|
 Page 54.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/marchimark/status/1172663688207245312
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Piell posted:12/17 were dismissed during the hearing, the judge has until October 7th to decide whether or not to dismiss the other five.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
Some of those were wrong too because the judge hasn't ruled on conspiracy for 2 of the defendants. I really hope it doesn't make it to discovery, because it's pretty loving clear that Ty & team intend to use discovery to rake a bunch more people over the coals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
Adnor posted:
I'm gonna say that getting in front of a judge and thinking on your feet is really loving hard and I've been tripped up before with a judge asking a hard question. If you found my transcription I'd sound pretty dumb! but jesus christ this is bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1172696844046086144
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
I think it's been posted before but this bit from the judge cracks me up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 05:13
|
|
|
Oh my god, Marchi's got thrown out because Ty literally didn't have evidence that the tweets were actually about Vic. How are they so bad at this? E: lmao quote:THE COURT: Then I can let you lie, is AnoHito fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
Oh god I didn't know this thread existed. Just chiming in to say that pages 74-75 are one special kind of dumb e:   Ignis fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 09:04
|
|
|
Wark Say posted:Like please tell me that all the cases these dumb shits filed (I think there were like 19?) have been dismissed by now, because for the life of me I refuse to believe someone is that loving bad at lawyering, even if they don't specialize in this one type of legal field. The signature forgery I can sorta believe, but this here seems like a dumb comedy show skit that got rejected on account of being too loving stupid to be believable. Becoming a lawyer just requires passing a written exam. It doesn't require you to have any courtroom skills or even social skills at all. I think it's pretty clear from the transcript that the guy has no experience talking before a judge. Also I have worked as an intern for a lawyer who did the signature forgery thing ("we don't need to bother the client with this"). If you don't get caught, no one really cares. Note: I am not condoning this, I've just seen that sort of apathy in practice. Okay that's just idiotic though. Clarste fucked around with this message at 12:20 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 12:16
|
|
|
can i just notarise this over the phone?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 12:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Erimgard/status/1172702964399648768 The chuds having decided that the judge is awful, and will be entirely overturned on appeal and Ty will be vindicated are all hugging one another in their cult-like safe space. Which means another round of schadenfreude when none of that happens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 12:28
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I'm gonna say that getting in front of a judge and thinking on your feet is really loving hard and I've been tripped up before with a judge asking a hard question. If you found my transcription I'd sound pretty dumb! but jesus christ this is bad. Yeah. No lawyer is going to sound like Perry Mason in front of the judge (or Phoenix Wright to use somebody Kick Vic has heard of), but stumbling over words is one thing and the issue is Beard really didn't have any answers in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 13:21
|
|
|
someone in the twitter comments joked that clearly the stenographer is on it and I almost fell out of my chair
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1172698054773919746
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 13:37
|
|
|
I'd really like to see more proper articles done about this because there's some obvious legal subtleties that go over my head and even with so many eye poring over this, I'm sure there are extra gems that need to be highlighted either from previous hearings or that'll come up in future ones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 13:46
|
|
|
It you played a drinking game for every time Ty got mercilessly owned by the judge your liver would explode.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 14:52
|
|
|
Ty Beard is actually sympathetic to the victims. He’s into legal humiliation and figured he’d impose his kink on Vic nonconsentually to give him a taste of his own medicine
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
So, lawyers - is this Hsu guy another foolish person like Beard, or did he come across as a normally-competent lawyer who's been handed an absolute shitshow to do his best to recover from?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Ty Beard is actually sympathetic to the victims. He’s into legal humiliation and figured he’d impose his kink on Vic nonconsentually to give him a taste of his own medicine Nah, Vic accidentally killed Ty's dog like 10 years ago, and this whole charade is just a huge dish of revenge served ice cold.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
divabot posted:So, lawyers - is this Hsu guy another foolish person like Beard, or did he come across as a normally-competent lawyer who's been handed an absolute shitshow to do his best to recover from? After Bead falsely notarized the affidavits in his response to the TCPAs, he got other lawyers in his firm to sign off on it, which would open up the possibility for them to get sanctioned too. What likely happened is that the firm saw the writing on the wall and hired Hsu to course correct this flaming, sinking ship the best that they could manage, while possibly offering a way to defend the firm from sanctions as a result of Ty's improper conduct.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
this judge owns
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:can i just notarise this over the phone? The defense mentioned that you can actually do that but you need a video connection and to actually watch them sign, which I thought was interesting. (Obviously Beard did not do this.) Also liked the bit where Beard says they were always going to file an amended whatever and is then unable to explain what he means because supposedly it was amended as a response
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
Julias posted:After Bead falsely notarized the affidavits in his response to the TCPAs, he got other lawyers in his firm to sign off on it, which would open up the possibility for them to get sanctioned too. What likely happened is that the firm saw the writing on the wall and hired Hsu to course correct this flaming, sinking ship the best that they could manage, while possibly offering a way to defend the firm from sanctions as a result of Ty's improper conduct. in either way he was brought in far too late to help the hearing by participating outside of statements on law rather than fact, but any attempt to help their legal strategy is worth it at this point Syritta posted:The defense mentioned that you can actually do that but you need a video connection and to actually watch them sign, which I thought was interesting. (Obviously Beard did not do this.) them doubling down on "we always intended to amend the filing" is not going to bite them come sanctions time
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
There really is no bottom of the barrel for these guys, is there? https://twitter.com/TheChrissel/status/1172901800694943744?s=19
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
I just, I just can't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:I'd really like to see more proper articles done about this because there's some obvious legal subtleties that go over my head and even with so many eye poring over this, I'm sure there are extra gems that need to be highlighted either from previous hearings or that'll come up in future ones. @questauthority on Twitter is going through the transcript right now and he's very good at explaining said legal subtleties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Ignis posted:@questauthority on Twitter is going through the transcript right now and he's very good at explaining said legal subtleties. part 1: https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1172642897566609409 part 2 (ongoing): https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1172947630751662080
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
Looking ahead... if this survived the MtD and everything.... I have no idea how the gently caress this survives a jury trial. All you have to do is put Robin Blankenship-McConnell on the stand and repeat what happened to her when she was 16 (for reference she should be about 45 now) as stated (WARNING: as with most of this stuff about Vic there are details about unwanted advances contained within)here. I'm not sure how any of the rest of this survives a jury.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
pretty much the only way it would make it is if they stuff the jury full of Fullmetal Alchemist and Broly fans
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
CharlestonJew posted:pretty much the only way it would make it is if they stuff the jury full of Fullmetal Alchemist and Broly fans Statistically you'd probably have at least a couple who think dubbing anime is a sin and Vic is the world's greatest criminal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Can't the judge dismiss the case "with prejudice" and basically kill any attempt to appeal? Not sure how that works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
Anora posted:Can't the judge dismiss the case "with prejudice" and basically kill any attempt to appeal? Not sure how that works. If he thinks there isn't any reasonable basis to proceed, yes. It's what he's done for most of the suit already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
Anora posted:Can't the judge dismiss the case "with prejudice" and basically kill any attempt to appeal? Not sure how that works. So you can appeal any ruling. Appeals, however, must reference errors in law (not errors in fact). Basically you have to prove that the judge misapplied a law or precedent inside of the case. You can't bring new evidence, or change evidence, or simply argue that you don't agree with a finding of fact (i.e. you can't just disagree with if they believe a witness or not). "With prejudice" just means that the dismissal is on the merits of the case. A Judge can dismiss due to some procedural thing or another "without prejudice" which means the plaintiff is welcome to present the case to the court again with procedural errors repaired.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
It's a futile hope but I still hope Vic deeply regrets hiring these men at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
Justin_Brett posted:It's a futile hope but I still hope Vic deeply regrets hiring these men at the very least. He'll feel it when he's paying out of pocket for the Defendants lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
mallratcal posted:He'll feel it when he's paying out of pocket for the Defendants lawyers. So what's the split on attorney fees like? All Vic, some Vic some Ty? How does this work in Texas? I'm thinking of one Florida case where the judge emphasised that the defendant was a massive liar and was gonna pay the other side's fees personally, but his attorneys had been nothing but professional. (Bitcoin nonsense with Craig Wright, who is not Satoshi Nakamoto. My blog post on the ruling. The ruling itself is a great read.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
divabot posted:So what's the split on attorney fees like? All Vic, some Vic some Ty? How does this work in Texas? probably expects the gfm warchest to cover it after all it's $240k~ a lawsuit can't cost that much
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
divabot posted:So what's the split on attorney fees like? All Vic, some Vic some Ty? How does this work in Texas? Ty is just a lawyer, I can't imagine he'll be required to pay anything, but I have nothing to base that on. It depends on how it gets ruled in regards to SLAPP. Vic might end up paying for all the attorney fees for the defense and sanctions on top that (that are designed for the purpose of dissuading him from filing more frivolous suits), iirc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:58
|
|
