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

AnOminous said:
"go hence without delay and recover. . ."

What on God's green Earth is this archaic fucking shit?

Did they paste this from fucking Dickens?

Other than that, though, this is what an answer is supposed to look like. Look at this shit, Casey, you dumb bastard. This is how you're supposed to do it.
Click to expand...
We Texans like to consult the bible in the District Courts as those very same judges have the authority of the lone star of Texas to impose death sentences in our God blesseth state.
 
  • Like
  • DRINK!
  • Informative
Reactions: Army Burger, Looney Troons, Coleman Francis and 5 others
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Army Burger and AStupidMonkey
RodgerDodger said:
Not at all. It's a perfectly acceptable response. Nice and broad. But actually attacks the elements that we know Marchi to have been involved in. Mainly the "investigation" or comments to employer and the Twitter insults. To our knowledge we don't have any direct communications between Marchi and the Cons. This is what a response is supposed to look like. Also as a reminder, of the four defendants currently being sued, the case against Marchi is probably the weakest one, going by publicly available information. So until we see the Investigation Report or something else, this one could go either way.
Click to expand...
On TI maybe, but she sure has been definitely defaming the shit out of him.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AStupidMonkey, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Riceprice and 2 others
RodgerDodger said:
Also as a reminder, of the four defendants currently being sued, the case against Marchi is probably the weakest one, going by publicly available information.
Click to expand...
The bolded piece is important to remember with Marchi. Given how hard she's been chimping and her repeated attempts to dodge service, I'm guessing that she's hiding something and I have to assume BHBH has something solid on her given that she's part of this first phase with three others that have strong cases against them.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: knux, AStupidMonkey, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz and 6 others
Sam Losco said:
I'm sure there are plenty of good arguments to be made for why they should settle, but honestly, I'm glad these morons aren't. Now we can watch them get utterly destroyed by the Beard.
Click to expand...
If Funimation has any brain cells they will.

The Three Stooges' depositions are probably going to reveal some pretty unflattering things.

Things that will make Sony very angry.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Coleman Francis, GenericReviewerDraco, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz and 5 others
Slab Bulkhead said:
Confirmed from Nick's Discord: With the hearing today, the judge made a ruling that Vic will be deposed first, however no TCPA can be filed until after both defendants have also been deposed.
Click to expand...

I think that's great that Vic goes first because it will allow Ty (or whoever handles the deposition for BHBH) to match the level of civility shown by the defendants' counsel. If their first question to Vic is "when did you stop beating your wife assaulting your fans?" then I expect Ron to have to state on record and under penalty of perjury whether he is, in fact, a cuck.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: AnotherPleb, The Littlest Shitlord, snackbar hero and 5 others
So we have another Superlawyer that from this short filing looks far more competent than one of his co defendant's. I would really like to se how he handles the "dick and balls comment" or her dodging service whilst being smug about it online. Also, good job Marchi, you have retroactively made your trolling a case of "Gotcha, I was only pretending to be a dumbass". With some luck, this guy might end up being another super sperg, or at least his client might let some gems out during discovery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: not william stenchever
talk talk talk said:
Here's Sam Johnson's brag page: https://www.johnsonsparks.com/sam-johnson

Note that he's a Rising SuperLawyer.
Click to expand...

Can he save the honor of the Super Lawyers that has been so thoroughly besmirched by the likes of Mark S. Zaid and Casey S. Erick? Stay tuned!

A2P said:
Are Super Lawyers the bar's version of twitter checkmarks?
Click to expand...

The Bar has nothing to do with it and some state bar associations have even issued disparaging ethics opinions on the unethical use of titles like this (Johnson's does not fall under these types of use).

The American Bar Association is also less than enthusiastic: "Super Lawyers" Beware.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Looney Troons, AStupidMonkey, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz and 9 others
AnOminous said:
Can he save the honor of the Super Lawyers that has been so thoroughly besmirched by the likes of Mark S. Zaid and Casey S. Erick? Stay tuned!



The Bar has nothing to do with it and some state bar associations have even issued disparaging ethics opinions on the unethical use of titles like this (Johnson's does not fall under these types of use).

The American Bar Association is also less than enthusiastic: "Super Lawyers" Beware.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, does the States have anything like the QC/SC distinction in commonwealth jurisdictions? Those are their version of "superlawyers", only actually vetted (by the regulators, government and the inns of court) with a minimum requirement of 10-15 years practice (dependant on the country) and usually requires some important cases under their belt (either massively public, or turning points of law). Or is "Superlawyer" the only equivalent?
 
Slimy Time said:
Out of interest, does the States have anything like the QC/SC distinction in commonwealth jurisdictions? Those are their version of "superlawyers", only actually vetted (by the regulators, government and the inns of court) with a minimum requirement of 10-15 years practice (dependant on the country) and usually requires some important cases under their belt (either massively public, or turning points of law). Or is "Superlawyer" the only equivalent?
Click to expand...
No, there's no equivalent of QC/SC - hence why bar associations are leery of someone being a "super lawyer" merely because they got a borderline dollar value judgement and then paid for their title.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Kosher Salt, Not A Bug and 4 others
Slimy Time said:
Out of interest, does the States have anything like the QC/SC distinction in commonwealth jurisdictions? Those are their version of "superlawyers", only actually vetted (by the regulators, government and the inns of court) with a minimum requirement of 10-15 years practice (dependant on the country) and usually requires some important cases under their belt (either massively public, or turning points of law). Or is "Superlawyer" the only equivalent?
Click to expand...

QCs aren't really the same thing, given that they gain the position by merit rather than by paying a large amount of money to a club that sells the title.
 
BoxofMonkeys said:
No, there's no equivalent of QC/SC - hence why bar associations are leery of someone being a "super lawyer" merely because they got a borderline dollar value judgement and then paid for their title.
Click to expand...
teriyakiburns said:
QCs aren't really the same thing, given that they gain the position by merit rather than by paying a large amount of money to a club that sells the title.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Given what we have seen so far on the farms, that title is a bloody joke, thanks to Zaid, Avenatti and Casey.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AStupidMonkey
Slimy Time said:
I would really like to se how he handles the "dick and balls comment" or her dodging service whilst being smug about it online.
Click to expand...

The Dick and Balls comment is the easiest to deal with. It is simply Hyperbole. Marchi hates Vic's guts. And has publicly expressed that. That is not in and of itself Defamation. Everybody keeps putting to much weight on it as a "sign of Malice". But that's not what Malice actually means in this sort of thing.

Slimy Time said:
Out of interest, does the States have anything like the QC/SC distinction in commonwealth jurisdictions? Those are their version of "superlawyers", only actually vetted (by the regulators, government and the inns of court) with a minimum requirement of 10-15 years practice (dependant on the country) and usually requires some important cases under their belt (either massively public, or turning points of law). Or is "Superlawyer" the only equivalent?
Click to expand...

No. About the only distinctions would be what States they are licensed to practice in and whether they are certified to practice in Federal Court. Some Jurisdictions will require that in a Death Penalty Case at least one member of the defense team have tried a DP case before. And I believe there may be a similar requirement or recommendation in arguing before the US Supreme Court at least one person on the team has to have brought a case before SCOTUS previously. I'm not sure if that is a hard and fast rule or just a best practice recommendation to avoid total twits like LandUI wasting the high courts time.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: AStupidMonkey, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, talk talk talk and 7 others
RodgerDodger said:
The Dick and Balls comment is the easiest to deal with. It is simply Hyperbole. Marchi hates Vic's guts. And has publicly expressed that. That is not in and of itself Defamation. Everybody keeps putting to much weight on it as a "sign of Malice". But that's not what Malice actually means in this sort of thing.



No. About the only distinctions would be what States they are licensed to practice in and whether they are certified to practice in Federal Court. Some Jurisdictions will require that in a Death Penalty Case at least one member of the defense team have tried a DP case before. And I believe there may be a similar requirement or recommendation in arguing before the US Supreme Court at least one person on the team has to have brought a case before SCOTUS previously. I'm not sure if that is a hard and fast rule or just a best practice recommendation to avoid total twits like LandUI wasting the high courts time.
Click to expand...
Thing is, with Ronica, the initial claim was public defamation, civil conspiracy and TI. With Funi, it was (I suppose I infer) defamation and civil conspiracy. Marchi seems to have had little public face in this, so her inclusion is probably for defamation that took place in other contexts, TI, or something along those lines. We've not seen what evidence BHBH is presenting yet, apart from the publicly announced stuff. My gut says Marchi was involved more behind the scenes and that's where they're going to attack her.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RodgerDodger
Slimy Time said:
Out of interest, does the States have anything like the QC/SC distinction in commonwealth jurisdictions? Those are their version of "superlawyers",
Click to expand...

No they aren't, those are actually qualified people and "Super Lawyer" means fucking zip. It means you paid some bunch of jerks for a bullshit title.

RodgerDodger said:
No. About the only distinctions would be what States they are licensed to practice in and whether they are certified to practice in Federal Court.
Click to expand...

Membership in the bar of the federal district where you practice is just a formality, generally. You have to pay a fee (of course) and qualify (some online CLE thing) and take an oath.

RodgerDodger said:
The Dick and Balls comment is the easiest to deal with. It is simply Hyperbole. Marchi hates Vic's guts. And has publicly expressed that. That is not in and of itself Defamation.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying it's defamation. It's clear evidence that she hates his guts. That's why she would deliberately tell lies about him. That's why it's entirely believable that she would make false statements about him with knowledge of their falsity, or would show complete disregard for whether they were true or false. She would do it because she hates him and wishes to do him harm.

RodgerDodger said:
This is what a response is supposed to look like. Also as a reminder, of the four defendants currently being sued, the case against Marchi is probably the weakest one, going by publicly available information.
Click to expand...

That may be why she's answering much earlier than required. Her counsel may think she has a decent chance at a TCPA, unlike the other defendants, and is trying to get out ahead of it, which would actually be a smarter strategy than Casey's "act like a retard and then plead retardation" strategy.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Clockwork Dragon, not william stenchever, RodgerDodger and 6 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back