/co/ - Comics & Cartoons

Not what Duun said. Your source is literally Mark Waid himself.

Didnt meyers and AP have a verbal contract? Which is legally binding in texas?

One of the AP guys said they were contractually obligated to meyers in an email

>>1058163

They had an actual written contract which was sent out to Meyer, but they never got it back. However, that's neither here nor there since the contract's terms gave Antarctic discretion to whether or not they would actually publish it.

I have no idea why Meyer didn't sign it and get it back to Antarctic. Maybe he was hoping to sue them later to get more of the sales by claiming the initial contract was invalid.

>>1058166

You should find out what is considered a contract in Texas. It also is one of the many reasons Waid is fighting to get it out of that state.

>>1058165

It is almost as if they aren't fighting the actual lawsuit right now dipshit, but just jurisdiction.

Good God, you need your meds.

>>1058165

Duun did not say Waid didn't interfere. He said Waid didn't single handedly stop the contract.

>>1058172

>It is almost as if they aren't fighting the actual lawsuit right now dipshit, but just jurisdiction.

Most of the evidence pertained to the claim itself. Read the testimony sometime.

>>1058187

I did. You might want to read the court filings.

courtlistener.com/docket/7903402/meyer-v-waid/

Mark "white supremacy is a broad spectrum" Waid is fucked if it gets past the jurisdication, and the upcoming anti-slapp.

And not take someone's word at face value, who already lied to the court, and had to file a "tots forgot" motion.

>>1058192

>Anti-slapp laws apply to the dismissal of lawsuits, not the filing of new ones.

<Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File TCPA Motion by Mark Waid.

>so he hasn't lied to the court

<NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Declaration by Mark Waid re 10 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

You really are uninformed aren't ya?

>>1058193

Those are both motions to dismiss. The TCPA on First Amendment grounds, and the second on jurisdiction grounds.

Considering nobody has been called for perjury, I take it that both of those are legal and applicable in this case.

Heres what im seeing

Meyer and AP had a verbal contract which is enforcable by law in texas

Waid as a 3rd party had no legal reason to contact AP and is being sued for interferance with that contract.

Waids trying to get the case moved to cali or run meyers out of money because he,ll lose in texas.

He also called meyers a hyuuwite supremacist while in texas so theres the defamation part

That sound right?

Whoever wins, I hope they both lose. That seems like the best outcome to me.

ok

>>1058203

Waid is so fucked with this, especially with the way he mumbled repeatedly during questioning.

>>1058153

Meyers actually did nothing wrong, this is some stupid boomer battle about mark waid becoming a geriatric and wanting a vet to not make a G I joe ripoff comic

>>1058203

The defamation proves malice for the inteference.

I think itll come down to whether there was a verbal contract and if it goes to texas

>>1058222

You didn't read the post. Evidence was submitted that proved that Meyer did drop info on shop employees, the fallout is what led to AP to drop him, and AP had a written contract with Meyer that Meyer failed to sign which allowed AP to drop his book for whatever reason. Written trumps verbal.

And one more time, Texas doesn't mean shit. This entire case so far has been tried in Texas and operating under Texas law. If Meyer looks fucked now, that's not going to magically change if the jurisdiction dismissal is rejected.

>>1058163

>Didnt meyers and AP have a verbal contract? Which is legally binding in texas?

The issue is tortious interference; I'm pretty sure the bar is so low in Texas that all he has to do is show that Waid -tried- to negatively interfere with his business, which he has already publicly admitted to.

Defamation might be a little harder to prove, but still on the table.

>>1058200

>That sound right?

Yeah, that's a good summary.

>>1058248

>I'm pretty sure the bar is so low in Texas that all he has to do is show that Waid -tried- to negatively interfere with his business, which he has already publicly admitted to.

It isn't. You might want to google it.

>>1058165

You don't actually have to sign a contract in Texas, a verbal agreement is more than ok and it's clear that they had said verbal agreement. It's actually irrelevant whether or not Waid was the sole reason they dropped the book, as it appears there were a few, but they only need too prove that Waid had any influence at all in the decision. It's clear that he did, Waid called a no-name publisher in Texas to talk to them about a book from Meyer. He claimed that he was doing it because he knew the guy and I think that's clearly not the case. Then AP cancels the book and the lawsuit starts

Given the circumstances in the case and the evidence provided by both parties, it's reasonable to assume that the case is going to Meyer's favor

That's why Waid is trying to

A. Get the case out of Texas

B. Call Meyer a faggot

>>1058288

Written trumps verbal in cases where the written and verbal contracts differ which isn’t relevant. I’m saying that it doesn’t matter whether or not Meyer signed the contract

>Waid needs to be shown as the primary reason AP dropped

That’s not actually true. Waid needs to be shown as A reason. So even if the editor in chief is the primary reason, Meyer simply needs to prove that Waid had any influence on the decision at all. Which he did, if you believe the private messages between Ben Dunn and umbrella guy.

>dismiss, as in "have the case thrown out", not to move the fucking venue

Obviously, but Meyer would file another suit in whatever jurisdiction he needed, likely California. Mark Zaid, Waid’s lawyer, said so. He filed it in Texas because he and AP live there and because Texas is more likely to side with him.

>>1058307

kek

imagine actually believing that

I hope Mark Waid comes out as a trans after all of this.

>>1058307

I'm confused as to what point you're attempting to make.

Meyer and AP are both based in Texas, there is literally no reason the case would not be heard in Texas.

>>1058371

>Waid didn't know that AP or Meyer were based out of Texas

Again, why do you possibly think this matters?

>as despite Waid thinking he's met them before, neither brother remembers meeting Waid and there's no evidence of such a meeting.

Yes. Because as Waid himself already admitted, this took place over the phone, and not in person.

>Basically, the case is getting snagged in the constitutional protections that prevent defendants from being dragged to another state who's laws are more favorable to the plaintiff.

You would have a point if, say, Meyer were filing it in Arizona or something, where neither Waid, AP, or Meyer were located. However, that obviously isn't the case, and would be extremely silly to file a case two states away just because you believe that's where a phone call originated from.

Imagine the mental illness required to spend this much time defending Mark Waid, a geriatric funny book writer. Time well spent OP?

lol

>Dunn, who initiated the conversation by reaching out to ThatUmbrellaGuy, indicates in these private messages that Waid’s now infamous phone call to Antarctic Press and the unrelenting pressure applied by Waid and his supporters directly influenced the decision to drop Jawbreakers:

<I want to thank you for your fair assessment of the situation overall. Truth be told AP has always been on the fringe of the comics industry yet somehow we survive. We had high hopes for the success of JAWBREAKERS but the virulent attack on my brother from the SJW side was unprecedented. Something we had NEVER experienced in our 33 years in business. It was like Pearl Harbor for us. You have to understand that there were personal considerations as well. My brother’s decision was heartbreaking because after the Waid call he was afraid of the future of some of friends [sic] who worked for Marvel. Normally, we would have ignored such attacks but it began to intrude on his other job and that is when he had to make the decision to cancel the book. Then the other side attacked and we were caught in the middle. I twas a no-win situation for us. So we thought it best just to remain silent. This of course led to much speculation of the course of action we took. I wonder what if we had stuck to our guns or if Waid had kept his nose out of it Would [sic] we even be having this discussion? If nothing else, it exposed the seedy under belly of the comics industry so at least some good came out of this.

>>1058388

>Waid being ignorant that Meyer is a resident of Texas

I don’t believe this to be the case. Waid has previously done business in Texas and must have taken a phone call from a Texas based phone at some point. Given his prior history, I find it reasonable to assume that he’s familiar with what a Texas area code, (210) looks like. As AP’s phone number has 210 in it, I think it’s also reasonable to assume that Waid can put two and two together and know that it is a Texas based business

Why then would Meyer hire a Texas based publisher if he, as Mark claimed he believed, lived in New York?

>>1058439

Waid has worked on with people from AP before, why would he say that he is unaware of where they base themselves? He worked with Joe Weltjens, the now former editor in chief of AP, who worked under the name Guru-efx. Weltjens works at Marvel now

>>1058447

>why would he say that he is unaware of where they base themselves?

Because Waid wasn't the fucking hiring manager at Marvel. He's not going to know where his colorist worked before.

But here's the thing: all the AP location shit is irrelevant. Check the reply, page 4 >>1058401. It doesn't matter if Waid knew AP was based in Texas, it only matters if Waid knew Meyer was based in Texas, which he didn't.

Why's this shit important? Well, from my understanding, Waid not knowing that Meyer was a Texas resident means that the Texas courts lack jurisdiction over the case. Which would mean that Meyer would be forced to file an out-of-state lawsuit as it's normally done: in the defendant's home state.

Also, there's something on the bottom of page 7 (>>1058402) that should scare Meyer shitless. Because Meyer's lawsuit violates Anti-SLAPP provisions, Waid would be allowed recovery of attorneys' fees and costs.

>>1058401

Just looking through a few lines, there are a few issues with this argument. For one thing, it has to be remembered that this is for jurisdictional discovery, meaning that the case to be made is whether or not the case should be made in Texas, not as to what the lawsuit actually consists of

>Waid’s ignorance that Plaintiff was in Texas…defeats any finding of jurisdiction as a matter of law

No it doesn’t, what? Waid being ignorant of where exactly Meyer is doesn’t change that Waid attempted to intervene with the contract. He might say that he was doing it in good faith but that’s simply not true, it’s obvious Waid hates Meyer. Waid’s argument is that he was so retarded that he didn’t know that AP’s address was in Texas. Even after entering a Texas phone number. Michiana doesn’t support this argument, I don’t know why he brought it up

>furthermore, even if waid knew that either plaintiff or AP were in Texas…the publication of a book that had nothing to do with Texas…still shows juristdiction is not proper

The book doesn’t have to be ABOUT Texas, what a retarded argument.

>Furthermore, even if Waid’s statements in Houston were relevant…It remains the case Waid did not know Plaintiff was located in Texas

>Make defamatory claims about someone while in Houston

>”I didn’t know where he was”

That doesn’t matter in regards to defamation. Waid was in Texas, talking about a situation in Texas, making defamatory comments about someone in Texas. But he doesn’t know where Meyer is so it’s ok? No. This is all desperate grabbing to get the case out of Texas because if it stays there, they fucking lose

>>1058402

>This lawsuit also violates Anti-SLAPP provisions

That’s conclusory, that’s for the judge to decide. Again, they need to make that argument after they decide the jurisdiction, not now. They didn’t file an Anti-SLAPP motion so they just made this comment for no reason

>And Mark Waid, did he do anything to prevent AP from publishing Mr. Meyer’s book?

>No

It doesn’t actually matter if AP was going to cancel the book anyway, they hadn’t done it until AFTER Waid called. AP had the right to cancel the book but didn’t do it until after Waid called, meaning that they have to prove to a jury that Waid’s call didn’t influence them at all. Since Dunn is the breaching party, that will be hard to do. They won’t take him at his word

>>1058454

>Plaintiff also retweeted an apparent threat of violence and praised his “incel army”

Wew lad

>This was in addition to other horrific statements Plaintiff made…including defaming Waid and others “as pedophiles”

That’s not what he said, he said they looked like pedophiles. That’s different and significant

>His EIC wanted AP to remove his name from all books published by AP if they were to publish the book

That’s funny because he left the company when they didn’t publish it anyway. By the way, this guy is the guy who made Diesel, that jojo rip-off book. Not relevant to the case but very funny

>Testifying Waid did not do anything to prevent AP from publishing Meyer’s book

Yeah, but that doesn’t matter. Again, the breaching party is assumed to be at fault in Texas and their word means little until facts are in

>As noted above, Plaintiff never signed the proposed contract

Irrelevant in Texas, they’ve got a weird spoken agreement rule

>AP had the discretion to decide against Publishing Jawbreakers, this defeating necessary breach.

Yes, and this case wouldn’t have been happening if they did so prior to Waid’s call. However, since he did call, then the court gives them a reasonable assumption that they could have changed their mind on not publishing it. Meyer’s case wouldn’t have had any legs if Waid didn’t tell everyone that he gave them a phone call

That’s really the big thing about this case. All Waid had to do was not tell people he called AP

>>1058454

>>1058455

>Waid being ignorant of where exactly Meyer is doesn’t change that Waid attempted to intervene with the contract.

That doesn't matter. We're talking about jurisdiction, and Texas case law says that the defendant has to have known the plaintiff was a resident of the state in order to establish that jurisdiction. Waid didn't know Meyer was a Texan, a fact Meyer doesn't dispute, which means the case could be tossed out and Meyer would have to refile in California.

>Waid was in Texas, talking about a situation in Texas, making defamatory comments about someone in Texas.

You would have a point if the Houston comments were the basis of the defamation claim, but they aren't. Meyer's claim stems from posts made through Waid's social media posts. The reason Meyer didn't base the complaint on those statements was because they occurred after AP dropped his book.

>However, since he did call, then the court gives them a reasonable assumption that they could have changed their mind on not publishing it.

First, because the written contract sent to Meyer had a clause that allowed AP to freely drop the book if they so wished, meaning no breach. Second, Meyer has no evidence that contradicts Joe Dunn's testimony that Waid had nothing to do with it, or Ben Dunn's testimony that he didn't know anything and was pulling shit out of his ass.

That's the real killer: Meyer's lack of evidence that Waid's call influenced AP's decision. Nearly all of the evidence so far, including Meyer's submissions, depicts AP dealing with a flood of criticism and pressure following Meyer's actions. How exactly is Meyer going to convince anyone that Mark Waid wasn't just another rain-drop in that flood?

>>1058458

>Waid didn't know that Meyer was a Texan

A bald-faced lie first off but let's say it is true. It doesn't matter that Meyer didn't dispute. AP is in Texas, the contract was made in Texas, that makes it a Texan tortuous interference case. The fact that Waid picked up a phone and called and texted a Texan phone number is gonna be what decides it.

>You would have a point if the Houston comments were the basis of the defamation claim

That's not the point of that statement, Waid claims that he did not know that Meyer was in Texas until the lawsuit was filed and that's clearly not the case because of the comments he made at that panel

>First, because the written contract sent to Meyer had a clause that allowed AP to freely drop the book if they so wished, meaning no breach

You would be right but again, that only applies if Waid didn't contact AP and have a near 30-minute conversation with them. Because he did, and told everyone about it, it's easy to say that Mark Waid influenced their decision

> How exactly is Meyer going to convince anyone that Mark Waid wasn't just another rain-drop in that flood?

He only has to convince the jury that Waid was the drop that broke the dam and given that AP dropped the book specifically AFTER Waid's call, that'll be really easy.

>>1058153

How much in debt is Waid already in over this?