Weeb Wars / AnimeGate / #KickVic / #IStandWithVic / #vickicksback - General Discussion Thread

mindlessobserver said:
Depending on her Visa she may also be required to keep a legal residence in America. Which would probably be her parents house. It's not like she immigrated there.
Click to expand...

It's really really REALLY hard for a American to straight up immigrate to Japan. Like, almost impossible. Work visas and whatnot are far more common.

That's why it's pretty much a de-facto ethonostate and the anime industry hasn't been affected by these people that much.

There's some word that might be changing slightly due to labor shortages, but the problem there is that they are choosy on who they let in. Social harmony is still considered very important.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, 76LD910, ChevroletBlackboard and 4 others
mindlessobserver said:
I would be. She kicked off a massive shit fest and then tried to hide behind the shield of Anonymity. And for the record she didnt make just one tweet. She kept it up, and clearly enjoyed causing the drama. Until it got a little too spicey. And now we got her Dox. She nearly got away too. I don't have an archive for the sculpture tweet because literally in the time it took me to screenshot and save it she nuked her twitter.

At the very least she is target for a summons to deposition. And she is deleting evidence that she has to know by now will be involved in a lawsuit. That is a very bad move on her part.
Click to expand...
Yea love all these people "I can't stand Nick. Or his show is stupid." and he had been giving a ton of free advice on what to do and not do. And she just did a big No no when it all comes out again in discovery.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, ChevroletBlackboard, Pina Colada and 2 others
Can anyone with lawsuit experience explain how Beard and company will go about gathering information from Vic?

For example, do they simply ask him if he has any emails/texts that could be used against him and if he says no that's it, or do they actually go through his messages to see for themselves? Just curious how intrusive lawyers typically are with their own clients.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: ChevroletBlackboard, Army Burger, Goober_au and 1 other person
Urbanmech said:
Yea love all these people "I can't stand Nick. Or his show is stupid." and he had been giving a ton of free advice on what to do and not do. And she just did a big No no when it all comes out again in discovery.
Click to expand...

The biggest death sentence in nearly any industry is dragging them into pointless, expensive litigation worth several times what you're worth. You are labeled cancer after that. You might as well be radioactive. Vic has been forced into this situation and might even somehow keep the industry itself out of this, but if you're some shit-stirring idiot who started all this for some cheap thrills, your hopes of any future are gone.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Crabbo, RodgerDodger and 8 others
AnOminous said:
The biggest death sentence in nearly any industry is dragging them into pointless, expensive litigation worth several times what you're worth. You are labeled cancer after that. You might as well be radioactive. Vic has been forced into this situation and might even somehow keep the industry itself out of this, but if you're some shit-stirring idiot who started all this for some cheap thrills, your hopes of any future are gone.
Click to expand...
I rate optimistic because these people still find a way.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Crabbo, ChevroletBlackboard, Pina Colada and 3 others
So has anyone besides Vic lawyer'd up yet? I'd imagine they would prepare themselves unless someone's going to try to fake their death to avoid the lawsuit.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Burnout
Did Leia delete her account and 'someone' snapped it up right away? Cause I don't think that's even possible. Accounts don't get officially deleted for 30 days after you deactivate them, so I imagine no one can take the name until after that.
 
OldAmishRenegade said:
Can anyone with lawsuit experience explain how Beard and company will go about gathering information from Vic?

For example, do they simply ask him if he has any emails/texts that could be used against him and if he says no that's it, or do they actually go through his messages to see for themselves? Just curious how intrusive lawyers typically are with their own clients.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on how much they would trust their client, or (perhaps more specifically) trust their client to comprehend what is relevant. Lawyers don't like it when client's sandbag them, but I don't think they ever presume they're sandbagging them. They need to present just enough of a case to justify a judge authorizing discovery. They don't need to lay out the entire case at the beginning.

It's unlikely Vic could hide anything relevant to his case against the defendants because, when they do discovery, they're gonna get the relevant communication from the other side. That's what leads them to solidify their case.

If he doesn't turn over stuff that isn't relevant, then it's not relevant. Like nobody gives a shit about him arranging a lunch meeting last Thursday with a completely uninvolved person.

jellycar said:
Wait. Please bring me up to speed. Which girl tried to start shit and hide behind anonymity? Mars? Leia?
Click to expand...

Leia. This has literally been the past couple of pages. Read them.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, ChevroletBlackboard, Le Pew and 2 others
OldAmishRenegade said:
Can anyone with lawsuit experience explain how Beard and company will go about gathering information from Vic?

For example, do they simply ask him if he has any emails/texts that could be used against him and if he says no that's it, or do they actually go through his messages to see for themselves? Just curious how intrusive lawyers typically are with their own clients.
Click to expand...

Depends on whether and how much they want the truth. If you're doing criminal defense you don't necessarily want to know anything that might impede your ability to defend the client in good faith. Alan Dershowitz for instance used to up front tell his (criminal) clients that if he outright knew they were guilty he couldn't ethically advance an argument as to their actual innocence, and then let them do with that information what they wished.

If you're prosecuting the case, though, you generally want to know absolutely everything.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Rossacciu, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, ChevroletBlackboard and 8 others
Captain Manning said:
I think it depends on how much they would trust their client, or (perhaps more specifically) trust their client to comprehend what is relevant. Lawyers don't like it when client's sandbag them, but I don't think they ever presume they're sandbagging them. They need to present just enough of a case to justify a judge authorizing discovery. They don't need to lay out the entire case at the beginning.

It's unlikely Vic could hide anything relevant to his case against the defendants because, when they do discovery, they're gonna get the relevant communication from the other side. That's what leads them to solidify their case.

If he doesn't turn over stuff that isn't relevant, then it's not relevant. Like nobody gives a shit about him arranging a lunch meeting last Thursday with a completely uninvolved person.



Leia. This has literally been the past couple of pages. Read them.
Click to expand...
Still waiting on that police report from 2010 for the whole Myrla_Cat thing. staying neutral on it just due to the fact that she has been the only one being extremely specific with dates and places for once out of this whole thing.
 
Love Soze said:
Did Leia delete her account and 'someone' snapped it up right away? Cause I don't think that's even possible. Accounts don't get officially deleted for 30 days after you deactivate them, so I imagine no one can take the name until after that.
Click to expand...

It's possible. Nora Reed did it when Candace Owens deactivated the Social Autopsy account.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Sketti Land, ducktales4gameboy and 6 others
From that Japan times article, emphasis mine
Lynzee Loveridge, ANN’s managing interest editor, compiled firsthand accounts, mostly anonymous, from a handful of fans and one cosplayer, all of whom felt mistreated, insulted or physically victimized by Mignogna’s actions. ANN also published photos of the actor embracing young autograph seekers. The article consolidated and legitimized the social media posts.

“I don’t get a lot of great sleep working on these types of stories,” Loveridge tells me, recounting the hours of research and the ethical quandaries behind her reporting. “You have to almost disconnect emotionally to make sure you’re seeing everything from all sides.”
Click to expand...
A. Jinnie McManus, founder of We Run Anime Cons, a private Facebook group for con runners worldwide, believes that the Mignogna storm marks a day of reckoning for U.S. convention organizers, who may be guilty of looking the other way to maximize attendance and profits.

Previously, she says, rumors of bad behavior “were just unsubstantiated enough that conventions could look past the ugliness,” or else they were “excused by the adoration — and frankly, badge sales — shown to the difficult guests by the fans. Those days appear to be over.”
Click to expand...
How stupid are these people? There has been talk of pending litigation for weeks against everyone, but especially ANN and possible deposition or discovery about conventions with possible further actions. Now Lynzee is talking about how well researched her article was, despite having to be edited to remove at least one girl, a bunch of accusations proven to be false and how she looked at both sides. Then you have this idiot talking about a secret facebook group of convention runners WORLDWIDE and connects Vic's name to 'bad behavior' and implicates guilt.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Crabbo, Ambidextype and 6 others
AnOminous said:
Depends on whether and how much they want the truth. If you're doing criminal defense you don't necessarily want to know anything that might impede your ability to defend the client in good faith. Alan Dershowitz for instance used to up front tell his (criminal) clients that if he outright knew they were guilty he couldn't ethically advance an argument as to their actual innocence, and then let them do with that information what they wished.

If you're prosecuting the case, though, you generally want to know absolutely everything.
Click to expand...

There is no punishment for a lawyer if the client is full of shit and the lawyer simply made a good faith effort to advance their client's position and story in court.

If it were otherwise, every defense attorney would be hauled off to the stocks every time their client were found guilty. The justice system simply wouldn't work.

Punishments become an issue if the lawyers themselves participate in the fabrication or perjury. That doesn't extend to them simply introducing bad evidence when they don't know it's bad.

The verification shit that lawyers do has more to do with not wanting to deal with "gotcha" crap, and planning rebuttal, rather than any threat to their career or license.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back