I don't know for sure how they did it, but with something like google alerts you can get notifications whenever a specific phrase pops up on indexed page. There are plenty of people who monitor their names so they can see when people talk about them. I wouldn't be surprised if a company with trademarks they want to protect do something similar.
You can pay firms to monitor your trademarks. They likely have bots that do regularly scheduled searches on Google, Twitter, etc.
Caterpillar, the heavy equipment company, recently launched a lawsuit against a Cat Café for trademark infringement. Apparently they own the name "Cat".
In Texas you have 60 days after the complaint is served on you to file a Motion to Dismiss (ask the judge to dismiss the case because basically even if everything in the plaintiff's complaint is true, they have no case)
However, because of all the fuckery regarding the deposition that Vic's attorneys were involved in, the Defendants' attorney basically demanded that the "Beard" agree to extend the statutory 60 day deadline. Defendants want to complete that deposition before filing their motion to dismiss because they want to lock down Vic's testimony about certain facts first (his answers during deposition are essentially no different than testimony on the witness stand). That way when they file the motion to dismiss, Vic can't try to lie about everything in response to their motion.
If they hadn't agreed, the Defendants' attorneys would have filed a motion with the court, the court would have almost certainly extended the deadline anyway (due to the fuckery), and likely sanctioned the "Beard" for wasting the time of the court and Defendant's attorney by not agreeing.
This is insane because I hadn't realized how incredible Schemmel's impression of Vic was. I had never taken the time to ever listen to Vic for more than 4 seconds. (Which also matches the entire script length of Broly's lines, coincidentally)
Argument I had with a Vic stan:
Me: it's odd you defend a guy who you've never met and doesn't even know you
them:
It's odd you think this guy you never met molests his fans
you shat on vic
he broke down and cried on camera
and you dare call him guilty
fucked up
for real
Not trusting Nick at all but if they really did ask for confidentiality with discovery it's not gonna work out well for them, they shot down Vic's request, I REALLY don't think a judge is going to grant them one.
Obviously at this point it's worth waiting for some type of official confirmation and more details other than Nick's ramblings but if true it's really gonna embolden these idiots.
It isn't unethical for Beard to discuss the case with Nick or other attorneys since I'm sure Vic is cool with it but it's always gonna be "We're hyping this up because we're only gonna talk about the stuff that sounds cool for us"
Not trusting Nick at all but if they really did ask for confidentiality with discovery it's not gonna work out well for them, they shot down Vic's request, I REALLY don't think a judge is going to grant them one.
Obviously at this point it's worth waiting for some type of official confirmation and more details other than Nick's ramblings but if true it's really gonna embolden these idiots.
It isn't unethical for Beard to discuss the case with Nick or other attorneys since I'm sure Vic is cool with it but it's always gonna be "We're hyping this up because we're only gonna talk about the stuff that sounds cool for us"
Wait, is this separate from the confidentiality that was requested earlier, which was supposedly already quashed - and I guess we've been seeing filings because it's been quashed - in part because Percy has been giving information to Nick to be spread to fans?
After seeing that video with Vic's sermon versus Nick's show, I'm wondering if my Vic stan relative watches this. From what I can see, he's just charmless and abusive, without any wit or insight to underscore that with some kind of value. I can excuse maybe people thinking he's a good legal resource because the average person is not going to know much more than some words they gleaned off of TV, but I can't imagine coming to this source in particular and going "okay aside from being cool with doxxing this seems like the place to learn law".
Argument I had with a Vic stan:
Me: it's odd you defend a guy who you've never met and doesn't even know you
them:
It's odd you think this guy you never met molests his fans
you shat on vic
he broke down and cried on camera
and you dare call him guilty
fucked up
for real
Wait, is this separate from the confidentiality that was requested earlier, which was supposedly already quashed - and I guess we've been seeing filings because it's been quashed - in part because Percy has been giving information to Nick to be spread to fans?
After seeing that video with Vic's sermon versus Nick's show, I'm wondering if my Vic stan relative watches this. From what I can see, he's just charmless and abusive, without any wit or insight to underscore that with some kind of value. I can excuse maybe people thinking he's a good legal resource because the average person is not going to know much more than some words they gleaned off of TV, but I can't imagine coming to this source in particular and going "okay aside from being cool with doxxing this seems like the place to learn law".
Going by that Socialblade link, the monthly views for Rekieta law start dropping at March 1st... The subscriber boom is just before that and then starts mellowing out. What was even going late in February that would have caused the boom? I tried looking that far back in the thread and it seems that the main topic of conversation was something about Kamehacon; I don't even know if the legal stuff had happened yet.
I'm still hoping Doucette did some damage by revealing Nick's lack of knowledge, undermining his authority, and challenging Vic supporters' assurance of victory. Like, maybe some of them might have decided that they can't get their jollies from seeing Vic's critics lose after all, and they decide to find some other topic where they can win instead.
Oh, and while I was going back through the thread, I noticed that Dark Cover (search his posts, his profile is hidden) hasn't posted since he popped in to argue with me about the burden of proof. After seeing another possible Nick Rekieta alt discovered in that Shane Holmberg tweet chain, I can't help wondering whose alt that guy was.
Oh, and while I was going back through the thread, I noticed that Dark Cover (search his posts, his profile is hidden) hasn't posted since he popped in to argue with me about the burden of proof. After seeing another possible Nick Rekieta alt discovered in that Shane Holmberg tweet chain, I can't help wondering whose alt that guy was.
Account with 3 posts, all of which are about how the Monica and co. are the ones with the burden of proof not Vic, with "Dark Cover" as the username? Lmao, was this a blackface lawyer's Era sockpuppet?
And there's a reply in there from a ProVirginGamer, whose twitter feed may be worth checking out if you're into cosmic horror. As in, it's fucking terrifying and possibly from another dimension.
And there's a reply in there from a ProVirginGamer, whose twitter feed may be worth checking out if you're into cosmic horror. As in, it's fucking terrifying and possibly from another dimension.
That's just the beginning...there was a guy (who deleted his twitter) trying to justify rape. Went somewhere along the lines of there is no such thing as unwanted sex and some other drivel that was...there was really no words for it. The nutjobs on ISWV is beyond disturbing.
And then googling his name and location instantly led to his LinkedIn and Facebook. Unless it's somebody posing as him (which is doubtful), dude's got some major galaxy brain going on.
And there's a reply in there from a ProVirginGamer, whose twitter feed may be worth checking out if you're into cosmic horror. As in, it's fucking terrifying and possibly from another dimension.
Sadly enough I can confirm this guy is indeed German.
The good thing however is that Germany has different, more strict laws against hate speech, so I'm sure that a complaint filled by a German could get his account terminated much quicker, so I did just that.
I was wondering why y'all didn't post this last night and just the tweets around it, haha.
As always, it's "interesting" to see what his supporters leave out of the summaries that are very obvious from reading the document. All they're asking is just "now that harassment and doxxing has been happening, we don't want identifying information out there publicly for some witnesses unless they consent to it"; that's not exactly going back on anything. And Beard proposed just redacting their names for 30 days, as if that'd help anything when they'd be harassed/doxxed on day 31.
Casey said:
Since the hearing on that confidentiality order, we have seen numerous comments online that are disturbing, prejudicial to my clients, and intended to frighten witnesses. You have publicly encouraged your client's supporters to find personal and private information about witnesses and even other third party attorneys. Given this climate, we think it is our ethical obligation to protect these women, who want only to speak about their experiences. They should not be subjected to online abuse, doxing, harassment, and death threats for speaking out.
So, you can see why we are taking measures to protect these witnesses and which is why we now request an agreement limited to the purpose of protecting these women from online harassment. I will remind you that during the hearing, Jim admitted that Plaintiff would protect the identities of people who come forward because they have not put themselves into this case. I suggested that we handle such situations on a case‐by‐case basis, and the judge agreed. So not only is our proposal consistent with the discussion during the hearing, the change in circumstances I refer to above makes this matter even more important.
There's a lot of back and forth over the rules of the agreement; Casey (defendants' lawyer) is even willing to allow all info on people that have publicly spoken on Twitter and such. The sticking point seems to be the extremely reasonable "if someone was doxxed in advance, that shouldn't disqualify them from being protected".
Casey said:
Ty,
I don't know why you're getting so angry. We're basically agreeing to the same things here.
If we're in a deposition and we want to talk about allegations made by Jane Doe, we want to make sure that her name and Identifying Information don't get disclosed publicly. That's just a necessary consequence of the agreement. The deposition paragraph is there to ensure that we all know how such testimony will be treated. The rest of the depositions will be just like normal. We just want to make sure that the names and information that are protected under the agreement are still protected in a deposition.
So how about this. During the depositions, we can say on the record that we are going to talk about things that are protected by the Rule 11 Agreement. Everyone will acknowledge what is the protected information, and we'll all make sure that the information is not disclosed. That just means that the segments of the transcripts that cover the Identifying Information would be private, and can't be shared, especially not online or on YouTube. If you'll agree to that, then I think we'll be ok.
As far as the "previously disclosed" paragraph is concerned, I understand that we can't designate Bob Smith as protected. If he's been out there attacking Vic publicly, and you or Vic have known about it, then we wouldn't even want to keep that secret. That person would have waived any such protection by making their allegations public. All we are talking about here are women who have not been online "slagging" Vic. They're too scared to do that. But we don't want to allow disclosure of their names or identifying information just because someone on Kiwi Farms has talked about them before, or has already attempted to dox them, thereby making their information "public."
So how about this. We'll keep your paragraph, but that can't be a unilateral decision. If you believe some information is already "publicly disclosed," then you can challenge our designation. If you show us that Bob Smith has been online saying "Vic can call me on my cell phone if he doesn't like me," then we'll agree and remove the protection. But if it's just "someone on twitter posted Jane Doe's house address before she ever even made a statement" then that wouldn't be a good reason for her to lose protection under the agreement.
I'm trying to be reasonable here, because it sounds like we're close. But if we're just never going to agree, then just tell me and we can all stop wasting our time. You can file what you need to, and we can go to a hearing in a few weeks and explain why we need to protect these women from being harassed and intimidated by Kiwi Farms and other bad actors online.
Beyond that, the thing that sticks out to me is that Beard is spouting the same inexplicable shit about how this makes it clear they can't back up their claims, they're being proven liars, etc. etc. because... they won't publicly give names that they're still going to give Beard? It's not like they're confidential from him so how that could possibly matter still confuses me. Also, of course, Vic's documents are apparently a mess:
Casey said:
In regards to Plaintiff's production responses:
Responsive documents have not been produced. Everything that was provided is either a screenshot of a document in the public domain or a cherry-picked document obtained from Chris Slatosch.
Plaintiff has not produced any communications, i.e. emails, texts, instant messaging, etc. We know there are communications between Plaintiff and Ms. Denbow, but they have not been provided.
He hasn't given us any communications. No emails or texts. Nothing between Vic and Denbow.
The folder titled "Risembool Rangers Discord" is empty.
A large amount of documents are jumbled and inadmissible because they have apparently been
altered.
None of the documents are bates-labeled.
...
Quick follow up to my prior email:
The documents you produced aren't labeled, so that will make things difficult in the depositions. We also have not seen any contracts that were allegedly interfered with, and the only communications with the FUNimation or Rooster Teeth investigators is the one string of emails with Ms. Denbow that you've pointed out. Can you represent to us that the email string with Ms. Denbow is the only communication your client exchanged with anyone concerning the investigations into his conduct? For the most part, all we have seen at this point are a bunch of public tweets and a few out of context messages that implicate optional completeness. For example, the text messages you obtained from Chris Slatosch seem out of order, and limited, so we cannot ascertain what the rest of the discussion was, or whether Mr. Slatosch has had any communications with your client. So my clients are prejudiced going into these depositions, and we will need to depose your client again with the responsive documents after they're produced.
finally, I love that this summary includes Beard seeking sanctions as if it's some badass sign they're gonna wreck the defendants... when he only says this in reply to Casey saying they're seeking sanctions themselves, lol
Just going by the summaries posted, I get the sense that this is all some psychological power play gone wrong.
Percy Beard asked for the confidentiality agreement first because he wanted it to protect Vic. At the same time he was leaking information to Nick Rekieta. This entire suit was probably meant to succeed on intimidation instead of substance; being the type of coward who needs his NRA and Kiwifarms membership statuses to be threatening and his Costco MENSA membership to be impresive, Beard wants to create an unfair situation where he can harass his opponents through extralegal means while the legal system protects his clients from the opponents doing the same thing he's doing. He even tried to go around the defense to get that confidentially agreement without their consent. He's not confident enough in his own legal abilities knowledge to rely on that alone.
Now that that confidentiality agreement has been quashed, it's hurt his pride and made him look bad in court. I'm not sure about the timeline but his interactions with Doucette might have killed his ability to intimidate. So since he can't play the bully anymore, he's trying to reframe things so that he's the victim. He just wanted a confidentiality agreement because he wants to make sure the defendants are safe, but the mean old defense tried to block it.
I'm very curious about this one, though, so I'm going to try looking it myself.
"Moreover, they posited numerous general, prophylactic objections and other objections in resisting discovery."
Is that the right use of the word prophylactic? Like, doesn't that make the defense sound better, like their objections are to stop some kind of harm from spreading? They referring to "Ronald's and Monica's brain-jarring about-face" on the next page so I feel like they meant to write this in a really hostile, dismissive way, but don't know what all of those insults mean.
Now that that confidentiality agreement has been quashed, it's hurt his pride and made him look bad in court. I'm not sure about the timeline but his interactions with Doucette might have killed his ability to intimidate. So since he can't play the bully anymore, he's trying to reframe things so that he's the victim. He just wanted a confidentiality agreement because he wants to make sure the defendants are safe, but the mean old defense tried to block it.
tl;dr - Ty wanted an all encompassing confidentiality agreement to keep the case out of public record. Casey is asking for very specific disclosure limitations around personal information of victims.
Honestly, Ty is being pretty stupid about this, because if forced, each of those individual victims could file a Doe suit against Vic/Ty to protect their own personal information, esp given Vic/Ty's propensity to dox and harass others. That's just going to rack up costs for Vic/Ty, unless of course that's been Ty's plan all along. Maximize legal fees so he can siphon $$$ from Vic.
Okay, read the whole thing. It's a bit too granular and probably a fair bit over my head, but from what I can see, Percy Beard is basically making the claim that the defense's objections to discovery should be rejected because they're too general and not fact-based. He then immediately produces evidence that they're actually very specific via Exhibit A and B.
Exhibit C and D are e-mail correspondence, which end up making Percy Beard look like the uncooperative one. I don't know if he wasn't expecting people to read this stuff or if he just lives on the moon and doesn't know how human interaction works or what.
The complaint in Page 1. Using spoilers so that people can more easily scroll past this post later:
Prior to Ronald's and Monica's responses being due, Victor proposed an agreed confidentiality order—poignantly, to protect (inter alia) the identities of the women Ronald and Monica claimed would "come forward." Ronald and Monica vigorously opposed any confidentiality order. However, Ronald and Monica then refused to answer Victor's interrogatories or produce documents without a confidentiality order. See Exhibits A, B, C and D hereto.
So this is presumably what the evidence is supposed to prove, which I don't think it does, as well as misrepresenting why they wanted the confidentiality agreement. The bolded particularly strikes me because there actually are answers to some of the questions given in the evidence, albeit they answer the parts that aren't part of the objection.
From Page 1 and 2, we see the legal basis for their request.
A party may object to discovery only "if a good faith factual and legal basis for the objection exists at the time the objection if made." TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.2(c). And the objecting party must "state specifically the legal or factual basis for the objection and the extent to which the party is refusing to comply with the request." Id., Rule 193.2(a). Frankly, broad or general objections are not permitted. In re Park Cities Bank, 409 S.W.3d 859, 877 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2013, orig. proceeding). Indeed, an objection "that is obscured by numerous unfounded objections" is waived. TEX.
So the idea is that the objections are too general, but we'll see from the evidence that there are specific reasons given. It also tries to complain that the objections are trying to get by on being numerous, but the reason why there are a billion objections is because they're responses to a billion requests for information. I suppose maybe the defense could have lumped them together because there are a lot of reasonings that are repeated, but that's why the document is so large.
Then we get into the evidence, starting with the objections written by Casey Erick. Page 7 (Exhibit B has essentially the same thing on page 22):
Defendant has not completed his investigation of the facts related to the subject matter of this action, discovery, or his preparation for trial.
So we see there's a practical reason behind this. The defense hasn't finished gathering all of their information yet, so they can't answer everything.
Then there's a huge list of responses to the plaintiff's demands for information, which are extremely repetitive, so I only really skimmed this part. There are a bunch of repeated things. From page 8 through 15:
ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks to have Defendant prematurely marshal all of his evidence.
I wonder if this is related to what Doucette was referring to, the order of operations wherein the defense doesn't present all of their evidence later. It looks like Percy Beard is trying to drag it all in the open now, maybe to restrict the amount that can be admitted.
From page 9 and elsewhere, we have the defense bringing up a particular Texas law:
Defendant will provide the information requested in this Interrogatory once the Rule 11 Agreement is on file with the Court.
I just looked at the first thing I saw in Google, but I'm not really sure I get the full importance of this. It seems like basically it means that agreements between lawyers are binding, which would have explained why Percy Beard's attempt to break a prior agreement and reschedule the depositions himself would have failed. Maybe he wants to paint the defense as making the same mistakes as he did by claiming them as violating their agreements?
From page 12 through 15 (and similar in Exhibit B from page 28 on):
"ANSWER: Defendant objects as this Interrogatory is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as the Interrogatory seeks information that is unrelated to the claims in this lawsuit in both scope and time."
"RESPONSE: Defendant objects as this request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and ambiguous."
So, basically, objecting because the request for information wasn't sensible. It seems fair that they shouldn't have to give information that they can't reasonably obtain or which doesn't serve the case. I know some people in this thread were concerned that Percy Beard might have been trying to get this information out in the open for use in doxxing, so shutting down this kind of stuff seems to fit in with that concern.
From Exhibit B. One thing I'd like to highlight is that there is are answers, after objections, given in the evidence Percy Beard is presenting, which I think harms his position by showing that the defense isn't just uncooperative. See page 23:
Identify all persons who assist or participate in the answering of
interrogatories served on you in the above-numbered cause of action.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks privileged information.
Subject to, and without waiving, the aforementioned objection, Defendant answers as follows:
• Defendant and Defendant Toye.
Page 23 also has a bunch of nasty details so be warned, but it strikes me almost as if the defense is trying to take as an aggressive stance as they can within the confines of professionalism. They give details and note where they can't in a way that highlights what a fucking creep Vic is:
Identify each instance when Plaintiff took "a fist full of [your] hair,
[pulled your] head back, and either whisper[ed] so closely to [your] ear that his lips were touching
or kiss [your] cheek/neck" as you alleged in the tweet you posted to @Rialisms on February 19,
2019.
[[...]]
"The conduct described happened too many times for Defendant to clearly recall the
specific date of each occurrence.
• The first such occurrence took place in late 2000 or early 2001 during a dinner with
Plaintiff at Cafe Adobe on Interstate 10 in Houston, Texas.
• Since that first dinner, Plaintiff has exhibited the described behavior too many times to
count.
• The most recent incident in which Plaintiff exhibited the described behavior was at
Louisville Supercon in Louisville, Kentucky, which took place between November 30th
and December 2nd 2018.
• On December 1, 2018, Plaintiff grabbed the back of Defendant's neck (Defendant's hair
was not long enough at the time to collect it in Plaintiff's fist, as in previous incidents), and
whispered into Defendant's ear with his lips touching Defendant's ear. Plaintiff exhibited
the described behavior in front of waiting fans, guaranteeing that Defendant could not
resist, or risk making a scene in front of Defendant's fans.
• It is impossible to recount all of the times Plaintiff has exhibited the described behavior,
because it has become a regular occurrence for Defendant and other women who attend conventions.
Then we get to Exhibit C and D, which show their e-mail correspondence. People should read Percy Beard's e-mail and get a sense of how this man handles himself in a professional environment. This guy doesn't seem to be capable of anything except gaslighting. Page 32:
The motion will likely be filed tonight. And we will ask for sanctions against you of course, for flagrant discovery abuse.
Your sudden concern for "safety" is transparently self‐serving and ridiculous. It's now very clear that your clients can't
back up their public claims.
If you were actually concerned about the identity of these purported witnesses, you would have accepted our offer to
redact their names. Obviously, your real concern is that your clients are about to be publicly exposed as liars.
Maybe these discovery games will work out for you, but I doubt it. You really should just comply with the rules. The
purpose of discovery is to allow the parties to investigate claims being made. Your attempt at prior restraint won't work.
After negotiations break down and Percy Beard threatens negotiation, Casey Erick's responses turn into
Ty, then file your motion to compel with us opposed. I will respond to your motion accordingly.
So it seems like he doesn't believe it holds any weight and is completely unfazed by this threat.
Fucking hell... I just saw this excerpt from the newest docs posted on Twitter:
I remember this story briefly being mentioned in the io9 article on Vic (Where he even confirmed this happened but said it was "consensual"), but summarised in more detail like this it makes for tough reading. Vic was straight up going to rape Monica if the con chairman hadn't saved her. Seems he'd be enough of a witness here to back her up too, surely?
Okay, read the whole thing. It's a bit too granular and probably a fair bit over my head, but from what I can see, Percy Beard is basically making the claim that the defense's objections to discovery should be rejected because they're too general and not fact-based. He then immediately produces evidence that they're actually very specific via Exhibit A and B.
Exhibit C and D are e-mail correspondence, which end up making Percy Beard look like the uncooperative one. I don't know if he wasn't expecting people to read this stuff or if he just lives on the moon and doesn't know how human interaction works or what.
The complaint in Page 1. Using spoilers so that people can more easily scroll past this post later:
Prior to Ronald's and Monica's responses being due, Victor proposed an agreed confidentiality order—poignantly, to protect (inter alia) the identities of the women Ronald and Monica claimed would "come forward." Ronald and Monica vigorously opposed any confidentiality order. However, Ronald and Monica then refused to answer Victor's interrogatories or produce documents without a confidentiality order. See Exhibits A, B, C and D hereto.
So this is presumably what the evidence is supposed to prove, which I don't think it does, as well as misrepresenting why they wanted the confidentiality agreement. The bolded particularly strikes me because there actually are answers to some of the questions given in the evidence, albeit they answer the parts that aren't part of the objection.
From Page 1 and 2, we see the legal basis for their request.
A party may object to discovery only "if a good faith factual and legal basis for the objection exists at the time the objection if made." TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.2(c). And the objecting party must "state specifically the legal or factual basis for the objection and the extent to which the party is refusing to comply with the request." Id., Rule 193.2(a). Frankly, broad or general objections are not permitted. In re Park Cities Bank, 409 S.W.3d 859, 877 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2013, orig. proceeding). Indeed, an objection "that is obscured by numerous unfounded objections" is waived. TEX.
So the idea is that the objections are too general, but we'll see from the evidence that there are specific reasons given. It also tries to complain that the objections are trying to get by on being numerous, but the reason why there are a billion objections is because they're responses to a billion requests for information. I suppose maybe the defense could have lumped them together because there are a lot of reasonings that are repeated, but that's why the document is so large.
Then we get into the evidence, starting with the objections written by Casey Erick. Page 7 (Exhibit B has essentially the same thing on page 22):
Defendant has not completed his investigation of the facts related to the subject matter of this action, discovery, or his preparation for trial.
So we see there's a practical reason behind this. The defense hasn't finished gathering all of their information yet, so they can't answer everything.
Then there's a huge list of responses to the plaintiff's demands for information, which are extremely repetitive, so I only really skimmed this part. There are a bunch of repeated things. From page 8 through 15:
ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks to have Defendant prematurely marshal all of his evidence.
I wonder if this is related to what Doucette was referring to, the order of operations wherein the defense doesn't present all of their evidence later. It looks like Percy Beard is trying to drag it all in the open now, maybe to restrict the amount that can be admitted.
From page 9 and elsewhere, we have the defense bringing up a particular Texas law:
Defendant will provide the information requested in this Interrogatory once the Rule 11 Agreement is on file with the Court.
I just looked at the first thing I saw in Google, but I'm not really sure I get the full importance of this. It seems like basically it means that agreements between lawyers are binding, which would have explained why Percy Beard's attempt to break a prior agreement and reschedule the depositions himself would have failed. Maybe he wants to paint the defense as making the same mistakes as he did by claiming them as violating their agreements?
From page 12 through 15 (and similar in Exhibit B from page 28 on):
"ANSWER: Defendant objects as this Interrogatory is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as the Interrogatory seeks information that is unrelated to the claims in this lawsuit in both scope and time."
"RESPONSE: Defendant objects as this request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and ambiguous."
So, basically, objecting because the request for information wasn't sensible. It seems fair that they shouldn't have to give information that they can't reasonably obtain or which doesn't serve the case. I know some people in this thread were concerned that Percy Beard might have been trying to get this information out in the open for use in doxxing, so shutting down this kind of stuff seems to fit in with that concern.
From Exhibit B. One thing I'd like to highlight is that there is are answers, after objections, given in the evidence Percy Beard is presenting, which I think harms his position by showing that the defense isn't just uncooperative. See page 23:
Identify all persons who assist or participate in the answering of
interrogatories served on you in the above-numbered cause of action.
ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks privileged information.
Subject to, and without waiving, the aforementioned objection, Defendant answers as follows:
• Defendant and Defendant Toye.
Page 23 also has a bunch of nasty details so be warned, but it strikes me almost as if the defense is trying to take as an aggressive stance as they can within the confines of professionalism. They give details and note where they can't in a way that highlights what a fucking creep Vic is:
Identify each instance when Plaintiff took "a fist full of [your] hair,
[pulled your] head back, and either whisper[ed] so closely to [your] ear that his lips were touching
or kiss [your] cheek/neck" as you alleged in the tweet you posted to @Rialisms on February 19,
2019.
[[...]]
"The conduct described happened too many times for Defendant to clearly recall the
specific date of each occurrence.
• The first such occurrence took place in late 2000 or early 2001 during a dinner with
Plaintiff at Cafe Adobe on Interstate 10 in Houston, Texas.
• Since that first dinner, Plaintiff has exhibited the described behavior too many times to
count.
• The most recent incident in which Plaintiff exhibited the described behavior was at
Louisville Supercon in Louisville, Kentucky, which took place between November 30th
and December 2nd 2018.
• On December 1, 2018, Plaintiff grabbed the back of Defendant's neck (Defendant's hair
was not long enough at the time to collect it in Plaintiff's fist, as in previous incidents), and
whispered into Defendant's ear with his lips touching Defendant's ear. Plaintiff exhibited
the described behavior in front of waiting fans, guaranteeing that Defendant could not
resist, or risk making a scene in front of Defendant's fans.
• It is impossible to recount all of the times Plaintiff has exhibited the described behavior,
because it has become a regular occurrence for Defendant and other women who attend conventions.
Then we get to Exhibit C and D, which show their e-mail correspondence. People should read Percy Beard's e-mail and get a sense of how this man handles himself in a professional environment. This guy doesn't seem to be capable of anything except gaslighting. Page 32:
The motion will likely be filed tonight. And we will ask for sanctions against you of course, for flagrant discovery abuse.
Your sudden concern for "safety" is transparently self‐serving and ridiculous. It's now very clear that your clients can't
back up their public claims.
If you were actually concerned about the identity of these purported witnesses, you would have accepted our offer to
redact their names. Obviously, your real concern is that your clients are about to be publicly exposed as liars.
Maybe these discovery games will work out for you, but I doubt it. You really should just comply with the rules. The
purpose of discovery is to allow the parties to investigate claims being made. Your attempt at prior restraint won't work.
After negotiations break down and Percy Beard threatens negotiation, Casey Erick's responses turn into
Ty, then file your motion to compel with us opposed. I will respond to your motion accordingly.
So it seems like he doesn't believe it holds any weight and is completely unfazed by this threat.
Appreciate the breakdown! Didn't really get a chance to dig too much into last night. Seems that Percy is just trying to pressure the defendants, which lines up to what they have been doing the entire time up to this point. Ironically, Percy making this case so public through leaks and threatening those oppose him with doxxing and harassment will end up hurting his case in the long wrong. I would seriously love to see Percy have to explain his actions to a judge.
I just looked at the first thing I saw in Google, but I'm not really sure I get the full importance of this. It seems like basically it means that agreements between lawyers are binding, which would have explained why Percy Beard's attempt to break a prior agreement and reschedule the depositions himself would have failed. Maybe he wants to paint the defense as making the same mistakes as he did by claiming them as violating their agreements?
To be clear, from what I understand (based on the context of the emails), the "rule 11 agreement" in question is the confidentiality agreement Casey is asking for. The reason that bit's repeated a lot is just them saying "we're not telling you this till we can be sure identifying information in it won't be shared".
Ignore this era has been extremely laggy and glitchy on my phone. Accidentally hit quote last night did not feel like fighting the lag to erase it and it just stayed in the post window after several pages. Open up this tab after waking up and era reads that as me hitting post.
Seems that Vic's been booted off the Unlocked Live VA streaming platform. Some of his past broadcasts still seem to be available, but his account is gone from search results.
