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

[Allanon]

I don't think Ron's "my defamatory tweet" tweet matters, for two reasons. First, he's not an expert on law (clearly), so his opinion about whether his own tweets were defamatory is not the least bit authoritative. And secondly, because he clearly meant his allegedly defamatory tweet, and I don't think you can do an "ah-ha! gotcha!" over omitting the word "allegedly" when it's pretty clear based on the bulk of his other statements that he doesn't think his tweets were defamatory.

Exactly. Like his previous typo, it's an amusing freudian slip, but it doesn't mean anything. He's not an expert, and it means no more than when they tried to trick Vic into saying things he has no expertise on.

 

[SargonF00t]

I'm surprised no one has highlighted this little quip by Nicky Rackets in his Amicus brief.

"In February, Appellee Funimation made a series of three tweets about their termination of Vic Mignogna following an investigation. The gist of these tweets was understood by readers of ordinary intelligence, and Appellee Rial, as proof that Appellant was terminated due to sexual misconduct and harassment."

 

[Tour of Italy]

I'm surprised no one has highlighted this little quip by Nicky Rackets in his Amicus brief.

"In February, Appellee Funimation made a series of three tweets about their termination of Vic Mignogna following an investigation. The gist of these tweets was understood by readers of ordinary intelligence, and Appellee Rial, as proof that Appellant was terminated due to sexual misconduct and harassment."

I think the main interpretation is supposed to be a way to segue into highlighting Rial’s subsequent defamation, but I doubt it’s an accident that it can be interpreted... otherwise.

 

[Crazedking]

I'm surprised no one has highlighted this little quip by Nicky Rackets in his Amicus brief.

"In February, Appellee Funimation made a series of three tweets about their termination of Vic Mignogna following an investigation. The gist of these tweets was understood by readers of ordinary intelligence, and Appellee Rial, as proof that Appellant was terminated due to sexual misconduct and harassment."

should have called her fat too.

 

[Allanon]

I'm surprised no one has highlighted this little quip by Nicky Rackets in his Amicus brief.

"In February, Appellee Funimation made a series of three tweets about their termination of Vic Mignogna following an investigation. The gist of these tweets was understood by readers of ordinary intelligence, and Appellee Rial, as proof that Appellant was terminated due to sexual misconduct and harassment."

I noticed that little jab.

 

[NotaLolyer]

That isn't actually determinative of anything. It was still just an insanely stupid thing to say, but what can you expect of a dude who is totally okay and would do nothing if you publicly called him a child rapist, as he stated in his deposition? He definitely looks like a child molester and a libel-monger. Specifically, he really looks like child murdering child rapist Jon Venables, to the point they could be identical twins. He literally looks like a child molester. And he says he doesn't mind being called one. What can one infer?

I’m autistically glad that I’m not the only one who noticed that they look alike. Are we sure Ron Toye isn’t just another billion dollar identity the UK government gave him?

 

[AnOminous]

His face and lack of chin always make me think of Wayne Williams.

His lack of character shows itself in his features. You could almost begin to believe in phrenology just from how Ron looks exactly like the unsavory, perverted little weirdo he actually is.

You mean he isn't Jon Venables???

Come to think of it, I actually don't know for an absolute fact that Ron Toye isn't just Jon Venables' new identity. For all I know, he actually literally is Jon Venables.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

Come to think of it, I actually don't know for an absolute fact that Ron Toye isn't just Jon Venables' new identity. For all I know, he actually literally is Jon Venables.

Have you ever seen them in the same room together?

 

[Mr. 0]

Jon Venables would turn himself in and recommend the death penalty if he realized he was Ron Toye all along

 

[DRHaste23]

Looks like it was denied due to UPL

 

[TUGSTAN]

Specifically, his amicus brief was denied because Nick is not licensed to practice in Texas.

Here is a link to the Rule 19 mentioned in the screenshot: https://ble.texas.gov/rule19

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

Looks like it was denied due to UPL

Do you not know how to embed screenshots?

 

[Nontransferable]

Looks like it was denied due to UPL

There were 7 months of secrecy so Nick alone could write an amicus brief. He started measuring assistance in who did. When he didn't finish on time, there suddenly was no deadline. A week later, it was submitted. And now the clerk has sent it back.

Last March I teased you guys with something, saying Nick had "made me aware of something" but I didn't give any more than that. It was because Nick said I could tease it here, but not explain what it is as he didn't want Lawtwitter to get wind of anything. At this point I can now inform you all of what it was.

 

[AnOminous]

Specifically, his amicus brief was denied because Nick is not licensed to practice in Texas.

Here is a link to the Rule 19 mentioned in the screenshot: https://ble.texas.gov/rule19

How embarrassing!

 

[AlexJonesGotMePregnant]

This amicus thing is stupid and feels like Nick trying to rouse up more superchats.

1. Why talk about it ahead of it, before you even finish writing it?
2. Why submit it after the deadline?
3. Why submit it at all when texas law is clear on the matter?

I can understand the desire to help, but the are matters precluding any value in the effort, other than the fiscal return Nick has gotten from the hype. It would have been one thing if the court rejected it for merit, but to have it denied for a clear procedural failure is disappointing.

 

[AnOminous]

3. Why submit it at all when texas law is clear on the matter?

Why not submit it pro se representing himself personally? I hadn't read this and thought that was what he was doing but he starts out with this:

"Amicus Curiae is Rekieta Media, LLC, a Texas small business developing multimedia content for internet distribution." The amicus isn't Nick, it's a Texas corporation, which he can't represent. It looks like you may still be required as an out of state lawyer to comply with the rule cited but you definitely can't represent a corporation as a non-lawyer. This is kind of basic stuff.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Why not submit it pro se representing himself personally? I hadn't read this and thought that was what he was doing but he starts out with this:

"Amicus Curiae is Rekieta Media, LLC, a Texas small business developing multimedia content for internet distribution." The amicus isn't Nick, it's a Texas corporation, which he can't represent. It looks like you may still be required as an out of state lawyer to comply with the rule cited but you definitely can't represent a corporation as a non-lawyer. This is kind of basic stuff.

Because the only thing separating Nick from LawTwitter is he actually makes money from sperging on the internet.

 

[Doodler98]

Tbh him messing up here makes his statement of 'I did what I could' ring kinda hollow and seem more like he just wanted to make a token gesture and, knowing that even if he did everything right the appeals court would most likely ignore his amicus brief, made a choice not to jump through the additional hoop needed to be able to file the brief properly. Which is kinda lame and nullifies the entire point he wanted to make about him actually doing stuff while lawtwitter is content just reeing on twitter.

It's hard to consider this just being an oversight on Nick's part. Hell, I'm sure Ty could've told him what he'd need to do in order to file the amicus brief properly.

 

[Contract Breach]

My understanding was that Nick was filing the brief not as a Lawyer, but as a Texas business that happens to be owned by a lawyer.

The real question here in my mind is whether an Amicus Brief needs to be filed by a lawyer, or of it can be filed by any interested party.

 

[BaronDaRolla]

I will again point out that in the reasoning, it doesn't say that him not practicing in texas is the sole cause, but that lawyers practicing outside of texas must pay a fee and it has gone unpaid.