https://officialzsannouncements.blogspot.com/2019/06/im-suing.html

He is also threatening anybody who continues to repeat the accusations.

Zak S is an abusive jerk and I am glad his life is being ruined. He is a sad trust fund Jacobin and fuck that guy.

Quote from: Lurtch;1091879https://officialzsannouncements.blogspot.com/2019/06/im-suing.html

He is also threatening anybody who continues to repeat the accusations.

Zak S is an abusive jerk and I am glad his life is being ruined. He is a sad trust fund Jacobin and fuck that guy.

That's a lawsuit coming your way!

A gutless wonder like Zak S doesn't have the stones to go after me. I'd eat him for lunch. He's a bully and all bullies are cowards. It's why he's a Marxist. He needs a monopoly on force otherwise the giant trust fund pussy will just cry.

Cry more Zak S! Cry more you trust fund pussy!

I despise the guy yet he is doing the right thing imo.

His ex accuses him of all kinds of sexual abuse for the simply reason of ruining his life because they are no longer a couple. With not one not two but four women going to his defence and willibg to put it in writing. With Mandy dad also doing the same. With Zark wisely keeping screenshots of her begging him to have sex with her in a hospital post operation. Then claiming sexual abuse.  

Yeah Zak is a douche yet if he wins Mandy gets what she deserves. I despise anyone crying wolf when it comes to accusations of sexual abuse.

Of course over at TBP he is scum because how dare he defend himself.

okay you're way more into this than I am... I don't actually give a care about Zak's personal life.

/slinks out.

Quote from: Lurtch;1091883A gutless wonder like Zak S doesn't have the stones to go after me. I'd eat him for lunch. He's a bully and all bullies are cowards. It's why he's a Marxist. He needs a monopoly on force otherwise the giant trust fund pussy will just cry.

Cry more Zak S! Cry more you trust fund pussy!

You don't like him so he's guilty.

You're as bad as those pussies at tbp.

Here's what I know:

1) I like a lot of Zak's RPG stuff. In particular, I really liked Vornheim: The Complete City Kit and found it contained a wealth of inventive ideas and takes on city creation which has been useful for my games.
2) I don't know his personal life, and consider it his private business. The art is not the artist.

As this lawsuit falls pretty firmly in #2 above, it doesn't seem like my business.

It will be interesting to see the response if Zak wins. As I understand it the bar to proving defamation in Canada is lower than it is in the U.S., and to be honest I think he has a good case.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1091897You don't like him so he's guilty.

You're as bad as those pussies at tbp.

He loves the mob when they were going after targets he didn't like. He thought he was safe when he threw the OSR under the bus. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm glad the behavior he participated in came after him.

Zak Sabbath is a low-rent smut hound and a sexual predator as well as a degenerate Anarcho-Communist punk.

Yeah, he made some mediocre OSR products. That still does not absolve him of his abhorrent political views nor the horrible abuse he subjected Mandy to.

Maybe I should invite him down to Dickenson County, Virginia. Then I can show him the secluded wooded holler I grew up in...

*grins devilishly as I sharpen my hunting knife*

[video=youtube;TQPrICS_mmA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQPrICS_mmA[/youtube]

*joking mode over*

On a more serious note, the fact that Zak is willing to sue his own victim is sickening. I'm not one of those "Listen and Believe" motherfuckers but the burden of proof is against Zak based on what evidence has been presented.

Even Pundit is convinced he is guilty and given Zak's shitty behavior and slimy mentality, I am inclined to believe it too.

Zak is the only person who was perma-banned from RPG Pub, which is an impressive feat in and of itself.

Even Daniel Fox has not been banned, although he did leave the forum after the Zak S. controversy.

There is a difference between Zak S. and guys like Vic Mignogna.

Vic never showed any signs of predatory behavior prior to being accused and he was never involved in sex work (I'm not against porn per se, but let's not kid ourselves, there's a lot of sexual abuse going on in the porn industry) unlike Zak.

The worst rumors about Vic before his accusations was that he could be a dick to convention staff at times after he got big in the anime industry. No real rumors of sexual misconduct before 2019.

Vic lawyered up and his lawyers have found evidence of an actual workplace conspiracy by Monica Rial and Jessica Marchi (his primary accusers) and several others at Funimation to slander him so they can eliminate major workplace competition and further their own careers since Vic has a large fanbase and a large body of work.

It does not help that Vic is a devout Christian and Jessica Marchi is a left-wing atheist hardliner, but from what research I have done, the accusations against Vic are motivated primarily by financial gain, with the sociopolitical aspects of it being more of an exacerbating issue than anything else.

The accusations against Vic were a classic example of online astroturfing done by a few bad actors primarily motivated by financial gain. Vic has every right to sue his accusers because so far, the actual evidence points to his innocence (both concrete evidence and circumstantial evidence)

Zak is a stereotypical male feminist and was heavily involved in the punk scene and the porn industry for years (both scenes are infamous for sexual abuse behind closed doors) and his political views are utterly abhorrent and conducive to a predatory mindset.

There is a fuckton of circumstantial evidence indicating Zak's guilt. Pundit is not one of those "listen and believe" types and neither am I, and we both think Zak did something wrong.

Hell, I would not be surprised if there's some concrete evidence out there somewhere that Pundit, Grim, or others might know about that I don't.

TL;DR-Zak Sabbath is scum and suing Mandy is low even by his criminally low standards.

tl;dr:  Doc Sammy is sperging out again.

So because it does not fit into the " I despise Zak" narrative we are just going to ignore thst not one not two but four women spoke up in defence of Zak. Including Mandy dad. He has saved text messages where she can't even stand after being operated on yet is demanding sex. While they were a couple Mandy was fine with his shitty and terrible behavior. Yet suddenly once they are no longer a couple it is suddenly sexual assault . If they they would still be together she would probably not be saying a damn thing. Given how many people came forward and willing to defend Zak, put it in writing and sign it. Unless Mandy can come up with same kind of spirited defence Zak was able to receive from others he unfortunately stands a good chance go win his case imo.

One needs more proof than a he said/she said defence. I'm not defending Zak or a fan. He behaved poorly towards other fellow gamers. Became suddenly woke  and joined the SJW mob for his benefit. He can rot in hell.

As to why I'm unsympathetic to Mandy it is that kind of bullshit thst makes both a mockery of people who went through sexual abuse and only makes it harder for those victims who truly suffer from sexual abuse to come forward. If both were still in a relationship she would not have said anything. Not a damn thing.

Quote from: sureshot;1091910So because it does not fit into the " I dedpise Zak" narrative we are just going to ignore thst not one not teo but four women spoke up in defence of Zak. Including Mandy dad. He has daved text messages where she can't even stand after being operated on yet is demanding sex. While they were a couple Mandgy was fine with his shitty and terrible behavior.

Wait. Mandy's dad is a woman?!?

But seriously, I do think this is mixed. There are three other women who backed up Mandy's story, but from what I saw, three women who spoke in defense of Zak (plus Mandy's father who is not a woman as far as I know).

From what I've seen of abusive relationships, wanting sex and/or sending some positive text messages doesn't mean that she didn't have problems at the time. I've seen couples that have had horrible shouting matches then appear to be perfectly fine the next day in public, acting seemingly lovey-dovey.

I don't have an opinion on this one either way. Zak has acted like a total asshole and wacko the times when I interacted with him, which doesn't raise my opinion of him, but I can't be sure about the relationship stuff. Unfortunately, I suspect that the case will be settled out of court, in which case there won't be definite resolution.

The defenses against defamation complaints in Canada (since the suit was filed in Ottawa) are, according to the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression:

Quote1. You can claim that the statement was true; a true statement cannot be defamatory. (emphasis in the original)

2. You can claim 'absolute privilege,' which means that the communication was made in a venue where people ought to have absolute privilege to speak freely; this includes Parliament or giving evidence in a trial.

3. You can claim 'qualified privilege,' which means that the communication was given in a non-malicious and well-intentioned context and therefore ought to be excused: for example, giving an honest but negative reference for a former employee.

4. You can claim 'fair comment,' which means that your statement was a non-malicious opinion about a matter of public interest: for example, an editorial in a newspaper about a politician.

5. You can claim 'responsible communication on matters of public importance,' which allows journalists to report false allegations if the news is urgent and of public importance, and if the journalist made an effort to verify the information. Even if the statement is false, the public has an interest in this type of discussion being legally permissible.

The only one of these that looks viable in this particular situation, or so it seems to me, is #1, and in libel cases the onus of proof is on the defendant. In other words, if Ms. Morning can't prove her accusations against Zak, it seems very likely she will lose the case if it goes to trial, and it only makes sense to infer that Zak and his lawyer are reasonably certain she can't or they wouldn't have launched the suit.

It is conceivable that this could be an extremely committed bluff meant to intimidate Ms. Morning into a public retraction -- very few defamation cases ever actually make it to trial -- but it has generally been my impression that competent lawyers prefer not to bluff unless absolutely necessary.

Zak's lawyer(s) should familiarize themselves with "tortuous interference" and go apeshit on anyone and everyone they can.