- Registrado
- 19 de Oct, 2019
Congratulations on authoring the dumbest opinion ever posted on KF you stupid faggot.
Christopher Avellone v. Karissa Barrows, Kelly Bristol, Does 1-100. (2021) - Fallout, Star Wars and Dying Light 2 writer grows a spine
- Iniciador del tema ersatz_cats
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 DDoS attack. Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/.
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack). -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 16 de Sep, 2021
Just calling it as I see it. What's the point on having any laws on defamation at all if you can just strike down any and all action on them through SLAPP shit? All I'm seeing is people having their careers irreversibly destroyed by tweets and their only avenue to strike back denied on grounds of anti-SLAPP. If those statutes did what you imply that they do, then there would be no problem with litigious people as any legal efforts on their part would be dismissed with prejudice based on them. Instead, the usual suspects still have free license to do what they do to this day. So the statutes fail to accomplish the good things you want from them, while actively causing problems by existing.
Useful_Mistake
Fire Nation sympathizer
Miembro del personal
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 4 de Mayo, 2020
Null has never used anti-SLAPP legislation.
- Registrado
- 5 de Mar, 2019
How is he getting them dismissed pretrial? Jurisdiction?
I remember one of the Mountain Jew cases almost went further because she lied about serving him.
Useful_Mistake
Fire Nation sympathizer
Miembro del personal
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 4 de Mayo, 2020
He usually doesn't respond, and the court dismisses it itself because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)) or because it is frivolous (28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)). In the two cases he was forced to respond, he dismissed one (latest Melinda suit (in which at one point she demanded the clerk to issue a subpoena to get information to prove I was Null's lawyer. Shocking absolutely no one, I am not Mr. Hardin. The request was denied.) Null's lawyer asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), 12(b)(4), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6). The judge granted that motion) and the other (Russell Greer's latest lawsuit) Mr. Skordas asked the lawsuit be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the judge granted the motion)
She served him incorrectly, and Null never received it.
- Registrado
- 5 de Mar, 2019
Isn't 12.b.6 the closest thing federal courts have to an anti-SLAPP, though?
I remember when the diver sued Elon his claim was able to survive 12.b.6, and later lost at trial.
Useful_Mistake
Fire Nation sympathizer
Miembro del personal
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 4 de Mayo, 2020
They are fundamentally different, though. Anti-SLAPP laws, for one, are actual laws, unlike FRCP which are rules enacted by SCOTUS in 1937, and likewise ammended by it. Anti-SLAPP laws also focus only on speech, whilst Rule 12 (b) just broadly offers many different defences for many different issues (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient process, insufficient service of process, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, failure to join a party under Rule 19.) 12 (b) (6) is also not limited only for federal courts, as state courts have similar rules. See MD Rules, Rule 2-323, Texas Rule 91a.1, etc.
It's sort like a wife is similar to a hooker, if you view your wife only through the lens of a thing you get paid sex from
Useful_Mistake
Fire Nation sympathizer
Miembro del personal
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 4 de Mayo, 2020
3:22-cv-02247-SMY Avellone v. Barrows:
- Registrado
- 5 de Mar, 2019
If this is anything like Mignogna a mediator will be a giant waste of time.
Useful_Mistake
Fire Nation sympathizer
Miembro del personal
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 4 de Mayo, 2020
Useful_Mistake
Fire Nation sympathizer
Miembro del personal
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 4 de Mayo, 2020
Cpt. Stud Beefpile
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 30 de Sep, 2022
Would love to be a fly on the wall so i could hear what the terms were.
Even in criminal trials, it's widely known that this is a joke. A number of cop shows have even referenced it as a cheap way to make the suspect of the week talk (often when the suspect is very young or a white office worker, ie; easier to scare than usual) or to punish a particularly loathsome detainee.
- Registrado
- 9 de Mar, 2019
Can't tell if this is a win for Avellone or not.
It would depend who approached who for settlement.
- Registrado
- 4 de Mayo, 2022
In theory it is sort of a win. Not the visceral, public flaying we would've preferred, but he's getting something. Either they'll have to retract/apologize or at the very least shut up about it, plus whatever cash he gets from them.
In theory.
Unfortunately we all know what will happen, they'll keep flapping their gums telling the same old stories with zero consequences, and he'll collect nothing.
I wouldn't quite call it a Pyrrhic victory. More of a thermodynamic win. He can quit the game with the appearance of a win, while actually being worse off than he was.
Sorry, I am sober, this would make more sense if I were typing drunk.
- Registrado
- 9 de Mar, 2019
Well, to put this into perspective, it is widely believed Richard C. Meyer reached out to Mark Waid first to try settling Meyer v. Waid.
The money people were donating to fund Meyer's legal expenses were exhausted and, after two years litigating over jurisdiction (Meyer won that argument), the facts of the case had not reached the fact finding stage yet. To many following that case, it looked like Meyer was raising the white flag in defeat when the joint statements by Meyer and Waid were posted (I recommend reading the Meyer v. Waid thread).
To bring this back on topic, if Avallone's legal expenses were drained to the point where he could not continue, then this might be a win for Barrows. Barrows will probably gloat about it, regardless.
- Registrado
- 22 de Mar, 2022
Brilliantly done on the follow up. Where do you find the court proceedings? Sorry I am not from America (nor do I live there), so I do not know which .gov website has this information.
Última edición:
Useful_Mistake
Fire Nation sympathizer
Miembro del personal
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 4 de Mayo, 2020
Each state has it's own online court system (and some of them are handled by private firms (see Georgia relying on peachcourt.com which does not serve non US residents), and not all of them are available to the public, or to foreigners. This, however, is a federal case, and as such can be found on pacer.uscourts.gov otherwise known as PACER. The account is free to anyone inside and outside of US, but looking and downloading documents costs money (10 cents per page with a maximum cost of $3.00 for a single document). If you, in a quarter, spend less than $30, the US government will waive your fees.
Here is a PACER link to this case.
You can also access user submitted backups on Courtlistener (for free) (not affiliated with US government). Here is a link to this case on Courtlistener.
Simultaneously, there is also another case happening on the state level, in a different state (Oklahoma), which can be found on oscn.net. Here is the link (requires US ip, so use a VPN (I recommend Mullvad) )to that case.
I hope this was helpful, and I am more than happy to answer any further questions about this, or some other issue, that you may have.
Última edición:
Useful_Mistake
Fire Nation sympathizer
Miembro del personal
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 4 de Mayo, 2020
Alabaster Disaster
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 12 de Ago, 2020
Straighten out a concept for me. From a settlement can we infer that the defendants and/or their lawyers think a case wouldn't go their way or would be too costly to defend so they offered Chris unspecified terms to avoid dragging it out and making it worse? Or are there other reasons to settle?
- Registrado
- 14 de Oct, 2018
Any of these and more could be reasons to settle.
When someone settles, it just means they have come to an agreement outside of the court. This is actually what judges prefer (cause they're lazy fuckheads) and will happily sign off on it.
Upon reading this, one phrase stands out:
"Additional time is needed to consummate the settlement."
This could mean that they have decided to some unusual terms such as a public apology. The Quartering settled his case with the guy who punched him out of court which included a public apology as part of the agreement.
The truth is, we may never know exactly why they settled, there might even be an NDA as part of the settlement. All it really means is the court will no longer be involved unless the settlement falls through.