Jub-Jub
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 8 de Jul, 2018
We might even get a gawker moment. Here's Nick reading a Soye no no about 4 year olds.
Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.
- Iniciador del tema 5t3n0g0ph3r
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 On-and-off DDoS attacks. (July 25th: On-going connection issues.)
🧅 Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/ -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
Skeptical Idiot
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 5 de Mayo, 2019
Finished reading Ron and Monica's MOTION TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF ANTI-SLAPP STAY, OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY. I've read some truly nasty, unethical pleadings in the past. But this just may be the nastiest piece of shit I've ever read. It's very much in the vein of throw everything you have against the wall and see what sticks.
They are doing everything they can to hurt Vic and destroy his reputation, taking advantage of the litigation privilege to defame him with every nasty rumor they can think up. I actually kind of didn't give a shit who won this case. But now I'm very much on Vic's side at least through the anti-SLAPP phase of this case. What Monica and Ron are doing isn't about defending themselves. They forced Vic to file this complaint and they want to destroy him. I hope they don't get away with it.
It's really ironic, because I've never seen a case where the DEFENDANT is the one moving to do additional discovery. A DEFENDANT does not need additional discovery, because their only burden is to show that the TCPA applies (it does) and that shifts the burden to Vic to lay out a prima facie case for each element of their claim.
At this point, when filing the TCPA, the DEFENDANTS don't have to prove anything, so no discovery is needed. The only possible area they would need discovery on is whether Vic is a public figure. But if you need to do discovery to find out if someone is a public figure, then he's not.
The Court may grant Nick's depo. It shouldn't at this time. They don't need it for the TCPA. I truly hope Ty defeats Funi and Monica and Ron's TCPA motions. That'll be a good day.
They are doing everything they can to hurt Vic and destroy his reputation, taking advantage of the litigation privilege to defame him with every nasty rumor they can think up. I actually kind of didn't give a shit who won this case. But now I'm very much on Vic's side at least through the anti-SLAPP phase of this case. What Monica and Ron are doing isn't about defending themselves. They forced Vic to file this complaint and they want to destroy him. I hope they don't get away with it.
It's really ironic, because I've never seen a case where the DEFENDANT is the one moving to do additional discovery. A DEFENDANT does not need additional discovery, because their only burden is to show that the TCPA applies (it does) and that shifts the burden to Vic to lay out a prima facie case for each element of their claim.
At this point, when filing the TCPA, the DEFENDANTS don't have to prove anything, so no discovery is needed. The only possible area they would need discovery on is whether Vic is a public figure. But if you need to do discovery to find out if someone is a public figure, then he's not.
The Court may grant Nick's depo. It shouldn't at this time. They don't need it for the TCPA. I truly hope Ty defeats Funi and Monica and Ron's TCPA motions. That'll be a good day.
- Registrado
- 11 de Jun, 2019
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if Judge Chupp basically just shoots down lemon heads requests the same way he’s shot down Casey’s?We might even get a gawker moment. Here's Nick reading a Soye no no about 4 year olds.
“Mr lemoineee, so what you’re basically saying in your pleadings is that you’re ass-mad that the plaintiff is able to fund his counsel while your client is unable to pay you? I suggest that if you’re so inclined to collect upon your legal fees that your clients either make their own crowd funding campaign or you start to find ways to collect on your billable hours without wasting the courts time with 3rd party depositions about the plaintiffs form of payment. The plaintiff is not your client”
xyz741
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 24 de Mayo, 2019
- Registrado
- 9 de Mar, 2019
You missed the opportunity to say either:
Josh Mooooooon
or
Josh Awoooooo
Aw, man. Not Nami.
- Registrado
- 10 de Jul, 2017
A lot of the blank pages may involve contracts. Which were agreed to be kept redacted.
From what little we have seen Judge Chupp does not appear to be a moron, and would seem to be onto their games. "Has your client stopped tweeting" and when he forced Casey to admit Nick's shows were "entertaining". No Chupp is not an idiot. And looking at today's motion we must ask ourselves "in which direction lies reversible error?" What harm or error is enacted by Judge Chupp taking the standard and conservative and generally accepted reading of the TCPA law that it stops all discovery until resolved? VS agreeing with Lemonhead's narrow, specific and rather tenuous reasoning that the law does not in fact say what it clearly says? So MoRonica are forced to wait a little longer before they can resume discovery? Where is the harm in that? Why do they need this discovery now? Why do they need this discovery now when they have taken no discovery action for 70+ days? Now clear harm can be attached to the Plaintiff. They are now tasked with defending against the TCPA in a very narrow time frame. Why should they be forced to also put up with this late and seemingly pointless special exception to the discovery stay? Granting this exception does harm the Plaintiff, and has a strong possibility of challenge on appeal. Denying it would not seemingly be something appealable. And by denying it it effectively makes the point moot.
Why would Lemonhead put his demands that Ty Beard produce Nick Rekeita in his own filing? As Ty clearly communicated Nick is neither his client nor his employee or co-council. I'm actually rather hoping that Ty decides to be a real bastard about this, and calls Lemonhead to task before the judge regarding the attempt to insert Rekeita's home address into the record with a nonsense motion. I think that is part of the reason for Ty's motion to quash. Nick had previously pondered sending an Affidavit to the court regarding that. Why did Lemoire insist on attempting to publish the place where Nick's children sleep, when Nick has a clearly published address of service? When Lemoire's client is aware of that address through official means? That little bit of fuckery deserves a sanction.
General Relativity QM
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Jul, 2019
I think Nick's tweet here deserves to be posted here since I think it pretty conclusively answers the motion with their own motion. What's the legal equivalent of read the f'ing manual?
https://mobile.twitter.com/NickRekieta/status/1148737942225084418 - link to Nick's Tweet
- Registrado
- 11 de Jun, 2019
Aw shit!
Btw you fags seen the false equivalence the scholar not real lawyer maybe lawyer is trying to peddle yet? It’s gonna need a cross post on the Shane thread if someone didn’t already post that shit there
Mike "I'm Staying Home For Your Safety" Dunford on Twitter
“@shane_holmberg @greg_doucette Here's a great one for absolutely everybody who thought that there was something significant about not remembering Tweets. Vic can't remember how he's paying his attorneys - whether it's hourly or contingency.”
twitter.com
Mike Dunford on Twitter: "Here's a great one for absolutely everybody…
archived 10 Jul 2019 00:42:21 UTC
Mike "I'm Staying Home For Your Safety" Dunford on Twitter
“@BurgettWill @shane_holmberg @greg_doucette Funny you should bring that up:”
twitter.com
Mike Dunford on Twitter: "Funny you should bring that up:… "
archived 10 Jul 2019 00:39:11 UTC
Side note:
God damn it Null, I was in the middle of reading threads and writing this reply when the site sent me to a random page with a “you have insufficient privileges to post in these threads” page with a big ass list of threads.
Jk I love you dog leader I know people are fucking with the site causing random errors but that was a weird one
- Registrado
- 10 de Jul, 2017
“While no court has addressed the issue”
And you’d be fucking insane to think this one will!
And you’d be fucking insane to think this one will!
- Registrado
- 21 de Sep, 2014
To be fair, whether a TCPA stays discovery only in respect of the party which filed it or in respect of all defendants is something we've been speculating about for months now, and no-one has been able to find an authoritative answer.
Regardless of what Chupp decides, I'll be interested to read his reasoning.
Regardless of what Chupp decides, I'll be interested to read his reasoning.
I can't imagine
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 1 de Jul, 2019
Aw shit!
Btw you fags seen the false equivalence the scholar not real lawyer maybe lawyer is trying to peddle yet? It’s gonna need a cross post on the Shane thread if someone didn’t already post that shit there
Mike "I'm Staying Home For Your Safety" Dunford on Twitter
“@shane_holmberg @greg_doucette Here's a great one for absolutely everybody who thought that there was something significant about not remembering Tweets. Vic can't remember how he's paying his attorneys - whether it's hourly or contingency.”
Mike Dunford on Twitter: "Here's a great one for absolutely everybody…
archived 10 Jul 2019 00:42:21 UTCarchive.fo
Mike "I'm Staying Home For Your Safety" Dunford on Twitter
“@BurgettWill @shane_holmberg @greg_doucette Funny you should bring that up:”
Mike Dunford on Twitter: "Funny you should bring that up:… "
archived 10 Jul 2019 00:39:11 UTC
Now, I'm no lawyer, but I feel like knowing whether or not you made a defamatory tweet (or several hundred of them) might be more relevant to a defamation case than the method of payment for your attorney. Just sayin'.
- Registrado
- 11 de Jun, 2019
Except of course, when you want to take down your opponents gofundme and peddle a narrative that the internet lawyer show Rackets runs is always wrong and just for show and nothing more because super twitter Lolyers right, big YouTube man wrong.
- Registrado
- 30 de Ene, 2019
They're basically arguing for only their discovery to continue, it's a giant red flag of "please let us depose this meany head youtube lawyer while Ty has to sit on his hands waiting for the TCPA to be resolved so his motion to compel for our now 1 month late documents can go ahead". It was speculated that a TCPA would only stay discovery between the plaintiff and the defendant who filed the TCPA, but that's not what J.Sean and company are asking for.
Padoru
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 14 de Jun, 2019
TBH when i read that question my immediate thought was "Isn't the answer to that: None of your business?" Because what does that matter to the defendants when the GFM very distinctly says that EXCESS funds go to charity. In other words there is a very clear statement that possibly nothing ever does and people were well aware of that BEFORE donating
I can't imagine
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 1 de Jul, 2019
I think the way it works is that you have to answer the question in the deposition, but it can't be used in the case unless it's relevant. I could be wrong on that, though; it's been a really long time since I was ever involved in one.
Padoru
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 14 de Jun, 2019
yeah that IS correct but my point is more why this question is even allowed to be asked in the first place? There need to be rules in the future that make sure that questions asked at least have a passing connection to the case because without those we get depositions like this shitshow.
- Registrado
- 31 de Ago, 2017
Presumably, every lawyer would just throw and objection to relevance at the drop of a hat if that were the case.
Seems like one of those "Good, fast, cheap: pick two" scenarios.
I can't imagine
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 1 de Jul, 2019
Yeah, I was a bit surprised by that as well. I know attorneys have a lot of latitude in their questioning during depositions, but some of those things were just beyond the pale.
- Registrado
- 9 de Abr, 2019
Quick (possibly dumbass) question for all the folks who are familiar with depositions. I noticed throughout this transcript, there are objections noted here and there by various lawyers, but things carry on regardless of them. Are these objections simply examined later by the judge to see if they hold up and affect whether the statements can be used? Even Vic seemed thrown when Ty objected but he was still expected to continue answering, so it made me extra curious about how this works.
fat ugly sped
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 3 de Jul, 2019
Aggressive deposition is the entire point - they're hoping that by grilling the shit out of him and threatening to do the same to his mother and anyone else on his "side" will convince him to drop things.