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

[DragoonSierra]

You could actually make a good point as to why this should be admissible; it could actually have an effect on the result of the case. It establishes a potential scenario, with significantly different degrees of liability compared to the "normal" situation. If Ron repeated this behavior and threatened Monica into doing this, his blame goes up significantly. As such, he would have a significantly higher portion of the blame, and would likely end up with a higher judgement against him compared to Monica. It actually being the case or not might not be relevant, as all that matters is making the jury think it did happen and things like these documents would be essential to that. It's up to Ty and Vic to decide on this in the end, but it's not like there is no relevance when it reveals a new potential scenario. At the very least, it allows the plaintiff to say "we believe this might be the case because he has a pattern of doing similar things."

The defendants affidavits on the other hand are only suitable for the social media campaign against Vic. Even if true, they wouldn't prove TI didn't happen, nor would they prove the statements to not be false and/or defamatory. They don't serve a purpose in the lawsuit, at all.

Could that reach into the level of blackmail?

Using character evidence to show that the defendant did what he did in the current case just because he's the kind of person who does such things because he did it in the past is exactly the kind of character evidence that is generally inadmissible.

To get it in you usually need another reason, or the defendant has to open the door to it by saying he didn't do this thing because he isn't the kind of person who does such things, and even then, you'd still have to overcome the prejudicial aspects of it to get it in.

I think this more or less nukes any attempt Ron has of trying to portray his motives as good because he's just some innocent whammen-believing white knight who got fooled into believing lies because he's just such a melting pot of wokeness.

At that point, the fact that he's a violent piece of shit who is a serial domestic abuser who beat up and threatened BOTH women he married actually is relevant, because the professed noble motives he wants to proffer to mitigate damages for his lies are just a sham. He's not a noble white knight. He's a subhuman piece of shit, and the jury should know that rather than his fictional bullshit.

So it probably can't directly be used but to avoid it being admissible, Ron is going to have to abandon any bullshit self-hagiography and be visibly evasive about lots of shit.

Because if he opens the door even a bit, the Ghost of Wife-Beatings Past is going to burst right through like the fucking Kool-Aid Man.

Could it be used to impeach the sheepdog line?

Big brain theory here but what if they havent turned over discovery because there are text messages that show that Ron is forcing Monica to do this, is abusing her and hes just jealous of how friendly Vic is with her?

I also nominate the last sentense to be in the random.txt

 

[N1bbaN3rd]

Couchette is still on about how the abuse case had no filing number.

Can't wait to see him backpedal during the next stream. He'll probably shift the goalposts to "ACKSHUALLY Ron was never charged with assault!"

 

[Imperial Agent]

Yeah very much this, but I dont think Monica can demonstrate ron forced her

She doesn’t need to. She just needs a believable story to spin for a jury and to tell her fans if/when she settles/loses.

 

[AnOminous]

This whole debacle is an excellent example of why Monica and Ron should NOT file jointly. Their interests have just very clearly diverged. Any lawyer worth his salt would be trying to run Monica’s case in the directions Nick laid out. “My client didn’t do this, but even if she did, it’s not her fault, Ron forced her!”

Arguably, any lawyer who isn't already planning to conflict out of this somehow is committing malpractice.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

She doesn’t need to. She just needs a believable story to spin for a jury and to tell her fans if/when she settles/loses.

But that requires self awareness. I dont believe monica has any

 

[Imperial Agent]

But that requires self awareness. I dont believe monica has any

That’s what lawyers are for. They aren’t exempt from providing competent defenses just because their clients are morons.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

That’s what lawyers are for. They aren’t exempt from providing competent defenses just because their clients are morons.

though some times the clients request incompetent defenses thou

 

[AnOminous]

To go back less than a month ago:

You don't need permission to make a joint defense, with or without separate lawyers. Also putting forward a joint defense gives you a privilege similar to attorney-client privilege for at least the details of the defense. It could be malpractice not to warn the clients of the dangers of such a defense and the potential of conflict of interest and get a waiver, but if there is a waiver, the conflict would have to be nonwaivable before the court would have to step in and conflict out the counsel.

A competent lawyer would have already informed his clients of the potential of such a conflict of interest and obtained a written waiver that he had advised them of this and that they undertook a joint defense knowing of the possibility of such a situation arising.

Now the situation has arisen. The conflict of interest has ripened into one that, depending on the exact situation, may be now non-waivable.

And to go back again to a month ago in an earlier discussion of what would happen if this situation arose:

Only if they split up and were adverse to each other. They do actually currently have adverse interests, in that there are arguments one could pursue that would be good for Ron and bad for Monica or vice versa, but these have not ripened into a non-waivable conflict of interest. If they ever do end up actively adverse, though, no lawyer who represented both of them could represent either of them. They'd both have to get previously uninvolved counsel, so two more lawyers.

Now the situation has arisen. The conflict of interest has ripened into one that, depending on the exact situation, may be now non-waivable.

A competent lawyer would have already informed his clients of the potential of such a conflict of interest and obtained a written waiver that he had advised them of this and that they undertook a joint defense knowing of the possibility of such a situation arising. What do you want to guess any of these fucking clowns did such a thing?

Now they're in a situation where the conflict of interest has erupted in an obvious way and they're about a week out from a major hearing on a dispositive motion that determines the fortunes of the case.

If either client is prejudiced by this and they don't have such a waiver in hand, their lying-ass clients would have every incentive to claim never to have been informed of the potential of a situation like this, since after all, their counsel are the fancy pants Super Lawyers who should have known and told them about it.

But if they don't go ahead and tell them this now, they risk committing even more severe malpractice, and getting sued by one or both of their former clients, as well as no future fees because they'll be off the case entirely.

Defense counsel has some sleepless nights ahead.

I bet Ty and the Amazons will be sleeping like babies.

 

[Autism Powers]

Using character evidence to show that the defendant did what he did in the current case just because he's the kind of person who does such things because he did it in the past is exactly the kind of character evidence that is generally inadmissible.

To get it in you usually need another reason, or the defendant has to open the door to it by saying he didn't do this thing because he isn't the kind of person who does such things, and even then, you'd still have to overcome the prejudicial aspects of it to get it in.

I think this more or less nukes any attempt Ron has of trying to portray his motives as good because he's just some innocent whammen-believing white knight who got fooled into believing lies because he's just such a melting pot of wokeness.

At that point, the fact that he's a violent piece of shit who is a serial domestic abuser who beat up and threatened BOTH women he married actually is relevant, because the professed noble motives he wants to proffer to mitigate damages for his lies are just a sham. He's not a noble white knight. He's a subhuman piece of shit, and the jury should know that rather than his fictional bullshit.

So it probably can't directly be used but to avoid it being admissible, Ron is going to have to abandon any bullshit self-hagiography and be visibly evasive about lots of shit.

Because if he opens the door even a bit, the Ghost of Wife-Beatings Past is going to burst right through like the fucking Kool-Aid Man.

In his depo Ron said he was angry with Vic. And look judge in this divorce case we can see what Ron does when he is angry

The True Power of the Patriarchy

I'm not a fan of having a young shirtless boy on my channel

m.youtube.com

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

So if you do a Waiver can you say

"In the event of conflict of interest you agree to terminate me as counsel"

?

 

[Imperial Agent]

though some times the clients request incompetent defenses thou

The lawyer is still responsible for the legal strategy, and answers to the court/bar for whatever strategy he puts forth.

If there comes a time when a lawyer’s belief on the best legal strategy and the client’s demands become irreconcilable, then that is when the Lawyer makes a request to withdraw from the case.

 

[Autism Powers]

At the very least BHBH should bring it in, with a number of reasonable arguments as to why, and let Casey and Lemonfuhrer fight to keep it out. Giving it even more exposure

Yes they defamed Vic in official court fillings, let the truce about Ron come out. Isn't they wanted truce to come out? Now Ron's tweet "Lets see who ends up registered sex offender" looks even funnier

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

The lawyer is still responsible for the legal strategy, and answers to the court/bar for whatever strategy he puts forth.

If there comes a time when a lawyer’s belief on the best legal strategy and the client’s demands become irreconcilable, then that is when the Lawyer makes a request to withdraw from the case.

Sounds like that and the possibility of a Waiver of conflict of interest stuff could be getting interesting

 

[AnOminous]

So if you do a Waiver can you say

"In the event of conflict of interest you agree to terminate me as counsel"

?

You have to do more than that. You have to inform them why that might happen and what would be the downsides of it. It has to be something that would make sense to a layperson. You also can't have them preemptively agree to waive malpractice claims. And depending on the situation, you might even be required to outright tell them to get counsel (other than themselves) to advise them on whether waiving is even a good idea.

Making self-interested contracts and waivers with clients solely to get yourself off the hook is highly frowned upon and a violation of ethics.

Some lawyers will outright refuse to do joint defenses for that very reason, and judges will sometimes order a lawyer off a case in a blatant enough example.

Also Ty could actually move to disqualify. The court is obligated to respond to obvious conflicts of interest that are clearly prejudicial to a party. However, for obvious reasons, courts are skeptical of the kindly motives of lawyers asking them to kick off the other side's lawyers.

 

[RodgerDodger]

The conflict here might not even be in the way we are thinking. Yes this might be overly prejudicial, but only regarding Ron. It is however extremely valid evidence with which to call into question Monica’s judgement regarding things such as abuse and assault. Her last two boyfriends were literally a Pedophile and a serial violent abuser. Yet it is Vic eating a jelly bean that she finds problematic. This discovery is directly on point regarding many of Monica’s actions. That has to put things in a very difficult place for MoRonica’s lawyers.

 

[AStupidMonkey]

Using character evidence to show that the defendant did what he did in the current case just because he's the kind of person who does such things because he did it in the past is exactly the kind of character evidence that is generally inadmissible.

To get it in you usually need another reason, or the defendant has to open the door to it by saying he didn't do this thing because he isn't the kind of person who does such things, and even then, you'd still have to overcome the prejudicial aspects of it to get it in.

I think this more or less nukes any attempt Ron has of trying to portray his motives as good because he's just some innocent whammen-believing white knight who got fooled into believing lies because he's just such a melting pot of wokeness.

At that point, the fact that he's a violent piece of shit who is a serial domestic abuser who beat up and threatened BOTH women he married actually is relevant, because the professed noble motives he wants to proffer to mitigate damages for his lies are just a sham. He's not a noble white knight. He's a subhuman piece of shit, and the jury should know that rather than his fictional bullshit.

So it probably can't directly be used but to avoid it being admissible, Ron is going to have to abandon any bullshit self-hagiography and be visibly evasive about lots of shit.

Because if he opens the door even a bit, the Ghost of Wife-Beatings Past is going to burst right through like the fucking Kool-Aid Man.

At the risk of proposing a bit of a fishing expedition, I think it'd be entirely fair to re-depose Ron and ask him why he thought "protector of women" was an accurate description of himself, among other things. Remember, his reasoning for defaming Vic was that Vic is a predator who needed defamin'.

EDIT: While we're on the topic... wouldn't it be just really super wise for Ron "make my supper or I chop up the pupper" Toye to be the first one to the settlement table, now? That is, assuming he's not willing to fall on his social justice sword for twitter points.

 

[AnOminous]

At the risk of proposing a bit of a fishing expedition, I think it'd be entirely fair to re-depose Ron and ask him why he thought "protector of women" was an accurate description of himself, among other things. Remember, his reasoning for defaming Vic was that Vic is a predator who needed defamin'.

EDIT: While we're on the topic... wouldn't it be just really super wise for Ron "make my supper or I chop up the pupper" Toye to be the first one to the settlement table, now? That is, assuming he's not willing to fall on his social justice sword for twitter points.

Who can he turn over? For what? The only thing he can settle for is a lot of fucking money and the most groveling of apologies and complete retractions and agreement to a permanent shut the fuck up or owe a million bucks instantly if you don't.

I mean I'm assuming that. Probably Ty (and Vic who is the captain of the case) would be reasonable but they have no reason at all to go easy on that fruitcake because nobody needs him at all. The sheepdog is Old Yeller to the SJWs who are sucking the soy out of his micropenis now if he retracts anything. All they care about is that he's currently attacking their lynch victim.

 

[Tight pantaloons]

To be fair, the narrative also explains otherwise disparate facts which prior had been odd outliers. Why did Rial do this out of the blue? Why was Toye the one to contact a business venue and not Marchi or Rial? Why did the twins suddenly sign on out of nowhere? Why DID Toye decide to sit in on Rial's deposition with a clear intent to intimidate?

It also very neatly explains why Toye has acted how he has. Why go for a direct, bulllying strategy? because it is how he operates to get what he wants normally. A violent, ill tempered man will nigh universally get used to people avoiding confrontation and bending at the first sign of his bellow. If they don't, he bellows louder. Can you think of a better description? It would -also- explain why they have, the the bafflement of everyone here, continued to file all their stuff as one. If Toye allows Rial off the leash, she might get thoughts of her own. If he is an abuser and if he was an architect to this, he -cannot- allow her off it.

I'd propose that the narrative, as a whole, better explains their actions as a whole than anything yet theorized by the Farms.

This is something I've been thinking through myself, it always seemed odd to me that so much tied back to Ron, defending your fiance is one thing but he was practically obsessed and so... Driven (if that makes sense) he seemed like he was on a mission or something, like he was trying to keep control over the situation it would explain why he took so long to get off Twatter even after Casey told him to stop the first time, he NEEDED to try and keep control of the narrative just as he obviously has a need to control women.

That was a ramble, sorry just working through my train of thought

 

[AStupidMonkey]

Who can he turn over? For what? The only thing he can settle for is a lot of fucking money and the most groveling of apologies and complete retractions and agreement to a permanent shut the fuck up or owe a million bucks instantly if you don't.

I mean I'm assuming that. Probably Ty (and Vic who is the captain of the case) would be reasonable but they have no reason at all to go easy on that fruitcake because nobody needs him at all. The sheepdog is Old Yeller to the SJWs who are sucking the soy out of his micropenis now if he retracts anything. All they care about is that he's currently attacking their lynch victim.

If you mean the hypothetical settlement, I was just thinking it would be wise for Ron. We've known for a long time that he has nothing to bring to the table except cutting himself loose for slightly less money, and screwing over KickVic's optics (ie if he pleads out, what does that say about Monica and Marchi?)

If you mean "are these questions reasonably likely to produce evidence," I just think it'd help show the court what a lying weasel he is. After all, it's not like he's going to show up in a wifebeater and glare at the judge. (Not that anything surprises me any more.) Though there ain't a doubt in my mind he's sitting on evidence that'd torpedo his whole case, especially the TI. But he's probably taking those to his grave. His very stupid, very shallow, and soon-to-be-penniless grave.

Personally, I've been saying since day one that I hope Vic and Ty don't let any of these fuckers off the hook. And I constantly fear that Vic is going to throw his hands up and say "I've made my point, I'm done now." Because that's something a good Christian, let alone a good Samaritan, would up and do. For my druthers, I hope Vic keeps his war pants on.

 

[I can't imagine]

If you mean the hypothetical settlement, I was just thinking it would be wise for Ron. We've known for a long time that he has nothing to bring to the table except cutting himself loose for slightly less money, and screwing over KickVic's optics (ie if he pleads out, what does that say about Monica and Marchi?)

If you mean "are these questions reasonably likely to produce evidence," I just think it'd help show the court what a lying weasel he is. After all, it's not like he's going to show up in a wifebeater and glare at the judge. (Not that anything surprises me any more.) Though there ain't a doubt in my mind he's sitting on evidence that'd torpedo his whole case, especially the TI. But he's probably taking those to his grave. His very stupid, very shallow, and soon-to-be-penniless grave.

Personally, I've been saying since day one that I hope Vic and Ty don't let any of these fuckers off the hook. And I constantly fear that Vic is going to throw his hands up and say "I've made my point, I'm done now." Because that's something a good Christian, let alone a good Samaritan, would up and do. For my druthers, I hope Vic keeps his war pants on.

I mean, ultimately, settling is very much the definition of not letting them get off the hook. In fact, in some ways it can help "make things right" more than an actual jury decision, since the jury can't make the defendants admit they lied, apologize publicly, or any of that stuff. On the other hand, if all he has to offer is money and an apology, it's questionable if it's worth it, since the case against him is really, really strong. He'd probably have to have something useful in terms of evidence for settlement to be a viable option.