fat ugly sped
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 3 de Jul, 2019
Don't forget about anti-SLAPP protections, too.
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
- Registrado
- 5 de Mar, 2019
I'm a little fuzzy on that. Does Anti-SLAPP only apply if he's actually getting sued, or can he file anti-SLAPP (or something equivalent) in response to a subpoena?
- Registrado
- 31 de Ago, 2017
But surely, Nick holds himself out as a public figure. I bet subpoenaing famous people out of state who aren't named in the complaint/response to appear in a lawsuit is a pretty easy, cheap, and common practice.
According to Nick, it seems to apply when you use someone else's lawsuit/motion to try and silence or intimidate a journalist (IN MINNESOTA) civilly participating by covering your case.
EDIT: Oh yeah. And they used court records to try and dox him. And his wife. And his five children. No judge in America is going to argue that they have any right at all to expect him to cooperate with their hostile investigation.
fat ugly sped
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 3 de Jul, 2019
Lots of anti-SLAPP statues have something along the lines of "this is intended to be construed liberally in order to protect free-speech rights". So Nick can probably file an anti-SLAPP motion to quash these non-lawsuit legal shenanigans. No guarantee that he'd win the motion, but he can argue that he's entitled to anti-SLAPP protections and make this even more of a pain in the ass to go through with.
- Registrado
- 26 de Sep, 2017
Yes, but Akiva Cohen is lying about it because he's tied his reputation to one side.
- Registrado
- 31 de Ago, 2017
Happily, Nick can file all of his responses for free. And not only will he get more superchats and GFM donations for doing it, but he'd do it just for the lulz even if it cost $1k+. (And he'd still make his money back.)
- Registrado
- 17 de Ene, 2019
I do enjoy how a lot of people in that thread are talking about how Vic has no evidence, and that he's trying to prove a negative, etc etc bollocks. There is no sense of irony in these people.
- Registrado
- 31 de Ago, 2017
I thought that was obvious.
But it's helpful that they left in the part about Ty stipulating "only names, addresses, and personally identifying information."
Skeptical Idiot
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 5 de Mayo, 2019
I expect Minnesota's shield law will come into play.
I'm not up on the specific's of Minnesota anti-SLAPP law, but most jurisdictions don't allow use of an anti-SLAPP motion to challenge a subpoena. But as I'm not a Twitter lawyer, I'll admit that I don't know everything. If Nick could file an anti-SLAPP motion, it would be a beautiful slap in the face.
- Registrado
- 31 de Ago, 2017
At best? It applies to subpoenas by action of law (might need the Hon. Judge to confirm/interpret this), because it creates the same effect as suing someone.
Keep in mind, Nick is not a named party here, and there's no reason to assume he has a secret list of possible future defendants; in actual fact, he has a very public list of possible defendants, which is easily accessible to the moving defendants with or without Nick's deposition.
At worst? It's just another legal gambit Nick can employ via malicious compliance. They also don't have jurisdiction (and I doubt a Minnesota court is going to bow to a Texas court to compel a Minnesota lawyer to stipulate to a hostile Texas lawyer to cooperate. Even if he weren't a youtube journalist.) Also there's no reason to believe his testimony is relevant (or, as Nick says, probative) to the case. And it certainly does not fall under the "minimal" standard that Lemwah is pleading; the minimal compliance Nick could/should grant is "none."
- Registrado
- 7 de Mar, 2016
No, you can end wars without the other side really agreeing to it.
The US simply pointed out to Japan that the removal of their cities would continue unless they gave up. The cost being too high to the Imperial Japanese led to the surrender/not surrender statements from the Emperor.
After the Battle of Culloden in 1645 (in which the Jacobites didn't surrender even then, with the Bonnie Prince fleeing), the British would simply purge and break any likely support base in the highlands by either forcing the relocation of Highlanders to the American Colonies, or kill 1/4 of them outright.
The burning of Carthage followed by the Romans salting the fucking earth turning a once lush North African Coast into the desert it is today also leaps to mind. Don't think they consented either.
You can end wars without the other sides consent, but it requires utter ruthlessness that Vic has so far not shown.
Última edición:
10SorrowfulObject
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 9 de Nov, 2018
As a witness to a proceeding, he’s paid $20/day (Minnesota https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/357.22). So he can’t charge either fee.
Edit: These rules only apply to normal “fact” witnesses. An expert witness offers opinions based on facts in evidence, but that’s not what they’re doing with Nick.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 31 de Ago, 2017
That's assuming he's a standard witness. But he didn't witness anything at-issue. So his testimony is supplementary at-best, in that case.
IANAL, but I feel like they'd need something more to reach him in Minnesota from a Texas civil case for commenting on stuff and creating an account on a website (GFM) for someone else.
They're clinging to the GFM because it's the only thing affirmatively linking Vic and Nick. And even that didn't go as they planned. "Hey! Let's just ASK him if he's guilty!"
- Registrado
- 11 de Jun, 2019
Aren't the defendants trying to establish wether or not the plaintiff is a public figure ?
What would be the purpose of deposing Nick or any of the other people they intended to depose ?
What would the defense wish to bring someone who witnessed the defamation ? I would have been cheaper and more constructive to depose a friend who lived closer.
- Registrado
- 31 de Ago, 2017
Also, they could just request sworn affidavits. More reasonable to expect Nick to comply with that than depositions filled with surprise questions that aren't even supported by the facts in the case. Hell, Nick is openly suggesting he might submit his own affidavits to the court.
- Registrado
- 13 de Mayo, 2019
On the community side, the ISWV is the reactionary/defending side. But yeah this very much essentially a war on two fronts. A war in court, and a war of social media
N1bbaN3rd
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 16 de Mayo, 2019
I believe this is what Nick meant when he said "Earn it, bitch!"
Dem billable hours, yo. The League of Exceptional Lolyers probably pitched this harebrained scheme to them by saying "don't worry about the cost, when we win these motions, we'll get awarded costs, which means Vic will have to pay everything!" And MoRon, being the vindictive cunts that they are, took the bait.
Loose Handle
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 4 de Jul, 2019
Here's a question: What would happen if Leamonhead goes through all the effort of trying to haul Nick in, gets smacked upside the head with an anti-SLAPP and sanctioned, goes back to Texas with his ears boxed, and then Nick turns around and submits affidavits. Epic LOLs? I mean, I'm pretty sure they get to depose Nick at that time, but what would happen to the hypothetical sanctions?
- Registrado
- 11 de Jun, 2019
This doesn’t apply to Nick, he’s a non party, they’re going to have to “earn it bitch” so they can waste their time getting nothing and fighting Nick’s free access to the Minnesota legal system and spend a shit ton doing so regardless of what the pay for Nick ends up being anyway.