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: 9595771" data-attributes="member: 7038835">Okay, been listening to this. Obviously I can't promise an outcome but I didn't really hear anything that leads me to believe there appeal judges are going to find any merit to the appeal.For this those who want the breakdown without subjecting themselves to 35 minutes.Justin's lawyer:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">First four minutes are a judge telling Justin's lawyer the District Court should have dismissed it purely for the bit where he went way outside the scope of the permitted amendment, and "It wasn't a redline".  Then Justin's lawyer insists he stands by the proposition that he did nothing wrong - so they move on.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Follow up is an argument on which statements are facts, Justin's lawyer makes some weird claims in response to an appeal judge pointing out Nazi is often used as a statement of opinion:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Before claiming that someone is a Nazi you should know if they have pictures of Nazi leaders like Himmler in their house... even though it's often used as an opinion/judgement</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The jury should also be able to decide if there is a meaningful disitinction between supporting Nazi ideology and Nazi imagery, and being an actual Nazi (somehow?)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">He claims its impossible for Justin to show evidence he didn't have a Nazi in nuTSR (which never had any large number of people involved in their projects so... a normal person would just say they know all the people and they're not Nazis?)</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">He also stumbles over the idea that Justin f'd over his business partners and starts to build up some energy, then he gets interrupted and asked to point to which statement is most clearly factual... at which point he conceeds he doesn't know if any of them actually are. For those keeping score Justin's lawyer is basically 0/2 at this point but still wants to keep going, and is maybe going to answer some of these questions in rebuttal.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">He then starts to want to into the IIED but gets told he used his time and has to sit down.</li> </ul>Tenkar's lawyer:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Gets to start by pointing out the judges already basically made his first point for him (re: amendments), and how basically has to check what else he has to say.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tenkar's lawyer raises the idea that judge gets to decide the sufficiency of claim as a matter of law, so was entitled to decide that without further exploration of the facts.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Next, it is pointed out that who better to tell people who is or isn't in nuTSR, and who among them is or isn't a Nazi than the owner of the company (Justin LaNasa)? Judge asks for an example of what response Justin should have supplied - mostly it's a talk about if Justin provided any facts or just the prima facie case.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It shifts onto the discussion of who f'd over someone to get the Trademark, which leads us to amazingly having the phrase, "...Ernie Gygax, whoever that poor fellow is, who's not even here..." on the official record for a "TSR" case as one judge points out that it doesn't even seem to relate to Justin (and that Justin hasn't clarified why it is relevant).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tenkar's lawyer has to spend pointing out this is not actual defamation with real consequences but largely inane Internet drama in a small community.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Then there is the issue of posting the photo of the child, where it is pretty clearly a non-issue because it was a thumbnail from when the spouse entered the chat with that as a profile picture.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Moves on to the IIED and defamation are not actionable because no reasonable jury could agree the criteria were met.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tenkar's lawyer points out if you watch the video the context is actually quite harmful to Justin's case, the judge asks if it gave him a more negative option of "Mr LaMana" - which is name I now really want to appear in a JRPG</li> </ul>Justin's lawyer on rebuttal:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Starts by agreeing the posting on the image was a non-issue except for the bit where Tenkar implied he'd shoot anyone who came into his house - and Tenkar knows where he lives etc. (Weird that the claim is it was a problem due to the possibility of AI child abuse imagery in the complaint then?)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Judge immediately points out that the threats of violence are always contextualized with "if he comes to my house" and Justin's lawyer seems confused and says he doesn't remember, so the judge reads out his own submission to him about this. Justin's lawyer just seems to instantly forget this and rant on more.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Judge points out Tenkar never actually did anything weird or outrageous with the photo, so its not really of interest to hear about what he could have done if they can't say he did it based on issue.  Justin's lawyer keeps trying to ignore the judge pointing out that "the image is there forever" because Mrs LaNasa put it there.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Justin's lawyer continues to desperately try to ignore the judges pointing out that he just failed to do his job in explaining what defamation occurred and why it was defamatory. Its also highlighted to him the time to fix it was the first amendment of the complaint.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In his final ramblings, after being asked what he would clarify if he were allowed his third amendment to the complaint, the lawyer bumbles through and now wants the new standard to be Tenkar should have to prove that "Mr LaNasa's Chief Clerk..." (a term he invents in the moment) "...is a member of the Nazi party." (which was disestablished in 10 Oct 1945). I'm not convinced any judge is going to agree that's a "reasonable interpretation" of the statement "x person's business involves a Nazi".</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">He then starts to invent other scenarios he wants the defence to prove out of thin air, not really specifying anything he would amend or ways he would clarify the basis of the complaint.</li> </ul>Notably the tenor is extremely different where in the opening the judges are very clearly trying to tell Justin's lawyer they think he's wrong and he keeps ignoring them, where Tenkar's lawyer they are testing and asking for greater clarification - so um, outlook not good for Justin.  Largely the impression I got is the judges understandably want to be very careful where they draw the lines in saying what isn't defamation and what isn't IIED (which is their job, so that's good).The main issue they seem to be wanting to consider is where is the line between a self-evident statement and just a prima facie conclusion. Things like if "The claim I involve a Nazi in my business is false." is clear enough on its own or if Justin should have said "The claim I involve a Nazi in my business is false, I have a small number of employees and can vouch that none of them participate in behaviour that reasonably warrants being called a Nazi."Obviously from Justin's point of view, he doesn't want to have to swear to that last one because it'll make it super awkward when they ask him if he's aware of No Hate In Gaming.Sadly you're not allowed to introduce new evidence in appeals unless you get very specific approval for very specific purposes, otherwise we'd probably get Justin's lawyer wanting to reference 49 other videos and ask the court to just trust him they're bad.Particularly not when the tearing into him is specifically "I think we can just dismiss this due to your abuse of the process" regarding his going outside the scope of his amendment and the inaccuracies in his redlining.</blockquote>

Verification