/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

There's already a thread for this dipshit.

>>9743116
>>do we really care?
Yes, because predators aren't welcome in the Lolita/cosplay community.
Now piss off.

My money is on loudmouth. she's kewt.

>>9728493
>>9728493
>>9728493
>>9728493

>>9743116
Money didn't spend any for a real lawyer, just a part-timer friend that does family law and bankruptcy cases. Loudmouth is getting offers left and right of money and backing from lawyers that actually work on these cases. My money is on loudmouth getting John and his amateur C&D to fuck off.

>>9743272

Hack lawyer or not, what compelling case can the lawyer-chans pull out of their ass to bail out Loudmouth? We can all agree that years ago, Money said some admittedly creepy shit, but nothing more. He apologized for all of it and took a class on sexual harassment.

To have all this "proof" resurfacing again, my money is on Money. If Tyler wants a bloodbath, no doubt she'll get one.

>>9743633
Quit using this thread. >>9743282

Actually, quit using either thread. You're a fucking idiot.

>>9743633
John that was not a "class on sexual harasment" that was a middle finger to everyone he tried to pressure sexually. Go suck yourself off somewhere else on the internet, everyone here hates you.

The proof is that you admitted it and faked a fucking 2 hour internet video course. Just cause you get your little feel feels hurt doesn't mean people can't talk about what a fucking scum bag you have admitted to being in the past. We will never let you forget about you asking minors sexual questions. Do the world a favor and kys.

>>9743638
Tyler is a hack

1. Someone give me the facts on this and I'll give you as half-assed legal analysis.

2. This girl should go to one of the Texas law school legal clinics. They'll rep for free if she meets their intake requirements, and they'll probably enjoy this case because defamation is fun and this case is stupid and wacky.

>>9743737
>This girl should go to one of the Texas law school legal clinics.
Will she have time to do so? She has to take a decision before Monday.

>>9743737
This is from an outsiders perspective, but this is all I can gather. Anyone that knows more about this situation feel free to add to or correct this.
>Loudmouth has a John Oliver-esque youtube series about things that happen in the lolita community
>Covers a story about a different youtuber that is affiliated with other channels being partnered up with Money
>Money has a bad reputation in the lolita community (conman and sexual harasser)
>People in the community are mad at her for partnering up with Money
>Loudmouth makes a video about it in the usual Last Week Tonight/Daily Show fashion. Brings up past incidents to show why people are upset
>One of the channels the youtuber is affiliated with files a false copyright claim on the video
>Loudmouth makes a video about the copyright claim; again bringing up the past incidents
>That video is also taken down by a false copyright claim
>Loudmouth makes a third video about the situation on her facebook account since it can't be touched there

>>9743737
>>9743751
Forgot to add that Loudmouth produced screenshots of interactions and articles to backup her claims. As far as I can tell, all the information about Money's past incidents are a google search away.

>>9743633
It was an online class for on-boarding new employees at a company. It taught employees how to report sexual harassment to managers, and managers how to listen to those reports. It was not made for people who have been accused of sexual harassment. It was made so companies could check a box saying they had provided the legally mandated sexual harassment in the work place training required by the state of California.

>>9743748
Not before Monday, no. Four days is a hilarious amount of time to demand a response.

>>9743751
General defamation requires Money to prove that: (1) Loudmouth made a false and defamatory statement ("defamatory statement" means "seriously bad," not just "he's a moron") to someone, (2) Loudmouth acted negligently (with lower care than the reasonable person would) or purposefully, and (3) either (a) Money suffered damages or (b) Loudmouth's statements were "defamatory per se," in which case damages are presumed. The points where Loudmouth seems like he'll have trouble are: (1) proving that the statements are false, and (2) proving that Loudmouth acted negligently or purposefully, because it sounds like she did her research. (Loudmouth won't have trouble with (3) because it sounds like she accused him of trying to fug minors, and accusations of criminal conduct are defamatory per se.)

The law is stacked further against Money if the subject of Loudmouth's video was a "matter of public concern." If Loudmouth's video was about a "matter of public concern," then on point (2), Money must prove that Loudmouth acted with reckless disregard for the truth, which, again, it sounds like she didn't. Additionally, if the videos are about a matter of public concern, then this falls within Texas's anti-SLAAP law -- anti-SLAAP laws provide that when people bring frivolous defamation suits, there's an easy mechanism for getting them dismissed (booted out of court early), and also if Loudmouth wins an anti-SLAAP motion then Money has to pay her attorneys' fees. The trick here is that I don't know whether this qualifies as a matter of public concern. That would be a fun legal question to think about, but I don't have free WestLaw anymore so I can't dig around on it.

tl;dr based on what you've told me, this is just bullying. The reference to the district attorney is particularly stupid because as far as I can Google, Texas doesn't have a criminal defamation statute.