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.
xxXDxx said:
It's like investment rounds, except instead of investors who want something, these people just give you money!
Click to expand...

Puddleduck said:
Meh. Plenty of people take out business loans to expand their business, I can't blame them for wanting to try and get some money they won't have to pay back.
Click to expand...

The difference is for business loans and actual outside investors you need to show a business case before they hand you money. You are assuming risk in order to expand your business and presenting a case as to why you are a good risk. With GoFundMe you are taking on no business or personal risk, nor are you presenting any business case beyond “I want”. There is no third party review of what you are seeking to do, nor any accountability. It’s just “gimme!”. Or as we like to call it “hipster welfare”. A basic rule I was always taught was “if you cannot present and prove your business case to the bank or investors, your business is almost certainly going to fail”. The assumption of risk means that failure is not an option. Whereas free money with no risk will always be used badly.

BrigadeLeader said:
Did Waid or any other of his ilk have anything to say bout stan lee
Click to expand...

Heck Marvel barely mentioned him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RodgerDodger said:
A basic rule I was always taught was “if you cannot present and prove your business case to the bank or investors, your business is almost certainly going to fail”. The assumption of risk means that failure is not an option. Whereas free money with no risk will always be used badly.
Click to expand...

Well, for those cases, there's venture capital. Those guys are generally willing to assume the risk that a venture is more likely than not to fail utterly and they'll lose their whole investment in return for the fact that, since they usually have lots of investments going, the ones where something does turn into a runaway success make up for the rest.

Still, you're talking having to convince even a guy who's okay with a 90% chance of failure into investing in something because you convince him it has a 10% chance of succeeding really well, and you'll have to pay back a lot of that.

This bullshit crowdfunding is just getting a bunch of suckers to "invest" in something that will probably fail and where even if it succeeds, they get nothing but the same shit they could have just bought when it came out.
 
Im thinking Meyer's attorney is waiting a while and is giving Zaid or the Texas firm time to correct the record. After he feels hes given them enough time hes going to go on a legal rampage.
 
RodgerDodger said:
Heck Marvel barely mentioned him.
Click to expand...
Nick Spencer was on NPR's 1a today sperging about Stan coming out in support of Spencer having Captain America join HYDRA.

Lots of crap on there about Stan using politics and justice stuff in comics, but leaving out (conveniently) the core tenet of this, "don't preach to kids". That's Marvel's big sin right now, preaching.
 
DragoonSierra said:
Im thinking Meyer's attorney is waiting a while and is giving Zaid or the Texas firm time to correct the record. After he feels hes given them enough time hes going to go on a legal rampage.
Click to expand...

Isn't the deadline two weeks? That would be next Friday. Most times lawyers take all the time they have before they file. But maybe I'm wrong about the deadline. Someone ask Rackets. lol
 
Love Soze said:
Isn't the deadline two weeks? That would be next Friday. Most times lawyers take all the time they have before they file. But maybe I'm wrong about the deadline. Someone ask Rackets. lol
Click to expand...

The deadline for opposition papers is usually based on when the hearing is, and I think it's 14 days prior to when the motion hearing is calendared. I'm not sure when that is in this case.

You're generally better off waiting until that deadline because otherwise you're just giving the idiots on the other side (and in this case there clearly are idiots on the other side) more time to file frivolous time-wasting sur-replies and similar unneeded bullshit to be annoying.
 
AnOminous said:
The deadline for opposition papers is usually based on when the hearing is, and I think it's 14 days prior to when the motion hearing is calendared. I'm not sure when that is in this case.

You're generally better off waiting until that deadline because otherwise you're just giving the idiots on the other side (and in this case there clearly are idiots on the other side) more time to file frivolous time-wasting sur-replies and similar unneeded bullshit to be annoying.
Click to expand...
I dont suppose our other lawyers have any idea when that is?
 
Looks like it's the other side's turn to stall.

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 10 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Richard Meyer. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Byrne, Daniel) (Entered: 11/15/2018)

Also have an answer to the deadline question. It's not the Federal Rules, but the Local Rules, specifically Rule CV-7(e)(2):

(2) Time Limits. A response to a dispositive motion shall be filed not later than 14 days after the filing of the motion. A response to a nondispositive motion shall be filed not later than 7 days after the filing of the motion. If there is no response filed within the time period prescribed by this rule, the court may grant the motion as unopposed.
Click to expand...

If the motion is granted, which it will be, the new date for an opposition will be November 30.

Interestingly, and as I thought might happen:

"Counsel for the parties are in discussions regarding whether jurisdictional discovery is warranted in this matter and need additional time to confer in that regard."

Waid kind of opened up a can of worms.
 
Last edited:
AnOminous said:
Looks like it's the other side's turn to stall.

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 10 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Richard Meyer. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Byrne, Daniel) (Entered: 11/15/2018)

Also have an answer to the deadline question. It's not the Federal Rules, but the Local Rules, specifically Rule CV-7(e)(2):



If the motion is granted, which it will be, the new date for an opposition will be November 30.

Interestingly, and as I thought might happen:

"Counsel for the parties are in discussions regarding whether jurisdictional discovery is warranted in this matter and need additional time to confer in that regard."

Waid kind of opened up a can of worms.
Click to expand...

So what can be expected to happen with Waid opening up this particular can of worms? Not much of a legal person
 
andr0id psycho sho(ker said:
So what can be expected to happen with Waid opening up this particular can of worms? Not much of a legal person
Click to expand...

Waid can get deposed and nailed down on what version of the truth he wants to go to trial with, since he's sworn under penalty of perjury to some things that don't seem to be exactly true.

Specifically, since this is about jurisdiction, he'd be answering questions about what exactly he was doing in Texas in the periods of time relevant to the case, doing things relevant to the case, when he said he was doing nothing relevant to the case but was, in fact, physically in Texas shit-talking Meyer.
 
I can't wait for Rackets to break it down. I hope he goes on another rant.
 
So if (when) Waid perjures himself, how does that work exactly? Is it up to the judge to decide to refer the matter to a prosecutor? Does Meyer have to ask for it? Also, if I recall correctly from the Clinton impeachment, one of excuses made revolved around the fact that perjury was rarely actually prosecuted. Is this still true? Would it be likely to happen in Waid's case?
 
The Littlest Shitlord said:
So if (when) Waid perjures himself, how does that work exactly? Is it up to the judge to decide to refer the matter to a prosecutor?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Does Meyer have to ask for it?
Click to expand...

He can but it isn't likely to make much difference.

Also, if I recall correctly from the Clinton impeachment, one of excuses made revolved around the fact that perjury was rarely actually prosecuted. Is this still true?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Would it be likely to happen in Waid's case?
Click to expand...

No.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom