Shane Holmberg / Shane Presley Holmberg - The Containment Cell for The Breaker of Chairs, Eater of Shoes, Groomer of His Child Bride

  • Thread starter Thread starter AJ 447
  • Start date 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
Kiomei said:
Y'know what else would have served as good evidence and prior allegations? Maybe the actual defendant's testimony, fucking moron.
Click to expand...
They'd probably argue that it's privileged or something stupid like that.
 
howembarrassing.png


archive.fo

Shane Holmberg on Twitter: "So a "reporter" has to go to another lawy…

archived 23 May 2019 12:06:01 UTC
archive.fo archive.fo

How embarrassing must it be for Shane to get completely BTFO every day by Nick?
 
Shanes doubling down on the C&D's even after being told Ty said he did no such thing. He mentioned something happening on April 12 at 4:50 though...wonder if he is just mixing up paperwork.
 
Urbanmech said:
Shanes doubling down on the C&D's even after being told Ty said he did no such thing. He mentioned something happening on April 12 at 4:50 though...wonder if he is just mixing up paperwork.
Click to expand...
No, I figured it out half an hour ago. Shane said in a replay to Nick's intern that the C&D requested that ron delete tweets and simultaneously not delete tweets. I speculated that he was referring to a notice to preserve evidence, which he confirmed was sent along with something else which he called a C&D. Since the notice to preserve was sent, it doesn't make sense to send a C&D because half of the claims are past damage, and you're already in the process of suing the guy. The "C&D" was a request to retract statements, which gives Ron and co. the opportunity to mitigate damages by retracting defamatory statements, which puts you in a good light with the court. As soon as I mentioned this, I got the silent tweetment from Shane, which is what he does whenever you hit the nail on the head. Shane's interpretation of the law is weaker than a student's in a mock trial class.
 
ErbBetaPatch said:
No, I figured it out half an hour ago. Shane said in a replay to Nick's intern that the C&D requested that ron delete tweets and simultaneously not delete tweets. I speculated that he was referring to a notice to preserve evidence, which he confirmed was sent along with something else which he called a C&D. Since the notice to preserve was sent, it doesn't make sense to send a C&D because half of the claims are past damage, and you're already in the process of suing the guy. The "C&D" was a request to retract statements, which gives Ron and co. the opportunity to mitigate damages by retracting defamatory statements, which puts you in a good light with the court. As soon as I mentioned this, I got the silent tweetment from Shane, which is what he does whenever you hit the nail on the head. Shane's interpretation of the law is weaker than a student's in a mock trial class.
Click to expand...
But that is not a cease and Desist though that would be a retraction of statement.
 
Urbanmech said:
But that is not a cease and Desist though that would be a retraction of statement.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Shane thinks they are one and the same because he has less legal expertise than a high school student. He doesn't understand the difference between "Stop or we might sue you" and "We are suing you, make these retractions and you can limit your damages". It's the same kind of knowledge that makes people think that a protective order against being noticed on deposition is the same as a restraining order.
 
Shaney boy tryin' reeeeeal hard to force himself into the lawsuit. I wonder if Sabat ordered him to make as big of a stink and twitter spergfest as he could to try and get Ty senpai to notice him.
 
ErbBetaPatch said:
Either Shane or Ron said in a tweet that even if they lose the lawsuit, it will be worth it because the truth will be out there.

But if you lose, that means that you were lying about "the truth".
Click to expand...
But hey, it'll be worth it, because they'll be exposed for who they are by the courts.
 
Nontransferable said:
There is no scenario where they don't come out on top.

Settle the lawsuit? Vic was going to lose.
Issue a retraction? Vic bullied them into it with his GoFundMe money.
Lose the lawsuit? The justice system is broken.
Click to expand...
I bet when this is all said and done and they lose this lawsuit because let's face it, they never had a goddamn chance, they are gonna try to make a petition to oust the judge assigned to the lawsuit because he supports rape culture or some dumb bullshit like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom