- Joined
- Nov 10, 2015
even champions for the cause need champions in court
Richard Meyer v. Mark Waid (2018)
- Thread starter damian
- Start date
-
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
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
Given that based on his Twitter follies, it is transparently clear that it is Zaid playing the clever nursery school level word games that would seem to be deliberate perjury, how is the Texas Lawyer (s) going to take that? What is the potential exposure to them? While Zaid pretty much openly and publicly admitted to being familiar with Waid’s Texas business dealings, I suspect that the Texas hired guns may not have been. At least I would hope they weren’t aware of such. Just on the basis of most local lawyers operate under the golden rule of “don’t take a shit on the desk of the Judge you will have to appear in front of for the next case”. I wonder if they are even aware of the perjurous discrepancy yet?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
They will be when Byrne et al file an opposition to their silly ass motion.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
That should be an entertaining read.
This whole thing really is far more entertaining than anything Waid has written in decades. Which is the real shame. Unlike the modern pink haired milkshake brigade, Waid actually could tell a real good story at one point. His Flash run might be the characters all time best. Now, he is like the Willy Loman of comic writing.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2015
Whats your estimation of when we will see a response?
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2017
I have to say i'm just so happy that Zaid turned out to be a disingenuous sperg of an attorney, this is like the Maddox case but if Landui was engaging in the social media shitflinging
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
The word you was looking for is "opaque".
Pozzingmyfilthyneghole
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 2, 2018
It is remarkable how much money you can make shovelling back the tide.
In the end you need to get out while the getting is good. Not very honorable, but then, there's no honor among lawyers.
The Doktor
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2018
Nicky Rackets pointed out something from Waid/Zaid’s own motion that sorta maybe points to perjury in Waid’s affidavit
https://twitter.com/nickrekieta/status/1059713523759095808?s=21
https://twitter.com/nickrekieta/status/1059713523759095808?s=21
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2018
Nicky Rackets did two streams on the Waid's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbkjX3E0IhuUfPzL0FjSPaw/videos
Going from left to right
1) A sober legal analysis in 43 minutes
2) His coverage of the Killstream being killed.
3) An angry 3 hour 43 minute rant about the motion
Funny how 3) has 10K views and 1) has 1.6K
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbkjX3E0IhuUfPzL0FjSPaw/videos
Going from left to right
1) A sober legal analysis in 43 minutes
2) His coverage of the Killstream being killed.
3) An angry 3 hour 43 minute rant about the motion
Funny how 3) has 10K views and 1) has 1.6K
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2017
One is 3 hours old and the other is 3 days old. They cover the same subject. This isn't rocket appliance.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2018
That bit from the screenshot isn't from the motion. It's from this Bounding Into Comics article which is in turn quoting this podcast from June (MP3 version). ETA: The "publisher here in Texas" bit starts at 20:58. The question he's responding to and the rest of his response begins at 18:16, though due to how the mics are set up, it's difficult to hear the question.
Well, check the publish times of both videos - not really fair to compare. ETA: Ninjaed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2018
Nick Rackets said Zaid's Youtube liked videos 'looks like those of a paedophile'. He thinks Zaid isn't a paedo and he should unlike them or make his like history private.
Here's what he is referring to
https://www.youtube.com/user/MarkSZaidEsq
http://archive.is/ejvmQ
Here's what he is referring to
https://www.youtube.com/user/MarkSZaidEsq
http://archive.is/ejvmQ
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2018
Does Zaid even have a daughter? I've haven't seen confirmation one way or the other.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Always archive.
https://archive.fo/iOU3a
Also:
Waid put the last nail in his coffin with this rant.
"Before we burn his place to the ground," metaphorical or not, is a clear statement that he was threatening to destroy the business unless they broke the law and breached the contract with Meyer.
And right before it, he admitted he was completely aware Antarctic was in Texas. He also was physically in Texas at the time, on business, which he explicitly denies in the affidavit.
He not only blows his current jurisdictional arguments out of the water, he blows any arguments he had that he wasn't improperly interfering with the contract. He tried to worm around the perjury in the affidavit with bullshit parenthetical statements, but he was very, very explicit he didn't know that Antarctic was in Texas.
That's a relevant statement of fact material to the decision over whether the court has personal jurisdiction. That is to say, that is PERJURY.
"Nice business you got there. Be a shame if someone BURNED IT TO THE GROUND." Nice choice of words there, Waid. You just had to be the big swinging dick, didn't you? Not a good look for a simpering little soy faced cuck doughball piece of shit.
Hope it was worth it.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2018
Please post screen caps:
Beautiful.Always archive.
https://archive.fo/iOU3a
Also:
Waid put the last nail in his coffin with this rant.
"Before we burn his place to the ground," metaphorical or not, is a clear statement that he was threatening to destroy the business unless they broke the law and breached the contract with Meyer.
And right before it, he admitted he was completely aware Antarctic was in Texas. He also was physically in Texas at the time, on business, which he explicitly denies in the affidavit.
He not only blows his current jurisdictional arguments out of the water, he blows any arguments he had that he wasn't improperly interfering with the contract. He tried to worm around the perjury in the affidavit with bullshit parenthetical statements, but he was very, very explicit he didn't know that Antarctic was in Texas.
That's a relevant statement of fact material to the decision over whether the court has personal jurisdiction. That is to say, that is PERJURY.
"Nice business you got there. Be a shame if someone BURNED IT TO THE GROUND." Nice choice of words there, Waid. You just had to be the big swinging dick, didn't you? Not a good look for a simpering little soy faced cuck doughball piece of shit.
Hope it was worth it.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2017
Nick remarked that he is not married and does not have children during the livestream, but I don't know where he got that info. It may just been drunken ranting. He was comparing Zaid and Waid and calling them both failures for being unable to attract a wife and have children at their ages.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
Probably super :late:, but is the Calder test applicable to this case, and if so, wouldn't it be next to impossible for Waid to disprove it? I mean, (1) I assume TI is an intentional tort, (2) Waid uniquely or expressly targeted TX when he called AP, and (3) Waid knew or should've known that the harm from his act would be felt in TX.
I can see why Waid is attempting to plead ignorance on the location, but in the end all he's doing is perjuring himself. (:powerlevel: Im just learning about personal jurisdiction in CivPro, so this is a really helpful way for me to apply the elements)
I can see why Waid is attempting to plead ignorance on the location, but in the end all he's doing is perjuring himself. (:powerlevel: Im just learning about personal jurisdiction in CivPro, so this is a really helpful way for me to apply the elements)
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2017
i think that was directed at the protector of wahmen, waid
- Status