Lurker > TurgidTyrant

With respect to the sinjared stuff + his Snapchat, my position is that he used the hell out of his parasocial relations with his fans to get nudes and get sex. And thats pretty much not okay no matter what. Like even dude himself acknowledges that the power dynamics there are ultra grody.

As for his infidelity in his marriage, this is the (rough) timeline as I understand it.

Heidi lets Jared and Holly give it a shot February 7, 2018

Polyamory ended VERY quickly after that point, because Holly felt her boundaries and her trust had been violated. They revert back to monogamy - so basically ANY sexual or romantic interaction with anyone outside their marriage would be cheating.

In his response video Jared claims that he didnt cheat, citing that he wanted to end his marriage in October 2018, but Heidi refused to break it off.

So my question is, did he initiate or maintain a relationship with Holly at any time between February 2018 and October 2018? And did he initiate or maintain a relationship with Holly AFTER his failed attempt to end his marriage in October 2018? Cause either one would be cheating. And I have reason to believe he WAS cheating in both cases.

In this tweet Heidi shares a text from Jan 18, 2019 where she expresses concern about Hollys closeness with Jared. https://twitter.com/AtelierHeidi/status/1166472713818521602?s=20

In the very next tweet she notes that Holly and Jared had a sexual relationship for 4 months by this point. 4 months before January would be sometime in September. As in, BEFORE the October date he gave in the video. So if thats true hes COMPLETELY lying about not cheating on her. https://twitter.com/AtelierHeidi/status/1166473457846104065?s=20

Further, Heidi says that Jared told her he closed down his explicit Snapchat in late 2017. https://twitter.com/AtelierHeidi/status/1126357806536204288?s=20

Yet according to these folks, he kept it (and some tumblr stuff) going through 2018 into 2019. https://twitter.com/inigross/status/1126369464423895042?s=20

https://twitter.com/Synthyk/status/1126660216198717440?s=20

https://twitter.com/frostedqueerios/status/1126730429342478336?s=20

https://twitter.com/Llarys_/status/1126362325768912896?s=20

https://twitter.com/lexicamille/status/1126468282238808071?s=20

Now if thats all true, Im pretty sure that would be cheating as well.

In conclusion, even if the stuff about soliciting minors for nudes isnt true, Jared still aint shit.

Revelation34 posted...

TurgidTyrant posted...

Because the original statement was talking about Greg. Then that clip happened later when it was brought up again. It was about Greg only.

Do you have any knowledge of context that would make the words "Oh no no no no, I'm asking the Farms for help. I'm asking them for help. Uh, make these people miserable please, I would consider it a personal favor." sound any less damning?

Nah I can't. You have no eyes so you can't watch the stream.

Your useless pedantry fools nobody, diet Pycelle.

archedsoul posted...

TurgidTyrant posted...

I posted evidence directly contradicting this earlier. That said, the guy's account is down atm, so here's an alternate rebuttal. This time with someone who says they stand with Vic, so you can't say they're biased against Vic!

https://twitter.com/BBunny_Artistry/status/1139927467202883584

Not really a rebuttal or contradiction. Another user shows in that very thread that he was able to fake in the same thing.

Which user, exactly?

Revelation34 posted...

Because the original statement was talking about Greg. Then that clip happened later when it was brought up again. It was about Greg only.

Do you have any knowledge of context that would make the words "Oh no no no no, I'm asking the Farms for help. I'm asking them for help. Uh, make these people miserable please, I would consider it a personal favor." sound any less damning?

Pukelid posted...

TurgidTyrant posted...

Hey I'm in here saying they shouldn't, man. And that maybe Vic doesn't have that great a case. But nobody's listening!

human beings tend to double down on incorrect notions when confronted with contradicting evidence

Oh, that they do, that they do. Such as this!

archedsoul posted...

Zikten posted...

https://twitter.com/Sini_naatarinne/status/1137559801326702592

Lmao, wtf.

Don't understand what's with all the fake shit.

I posted evidence directly contradicting this earlier. That said, the guy's account is down atm, so here's an alternate rebuttal. This time with someone who says they stand with Vic, so you can't say they're biased against Vic!

https://twitter.com/BBunny_Artistry/status/1139927467202883584

Revelation34 posted...

So you didn't. Thought so.

Do you have any knowledge of context that would make the words "Oh no no no no, I'm asking the Farms for help. I'm asking them for help. Uh, make these people miserable please, I would consider it a personal favor." sound any less damning?

Pukelid posted...

oh my gosh still with this topic

the lengths people will go to day in and day out defend a borderline predator

Hey I'm in here saying they shouldn't, man. And that maybe Vic doesn't have that great a case. But nobody's listening!

Revelation34 posted...

TurgidTyrant posted...

Did you listen to the clip and the actual words being said? ' v '

Did you watch the entire stream?

Did you listen to the clip and the actual words being said?

"These people" is plural, and implies more than just Greg. It also implies that he's purposefully asking Kiwifarms to go after him and others, instead of just joking about it, as the defenses earlier went.

Revelation34 posted...

That was about Greg only since it was still technically part of the original part. There was no "these people".

Did you listen to the clip and the actual words being said? ' v '

Zikten posted...

TurgidTyrant posted...

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

I had trouble understanding the context of that, but it looks like that Nick guy. Nick is not Vic's lawyer. everyone on Kickvic for some reason thinks his lawyer is Nick. it's not. it's a man named Ty Beard. Nick and Ty Beard know each other. that's all.

Oh, I'm aware of who they are. I didn't misspeak.

Ty Beard is the one who asked the Farms to make people miserable as a personal favor.

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

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

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

this conference was like

they started at the top of the heavens with ff7 remake

then they fell down a step

and then another step

and another step

they fell down every stair

all the stairs

they fell down every single stair and never stopped

and then they landed at the bottom, and burbled out a bit of blood

and they passed out before they could even do a montage

i don't know if I've ever seen a conference go from the highest of highs to the lowest of lows like this before.

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

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?

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?

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?

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.

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....?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.



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?

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.

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.

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.

Strider102 posted...

Also I have to laugh at the complete fucking hypocrisy of the situation. KickVicers get all there information from a forum which has already shown by stealing someone's pictures is not a place that is credible, it's irrelevant if it happened once or 100 times. One time is too many and a huge red flag as to validity of everything. "But it got removed!" Irrelevant. If anyone from the Vic side did anything like that people would be foaming at the mouth questioning their credibility.

But if anyone on Vic's side does the same they act like they have some moral high ground to stand on and call people out and treat them like they're nothing.

KickVic has done more cruel and vile shit then anyone. This isn't even about Vic's guilt or innocence anymore.

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.

Also your whinging about "double standards" does nothing for me. As does your assertion that KickVic has done "more cruel and vile shit than anyone", because really that's mostly you showing that you've locked yourself up in an echo chamber. So I'm not inclined to dignify it.

Revelation34 posted...

Which doesn't apply since none of those were stated in a court of law

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?

Zikten posted...

TurgidTyrant posted...

With all these lines what keeps the chair leg from being behind his foot

if it was a legit picture, everything would be seamless. I just looked at it again and things don't line up. what keeps the chair leg from behind behind his foot? I don't know. but it's not. i'm looking at it right now, and you can tell someone did some editing and mixed different shots together. it's not a single photo. it's multiple pictures cut up

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Also there's no shadow behind Vic on the wall, and his entire body lighting is a dimmer tone than the rest of the picture.

Y'all were really about to get worked over some PHOTOSHOPPED damning evidence

@Dabrikishaw15 addressed both your... "concerns" for the most part.

But for Avant, you got on me and Darmik for citing lawyers with actual knowledge in defamation caselaw because they supposedly didn't know the full context, but here you are accepting what amounts to amateur forensic analysis from a Twitter random you probably never even heard of before now. The hypocrisy is laughable, really.

Strider102 posted...

Vic's foot does look like it's in front of the leg of the chair, at least to me anyway.

I do want to know where his left foot is as it should be visible from that perspective, why everyone else is getting lit up by the light completely but Vic isn't, and why he doesn't have a shadow.

At first glance he looked out of place in the picture but maybe it was just my eyes playing tricks on me.

I'm not going to say it's real or fake, but this picture doesn't prove Vic sexually assaulted anyone.

They're pictures from Michelle showing herself at the time of her spring play. Michelle being the woman who accused Vic of trying to force himself on her in 1989. Note the woman in the yellow dress, she's in both pictures.

The reason people like Avant are crowing about it being photoshopped with little evidence is because they're very eager to discredit it. It's quite transparent.

Strider102 posted...

Because stealing a person's photo and claiming you're that person only to have it discovered that person was lying and merely having it labeled as mischaracterization

That's called a journalistic outfit being diplomatic.

faking a swatting
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

DDOSing a man's underage daughter

Not familiar with that one. You got a source?

telling someone you "hope they get raped" or "you should kill yourself"

Not even remotely what Amanda Winn Lee said. She said - and I quote - "You poor stupid girl. I hope when it happens to you (and it will if it hasnt already) that you find the kindness and compassion that you lack towards the victims right now." Tell me where it says she hopes she gets raped.

As for the latter I'm not quite familiar with that one. You got a source?

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

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

So question

With all these lines what keeps the chair leg from being behind his foot

Also it doesn't escape my notice that y'all have gotten on me and Darmik for citing "Internet lawyers" that "don't know the full context" of the case, yet y'all are ready to believe a freakin' Twitter rando acting like a forensic analyst.

Revelation34 posted...

Definition of proof in English:

proof
noun

1mass noun Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
you will be asked to give proof of your identity
count noun this is not a proof for the existence of God

None of those tweets have verifiable facts.

We call it character testimony, friendo.

That said, I very much doubt you have a very coherent standard of proof, since you got on me for that other topic for "lying" about Hammermor's tweets. I'm still very much confused about that.

Ranlom posted...

TurgidTyrant posted...

I could show you more than a few tweets from people in the VA industry and the con circuit calling him out - and I think I will, actually.

You fool, all of those people belong to Christopher Sabat's VO cabal dedicated to ruining the lives and careers of good christian men.

You don't understand, it's the Anime Illuminati putting Vic down to protect the womz

Hairistotle posted...

Turgid I think it's time to wrap things up here. All they can do is insult you. I suggest marking Revelation for repeatedly calling you mentally r*******.

My involvement in here and in other topics is largely for my own amusement and the slightest vestige of intellectual stimulation.

That said, I'm sad to say that both are fading rather quickly with Revelation. He's becoming rather boring.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

A point as dull as a Papermate pen.

I feel like it's February again and KickVic is in full tilt. You've literally shown me nothing new. If getting a few drive-by lawyers commenting on the case is all it takes to get them started again, I wonder what would get them to shut up again. Maybe the discovery Monday, heh heh.

A point that rebuts your own flaccid assertion that voice actors only believed the claims because they were sexually implicit, and also because it was the most pragmatic choice for their careers. Same for the assertion that cons only booted him because the blowback would be too financially ruinous, as opposed to just, I don't know... ensuring guest safety?

Not that pragmatism isn't a factor, mind you. But it's far too cynical of you to assume it's the overriding one, or the only important one.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

What a shitty analogy. Really? You're gonna use the James Gunn case to make Vic's case look bad?

Hey I ain't the one who brought him up. But in terms of support from his professional circles, they contrast pretty well.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

James Gunn's guilt was never in question. His Tweets were very apparently made by him. No, we got immense support from his cast and co-workers because they believed that what he said in the past shouldn't influence who he is in the present.

Oh, of course his guilt wasn't in question. They were jokes on-brand for his Troma persona at the time. And I agree that what he said in the past shouldn't influence who he is in the present - but with the caveat that it's because he actually showed personal growth as a person.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

KickVic gained traction quickly because of the sexually implied nature of it. Voice actors believed the accusers because it was the safe call to make, plus the nature of the accusations meant that anyone who supported him was endorsing those very things he was accused of. Conventions are independent organizations mostly maintained by volunteers and operating on a tight budget. They didn't want to have to deal with the blowback of inviting him because it invites controversy to the con. Nick mentioned there being informants in Funimation who support Vic and source information to him, but obviously don't want to reveal themselves out of fear. It's such a drastically different context I'm amazed you thought it had anything in common with James Gunn's case.

Voice actors believed the accusers because it was a safe call, plus the things they heard themselves. Conventions believed the accusers because it matched Vic's reputation within those circles at the time, and also he's a pain in the ass to deal with apparently. You're acting like it's all self-preservation and openly ignoring that there's active animosity and dislike towards him from his professional circle and the con circle. Animosity and dislike which does not exist with someone like James Gunn. That was my entire point.

There was an old thread from 2013 that I posted in that other topic before it closed that I'll go ahead and repost here.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/2000121-anime-and-manga-other-titles/67872530

He's had a reputation for a long-ass time - long before #KickVic became a thing. I could show you more than a few tweets from people in the VA industry and the con circuit calling him out - and I think I will, actually.

https://twitter.com/MicheleFeghali/status/1092852906716475392 - Michele Sontag, former Funi and current RoosterTeeth employee

https://twitter.com/DonaldAShults/status/1093356833052520448 - Voice director Donald Shults, for Okratron 5000 (the DB dubbing company)

https://emmettwrites.tumblr.com/post/183061213034/vic-mignogna-a-love-story - Emmett Plant, producer for Star Trek and writer for (Fun fact, this has the hair pull and ear-whispering in Monica and Jamie's stories that made you think they were "virtually identical")

https://twitter.com/SJBsMama/status/1092565481268150274 - Karissa Barrows, convention booking staffer and guest liason

https://twitter.com/BaraMountain/status/1092639920919855104 - Stacey, cosplayer

https://twitter.com/McBenefit/status/1090066200577695744 - Jamie McGonnigal, voice actor

https://twitter.com/Digibrah/status/1095037956816023554 - Digibro, Anituber

I could post more, but if I posted everyone across the industry who's heard of Vic and his reputation or had a run-in with him, we'd be here all day.

I could go on, but I believe I've made the point.

Revelation34 posted...

Strider102 posted...

YouTube lawyer vs GameFAQs lawyer.

Who will win?

YouTube lawyer since they have actually proven they have a law degree.

Are you actually asking him to identify himself

On a video game topic

In a Vic Mignogna topic

Do you wish actual harm upon this man?

Well, while everything's died down, I'd like to address something posted that was posted earlier.

Sabram posted...

tremain07 posted...

Does it even matter? He's never getting his jobs back. Even with him being proven innocent companies don't give people their jobs back just like that. RTX is gonna be a shitshow when the anti-kickvic fans storm the place and hound RT for answers on why they fired a man on heresay. It's gonna be hilarious watching them try to worm their way out of it on stage.

Tell that to James Gunn

James Gunn is actually a very interesting point of comparison.

For anyone who followed his firing at the time, he had a rather tremendous outpouring of support from his coworkers and his colleagues, both his cast from Disney and from former coworkers at Troma, as well as fans who believe he was the subject of a smear campaign from Cernovich and his ilk. The Guardians cast even signed a letter in support of him. Not long after, he was hired on to direct Suicide Squad for DC, served as a producer on Brightburn, and even got his gig as GotG3 director back months before it was publicly announced. Point is, he has a decent reputation in the film industry.

Meanwhile, Vic Mignogna's support stems mainly from his fanbase + people who believe he's wrongly accused or the subject of a witch hunt. However, hardly any of his professional colleagues have spoken out in favor of him. Conventions have withdrawn their invitations, and he's long had a reputation in those circles of being a pain in the ass to work with. He does not have anywhere near the reputation or the professional support that James Gunn did. And he's spectacularly burned his bridges with Funimation and likely most other prospective agencies by filing this suit.

And therein is the reason why this topic's conceit is ultimately wrong. Having a line of people for an impromptu signing event does not change the fact that his career is, ultimately, dead. What he has left are the few conventions that will sign him on, and maybe one or two dubbing studios that will maybe throw him a role every now and then, if they haven't already decided not to rehire him for being too much trouble.

#KickVic won.

Revelation34 posted...

TurgidTyrant posted...

He appears to have a better understanding of the law than literally anyone else who argues against him.

Also calling him a fake lawyer is a pretty decent sign that you have no actual arguments against him.

Bolded says it all. You don't even believe he's an actual lawyer.

Oh no, I fully believe he's a real lawyer. I'm commenting on his understanding of the law, is all.

You have a bad habit of making far-fetched inferences, don't you.

Revelation34 posted...

TurgidTyrant posted...

I've hardly seen anyone do well against him.

You're hardly doing well against me. I'm still not sure why you think I'm lying about what I pointed out about Hammermor's tweets.

Well I mean you actually think he's a lawyer. Too many paint chips as a kid I guess.

He appears to have a better understanding of the law than literally anyone else who argues against him.

Also calling him a fake lawyer is a pretty decent sign that you have no actual arguments against him.

Revelation34 posted...

Dabrikishaw15 posted...

What? You mean my law knowledge obtained from playing Ace Attorney isn't enough to confront actual lawyers with day-to-day real life experience? Say it ain't so!

Anybody who's played Ace Attourney can debate LightSnake's "lawyering".

I've hardly seen anyone do well against him.

You're hardly doing well against me. I'm still not sure why you think I'm lying about what I pointed out about Hammermor's tweets.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

TurgidTyrant posted...

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Nobody here is an actual lawyer anyway, and I've never really played Ace Attorney. What a beautifully shit hot take.

Maybe I'll summon LightSnake

Feeling the heat in that other topic already, I take it.

No I've just been thoroughly distracted watching another lawyer's 50-minute video on this thing

Also I put off my usual Friday anime watching for this so I've been catching up.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Nobody here is an actual lawyer anyway, and I've never really played Ace Attorney. What a beautifully shit hot take.

Maybe I'll summon LightSnake

AvantgardeAClue posted...

The only thing you finished was the circle.....jerk. Circlejerk.

Remember how you disappeared for about 100 posts over waiting for me to answer some stupid question of yours? That went somewhere I'm sure

Why yes. It did. ' v '

Hairistotle posted...

TurgidTyrant posted...

he's talking about another topic on the anime and manga boards that mareepgod directly linked to

i'm not sure why he's so seemingly impressed with that

i am confused as to how he arrived to the conclusion that he's "slapping you up here"

because that is not how it looks to the uninformed 3rd party

i think he may hold a slightly too high opinion of himself ' v '

AvantgardeAClue posted...

"Vic did it"

"No he didn't"

"Oh yeah here's people saying he did"

"Here's evidence saying they're bullshitting"

"Well he still has to prove his innocence first in court"

"Uhh no he doesn't, defamations suits don't work like that"

"Yes he does he's a public figure"

"Uhh even if he was he still doesn't"

"The judge has to decide if the case is worth it, checkmate"

"....the judge already had a hearing lol"

"I'll take it from here Darmik keep up the GOOD WORK"

I wish I was that resolved in any sort of stance

Hey, you're the one who said you were done.

All I did was finish up leftover business.

Hairistotle posted...

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Guess you're not satisfied with me slapping you up here alone.

how did...what?

he's talking about another topic on the anime and manga boards that mareepgod directly linked to

i'm not sure why he's so seemingly impressed with that

That article is written by someone who is close friends with someone at Funimation who faked a swatting (Samantha Inoue-Hart) and blamed it on Vic supporters. Ty Beard already identified many of the "anonymous" sources on there to be Monica and friends. It's a setup.

How does this disprove the article, exactly? It has Vic's replies to some of the allegations, and he doesn't entirely deny some of them, but instead characterizes them differently to... varying degrees. And besides "Charlotte's" account, which largely matches Monica's, what other anonymous sources have been identified, exactly? And how are they Monica's friends? And how is it a setup?

And he felt that since he had nothing to hide it would be better to identify himself rather than potentially get outed and face Vic-levels of backlash. That's fine. I don't see how this makes him look anything but less guilty.

I could just as easily argue that he got out ahead of it not because he felt he had nothing to hide, but because he felt he'd have a better chance at controlling the narrative. This isn't exactly uncommon in heated situations - you mentioned Jared earlier, and he was the first to come out publicly with the news that he and Heid were getting divorced.

Adam got pissed he was outed and defended himself and Jessie, understandable. Still doesn't change the fact that Todd had evidence to contest Jessie's claims, and that she stopped pursuing him once he revealed them. You still haven't explained why you believe either of them over Todd, other than the fact that he's Jessie's friend and therefore would like to see her walk away from this too.

What? "Outed"? Have you even read Todd's Facebook post? He introduces Adam as "his buddy of mine". One of the reasons Adam spoke up was because Todd chose to drag him into this - the bigger reason being that he thought Todd was making Jesse's Vic-post about himself rather than speaking up about Vic and other abuse as a whole.

https://twitter.com/neumaverick/status/1091106085006524416

And I believe them because

A. It can take a while for rape victims to acknowledge rape as rape. Continuing to be cordial or even flirty with a rapist isn't evidence that rape did not occur.

B. As Adam describes, he was friends with both of them. Todd taught his daughter theater, and Jessie photographed at his wedding. The reason he spoke up was because Todd jumped in on Jessie's post (which was largely about Vic and only mentioned him anonymously) to save his own skin.

C. The fact that Todd ended up deleting his Facebook post after apparently recognizing it was a bad idea.

D. This.

https://colossal-guest-2011.tumblr.com/

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Are we done here? I think we're done here.

Why yes, I believe we are.

Fact: Nick Rekieta did cosplay with blackface (his black friend who he was cosplaying came on a stream and explained it

Fact: Jessie Pridemore also had photos of her cosplaying with blackface, which she was actively embarrassed about and apologized for.

Fact: Jessie and Jamie actively used Nick's cosplay against him in an effort to discredit him, and Jamie still called him as such even after Jessie was exposed and apologized.

She can't really feign ignorance on this point. Even if she had no idea Jessie was a fucking hypocrite she still thought it was okay to call out Nicky Rackets for it even after most people gave up trying to push that angle. Nick isn't remotely racist and it was a smear campaign.

"Most people"? You realize he's still called Blackface Lawyer to this day, right? And one of Jamie's colleagues wearing blackface once doesn't make Nick wearing blackface any more okay or any less racist. But I will concede the potential for hypocrisy. See? Never let it be said that I cannot concede a point when appropriate.

Also I'm going to point out that "Nick isn't remotely racist" is your own opinion that you've provided no backup for. And given that you say you tune into his streams I'm not exactly considering you an unbiased source on this front.

How about the fact that her and Monica's stories are virtually identical, minus the locale? How about the fact that neither one of them could recall specific details, but knew just enough to tell the whole story? You make a big claim, you need big evidence. Why do you think these people suddenly lost face the moment it was actually taken to court?
Virtually identical?

Jamie was approached in the lobby of her workplace by Vic, had her hair played with by him, then had it grabbed and jerked back towards him while he whispered something in her ear. Monica had the same happen to her but on multiple occasions, in front of fans and colleagues. Those similarities in stories does nothing to debunk them. Hell, the opposite argument can be made - that it strengthens them since it shows a pattern in behavior.

You're also ignoring differences like Monica's account including a time he attempted to force himself on her in his hotel room during a convention in the mid-2000s, and he lured her there under the pretense of showing her a video.

And you're also assuming that they don't have more evidence, when it just as easily could have been shared with entities like Funimation.

Nick and Ty both discussed this. Ty will provide the court evidence of defamation. Monica and friends will have to testify why in fact it isn't complete and utter bullshit (or falsehood), and if they can't they Vic will be awarded damages. This is not a criminal case. They're in the hot seat. That's why it's rumored that Funimation will just settle and leave Ronica and Jamie to deal with some of the costs.

Except, as discussed earlier, Vic would still need to prove falsity even if Monica and friends fail in proving truth as an affirmative defense. He doesn't automatically win if their defense fails - it just becomes a game of he-said-she-said, which isn't defamation. Also I would very much like to see where you're hearing that Funimation will settle - that would piss off a huge chunk of their current and prospective talent, so it'd be a dumbass business decision for them at least.

Character testimony isn't sufficient defense for a defamation trial. Why in the absolute hell would Ty or Nick be so sure this is a good case otherwise?

Because hubris breeds arrogance.

Beard is "playing games" because Casey wants to deposed Vic then file a motion to delay their own deposition by 90 days, giving them ample time to comb over Vic's deposition for ammo and use it against him to the public. Thankfully the judge ruled that while Vic still has to go first, Ronica have to follow up immediately. Both are scheduled for the second half of June.

Did you mean to leave out the part where Beard unilaterally scheduled their depositions for May 15th, a day after saying the 3rd wouldn't be available and that he would find other dates? I've read the court documents, you know.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1salWLHQMWXAUUM_N2JCTiiAZAVEMp-WL/view

Also you realize you're entirely relying on Beard's speculation to justify this game of depositonial musical chairs.

Next, going over Michelle.

-Michelle met Vic in 1989 during a school play when she claims Vic hit on her. We can confirm she attended LCA due to yearbook photos.

-She posts a newspaper article proving he was in Lynchburg that year performing for Liberty.

Not sure "sticking your tongue in someone's ear" counts as just hitting on someone, but sure. Mostly accurate so far.

Here's why that appears to be bullshit:

-The play Vic was in the newspaper was a Liberty University production, not LCA. Michelle said this was her school's spring play so therefore that newspaper article proves nothing other than the fact that Vic was in Lynchburg in 1989.

Michelle said in her tweet chain that the play that was in the newspaper (Annie) happened earlier that spring. As in, before her own school's spring play. But other than that, yes, it does only establish that he was in the general location.

-Vic was working for Family Network at the time doing "national broadcast productions", according to his resume. I worked as a cameraman and that's a very specific field. It also makes sense since Liberty was his alma mater. All of this could be interpreted from his resume and requires no extra knowledge for Michelle to tell her story.

Going by what Michelle said, he made music videos for Thomas Road Baptist Church, which would track with his music career. His resume also mentions freelance work in directing other video production (corporate, commercial, and music). But clearly it was a job that left him enough time for gigs like plays.

Still, Michelle could have tracked down his resume and made up a whole story based on that. It's terribly unlikely, This, however, I take issue with:

-LCA said they had no record of Vic being an assistant director for any play in 1989.

This is nowhere in Hammermor's tweets. (Tweets are in post 145)

Hammermor said he heard two specific things from Len Stevens.

1. LCA and LU were not affiliated schools at the time. This is irrelevant because Michelle said he worked "as a cameraman at the church affiliated with our private Christian school", said church being TRBC. TRBC owned Family Network at the time, and LCA was formed as a ministry of TRBC, as well as a segregation academy before desegregating after 2 years, so they're affiliated. LCA and LU not being affiliated is irrelevant to her claim.

2. LCA wouldn't have hired any LU students or staff to film or direct the play. This is also irrelevant because Vic worked for Family Network at the time, as established earlier. He did take on acting gigs at LU, but that likely wouldn't count as being "staff", the same way voice actors aren't staff at dubbing companies.

Nowhere does he say that LCA told him they specifically had no record of Vic being an assistant director for any play in 1989.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Yeah, of course you were

The primary source of that defense were those Twitter users you've posted calling Liberty University and asking them about Vic, to which Liberty's media contact denied that Liberty wasn't affiliated with LCA in any projects at the time. If you or I called them (I'm not calling them) they'd probably say the exact same thing. Going "oh maybe he just doesn't remember it right" doesn't excuse anything.

So to be clear, there's no other details or nowhere else they've spoken about this, like a Rikieta stream?

If so, then I'll assume that this is all there is.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

No the fuck he isn't lol. He keeps going on and on about "Well he has to provide proof!" ad nauseaum when even Nick himself said that's not the case.

I'm no lawyer but I have a decent debate background and these complex question fallacies from him are getting old.

Except he's actually right. The burden of proof in a defamation case, by default, lays with the plaintiffs. Burden of proof rests on the accuser and all that. The exception is when defendants opt to use truth as an affirmative defense - then they'd have to prove truthfulness. Even if that defense fails, however, plaintiffs would still need to prove falsity.

https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1136829293013741568?s=20

AvantgardeAClue posted...

And yet they've been conveniently ignoring the Answer filed and other relevant context, hmm...

Doucette in particular has already said he's read the Original Petition and the Defs Response to MTQ Deposition Notice and Motion to Compel. The rest I'm unsure, but just in case I sent them over to him myself.

Regardless, that doesn't stop him or anyone else from commenting on the case laid out in the original petition.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

I don't think I feel like I'm gonna go any further though; you people already made up your mind on this topic the moment you came in and refuse to concede anything. I've been following this case since February whereas you only got a second wind over the random Twitter lawyers who saw one page of the TDMA and suddenly felt like they knew everything about the case, despite refusing to want to be corrected. If I'm gonna be talking to a brick wall I might as well do that outside of here.

I refuse to concede anything? Earlier in this topic you said Jamie was lying in her accusation, based on your interpretation of her calling herself a nobody. And when I pointed out that she was more likely referring to her relative lack of status in the industry, you went silent. Was I supposed to regard that as an implicit concession, or did you just decide to abandon that track? I hope you weren't expecting me to just forget it. Either way, you shouldn't throw stones in glass houses, bud.

Regardless, if you wish to back out of this, that's fine by me. My next set of posts can be our last communications here if you desire.

You know people are gonna try to wrench that Smash copy outta you even if they just announce that the Geno Mii Gunner outfit is back, right

Also it's amusing that Avant keeps whinging about the other lawyers basing their judgments on "ONE PAGE" when they've already moved on to analyzing the original Complaint and the other documents that've been filed thus far.

Also can I just say how glad I am that Vic's team being savaged by Law Twitter made it's way over here

You're doing good work @Darmik . Might jump in on a few points myself eventually, especially with regards to Vic's status as a public figure and Texas's anti-SLAPP law.

LockeMonster posted...

What happened to Avant vs TurgidTyrant?

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

Hi there!

Been waiting for Avant to clarify something in post 145. Since he hasn't responded yet I'll assume he doesn't have anything to add there, so I'll get back where we left off after work today.