Second hand ama's are like tossing the pig skin with Hellen Keller.

It's the only way I could get her to do it. The two big things are that she's not involved with the trial (and does not have to testify or be involved in any way) and the periscope fight was over a transsexual which I'm guessing refers to Sue. The timeline of events with Sue & the periscope video do add up.

I made a bunch of typos and shit. She never asked the subreddit for any clips of him trashing her, she was asking me. I'm fucking autistic.

Her confirming that Anthony does indeed doxx TACN subscribers was a good one.

Oh shit I must have missed that one. That was a rough thread to read through. But ultimately useful I suppose

He's laughing at us! Literally, at all of your personal information, while squirrellcheeking Sue Lightning's boybag.

squirrellcheeking

lol.

I for one appreciate your contribution

Thanks man. I got 50 different comments telling me she's a lying whore and I don't think those people grasped I'm not her so I don't care.

I knew, I was just hoping you'd relay the message.

Not you! The other weirdos. And yes, I'll relay it right now.

Thank you. :)

[deleted]

It's not your fault exactly, playing telephone for an ama is bound to fail with even a more coherent subject.

She's not showing up for trial because she's been bought off.

Even if she were (which I don't think she is) her opinion doesn't matter anymore. It's the state v. Cumia now. They're not going to take into account anything she says after the fact because they already gathered the evidence they need. They do that so battered women can't change their minds and say "It was just a misunderstanding. I deserved it" and shit like that.

She did kinda deserve it though. Be honest.

Lol

👊🏽

Well all women deserve it

Deserved it?!? She deserves to be knocked out and a axe kick to the back of the dome for good measure. A sound hood stomping to be exact.

Yes.

Tranth is going to Jail....

Gonna 'lectro shock Tranpa....

The only evidence they have is her testifying. If she doesn't testify then there is no evidence Trant beat her.

yeah, theres no statement, video evidence, medical evidence ect. ect.

Her statement is hearsay. The video, as far as I saw, did not show Trant beating her. The medical evidence may show she has some broken bones but it does not show that Trant caused them.

You couple physical evidence with circumstantial evidence and build a case. Anthony was on film acting drunk and erratic. Dani accused him, on film, of breaking her hand and Anthony doesn't deny it.. Instead he said "it looks like you're moving it" which is a response like "I may have hurt your hand but it isn't broken." The police report also shows that the landline phone was ripped out of the wall which is consistent with Dani's story. What's the defense going to be? It was all a staged setup? Good luck with that.

Any accusations the Whore makes on the video are hearsay. Her story that Trant ripped the phone out of the wall is also hearsay. That's why she has to appear and testify.

I'm not trying to defend Trant. He's a piece of shit, and I'm sure he beat all over her sickly little body. But he won't be convicted based on what this sub has uncovered without her testimony. That's why he bought her off not to show up.

But she doesn't have to testify. They have the case without her. She probably signed a sworn affidavit saying what happened and she was already under oath when she did that so that statement, coupled with the physical evidence (injuries/phones being broken/phone being ripped out of the wall/periscope video) will be enough to make the case. The state must think this or else they would compel her to testify whether she wants to or not. Ant can't just buy her off. It's out of her hands. Her sworn statement was already taken. If she goes back on that she will have perjured herself. If the state needed her still they would subpoena her to appear and testify. They don't need her.

A "sworn affidavit" is still hearsay. Although New York is a socialist shit-hole it still has to apply the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution. That applies to her statements on the periscope video, too. So if they went to trial without her they'd have a medical report and the police officers' observations that a phone was ripped out of the wall. No evidence of a beat-down, and certainly no evidence that Trant did it.

The state could compel her to testify, sure, if this was an important case they'd take the time and effort to do that. But this isn't an important case. It's two white-trash idiots drunkenly banging on each other where no one was seriously injured. They have more important things to do. They'll realize she doesn't want to show up, Trant's Jew lawyer will negotiate some diversionary plea for 6 months of good behaviour, the charges will be withdrawn, he'll get his guns back and she'll get a half-a-year free rent. Everybody wins.

You think they won't waste their time? This is how they make their money. Drawing out the judicial process to last as long as possible and racking up hours. They will absolutely subpoena her to testify if they have to. People get subpoenaed to testify in traffic court for Christ sake. This is a felony assault case with a judge who literally wrote a book on domestic violence. If her testimony is needed in court (which it isn't) they will subpoena her.

Prosecutors don't rack up hours. They are government employees, they work their shift and go home. This isn't Law & Order SVU or some shit, these are morons from the worst law schools with the second-worst grades prosecuting these cases.

All she has to do is ignore the subpoena. It's doubtful a judge would issue a warrant for her arrest.

It's a felony case. That's not the way it works. You don't get to just ignore the subpoena and hope the judge won't issue an arrest warrant after letting them waste months preparing a case... The state won't let her ruin the case they spent time on. That would be a Loss in the prosecutor's file and their win-loss record is how they move up to better positions.

And the court in general racks up hours. The court fees go up and that's money in their pockets. The prosecutor might not personally make extra money but the court does.

They aren't preparing a case. I'd be very surprised if the assistant to the assistant they assign the case to has even looked at the file yet. There's nothing to prepare anyway. You put the Whore on the stand and she says her piece. That's it. They're not bringing in medical or video experts for a white-trash wrasslin' match.

Courts don't make money off trials. Trials are expensive and the Courts never recoup those costs. Courts make money off plea deals.

Her statement is hearsay.

Not necessarily. There are exceptions to the hearsay rules, especially in domestic violence cases. This is precisely the reason why prosecutors continue with cases even when the victim doesn't wish to press-charges.

Most of the time, hearsay testimony is not allowed by the judge. However, there are many exceptions to this hearsay rule. The most common exception used in domestic violence prosecutions is called, “excited utterance.” The excited utterance exception basically says that if a person not in court makes a statement while he or she was very excited or agitated, it is likely that that statement is truthful and reliable, and can be admitted into evidence. What this looks like in domestic assault cases, is that the police officer testifies that when the complaining witness claimed the defendant assaulted her, she was yelling or crying, or in some other way excited. If the judge believes the officer’s testimony, and your criminal defense attorney is unable to persuade him otherwise, then the officer’s testimony is allowed into evidence.

http://www.blog.jpmlawyer.com/index.php/Blog/the-use-of-hearsay-in-domestic-assault-trials.html

You're relying on the blog entry of a D.C. and Virginia attorney about evidentiary issues in New York?

Not necessarily. There are exceptions to the hearsay rules, especially in domestic violence cases.

Which means it is hearsay. An exception to hearsay means it's still hearsay, just that it's admissible. There are no "domestic violence" exceptions to hearsay. Excited utterance probably isn't going to apply when the statements are made to the police several hours later and are not contemporaneous with the event.

Regardless, the statements the prosecutor would be looking to introduce into evidence are testimonial in nature and are barred by the Confrontation Clause. Scalia wasn't always good for criminal defendants but Crawford pretty much put the nail in this type of shit.

You're relying on the blog entry of a D.C. and Virginia attorney about evidentiary issues in New York?

1. The rulings on hearsay exceptions were made by the SCOTUS, so they apply to all jurisdictions. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-150.pdf

2. You have no basis to complain about my source when you've offered not a single shred of evidence on your part. A blog entry by a lawyer with knowledge of this topic carries far more credibility than your posts.

Which means it is hearsay. An exception to hearsay means it's still hearsay, just that it's admissible

I'm not quibbling over wording. It doesn't matter if you call it "hearsay" or "Boopity-Boop". What matters is whether it's admissible or not. If it's admissible, as you admit there, then the implications you made in your other posts would be wrong. Her statements could be part of the evidence, just as /u/kgt5003 said.

Excited utterance probably isn't going to apply when the statements are made to the police several hours later and are not contemporaneous with the event.

The statements made in the video itself can count as an exited utterance and furthermore you have no evidence that the statements to the police were made "several hours" after this altercation had ended. It would be up to the court - not you - to decide whether or not enough time had passed, and whether the circumstances preclude it from counting as an excited utterance.

Regardless, the statements the prosecutor would be looking to introduce into evidence are testimonial in nature and are barred by the Confrontation Clause. Scalia wasn't always good for criminal defendants but Crawford pretty much put the nail in this type of shit.

Yeah, repeating your claim doesn't magically make it less wrong. Again, there are exceptions. You've yet to address them with any evidence or logical argument.

The case you link to is about a shooting and a mortally wounded man's description of the shooter to quell an ongoing emergency (a man on the loose with a gun). That's not similar to a junkie whore being menaced by her tranny-fucking boyfriend then going to breakfast then getting into another argument hours later at which the police show up and she tells them about the past event that already happened. Clearly testimonial. Plus, the junkie whore's not dead.

Only an idiot would take advice from an attorney not admitted to practice in the jurisdiction where the case sits.

Of course it matters if it's hearsay.

The statement in the video that Trant previously attacked her are testimonial and would not be admitted. Further, she doesn't look very excited when she makes that statement, she looks drunk and high. She gets a little excited right after that when she claims he is coming toward her, but hardly the kind of excitement this exception is meant to allow.

The "several hours" was from one of the police reports where they went to breakfast after the periscope and then came back to the house and got into another argument prompting the police to come back and arrest Trant.

Claiming I've not addressed your points when I clearly have is just stupid. Stop that.

The case you link to is about a shooting and a mortally wounded man's description of the shooter to quell an ongoing emergency (a man on the loose with a gun). That's not similar to a junkie whore being menaced by her tranny-fucking boyfriend then going to breakfast then getting into another argument hours later at which the police show up and she tells them about the past event that already happened. Clearly testimonial. Plus, the junkie whore's not dead.

Except none of those differences you hastily looked up make difference here since what matters is the case set precedent for hearsay being admissible in certain situations just like I said. The test for admitting hearsay doesn't depend on the person being shot, mortally wounded, or any other of the irrelevant details you brought up.

Until you can demonstrate that Dani's comments to the police would be inadmissible, your claim remains completely unsubstantiated. There are in fact cases where hearsay is admissible, and that precedent is used on domestic violence such as this one.

Only an idiot would take advice from an attorney not admitted to practice in the jurisdiction where the case sits.

As opposed to some redditor who wasn't even aware there were exemptions to hearsay?

Of course it matters if it's hearsay.

It matters if it's admissible or not. Hearsay can be admissible. Pay attention.

The statement in the video that Trant previously attacked her are testimonial and would not be admitted. Further, she doesn't look very excited when she makes that statement, she looks drunk and high. She gets a little excited right after that when she claims he is coming toward her, but hardly the kind of excitement this exception is meant to allow.

I'm not interested in you repeating you ignorant claims. You don't decide whether it's admissible, the court does. What matters is that there are exemptions that allow hearsay to be admissible, and those exemptions are commonly used to prosecute domestic cases just like this one.

The "several hours" was from one of the police reports where they went to breakfast after the periscope and then came back to the house and got into another argument prompting the police to come back and arrest Trant.

Even if we accept your recollection of events/timeline as true - which we don't have to - you just admitted that the argument restarted again which allows the court to rule that the statements were an excited utterance based on that last argument.

Not that this matters because you opinion on this matter is inconsequential. You don't decide when too much time has passed. The court does.

Claiming I've not addressed your points when I clearly have is just stupid. Stop that.

No, it's a fact. All you've done is insist that you are right without providing a single shred of evidence. For example, you tried to argue that "several hours had passed". Not only did you not provide evidence for that, but you it's not up to you to decide how long is too long. Your opinion - which is all that you've provided so far - is irrelevant.

There's always been exceptions to hearsay. The Whore's video is not one of them.

And stop with this "it's up to the judge" shit, it's not. This is a question of law, not fact. It's up to the Constitution.

It's pretty simple, the case against Trant is dead without her testimony. Believe what you will.

There's always been exceptions to hearsay. The Whore's video is not one of them.

You have not given a single valid reason why not.

And stop with this "it's up to the judge" shit, it's not. This is a question of law, not fact. It's up to the Constitution.

And the Constitution has been interpreted as allowing hearsay to be admissible in certain situations, like domestic violence cases where statements considered to be made as an excited utterance.

It's pretty simple, the case against Trant is dead without her testimony. Believe what you will.

That's not the point. Unlike you I don't pretend to know what's going on with that case, or how strong it is with or without her testimony.

The point, which you have failed miserably to refute, is that hearsay can be admissible, and that that is precisely why domestic violence cases are often pursued without the victim needing to testify.

I learned that the case against Anthony is proceeding. That Gavin and Louis Gomez are liars.

And East Side Dave is a psychotic, cuckold loser. (I didn't learn that from the AMA just know that in general, Dawgsie.)

Poor little Carbie, his luck never gets better

He eats shit both figuratively and, sadly, literally.

And his wife bangs drummers in wedding bands while he does shitty podcasts.

We should get Bro Joe and Mikey Background to form a Super Group with Fat Opie.

I learned that Stetten is a cunt.

Hugh Lightining is the best person Anthony ever fucked.

What did we learn about Stetten? Did I miss something?

She killed a homeless lady.

She was high on crack and killed a homeless lady

I always knew she was a cunt! Only kidding, the homeless aren't people.

I learned that if you call her a stupid whore, you're a white knight for Anthony....somehow.

Edit: typo

Dude, I thought you were one of his sycophants because you replied with "she's a lying whore" to every single one of my comments. There's been an influx of accounts spamming the subreddit and as long as you hate Anthony you're cool with me.

I forgot to show you that I edited this after the fact. So again, I'm sorry. Now excuse while I got blow my brains out after two hours of that second hand AMA.

Its all good my friend.

Anybody that calls the cops when there is no reason to, and blasts out to the world that a guy is beating her and says shit like quit hitting me when it's obvious he's no where near her, is a 100% low life cunt. If you're mad because your dude is fucking other people, fucking leave bitch. It's not like Ant tries or wants to be monogamous. She knew exactly what she was getting into. Broads like her make me fucking ill.

My opinion has nothing to do with Ant. I detest any bitch that does that to any guy.

The fight was over a tranny.

"Dani: Idk it was after a show. Never saw that person again. I believe it was a transsexual but I do not recall. I've met a lot of people"

Not surprising. This was probably not about Sue either so it makes ya wonder how many trannies the guy actually has around.

He is known as Tranthony after all

He nicknamed himself that if I recall.

He came on the subreddit raging drunk the other week if I recall, and angrily yelled at us for assuming that he wouldn't want to be called Tranthony. And then he told us to stop using masculine pronouns when referencing him in our posts.

are you telling me that Anthony Cumia is really pushing the PC agenda on the behalf of a tranny he claims he never fucked?

You actually don't have to fuck someone to treat them like a human being.

Bullshit.

I learned that anthony might have fucked East Side Dave's kids in return for giving dad a paying gig once a week.

Cbanks420lol. You do great work. Can you ask her for a number on how many subs Ant has. It's the last bit of interest I have in all this.

I think she was trying to say that he has the same number of subscribers as there are subscribers here so somewhere around 13,000.

Remember, nothing on this sub bothers them or affects their careers or personal lives. They are laughing.

/u/cbanks420lol you mentioned before something about Tranth sending threatening texts and twitter DMs to Dani. Any comment on that?

Also, wouldn't that be a direct violation of his restraining order?

She said he's been harassing her and it's only getting worse. I believe it was just texts. I'm not sure the specifics of if it violates anything or not.

Most likely there's a court ordered "no contact" order which means no contact whatsoever and texts are a direct violation of that. Most likely the court won't investigate This unless they become aware. Phone records could prove that he's still harassing her and they will take action, which will lead to incarceration.

Yeah. She should report these to the police. Tranth should be incarcerated if he's harassing a woman he was charged with beating.

Do you really think he is that fucking stupid to use his own phone, email, or twitter account? Jesus fucking Christ use that lump of shit 2 feet above your ass and think a little bit.

hmmm....let's see.

Rants and raves and uses racial slurs on his own twitter account--gets fired from million dollar job.

Creepily stalks an underage web model with braces using his own vine account. has to go back and delete all his communication and likes on Vine once he is called out on it.

Gets a retarded person drunk and when this slow fella vomits Anthony beats, mocks, uses racial slurs and sprays chemicals in his face...on camera...being streamed to the public.

Has evidence of a relationship with a pre-op transsexual that he desperately wants to kept hidden all over his own twitter account.

Yep. I'd say he's stupid enough to drunkenly harass Dani using his own phone, e mails and twitter account.

When he had a girlfriend I don't think his drinking was as insane as it is now.

When you're blackout drunk you do things you later regret.

I actually do think he's that stupid now. Ant 5 years ago wouldn't, but he's gone off the deep end in terms of being logical about his life decisions.

Ant has been making shockingly bad decisions for the last two years. Would it really surprise you?

Can you ask if it's just Ant doing it or are any of his (Not including anonymous Twitter trolls) friends/employees doing it as well?

My opinion of her has turned around because she helps in the hilarious downfall of Anthony and can take a punch or two. God love her.

She cannot take a punch or two.

She has paper mache ribs and hands.

That it was fake

Learned that he lost his apartment too. That and he's been doxxing people long before his recent outburst.

I still wouldn't fuck her?

Such a huge waist of fucking time.

PECKAHS

... are never a huge waste of fucking time.

Nothing.

[deleted]

Liar, whore, liar whore and you know it.

We learned nothing because she's the same dumb lying cunt she's been the whole time. A bad person. I don't know why anyone is interested in her here except as a fascination on how any human being could feel so powerful and clear-headed while being so small and hypocritical. I think she's the only person I dislike far more than Ant. People like her will ruin the world with their horseshit, where seeming smart is more important than being smart.

"where seeming smart is more important than being smart."

Well that sums up Tranth to a T.

Seconded.

[removed]

Dude you're extreme!!!!!!

Spoken like a true fan of a woman beater!

she could legit get the police to subpeona your IP for this. I hope they do.

[deleted]

Even if she were (which I don't think she is) her opinion doesn't matter anymore. It's the state v. Cumia now. They're not going to take into account anything she says after the fact because they already gathered the evidence they need. They do that so battered women can't change their minds and say "It was just a misunderstanding. I deserved it" and shit like that.

Dude, I thought you were one of his sycophants because you replied with "she's a lying whore" to every single one of my comments. There's been an influx of accounts spamming the subreddit and as long as you hate Anthony you're cool with me.

I forgot to show you that I edited this after the fact. So again, I'm sorry. Now excuse while I got blow my brains out after two hours of that second hand AMA.

Its all good my friend.

yeah, theres no statement, video evidence, medical evidence ect. ect.

I always knew she was a cunt! Only kidding, the homeless aren't people.

Anybody that calls the cops when there is no reason to, and blasts out to the world that a guy is beating her and says shit like quit hitting me when it's obvious he's no where near her, is a 100% low life cunt. If you're mad because your dude is fucking other people, fucking leave bitch. It's not like Ant tries or wants to be monogamous. She knew exactly what she was getting into. Broads like her make me fucking ill.

My opinion has nothing to do with Ant. I detest any bitch that does that to any guy.