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

And Shane you dense impacted asshole, if it were a simple question of number of lawyers assigned BHBH would have the advantage since there are at least 3-4 actively involved attorneys in Vic's corner plus a bunch of free range autists moonlighting as legal clerks.

In my more idle moments I have wondered what the monetary value of our autism is, and how much it would have cost Vic to get the same support from a paid data mining operation.

According to this https://work.chron.com/average-salary-freelance-internet-researcher-19676.html
A professional internet researcher in Texas makes 40k a year. So if we were a firm let's put it candidly at 15 people that is 600k a year in salaries overhead alone. To keep my firm contracted on this I would probably charge just for this one issue around 20,000 (15k for autists, 5k for company overhead) dollars a month which since February would be 120 thousand dollars. If I were to just task two my autistic employees too it that would be 3,000 dollars a month (2k for the autists and 1k for the company) which would still come to a healthy 18,000 dollars for the last 6 month period and a full 32 thousand dollars by the end of the year.
 
MoRon are paying TWO firms?

Sounds expensive.

THREE if you believe Ron and Shane.

793612
 
I'm believing Shane and Ron's claims that wild lawyers are jumping out of the grass to come defend this hopeless case as soon as "the truth about Vic comes out" (which has been Very Soon™ since January or so).

Although apparently there are a bunch of unemployed lawyers on Twitter without a single notion of Texas defamation law who are eager to use this for exposure. So I should say I don't believe they have 2-3 competent lawyers on the case. Or even one, now that Casey is a wildcard.
 
I guess we'll just have to see what names are on whatever hits the court Monday, whether that's responses or a motion to delay responses.
 
Strange that they think claiming to need 3 law firms to provide their defense sounds like a positive. It really just makes them sound like the are screwed and flailing around for someone to figure out some way to save them.

Maybe he thinks all counsel for Funi, Jaimie, and themselves did the fusion dance.

Certainly something that idiot would think.
 
Question for you legal folk. Texas has a white paper on conducting employee investigations (sexual harassment etc). Would there be any problems if those were not followed during Vic's investigation? Or does it not apply?


Defamation

Defamation consists of communicating false information about a person to a third party, either intentionally (with malice) or with reckless disregard for its falsity. A company can be liable to any of its employees about whom false information is released if it makes the information known itself or negligently allows the false information to be released. For that reason, employers must be extremely careful with the information that often results from investigations. This is why it is recommended to keep information relating to investigations in a separate investigations file. Under no circumstances should an employer allow an employee under investigation to be talked about in ways that could generate defamation liability for the company. Managers should be trained to never say or write anything about an employee that cannot be proven with reliable documentation or firsthand testimony from eyewitnesses.

Invasion of Privacy

The common-law tort of invasion of privacy consists of the disclosure of private facts about a person. There are two main elements to invasion of privacy:

1. the information contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts about a person's private affairs such that its release would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person; and
2. the information is of no legitimate concern to the third parties to whom the information was released.

Thus, since investigations often reveal highly intimate or embarrassing facts about people, especially in the case of sexual harassment, the information must be kept completely confidential by the employer and all who are involved in the investigation.


Privacy Issues in Workplace Investigations

There are important privacy interests at stake in the workplace. Employers have fairly wide latitude in this area, but must be aware of important limitations that apply in various situations. In general, employees have the right to keep private facts about themselves and their families confidential, the right to not be accused wrongly, and the right to enjoy some degree of "personal space." Following is a discussion of some of the more significant ways in which these privacy interests come up in investigations.
 
This recent development has given me a headache. Is MoRon asking for sanctions or other actions being taken against them? Because the timing of all of this is very suspect.

Anyways, to get the firm alphabet soup straight, we have the following firms representing MoRon alone:

1. Kessler Collins (Andrea Perez)
2. Erick's new firm
(The third firm is likely a firm that the Tuttle Group funded for Ron who hasn't properly entered the case yet, probably needing an hac pro vice motion to enter the record.)

Assuming that Shane is telling the truth...
 
Question for you legal folk. Texas has a white paper on conducting employee investigations (sexual harassment etc). Would there be any problems if those were not followed during Vic's investigation? Or does it not apply?


Defamation

Defamation consists of communicating false information about a person to a third party, either intentionally (with malice) or with reckless disregard for its falsity. A company can be liable to any of its employees about whom false information is released if it makes the information known itself or negligently allows the false information to be released. For that reason, employers must be extremely careful with the information that often results from investigations. This is why it is recommended to keep information relating to investigations in a separate investigations file. Under no circumstances should an employer allow an employee under investigation to be talked about in ways that could generate defamation liability for the company. Managers should be trained to never say or write anything about an employee that cannot be proven with reliable documentation or firsthand testimony from eyewitnesses.

Invasion of Privacy

The common-law tort of invasion of privacy consists of the disclosure of private facts about a person. There are two main elements to invasion of privacy:

1. the information contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts about a person's private affairs such that its release would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person; and
2. the information is of no legitimate concern to the third parties to whom the information was released.

Thus, since investigations often reveal highly intimate or embarrassing facts about people, especially in the case of sexual harassment, the information must be kept completely confidential by the employer and all who are involved in the investigation.


Privacy Issues in Workplace Investigations

There are important privacy interests at stake in the workplace. Employers have fairly wide latitude in this area, but must be aware of important limitations that apply in various situations. In general, employees have the right to keep private facts about themselves and their families confidential, the right to not be accused wrongly, and the right to enjoy some degree of "personal space." Following is a discussion of some of the more significant ways in which these privacy interests come up in investigations.

It's just a white paper, not the law. It might be relevant if you're looking at whether they followed best practices or whether their behavior was reasonable, but the real laws are the federal and state laws and regulations cited by the white paper. It's just advice on how to conduct an investigation consistent with those, although it could be good or bad advice (I don't know).
 
Don't tell me Ron is counting T. Greg Doucette and Akiva Cohen in addition to Casey Erick?
If that idiot was, he's a bigger idiot than we take him for.
Hrmm...

I wonder if these additional firms/attorneys mean Monica and Missus Toye are getting represented separately.

Hmm. Probably not. There aren't enough Toye stress smilies.
 
From what I can see, Shane is including Funimation and Marchi's attorneys in the total.

1. Kessler Collins
2. Casey's new lawfirm
3. Funimation
4. Marchi
5. <extra Ron and Monica lawyers)
 
Calling a person a piece of shit for example
Everybody focuses in on the piece of shit section and the response as it's a little silly, even though it's likely in the letters to grab everything potentially defamatory. I think the earlier 'Vic's a criminal' section is more damaging as Soy has been tweeting how Vics a sexual assaulter/paedo/etc. On top he's also been acting as an agent of potentially 3 groups (rial, funi and tuttle) and contacting at least one con (likely others) and committing TI by saying that a criminal conviction is coming.
 
THREE if you believe Ron and Shane.

Ver archivo adjunto 793612
Good. More people join MoRons suicide packt better. Shane spent last month telling how Cessler Collin's is best law firm in universe, and Vic is fucked. But what do Shane says now when lead attorney not from CC ?

From what I can see, Shane is including Funimation and Marchi's attorneys in the total.

1. Kessler Collins
2. Casey's new lawfirm
3. Funimation
4. Marchi
5. <extra Ron and Monica lawyers)
Yeah, but it doesn't mean they all have the same goals, and working not with Ron but for their clients. Plus you have to press f every time Shane says something.
 
Nick mentioned the white papers at the time of the petition, I think. He suggested that if the investigation wasn't conducted in accordance with them, Ty could make an argument against admitting them as evidence.

Yeah, but it doesn't mean they all have the same goals, and working not with Ron but for their clients. Plus you have to press f every time Shane says something.

They have opposing goals. Thats why they're not all represented by a single counsel, unlike in the lolsuit where Dick, his company, and his executives, Patreon and Jordan Cope, and Web Sandwich and Head Counsel shared counsel. Each group had a similar goal. Dick couldn't have Asterios under his wing because Asterios' strategy was to shift everything on to Dick and his fans, and his company couldnt represent him because their strategy was to shift everything on to Asterios. Same applies here. The different counsel aren't working together to take down Vic. Each one should want to get out on their own terms, and prevent any liability to their client by putting the blame on the others.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo