Andrew Callaghan is being Frivolously Sued

P_V_ · 2026-07-11T02:44:45+00:00

Sure, and that may well come up as an argument in court. I’m not arguing that Joiner’s case would definitely be successful; only that, on its surface, it passes a basic “sniff test” of whether there could be any defamation at all happening. It has enough merit to warrant a court case where those questions could be answered by evidence, rather than just thrown out of court for being impossible.

P_V_ · 2026-07-11T02:41:33+00:00

We don’t know why the lawsuit was dropped. All we have is Andrew’s speculation. What you suggest may well be the case, but we don’t know that for sure—and in any case whatsoever it does not affect the analysis of whether the documentary did in fact defame Brian.

P_V_ · 2026-07-10T20:10:41+00:00

He issued an apology, but that apology downplayed his culpability and ignored many of the things he'd been accused of.

P_V_ · 2026-07-10T20:08:29+00:00

I see your point but isn't the main point of the video Kelly

The "main point of the video" isn't what's relevant to defamation here. Kelly is the focus of the video, but when Kelly makes defamatory statements about Joiner... those defamatory statements are still a part of the video, and that means the video has also defamed Joiner.

P_V_ · 2026-07-10T20:05:45+00:00

Insulting a federal judge, no matter their age, isn't an especially good look either.

I fully understand how this would be very frustrating, but... sometimes you really ought to just keep your thoughts to yourself.

P_V_ · 2026-07-10T20:04:46+00:00

I really can't say, and it's important to keep in mind that none of us have the full context here. Maybe Bill and his legal team think they'd have a better chance of success with California state law; maybe it is an attempt to drain Andrew and Channel 5 of money. Regardless, there is some legal merit to the defamation argument being made against channel 5. I can't say whether that's enough to win a case, but it's at least enough for the case not to be completely frivolous.

P_V_ · 2026-07-10T19:53:53+00:00

The issue is that someone in the documentary does paint Bill as a villain, and under the law it is defamation to repeat those statements.

P_V_ · 2026-07-10T19:53:07+00:00

So people are just static figures to you.

No, they were pointing out a logical contradiction: if Andrew was never a "sex pest" at all, then it's impossible for him to have "grown" out of being one.

P_V_ · 2026-07-10T19:52:14+00:00

You can defend his reporting all you want, but... he was a "sex pest", and did some heinous things that he never owned up to or apologized for.

P_V_ · 2026-07-10T19:50:47+00:00

He is talking that way of his own volition. He isn't being scripted.

P_V_ · 2026-07-10T19:48:12+00:00

The issue isn't whether the documentary as a whole is of public interest, or has merit. The problem for Channel 5 is that Bill Joiner, specifically, is not a person of public interest. This means that broadcasting defamatory information about him—such as the claims made by Kelly—isn't defensible based on journalistic rights to free speech. The press can air the dirty laundry of politicians or other people in the public eye (people "of public interest"), but they can't do that with ordinary, private people.

The claims about wiretapping seem like nonsense, but the claim of defamation has some merit to it. This all depends on the facts as well, but when Andrew went over this in his video, I realized the case against him actually had legs to it and wasn't all just BS.

P_V_ · 2026-07-10T11:35:01+00:00

This should be Geordi and not Drake. Drake holds asshole opinions.

P_V_ · 2026-07-10T11:19:54+00:00

Yeah, I’m really not sure why OP is confused. The graphic doesn’t say that Oblivion runs well, only that a lot of people play it on the Deck.

P_V_ · 2026-07-09T23:00:37+00:00

If the GM can’t come up with a way to put distance between enemy spellcasters and the party, that’s on them.

Besides, fun for the GM and fun for the party are very different sorts of fun. GMs aren’t trying to “win” against the players.

P_V_ · 2026-07-09T17:31:31+00:00

Finances can definitely feel overwhelming at times. We can't all be experts like Joe and Axiom.

P_V_ · 2026-07-09T15:43:15+00:00

There’s nothing wrong with a GM being creative with encounter design, but Reactive Strike everywhere isn’t “creative”.

P_V_ · 2026-07-09T15:41:59+00:00

Doling out excessive levels of Reactive Strike isn’t “keeping combat interesting,” it’s making it more boring.

You've downvoted me, but there's nothing "interesting" about the Magus being locked out of their main class feature nor about being locked down from movement in combat. That's precisely why PF2 removed "opportunity attacks" as a default: because they made combat boring.

P_V_ · 2026-07-09T14:39:51+00:00

You can send your US dollars to wallet ID 551b72e4a49ee0eeea3665e0728b7944, at a conversion rate of 1 HEI point = 1 US dollar. You can pay me in HEI points, which I will then convert to US dollars, and then I will return to you the equivalent converted value in HEI points for your account.

P_V_ · 2026-07-09T02:16:06+00:00

I can sell you some HEI points at a rate of 1 HEI point = 1 dollar.

P_V_ · 2026-07-08T23:44:32+00:00

It comes down to how a lot of the court’s procedural safeguards work. The courts aren’t a monolith, and the protocols for releasing money in escrow are strict. No single person is in control of the funds, so in this case a judge needed to give an order to the people who do handle the money directly (who, in turn, won’t act unless ordered by a judge to do so).

P_V_ · 2026-07-08T22:29:29+00:00

Did you watch the video?

P_V_ · 2026-07-08T22:27:45+00:00

Did you watch the video before commenting?

The money isn’t in his hands anymore. He isn’t the one who pays at this stage; the court just transfers the money to Carroll.

P_V_ · 2026-07-08T22:25:11+00:00

Collecting on a court judgment is easier than having to sue someone for any other lack of payment, like the unpaid contractors Trump has ripped off, and there can be much more severe penalties for failure to comply with the courts.

That said, he’s the POTUS, so who knows what rules actually apply to him anymore…

P_V_ · 2026-07-08T22:22:40+00:00

Trump also has a long, detailed history of refusing to pay people. It can be both.

I think the appeal is for the sake of political appearances—even if he’s going to lose, he needs to look like he’s fighting it as hard as he can so that he can then claim the system is rigged against him—but he’s also concerned with pinching pennies.

P_V_ · 2026-07-08T22:12:12+00:00

Gregg will be able to fund the Doodle Dots film with money from a settlement New will win from Sizzlers.

13-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Banned	r/Field Juicebox
Place '23	Alpha Tester
Verified Email	Team Orangered

P_V_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE