Richard Meyer v. Mark Waid (2018)

  • 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

Waid Livestream - What will happen?

  • Talks about the lawsuit.

    Votes: 3 8.1%

  • Further incriminates himself.

    Votes: 18 48.6%

  • Defames YaBoi again.

    Votes: 5 13.5%

  • Doesn't talk about the lawsuit nor CG.

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Host disagrees with Waid on something, chimpout insues.

    Votes: 7 18.9%

  • Normal interview. (no drama)

    Votes: 2 5.4%
  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sheryl Nome said:
i think that was directed at the protector of wahmen, waid
Click to expand...
It was at both. He specifically mentioned defending the youtube pedo red flag saying like everyone else that it was probably a daughter or something, but that he doesn't have kids so it looks like he's a pedo. He tore both of them a new one.
 
break these cuffs said:
One is 3 hours old and the other is 3 days old. They cover the same subject. This isn't rocket appliance.
Click to expand...

Also dramatards are just more interested in angry drunken ranting than sober morning analysis.

soy_king said:
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)
Click to expand...

There isn't really a national publication that's the subject of this case, which is why neither Calder nor Keeton are particularly appropriate. The real issue is a specific, directed communication to a company in Texas, which the defendant knew was in Texas and deliberately targeted, trying to get them to break a contract made in Texas to be carried out in Texas.

The fact that the plaintiff also happens to be in Texas is a bonus, but not really necessary.

The fact that the defendant was physically in Texas while he made some of the defamatory statements and threats that are the subject of the lawsuit is another bonus, but again not strictly necessary.

The fact that the defendant committed perjury out of utter desperation to get the case out of Texas is also not necessary, but is delicious.
 
Big Bad Fish said:
Does Zaid even have a daughter? I've haven't seen confirmation one way or the other.
Click to expand...
EVS'S AND VOX DAY'S COMICSHATE CAPOS AT KIWI FARMS ARE TRYING TO DOX MARK ZAID ESQUIRE'S CHILDREN
AnOminous said:
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.
Click to expand...
To give Waid the benefit of the doubt, it's possible he only learned Antarctic was in Texas in the two weeks or so between when he made the call (somewhere around May 12th) and when this con happened (late May).
 
Least Concern said:
To give Waid the benefit of the doubt, it's possible he only learned Antarctic was in Texas in the two weeks or so between when he made the call (somewhere around May 12th) and when this con happened (late May).
Click to expand...

Even if you do that, that would mean that after committing the unlawful acts the case is about, and the sudden burst of deleting fucking everything that immediately ensued because he knew he'd fucked up, he still chose to come to Texas voluntarily, and while physically present there, continue the pattern of defamation the case is about.

That blows his claim that it would be unfair to expect him to defend a case in Texas out of the water, and his claim in his affidavit that he'd never had any relevant contacts in Texas is still perjury.
 
Least Concern said:
To give Waid the benefit of the doubt, it's possible he only learned Antarctic was in Texas in the two weeks or so between when he made the call (somewhere around May 12th) and when this con happened (late May).
Click to expand...
Frankly i don't see how that jives with the multiple(?) statements about how MW knew the owner and that he was a good guy. He's trying to walk it back now that there will be possible ramifications for his stupidity; trying to do it in a sworn statement to a judge, with evidence contrary to the statement... not a smart move.

It wasn't touched on much but i love how MW uses 'WE'; before WE burn this place to the ground, directly inserting himself as the leader of a hate mob trying to get the deal cancelled.
 
Last edited:
I would absolutely hate having Waid as my client. I mean, apparently Zaid is a fellow-traveller dipshit and thus a lost cause, but I kind of wonder what his Texan lawyers think about all this. He's really putting them in an untenable position.

Can they (Texas counsel) fire him as a client for this sort of shit? (e.g. running his big, fat, stupid mouth on social media), and continuing to run it. I wonder if he thinks becaues Zaid is doing it, that he thinks his case is a shoe-in or something.
 
Clockwork Dragon said:
I would absolutely hate having Waid as my client. I mean, apparently Zaid is a fellow-traveller dipshit and thus a lost cause, but I kind of wonder what his Texan lawyers think about all this. He's really putting them in an untenable position.

Can they (Texas counsel) fire him as a client for this sort of shit? (e.g. running his big, fat, stupid mouth on social media), and continuing to run it. I wonder if he thinks becaues Zaid is doing it, that he thinks his case is a shoe-in or something.
Click to expand...

It seems as tho this might already be the 2nd Texas firm to take this case. That seemed to be hinted at in the filing (the original extension was requested by a female lawyer & the motion was filed by a male lawyer in Texas).... of course it could be some other associate in the same firm (I didn’t bother to compare the return addresses of the 2 filings) , but combine that that with zack’s Now-deleted video about “why I’m suing Waid” and mentioning a 2nd firm filing a motion for extension, and Zaid/Waid’s generally exceptional behavior & it’s quite possible they’re already on their 2nd Texas firm.
 
Jub-Jub said:
It wasn't touched on much but i love how MW uses 'WE'; before WE burn this place to the ground, directly inserting himself as the leader of a hate mob trying to get the deal cancelled.
Click to expand...

He just had to be the big swinging dick leaderfag and boast about it publicly.

Clockwork Dragon said:
Can they (Texas counsel) fire him as a client for this sort of shit? (e.g. running his big, fat, stupid mouth on social media), and continuing to run it. I wonder if he thinks becaues Zaid is doing it, that he thinks his case is a shoe-in or something.
Click to expand...

They could withdraw their endorsement of his p.h.v. status if they feel the potential liability for his sanctionable conduct is becoming too uncomfortable. When you vouch for someone's integrity for such an application, you're on the hook for whatever they do in the jurisdiction.
 
AnOminous said:
There isn't really a national publication that's the subject of this case, which is why neither Calder nor Keeton are particularly appropriate. The real issue is a specific, directed communication to a company in Texas, which the defendant knew was in Texas and deliberately targeted, trying to get them to break a contract made in Texas to be carried out in Texas.

The fact that the plaintiff also happens to be in Texas is a bonus, but not really necessary.

The fact that the defendant was physically in Texas while he made some of the defamatory statements and threats that are the subject of the lawsuit is another bonus, but again not strictly necessary.

The fact that the defendant committed perjury out of utter desperation to get the case out of Texas is also not necessary, but is delicious.
Click to expand...
But isn't Calder supposed to cover any intentional tort though?
 

The stream hasn't started yet, but people are already throwing shade in the chat. Some messages are being deleted.

ETA: Known names in the chat: Jon Malin, Edwin Boyette, YellowFlash, Raging Golden Eagle the MGTOW, Douglas Ernst.

ETA2:
message-deleted.png
 
Last edited:
soy_king said:
But isn't Calder supposed to cover any intentional tort though?
Click to expand...

If you were hanging the jurisdiction on publication, it would be sufficient, but it's not really necessary. The purposeful availment was very specific. It didn't just happen to hit a Texas target because of the defendant's nationwide activities. Not saying it's irrelevant, just that there's probably a case a lot closer to the current facts in Texas law, where a defendant clearly and unequivocally directly acted in the forum state, rather than by publication.

Waid personally delivered the interfering statements directly to the party who breached the contract, knowing the effects would be in Texas.

Not that Calder isn't the origin of the test, but a case closer is whatever Texas has done with Walden.

kcbbq said:
It's on the nerdist channel - don't expect anything to go against the social justice line.
Click to expand...

The Nerdist? More like the Rapist.
 
So after twenty minutes of talking about comics with genuine heart… they bring up the damn lawsuit, and especially the GFM. Oh, Waid, you darn fool. Chat is going nuts.

ETA: Waid: "Try to restrain yourself when you get angry online." Said by a guy who can't restrain himself when he gets angry IRL.

ETA2: It's over. Discussion of the lawsuit starts at 23:45 and runs pretty much through the end of the stream; everything before that is comics talk. Looks like they've disabled the stream chat ex post facto.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom