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
Newsflash Shane: it's better to cast your net too widely and end up including some tweets that aren't found to be defamatory than to cast your net too narrowly and skip over key defamatory statements. It doesn't matter how many are proved to not be defamatory, because it is the defamatory ones that are relevant.
 
wow, in the OP of that tweet chain, Shane retweeted someone linking an article with a really terrible legal analysis. I'd even say that it outright misinterprets the ruling, because they claim that it hinges on whether the information was "truth."

790287

archive.fo

Shane Holmberg on Twitter: "Ruh oh...… "

archived 7 Jun 2019 17:13:09 UTC
archive.fo archive.fo

Truth was not the primary fact on which the defense was made, at all. Actually, the defense was successful on its argument that tortious interference with contract can only occur when a "stranger" interferes with a contract - an outside party - and there was no outside party. There was the employer, a hospital, and there was a contractor who the hospital hired to advise it on staff performance, making him an agent. The hospital consists of its agents, and one agent advising other agents to fire an employee cannot, by definition, be tortious interference. Because he was acting as its agent, he was the hospital, and it cannot tortiously interfere with its own contract.

790288

(2017-14-1033.pdf)

The only way that he could've not been acting as the hospital's agent would have been if his actions had been so blatantly against the hospital's best interest that it was obvious that he was acting in his personal interests. And about the only way that he could've possibly acted in his own personal interests and against the hospital's best interest would have been by lying to them - giving them false recommendations to fire a good employee. So, truth did become a factor in the defense, but it was a secondary factor, not the primary one.

Also, Nick has addressed it:

790290

archive.fo

Rekieta Law: Speech is Free, but Lawyers Aren't on Twitter: "the PSC …

archived 7 Jun 2019 17:17:09 UTC
archive.fo archive.fo
 

Attachments

Too long; didn't lawsplain: It's not TI if they reach out to you asking for your information?
 
ErbBetaPatch said:
Too long; didn't lawsplain: It's not TI if they reach out to you asking for your information?
Click to expand...
Well if your hired to do it, its not illegal. Bascially was one of those number cruncher businesses hired by the hospital that said to let surgeon X go after doing their job. The only defense for TI in texas is having a Legal right to do TI aka like analytical businesses hired to see who should be let go.
Edit: And that lawsuit the business tried the 'Truth Defense" in an appeal with the Texas SupCo but when the Court shot it down they went with "Legal Right" defense which made sense because they were hired to do it.
 
Last edited:
Urbanmech said:
Well if your hired to do it, its not illegal. Bascially was one of those number cruncher businesses hired by the hospital that said to let surgeon X go after doing their job. The only defense for TI in texas is having a Legal right to do TI aka like analytical businesses hired to see who should be let go.
Edit: And that lawsuit the business tried the 'Truth Defense" in an appeal with the Texas SupCo but when the Court shot it down they went with "Legal Right" defense which made sense because they were hired to do it.
Click to expand...
Cant wait to see Casey misquote this case and/or try to argue that KC asked Ron to intervene
 
Army Burger said:
He's trying to puff himself up and act like Kickvic's version of Nick. Unfortunately for Shane he knows nothing about anything, especially the legal system, so all that comes out of his mouth are comments so stupid that even PULL distrusts him.
Click to expand...

He'd honestly be more interesting if he spoke about something he does know about, like conventions in general.
 
repentance said:
He'd honestly be more interesting if he spoke about something he does know about, like conventions in general.
Click to expand...
I've spoken to him about cons before on his discord, it's just as boring and deflective as anything else this rat fuck talks about. He'd make a good politician if he wasn't so dumb and good at pissing everyone off in a 30 mile radius.
 
ErbBetaPatch said:
Too long; didn't lawsplain: It's not TI if they reach out to you asking for your information?
Click to expand...

It's not TI if you're acting as an agent of one of the parties; for example, a consulting agency that's hired to crunch some numbers and figure out where the inefficiencies are in a company, then give suggestions on who can be let go without destroying the underlying performance of the company.

If the consultants come up and say "you can safely let go of X, Y, and Z" it's not TI because they are acting as an agent of the company.

If someone comes up to a company and says "you need to fire this man he is a nazi pedophile rapist" (hi Sammy(f)) and the company fires you, it *might* be TI. Depending on the jurisdiction, it might be TI just to say that particular sentence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom