Hoo boy -- y'all thought that Omnibus Response was the only filing for today? That was just the tip of the iceberg!
Jamie Marchi Response (This one's straight fire -- if you only have time to skim one, ensure it's this.)
Rial and Toye Response
Reply in Support of Rial and Toye Response
Mike Dunford gets into the Reply motion, but in the meantime, here's some highlights:
"Whereas Jamie’s Motion sets forth legal and factual bases for application of the TCPA
and Plaintiff’s evidentiary shortcomings, Plaintiff – on the other hand – chose to put before this
Court tabloid storytelling, illegitimate argument, and either no evidence or inadmissible evidence
in a manner that begs the question whether Plaintiff even cares to prevail against Jamie’s Motion
in the first place. This Reply is Jamie’s effort to clean up the issues – if any even remain – in order
for the Court to find that dismissal under the TCPA is the only outcome allowed pursuant to Texas
law."
"Plaintiff inexplicably claims that there is no evidence in the Court’s record to
establish that he is – at a minimum – a limited-purpose public figure. Without admitting to the
admissibility thereof, Plaintiff’s own evidence attached to his Response clarifies that his
transgressions have been public for years upon years and that people, including those discussing
it and those other than the immediate participants, are likely to feel the impact of its resolution.11
That Plaintiff would dispute the fact that he has “more than a trivial or tangential role” in this
matter and that the alleged defamation by Jamie is “germane to Plaintiff’s participation in the
controversy” is beyond belief."
"Rather than addressing in any rational manner the clear
and specific case made for why Jamie’s statements relate to health, safety, and community well-
being, Plaintiff chose instead to shame Jamie for her silence – a silence brought about from
Plaintiff’s reputation, power in their industry, and the weight of carrying what Plaintiff did to her and others.12 Plaintiff’s “defense” or “response” to this truth is so shocking that it merits singling
out from the nearly page-long paragraph in which it hides:
If she was so concerned about her safety and health and was concerned about the
safety and health of what she claims are past and future victims, then why did she
wait years to make her statement?
Of note is that Plaintiff here admits that Jamie’s statement does concern health and safety,
but merely criticizes how long it took her to speak out. This is neither a factual nor a legal argument
from Plaintiff, only the retort of a person so bereft of empathy and humanity that they would rather
shame a victim for her trauma than engage in the discourse expected of parties and counsel
involved in litigation. Jamie’s statement was made well before the specter of Plaintiff’s lawsuit
(and his quarter-million-dollar war chest helmed by a faraway alleged Minnesota attorney) hung
over her head, and in it she stated her very clear and unequivocal purpose, which is certainly worth
reiterating in this Reply:
...But, in this moment, I want the others to who I know are out there to hear this: it wasn’t just you. It’s okay if you didn’t say anything, to him or anyone else. You are not responsible for what happened. You do not have to be dismissive, ashamed, or afraid. Also, I hope if anyone ever goes through a similar experience, they will know from the start that their body is not up for debate. Their body is not property of the most popular person in the room. Their body is not responsible for a company, or a show, or an artform. Their body is most definitely not responsible for the reputation and livelihood of a predator.
Plaintiff would have been better served by not responding at all."
Truly Huber's affidavit is a treasure trove of stuff that's just as damaging to the guy he's trying to defend as the people who are speaking out against him.
🕊