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

Kosher Salt said:
You know, it just occurred to me that 99.5% of the sperging about Nick's amicus that's going to occur would occur regardless of whether or not he's actually filed it. What if, hypothetically, he wrote it, leaked the suggestion that he filed it, but didn't actually file it?

I do believe he filed it, but we don't have proof...
Click to expand...

If he didn't, that would actually be funny.

quickthrowaway said:
I fail to see the downside. People are already sperging. Nick is giving us that cawntent.
Click to expand...

The downside is the appeals panel spending even a single minute thinking about anything other than the case in chief and the record, such as a sideshow about whether or not some brief should be accepted.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: 1Tonka_Truck, Slimy Time, Exterminatus and 5 others
AnOminous said:
Tbh I am not exactly a fan of amicus briefs from anyone who isn't particularly well qualified to give one, either by way of academic qualification in the issue presented, being an organization specializing in that issue, or some extreme level of qualification like having the treatise on the subject named after you, like the Nimmer of Nimmer on Copyright who is particularly well qualified by way of being dead. They are usually attention seeking gestures that do little to help the court.
Click to expand...
So Ominous, would calling the defense on their lies of "Nick is counsel for Vic" and everything about the GFM being pure nonsense in the defense filing be considered new evidence in Nick's court doc?
 
Kendrick said:
So Ominous, would calling the defense on their lies of "Nick is counsel for Vic" and everything about the GFM being pure nonsense in the defense filing be considered new evidence in Nick's court doc?
Click to expand...

Unless it's pointing to evidence already in the record, yes. It's also completely irrelevant to any cause or defense in the case. It's a sideshow. The panel shouldn't be distracted from the main event.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ConSluttant, Francis York Morgan, Captain Manning and 10 others
Since the brief doesn't matter and Nick apparently anticipates they won't look at it, the only smart move would be not to file anything to counter the defense if they file to stop the court from looking at the documents. It avoids the sideshow distraction aspect, while wasting the defense's money.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kosher Salt
Allanon said:
Since the brief doesn't matter and Nick apparently anticipates they won't look at it, the only smart move would be not to file anything to counter the defense if they file to stop the court from looking at the documents. It avoids the sideshow distraction aspect, while wasting the defense's money.
Click to expand...
"Appellees Rial and Toye file this motion in opposition to the amicus brief by Nicholas Rekieta."

"Who the fuck is Nicholas Rekieta and why are you wasting our time?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: not william stenchever, 1Tonka_Truck, Slimy Time and 5 others
OneHandClapping said:
"Appellees Rial and Toye file this motion in opposition to the amicus brief by Nicholas Rekieta."

"Who the fuck is Nicholas Rekieta and why are you wasting our time?"
Click to expand...

Unless there's something I'm missing where they lose out on something more than the brief should they not oppose an opposition to it, I'll be disappointed in Vic's team if they've become so entrenched in this fight with the defense that they kneejerk continue to slapfight over something that's literally pointless during the much more important appeals.
 
If this gets past appeals then expect Douchette and other Lawtwitter addicts to file their own amicus curiae briefs. Brilliant move on Nick's part though since this has zero chance of affecting the outcome (since he's just as relevant to the case as when Lungmoine is wheezing up a storm about him) but has a huge chance of giving him lots of content for his show in the future. And hey, it tells the court who this "Nick Rekeita" guy the defendents are so pissed off about is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: not william stenchever, Slimy Time, Exterminatus and 5 others
This thread could use a poll about outcomes. I think it would be interesting to see the mood and expectations of Kiwis right now.

Personally, I'd have rather Nick not filed anything and remain a legally disconnected party that the defendants & company ree about and pursue, rather than becoming in any way involved. I think it's funnier that way.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 1Tonka_Truck, ThatDumbPhilosopher, Riku and 5 others
6thRanger said:
This thread could use a poll about outcomes. I think it would be interesting to see the mood and expectations of Kiwis right now.

Personally, I'd have rather Nick not filed anything and remain a legally disconnected party that the defendants & company ree about and pursue, rather than becoming in any way involved. I think it's funnier that way.
Click to expand...

In some ways it could make it funnier, because Nick isn't involved in the case in any significant way, from what I can gather, even less so than an affidavee...but the twits on lawtwitter won't think that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Riku, 6thRanger and 1 other person
East_Clintwood said:
Honestly I'm waiting for the hottakes from the dipshit crowd who don't what this means and somehow thinks this is proof Nick was Vic's lawyer all along.
Click to expand...

I look forward to the fact that despite their mistakes already being pointed out and predicted, they'll brazenly storm into the mistakes anyway with full bluster.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Exterminatus, Riku and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back