Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.

[AnOminous]

Here's something I haven't been clear on regarding the TCPA motion: if the motion were to be granted, would it lead to the dismissal of all claims against Funimation, or just the defamation?

They're moving to dismiss all of them. The court could grant their motion in its entirety, or in part, or not at all, and if it dismisses, it could choose to dismiss while granting leave to the plaintiff to re-plead any causes of action that could be salvaged by properly doing so.

I could easily see the latter happening, and actually somewhat expect it.

According to """"""legal twitter"""""" Vic has literally no case and it'll be laughed out of court yet they have hired 3 seperate counels, including a TCPA specialist, and still haven't filed the TCPA motion that would apparently instantly win them the case.

Law Twitter is a perfect example of how Twitter turns anyone using it into an absolute idiot, even a professional supposedly discussing something within the specialized knowledge of their profession.

Frankly, the informed opinion of a reasonably intelligent layperson who has actually followed the case and read the documents is more useful and informative than the shitty "hot takes" of some buffoon like Akiva Cohen.

 

[LuNaS]

Nick is running the GFM, right? He is therefore far more qualified than anyone else to offer input about the financial aspects.

Not exactly, due to the nature of how the deposits are handled Nick has no information about how the money is used beyond, it goes into this account.

He has clarified that he set it up in such a way as to have no liability, and the IOLTA makes it so there is already a review of the money being deposited into the account, how it's used and the tax requirements. As far as I know.

 

[MelloYello]

Going after Nick to prove any of this does nothing for the defendants case.

Speaking of that, if that subpoena were to actually go through, how much leeway would Nick have for "malicious compliance" without breaking any rules?

For instance, could he email Vic 15,000 pages worth of cuck-erotica, mention the GoFundMe once in it, and send it in "as requested"?
Because that'd be great!
Heck, I'd send it in print exclusively, faint yellow ink on white paper, out of order and no numeration.

 

[Padoru]

Speaking of that, if that subpoena were to actually go through, how much leeway would Nick have for "malicious compliance" without breaking any rules?

For instance, could he email Vic 15,000 pages worth of cuck-erotica, mention the GoFundMe once in it, and send it in "as requested"?
Because that'd be great!
Heck, I'd send it in print exclusively, faint yellow ink on white paper, out of order and no numeration.

IN THEORY if him and vic were actually talking about this case while also sending each other heaps of cuck-erotica he would actually be required to send that over. I don't think just a passing mention of the GoFundMe would suffice though.

The faint yellow ink on white paper part would probably be possible to be considered obstruction of justice though so i wouldn't do that one.

 

[AnOminous]

Speaking of that, if that subpoena were to actually go through, how much leeway would Nick have for "malicious compliance" without breaking any rules?

For instance, could he email Vic 15,000 pages worth of cuck-erotica, mention the GoFundMe once in it, and send it in "as requested"?
Because that'd be great!
Heck, I'd send it in print exclusively, faint yellow ink on white paper, out of order and no numeration.

As drafted, the subpoena is basically an invitation to engage in dump truck discovery, i.e. just dump enormous piles of garbage on the other side. And they can go suck a dick if they expect him to Bates stamp that shit.

 

[Super Smelly Vagina]

A statement being "true" doesn't even necessarily protect you from losing a defamation suit in Texas (see here). No way in hell it helps you in TI, as @AnOminous has shown.

If you go by that link, Funimation is unquestionably guilty of defamation.

"[Texas courts will likely find defamation when a publication conveys story details correctly but fails to put the factual assertions in] [the proper context thereby getting the story’s “gist” wrong. To determine the “gist,” Texas courts analyze how an ordinary person of] [ordinary intelligence would perceive the statements in light of the surrounding circumstances. More than just the truth or falsity is ][considered. Ultimately, if certain facts are omitted or juxtaposed against one another in a way that creates an untrue “gist,” ][defamation may be found even when the statements are factually accurate.]"

Funimation's tweet declared itself to be an "update on the Vic Mignogna situation." The Vic situation was accusations of being a rapist and pedo. So they strongly implied that Vic's firing was due to the "Vic situation" (AKA rape and pedo accusations). They also said that the firing was after an investigation, therefore implying the "investigation" must have found proof that the accusations were true. Funi can try to say they didn't mean it that way, but people took it that way, including Rial, Toye and Marchi within the comment section. On top of that, Funi never tried to clarify their statements as people continued to dogpile on Vic but instead made a tweet about not condoning harassment. Long story short: people were led to believe that Vic was fired for being a rapist and pedo; not for jellybeans, hugs and jealousy.

 

[knux]

C) Why would they spend money on a lawyer to please online internet people?

These people are narcissistic sociopaths and image is everything to them. A narc cannot look bad, or even worse - be wrong. They hate that more than anything on Earth. Once someone disagrees with them, they become like a dog with a bone and have to have the final say. No matter how stupid they end up looking in achieving it. The behaviour of MoRon here is a clear example of this.

These people incite mobs of useful idiots or people just like them, to attack their enemies. when they cannot take them on by themselves. They never expected to actually have to back up their claims. As long as they are in charge of the mob, they feel they are untouchable. The mob is ruled by fear that the members might become one of the victims if they don't tow the line. I've seen it myself that a member gets destroyed for not following the leaders or when they don't have a target. One of their own gets eaten out of sheer boredom.

Now that MoRon's acts have come back to them and they are at risk of being in the wrong. They'll do absolutely anything to not lose face. If they do, the mob will realise they've been taken for a ride by a couple of liars and probably turn on them. Never even mind the legal implications. Image is much more important to these people because they aren't right in the head.

Although it shouldn't surprise me. I'm still blown away by the sheer audacity of how confident they were about wanting to go to court and "prove their claims". Only to say in court that they don't recall a single thing they said.

 

[AnOminous]

These people incite mobs of useful idiots or people just like them, to attack their enemies. when they cannot take them on by themselves. They never expected to actually have to back up their claims. As long as they are in charge of the mob, they feel they are untouchable. The mob is ruled by fear that the members might become one of the victims if they don't tow the line. I've seen it myself that a member gets destroyed for not following the leaders or when they don't have a target. One of their own gets eaten out of sheer boredom.

They're completely put aback when put in a situation where they actually have to answer questions or back up their bullshit. They're used to their weird, fucked up Twitter bubbles of nonreality where if someone asks them things they can't answer, they just click block and that person essentially ceases to exist.

So some guy like John Chupp who can literally throw their asses in jail if they don't answer is anathema to them.

I love seeing these fucking tards thrown into reality and being astounded that their bullshit Twitter rules aren't how reality works.

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

Twitter

archived 6 Jul 2019 02:50:16 UTC

archive.is

https://mobile.twitter.com/LykD9/status/1147257700381855745

The dude "answers" some questions

 

[quickthrowaway]

Nothing says, "fat jokes get under my skin" quite like complaining about getting called fat every time it happens.

 

[Tour of Italy]

Ver archivo adjunto 829285

http://archive.li/0j8zO

https://mobile.twitter.com/LykD9/status/1147257700381855745

The dude "answers" some questions

Kiwi farms has a full list of the fucking court documents, you dweeb. It’s the only place I know of that has them all together, for free. Shane might have them too but he doesn’t count, ever.

And it’s not like people here haven’t been listening to Nick read most of them on air either.

 

[10SorrowfulObject]

A "legal right" is a right bestowed by law. If you remember back to political philosophy 101, rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of association and the right to self-defense are natural rights: rights you have just by virtue of existing. A legal right would be something like the right to be paid. If you come over and mow my lawn and then demand $50, I do not have to pay you, because we never entered into a legally binding agreement. Once we do and you mow my lawn, now you have a legal right to be paid.

Huh, so by implication "legal right" is a narrower subset of rights provided for by contract. Do you have any case law around this? I've legit had the hardest time figuring out what counts as TI vs not, and "underlying wrongful act" was the most cogent description I could find. Discovering that that doesn't apply in Texas was a step back
TBH excluding natural/constitutional rights from the definition of "legal right" sounds like a really odd test.

A) You can read the intent to intimidate as them attempting to dox his address. Why go to the effort of trying to find his home address when the PO box is freely available for his law firm. The intimidation wasn't the subpoena itself, but their shitty dox attempt. Like saying: "This is where your kids are." to try and get him to stop talking.
B) It is kind of obvious they have nothing. The things we do know are laughable and nowhere close to what they claim Vic is. They have had 70+ days to hand over their discovery, and if they had some bombshell they would have dropped it. Instead they have withheld discovery and made dumb discovery plays.
C) They are not spending money on a lawyer to please internet people. Their attempts to please internet people have run them south of the law and now they have to hire lawyers.

A) Because the depo can't be conducted at a PO box?
B) I don't know about that. My understanding is that there's been some sworn affidavits provided to Ron and Monica's defence from other people that have witnessed Vic harassing women. Unless Vic has specific and clear evidence contravening those affidavits, his suit is DOA.

Breach of contract for no reason.

Do we know what the specific contracts were and which provisions were allegedly breached? Do we have the entire contract? I don't like forming a solid opinion on incomplete information, and I have more questions than data right now. My understanding is that there needs to be a specific contract term that was breached.

 

[wickedlilium]

A) Because the depo can't be conducted at a PO box?
B) I don't know about that. My understanding is that there's been some sworn affidavits provided to Ron and Monica's defence from other people that have witnessed Vic harassing women. Unless Vic has specific and clear evidence contravening those affidavits, his suit is DOA.

Do we know what the specific contracts were and which provisions were allegedly breached? Do we have the entire contract? I don't like forming a solid opinion on incomplete information, and I have more questions than data right now. My understanding is that there needs to be a specific contract term that was breached.

A) they just need to give Nick something like 70days notice for the depo and the PO box is attached to him and they can legaly mail this stuff.
B) There has been a lot of examples where they claim some "evidence" but was found to be false, ANN had to remove nearly half of their article that helped spark all of this because the person who made the story never asked the females in the photo's if they could use them, nor for their side of the story of said picture. The kickvic side claims "evidence" but never gave them out, all the do is say some vague possibility tell someone can find it, run with it tell it's proven to be false all the while stating "there is evidence out there already, you just don't want to believe the evidence handed to you."

The contracts in question is all the ones that has dropped it so far. Ron proved that KC dropped him due to getting 25K sponsorship with the tuttle group but never followed through with it. The other con's are assumed as they dropped Vic AFTER the VA's and Funi's tweet's about Vic. This then assumes that the tweets swayed the con's decision to remove his contract ie interfered with contracts.

 

[Perhaps a Guy Named Dave]

Huh, so by implication "legal right" is a narrower subset of rights provided for by contract. Do you have any case law around this? I've legit had the hardest time figuring out what counts as TI vs not, and "underlying wrongful act" was the most cogent description I could find. Discovering that that doesn't apply in Texas was a step back
TBH excluding natural/constitutional rights from the definition of "legal right" sounds like a really odd test.

A) Because the depo can't be conducted at a PO box?
B) I don't know about that. My understanding is that there's been some sworn affidavits provided to Ron and Monica's defence from other people that have witnessed Vic harassing women. Unless Vic has specific and clear evidence contravening those affidavits, his suit is DOA.

Do we know what the specific contracts were and which provisions were allegedly breached? Do we have the entire contract? I don't like forming a solid opinion on incomplete information, and I have more questions than data right now. My understanding is that there needs to be a specific contract term that was breached.

The depo can be conducted at a court house, just like Vic, Ron, and Monica were. This was just a notice, it could easily have gone through official channels, instead they doxxed an old address and sent it there. As for the affidavits, perhaps they have some info in them, but we only have rumours about them, and until cross examined, they are not evidence. Generally Affidavits are used to supplement evidence, as they are in the end just someones point of view. They can help make a case stronger, but without a solid base don't add much. And if rumors are believed, they are stories we already know, which are about as far from "sexual predator" as the sun is to Earth.

The Kameha Con contracts are somewhere on the site, so for at least that con we know what provisions they breached. They threatened breach of contract to get the con to breach contract with Vic. And failing that they breached their contract twice, once by backing out of the con and again by hosting the signing event close by. But it seems like Kameha con is letting that slide, as lawsuits are expensive and they don't want the trouble.
We also have those texts Ron Toye sent to the head of Kameha con to blackmail them dropping Vic by holding his company's donation hostage, and claiming Vic was in a criminal investigation, which has not happened. Shane was even nice enough to get the texts from Ron to authenticate them, so we know they are real (top tier plays, proving your TI). We also have reason to believe that other cons got the same spiel because those texts mention Monica's agent talking to them. Which is why Vic's side would like them to hand over their discovery instead of playing stupid games dodging it, and trying to bring in more discovery for their side when they have not even produced theirs.

 

[repentance]

B) I don't know about that. My understanding is that there's been some sworn affidavits provided to Ron and Monica's defence from other people that have witnessed Vic harassing women. Unless Vic has specific and clear evidence contravening those affidavits, his suit is DOA.

Affidavits are not proof. We have no idea how the people providing them would hold up under deposition and/or cross-examination, or even the extent to which they rely on drawing conclusions which may not be factually supported.

Keep in mind, also, that some of the defamatory statements go far beyond accusing Vic of "harassment" and explicitly accuse him of being a sexual predator and/or rapist.

 

[ErbBetaPatch]

Affidavits are not proof. We have no idea how the people providing them would hold up under deposition and/or cross-examination, or even the extent to which they rely on drawing conclusions which may not be factually supported.

Keep in mind, also, that some of the defamatory statements go far beyond accusing Vic of "harassment" and explicitly accuse him of being a sexual predator and/or rapist.

Also, it's affidavits of other people saying they witnessed vic harassing other women. Not first hand accounts, and lacks any context behind the alleged acts. We've already seen people construe consensual acts as harassment.

Huh, so by implication "legal right" is a narrower subset of rights provided for by contract. Do you have any case law around this? I've legit had the hardest time figuring out what counts as TI vs not, and "underlying wrongful act" was the most cogent description I could find. Discovering that that doesn't apply in Texas was a step back

TBH excluding natural/constitutional rights from the definition of "legal right" sounds like a really odd test

I Got into this with Doucette a while back, the case is Prudential something or other. From what I understand TI is the intentional procurement of the breach of someone else's contract. You can argue that you have a legal right granted via a contract with that person to interfere with their contract, but that doesn't apply if the underlying act is itself tortious or unlawful. Ie if someone had a contractual obligation to monitor these contracts, they couldn't argue that they were justified in intimidating one of the parties into breaching. In Texas the underlying tortious act isn't necessary for TI, it would just prevent you from claiming you had a legal justification to interfere.

 

[repentance]

Also, it's affidavits of other people saying they witnessed vic harassing other women. Not first hand accounts, and lacks any context behind the alleged acts. We've already seen people construe consensual acts as harassment.

Not to mention that these people want to be deposed in camera and want their depositions suppressed. Colour me cynical.

 

[AnOminous]

Ver archivo adjunto 829285

http://archive.li/0j8zO

https://mobile.twitter.com/LykD9/status/1147257700381855745

The dude "answers" some questions

He's really butthurt about how fat he is.

 

[SargonF00t]

Has anyone addressed the following possibility:

Ron Soye came to believe that Monica had been intimate with Vic in the past and this caused him to become jealous and consider breaking off the engagement.

Monica panicked and told a heap of lies about Vic forcing himself on her, so that Soye would still marry her ever expanding arse, and the two of them have been gung ho for Vic, ever since?

 

[Wilhelm Bittrich]

Has anyone addressed the following possibility:

Ron Soye came to believe that Monica had been intimate with Vic in the past and this caused him to become jealous and consider breaking off the engagement.

Monica panicked and told a heap of lies about Vic forcing himself on her, so that Soye would still marry her ever expanding arse, and the two of them have been gung ho for Vic, ever since?

No, not really, and after reading all the stuff in different threads in the Weeb Wars section, I'm convinced this is a well in advance and strategically planned campaign to destroy a man who doesn't fit into the agenda of those leftist cumstains like Soye, Sabat, Rial et al.