Pre trial questioning begins Wednesday, January 14, 2026. This is the exciting time for forum members - finding out what really happened with OG's perverted fantasies. The following is public information, does not contain PII and is a small sample of the contradictions I have collected in over 600 screenshots.
1. The Most Damaging Contradictions (With Exact Examples)
Here are concrete examples where OG said X one year and the exact opposite another year.
These are the contradictions that would completely destroy his credibility in court.
🔹 A. Pirateat40 Relationship — “No special connection” vs. “I talked to him and had his blessing”
OG in 2020:
“I didn’t know pirate and had no special treatment or knowledge of what he was doing.”
(Screenshot: 200324 OgN didn’t know pirate)
OG in 2012:
“I have discussed this plan with pirateat40 and have his blessing.”
(Screenshot: 120407 OgN pirate special logo)
Why it’s lethal:
• He didn’t simply “forget.”
• He denied a relationship he had publicly admitted years earlier.
• Judges view this as conscious dishonesty, not confusion.
🔹 B. Vod’s PMs — “He sent me disturbing pedophile links” vs. Friendly business conversations
OG in 2019–2020:
“I had to block him to stop the pedophile nonsense.”
“The messages about abusing children were disturbing and unsolicited.”
(Screenshots: 191210, 200924, 210325, etc.)
OG in 2018 (AFTER receiving the RipoffReport link):
“I like your BPIP.”
“How much would it cost to sponsor the site?”
“I’d love to put NastyFans advertising on BPIP.”
(Screenshots: 180406 PMs, 180605, 180625, 181015)
Why it’s lethal:
If Vod truly sent “disturbing pedophile content,” why did OG:
• Continue normal conversation?
• Praise BPIP?
• Ask about advertising?
• Request help with CSV files?
• Act completely fine for months?
This is deliberate revisionism — the kind judges consider evidence of malice.
🔹 C. Merit Requests — “Vod demanded merit” vs. OG promising merit twice
OG’s public claim:
“Yes, asking for merit is pathetic. Vod demanded merit from me in PM.”
(Screenshot: 201003 OgN merit post)
OG’s actual PMs:
“Do you have a thread? I’d leave you merit for it.”
“I’ll merit you once the URL and banner are live.”
(Screenshots: 180222, 180605)
Why it’s lethal:
This shows OG fabricated the story.
Judges strongly disfavor defendants who invent false narratives to justify defamatory statements.
2. How Judges Evaluate Credibility in Defamation Cases (With Real Examples)
Judges don’t care about forum drama — they care about patterns of honesty or dishonesty.
Here’s how OG’s posts would be evaluated:
A. Consistency
If someone keeps changing their story, judges assume dishonesty.
Example:
2020: “I lost my funds with pirate alongside everyone.”
2012: “I’ve never lost a single satoshi.”
(Screenshots: 200407 vs. 201209)
This signals to a judge that OG tailors his “truth” to whatever benefits him.
B. Whether the story matches the evidence
OG claims Vod’s link was “pedophile content” and “deeply disturbing.”
But the PMs sent immediately after show:
• OG asking about advertising
• OG thanking Vod
• OG being fully friendly and cooperative
(18 Apr to Oct 2018 PMs)
This kind of mismatch destroys credibility.
C. Behavior under stress / motive to lie
Judges look closely at emotional attacks like:
“Vod is mentally ill.”
“Retard.”
“Drunken stroke victim.”
“Stroked-out retard.”
(Screenshots: 200224, 200312, 201116, 250704, etc.)
This isn’t “commentary.”
It shows hostility, obsession, and intent to hurt — all signs of poor credibility.
3. Why the Pedophile Accusations and Stroke Mocking Prove Malice
This is the most important part in defamation law.
🔥 A. Calling someone a pedophile without evidence
Examples of OG’s actual claims:
• “Vod is a pedophile.”
• “Vod admitted to abusing children.”
• “RipoffReport proves Vod is a pedophile.”
(Screenshots: 191120, 191209, 200407, 200924)
Meanwhile:
• No evidence exists.
• The RipoffReport link was Vod showing a false accusation by someone else.
This is legally recognized as pure malice:
• He knew it wasn’t true
• He said it anyway
• He repeated it for years
• He used it to damage Vod’s reputation
• He used it to rally others against him
Courts treat false pedophile allegations as:
• malicious
• reckless
• outside fair comment
• not protected as opinion
• inherently defamatory
🔥 B. Mocking Vod’s stroke and disability
Examples from OG:
“Give yourself a stroke like Vod.”
“Vod’s stroke was a fitting outcome.”
“Stroked-out retard.”
“Vod has no family or income after his stroke.”
(Screenshots: 200224, 200312, 201116, 210216, 250704)
This demonstrates:
• hatred
• spite
• intent to cause harm
• lack of good faith
• a personal vendetta
• active malice
Judges look for intent, and these posts are smoking guns.
OG wasn’t:
• correcting misinformation
• engaging in debate
• expressing an opinion
He was attacking Vod personally with maximum cruelty.
This eliminates his main defences:
• truth
• fair comment
• privilege
• “responding to attacks”
• “honest belief”
Courts treat this as pure malice — and malice overrides everything else.
