VOX DAY AND OWEN BENJAMIN OPEN SALVOS; SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT

   So, 24 hours are up now. Out here on the Pacific Coast, we're still awaiting the hordes of the Vile Faceless Minions, Angry Bears, Rabid Puppies, Legal Legion of Evil, Dragon Slayers of St. So-and-So---or whoever else has been assigned to dispatch The Night Wind. I think I'll go bowling tomorrow...

  Vox and Owen meanwhile are melting down in paroxysms of paranoia. Their wrath is falling most heavily on a vlogger who goes by the name Davey Crocko. (Even though Vox' thugs doxxed him today and broadcast his real name all over the Internet, we will use his screen-name here). Crocko has been running a series lately exposing Vox' and Owen's crimes as well as poking fun at them and their followers. What has the Cultists' undies in a knot is that Crocko claims to be in touch with a disaffected member of Vox' inner circle. This has sent them into a panic. 

   Yesterday Vox Day claimed that he'd received a security notice from Google and extrapolated from that that Crocko was trying to hack his account. Today Vox went on Unauthorized TV and claimed that Crocko sent the FBI to raid Owen's secret hideout.  

   This is all assuming that any of what Vox or Owen says is true. Owen claimed not long ago that someone sent poisoned Gummy-Bears to his kids; and that the host of Nightwave was plotting to assassinate him. Gammas, Wizards, and Sodomites are always in the shadows somewhere stalking this nitwit in his own imagination. 

   But makes it worse, is that another ex-cultist claimed to have filed a complaint with the FBI and posted about it five days ago; long before Vox' Ultimatum. This rather handicaps his case: making false accusations against someone whom he accuses of doing the same thing. The problem for them now is that Teddy Spaghetti has gone and shot off his big mouth again; and sooner or later he's going to have to stop beating his chest and actually do something. And neither Vox nor Owen has had a great track record recently of delivering on their promises. 

14.  VDDecember 27, 2019 9:47 PM

What exactly are you going to do about it?

You'll find out. Everyone, from the anonymous Internet troll to the very expensive lawyers for the Silicon Valley corporation or the publicly-traded New York publisher, bluffs and postures right up until the moment they discover that they are not untouchable. Then they beg and plead for mercy.

  This is a main reason why their cult-followers have been grumbling lately; they've donated a lot of both financial and personal capital for the 'Cause' and have little or nothing to show for it. And as we've pointed out ourselves many times and on many occasions, many of these projects have little or transparency; highly questionable contractual terms; and often operate behind front-companies and cut-outs---many of which are not even based in the United States. 

44.  AkulkisDecember 27, 2019 11:26 PM

"Call the cops and tell them someone is being mean to you on the internet? Let me know how that plays out."

It's going to be funny when real cops with real badges and real guns knock on your door with warrants in hand.

You see, what you don't understand is, it's not about "saying mean things on the internet," because that's freedom of speech.

When you crossed into tortious interference... well, that's an area with a solid, 800-year long legal foundation.

Oh, and if you think hiding behind a VPN makes you untraceable and immune ... well, you just keep telling yourself that.

This is all going to be gloriously hilarious-- for us, not you.

  What this knothead doesn't understand is that Tortious Interference requires that an actual contractual relationship exists between the parties at law.  "The interference must have been wrongful "by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself." Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., 11 Cal.4th 376, 393 (1995). 

"Intentional IWCR also shares many elements with intentional IWPEA. A plaintiff must prove that:

1. A contract existed between the plaintiff and a third party;
2. The defendant knew about the contract;
3. The defendant engaged in conduct that prevented or hindered performance of the contract;
4. The defendant intended this result, or knew it was likely;
5. This harmed the plaintiff; and
6. The defendant’s conduct substantially caused this harm.

See Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 50 Cal.3d 1118 (1990).

Negligent Interference with a Contractual Relationship

California courts do not recognize negligent IWCR as a cause of action. Fifield Manor v. Finston, 54 Cal.2d 632 (1960)."

     For these two goofballs to claim that what essentially amounts to negative reviews of their business practices somehow interferes with their ability to profit off these scams is going to get them laughed out of court. About their only hope would be proving that these criticisms were intentionally libelous. But even there, they're stuck. As astute commenter Amya Spedonym pointed out at Kiwi Farms, the legal bar for libel against a public figure is considerably higher than for an average citizen, And that less than two weeks ago, Teddy Spaghetti boasted on his blog:

     "One thing that people tend to forget is that I've been a public figure for 26 years, ever since my weekly column began appearing, complete with my picture, in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. This means that I am very, very accustomed to dealing with all of the various problems and challenges and complications that entails in a way that most people are not. So, if you are a self-appointed critic, you just may want to think twice before getting into a written conflict with me, because I will never hesitate to ensure that your words will follow you around for the rest of your life."

   Open mouth, insert foot. 

   It's a dark time to be in a cult, folks. Especially when your leaders are hopeless dorks.