ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, December 12, 2016

Law dogs

Who do we have in New Hampshire and Australia? If you're Ilk and you're licensed to practice in either juridiction, get in touch. The Big Dog is already on it, but we'll need local talent for obvious reasons.

Labels:

54 Comments:

Blogger bob kek mando: i can't be racist. why, some of my best friends are ((( Literally Hitler ))). { Vox Gayness intensifies } December 12, 2016 5:42 PM  

do law dogs bite ankle biters ... on the ankle?

Blogger Lazarus December 12, 2016 5:43 PM  

I think their are going to be some bones available soon!

I am already salivating.

Blogger JACIII December 12, 2016 6:21 PM  

Cry Havoc!

Blogger stevev December 12, 2016 6:30 PM  

I hate sounding so childish, but what happened? Maybe a small hint or clue, maybe?

Blogger M. Bibliophile December 12, 2016 6:31 PM  

Here we go again. Where's my popcorn?

Anonymous LastRedoubt December 12, 2016 6:36 PM  

@SteveV

I think this has something to do with an obsidian portal and an article founded in BS that called Vox a "neo Nazi"

Blogger Mighty Lou December 12, 2016 6:39 PM  

http://file770.com/?p=32437

Blogger VD December 12, 2016 6:40 PM  

I hate sounding so childish, but what happened? Maybe a small hint or clue, maybe?

Foz Meadows, in her obvious malice, decided to double down on her defamatory falsehood. Steve Davidson of
The Experimenter Publishing Company elected to give her a platform.

Both of them will be receiving letters for Christmas.

Blogger Mighty Lou December 12, 2016 6:42 PM  

Zhe Meadows claims she didn't mention Vox by name even though she identified him as being the subject of her essay in a tweet, and then she doubles down on why VD deserves the label she assigned him.

Blogger SirHamster December 12, 2016 6:43 PM  

VD wrote:Both of them will be receiving letters for Christmas.

Lovely Christmas presents. The Dark Lord is generous.

Blogger VD December 12, 2016 6:45 PM  

Zhe Meadows claims she didn't mention Vox by name even though she identified him as being the subject of her essay in a tweet, and then she doubles down on why VD deserves the label she assigned him.

It won't do her any good. Australian defamation law is clear. The standard is whether the individual is identifiable. And, of course, she identified me. Repeatedly.

Blogger Mighty Lou December 12, 2016 6:50 PM  

No doubt about it.

OpenID basementhomebrewer December 12, 2016 6:53 PM  

File 770 is slowly freaking out. My favorite part of this is there are several members there who claim to be successful lawyers but always give ridiculous law opinions that appear to be the combination of stuff they saw on TV and extremely bad interpretations of case law (possibly due to poor reading comprehension?).

OpenID basementhomebrewer December 12, 2016 6:54 PM  

Also note they are Still trying to claim that Nazi's weren't socialist.

Blogger JDC December 12, 2016 6:56 PM  

Listen now Mr. Italian law-dog...law don't go round here. Savvy?

Sorry, had to be said.

Blogger Aquila Aquilonis Fulminata December 12, 2016 7:01 PM  

Who let the dogs out?

Anonymous Elipe December 12, 2016 7:03 PM  

Why... the Dark Lord is Krampus himself!

Anonymous One Deplorable DT December 12, 2016 7:09 PM  

@14 - no true Scottsman. See, if we just tried REAL socialism we would have utopia! And how can you be against utopia for the children?

Blogger James Dixon December 12, 2016 7:10 PM  

Breaks out the popcorn. This should be entertaining.

Blogger Lazarus December 12, 2016 7:12 PM  

Both of them will be receiving letters for Christmas.

I am such a sap. Christmas stuff always gets me misty-eyed.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT December 12, 2016 7:16 PM  

@20 - truly it is better to give than to receive. Once again Vox is an example for us all.

Anonymous JAMES December 12, 2016 7:25 PM  

I'm an aussie but sadly not a lawyer.

I do know that libel laws in Australia are quite a bit stricter than the U.S but sadly that's the end of my knowlege.

Blogger VD December 12, 2016 7:26 PM  

If you see something wrong, fix it. Don't talk about it here.

OpenID ar10308 December 12, 2016 7:38 PM  

Aww, I can only imagine how adorable and terrifying the Supreme Dark Lord, ILK and VFM Family Christmas card will be.

Blogger Jew613 December 12, 2016 7:53 PM  

All someone has to do to avoid a defamation suite is tell the truth. Sadly for SJWs the first law trips them up.

Blogger pyrrhus December 12, 2016 8:01 PM  

Sounds like good clean fun! You would think that SJWs would at least ponder the legal expenses of defending libel suits--oops, forgot that they rarely think at all.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus December 12, 2016 8:01 PM  

The irony that weasel SJWs labor to make their accusations of raciss, sexiss, etc so damning as to put people out-of-bounds for Society, yet fail to understand the Libel and slander traps that they set for themselves. Delicious.

Anonymous URL IRL December 12, 2016 8:25 PM  

The guy's whole rational is guilt by vague association. You know who else did that? That's correct, the Nazi spirit is alive and well at the Experimenter Publishing Company! Guess that makes him a neo-nazi. Just stating the facts.

Blogger D. December 12, 2016 8:44 PM  

Nazis were SJWers no?

Blogger SteelPalm December 12, 2016 9:11 PM  

@29

To a point. Their leaders hated Christianity and were big fans of the "Mohammadean faith". They were also socialists. They also hated Jews despite being initially supported by many German Jews and even had a few kapo Jews collaborating with them to kill Jews during the Holocaust. (Shout-outs to George Soros back then as well as aiding SJWs today)

However, they were nationalists, not globalists. And they hadn't incorporated the branches of feminism and gay privilege as both were too ridiculous to contemplate back then.

Blogger Ghost of Nathan Bedford Forrest December 12, 2016 9:19 PM  

I'm licensed practice in FL. VD, let me know if I can be of assistance.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd December 12, 2016 9:22 PM  

@30: " And they hadn't incorporated the branches of feminism and gay privilege as both were too ridiculous to contemplate back then.".

Both are still too ridiculous to contemplate. Fortunately for gays and feminists, liberals aren't given to contemplation.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl December 12, 2016 10:20 PM  

Vox - Probably old news, but:
If tried under US law, and if the defendant is a US citizen, crime committed on US soil - they admitted defamation was the goal. Libel's pretty easy here.

Once the case is brought, subpoenas will make clear all the correspondences of the defendant and publishing parties. If they don't comply, they're in contempt, also a violation of the law.

Broad strokes, but there it is.

I'm not worried any SJWs will pay attention to the above as they believe laws don't apply to them.

Blogger Kristophr December 12, 2016 11:33 PM  

basementhomebrewer wrote:File 770 is slowly freaking out. My favorite part of this is there are several members there who claim to be successful lawyers but always give ridiculous law opinions that appear to be the combination of stuff they saw on TV and extremely bad interpretations of case law (possibly due to poor reading comprehension?).

IANAL is the worst kind of anal.

Blogger Thucydides December 12, 2016 11:38 PM  

Not exactly the sort of card one want's on the mantel...

Blogger weka December 13, 2016 12:22 AM  

Hmmm. The commentators have called our esteemed host a tax evader, a refugee from federal justice, a believer in fantasies that will never come true, and a Nazi.

Including one beauty who considered taking the article to the Italian Terror Police.

Now, if you want to black knight, complain to the Australian Human Rights Commission. http://bullying.humanrights.gov.au/

Blogger Johnny December 13, 2016 12:28 AM  

The Nazi's may of thought well of the Islamic faith, but they had no interest in adapting it. They made some effort to develop a new faith based on a kind of romantic vision of the past. As the German barbarians were illiterate, apparently the ideas came from Scandinavia. Realistically it was all too superficial to get traction. go any where.

Nazism to a curious extent resembled the French Revolution. The French tried to replace Christianity with the old Greco Roman stuff.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl December 13, 2016 12:44 AM  

Oh, snap, according to Social Justice Law, ex post ad hoc simpatico says that habeas corpus may be applied to the mens rea clause of the case of Hofferman v State of Alabama. Ro sumthing.

Blogger SteelPalm December 13, 2016 12:49 AM  

@37

Depends. Hitler wished the German national religion was either the "Mohammadean faith" or Shintoism (he didn't have a preference which) instead of "weak, flabby" Christianity. Himmler, the Architect of the Holocaust, was an out-and-out pagan, by contrast.

And many Nazi officers fled to Muslim countries, converted to Islam, changed their names, and served in their respective militaries/governments. For instance, two of Goebbels’s propagandists, Alfred Zingler and Dr. Johann von Leers, became Mahmoud Saleh and Omar Amin respectively, working in the Egyptian Information Department.

Obviously, there was a practicality to this, but they clearly didn't mind the Death Cult, either.

That Islamic countries loved the Nazis (as ex-Muslim Bosch Fawstin said of Hitler, he is "Islam's favorite infidel) is well-established, too.

The thing to note is that in many ways the Death Cult isn't even a "religion" per se; it's a political ideology. And a very warlike one at that.

Ergo the natural alliance with the Nazis. Regardless of whether they would have eventually turned on one another after taking care of the Jews, Christians, and other European nations.

Anonymous Spinrads Agent December 13, 2016 4:21 AM  

Miss Meadows' explanation at File 770 includes this: "[John] said he’d been getting threats from VD’s readers".

Strange. I wrote a polite letter to John, to which he replied in the same polite fashion, indicating he was working to resolve the problem. I emailed back a short thank you.

SJWs. What was that first law?

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable December 13, 2016 4:27 AM  

"[John] said he’d been getting threats from VD’s readers".

It's also very possible that was how SHE characterized the sorts of emails John described. He may not have said precisely what she reported.

Blogger JACIII December 13, 2016 5:41 AM  

Spinrads Agent wrote:Miss Meadows' explanation at File 770 includes this: "[John] said he’d been getting threats from VD’s readers".



See! He really is a double plus ungood badthinker!

Also, Second Law.

Anonymous Spinrads Agent December 13, 2016 6:18 AM  

The "legal advice" at File 770 is hilarious. It's instructive to note that no practicing Australian lawyers are offering supportive commentary. That's because of the decision against Andrew Bolt. Miss Meadows is about to learn that the laws against free speech championed so viciously against Bolt can actually be used against her. How amusing. And it's why Vox Day should use the law to demonstrate to SJWs that they are stupid.

Blogger wreckage December 13, 2016 6:22 AM  

It might be a stretch, but if she says you're NOT an Indian, that might come under 18c, as it would be a race-based accusation made only for the reason of race. Mind you, that legislative, not legal, but it might be useful. If of interest, the relevant legislation is here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18d.html

OpenID basementhomebrewer December 13, 2016 6:49 AM  

I have to commend Bob K. He went into the asylum and wiped the floor with them. It was so bad Glyer "closed the comment section for the night" stating he will reopen it in the morning. I suspect he did so because he wanted to limit the possibility of someone on his side posting something that could be used in the case.

Blogger Allen December 13, 2016 7:16 AM  

have you run this past the guys at granitegrok.com? they're very well connected in NH, obviously, and may have what you're looking for.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl December 13, 2016 9:03 AM  

Defamation laws are pretty similar in Australia as to the United States. Since their subpoena process is similar, court orders would also provide the plaintiff with all documents requested (published materials, email correspondences, etc.).

Spinrads Agent wrote:Miss Meadows' explanation at File 770 includes this: "[John] said he’d been getting threats from VD’s readers".

Strange. I wrote a polite letter to John, to which he replied in the same polite fashion, indicating he was working to resolve the problem. I emailed back a short thank you.


These could come up in a subpoena as well. I'd have to look into Australia's laws on "incendiary speech," but it's probably similar to the US's in that there would need to be direct orders for harassment.

But, as I figure, showing the correspondences to O'Neill would show that most between the Ilk and O'Neill were polite.

So, pretty easy case. Since the SJW always doubles down, this could go to court. I'd bet the lawyers recommend settlement, but I'd hit them with this pretty easy case.

Blogger FALPhil December 13, 2016 9:17 AM  

@14 basementhomebrewer
Also note they are Still trying to claim that Nazi's weren't socialist.


They have good reason. Even Infogalactic calls Nazism "far right" in the first sentence.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Nazism

Anonymous crazy cat December 13, 2016 9:24 AM  

The hard part would be finding an accepted definition of neo nazi -- the argument is that Theodore is not a member of the National Socialist Party is obviously correct -- there's an the age old wisdom .. "I would never join a group that would have me as a member".

However the term neo nazi is a bit less well defined, in fact calling someone a neo nazi in the in 21st century is not unlike calling them an racist asshole or a douche bag, 1/4 primitive savage wet back. Its protected speech. In the world where you have a soup nazi, the parking nazi ...fashion nazi it simply doesn't mean the same thing. What you have here is a rhetorical statement regarding a public person who makes equally vitreous statements about others...





OpenID basementhomebrewer December 13, 2016 9:29 AM  

FALPhil wrote:@14 basementhomebrewer

Also note they are Still trying to claim that Nazi's weren't socialist.


They have good reason. Even Infogalactic calls Nazism "far right" in the first sentence.



I know it's hard but try to get past the first paragraph. Notice that when you get to the particulars it talks about nationalizing industries. Something distinctly Socialist.

Blogger bob kek mando: i can't be racist. why, some of my best friends are ((( Literally Hitler ))). { Vox Gayness intensifies } December 13, 2016 10:20 AM  

8. VD December 12, 2016 6:40 PM
Foz Meadows, in her obvious malice, decided to double down on her defamatory falsehood.



psycho bitches gonna psycho bitch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA_Yr6zE8VQ



45. basementhomebrewer December 13, 2016 6:49 AM
I have to commend Bob K.



meh, there's not much too it.

as with the 'tard who accused me of trying to get the Lefties to "care" about Beale ... they are incapable of parsing anything except as emotive appeals and Social Dominance gaming.

a straightforward, mechanistic application of logic and legal principles ( which is what i started out doing ) is thus wholly confusing to them.

which is why i flipped to stipulating to their assertion:
Beale is a neo-Nazi? fine, that is ( nominally ) a felony in Italy. had you cowards prosecuted him for this obvious and public felony 5 years ago ... you would have never had any Rabid Puppies to deal with.

the smoking hole of the Hugos is the fault of Leftists failing to take care of business.


gots ta speak to them in terms they can understand.


45. basementhomebrewer December 13, 2016 6:49 AM
I suspect he did so because he wanted to limit the possibility of someone on his side posting something that could be used in the case.



Glyer has told us that he's a 'Conservative', so would nominally not be on the side of the Borderline Personality retards.

funny how they usually manage to White Knight for them anyways.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat December 13, 2016 12:37 PM  

@49: However the term neo nazi is a bit less well defined, in fact calling someone a neo nazi in the in 21st century is not unlike calling them an racist asshole or a douche bag, 1/4 primitive savage wet back. Its protected speech.

This is the fun thing about "hate speech": truth is no longer a defense. If someone calls me a mixed-breed bastard, they technically speak the truth. As Lee Marvin said in a movie one time, "Yes, sir, in my case an accident of birth.". I have an out-of-wedlock ancestor, and Number One Son's medical history proves I'm not 100% British Isles ancestry.

Nonetheless, the speaker is attacking my racial heritage with an intent to harm, so it's hate speech and it's actionable under those laws.

THIS is why people like me have been begging the SJWs not to disrupt free speech, without luck. To quote A Man of All Seasons, "I would give the devil the benefit of law, for my own safety's sake." The SJWs have taken to cutting down the laws of man to chase their devils; it is only fitting that they are then cut down with their own scythe.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl December 13, 2016 3:17 PM  

Defamation law in Italy:
The second is defamation (diffamazione), defined as injuring the reputation of an absent person via communication with others. It is punishable with a fine of up to €1,032 or imprisonment for up to one year (Art. 595).
If the act of insult or defamation consists in the allegation of a specific fact, the potential punishments are increased: for insult, a max. fine of €1,032 and up to one year in prison; for defamation, a max. fine of €2,065 and up to two years in prison.
When defamation is committed by means of the press (or in another public way), this is considered aggravated defamation. In this case, the punishment is a fine of not less than €516 and imprisonment from six months to three years. Defamation is also considered to be aggravated when the defamatory statement is directed at a political, administrative or judicial body or at a representative thereof or an authority constituted in college (§595).
Finally, defamation is also considered a criminal offence under Law No. 47/1948 (Provisions on the Press, Defamation, Crimes Committed against the Profession and Criminal Proecdure, hereinafter “Press Law”). According to Art. 13 of the Press Law, defamation committed by the press is punishable by a fine of no less than ₤ (ITL) 10,000 (€5.16) or imprisonment from one to six years. In order for defamation to be liable under the Press Law, it must involve an accusation of fact (attribuzione di un fatto determinato).

Source: http://legaldb.freemedia.at/legal-database/italy/

OpenID ymarsakar December 14, 2016 8:32 AM  

Lawfare, something guerillas, terrorists, and Leftists used against the US superpower to good effect.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts