Super-Chevy454
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 2 de Abr, 2018
Looks like there's not only Vic then Funimation will have to deal, but also angry customers. Did karma beginned to bite Funimation?
Sigue el video de abajo para ver cómo instalar nuestro sitio como una aplicación web en tu pantalla de inicio.
Nota: Esta función puede no estar disponible en algunos navegadores.
Everyone see the Sharon Grigsby interview linked in WW?
It’s really bizarre to me that a legal case with very few (news worthy) developments is getting this coverage.
It would make more sense if you at least had a better victim narrative for Monica/Jaime, but they’ve been the aggressors on social media, and aren’t particularly likable.
Makes it seem like Grigsby just really feels connected to the story.
What determines what gets printed in these bullshit dead tree fake news outlets is the size of the number on the check the paper gets for printing these glorified press releases from one side of a lawsuit.
Sure. Look up Cody Pickrodt if you want more details. It may be worth it's own thread, if people are interested. I'll give the summary version here and will throw together an OP if people care enough, although there hasn't been a lot of movement on the case since February.Care to expound on this lawsuit?
Chupp is a personal injury attorney (ambulance chaser) and Republican appointed at a young age by a Republican governor. There has to be some sort of money or favors involved. This sort of thing is typical with political appointees, it only ever gets noticed when it gets to a ridiculous degree with someone like Judge Borrok of New York.All elections have way too much money involved. If any reform is done, monetary reform is needed first and foremost. People like to scream about "dark money" and Citizens United decision in politics. They act as if before that got applied money and favors never were traded. We are deluding ourselves if we think money is not already involved in appointing judges now.
For judge Chupp no real money is involved in all likely hood.
posting this since it was only stated and not posted here.
Chupp is a personal injury attorney (ambulance chaser) and Republican appointed at a young age by a Republican governor. There has to be some sort of money or favors involved. This sort of thing is typical with political appointees, it only ever gets noticed when it gets to a ridiculous degree with someone like Judge Borrok of New York.
I actually wonder how many slip-ups happened because Ty was just tired out from either appearing on or watching Nick's absurdly late and long show.
When will we have AI be our judges? Doesn't have to be our jury, that can remain human for the most part.There was actually a pretty disapproving article written about Borrok essentially buying a judgeship. Despite that, though, he's still on the bench fucking up cases with his laziness and feckless attitude.
When will we have AI be our judges? Doesn't have to be our jury, that can remain human for the most part.
That was implied, yes.And blackjack and hookers and suicide booths and slurm
When will we have AI be our judges? Doesn't have to be our jury, that can remain human for the most part.
I'm current 25 minutes in to Bill Burr's Paper Tiger standup show on Netflix, and he's doing a good job of just tearing into the MeToo movement, while also being funny. I give him about four weeks before hundreds of women come out and claimed he sexually assaulted them or raped them.
I give it two days after that before he's making jokes about those claims on Conan's show about the allegations.
"WHITE MAN FORCES BLACK WOMAN TO MARRY HIM TO ESCAPE CRITICISM FOR HIS COMEDY SHOW"He's married to a black woman, he's untouchable.
Except by the black woman.He's married to a black woman, he's untouchable.
It's more likely to be "Bill Burr marries white supremacist black woman." A la Candace Owens"WHITE MAN FORCES BLACK WOMAN TO MARRY HIM TO ESCAPE CRITICISM FOR HIS COMEDY SHOW"
- Salon.com, probably.
big difference here to what you say: Vic didn't DEFEND himself from the TI. That would be cutting in BEFORE the contract is cancelled and making sure it never is cancelled to begin with.With the ruling on TI, did Chupp set the precedent that "if you successfully defend yourself from TI, you didn't suffer damages?" That seems like reason enough to overturn the ruling.
big difference here to what you say: Vic didn't DEFEND himself from the TI. That would be cutting in BEFORE the contract is cancelled and making sure it never is cancelled to begin with.
Okay. I had thought that the judges logic was "he was invited back. Therefore no damages were incurred."
Basically if you get the contract back, you don't suffer damages.