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

[Jub-Jub]

Are they actually taunting the process server here?

The guy attempted 5 times between 1st-9th of May (before comicpalooza), left multiple cards, saw her car out front multiple times, saw 'someone' looking out of the window and saw a cable guy appointment that was missed.

Doesn't really matter what the crazy bitch has to say once the judge signs the service motion, he'll know that she's been dodging.

 

[Immortal Technique]

That's a troon who's been spouting the same line for months, won't name the convention, time or place though. Casey should include him, it'd be funny to see him damage his clients more.

I hope BHBH responds to the PULL citation instead of getting that part struck. The archive missing most of the current post will be funny and the top 'other problem' is Vic not signing Yaoi so lets bring that subject to a Texas jury.

The troon's definition of "misbehavior" would be funny to hear. 1 to 1 odds it's going to involve: rude-rape, hug-rape, sandwich-stealing-rape, wasn't-sexually-interesting-in-me-rape etc etc

 

[pearlslam]

The advantages of civil RICO that would be of use to this case are already available in civil conspiracy. The major disadvantages are absent, as well as the collateral disadvantage that filing a federal RICO would move the case straight to federal court (because the defendants would immediately file to remove), which wouldn't help the plaintiff in the least.

To pick your brain a little (and search engines have returned goose egg), I know that Texas has a "Little RICO" law (Penal Code, Title 11, Chapter 71, Section 71.02), but is there a version that applies to civil cases as well?

 

[teriyakiburns]

Ron and Monica may have 1 witness they can call in: https://archive.fo/pn2LzView attachment 761188

This feels like they're joining two separate clauses together with that "and". They're a "fellow victim". They're "a witness of Vic's misbehavior". Unless Vic has a secret tranny fetish, the only victimisation this person has suffered has been to watch other people get attention, which then becomes reframed as molestation to further the victim's internal narrative about the whole situation.

tl;dr he's lying to himself to square the internal contradictions of his claims.

 

[AnOminous]

To pick your brain a little (and search engines have returned goose egg), I know that Texas has a "Little RICO" law (Penal Code, Title 11, Chapter 71, Section 71.02), but is there a version that applies to civil cases as well?

I wasn't able to find one in a two minute long search but if there is one, it isn't apparently hugely popular.

If Ty thought something like that would actually be the proper implement to use, he would have used it.

 

[PrinceofAllCucks]

Ron and Monica may have 1 witness they can call in: https://archive.fo/pn2LzView attachment 761188


Though not sure how reliable this person would be - I scraped their recent tweets, it seems like over half of what they say is about Vic and it's all super recent (see the attached csv if interested)

I've replied to them in the past. The most damning thing is literally "an ass grab in the green room." No witnesses to the event, claims knowing of others who "witnessed his past behavior" and won't give any real details on when it was or at what con. At least from what I recall.

 

[Terry77]

Greetings to all.

I am new here and I must say: that Alex Jones CAPTCHA is a brilliant mechanism for filtering members for this forum community; you know what you're getting .

I was referred by a Youtuber on this subject (I forgot his name). I've only been able to skim a portion of the thread, so pardon my incomplete knowledge of the subject matter (Also, I am not a lawyer).

In a civil wrong you are obligated to pay the plaintiff for what you did wrong. It is a private action between private parties mediated by the court system.

The criminal court system is between the government and a citizen, with the full power of the government coming down on that citizen.

Being thrown in prison by the government and having your freedom completely taken away because someone disagreed with what you said and has the power to have it declared legally false is completely different than that.

Am I right in my presumption that the Federal government usually doesn't have jurisdiction in defamation cases, which are almost always handled at the State and local county level? It has always been my general assumption thus, but I never really asked a lawyer or had it properly referenced.

that only means that they will get more work... the whole scene is full of sjws.

Is it realistic? Yes. Why do you think Ty Beard agreed to give Funi extra time to respond? As to who it would cover? Funimation and it's management. And likely the Sony HR lady that actually fired Vic. Who wouldn't it cover? Any of the contractors. Marchi, MoRonica, anybody else that gets dragged in. And don't think any Sony/Funimation settlement would be cheap. It will be cost effective by Sony's standards. But it would be a big payout. It would also almost certainly involve Funimation and Sony flipping all of their HR records and related communications over to BHBH for use against any other players. What will almost certainly trigger Sony demanding to Funi that it all gets settled quickly and quietly is if an internal review by legal finds any irregularities in the original investigation and HR actions. Things like, it failed to follow the published and required Texas state requirements for such investigations. It failed to notice that all the accusers lived with RonRon. It failed to notice that the accusers and RonRon were using the investigation as part of a racketeering scam to drive Vic out of the Cons. That sort of thing.

I am obviously not even a legal neophyte. A paranoid one at that. So please set me straight...

I think you discount how deviant SONY's corporate culture is.

Isn't the most egregious defamation being committed by the SONY investigator(s), not by any VA or contractor at Funi? I dismiss the twitter warriors, since they are clearly misanthropes - but the real antagonist Vic faces are SONY corporate employees who claimed to have investigated the matter on the facts, and publicly concluded they were true enough to fire Vic.

That is the bright line that was crossed, isn't it? SONY could have stopped everything at any time, or at least done nothing, and instead was obligated (or capricious) enough to stipulate and advertise publicly that the accusations were "True".

Given the nature of limited liability financial arrangements, what are the odds that some SONY actors decided:

1) that they weren't going to be dictated to by whoever insisted on Vic's employment (whom they have a cultural disgust towards) at one of their holdings.

2) that Funimation is expendable because they had a shell-game of assets with another company.

3) that SONY will be save face, and anyone who tried to get at the truth would be deterred by their massive legal resources (I'm not sure how good Vic's lawyer is, but I'm not sure it matters against SONY's corporate legal offices)

4) and that ultimately, SONY sets a precendent that any creator or IP who tries to force "uncultured" personnel on SONY will have those personnel slandered and libeled out of business, at little cost to SONY itself.

I just think #4 is easily worth it to SONY for just a few million dollars (the PR hit is nothing to SONY, they don't lose any face), because even if we're not talking about eccentric SONY executives, SONY controls access and distribution in the industry, and this gives them more "credibility" to dictate terms at the negotiating table. The threat and precendence is now very real, regardless of the outcome of Vic's lawsuit. Is it worth a million dollars or even a multiple of that? In the larger scheme of things across SONY's holdings - I think it definitely is.

As personal and unprofessional as it gets, you would be surprised how media corporate cultures regard these shenanigans as "business".

 

[AnOminous]

I am obviously not even a legal neophyte. A paranoid one at that. So please set me straight...

I think you discount how deviant SONY's corporate culture is.

Sony sucks, but the specific actors in this (legal "actors" and literal VAs) were all there at Funimation before Sony even bought it. This has a lot more to do with Gen Fukunaga, previous owner and honcho of Funimation, leaving and selling to Sony, because he was pro-Vic and the cabal of losers who went after Vic waited, like the cowards they are, until he was gone before doing this.

 

[Terry77]

Sony sucks, but the specific actors in this (legal "actors" and literal VAs) were all there at Funimation before Sony even bought it. This has a lot more to do with Gen Fukunaga, previous owner and honcho of Funimation, leaving and selling to Sony, because he was pro-Vic and the cabal of losers who went after Vic waited, like the cowards they are, until he was gone before doing this.

I know that Vic Mignogna was only brought in through a third party, outside SONY and Funi, and that the third party had intellectual rights to force the employment (Fukunaga then?)

I also know about mergers and acquisitions, and I can say the biggest problem is the culture clash taht sometimes isn't handled well - it's not abnormal to see a lot of turnover.

SONY's - and SONY of America's - corporate culture is sympathetic to "defining deviancy down". For the most part, this isn't a culture of engineers - they're primarily a media corporate culture and holding company.

Would that be the primary dynamic reason why Vic was scrapped so brazenly? Unprofessional? Yes. Legally incompetent? Probably, but this behavior was probably applauded inside SONY. It appears to me that they went out of their way to humiliate Vic - in spite of the known legal consequences.

Vic's an outsider of the native corporate culture, no?

Oh I see what you're saying. Fukunaga was the original owner who hired Vic, and was bought out by SONY - which was when these deviants started to accuse Vic publicly, and SONY gave Vic the Axe.

 

[repentance]

RICO exists to prosecute shadowy underworld organizations where it would be tricky to untangle the layers involved. This lawsuit doesn't NEED that, the people and company involved are being sued directly as-is. There is no shadow organization hiding from justice.

The organisations don't really need to be shadowy. Back in the day there were unions whose activities/behaviours included racketeering and corruption.

Isn't the most egregious defamation being committed by the SONY investigator(s), not by any VA or contractor at Funi? I dismiss the twitter warriors, since they are clearly misanthropes - but the real antagonist Vic faces are SONY corporate employees who claimed to have investigated the matter on the facts, and publicly concluded they were true enough to fire Vic.

Defamation would only be relevant in respect of SONY if they made defamatory statements about Vic outside of privilege. They haven't been going around making public statements about Vic and/or the investigation (unlike Funi).

Their investigation seems to have been flawed, but that's a separate issue and Vic isn't pursuing action for wrongful termination. Nor is Funi really in a situation where it can try to throw SONY under a bus.

 

[CheezzyMach]

The organisations don't really need to be shadowy. Back in the day there were unions whose activities/behaviours included racketeering and corruption.



Defamation would only be relevant in respect of SONY if they made defamatory statements about Vic outside of privilege. They haven't been going around making public statements about Vic and/or the investigation (unlike Funi).

Their investigation seems to have been flawed, but that's a separate issue and Vic isn't pursuing action for wrongful termination. Nor is Funi really in a situation where it can try to throw SONY under a bus.

They also haven't been trying to destroy his reputation and other business ventures like the Funi Club.

In fact the only thing Sony seems to be guilty of *thus far* is choosing to fire Vic to appease the screechers.

They chose to back the wrong horse basically.

If this case goes completely south and hits Mexico I doubt they'll repeat that mistake in the future.

 

[AnOminous]

They also haven't been trying to destroy his reputation and other business ventures like the Funi Club.

In fact the only thing Sony seems to be guilty of *thus far* is choosing to fire Vic to appease the screechers.

They chose to back the wrong horse basically.

If this case goes completely south and hits Mexico I doubt they'll repeat that mistake in the future.

Sony didn't fire him, though. Technically, Funimation didn't either because he worked on contract. They simply did not make another contract with him, which is why the suit is for tortious interference with business prospects against the other defendants and not against Funimation for wrongful termination.

 

[Cakeisjustok]

I doubt he was in on it and from the looks of things Ron probably misrepresented it to Andy. We know from the timeline that Ron was only ever interested in setting up the sponsorship so that he could threaten to take it away later. As far as Andy was concerned it was just a legitimate opportunity for them to market their business to potential customers, and little more than that. I can't think of an immediate or good reason why Andy would have an axe to grind with Vic so it's pretty unlikely he's part of the scheme.

Even if he's somehow exceptional enough to be in on it (I mean he does associate with Ron after all so it's a possibility) he's probably going to throw Ron under the bus to shield himself from any liability. Either way we get the same story from Andy. Ron wouldn't want to challenge that story either if he hopes to have somewhere to work afterwards, but I wouldn't be surprised if he gets canned either way. In one case he tried to drag the company into his own stupid shit and exposed it to liability, and in the other case he was stupid enough to get caught and exposed the scheme.

Yeah I don't think Andy knew of Ron's plan, but he was involved in looking into the sponsorship for the company. This at least give validity of there being a consideration for the sponsorship and I think open him up for being a target of discovery. I do wonder what Ron said to Andy about it in regards to Vic.

 

[ChevroletBlackboard]

I'm guessing Jamie can be punished for skipping getting served. IIRC the document mentioned just asking for permission to pin the fucking thing to her wall, but can a judge go up from there if she still refuses to respond, like a fine of a contempt of court charge?

 

[Far Queue]

Maybe I'm misremembering this or I've gotten it mixed up with something else, but before the announcement about the investigation saying that they were terminating Vic (while implying he had sexually harassed people) wasn't there an announcement about there being an investigation but the results being inconclusive?

I did a quick glance back through the first post in the main forum, but didn't see anything, but then again that's just a summary. Anyone else recall if that was the case or if I'm clearly just making shit up in my head?

 

[PrinceofAllCucks]

I'm guessing Jamie can be punished for skipping getting served. IIRC the document mentioned just asking for permission to pin the fucking thing to her wall, but can a judge go up from there if she still refuses to respond, like a fine of a contempt of court charge?

At that point, she's technically been served in the eyes of the court. If she refuses to give a response, Ty motions to default judgement and we all laugh as Jamie gets carted out of Ty's new house.

 

[repentance]

I'm guessing Jamie can be punished for skipping getting served. IIRC the document mentioned just asking for permission to pin the fucking thing to her wall, but can a judge go up from there if she still refuses to respond, like a fine of a contempt of court charge?

No. She'll get served by alternative means and lose by default if she doesn't file an answer.

Maybe I'm misremembering this or I've gotten it mixed up with something else, but before the announcement about the investigation saying that they were terminating Vic (while implying he had sexually harassed people) wasn't there an announcement about there being an investigation but the results being inconclusive?

I recall an inconclusive investigation being mentioned, but I don't recall it happening before Funi's announcement or it coming from an informed source. I don't think we dug into it much.

I do recall Nick asking how many investigations there had been, though - suggesting that he was getting conflicting information about that.

 

[ChevroletBlackboard]

At that point, she's technically been served in the eyes of the court. If she refuses to give a response, Ty motions to default judgement and we all laugh as Jamie gets carted out of Ty's new house.

As someone who doesn't know a lot of legalese, what does default mean in this case?

 

[Cakeisjustok]

I'm guessing Jamie can be punished for skipping getting served. IIRC the document mentioned just asking for permission to pin the fucking thing to her wall, but can a judge go up from there if she still refuses to respond, like a fine of a contempt of court charge?

If she doesn't respond it goes to default judgement. She will just lose the case automatically. This isn't likely but it would be one of the dumbest things that could be done.

As someone who doesn't know a lot of legalese, what does default mean in this case?

Basically you lose without trial. Just goes right to the damages phase.

 

[repentance]

As someone who doesn't know a lot of legalese, what does default mean in this case?

It means that as long as there's enough in the initial pleadings to establish that she did wrong, she loses.

She would be absolutely insane to let that happen. Even if she has no money, she can still settle with the plaintiffs on some other terms. There is no requirement that the terms of settlement be the same for each defendant. That's why Nick keeps saying whoever settles first gets the best deal.