Spin, spin, and more spin
It's interesting to see that the media covering the Jawbreakers case are engaging in precisely the same sort of definitional spin that we are seeing on a regular basis in our current legal dispute:
Antarctic Publisher States Under Oath That Mark Waid Didn’t Prevent Them from Publishing Jawbreakers
So what? As Richard Meyer's lawyer has correctly pointed out, the name of the tort is "tortious interference" not "tortious prevention". Waid was not involved in the relationship, so obviously he had no ability to "prevent" Antarctic from publishing anything.
The basic elements of a tortious interference claim are as follows:
As far as I can tell, the only fact yet to be determined, and upon which the Meyer v. Waid case revolves, is if telephoning someone and telling them to break a contract with someone else with which you are not involved in any way is improper interference or not. And I simply don't know if that is the case in Texas or not.
Speaking of legal disputes, an emailwill be going has gone out to Alt-Hero and original Alt-Hero:Q backers later today. If you fit the specified bill with ease and without any exaggeration, please respond to it as this information will be very helpful to us. If you receive a separate, similar email from someone else, please be sure to respond to both of them.
Things are heating up considerably on that front, so there could be some fireworks soon. I look forward to being able to tell you all about it, but that may take a while as there is the possibility of at least one element of the dispute stretching into the fall of 2020.
Antarctic Publisher States Under Oath That Mark Waid Didn’t Prevent Them from Publishing Jawbreakers
So what? As Richard Meyer's lawyer has correctly pointed out, the name of the tort is "tortious interference" not "tortious prevention". Waid was not involved in the relationship, so obviously he had no ability to "prevent" Antarctic from publishing anything.
The basic elements of a tortious interference claim are as follows:
- A valid contract or economic expectancy between the plaintiff and a third person;
- Knowledge of the contract or expectancy by the defendant;
- Intent by the defendant to interfere with the contract or expectancy;
- Actual interference;
- The interference is improper; and
- The plaintiff suffers damage.
As far as I can tell, the only fact yet to be determined, and upon which the Meyer v. Waid case revolves, is if telephoning someone and telling them to break a contract with someone else with which you are not involved in any way is improper interference or not. And I simply don't know if that is the case in Texas or not.
Speaking of legal disputes, an email
Things are heating up considerably on that front, so there could be some fireworks soon. I look forward to being able to tell you all about it, but that may take a while as there is the possibility of at least one element of the dispute stretching into the fall of 2020.
24 Comments:
Wishing you the very best for the Indiegogo fight!!
Time to put up the steel umbrella. Feels like it's about to rain rubble. Could be a long one.
Just guessing at how I would think the law would work, I would think that step one would be to show that there was interference and that it was improper. After that, prevent or interfere would be an issue of damages. Can you show that you were damaged?
Not involved in any law thing but I must say Q is great especially in CBZ.
From an old law review article: https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2423&context=smulr
"It is important to note that tort liability can attach even though the interference does not cause an actual breach of the contract." Actions that cause delay or increase the cost/burden of performance can be the basis for a tortious interference claim. See footnotes 20 and 21.
One of the cited cases: Hughes v. Houston Northwest Medical Center, 680 SW 2d 838 - Tex: Court of Appeals 1984 (interference caused a delay; jury held that the delay caused loss of more than $400,000; jury awarded those damages; jury affirmed).
More recent case: Lamont v. Vaquillas Energy Lopeno Ltd., LLP, 421 SW 3d 198 - Tex: Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2013)
"To establish tortious interference with [an] existing contract, a plaintiff is not limited to showing the contract was actually breached." Khan v. GBAK Props., Inc., 371 S.W.3d 347, 359-60 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (citing Hughes v. Hous. Nw. Med. Ctr., Inc., 680 S.W.2d 838, 842 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.)). "Any interference that makes performance more burdensome or difficult or of less or no value to the one entitled to performance is actionable." Id."
Court held that reduced value of certain oil & gas leases was sufficient "damage" to make interference actionable.
An unsuccessful attempt to interfere will not succeed as a lawsuit; some sort of injury is required -- delay, increased cost, reduction in value or something.
It is unclear what legal point is being made when it is stated that "Mark Waid Didn’t Prevent Them from Publishing Jawbreakers."
Two issues are entwined -- success of interference and causation. I make a phone call but the call has no impact; there are potentially two reasons: either (i) because the contract-being-interfered-with is not breached or (ii) the contract is breached for reasons unrelated to the phone call. Note that the phone call could be deemed "improper interference" without leading to an adverse judgment if either (i) or (ii) is proven. A plaintiff must prove all the elements and the failure of proof on one element leads to failure of the case.
I really feel good about these cases. Even in the worst case scenario, they can deplatform us...in a universe where alternative platforms are already being built. The loss for us isn't so great if that happens. If we win, this creates some very good protections for our work that will only be beneficial, and indiegogo and waid will have their reputations permanently scarred if not utterly ruined.
The question I have regarding Meyer v Waid is if Meyer's lawyers are up to this task. My initial impression of the online, TANAL, commentariat is that Meyer lost this round.
But, at least he has fought back, so I give him that. How many have laid down and taken it from SJW's without even a fight? Or worse, apologies!
Nick Rekieta has been covering the Meyer vs Wade and Vic Mignogna cases very thouroghly, if you watch videos I'd recommend him.
In the deposition of the brothers who own Antarctic Press which Rekieta read on air, it's fairly clear that Waid's call was the straw that broke the camel's back. They were deliberating whether or not to publish due to the Twitter mob and internal pushback from one of their employees. Once Joe Dunn (the current owner) had gotten off the phone, he told his brother that they can't publish it. They haven't been asked what exactly Waid said on the call (it's jurisdictional discovery right now), but it was a major point.
The "Did not prevent publication" crap is based on Joe Dunn taking full responsibility for cancelling the comic in the deposition and telling Waid's lawyer no when asked if Waid "prevented" him from publishing. It's doesn't really matter for TI as other have pointed out above, but it gives the SJW media (who Waid likely has contacts with) a talking point. Like the other legacy media, the blackpilling won't work and just make them look bad if/when Meyer wins.
> If you fit the specified bill with ease and without any exaggeration, please respond to it
While I would love to provide the Supreme Dark Lord with addition ammo, I do not. :(
I await the second email with interest.
> Two issues are entwined -- success of interference and causation.
That there was attempted interference is established, as is the fact that the contract was cancelled. That issue is already demonstrated.
Which only leaves the question of causation. Was the interference one (it doesn't have to be the only) reason the contract was cancelled?
At this point, almost any jury or a rational judge would conclude that the evidence indicates the interference was the most likely cause of the cancellation of the contract. If so it's now up to Antarctic to demonstrate that it cancelled the contract for reasons completely unrelated to the interference. The fact that they weren't willing to state that under oath is telling.
Thanks for the email update, very juicy. Can't help you on the first two items, consequently, as a group claimant will await the arrival of the other email.
Of the options you describe for the group action; a, b, c, proceed as filed, is there any indication as to which direction it might be headed?
I'm very pleased to hear the rubble is beginning to move and just as you/Arkhaven are glad we stand with you, we are proud to have your back. I was a firm believer I would get my money's worth when I invested in making the rubble bounce and am ecstatic to hear they're spending or will spend over 10x what the campaign would have netted them.
further to point 8, I believe it was one of the Dunns who stated that undergoing the SJW attack mob was 'worse than Pearl Harbor.'
The case is at the delay stage, with Waid wanting it tried in California, rather than Texas. Also, Meyer posits that Waid may be getting pro bono legal work, which may open the door to dark money funding investigation.
I heard that the publisher has denied on record that their decision was influenced. I expect this. So the case comes down, perhaps, to whether the judge sees through this, and does the right thing.
Stop guessing Johnny. You are so ignorant that you are not even wrong.
Lovekraft wrote:I heard that the publisher has denied on record that their decision was influenced. I expect this. So the case comes down, perhaps, to whether the judge sees through this, and does the right thing.
The issue is, as usual, of credibility. If it goes to a jury trial, the jury will decide as to the most credible witnesses.
Daniel wrote:Stop guessing Johnny. You are so ignorant that you are not even wrong.
If you include this statement "Just guessing at how I would think the law would work" in a comment on this blog; you've just told everyone no reason to read this comment any further.
@ 8 and 11: agreed. Looks like the judge and jury will have to decided if the proffered -- stated -- reason for the decision was a the real reason or a pretext. There are many types of evidence that go to the question of pretext including other statements made by the various decision makers at or near the time the decision was made, history and bias of the decision makers, decisions made with respect to others who were similarly situated, the strength and/or believability of the proffered reason, inconsistencies in the "story," strength of the paper trail (if any) and timing. Timing can be a key factor. If the phone call is made and two minutes after the call is finished, the decision not-to-publish is made, then that alone might justify a judge/jury making the determination that the proffered reason is a pretext.
"The case is at the delay stage, with Waid wanting it tried in California, rather than Texas."
Under what justification?
Smells of desperation.
Of the options you describe for the group action; a, b, c, proceed as filed, is there any indication as to which direction it might be headed?
None at all. We'll just have to wait and find out what the arbitrator decides. But it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, as there are pluses and minuses to every reasonable scenario.
Codex Astartes calls this move steel rain. Make the rubble bounce.
And there's the e-mail in my spam folder.
I just realized that the CH email didn't specify when the second message would be going out. Should we have already received it, if we were part of the original action, or is it going out sometime over the next few days, weeks, etc.?
Lovecraft, does this mean we should put on the really dark sunglasses before watching? There's one way to make the rubble bounce this well.
I'd second that. Nick Rekieta makes legal cases interesting as well as entertaining.
I almost feel sorry for the amount of pain they are in.
The email was extremely entertaining.
Keep up the good work!
ALT-Hero Q is awesome. Making an action-adventure comic book (or movie) out of the Q phenomenon is a genius move. And with Arkhaven we get all the great story with none of the ritual reflection to the household gods of the SJWs.
A pox on indigogo for trying to kill this book. Best wishes to the legal team.
> I just realized that the CH email didn't specify when the second message would be going out.
It also didn't say every backer would be getting it. "If you receive..."
I haven't seen any second email yet.
Post a Comment
Rules of the blog