Sea Salt Mine - here there be chimping over the lawsuit

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • 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

Getting scolded for acting like Kathryn Tewson is equal to sexual assault. Yeah, humanity as a species is doomed.

View attachment 1151495
View attachment 1151859
-Insert Baby Crying Here-
These people are so fucking delusional you’d have to wonder how their parents didn’t sell them to an orphanage.
 

Spedery with the soylord of infidelity, a rando, and a very irrelevant KV sped going max tard for some raisin. Also infidelity is acceptable as long as you're KickVic based on how hard these tards are sperging.

Meanwhile in randos 1.PNG

Meanwhile in randos 2.PNG
 

Spedery with the soylord of infidelity, a rando, and a very irrelevant KV sped going max tard for some raisin. Also infidelity is acceptable as long as you're KickVic based on how hard these tards are sperging.

View attachment 1152660
View attachment 1152661
Ahh, the good ole "you made a type, therefore your argument is invalid" faggotry. Haven't seen that in a little while.
 
View attachment 1154339



Lawtwit orbiter hot shit takes.

Also holy fuck.

View attachment 1154342

The speds must be out in full force today.
Oh we knew they would.
Everything KV has pushed to keep away to destroy Vic is being brought back in that brief,
They are running scared now but still doing a horrible job of hiding their fear.
This is the start of the endgame and they know it.
Without KV..most of these shits will have no life and have to find a new target who may or might not fight back and that will be a chance they will question after this.
 
Oh we knew they would.
Everything KV has pushed to keep away to destroy Vic is being brought back in that brief,
They are running scared now but still doing a horrible job of hiding their fear.
This is the start of the endgame and they know it.
Without KV..most of these shits will have no life and have to find a new target who may or might not fight back and that will be a chance they will question after this.

I mean, even with KV they have no lives.
 
View attachment 1154339



Lawtwit orbiter hot shit takes.

Also holy fuck.

View attachment 1154342

The speds must be out in full force today.

Her initial contention is that Vic's team made a terrible error by simply saying Chupp came to the wrong conclusion, instead of addressing how Chupp misapplied the law or what his specific error was. That's a great thing to ask for - if the judge you're dealing with actually explains his reasoning and how he's applying the law. Either this woman is uninformed on Chupp's decision, or she's wholly disingenuous. You can't attack Chupp's reasoning when no one (including Chupp) knows what his reasoning is.
 
Her initial contention is that Vic's team made a terrible error by simply saying Chupp came to the wrong conclusion, instead of addressing how Chupp misapplied the law or what his specific error was.

The standard of review on a TCPA appeal is de novo. They don't have to cite a specific prejudicial error, nor do they have to argue the error wasn't harmless. All they have to do is show what the proper conclusion was. The appeals panel analyzes the matter as if it came to them as a trial court.

Some appellate attorney. She doesn't even know the standard of review and yet wastes her time arguing about the wrong one. This isn't an abuse of discretion standard.

Also she's arguing that they should have spent time arguing about things that would have taken thousands of words more than the word limit for the entire case, even though they would be arguments about something unnecessary and irrelevant, i.e. what Chupp did that was wrong. It doesn't matter. What matters is what the proper conclusion would have been.

Arguably, the plaintiff could have filed an overlength brief along with a motion to exceed word limits, and in fact I expected they would given the complexity of the case, but apparently, they made a strategic choice not to do that and the brief appears to be better for its parsimony.

In any event, there isn't really a need for a detailed refutation about someone arguing against the wrong standard of review. What a ninny.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom