sometimes I say things and I'm not voice acting. <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted [p:922995479] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>LightningAce11 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LightningAce11 posted...</cite> <quote>I think Australia does it better, as the accuser would need a lot of evidence before going against the accused, so in this case Rial, Toye and the others would need to prove that they weren't being malicious.</quote> Except Rial, Toye, and others aren't the ones filing the defamation lawsuit. Vic is. Rial, Toye and others came out with public accusations against Vic, along with several other people who did so before and after them. Vic in response filed a defamation suit against Rial, Toye and others. This is why lawyers commenting on the petition and other aspects have stated that the burden of proving falsity rests with Vic - because he is the plaintiff, and the burden of proving falsity rests with him.</quote> I know that, I'm just saying once he filed the suit, here in Australia they would have to prove that they weren't being malicious and what they were saying was true. It wouldn't be on Vic to prove his innocence, he would already be seen as such until proven guilty.</quote> What Tungid thinks is gonna happen in the trial is that Vic is gonna go in there and be expected to say how much of a nice person he is and therefore he can't be guilty of the accusations. Then they're gonna pull up the one part of a 400-part document that all the drive-by lawyers think is their entire defamation argument, saying that "Vic isn't a POS because he's not a literal POS". No wonder some of KickVic think there's no case for this. No, Ty Beard says he's confident he can prove actual malice, as well as prove it individually, which is required in Vic's case. Ronica and Jamie can't hide behind "Well it was an opinion" because that defense isn't as bulletproof as they're making it out to be. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. The court will see everyone's shitposting and realize that maybe they weren't just thinking out loud; they were actively trying to defame Vic in the process. Neither can their opinions be protected. If a statement implies some false underlying facts, it could be defamatory. At that point, Monica and Jamie are gonna have to explain their statements and back them up concretely. They're not gonna sit on their thumbs the entire trial and just go "nuh-uh" to everything Vic said, especially when Monica already said she wanted this case to be as open as possible for whatever reason.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dave_is_slick 06/09/19 2:53:38 AM #313:	TurgidTyrant posted... I get my information from places like ResetERA That is not something to be proud of... --- The most relaxing version of Aquatic Ambiance I've ever heard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl61y1XM7sM <cite>dave_is_slick posted [p:922995923] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>I get my information from places like ResetERA</quote> That is not something to be proud of...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/09/19 3:01:16 AM #314:	LightningAce11 posted... There are people wanting the law to be changed, since it does let people open up frivolous lawsuits against media. Sydney is called the defamation capital of the world for a reason. It's an interesting law to study here. There needs to be a better balance, but for individuals, it works better than for corporations. https://www.slatergordon.com.au/commercial-litigation/defamation To claim compensation for reputational damage, you must be able to prove three things: That the defamatory material was published, and that the statements in the publication are not substantiated by facts That you or your business were clearly identified in it That it caused or is continuing to cause harm to your reputation. and Some common defences against defamation include: That the publication was an honest opinion, rather than statement of fact That the publication was of public concern or substantially true That the publication was obligatory for a legal, social or moral reason That the aggrieved party is unlikely to sustain any harm to their reputation That the defendant did not know or ought not to have known that the published material was defamatory (e.g., a bookseller may not have known the contents of a publication placed on display) That the publication was made in a privileged context such as a parliamentary debate, in court or in a tribunal judgment. So this seems to be similar to US law, at least on the basics. Particularly the bolded, which would match an affirmative defense of truth. Italics would match with the "actual malice" concept in US defamation caselaw. I'd be all for something like a federal anti-SLAPP law that would allow defendants to recover legal costs from plaintiffs for successful motions. That would certainly cut down on frivolous suits. Shadow20201 posted... TurgidTyrant posted... I keep this forum in my own back pocket specifically for the purpose of finding alternative viewpoints, and testing myself against them. Some viewpoints are more entrenched than others but I can appreciate the value of testing one's beliefs and ideas against other viewpoints. It's very much about exposing myself to other arguments. If I can test my beliefs and ideas against others' arguments, it makes me more confident in their validity. I can't say I've been wholly impressed with what I've been up against thus far, but it is worthwhile from time to time. <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:922996044] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>LightningAce11 posted...</cite> <quote>There are people wanting the law to be changed, since it does let people open up frivolous lawsuits against media. Sydney is called the defamation capital of the world for a reason. It's an interesting law to study here. There needs to be a better balance, but for individuals, it works better than for corporations. https://www.slatergordon.com.au/commercial-litigation/defamation <quote>To claim compensation for reputational damage, you must be able to prove three things: That the defamatory material was published, and that the statements in the publication are not substantiated by facts That you or your business were clearly identified in it That it caused or is continuing to cause harm to your reputation.</quote> and <quote>Some common defences against defamation include: That the publication was an honest opinion, rather than statement of fact That the publication was of public concern or substantially true That the publication was obligatory for a legal, social or moral reason That the aggrieved party is unlikely to sustain any harm to their reputation That the defendant did not know or ought not to have known that the published material was defamatory (e.g., a bookseller may not have known the contents of a publication placed on display) That the publication was made in a privileged context such as a parliamentary debate, in court or in a tribunal judgment.</quote></quote> So this seems to be similar to US law, at least on the basics. Particularly the bolded, which would match an affirmative defense of truth. Italics would match with the "actual malice" concept in US defamation caselaw. I'd be all for something like a federal anti-SLAPP law that would allow defendants to recover legal costs from plaintiffs for successful motions. That would certainly cut down on frivolous suits. <cite>Shadow20201 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>I keep this forum in my own back pocket specifically for the purpose of finding alternative viewpoints, and testing myself against them.</quote> Some viewpoints are more entrenched than others but I can appreciate the value of testing one's beliefs and ideas against other viewpoints.</quote> It's very much about exposing myself to other arguments. If I can test my beliefs and ideas against others' arguments, it makes me more confident in their validity. I can't say I've been wholly impressed with what I've been up against thus far, but it is worthwhile from time to time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/09/19 3:31:33 AM #315:	AvantgardeAClue posted... What Tungid thinks is gonna happen in the trial is that Vic is gonna go in there and be expected to say how much of a nice person he is and therefore he can't be guilty of the accusations. 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? Then they're gonna pull up the one part of a 400-part document that all the drive-by lawyers think is their entire defamation argument, saying that "Vic isn't a POS because he's not a literal POS". 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=" Also, the rest of that 400-page document is leaking out bit by bit courtesy of Shane Holmberg. https://twitter.com/shane_holmberg/status/1137043676209864706 https://twitter.com/shane_holmberg/status/1137141004027531264 Now I would say that I hope you'll stop with this ridiculous mischaracterization of the lawyers' commentary now... but, well, I know better than to hope for the impossible. No, Ty Beard says he's confident he can prove actual malice, as well as prove it individually, which is required in Vic's case. Good for him, he's wrong. Ronica and Jamie can't hide behind "Well it was an opinion" because that defense isn't as bulletproof as they're making it out to be. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. The court will see everyone's shitposting and realize that maybe they weren't just thinking out loud; they were actively trying to defame Vic in the process. 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. Neither can their opinions be protected. If a statement implies some false underlying facts, it could be defamatory. 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. At that point, Monica and Jamie are gonna have to explain their statements and back them up concretely. They're not gonna sit on their thumbs the entire trial and just go "nuh-uh" to everything Vic said, especially when Monica already said she wanted this case to be as open as possible for whatever reason. 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? <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:922996736] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>AvantgardeAClue posted...</cite> <quote>What Tungid thinks is gonna happen in the trial is that Vic is gonna go in there and be expected to say how much of a nice person he is and therefore he can't be guilty of the accusations.</quote> 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? <cite>Then they're gonna pull up the one part of a 400-part document that all the drive-by lawyers think is their entire defamation argument, saying that "Vic isn't a POS because he's not a literal POS".</cite> 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=" Also, the rest of that 400-page document is leaking out bit by bit courtesy of Shane Holmberg. https://twitter.com/shane_holmberg/status/1137043676209864706 https://twitter.com/shane_holmberg/status/1137141004027531264 Now I would say that I hope you'll stop with this ridiculous mischaracterization of the lawyers' commentary now... but, well, I know better than to hope for the impossible. <cite>No, Ty Beard says he's confident he can prove actual malice, as well as prove it individually, which is required in Vic's case.</cite> Good for him, he's wrong. <cite>Ronica and Jamie can't hide behind "Well it was an opinion" because that defense isn't as bulletproof as they're making it out to be. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. The court will see everyone's shitposting and realize that maybe they weren't just thinking out loud; they were actively trying to defame Vic in the process. </cite> 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. <cite>Neither can their opinions be protected. If a statement implies some false underlying facts, it could be defamatory.</cite> 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. <cite>At that point, Monica and Jamie are gonna have to explain their statements and back them up concretely. They're not gonna sit on their thumbs the entire trial and just go "nuh-uh" to everything Vic said, especially when Monica already said she wanted this case to be as open as possible for whatever reason.</cite> 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?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten 06/09/19 4:17:38 AM #316:	TurgidTyrant posted... Good for him, he's wrong. What makes you think you can declare that as a fact? You have no idea what secret trick they have saved up, and you can't tell the future or know what the judge will decide You can say "I think he will fail to prove malice" But you can't say "he's wrong" like there is zero chance he can win and that you know-how it will end You yourself seem to have unfailing confidence in Kickvic and think they are invincible <cite>Zikten posted [p:922997520] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>Good for him, he's wrong. </quote> What makes you think you can declare that as a fact? You have no idea what secret trick they have saved up, and you can't tell the future or know what the judge will decide You can say "I think he will fail to prove malice" But you can't say "he's wrong" like there is zero chance he can win and that you know-how it will end You yourself seem to have unfailing confidence in Kickvic and think they are invincible</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AvantgardeAClue 06/09/19 4:26:25 AM #317:	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. <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted [p:922997651] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/09/19 4:48:14 AM #318:	Zikten posted... TurgidTyrant posted... Good for him, he's wrong. What makes you think you can declare that as a fact? You have no idea what secret trick they have saved up, and you can't tell the future or know what the judge will decide You can say "I think he will fail to prove malice" But you can't say "he's wrong" like there is zero chance he can win and that you know-how it will end You yourself seem to have unfailing confidence in Kickvic and think they are invincible Because as a public figure he'd need to prove actual malice. He'd need to prove that said statements were all individually made by Monica, Ron, and Jamie either knowingly false, or with a reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. Which is going to be exceedingly difficult, given that they A. Had their own experiences that they allege and B. were influenced by the increasingly public allegations against Vic Mignogna, which they very arguably didn't have much influence initiating. KickVic as a whole actually started after Hazukari, a former contributer to AnimeNewsNetwork, started getting outted for sexual assault and sexual harassment. After that time, a campaign started to out other entities in the anime community known for similar allegations, and Vic was at the top of the list with over 100 accounts against him. https://www.theoasg.com/articles/please-save-my-money/when-accusations-divide-a-fanbase/13323 https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/ap1lhk/whats_the_deal_with_animeoutsiders_vic_mignogna/eg5n30y/ https://twitter.com/ANN_Bamboo/status/1093401935170826241 So, #KickVic started up before the Sony/Funimation investigation - a timeline even Vic's own lawyers admit to in their Original Petition. In addition, it started up in the aftermath of another sexual assault scandal in the anime fan community. Given those two facts, I don't see how Beard and friends can establish that Monica, Ron, and Jamie's accounts were either knowingly false - since they had their own alleged experiences with him - or made with a reckless disregard for their truth or falsity - given that the beginning of the public accounts against him started in the aftermath of another scandal that they (as far as I can tell) largely had no involvement in. <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:922997957] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>Good for him, he's wrong. </quote> What makes you think you can declare that as a fact? You have no idea what secret trick they have saved up, and you can't tell the future or know what the judge will decide You can say "I think he will fail to prove malice" But you can't say "he's wrong" like there is zero chance he can win and that you know-how it will end You yourself seem to have unfailing confidence in Kickvic and think they are invincible</quote> Because as a public figure he'd need to prove actual malice. He'd need to prove that said statements were all individually made by Monica, Ron, and Jamie either knowingly false, or with a reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. Which is going to be exceedingly difficult, given that they A. Had their own experiences that they allege and B. were influenced by the increasingly public allegations against Vic Mignogna, which they very arguably didn't have much influence initiating. KickVic as a whole actually started after Hazukari, a former contributer to AnimeNewsNetwork, started getting outted for sexual assault and sexual harassment. After that time, a campaign started to out other entities in the anime community known for similar allegations, and Vic was at the top of the list with over 100 accounts against him. https://www.theoasg.com/articles/please-save-my-money/when-accusations-divide-a-fanbase/13323 https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/ap1lhk/whats_the_deal_with_animeoutsiders_vic_mignogna/eg5n30y/ https://twitter.com/ANN_Bamboo/status/1093401935170826241 So, #KickVic started up before the Sony/Funimation investigation - a timeline even Vic's own lawyers admit to in their Original Petition. In addition, it started up in the aftermath of another sexual assault scandal in the anime fan community. Given those two facts, I don't see how Beard and friends can establish that Monica, Ron, and Jamie's accounts were either knowingly false - since they had their own alleged experiences with him - or made with a reckless disregard for their truth or falsity - given that the beginning of the public accounts against him started in the aftermath of another scandal that they (as far as I can tell) largely had no involvement in.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 06/09/19 6:06:47 AM #319:	TurgidTyrant posted... If I'm remembering correctly Samantha said she'd used old photos because her current door/mailbox showed her address on it, and she didn't want to dox herself. Whether or not you want to believe that is up to you, but I will add that there was a police report filed on the incident and another statement from her. https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=108715880299403&id=100034829746906 Yes and then she changed her story twice. First she claimed it showed her home address then changed her story later that it was the rental house. She also claimed that she reported it right away when the police report showed a report date of a day later than she claimed. TurgidTyrant posted... I get my information from places like ResetERA as well as occasionally people I follow on Twitter. Only recently started following PULL on this - that's how I got the initial tweets about the LCA phone call. That doesn't apply to that website. TurgidTyrant posted... True, none of them are in the defamation lawsuit or in any other pending lawsuit at the moment. Or were you suggesting they sue Vic himself? They're just stories and never verified. TurgidTyrant posted... Also, the rest of that 400-page document is leaking out bit by bit courtesy of Shane Holmberg. https://twitter.com/shane_holmberg/status/1137043676209864706 https://twitter.com/shane_holmberg/status/1137141004027531264 Ron is Shane's source. Also Shane's the kind of person who bot blocks people just for following people he doesn't like. TurgidTyrant posted... No, Ty Beard says he's confident he can prove actual malice, as well as prove it individually, which is required in Vic's case. Good for him, he's wrong. Gamefaqs lawyer 2.0. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:922998954] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>If I'm remembering correctly Samantha said she'd used old photos because her current door/mailbox showed her address on it, and she didn't want to dox herself. Whether or not you want to believe that is up to you, but I will add that there was a police report filed on the incident and another statement from her. https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=108715880299403&id=100034829746906</quote> Yes and then she changed her story twice. First she claimed it showed her home address then changed her story later that it was the rental house. She also claimed that she reported it right away when the police report showed a report date of a day later than she claimed. <cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>I get my information from places like ResetERA as well as occasionally people I follow on Twitter. Only recently started following PULL on this - that's how I got the initial tweets about the LCA phone call.</quote> That doesn't apply to that website. <cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>True, none of them are in the defamation lawsuit or in any other pending lawsuit at the moment. Or were you suggesting they sue Vic himself?</quote> They're just stories and never verified. <cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>Also, the rest of that 400-page document is leaking out bit by bit courtesy of Shane Holmberg. https://twitter.com/shane_holmberg/status/1137043676209864706 https://twitter.com/shane_holmberg/status/1137141004027531264</quote> Ron is Shane's source. Also Shane's the kind of person who bot blocks people just for following people he doesn't like. <cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>No, Ty Beard says he's confident he can prove actual malice, as well as prove it individually, which is required in Vic's case. Good for him, he's wrong.</quote> Gamefaqs lawyer 2.0.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/09/19 6:22:54 AM #320:	Revelation34 posted... Yes and then she changed her story twice. First she claimed it showed her home address then changed her story later that it was the rental house. She also claimed that she reported it right away when the police report showed a report date of a day later than she claimed. If you read the statement, you'd see that she mentions she was unsure which house had been "swatted" at first. You would have also seen this passage: While I made my way to the rental home, I made a frantic string of calls trying to contact the police and the tenants. One local police department said that my address was technically out of their jurisdiction so it couldnt have been them. Another stated that due to the house being in their ETJ (extra-territorial jurisdiction, or unincorporated land outside city limits with limited city services), I would need to direct my calls to another police department. I was transferred from one office to the next, calls were dropped, I'd go straight to voice mail, etc.... it was a stressful mess. Every police representative I spoke to expressed sympathy for my situation and apologized for what I was going through, but I was still left with more questions than answers. Had I really been swatted? And by which police or sheriff department? And this: It was not until the next day that law enforcement officials finally confirmed to me that my rental home had not actually been "swatted" as I had originally thought.... they instead determined that it was a case of criminal mischief with property damage. The officer also explained on Thursday that I needed to file a separate police report regarding my harasser's calls at my local police department (which I did), due to the harassment not being in the same jurisdiction. Please do try harder. Revelation34 posted... That doesn't apply to that website. Boring. Revelation34 posted... They're just stories and never verified. Boring. Revelation34 posted... Ron is Shane's source. Also Shane's the kind of person who bot blocks people just for following people he doesn't like. Doesn't prevent the documents from being legit, do they? Also boring. Revelation34 posted... Gamefaqs lawyer 2.0. Unbearably boring. Also I never claimed to be a lawyer. I just have a base-level reading of legal matters. Followed Popehat and Techdirt back in the day for spurious lawsuit and tech-related legal news, respectively. <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:922999165] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes and then she changed her story twice. First she claimed it showed her home address then changed her story later that it was the rental house. She also claimed that she reported it right away when the police report showed a report date of a day later than she claimed. </quote> If you read the statement, you'd see that she mentions she was unsure which house had been "swatted" at first. You would have also seen this passage: <cite>While I made my way to the rental home, I made a frantic string of calls trying to contact the police and the tenants. One local police department said that my address was technically out of their jurisdiction so it couldnt have been them. Another stated that due to the house being in their ETJ (extra-territorial jurisdiction, or unincorporated land outside city limits with limited city services), I would need to direct my calls to another police department. I was transferred from one office to the next, calls were dropped, I'd go straight to voice mail, etc.... it was a stressful mess. Every police representative I spoke to expressed sympathy for my situation and apologized for what I was going through, but I was still left with more questions than answers. Had I really been swatted? And by which police or sheriff department?</cite> And this: <cite>It was not until the next day that law enforcement officials finally confirmed to me that my rental home had not actually been "swatted" as I had originally thought.... they instead determined that it was a case of criminal mischief with property damage. The officer also explained on Thursday that I needed to file a separate police report regarding my harasser's calls at my local police department (which I did), due to the harassment not being in the same jurisdiction.</cite> Please do try harder. <cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>That doesn't apply to that website. </quote> Boring. <cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>They're just stories and never verified.</quote> Boring. <cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>Ron is Shane's source. Also Shane's the kind of person who bot blocks people just for following people he doesn't like. </quote> Doesn't prevent the documents from being legit, do they? Also boring. <cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>Gamefaqs lawyer 2.0.</quote> Unbearably boring. Also I never claimed to be a lawyer. I just have a base-level reading of legal matters. Followed Popehat and Techdirt back in the day for spurious lawsuit and tech-related legal news, respectively.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/09/19 7:30:04 AM #321:	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 <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:923000037] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>AvantgardeAClue posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> You shouldn't assume what I think, then. <cite>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.</cite> 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. <cite>Holy shit, you're really putting all your chips in the opinions of some lawyers who aren't Nick and Ty.</cite> And you're putting yours all in Nick and Ty. Your point? <cite>-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?</cite> "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. <cite>-The tweets were done with actual malice behind them. -The tweets are not protected opinions because they don't contain confirmed factual information.</cite> 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. <cite>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.</cite> 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? <cite>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.</cite> 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. <cite>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.</cite> 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</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SpiritSephiroth 06/09/19 7:42:59 AM #322:	Zikten posted... AvantgardeAClue posted... Revelation34 posted... https://twitter.com/MichellMcC73/status/1136461331429826561 The woman on Twitter that 26 year-old Vic had almost raped back when she was in high school? She found pics to back it up. There's one idiot accusing her of being a stalker, but at this point the idiocy of Vic Stans doesn't surprise me. A picture that were confirmed photoshopped mere hours later: https://twitter.com/anime_esh202/status/1137196309276975104 https://twitter.com/anime_esh202/status/1137372000152936449 If you can't see the actual picture from him in 1989 doesn't match up whatsoever with the one Michelle posted you might need to get your eye junts inspected expediciously Kickvic is so fucking pathetic Literally lying to try to win Holy shit shouldn't people be charged for this crap? --- https://imgtc.com/i/OAltYFG.gif https://imgtc.com/i/qTmQUCd.gif https://imgtc.com/i/Xdeqr0q.gif <cite>SpiritSephiroth posted [p:923000250] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote><cite>AvantgardeAClue posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/MichellMcC73/status/1136461331429826561 The woman on Twitter that 26 year-old Vic had almost raped back when she was in high school? She found pics to back it up. There's one idiot accusing her of being a stalker, but at this point the idiocy of Vic Stans doesn't surprise me.</quote> A picture that were confirmed photoshopped mere hours later: https://twitter.com/anime_esh202/status/1137196309276975104 https://twitter.com/anime_esh202/status/1137372000152936449 If you can't see the actual picture from him in 1989 doesn't match up whatsoever with the one Michelle posted you might need to get your eye junts inspected expediciously</quote> Kickvic is so fucking pathetic Literally lying to try to win</quote> Holy shit shouldn't people be charged for this crap?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 06/09/19 2:34:17 PM #323:	TurgidTyrant posted... While I made my way to the rental home, I made a frantic string of calls trying to contact the police and the tenants. One local police department said that my address was technically out of their jurisdiction so it couldnt have been them. Another stated that due to the house being in their ETJ (extra-territorial jurisdiction, or unincorporated land outside city limits with limited city services), I would need to direct my calls to another police department. I was transferred from one office to the next, calls were dropped, I'd go straight to voice mail, etc.... it was a stressful mess. Every police representative I spoke to expressed sympathy for my situation and apologized for what I was going through, but I was still left with more questions than answers. Had I really been swatted? And by which police or sheriff department? And this: It was not until the next day that law enforcement officials finally confirmed to me that my rental home had not actually been "swatted" as I had originally thought.... they instead determined that it was a case of criminal mischief with property damage. The officer also explained on Thursday that I needed to file a separate police report regarding my harasser's calls at my local police department (which I did), due to the harassment not being in the same jurisdiction. Nope she still changed her story. Also the police report literally states the time and date of report. They don't list the date of confirmation. TurgidTyrant posted... Boring. TurgidTyrant posted... Unbearably boring. Also I never claimed to be a lawyer. I just have a base-level reading of legal matters. Followed Popehat and Techdirt back in the day for spurious lawsuit and tech-related legal news, respectively. Nobody who isn't a lawyer/judge can understand the legal process correctly and how the law actually works. So yes you are pretending to be a lawyer. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:923012276] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>While I made my way to the rental home, I made a frantic string of calls trying to contact the police and the tenants. One local police department said that my address was technically out of their jurisdiction so it couldnt have been them. Another stated that due to the house being in their ETJ (extra-territorial jurisdiction, or unincorporated land outside city limits with limited city services), I would need to direct my calls to another police department. I was transferred from one office to the next, calls were dropped, I'd go straight to voice mail, etc.... it was a stressful mess. Every police representative I spoke to expressed sympathy for my situation and apologized for what I was going through, but I was still left with more questions than answers. Had I really been swatted? And by which police or sheriff department? And this: It was not until the next day that law enforcement officials finally confirmed to me that my rental home had not actually been "swatted" as I had originally thought.... they instead determined that it was a case of criminal mischief with property damage. The officer also explained on Thursday that I needed to file a separate police report regarding my harasser's calls at my local police department (which I did), due to the harassment not being in the same jurisdiction. </quote> Nope she still changed her story. Also the police report literally states the time and date of report. They don't list the date of confirmation. <cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>Boring.</quote> <cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>Unbearably boring. Also I never claimed to be a lawyer. I just have a base-level reading of legal matters. Followed Popehat and Techdirt back in the day for spurious lawsuit and tech-related legal news, respectively.</quote> Nobody who isn't a lawyer/judge can understand the legal process correctly and how the law actually works. So yes you are pretending to be a lawyer.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AvantgardeAClue 06/09/19 6:21:46 PM #324:	TurgidTyrant posted... I get my information from places like ResetERA --- Sometimes I say things and I'm not voice acting. <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted [p:923024814] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>I get my information from places like ResetERA </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/09/19 6:52:19 PM #325:	Revelation34 posted... Nope she still changed her story. Also the police report literally states the time and date of report. They don't list the date of confirmation. Date of confirmation, you say? And if her story's supposedly disproven, then you'd think someone from ISWV would have, you know, called the police department and asked about it. Their number's right there, you know. And we've already established that people are willing to make phone calls about this with Michelle and the LCA stuff. Revelation34 posted... Nobody who isn't a lawyer/judge can understand the legal process correctly and how the law actually works. So yes you are pretending to be a lawyer. I can still comment on particular legalities of the case without being a lawyer. As has everyone else in this topic. I would point out that if your logic holds then one could direct the same insult towards those like Avant. I would say it's sad to see such little effort from you, but really I haven't been trying all that hard myself. AvantgardeAClue posted... TurgidTyrant posted... I get my information from places like ResetERA Oh me oh my, is this you walking away again? https://img1.ak.crunchyroll.com/i/spire4/cabb800888f6f40d8653a90b3dd2312e1549958223_full.png So that would make two posts of mine that you've walked away from. You're racking up quite a record for yourself, friend. <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:923026503] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>Nope she still changed her story. Also the police report literally states the time and date of report. They don't list the date of confirmation.</quote> Date of confirmation, you say? And if her story's supposedly disproven, then you'd think someone from ISWV would have, you know, called the police department and asked about it. Their number's right there, you know. And we've already established that people are willing to make phone calls about this with Michelle and the LCA stuff. <cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>Nobody who isn't a lawyer/judge can understand the legal process correctly and how the law actually works. So yes you are pretending to be a lawyer.</quote> I can still comment on particular legalities of the case without being a lawyer. As has everyone else in this topic. I would point out that if your logic holds then one could direct the same insult towards those like Avant. I would say it's sad to see such little effort from you, but really I haven't been trying all that hard myself. <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>I get my information from places like ResetERA </quote></quote> Oh me oh my, is this you walking away again? https://img1.ak.crunchyroll.com/i/spire4/cabb800888f6f40d8653a90b3dd2312e1549958223_full.png So that would make two posts of mine that you've walked away from. You're racking up quite a record for yourself, friend.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 06/09/19 8:19:54 PM #326:	TurgidTyrant posted... Date of confirmation, you say? And if her story's supposedly disproven, then you'd think someone from ISWV would have, you know, called the police department and asked about it. Their number's right there, you know. And we've already established that people are willing to make phone calls about this with Michelle and the LCA stuff. It was by her own statements. The police report exists. What she claimed doesn't match the police report. TurgidTyrant posted... I can still comment on particular legalities of the case without being a lawyer. As has everyone else in this topic. I would point out that if your logic holds then one could direct the same insult towards those like Avant. I would say it's sad to see such little effort from you, but really I haven't been trying all that hard myself. Avant has never claimed to be a lawyer. Biscuit has only claimed to be a paralegal so he wouldn't understand the law 100% either since paralegals are not lawyers. I would have gone after him too if he claimed to be an actual lawyer like Gamefaqs lawyer. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:923030524] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote> Date of confirmation, you say? And if her story's supposedly disproven, then you'd think someone from ISWV would have, you know, called the police department and asked about it. Their number's right there, you know. And we've already established that people are willing to make phone calls about this with Michelle and the LCA stuff.</quote> It was by her own statements. The police report exists. What she claimed doesn't match the police report. <cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>I can still comment on particular legalities of the case without being a lawyer. As has everyone else in this topic. I would point out that if your logic holds then one could direct the same insult towards those like Avant. I would say it's sad to see such little effort from you, but really I haven't been trying all that hard myself.</quote> Avant has never claimed to be a lawyer. Biscuit has only claimed to be a paralegal so he wouldn't understand the law 100% either since paralegals are not lawyers. I would have gone after him too if he claimed to be an actual lawyer like Gamefaqs lawyer.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AvantgardeAClue 06/09/19 9:27:51 PM #327:	TurgidTyrant posted... Oh me oh my, is this you walking away again? https://img1.ak.crunchyroll.com/i/spire4/cabb800888f6f40d8653a90b3dd2312e1549958223_full.png So that would make two posts of mine that you've walked away from. You're racking up quite a record for yourself, friend. You gonna post these posts or you gonna hide from the topic for days while waiting for me to guess them again? Before I engage your goofy ass any further I want to know if you have any intention of considering in favor for Vic's case. If the answer is "no" then I'm simply wasting my time listening to your circular argument while you cite lawyers who woke up last week with absolutely no clue this case was even going on. And I'm not a lawyer. I'm a public forum debate coach who has managed and judged courtroom-sized levels of argumentation before. Part of the reason I feel strongly for ISWV despite being a voice actor is because the evidence put forward so far has been inconclusive, doctored, and inconsistent. If you tried arguing with these same contentions in an actual debate I would've scored you 25/30 already. So that's why I'm just waiting for the case to open up tomorrow. Nothing is gonna convince you that I'm right and therefore I'm wasting keystrokes on this argument until then. --- Sometimes I say things and I'm not voice acting. <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted [p:923034748] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote> Oh me oh my, is this you walking away again? https://img1.ak.crunchyroll.com/i/spire4/cabb800888f6f40d8653a90b3dd2312e1549958223_full.png So that would make two posts of mine that you've walked away from. You're racking up quite a record for yourself, friend. </quote> You gonna post these posts or you gonna hide from the topic for days while waiting for me to guess them again? Before I engage your goofy ass any further I want to know if you have any intention of considering in favor for Vic's case. If the answer is "no" then I'm simply wasting my time listening to your circular argument while you cite lawyers who woke up last week with absolutely no clue this case was even going on. And I'm not a lawyer. I'm a public forum debate coach who has managed and judged courtroom-sized levels of argumentation before. Part of the reason I feel strongly for ISWV despite being a voice actor is because the evidence put forward so far has been inconclusive, doctored, and inconsistent. If you tried arguing with these same contentions in an actual debate I would've scored you 25/30 already. So that's why I'm just waiting for the case to open up tomorrow. Nothing is gonna convince you that I'm right and therefore I'm wasting keystrokes on this argument until then.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zerocide 06/09/19 9:28:29 PM #328:	D-Lo_BrownTown posted... Lmfao get fucked --- "Grand Upper!" - Axel Stone Nioh is better than Dark Souls/Sekiro <cite>Zerocide posted [p:923034782] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>D-Lo_BrownTown posted...</cite> <quote>Lmfao get fucked</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/09/19 11:44:54 PM #329:	AvantgardeAClue posted... You gonna post these posts or you gonna hide from the topic for days while waiting for me to guess them again? "Hiding from the topic"? It's called "Having a 9-5 that has a work filter, and I can't be arsed to get into long arguments on my phone". Just because someone doesn't poke into a topic every now and then doesn't mean they're "running away". Not everyone spends their lives on this like you apparently do. Also, posts 215-219 (consider these a megapost, although most of 215 was hashed out in another topic) and post 321. AvantgardeAClue posted... Before I engage your goofy ass any further I want to know if you have any intention of considering in favor for Vic's case. If the answer is "no" then I'm simply wasting my time listening to your circular argument while you cite lawyers who woke up last week with absolutely no clue this case was even going on. From the evidence currently available? No, because it doesn't meet the legal definition of defamation nor the legal definition of tortious interference. I've been over this in detail before. If Vic can come out with proof of falsity on Monica, Ron, and Jamie's accusations, then sure, I would consider it. But I have to say it's rather hypocritical that you've assumed he had such proof based on Rekieta's word alone, while ignoring that Monica, Ron, and Jamie's lawyers may have evidence of their own that would prove the substantial truth of their statements. AvantgardeAClue posted... And I'm not a lawyer. I'm a public forum debate coach who has managed and judged courtroom-sized levels of argumentation before. Part of the reason I feel strongly for ISWV despite being a voice actor is because the evidence put forward so far has been inconclusive, doctored, and inconsistent. If you tried arguing with these same contentions in an actual debate I would've scored you 25/30 already. I hope your students managed to move on to more fruitful prospects then. As for the evidence, the only evidence that legally matters at the moment is that put forward in the defamation case. Some may be inconclusive, but that's the nature of the beast in sexual harassment accusations. You've shown no evidence of doctoring or inconsistency in Monica, Ron, or Jamie's statements (and what was shown for Michelle amounts to laughably questionable wannabe forensic analysis at best). AvantgardeAClue posted... So that's why I'm just waiting for the case to open up tomorrow. Nothing is gonna convince you that I'm right and therefore I'm wasting keystrokes on this argument until then. I wonder if you'll come back if it doesn't go your way. <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:923041297] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>AvantgardeAClue posted...</cite> <quote>You gonna post these posts or you gonna hide from the topic for days while waiting for me to guess them again? </quote> "Hiding from the topic"? It's called "Having a 9-5 that has a work filter, and I can't be arsed to get into long arguments on my phone". Just because someone doesn't poke into a topic every now and then doesn't mean they're "running away". Not everyone spends their lives on this like you apparently do. Also, posts 215-219 (consider these a megapost, although most of 215 was hashed out in another topic) and post 321. <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted...</cite> <quote>Before I engage your goofy ass any further I want to know if you have any intention of considering in favor for Vic's case. If the answer is "no" then I'm simply wasting my time listening to your circular argument while you cite lawyers who woke up last week with absolutely no clue this case was even going on. </quote> From the evidence currently available? No, because it doesn't meet the legal definition of defamation nor the legal definition of tortious interference. I've been over this in detail before. If Vic can come out with proof of falsity on Monica, Ron, and Jamie's accusations, then sure, I would consider it. But I have to say it's rather hypocritical that you've assumed he had such proof based on Rekieta's word alone, while ignoring that Monica, Ron, and Jamie's lawyers may have evidence of their own that would prove the substantial truth of their statements. <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted...</cite> <quote>And I'm not a lawyer. I'm a public forum debate coach who has managed and judged courtroom-sized levels of argumentation before. Part of the reason I feel strongly for ISWV despite being a voice actor is because the evidence put forward so far has been inconclusive, doctored, and inconsistent. If you tried arguing with these same contentions in an actual debate I would've scored you 25/30 already.</quote> I hope your students managed to move on to more fruitful prospects then. As for the evidence, the only evidence that legally matters at the moment is that put forward in the defamation case. Some may be inconclusive, but that's the nature of the beast in sexual harassment accusations. You've shown no evidence of doctoring or inconsistency in Monica, Ron, or Jamie's statements (and what was shown for Michelle amounts to laughably questionable wannabe forensic analysis at best). <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted...</cite> <quote>So that's why I'm just waiting for the case to open up tomorrow. Nothing is gonna convince you that I'm right and therefore I'm wasting keystrokes on this argument until then.</quote> I wonder if you'll come back if it doesn't go your way.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/09/19 11:46:08 PM #330:	Revelation34 posted... It was by her own statements. The police report exists. What she claimed doesn't match the police report. And if her story's supposedly disproven, then you'd think someone from ISWV would have, you know, called the police department and asked about it. Their number's right there, you know. And we've already established that people are willing to make phone calls about this with Michelle and the LCA stuff. Revelation34 posted... Avant has never claimed to be a lawyer. Biscuit has only claimed to be a paralegal so he wouldn't understand the law 100% either since paralegals are not lawyers. I would have gone after him too if he claimed to be an actual lawyer like Gamefaqs lawyer. And yet you claim I'm pretending to be a lawyer because....? <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:923041347] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>It was by her own statements. The police report exists. What she claimed doesn't match the police report.</quote> <quote>And if her story's supposedly disproven, then you'd think someone from ISWV would have, you know, called the police department and asked about it. Their number's right there, you know. And we've already established that people are willing to make phone calls about this with Michelle and the LCA stuff.</quote> <cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>Avant has never claimed to be a lawyer. Biscuit has only claimed to be a paralegal so he wouldn't understand the law 100% either since paralegals are not lawyers. I would have gone after him too if he claimed to be an actual lawyer like Gamefaqs lawyer.</quote> And yet you claim I'm pretending to be a lawyer because....?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 06/09/19 11:51:07 PM #331:	TurgidTyrant posted... Revelation34 posted... It was by her own statements. The police report exists. What she claimed doesn't match the police report. And if her story's supposedly disproven, then you'd think someone from ISWV would have, you know, called the police department and asked about it. Their number's right there, you know. And we've already established that people are willing to make phone calls about this with Michelle and the LCA stuff. Revelation34 posted... Avant has never claimed to be a lawyer. Biscuit has only claimed to be a paralegal so he wouldn't understand the law 100% either since paralegals are not lawyers. I would have gone after him too if he claimed to be an actual lawyer like Gamefaqs lawyer. And yet you claim I'm pretending to be a lawyer because....? You made statements that the lawsuit would be thrown out. Also you clearly have very bad eyesight since I never said the police report is fake. It exists but her story is fake since she kept changing it. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:923041522] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>It was by her own statements. The police report exists. What she claimed doesn't match the police report.</quote> <quote>And if her story's supposedly disproven, then you'd think someone from ISWV would have, you know, called the police department and asked about it. Their number's right there, you know. And we've already established that people are willing to make phone calls about this with Michelle and the LCA stuff.</quote> <cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>Avant has never claimed to be a lawyer. Biscuit has only claimed to be a paralegal so he wouldn't understand the law 100% either since paralegals are not lawyers. I would have gone after him too if he claimed to be an actual lawyer like Gamefaqs lawyer.</quote> And yet you claim I'm pretending to be a lawyer because....?</quote> You made statements that the lawsuit would be thrown out. Also you clearly have very bad eyesight since I never said the police report is fake. It exists but her story is fake since she kept changing it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AvantgardeAClue 06/10/19 12:27:54 AM #332:	"Hiding from the topic"? It's called "Having a 9-5 that has a work filter, and I can't be arsed to get into long arguments on my phone". Just because someone doesn't poke into a topic every now and then doesn't mean they're "running away". Not everyone spends their lives on this like you apparently do. You already forgotten that you seemingly refused to chat with me a few pages back until I addressed your question about the source for Michelle and 1989, which I did and you were promptly ignored? And it's 2019. Anyone can pop in on their phone and contribute to this topic. Stop trying to fit me into this frame of mind that makes you feel better about talking shit. If Vic can come out with proof of falsity on Monica, Ron, and Jamie's accusations, then sure, I would consider it. But I have to say it's rather hypocritical that you've assumed he had such proof based on Rekieta's word alone, while ignoring that Monica, Ron, and Jamie's lawyers may have evidence of their own that would prove the substantial truth of their statements. Right, sure. Can I quote you on this? Also either you or LightSnake were going on about "Hurr in the end KickVic won anyway" so I doubt that even Vic winning the case will ultimately shift your opinion on this whole thing. I hope your students managed to move on to more fruitful prospects then. My school makes it to state tournaments on a regular basis and even some national ones. Pretty shitty to assume that they're boldly going nowhere with forensics, but go figure. (and what was shown for Michelle amounts to laughably questionable wannabe forensic analysis at best). Imagine falling for PHOTOSHOP because you don't want Vic to gain some sort of moral victory. Explain why that picture was the only one digitally uploaded when she said she found it when she was moving; the other picture she took while holding up. Explain why Vic looks nothing like how he does in another 1989 picture of him that was found. Or that his face in that picture is a near 100% match of another contemporary picture he has. Explain why a basic-ass levels-sweep shows that Vic is darker in the image than the other two women, even though he's standing next to a fucking lamp. You can call them wannabe forensic analysts all you want, but even a professional photographer friend of mine could call bullshit at first glance. And trust me guy, I'll be here. The only question is which one of us is gonna be the bigger person when this is all said and done. I'll be the first to admit that I backed the wrong horse after its revealed so. But only after, not before. --- Sometimes I say things and I'm not voice acting. <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted [p:923042897] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote>"Hiding from the topic"? It's called "Having a 9-5 that has a work filter, and I can't be arsed to get into long arguments on my phone". Just because someone doesn't poke into a topic every now and then doesn't mean they're "running away". Not everyone spends their lives on this like you apparently do. You already forgotten that you seemingly refused to chat with me a few pages back until I addressed your question about the source for Michelle and 1989, which I did and you were promptly ignored? And it's 2019. Anyone can pop in on their phone and contribute to this topic. Stop trying to fit me into this frame of mind that makes you feel better about talking shit. If Vic can come out with proof of falsity on Monica, Ron, and Jamie's accusations, then sure, I would consider it. But I have to say it's rather hypocritical that you've assumed he had such proof based on Rekieta's word alone, while ignoring that Monica, Ron, and Jamie's lawyers may have evidence of their own that would prove the substantial truth of their statements. Right, sure. Can I quote you on this? Also either you or LightSnake were going on about "Hurr in the end KickVic won anyway" so I doubt that even Vic winning the case will ultimately shift your opinion on this whole thing. I hope your students managed to move on to more fruitful prospects then. My school makes it to state tournaments on a regular basis and even some national ones. Pretty shitty to assume that they're boldly going nowhere with forensics, but go figure. (and what was shown for Michelle amounts to laughably questionable wannabe forensic analysis at best). Imagine falling for PHOTOSHOP because you don't want Vic to gain some sort of moral victory. Explain why that picture was the only one digitally uploaded when she said she found it when she was moving; the other picture she took while holding up. Explain why Vic looks nothing like how he does in another 1989 picture of him that was found. Or that his face in that picture is a near 100% match of another contemporary picture he has. Explain why a basic-ass levels-sweep shows that Vic is darker in the image than the other two women, even though he's standing next to a fucking lamp. You can call them wannabe forensic analysts all you want, but even a professional photographer friend of mine could call bullshit at first glance. And trust me guy, I'll be here. The only question is which one of us is gonna be the bigger person when this is all said and done. I'll be the first to admit that I backed the wrong horse after its revealed so. But only after, not before.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dabrikishaw15 06/10/19 12:54:13 PM #333:	Funimation's response. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oS585UGoqwcACengq06KrMZ9KMJMm7Es/view Some highlights include: Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiffs own acts or omissions proximately caused or contributed to Plaintiffs injuries. Defendant specifically denies that Plaintiffs purported request to Defendant complied with the requirements set forth in 73.055(d) the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Plaintiffs request failed to describe all of the allegedly false and defamatory statements by Defendant and state the time and place of their publication, if known. Instead, Plaintiff refers to unspecified tweets from other voice actors who appeared to be speaking on behalf of FUNimation, without identifying the substance of the tweets and the time and place of their publication. Plaintiff also alleges that the implication of FUNimations tweets is that [Plaintiff] engaged in sexual harassment or sexually threatening behavior, when the referenced FUNimation tweets do not use the word sexual or refer specifically to any threatening or harassing behavior by Plaintiff. 2. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because Defendants allegedly defamatory statements were substantially true. 3. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff (and/or his agents) consented to and/or published the allegedly defamatory statements by discussing them in public and on social media outlets. 4. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because of Plaintiffs previously diminished reputation. 5. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff on the grounds that Defendant was induced and provoked to make the statements by the wrongful and malicious acts of Plaintiff. --- 3DS FC: 4382 - 2449 - 5707 IGN: Anthony <cite>Dabrikishaw15 posted [p:923063158] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote>Funimation's response. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oS585UGoqwcACengq06KrMZ9KMJMm7Es/view Some highlights include: <quote>Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiffs own acts or omissions proximately caused or contributed to Plaintiffs injuries.</quote> <quote>Defendant specifically denies that Plaintiffs purported request to Defendant complied with the requirements set forth in 73.055(d) the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Plaintiffs request failed to describe all of the allegedly false and defamatory statements by Defendant and state the time and place of their publication, if known. Instead, Plaintiff refers to unspecified tweets from other voice actors who appeared to be speaking on behalf of FUNimation, without identifying the substance of the tweets and the time and place of their publication. Plaintiff also alleges that the implication of FUNimations tweets is that [Plaintiff] engaged in sexual harassment or sexually threatening behavior, when the referenced FUNimation tweets do not use the word sexual or refer specifically to any threatening or harassing behavior by Plaintiff.</quote> <quote>2. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because Defendants allegedly defamatory statements were substantially true. 3. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff (and/or his agents) consented to and/or published the allegedly defamatory statements by discussing them in public and on social media outlets. 4. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because of Plaintiffs previously diminished reputation. 5. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff on the grounds that Defendant was induced and provoked to make the statements by the wrongful and malicious acts of Plaintiff.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/10/19 2:25:25 PM #334:	AvantgardeAClue posted... You already forgotten that you seemingly refused to chat with me a few pages back until I addressed your question about the source for Michelle and 1989, which I did and you were promptly ignored? And it's 2019. Anyone can pop in on their phone and contribute to this topic. Stop trying to fit me into this frame of mind that makes you feel better about talking shit. Are you ignoring the part where I addressed your misunderstanding of defamation before then, after which I said I was working on the rest of the post. And I asked the question because I didn't want to discount the possibility of further details on that being disclosed in another medium like, say, one of Rekieta's streams. Also when I do these things I like to throw out links, and copy+pasting links on phone is a pain. That's my primary motivation for not phone-posting large responses. AvantgardeAClue posted... Right, sure. Can I quote you on this? Also either you or LightSnake were going on about "Hurr in the end KickVic won anyway" so I doubt that even Vic winning the case will ultimately shift your opinion on this whole thing. Sure you can quote me on this. I'll still point out that it's a high burden to clear anyways. Also it's not wrong that KickVic's pretty much won at this point. Vic's name in the VO industry and the convention sphere is more or less trashed at this point, and it wasn't that great even before this. He would've had a higher chance of recovering had he laid low and gotten therapy like he said he was going to do, but instead he put himself back in the public spotlight with a spurious defamation suit against accusers as well as the dubbing company he formerly worked for. When you do that, justified or not (it's not), it tends to be a big black mark for other agencies. It's going to blow up in his face and he'll have even fewer prospects than he did before. AvantgardeAClue posted... My school makes it to state tournaments on a regular basis and even some national ones. Pretty shitty to assume that they're boldly going nowhere with forensics, but go figure. Glad to know they've grown past your teachings then. ' v ' AvantgardeAClue posted... Imagine falling for PHOTOSHOP because you don't want Vic to gain some sort of moral victory. Explain why that picture was the only one digitally uploaded when she said she found it when she was moving; the other picture she took while holding up. Explain why Vic looks nothing like how he does in another 1989 picture of him that was found. Or that his face in that picture is a near 100% match of another contemporary picture he has. Explain why a basic-ass levels-sweep shows that Vic is darker in the image than the other two women, even though he's standing next to a fucking lamp. You can call them wannabe forensic analysts all you want, but even a professional photographer friend of mine could call bullshit at first glance. Hahahaha oh boy. You're crowing about all these details that supposedly don't match up with the picture and getting a "photographer friend" to back you up, but you somehow managed to get something as basic as this wrong. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8WFi8CWsAAKWLl.jpg AvantgardeAClue posted... And trust me guy, I'll be here. The only question is which one of us is gonna be the bigger person when this is all said and done. I'll be the first to admit that I backed the wrong horse after its revealed so. But only after, not before. Given your conduct thus far, I severely doubt this. <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:923067341] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>AvantgardeAClue posted...</cite> <quote>You already forgotten that you seemingly refused to chat with me a few pages back until I addressed your question about the source for Michelle and 1989, which I did and you were promptly ignored? And it's 2019. Anyone can pop in on their phone and contribute to this topic. Stop trying to fit me into this frame of mind that makes you feel better about talking shit.</quote> Are you ignoring the part where I addressed your misunderstanding of defamation before then, after which I said I was working on the rest of the post. And I asked the question because I didn't want to discount the possibility of further details on that being disclosed in another medium like, say, one of Rekieta's streams. Also when I do these things I like to throw out links, and copy+pasting links on phone is a pain. That's my primary motivation for not phone-posting large responses. <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted...</cite> <quote>Right, sure. Can I quote you on this? Also either you or LightSnake were going on about "Hurr in the end KickVic won anyway" so I doubt that even Vic winning the case will ultimately shift your opinion on this whole thing.</quote> Sure you can quote me on this. I'll still point out that it's a high burden to clear anyways. Also it's not wrong that KickVic's pretty much won at this point. Vic's name in the VO industry and the convention sphere is more or less trashed at this point, and it wasn't that great even before this. He would've had a higher chance of recovering had he laid low and gotten therapy like he said he was going to do, but instead he put himself back in the public spotlight with a spurious defamation suit against accusers as well as the dubbing company he formerly worked for. When you do that, justified or not (it's not), it tends to be a big black mark for other agencies. It's going to blow up in his face and he'll have even fewer prospects than he did before. <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted...</cite> <quote>My school makes it to state tournaments on a regular basis and even some national ones. Pretty shitty to assume that they're boldly going nowhere with forensics, but go figure.</quote> Glad to know they've grown past your teachings then. ' v ' <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted...</cite> <quote>Imagine falling for PHOTOSHOP because you don't want Vic to gain some sort of moral victory. Explain why that picture was the only one digitally uploaded when she said she found it when she was moving; the other picture she took while holding up. Explain why Vic looks nothing like how he does in another 1989 picture of him that was found. Or that his face in that picture is a near 100% match of another contemporary picture he has. Explain why a basic-ass levels-sweep shows that Vic is darker in the image than the other two women, even though he's standing next to a fucking lamp. You can call them wannabe forensic analysts all you want, but even a professional photographer friend of mine could call bullshit at first glance.</quote> Hahahaha oh boy. You're crowing about all these details that supposedly don't match up with the picture and getting a "photographer friend" to back you up, but you somehow managed to get something as basic as this wrong. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8WFi8CWsAAKWLl.jpg <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted...</cite> <quote>And trust me guy, I'll be here. The only question is which one of us is gonna be the bigger person when this is all said and done. I'll be the first to admit that I backed the wrong horse after its revealed so. But only after, not before.</quote> Given your conduct thus far, I severely doubt this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/10/19 2:28:13 PM #335:	Revelation34 posted... You made statements that the lawsuit would be thrown out. Which it will, and this sentiment is based partly on the analysis by several other lawyers that have spoken up over the past few days. Revelation34 posted... Also you clearly have very bad eyesight since I never said the police report is fake. It exists but her story is fake since she kept changing it. So the police report is fake but the story the police report draws from is fake. A. If her story was fake why would the police report not have confirmed as such by this point? Again, their phone number is right there. B. How would she not have been charged with filing a false police report by now? You realize it's literally a crime to waste the police's time like that, right? <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:923067467] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>You made statements that the lawsuit would be thrown out. </quote> Which it will, and this sentiment is based partly on the analysis by several other lawyers that have spoken up over the past few days. <cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>Also you clearly have very bad eyesight since I never said the police report is fake. It exists but her story is fake since she kept changing it.</quote> So the police report is fake but the story the police report draws from is fake. A. If her story was fake why would the police report not have confirmed as such by this point? Again, their phone number is right there. B. How would she not have been charged with filing a false police report by now? You realize it's literally a crime to waste the police's time like that, right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 06/10/19 2:34:34 PM #336:	TurgidTyrant posted... Which it will, and this sentiment is based partly on the analysis by several other lawyers that have spoken up over the past few days. No you stated it as your own "fact". TurgidTyrant posted... So the police report is fake but the story the police report draws from is fake. A. If her story was fake why would the police report not have confirmed as such by this point? Again, their phone number is right there. B. How would she not have been charged with filing a false police report by now? You realize it's literally a crime to waste the police's time like that, right? Not that hard to damage a door yourself. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:923067769] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>Which it will, and this sentiment is based partly on the analysis by several other lawyers that have spoken up over the past few days.</quote> No you stated it as your own "fact". <cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>So the police report is fake but the story the police report draws from is fake. A. If her story was fake why would the police report not have confirmed as such by this point? Again, their phone number is right there. B. How would she not have been charged with filing a false police report by now? You realize it's literally a crime to waste the police's time like that, right?</quote> Not that hard to damage a door yourself.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/10/19 8:30:24 PM #337:	Revelation34 posted... No you stated it as your own "fact". It very likely is a fact. I'm sorry you don't like hearing it. Revelation34 posted... Not that hard to damage a door yourself. Except you're forgetting that she had an ex-cop neighbor check out the house that morning before she even got there, and that the tenants assessed the damage with her themselves. Do you think the police wouldn't have checked their accounts as well? <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:923085602] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>No you stated it as your own "fact". </quote> It very likely is a fact. I'm sorry you don't like hearing it. <cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>Not that hard to damage a door yourself.</quote> Except you're forgetting that she had an ex-cop neighbor check out the house that morning before she even got there, and that the tenants assessed the damage with her themselves. Do you think the police wouldn't have checked their accounts as well?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 06/11/19 12:02:33 AM #338:	TurgidTyrant posted... It very likely is a fact. I'm sorry you don't like hearing it. That's not how facts work. Something is either a fact or isn't a fact. TurgidTyrant posted... Except you're forgetting that she had an ex-cop neighbor check out the house that morning before she even got there, and that the tenants assessed the damage with her themselves. Do you think the police wouldn't have checked their accounts as well? Cops are lazy. They'd see the door and not question it unless they suspected something was off about it. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:923100350] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>It very likely is a fact. I'm sorry you don't like hearing it.</quote> That's not how facts work. Something is either a fact or isn't a fact. <cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>Except you're forgetting that she had an ex-cop neighbor check out the house that morning before she even got there, and that the tenants assessed the damage with her themselves. Do you think the police wouldn't have checked their accounts as well?</quote> Cops are lazy. They'd see the door and not question it unless they suspected something was off about it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/11/19 12:05:02 AM #339:	Revelation34 posted... That's not how facts work. Something is either a fact or isn't a fact. You mean like how Samantha is totes lying about having her door kicked in by a stalker, despite the police report and police-approved statement that includes the police department's phone number? Revelation34 posted... Cops are lazy. They'd see the door and not question it unless they suspected something was off about it. So to defend your initial assertion that Samantha lied about what happened to her, you're accusing the police handling her case of incompetence. Without any evidence of your own. Am I reading this correctly? <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:923100472] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>That's not how facts work. Something is either a fact or isn't a fact. </quote> You mean like how Samantha is totes lying about having her door kicked in by a stalker, despite the police report and police-approved statement that includes the police department's phone number? <cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>Cops are lazy. They'd see the door and not question it unless they suspected something was off about it.</quote> So to defend your initial assertion that Samantha lied about what happened to her, you're accusing the police handling her case of incompetence. Without any evidence of your own. Am I reading this correctly?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/11/19 12:14:16 AM #340:	Also as an aside I'm going to shill Mike Dunford in here https://twitter.com/questauthority He's another attorney in Boston who's actually been debating back and forth with Rekieta on the case. I highly recommend going through his Tweets and replies, he points out great things like how filling the TDMA letter with nonsense like "My client is not a piece of shit" is actually not at all required and also more likely to hurt Vic's case than it is to help it. https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1137873292973563904 https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1137873819132207107 https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1137874048493522944 <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:923100979] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote>Also as an aside I'm going to shill Mike Dunford in here https://twitter.com/questauthority He's another attorney in Boston who's actually been debating back and forth with Rekieta on the case. I highly recommend going through his Tweets and replies, he points out great things like how filling the TDMA letter with nonsense like "My client is not a piece of shit" is actually not at all required and also more likely to hurt Vic's case than it is to help it. https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1137873292973563904 https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1137873819132207107 https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1137874048493522944</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 06/11/19 12:15:15 AM #341:	TurgidTyrant posted... You mean like how Samantha is totes lying about having her door kicked in by a stalker, despite the police report and police-approved statement that includes the police department's phone number? Her lies were in her statements so that's a fact anyway. TurgidTyrant posted... So to defend your initial assertion that Samantha lied about what happened to her, you're accusing the police handling her case of incompetence. Without any evidence of your own. Am I reading this correctly? That's not incompetence. That's normal police work. You don't question something extensively unless it looks off. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:923101047] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>You mean like how Samantha is totes lying about having her door kicked in by a stalker, despite the police report and police-approved statement that includes the police department's phone number?</quote> Her lies were in her statements so that's a fact anyway. <cite>TurgidTyrant posted...</cite> <quote>So to defend your initial assertion that Samantha lied about what happened to her, you're accusing the police handling her case of incompetence. Without any evidence of your own. Am I reading this correctly?</quote> That's not incompetence. That's normal police work. You don't question something extensively unless it looks off.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AvantgardeAClue 06/11/19 10:34:00 AM #342:	Imagine defending a FAKE SWATTING to spite Nick and Vic You'd have to forgive me if I'm not entirely convinced at first glance But when you post 3 year old photos to Twitter and Facebook and claim to countless people that it happened recently I'm inclined to believe you're a bullshitter --- Sometimes I say things and I'm not voice acting. <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted [p:923117617] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote>Imagine defending a FAKE SWATTING to spite Nick and Vic You'd have to forgive me if I'm not entirely convinced at first glance But when you post 3 year old photos to Twitter and Facebook and claim to countless people that it happened recently I'm inclined to believe you're a bullshitter</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dabrikishaw15 06/11/19 1:56:46 PM #343:	https://twitter.com/Katerationopia/status/1138185794932396035 This is your standard StandWithVic idiot folks. Same loser who harassed Jamie Marchi at her Anime North panel. Reasoning with them ins't possible, so I don't bother with that. --- 3DS FC: 4382 - 2449 - 5707 IGN: Anthony <cite>Dabrikishaw15 posted [p:923134158] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/Katerationopia/status/1138185794932396035 This is your standard StandWithVic idiot folks. Same loser who harassed Jamie Marchi at her Anime North panel. Reasoning with them ins't possible, so I don't bother with that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten 06/11/19 2:12:49 PM #344:	Dabrikishaw15 posted... Reasoning with them ins't possible reasoning with Jamie isn't possible. all that man did was ask if she has proof and she acted like he had said something offensive. and then made fun of him. if you have been following Jamie on twitter she's insane and immature and arrogant. <cite>Zikten posted [p:923135514] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dabrikishaw15 posted...</cite> <quote>Reasoning with them ins't possible</quote> reasoning with Jamie isn't possible. all that man did was ask if she has proof and she acted like he had said something offensive. and then made fun of him. if you have been following Jamie on twitter she's insane and immature and arrogant.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dabrikishaw15 06/11/19 2:24:08 PM #345:	If you're defending this clown after reading that tweet it only proves my point. --- 3DS FC: 4382 - 2449 - 5707 IGN: Anthony <cite>Dabrikishaw15 posted [p:923136494] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote>If you're defending this clown after reading that tweet it only proves my point.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 06/11/19 2:25:21 PM #346:	Dabrikishaw15 posted... https://twitter.com/Katerationopia/status/1138185794932396035 This is your standard StandWithVic idiot folks. Same loser who harassed Jamie Marchi at her Anime North panel. Reasoning with them ins't possible, so I don't bother with that. We've already established that guy is an idiot. I don't believe at all that she's an Iraq veteran though. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:923136592] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dabrikishaw15 posted...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/Katerationopia/status/1138185794932396035 This is your standard StandWithVic idiot folks. Same loser who harassed Jamie Marchi at her Anime North panel. Reasoning with them ins't possible, so I don't bother with that.</quote> We've already established that guy is an idiot. I don't believe at all that she's an Iraq veteran though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten 06/11/19 2:25:39 PM #347:	I don't care about the tweet and I didn't even look at until now after your reply. but Jamie is crazy. and she is not taking her legal problems seriously. she is going to piss off the judge and lose the trial just cause of that. <cite>Zikten posted [p:923136626] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote>I don't care about the tweet and I didn't even look at until now after your reply. but Jamie is crazy. and she is not taking her legal problems seriously. she is going to piss off the judge and lose the trial just cause of that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/12/19 8:15:40 PM #348:	Revelation34 posted... Her lies were in her statements so that's a fact anyway. Including the police-approved statement? Revelation34 posted... That's not incompetence. That's normal police work. You don't question something extensively unless it looks off. I'm not certain you know what "normal police work" actually is. For all you're aware she might've volunteered the retired cop's name to the other cops to back up her story - or, since he's a retired cop, they might have already known him. AvantgardeAClue posted... Imagine defending a FAKE SWATTING to spite Nick and Vic Imagine not reading the statement where she says her harasser faked her swatting and just kicked in her door. Up to you whether or not you wanna believe her, but Imma err on the side of belief here, unless something else comes out like her getting hit for charging a false police report. AvantgardeAClue posted... You'd have to forgive me if I'm not entirely convinced at first glance But when you post 3 year old photos to Twitter and Facebook and claim to countless people that it happened recently I'm inclined to believe you're a bullshitter Speaking of photos, you'll have to forgive me for not taking your word on anything if you can't tell a digitally scanned photo from a picture of a photo. And to add to that old thread, here's this guy I noticed through Greg Doucette's retweets. He combs through the picture in a bit more detail, pojnts out that Vic is illuminated by the lamp right next to his head, that he's wearing dark clothing, and even that there's a shadow on the sign behind him. I highly recommend everyone in this thread comb through his tweets instead of the other amateurs. https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1137430768186200064 https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1138375048828522497 https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1137482152549990400 https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1137483187733565440 https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1137483579502616576 https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1137575599634112512 (and even more) Zikten posted... I don't care about the tweet and I didn't even look at until now after your reply. but Jamie is crazy. and she is not taking her legal problems seriously. she is going to piss off the judge and lose the trial just cause of that. the judge is far more likely to be irritated with beard and his shenanigans playing musical chairs with the deposition dates <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:923220116] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>Her lies were in her statements so that's a fact anyway. </quote> Including the police-approved statement? <cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>That's not incompetence. That's normal police work. You don't question something extensively unless it looks off.</quote> I'm not certain you know what "normal police work" actually is. For all you're aware she might've volunteered the retired cop's name to the other cops to back up her story - or, since he's a retired cop, they might have already known him. <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted...</cite> <quote>Imagine defending a FAKE SWATTING to spite Nick and Vic</quote> Imagine not reading the statement where she says her harasser faked her swatting and just kicked in her door. Up to you whether or not you wanna believe her, but Imma err on the side of belief here, unless something else comes out like her getting hit for charging a false police report. <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted...</cite> <quote>You'd have to forgive me if I'm not entirely convinced at first glance But when you post 3 year old photos to Twitter and Facebook and claim to countless people that it happened recently I'm inclined to believe you're a bullshitter</quote> Speaking of photos, you'll have to forgive me for not taking your word on anything if you can't tell a digitally scanned photo from a picture of a photo. And to add to that old thread, here's this guy I noticed through Greg Doucette's retweets. He combs through the picture in a bit more detail, pojnts out that Vic is illuminated by the lamp right next to his head, that he's wearing dark clothing, and even that there's a shadow on the sign behind him. I highly recommend everyone in this thread comb through his tweets instead of the other amateurs. https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1137430768186200064 https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1138375048828522497 https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1137482152549990400 https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1137483187733565440 https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1137483579502616576 https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1137575599634112512 (and even more) <cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote>I don't care about the tweet and I didn't even look at until now after your reply. but Jamie is crazy. and she is not taking her legal problems seriously. she is going to piss off the judge and lose the trial just cause of that.</quote> the judge is far more likely to be irritated with beard and his shenanigans playing musical chairs with the deposition dates</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten 06/14/19 3:35:45 PM #349:	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-bGDKDfPsw" data-time=" the picture from the 80's WAS faked <cite>Zikten posted [p:923314052] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-bGDKDfPsw" data-time=" the picture from the 80's WAS faked</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten 06/14/19 3:39:17 PM #350:	https://twitter.com/Sini_naatarinne/status/1137559801326702592 <cite>Zikten posted [p:923314220] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/Sini_naatarinne/status/1137559801326702592</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/14/19 4:02:29 PM #351:	Zikten posted... https://twitter.com/Sini_naatarinne/status/1137559801326702592 A comedy in three acts https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1139620581526183941?s=20 https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1139601455147601920?s=20 https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1139620755765964800?s=20 <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:923315310] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/Sini_naatarinne/status/1137559801326702592</quote> A comedy in three acts https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1139620581526183941?s=20 https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1139601455147601920?s=20 https://twitter.com/DrPeterRees/status/1139620755765964800?s=20</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten 06/15/19 3:52:42 PM #352:	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUKAZYlF8BQ" data-time=" Kickvic doesn't even know who is on their side. They put a poop emoji on the head of the Kickvic side's lawyer in a picture of Vic, his lawyer and their lawyer. They must have had no idea who the third man was and just assumed he was working for Vic <cite>Zikten posted [p:923357657] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUKAZYlF8BQ" data-time=" Kickvic doesn't even know who is on their side. They put a poop emoji on the head of the Kickvic side's lawyer in a picture of Vic, his lawyer and their lawyer. They must have had no idea who the third man was and just assumed he was working for Vic</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AvantgardeAClue 06/15/19 4:10:01 PM #353:	Vic meeting Nick for the first time in person. A short while later... --- Sometimes I say things and I'm not voice acting. <cite>AvantgardeAClue posted [p:923358236] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote> Vic meeting Nick for the first time in person. A short while later... </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TurgidTyrant 06/16/19 3:06:46 PM #354:	So hey here's Vic's lawyer explicitly telling the Farms to go out and "make these people miserable", as a personal favor https://twitter.com/LawoftheGame/status/1140269817087365120?s=20 <cite>TurgidTyrant posted [p:923399630] in KickVic fa... [t:77755259]...</cite> <quote>So hey here's Vic's lawyer explicitly telling the Farms to go out and "make these people miserable", as a personal favor https://twitter.com/LawoftheGame/status/1140269817087365120?s=20</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Current Events > KickVic failing. Long lines to meet Vic (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > KickVic failing. Long lines to meet Vic