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

BigDuckEnergy said:
Damn, Chuck Huber going scorched earth in his affidavit.

Don't fuck with the Chuck.

Don't try to FUBAR the Huber.
Click to expand...
X-posted from the Weeb Wars thread:
sabat-tweet-png.915688
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Coach Kreeton Of All That, The Littlest Shitlord and 27 others
garakfan69 said:
For someone who took the SJW kool-aid, Chuck really is a stand-up guy.

I just hope he still has a career after this.
Click to expand...
I'm not willing to say he fully drank the kool-aid. Looks to me like he was surrounded by people who realized he was sympathetic to vic, so they sold him the version of events that made him want to help vic, but it was help engineered to only make things worse by those people who fed him bullshit.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Yuusha-sama, ConSluttant and 7 others
TexOffender said:
This man is calling other people incels? I know he has a couple of crotch-fruit but he looks like he needs to beg for sex. Wonder how much begging he had to get to get the wife to say yes.
Click to expand...

I doubt Darth Inhaler can have sex in his mosquito debilitated condition. Why do you think he is so bitter and angry? Why do you think he is so obsessed with Nick who has 5 kids?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Littlest Shitlord
This is what happens when you piss off good lawyers that know what they're doing, If everything in that affidavit is true then Funimation is buried. It's something we all knew that'd happen but it feels good to see it all finally come together.
 
AnOminous said:
Hearsay is anything where you said you heard someone else say something, or otherwise are talking about an out of court statement of someone not available to testify at that time. For instance, a police officer is generally not allowed just to read from his own written report at the time, at least as evidence, although the usual excuse for consulting it while testifying it is to "refresh recollection."

What people say when they make a hearsay objection is that something is INADMISSIBLE hearsay.

Inadmissible hearsay is by the most common definition "an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein."

Often this is acronymized as OTOMA.

Offered for the
Truth
Of the
Matter
Asserted.

This is the test for presumptively inadmissible hearsay.

Is it a quoted statement of someone who is not in the court?
Is it offered to prove that the statement IN the quote, itself, true?

A statement can be inadmissible hearsay for one purpose and admissible for another.

For instance: "I heard Chris Sabat say that Ron Toye is a wife-beating pedophile but I keep him around for now because he's useful."

If you were offering that statement to prove that Ron Toye is a wife-beating pedophile, it would be inadmissible for that purpose.

If you were using it to prove that Chris Sabat SAID that, and by doing so defamed Ron Toye, it would be admissible for that purpose. If you heard him say that, the fact that he said that would be a matter within your personal knowledge.

Just because something is presumptively inadmissible hearsay doesn't mean it's inadmissible, though. There are 23 enumerated hearsay exceptions just in federal court, including a catch-all exception for almost anything the court feels like.
Click to expand...
There seem to be end-arounds to this. In my experience, cops usually use language like "suspect advised that..." and that just flies in court as prima-facie, even when I'm represented. Even when it's nothing near what anyone actually said. Laywers are usually 100% correct when they say "don't talk to police without me." Being honest seems to lead to a good possibility they'll just lie anyways. SO glad bodycams are a thing now.
 
  • Feels
  • Winner
  • Disagree
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Airtight2.0, Prompt Critical and 2 others
Legioneer said:
They just played out the defendants like a bunch of cats with a laser pointer.
A huge tribute must be paid to the BHBH. Nick Rekieta is very clever, but here you can see a huge amount of experience.

Compared to the strategy Nick proposed in the beginning, it's a whole new level.

1) They only appointed those who screamed loudest as defendants, and apparently TCPA is already in their pocket.

2) They played coy and allowed lawyers and supporters of the defendants to mock their firm and their incompetence, while quietly solving all their problems. And Vic's reputation suddenly began to recover rapidly.

3) Even at this stage, Vick's support group grew, became stronger, and a lot of people changed their minds.

4) 2-3 days before the deadline, there was a leak about Ron, and everyone thought it was the main weapon, and they were already rubbing their hands as they would masterfully defeat it.

5) One day before the deadline, the media leaked the porno-audio from Funimation and everyone thought it was a bomb.

6) Immediately after the deadline, they did reveal the cards. And it turned out that the previous one was just a warm-up. And that the defendants behaved exactly as the plaintiff needed. And the future defendants (Sabat and Shimel) did not do anything all this time, and now they are screwed.

7) This whole 3-day artillery information campaign is just a masterpiece. Even if it was partly by coincidence.

I think Lemoine already has a lot less desire to joke about the "master of strategies". Because this is a strategy played at the God level.
Click to expand...
The really amazing thing is that this is the opening volley. Ty doesn't strike me as the type to reveal his whole hand at the start.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Botchy Galoop, räkäkäpälä and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back