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

[AnIncredibleDerp]

I mean, given everything that has happened, why should he stop now?

It is amusing precisely because it is accurate.

This way I get to be pleasantly surprised if he doesn't do the dumbest thing imaginable.

And get to avoid disappointment when the inevitable happens.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

This way I get to be pleasantly surprised if he doesn't do the dumbest thing imaginable.

Allowing T. Greg Doucette onto the case?

 

[Allanon]

Allowing T. Greg Doucette onto the case?

Rip off his wig and reveal he was Doucette all along.

 

[7proxy]

This seems like a nonsequitur, the question is whether this hurt BHBH's rep since despite the monetary value not being as high as some of their clients' might be, it is clearly the a very high profile case

I disagree with it being a very high profile case. It doesn't even qualify has a high profile case in the first place.

• Most people don't know what anime is.
• Of those who do, few know what Funimation is and even fewer know who Vic Mignogna is.
• VAs earn very little money from their job.

So basically it's a suit between a bunch of no-names for a fairly low amount of money. The only aspect that's somewhat relevant to people is whether you can successfully sue/get sued for saying shit on Twitter, because it's unclear how far you can take things. Even the TI portion of the suit has nothing special, it's just some dude using his phone to get some other dude to lose his gig.

 

[AnIncredibleDerp]

I disagree with it being a very high profile case. It doesn't even qualify has a high profile case in the first place.

• Most people don't know what anime is.
• Of those who do, few know what Funimation is and even fewer know who Vic Mignogna is.
• VAs earn very little money from their job.

So basically it's a suit between a bunch of no-names for a fairly low amount of money. The only aspect that's somewhat relevant to people is whether you can successfully sue/get sued for saying shit on Twitter, because it's unclear how far you can take things. Even the TI portion of the suit has nothing special, it's just some dude using his phone to get some other dude to lose his gig.

Eh, i think at the point where you're getting articles in national media you're at least somewhat high profile. I mean, Lewinsky was a blowjob in an office at the end of the day, what is done is less important than by who in that sense

 

[Kosher Salt]

View attachment 985912

http://archive.li/pQKHv

Mike Dumbford is what you get when a load that should've been swallowed comes to life and decides it's a lawyer.

 

[7proxy]

Eh, i think at the point where you're getting articles in national media you're at least somewhat high profile. I mean, Lewinsky was a blowjob in an office at the end of the day, what is done is less important than by who in that sense

I had not realized that "Bounding Into Comics" is national media and Vic Mignogna is as famous as the president of the United States. Must be why there were so many people at his hearing.

 

[AnIncredibleDerp]

I had not realized that "Bounding Into Comics" is national media and Vic Mignogna is as famous as the president of the United States. Must be why there were so many people at his hearing.

Weren't there articles by actual three-letter media outlets on this? And my Lewinsky example just simply means that actions are not what matters. A reminder that a white kid smiling wrong at a native american banging a drum in his face became national news.

 

[Jill Kews]

I had not realized that "Bounding Into Comics" is national media and Vic Mignogna is as famous as the president of the United States.

What, you've never read the Vic Derangement Syndrome thread?

 

[HTTP Error 404]

Random thought.

If that letter to Chupp is Ex Parte and Chupp isn't supposed to consider it, but it also has a "we should have a hearing on the 4th" part... If Chupp does call for a hearing on the 4th, does that mean Chupp is taking that letter as a Motion instead of just a "friendly letter," and thus, that's actionable?

Weren't there articles by actual three-letter media outlets on this? And my Lewinsky example just simply means that actions are not what matters. A reminder that a white kid smiling wrong at a native american banging a drum in his face became national news.

I... can't remember any of the 3 letter media outlets, or anyone big really, covering this. Biggest were the various niche media outlets -- ANN, and later the Comics sites as the Comics SJWs realized the Anime SJWs were in trouble. The Dallas media outlet was the biggest name one I can think of, and that only happened because the author is a true believer SJW media bagwoman type, having signal boosted the Duke Lacross Hoax or somesuch.

That Obama Propaganda money running dry did a fucking number on the Cultural Marxists infesting media.

 

[Pepper Jack]

Weren't there articles by actual three-letter media outlets on this? And my Lewinsky example just simply means that actions are not what matters. A reminder that a white kid smiling wrong at a native american banging a drum in his face became national news.

It became national news because journalists ran with one tweet out of context that spawned false stories across all media forms. Had journalists done their job and maintained their code of eithics, the Covington kids would have remained unknown.

Not sure how the Covington case is like the Vic Manicotti case.

 

[theworstkindofeurofag]

@AnOminous Is this guy making sense?

Twitter

archived 27 Oct 2019 19:57:52 UTC

archive.md

 

[VidMasterEon]

@AnOminous Is this guy making sense?

View attachment 987427

View attachment 987431

View attachment 987432

View attachment 987433

View attachment 987434

View attachment 987435

View attachment 987437

View attachment 987438

View attachment 987439

View attachment 987440

View attachment 987441

View attachment 987442

View attachment 987444

View attachment 987447

View attachment 987448

View attachment 987449

View attachment 987452

View attachment 987453

View attachment 987456

Twitter

archived 27 Oct 2019 19:57:52 UTC

archive.md

I know next to nothing about law, but one of the things I do know is that even if it is from a real lawyer, it is almost always full of shit.
Twitter is the worst creation ever made. It reduced human conversation to snark quips and grunts.
Sapir-worp hypothesis in action

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Anything point ever made in a 'twitter thread' is bullshit due to unreadableness.

 

[AnOminous]

@AnOminous Is this guy making sense?

Lol no. The judge has to get worse than this to be sanctionable, or directly insult one of the parties. Just being brusque to counsel doesn't qualify. I think his handling of the hearing is bad enough it might get negative commentary from the appeals court even if they uphold him, but nothing other than that is likely to happen.

That isn't to say his conduct is a model of professionalism or anything.

 

[I can't imagine]

I know next to nothing about law, but one of the things I do know is that even if it is from a real lawyer, it is almost always full of shit.
Twitter is the worst creation ever made. It reduced human conversation to snark quips and grunts.
Sapir-worp hypothesis in action

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that anyone who repeatedly misspells prima facie is probably not a lawyer.

 

[theworstkindofeurofag]

Lol no. The judge has to get worse than this to be sanctionable, or directly insult one of the parties. Just being brusque to counsel doesn't qualify. I think his handling of the hearing is bad enough it might get negative commentary from the appeals court even if they uphold him, but nothing other than that is likely to happen.

Thanks for looking over it. That's what I expected.

Figured it's better to ask someone who knows what they're talking about instead of speculating.

 

[AnOminous]

Thanks for looking over it. That's what I expected.

Figured it's better to ask someone who knows what they're talking about instead of speculating.

I wouldn't say I know. The rule is applicable. It's just that it usually takes something like direct insults to a party or attorney before it's punishable.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

There's a difference between breaking the rule and breaking the rule enough that they have to punish him. There's a feel I get that they don't want to make judges look anything less than infallible, because if they do then it adds uncertainty to the whole thing, which they don't want. Unless the Judge is obviously on his way out very very soon.

It's why even though Chupp pulled a Chupp earlier and flat out stated he was tossing US law out to instead apply "Church Law," they didn't sanction him. They just undid it and sent it right back to him.

 

[VidMasterEon]

There's a difference between breaking the rule and breaking the rule enough that they have to punish him. There's a feel I get that they don't want to make judges look anything less than infallible, because if they do then it adds uncertainty to the whole thing, which they don't want. Unless the Judge is obviously on his way out very very soon.

It's why even though Chupp pulled a Chupp earlier and flat out stated he was tossing US law out to instead apply "Church Law," they didn't sanction him. They just undid it and sent it right back to him.

I figured as much
With the large amount of checks and balances in the legal system, the amount of actionable offenses must be so small and limited in scope because most fuckups can be rectified by the appeals court