Richard Meyer v. Mark Waid (2018)

[James Smith]

So basically it's a signal to the client to "be careful" when answering the question. Off topic, IIRC, didn't Alex Jones' lawyers do this, and he started mentioning "edited" in every answer?

That and it's an objection.

When the objection is raised the person asking the deponent questions has two choices:

1. Ask what specifically the objection is and ask a better question, risking the description of the objection telling the deponent how to answer
   • for example if the description of the objection is "speculative" the client can then say "I don't want to speculate"
   • for example if the description of the objection is "question is too vague" the client can then say "I don't understand the question"
2. Ignore it, risking the objection being used later on to exclude the question and answer from being use in the case

Different courts have produced conflicting caselaw and expectations on this though and it's a contentious issue. Some courts say if you don't expand on your objection- even if you're not asked to- you waive it and that simply saying "form" isn't good enough. Some courts say expanding on your objection is improper because it drags out the deposition or even because it can too easily result in coaching the deponent on how to respond. I don't know how Texas handles it but given the attorneys didn't expand on their objection I assume that's acceptable procedure in Texas or they would have expanded on their objections at least once.

 

[Stoneheart]

That and it's an objection.

Why bother with something like that.
Just use the same 3 words everybody uses... I dont Recall

 

[AnOminous]

Waid was teleconferencing in and because he's a massive idiot who thought he just got off the hook for the lawsuit.

Waid is such an obliviously arrogant idiot that he's not only proud of his illegal behavior, he can't even limit himself to spewing stupidity when asked a direct question. He spews stupidity incriminating himself when he isn't even in the deposition!

 

[Far Queue]

Do you think all of that means he's enough of an idiot to think that he has a shot in court and will refuse to settle? I'd love to see this go to trial, but with what's there I don't see how this doesn't get slapped with a summary judgement. Maybe they'll let a jury figure out how much this idiot owes at least.

 

[Love Soze]

Do you think all of that means he's enough of an idiot....

Yes.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Do you think all of that means he's enough of an idiot to think that he has a shot in court and will refuse to settle? I'd love to see this go to trial, but with what's there I don't see how this doesn't get slapped with a summary judgement. Maybe they'll let a jury figure out how much this idiot owes at least.

Yes! Yes he is that much of an idiot.

 

[Vampy]

Do you think all of that means he's enough of an idiot to think that he has a shot in court and will refuse to settle? I'd love to see this go to trial, but with what's there I don't see how this doesn't get slapped with a summary judgement. Maybe they'll let a jury figure out how much this idiot owes at least.

The question is not if he is enough of an idiot to take this to court but if his lawyer can or can't convince him to settle.

 

[Far Queue]

The question is not if he is enough of an idiot to take this to court but if his lawyer can or can't convince him to settle.

I would imagine that as a part of any settlement, Zach would want a very public apology on top of any monetary damages. Waid probably doesn't care too much about the money, but I can't imagine him ever wanting to publicly admit that he was wrong.

I wonder how much this idiot is going to cry while Zaid is telling him that he completely screwed himself. Maybe Zaid will just get sick of dealing with him and take one of his sniveling whimpers as a sign that he wants to settle.

 

[RodgerDodger]

The question is not if he is enough of an idiot to take this to court but if his lawyer can or can't convince him to settle.

His lawyer can’t even convince him to shut up when he needs to shut up.

 

[Vampy]

I would imagine that as a part of any settlement, Zach would want a very public apology on top of any monetary damages. Waid probably doesn't care too much about the money, but I can't imagine him ever wanting to publicly admit that he was wrong.

This is probably a dumb question but assuming this case goes to court and Ya boi wins will Waid be forced to apologize? would there be a prohibition for him to say anything exceptional about Zach in the future?

 

[AnOminous]

This is probably a dumb question but assuming this case goes to court and Ya boi wins will Waid be forced to apologize?

No.

would there be a prohibition for him to say anything exceptional about Zach in the future?

Maybe.

 

[Far Queue]

This is probably a dumb question but assuming this case goes to court and Ya boi wins will Waid be forced to apologize? would there be a prohibition for him to say anything exceptional about Zach in the future?

I believe that Nick (I might be wrong on this, but I wanted to say it was someone who was a lawyer or had some knowledge of the law) said that courts generally don't compel any kind of speech so Waid can't be forced to apologize. Monetary damages might be a lot less if he does.

Zach might be able to get some kind of restraining order against Waid, in which case he could face actual jail time for continuing to be a sped on Twitter. Most people agree not to say anything public in the case of a settlement, but that's something the parties impose on themselves.

 

[Love Soze]

would there be a prohibition for him to say anything exceptional about Zach in the future?

You generally can't ban that kind of speech.

 

[RodgerDodger]

This is probably a dumb question but assuming this case goes to court and Ya boi wins will Waid be forced to apologize? would there be a prohibition for him to say anything exceptional about Zach in the future?

A mandatory apology and a non disparagement agreement could easily and almost certainly will be part of any settlement. But that’s an agreement that the party’s choose to enter into.

The court is unlikely to compel any speech in a trial judgement, Anything that a court would force in that regard would be very very narrow. Something like “you are not to contact Meyers Publishers, employers or business partners regarding Meyer” sort of thing. Not a blanket no disparagement or defamation order. Something not so much precluding speech, as precluding certain types of direct stalking and harassment actions. Even then it’s probably shaky. There is kind of a narrow line between “stop doing the stupid shit that got us all here” and precluding speech.

 

[AnOminous]

There is kind of a narrow line between “stop doing the stupid shit that got us all here” and precluding speech.

Permanent injunctions against specific statements adjudicated as defamatory aren't prior restraints and don't present the same First Amendment issues as, for instance, preliminary injunctions or blanket injunctions on all speech about a subject.

 

[Far Queue]

Permanent injunctions against specific statements adjudicated as defamatory aren't prior restraints and don't present the same First Amendment issues as, for instance, preliminary injunctions or blanket injunctions on all speech about a subject.

Is it even necessary? Once the monetary damages start getting handed down or someone has to spend a few weeks in jail after disobeying a court order, they tend to straighten up.

People also tend to not pay a lot of mind to people that get their asses handed to them in court either. Anyone who was against you will just ridicule you endlessly and even people who might have been on your side previously will treat you like a pariah.

 

[AnOminous]

Is it even necessary? Once the monetary damages start getting handed down or someone has to spend a few weeks in jail after disobeying a court order, they tend to straighten up.

A permanent injunction is that court order.

 

[TheWatchfulFurfag]

Lesson of the Internet: Unless you're Peter Thiel, Never do gay ops, they don't work and they only make you look like a retard. Every shitshow has a moral.

I sincerely hope Waid gets nailed to the damned wall. Nothing I hate more than someone maliciously fucking with someone's work, business, employment, whatever.

 

[MirrorNoir]

Waid been getting his ass kissed for so long, that he got intoxicated by his own farts and thought that he was untouchable. Too bad judges don't give a fuck about who wrote Kingdom Come, and care more about tiny dicked tyrants who commit perjury and tort interference.

To be fair, after the fail and AIDS that was "The Kingdom", DC and Alex Ross basically have stated up front that Waid was actually only on Kingdom Come to write dialogue based off of Ross' detailed script outline that Ross and Ross alone had written, along with a couple of super minor things (Waid threw a huge temper tantrum to force Ross to include Martian Manhunter into the plot, as Ross hates Martian Manhunter due to him being excluded from the Super Friends franchise and as such, "not a real JLA member" in Ross's eyes) and coming up with the compromise of using Alan Scott after Ross nearly ragequit the project when DC told him he either had to use Kyle Raynor or not be allowed to use ANY Green Lanterns in Kingdom Come.

Hell, they even had to pre-emptively shit Waid up, when Ross teamed up with Johns do to his own personal sequel to Kingdom Come in JSA; basically when the arc started, DC outright did a press release all but saying Kingdom Come was 100% Ross's baby and as such, he had every write to do his OWN sequel, as opposed to letting the much reviled "The Kingdom" by Waid stand as the only official sequel to the story.

Is there a discovery phase for the Anti-SLAPP motion? Just curious about that.

Someone mentioned this earlier IIRC.

Waid's first attempt to kill the suit was to try and say Richard can't sue in Texas via jurisdictional issues (most likely because Waid realized he would be fucked in the Texas court system). But to do so, he had to delay filing his anti-SLAPP suit since you can't countersue until you found out where the case jurisdiction is.

But in filing for a change of venue, Waid was forced to submit to discovery as far as proving why the jurisdiction needs to change. Which gave Meyers and his lawyers the means to get a TON of material from Waid that basically makes it next to impossible for him to file an Anti-SLAPP lawsuit.

Do you think all of that means he's enough of an idiot to think that he has a shot in court and will refuse to settle? I'd love to see this go to trial, but with what's there I don't see how this doesn't get slapped with a summary judgement. Maybe they'll let a jury figure out how much this idiot owes at least.

He was able to raise a lot of money, his BFF Grant Morrison added to that by giving him a do-nothing office job at the company that publishes Heavy Metal (which Grant now runs as EiC) to give him an extra stream of income (to live off of or to go directly to his defense fund), and a lot of pros were bragging about how they would gladly give him money under the table (there was talk, possibly Tom Taylor, bragging about getting a lot of the Marvel writers all to volunteer to donate the money they make from their books for a single month, to Waid and his defense fund on top of what they were donating via Go Fund Me).

He most likely think he can probably outspend Richard or win by legal trickery to keep it from ever seeing the light of day in court. Fuck, even if Waid DOES lose, he probably would just have Neil Gaiman (who has been white knighting Waid hard on Twitter and shilling lie-filled articles denouncing Comicsgate and claiming that anyone calling his "sources" fake news are liars and blocking them, cut a check to pay Richard Meyers off on Waid's behalf. Or just crowdsource the settlement, as far as pulling an Al Sharpton Rape Hoax move to ensure that someone else literally takes the financial hit so Waid doesn't have to face any financial consequences.

 

[AnOminous]

Or just crowdsource the settlement, as far as pulling an Al Sharpton Rape Hoax move to ensure that someone else literally takes the financial hit so Waid doesn't have to face any financial consequences.

Punitive damages are pretty likely and are generally calculated based on your ability to pay them and so that they're actually punitive, i.e. they punish you. So a court looking at that kind of behavior is just going to say okay and triple the judgment.