Rekieta Law

Whine and Bitch about people long after they become interesting to talk about
User avatar
rabidtictac
Posts: 20320
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: Rekieta Law

Post by rabidtictac » Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:38 am

Shitposting in itself wouldn't be admissable except to show state of mind of the writer. It's not evidence of anything unless the accusation is some kind of internet conspiracy (which Vic has alluded to) and the posts would demonstrate that. Shitposting about someone isn't enough and would be a waste of the judge's time.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but the only way I see the PULL stuff being admitted into evidence is if Vic's lawyer has an extremely specific charge and the posts would corroborate that. Randoms saying "Vic a shit" wouldn't demonstrate anything except their own opinion. Posting on PUFF (pretty ugly fat faggots) isn't like when Funimation fired Vic for unfounded accusations with no evidence.

But I'm happy the PUFF idiots are scrambling and sweating. The only ones who have to worry are those who involved themselves in Vic's case in an overt way or those who happen to have been directly involved with Vic. Marzgurl is on the border and I think she's a good litmus test for the line between "ehhh maybe we should put this idiot on the stand" and "this is a random shitpost." She's juuuust connected enough to the whole blackballing conspiracy thing. IMO of course, not a lawyer.
RAPEMAN wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:42 pm
>liberal: ban x
>trump: yeah ban x
>liberal: no bro x is awesome

User avatar
Rapeculture
Posts: 5653
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:34 pm

Re: Rekieta Law

Post by Rapeculture » Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:49 am

Nick Rekieta said in a stream awhile back that he thinks that Vic should sue Marzgurl, so there's probably a case there. She egged this shit on from almost the very beginning and created the KickVic hashtag, using it like 39 times herself and retweeting others who used it. She made a malicious tweet saying that there "has to be a way to ensure that Vic isn't profitable for cons and possibly companies anymore." She's part of the reason Vic has lost work. At the very least, they should get her ass on the stand at some point. I know Vic can't get any money from her, but she needs to be made an example of. Ruin her credit, ruin her fucking life.
rabidtictac wrote:
Wed Aug 09, 2023 4:57 am
Rapeculture lives in a van by the river and rapes bitches every day.

User avatar
Keith Chegwin
Supreme Shitposter
Posts: 10349
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:42 am

Re: Rekieta Law

Post by Keith Chegwin » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:18 am

rabidtictac wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:38 am
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but the only way I see the PULL stuff being admitted into evidence is if Vic's lawyer has an extremely specific charge and the posts would corroborate that.
It's not Beard that's looking to use PULL, it's Lionel Hutz. Mr Hutz believes that posts on PULL and some tumblr blog constitute evidence, which is why they're annoyed. If the judge agrees (he won't) that opens the door for Beard to drag them all into court.
Kugelfisch wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 2:05 am
Imagine spending a billion US dollars to be a loser. Could've watched animu and be one for free.

User avatar
rabidtictac
Posts: 20320
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: Rekieta Law

Post by rabidtictac » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:19 am

Lol Hutz is an idiot if that's the case. Including PULL shitposts can ONLY help Vic. Hutz should be trying to exclude as much as he can. :lol:

1. Shitposts are not evidence
2. Opinions about Vic are not evidence unless they include evidence
3. Criminal accusations about Vic posted on PUFF only strengthen his case unless the accuser has evidence, which they never do

I don't see how puff can do anything to exonerate the people Vic is suing. I also SERIOUSLY DOUBT that the (few) PUFF shitposters who have relevance to this case (basically, the ones who know vic irl) would be happy having their shitposts used as testimony or counted as some kind of official statement. :lol: :lol: :lol:
RAPEMAN wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:42 pm
>liberal: ban x
>trump: yeah ban x
>liberal: no bro x is awesome

User avatar
VoiceOfReasonPast
Supreme Shitposter
Posts: 47635
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:33 pm

Re: Rekieta Law

Post by VoiceOfReasonPast » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:24 am

Keith Chegwin wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:40 am
They'll sweat profusely but there's no way PULL gets admitted as any kind of evidence. Firstly, pretty much anything of value there is hearsay and secondly, using PULL as evidence would set several dangerous precedents.
B-b-b-but they've made so many posts about it, it must be hard evidence :lol:
Autism attracts more autism. Sooner or later, an internet nobody will attract the exact kind of fans - and detractors - he deserves.
-Yours Truly

4 wikia: static -> vignette

User avatar
rabidtictac
Posts: 20320
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: Rekieta Law

Post by rabidtictac » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:29 am

I just assumed that the Rial/Soye side would be trying to exclude as many forums and social media avenues as possible so as to reduce to pool from which Vic can draw his accusations that they fucked him over. Like, get the judge to discount PUFF as not credible and then you can dismiss all of the shitposts on there as "damaging" to Vic. So if Vic references something from PUFF, automatic objection, that's not relevant, that has been excluded etc.

I never thought they'd be trying to bring in more sources which can only hurt their side. It was my impression that lawyers try to reduce the scope and breadth of evidence that can be used against their clients. I don't think PUFF should count as evidence against Vic, but if some faggot lawyer convinces the judge to admit it, then that's gonna open PUFF up to a royal reaming LOLOLOL.
RAPEMAN wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:42 pm
>liberal: ban x
>trump: yeah ban x
>liberal: no bro x is awesome

User avatar
Keith Chegwin
Supreme Shitposter
Posts: 10349
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:42 am

Re: Rekieta Law

Post by Keith Chegwin » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:06 am

rabidtictac wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:29 am
I never thought they'd be trying to bring in more sources which can only hurt their side.
I don't think the legal response got posted here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/4100230 ... nal-Answer

Basically, Lionel Hutz proposes many defences. One of his defences is that everything alleged by his clients is true and to back up those claims he's cited PULL and the tumblr blog. He also cited the story from that girl who claimed Vic put the moves on her back in High School. You know, the one that was pretty quickly debunked
Kugelfisch wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 2:05 am
Imagine spending a billion US dollars to be a loser. Could've watched animu and be one for free.

User avatar
rabidtictac
Posts: 20320
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: Rekieta Law

Post by rabidtictac » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:11 am

Keith Chegwin wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:06 am
rabidtictac wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:29 am
I never thought they'd be trying to bring in more sources which can only hurt their side.
I don't think the legal response got posted here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/4100230 ... nal-Answer

Basically, Lionel Hutz proposes many defences. One of his defences is that everything alleged by his clients is true and to back up those claims he's cited PULL and the tumblr blog. He also cited the story from that girl who claimed Vic put the moves on her back in High School. You know, the one that was pretty quickly debunked
If you're going to pull the "Vic is actually a rapist" card, you're going to need way more fucking evidence than a shitposting forum where anonymous users are posting what basically amount to reactions. Unless the people on PUFF are willing to be deposed and come in to swear that the information they shitposted on PUFF was correct (Ty would be an idiot not to require this or something similar imo) then PUFF is completely useless as a source for Hutz's defense.

Sounds to me like he's throwing shit at the wall and hoping it will stick. Same for the tumblr blog with its very dubious claims.

Thing is, if he fucks up and brings in PULL and fails to convince the judge Vic is a rapist (and the burden of proof will be high for that shit since Vic is not the one on trial LOLOLOL), then Vic can use PULL and the tumblr blog as evidence of a conspiracy to spread slanderous lies and ruin his reputation.

Obviously, anyone who gives a statement to the court as a witness for one side is open to cross-examination from the other side.
RAPEMAN wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:42 pm
>liberal: ban x
>trump: yeah ban x
>liberal: no bro x is awesome

User avatar
Keith Chegwin
Supreme Shitposter
Posts: 10349
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:42 am

Re: Rekieta Law

Post by Keith Chegwin » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:07 am

rabidtictac wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:11 am
Sounds to me like he's throwing shit at the wall and hoping it will stick. Same for the tumblr blog with its very dubious claims.
That's exactly what he's doing
Kugelfisch wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 2:05 am
Imagine spending a billion US dollars to be a loser. Could've watched animu and be one for free.

User avatar
Guest

Re: Rekieta Law

Post by Guest » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:31 am

His plan is to claim his clients were tricked by fake victims and PULL into believing false accusations. Whilst also accosting Vic on the stand with the accusations. The ones he's saying are false.

It's a... really stupid plan.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 56 guests