Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wincenworks" data-source="post: 9259587" data-attributes="member: 7038835">Indeed... I just looked into some of the other items.In order to claim that it is definitely defamation to point out Dave Johnson is a Nazi, he cites Hyrhorijiv (Grigorieff) v. Winchell a case which established it could be defamation to refer to someone as a Nazi sympathizer... in 1943... and specifically cites the war as part of the basis - and was never concluded.  So um... not the source I'd rely upon.He also cites Karl Reeves v. Associated Newspapers which is another baffling choice... since it was a case where the court concluded it was not defamation to refer to someone as a Neo-Nazi when you had suitable evidence.... and concluded that information drawn from an arrest record and a police report should be considered fair and accurate.So y'know... basically "Yeah I was so out of line when I claimed it was defamation to cite my arrest record..."  Also it seems that both these cases are from basic textbooks on media law in the US so... um... er... better late than never when it comes to study I suppose?He follows that up by essentially arguing that the use of Justin's daughter's photo in a video is intentional infliction of emotion distress (IIED) because deepfake technology can be used to falsify child pornography....[ATTACH=full]345491[/ATTACH]Bearing in mind... the reason there are photo of Justin's daughter is there is because Erika used it as her avatar when barging into Tenkar's stream... and Justin has posted pictures of his daughter on the DHSM Facebook page multiple times... and has a bunch of photos of her on his own web site.So basically this really makes the case that Justin's daughter should sue her parents for IIED...He then doubles down on claiming you will invoke Castle Doctrine in a Castle Doctrine state is IIED which is both baffling because... well I think the real issue with that is Castle Doctrine and that's a thing for lawmakers... but also this "threat" would have required Justin to literally show up at Tenkar's house.  So um... struggling to see how this meets the "outrageous" criteria.Justin also supplied a statement which is... a hilarious self own.  Apparently Justin is now banned from FIVE different, unrelated conventions... and blames Tenkar for this... but can give no figure for what those losses might be, but he arrives on a final figure of "excess of" $160k in actual damages. $135k of which is legal feels.So he essentially admits that when he started this fiasco he was about $50k shy of the $75k figure you need for bringing it to Federal Court, instead of state... hence why he's desperately leaning into the Carroll v. Trump ruling.And I mean desperately, his Exhibit C is (I'm losing my mind here) a copy of the Jury response from the first Carroll v. Trump case![ATTACH=full]345493[/ATTACH]His Exhibit A is yet another list of Tenkar's YouTube videos he doesn't like, Exhibit B is videos released since the proceedings started which he doesn't like and with such amazing explanations of "time 8:20 talks about TSR" "Defendant appearing on YouTube video of Don Semora" and "refers to Mario etc" So um... way to make your own action look like a SLAPP?The final exhibit is a copy of the ruling on the TSR vs WotC injunction which is cited in a footnote that fails to mention the injunction failed, in large part because Justin agreed not to publish SF:NG and that WotC pointed out the copy that Justin supplied in his counter evidence was also bad... and that Justin owns the company so he cannot escape responsibility (only Dave can).[ATTACH=full]345494[/ATTACH]This whole submission reads like it's written for a test where you are asked to explain the problems with the submission.Also speaking of losing minds... Justin's lawyer literally opens with some amateur diagnosis of Tenkar....[ATTACH=full]345497[/ATTACH]Which is... I mean... I cannot imagine it inspiring confidence in any judge, anywhere.</blockquote>

Verification