Listen here you little shit
I think she is going to skate free. The claims against her are honestly thin except for conspiracy.Do you guys imagine that if appeals are approved, Jamie will continue to hide from receiving court summons? Or will she be arrogant enough to accept the papers thinking she won't have to be deposed?
If anything comes back at all, not even for her.
I dunno, the defamation claim is strong against her. She specifically claimed Vic battered or otherwise hurt her, and did so under circumstances that would satisfy actual malice. If she gets nailed on anything it would be defamation.I think she is going to skate free. The claims against her are honestly thin except for conspiracy.
However, she could still be deposed about the conspiracy if that survives for any of the other defendants, and if more comes to light, they should be able to sue on that totally new fact set.
My guess though, if anything comes back, FUNI settles for an undisclosed sum and public statements, while also getting the condition that certain people are not deposed and the true depth of the scummy corporate rabbit hole is left untouched.
That would be the best deposition to watch, from what I've seen about her attitude she would slip up or get angry and say something. It would def. Be the funniest depo. But I think her case is the least likely to come back, aside from her twitter chimpouts there really wasn't much on her. She had the most competent lawyer too.
Obligatory, IANAL, but I think that conspiracy requires an underlying tort (i.e. Conspiracy to do WHAT?)If anything comes back at all, not even for her.
If the three other defendants come back, but not Jamie, she can still be deposed to prosecute the case against the remaining defendants. Her testimony just can't be used against her (unless she admits to a fresh new tort).
I dunno, the defamation claim is strong against her. She specifically claimed Vic battered or otherwise hurt her, and did so under circumstances that would satisfy actual malice. If she gets nailed on anything it would be defamation.
You're falling for the story Lemwaaah and lawltwitter is pushing.Obligatory, IANAL, but I think that conspiracy requires an underlying tort (i.e. Conspiracy to do WHAT?)
So to somewhat modify my original post, I agree with you on everything--except that defamation is strong. Is there a fact dispute? Yes. Is pulling hair illegal? Not exactly. I have a hard time seeing how that story about hair pulling and 'creepiness' adds up to defamation.
Of course it hurt him bc this is a close colleague, but we know the case a lot better than boomer judges.
I get your point. But is that really defamation? Would a court think so? To me, that seems a bit petty for a court to take up.You're falling for the story Lemwaaah and lawltwitter is pushing.
The hair pulling may or may not have happened, considering Vic said he was admiring her new hairdo. Ultimately it's a minor detail.
Jamie's statement also accused Vic of digging his fingers into her scalp, yanking her head backwards, controlling her movements, whispering something possibly sexual into her ear, and doing so for long enough that she had to physically remove herself from Vic's control.
You kind of answered yourself.I get your point. But is that really defamation? Would a court think so? To me, that seems a bit petty for a court to take up.
If my sibling slaps me, technically that might be a battery under US law. Are they going to be arrested for it? No. Are they guilty by the letter of the law. Yes.
Of course, when she told that story to try to get past the TCPA on the basis of truthfulness, it should not matter. Vic *should* have gotten the benefit of the doubt. I am just doubting that a jury/court would say that Jamie's actions were a significant portion of the damage to Vic.
Not a value judgement--just a pragmatic one.
Yeah, unless the judge dismisses it because he thinks it is stupid before the trial (or is stupid in this case).You kind of answered yourself.
How much damage Jamie caused is a question to ask the jury, at trial. And the discovery to get to that trial will be where the real laughs will be had.
The TCPA is exactly there to dispose of obviously shit lawsuits. Ideally.Yeah, unless the judge dismisses it because he thinks it is stupid before the trial (or is stupid in this case).
Dunno if he could have done the same without TCPA, but my gut feeling says that there is some mechanism for him to dismiss crazy stuff, or the defendants could file a motion to dismiss.
That case was so ridiculous it almost looks like Chupp realized he was about to get his pee-pee smacked for fucking up Vic's case and decided instead of always granting TCPA motions, he was just always going to overrule them. The logic is completely incomprehensible, as that case was blindingly obviously one where the TCPA applied and would have been appropriate to use to dispose of the case.The TCPA is exactly there to dispose of obviously shit lawsuits. Ideally.
If you check the lawsuit thread, there was another TCPA case that tasted the chuppening. A couple got sued by a business because ethey posted negative reviews on yelp... And Chupp ruled that those were defamatory.
Luckily the appeals court reversed him
Imagine the hysteria that the lawyers had to deal with when it comes to dealing with Jamie. Imagine even the amount that it was spent for something like this