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

[Skeptical Idiot]

My prediction for the Court hearing:

The Court: Are you saying you need the stay lifted so you can conduct additional discovery needed to oppose Funimation’s TCPA motion?

Lemonhead: No your honor. We aren’t opposing Funimation’s TCPA motion. Are you confused?

The Court: Someone is. Do your clients have a TCPA motion on file that I missed?

Lemonhead: No your honor, we’re still dicking around trying to run up our attorney fees so when we win our TCPA motion, we can drain every dollar in that GOFUNDME “war-chest.”

The Court: Hmmm. Then would you agree that the discovery you want to conduct has no relevance to any TCPA motion on file with this Court?

Lemonhead: No, your honor. If I agree, you’ll deny the motion. Can we pretend my client has filed a motion and then pretend that the quasi-expert opinion of a hard-drinking YouTuber in Minnesota who isn’t a witness to anything that happened in this case has relevance to a motion we haven’t filed yet?

The Court: Motion denied.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

Jesus. "Is it fair if an investigator collides with the accuser?"

"Yes."

"It's fair. Fair means I get what I want, right? So it's VERY fair." - Ron Soye

Also: It's amazing that he literally -s in real life. He can't stop himself.

 

[SushiOnFire]

Regarding the video, the mental gymnastic is quite strong

 

[Facts Over Feels]

I can't wait for those lawtwitter dipshits to start the mental gymnastics justifying all of Ron's obvious "I can't even remeber my own twitter handle" level of amnesia as totally making Vic lose the case. Should be entertaining to watch.

 

[10SorrowfulObject]

I can't wait for those lawtwitter dipshits to start the mental gymnastics justifying all of Ron's obvious "I can't even remeber my own twitter handle" level of amnesia as totally making Vic lose the case. Should be entertaining to watch.

I think they're kinda meaningless (Ron not remembering things). Whether or not he recalls writing the tweets, there's still a fairly reasonable assumption that he did indeed write them.

 

[PrinceofAllCucks]

I think they're kinda meaningless (Ron not remembering things). Whether or not he recalls writing the tweets, there's still a fairly reasonable assumption that he did indeed write them.

Yet on the record he claims to not remember a single one of the tweets, while being able to "accurately" recount the accusations and details of his past lawsuits from years ago. It provides not only inconsistencies to his ability to remember material facts, but also the fact he's claimed "I don't remember" to every tweet now verified by his own counsel. How is he expected to give an accurate recounting of his state of mind and the truth of the statements, if he's on record as not even able to remember making the statement?

 

[INVCTS]

I know some people have a different opinion, but the three cases I found and reviewed where an anti-SLAPP had been attempted to effectively quash a third-party subpoena have failed. Admittedly, these are cases in other jurisdictions (D.C. and Virginia). But I believe the status of Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statute is ambiguous due to being found unconstitutional by that state’s Supreme Court. If the Texas court permits the subpoena, I think a Minnesota court will honor it. But the court should in my opinion 100% refuse to grant the motion to take this discovery.

I don't that the question of, "Would Nick filing an anti-SLAPP motioin to prevent the requested discovery be ruled in his favor?", is the correct question to ask.

I think a better one is, "Would Nick filing an anti-SLAPP motioin to prevent the requested discovery be frivolous or unethical?"

Admittedly, I don't know the answer to that, but if it isn't unethical or an abuse of the system to file the motion, even if it is a longshot, why shouldn't Nick file it? It's not like it costs him anything more than time, and would probably increase his earnings.

 

[10SorrowfulObject]

Yet on the record he claims to not remember a single one of the tweets, while being able to "accurately" recount the accusations and details of his past lawsuits from years ago. It provides not only inconsistencies to his ability to remember material facts, but also the fact he's claimed "I don't remember" to every tweet now verified by his own counsel. How is he expected to give an accurate recounting of his state of mind and the truth of the statements, if he's on record as not even able to remember making the statement?

If I'm asked "do I recall cooking dinner last night", the answer is "I don't recall cooking dinner" because I don't have a recollection of the specific experience. That doesn't mean I didn't cook dinner last night. Similarly, when asked "do you recall writing this tweet" it's completely appropriate to say "I don't recall writing this tweet" if he doesn't have a specific recollection of writing the tweet.

That's not going to interfere with his ability to testify to the truthfulness of the accusations he's made against Vic.

"I don't recall" is an answer that comes up quite often in depositions for various reasons. When can I say it? Overcoming a Witness with Selective Memory

 

[PrinceofAllCucks]

If I'm asked "do I recall cooking dinner last night", the answer is "I don't recall cooking dinner" because I don't have a recollection of the specific experience. That doesn't mean I didn't cook dinner last night. Similarly, when asked "do you recall writing this tweet" it's completely appropriate to say "I don't recall writing this tweet" if he doesn't have a specific recollection of writing the tweet.

That's not going to interfere with his ability to testify to the truthfulness of the accusations he's made against Vic.

"I don't recall" is an answer that comes up quite often in depositions for various reasons. When can I say it? Overcoming a Witness with Selective Memory

Yet, with the first link you've provided, the witness or deponent with this selective memory can very easily be impeached through their testimony. Now that Casey has confirmed that the tweets were made by Ron himself, when brought to trial, they can take Ron's statements of "I don't remember" and begin to slowly chip away at his credibility as a witness to the truthfulness of his previous statements to the Jury. If he tries to speak on anything that doesn't remain consistent with his deposition testimony, then he could very easily be held for perjury under oath.

 

[GuftaGess]

If I'm asked "do I recall cooking dinner last night", the answer is "I don't recall cooking dinner" because I don't have a recollection of the specific experience. That doesn't mean I didn't cook dinner last night. Similarly, when asked "do you recall writing this tweet" it's completely appropriate to say "I don't recall writing this tweet" if he doesn't have a specific recollection of writing the tweet.

That's not going to interfere with his ability to testify to the truthfulness of the accusations he's made against Vic.

"I don't recall" is an answer that comes up quite often in depositions for various reasons. When can I say it? Overcoming a Witness with Selective Memory

Yeah, sure, but bc he says he didn't remember writing them...by default he doesn't remember his state of mind or what he MEANT when writing tweets that, say, discuss specifics of the investigation, the number of victims, etc. So when BHBH steps up, they just get to say he was tweeting vindictively and defensively, aggressively flooding his account and spreading word about cons, trying to interfere with their contracts, and he doesn't deny it. What's Ron gonna say - "Oh WAIT, NOOOOOWW I remember. Let me explain..."

 

[Cackman]

If I'm asked "do I recall cooking dinner last night", the answer is "I don't recall cooking dinner" because I don't have a recollection of the specific experience. That doesn't mean I didn't cook dinner last night. Similarly, when asked "do you recall writing this tweet" it's completely appropriate to say "I don't recall writing this tweet" if he doesn't have a specific recollection of writing the tweet.

That's not going to interfere with his ability to testify to the truthfulness of the accusations he's made against Vic.

"I don't recall" is an answer that comes up quite often in depositions for various reasons. When can I say it? Overcoming a Witness with Selective Memory

The point is he's plopped himself in between a rock and a hard place. Plaintiff can make all kinds of aspersions about the tweets (that they were made maliciously for example) and Soye can't deny that because he's already on the record as he can't remember making a single one of these tweets.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

So here's my store brand bootleg body language on Ronald McSoye III:

He holds himself very meekly, there's no confidence in him at all, when it starts out he has his hands on his thighs or just generally out of sight, likely to absorb the sweat from his palms due to the nerves. (So much for being a sheepdog).

He tries his best at looking calm and collected but....

Rapid, continuous blinking, this continues throughout his entire deposition.

During the opening statements of who is present and what is being done his eyes cannot rest on one person, or one spot to indicate calm, his eyes dart constantly.

Before he's even sworn in, he's gulping and licking his lips due to how dry and nervous he clearly is.

Later into the deposition, he desperately tries to hold his gaze on Ty when answering questions but blinks a bare fucking minimum of five times per sentence.

Meaning he's lying and lying continuously. Plain and simple.

 

[PrinceofAllCucks]

So here's my store brand bootleg body language on Ronald McSoye III:

He holds himself very meekly, there's no confidence in him at all, when it starts out he has his hands on his thighs or just generally out of sight, likely to absorb the sweat from his palms due to the nerves. (So much for being a sheepdog).

He tries his best at looking calm and collected but....

Rapid, continuous blinking, this continues throughout his entire deposition.

During the opening statements of who is present and what is being done his eyes cannot rest on one person, or one spot to indicate calm, his eyes dart constantly.

Before he's even sworn in, he's gulping and licking his lips due to how dry and nervous he clearly is.

Later into the deposition, he desperately tries to hold his gaze on Ty when answering questions but blinks a bare fucking minimum of five times per sentence.

Meaning he's lying and lying continuously. Plain and simple.

There's also a portion of the video where he has his knee propped onto the chair and is hugging it for comfort. It's very pathetic.

 

[Jub-Jub]

I think they're kinda meaningless (Ron not remembering things). Whether or not he recalls writing the tweets, there's still a fairly reasonable assumption that he did indeed write them.

If this goes to jury trial this bullshit of not recalling looks VERY bad and makes Ron look guilty as fuck. The jury will expand how bad he looks in this section to his entire garbage defense.

 

[LuNaS]

That's terrible. It's directly relevant to the civil conspiracy claim which is weak and really in need of bolstering.

There was another that was really bad, "In the hypothetical case of someone calling you a pedophile and there being an investigation is it possible that the investigator colluded with your acusers and find you guilty of being a pedophile and then fire you?" After being non responsive for like 4 attempts by Ty, Ron responded, "nope"...


Is he trying to pledge insanity or what?

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

Is he trying to pledge insanity or what?

It's.... possible? Ron pleads insanity and everyone else throws him under the bus?

No, what it is is, Ron realises that is very fucking real now and all the bravado and bullshitting he's been making up to this point.... now doesn't.

The whole point of locking their depositions behind the TCPA as they originally planned wasn't really so they could carry on defaming vic (they've got enough twitter morons doing that for them now) but to lock behind the pathetic and utter embarrassment of the fact they have fucking nothing.

This is what'd make the whole issue of the "shock win" for Vic in the end would win them more Twitter outrage as it's obvious that the depositions of Ron and Monica totally had stuff in there but the jury totally never got anything.

 

[NotaLolyer]

So here's my store brand bootleg body language on Ronald McSoye III:

He holds himself very meekly, there's no confidence in him at all, when it starts out he has his hands on his thighs or just generally out of sight, likely to absorb the sweat from his palms due to the nerves. (So much for being a sheepdog).

He tries his best at looking calm and collected but....

Rapid, continuous blinking, this continues throughout his entire deposition.

During the opening statements of who is present and what is being done his eyes cannot rest on one person, or one spot to indicate calm, his eyes dart constantly.

Before he's even sworn in, he's gulping and licking his lips due to how dry and nervous he clearly is.

Later into the deposition, he desperately tries to hold his gaze on Ty when answering questions but blinks a bare fucking minimum of five times per sentence.

Meaning he's lying and lying continuously. Plain and simple.

There's also a portion of the video where he has his knee propped onto the chair and is hugging it for comfort. It's very pathetic.

I said this in the streams thread but he consistently says “sure” as if trying to assert his calmness in his answers while going absolute bonkers on the inside

 

[AnOminous]

I said this in the streams thread but he consistently says “sure” as if trying to assert his calmness in his answers while going absolute bonkers on the inside

It's like his pathetic emojis. He should have a security blanket or something and suck on his thumb. It's about the only way he could be acting more infantile.

 

[Jub-Jub]

I said this in the streams thread but he consistently says “sure” as if trying to assert his calmness in his answers while going absolute bonkers on the inside

Can others of the big brained KF panel (who are deep diving law) give their thoughts to Ron's performance shown today. I think it'd probably generate good discussion for the thread.

I'd like to skip the next 30 mins of Ron not recalling tweets and get into the what i suspect to be real juicy section. He was not enjoying his time and that was only the first 1.5h with 3 more to go.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

Can others of the big brained KF panel (who are deep diving law) give their thoughts to Ron's performance shown today. I think it'd probably generate good discussion for the thread.

I'd like to skip the next 30 mins of Ron not recalling tweets and get into the what i suspect to be real juicy section. He was not enjoying his time and that was only the first 1.5h with 3 more to go.

Nick and Cody covered it pretty damn well before he stares at the binder of tweets. The funniest part is when he goes through the binder expecting to find "exhibit 28a" and it turns out it's the entire fucking folder.


His early reactions and answers are going to be what Ty will be able to hammer hard on and show in front of the jury with any hope. He's smug, his answers are utterly bizarre and he implies that even the whiff of rumour from more than two people should see a person utterly and completely ruined for life.