DuckzillA
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2019
I can't wait to see the results and Mike have the biggest fucking Pikachu face reaction.
Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.
- Thread starter 5t3n0g0ph3r
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
The more likely result, at least for the amicus brief, is the appellate court ignores it and Dunford gets to act smug.
I still hope for it to be considered, even in a minor way, because that would be hilarious.
Son of Sparda 84
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
(Archive is taking too long)
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2019
Who is this J. Remy Green person, and why can't she get the Sargon Treatment ("I wouldn't even rape you") yet?
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
I just like how a bunch of people who call themselves "Lawyers" omit the fact that Nick has repeatedly said the amicus is a wasted effort. They have to act like Nick made it seem it will to make themselves look better....really is just a sad Tuba echo chamber.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
Because she used to be a he.
Even so, it's a win-win for Nick.
If the judges consider it, it helps Vic, which (idealistically) helps a man he thinks was wronged and (more cynically) gives him more content if the case moves forward.
Even if the brief isn't considered, he got a night and a half of talking points out of it. He'll probably monetize lawltwitter's reactions.
Last edited:
Son of Sparda 84
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2019
How does this ruling from the Judge from the Federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which Texas is not a part of) matter in this case?
Did this case set law for the rest of the Federal Court of Appeals or was it just the Seventh Circuit?
Does this affect Texas state law?
Post the Twitter link, too, and not just screenshots.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
Oh shit, you reminded me. This same troon made similar points somewhere else, where they tried to apply case law from a completely removed jurisdiction and tried to apply it to Vic. Let me see if I could find it.
EDIT:
Here we go
Got some more
View attachment 1464531
Also found this from this.....lawyer
View attachment 1464549
View attachment 1464552
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Posner more or less expresses my beliefs entirely. Consider his opinions an amicus brief on behalf of my own.
They're just "I should say me too because I can't do anything else!"
But just don't. It really doesn't help the court. At all.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2018
A box of sixty-four per 10 pages.
HighwayStar
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2019
Nick himself said at the beginning of last night's stream that amicus briefs are not guaranteed and that the chances of them being considered are a long shot. Why do these people have selective hearing?
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
Lawtwits are seriously garbage since no matter what side you fall on, it's pretty objective that Chupp's ruling was garbage since it was so simple and undetailed. It's what you DON'T want in a SLAPP suit since it's so obvious material to appeal.
And duh, Nick's amicus brief is for attention. Maybe it'll do something good. I'd rank it a "D" since it doesn't say much on why Lungmoine is so obsessed with this "Rekieta" guy and other examples of "Rekieta" the defense is so interested in. It's better than nothing I think, especially since it makes the Lawtwits salty.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2017
The appeals court won't read it anyways
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2019
Most likely.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2017
I give the likelyhood of a clerk even bothering to read it at like, less than 1%.
Nick knows this too, but its free khantent.
Fictional Character
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2020
If it was a brief from some random no-name with no apparent connection to the case you'd be absolutely right. Since it's a brief from some random no-name with no apparent connection to the case and one side in the case has been sperging in their documents about said no-name, I'd say there is a non-negligible if still small chance of the judges taking a look just out of curiosity.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
This alone is a reason never to take anything these absolute cretins say seriously. They routinely just lie about what was even said, so how can they be trusted to interpret anything?
waffle
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
i think the court will read it out of curiosity, but in a twist of irony it will only be because its from the guy the defendants keep ranting about.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
Anyone who seriously thinks there's a chance they'll read it is kidding themselves. If they do it'll more likely be on accident due to the sheer number of documents in the case. Nick himself never expected it to be read. The defense whining about Nick isn't likely to ingratiate the court toward reading his brief, but in the end it doesn't matter if they don't look: he made a point, slam dunked on the people that pretended they knew what they were talking about and cared, and got himself some free content out of it. Even if they read it, he doesn't really have anything in there that the court shouldn't already conclude by looking at what's there.