🎨 Artcow Ken Penders - Former Archie Sonic Comic Writer/Artist

ZealousFox sucks that Penders cock.
8F2B67CD-EFA5-4F42-9AA4-C18B1998C089.jpeg0920B90F-0FFD-4E10-A658-F5147CAC8426.jpeg
 
The Paranoid Organ said:
Ok, so this is a bombshell!

If this stuff was available during the lawsuit, how the fuck did Archie/Sega lose?

:stress:
WHAT IS GOING ON!!!!!
Click to expand...
Because these are the documents submitted by Archie's legal team, we haven't seen whatever Penders brought to the table that allowed him to win.

After the Penders decision, another former Archie Sonic artist/writer tried to pull the same thing. Could have been equally successful as Penders, but was prevented from doing so due to the statue of limitations having expired, rather than anything Archie had done on their part, they were supposedly unable to produce the correct contracts and documents refuting it.

That last one is secondhand hearsay from online forums in the 2010s and gets reposted on /c/ semifrequently.

Cedric_Eff said:
ZealousFox sucks that Penders cock.
View attachment 3219067View attachment 3219068
Click to expand...
He's closely related to fellow cow Dillin, though I suspect you've already known that. Not enough for a thread, but Dillin likes to bring him up semi-regularly when going on about his Ian Flynn rants.
 
Pixy said:
Because these are the documents submitted by Archie's legal team, we haven't seen whatever Penders brought to the table that allowed him to win.

After the Penders decision, another former Archie Sonic artist/writer tried to pull the same thing. Could have been equally successful as Penders, but was prevented from doing so due to the statue of limitations having expired, rather than anything Archie had done on their part, they were supposedly unable to produce the correct contracts and documents refuting it.

That last one is secondhand hearsay from online forums in the 2010s and gets reposted on /c/ semifrequently.
Click to expand...
They settled. That does not mean that Penders "won". It means they settled.

If you look at the Court's ruling on the cross-summary judgment rulings, it's clear that the case was going to revolve around whether or not a Jury found the contracts to be authentic.

1651001358655.png

1651001437099.png

Furthermore, the Judge denied Pender's summary judgment motion and his argument that even if the contract was authentic, it was invalid as a matter of law and unenforceable.

1651001594413.png
1651001668244.png

Archie is in a much better position than Penders after summary judgment. Both parties had their motions denied, but if you can't convince a Judge that a contract is invalid and unenforceable at SJ using what's written in the document, then you won't have much luck with the jury.

If I had to guess, there was most likely a change in strategy when counsel was changed prior to mediation:
1651006947510.png
They then reached a settlement in principle sometime during or after the mediation
1651007368715.png

After this it becomes a complete shitshow. The replacement attorneys Archie retained weren't the best.
 

Attachments

lolwatagain said:
Imagine you're being sued by a hobo for possession of an empty soda can in your car. You can prove that you are the lawful owner of that soda can. You have the receipts. You can interview the cashier who sold it to you. You can prove that you typically bought a similar can of soda every week at the same location for years. All of this proof is available to you, but you still need to hire a law firm to prove this in court, and it will cost you around $500 an hour for hundreds, if not thousands of hours.

The soda can is worth exactly $0.00 to you, because to you it is garbage. You will never use it again, now that it has been emptied of it's carbonated elixir. You will throw the can away in the garbage later.

The can is worth $0.05 to the hobo. Do you defend the lawsuit, or do you give the Hobo the can?
Click to expand...

Moneymessage.jpg


The problem with that allegory is that now the hobo won't stop pestering you because he thinks he is not only entitled to the empty soda can in your car, but also the soda can you are holding in your hand, every soda can in your pantry, every damn can in your house and any you'll ever buy in the future. Fuck it, the hobo now thinks the concept of a can is his intellectual property and every manufacturer that produces cans needs to pay him royalties.

You cannot reason with the mentally diluted and appeasement further encourages said delusions.

Sega should have never settled, they should have used everything they had to crush Ken's legal pretensions mercilessly so as to ensure not having to deal with any of his bullshit ever again.

But they didn't and here we are again.
 
These documents are sort of interesting, but referring to them as a bombshell is kinda extravagant since the case has been over for years. And the end of the day, Archie and Sega lost those characters and Penders is still a delusional idiot and hypocrite. We don’t need court documents to prove the latter.
 
It was only a matter of time ken met corridor crew’s recent video 1E726A18-F4ED-438A-A4E7-0281A9AAB117.jpeg
at least it’s better than the actual punisher skull they redesigned

B24D9120-3431-4AB0-8A75-FF28AF6BD85D.jpeg
 
Belvedere said:
mentally diluted
Click to expand...

I don't know if you meant 'mentally deluded' but I like 'mentally diluted' too.

The Punisher skull: how can a grandfather come across like such a stupidly defiant teenager? "Hey, they should totally make Batman wave a BLM flag. That'll blow the minds of all the MAGA nazis!"
 
lolwatagain said:
Imagine you're being sued by a hobo for possession of an empty soda can in your car. You can prove that you are the lawful owner of that soda can. You have the receipts. You can interview the cashier who sold it to you. You can prove that you typically bought a similar can of soda every week at the same location for years. All of this proof is available to you, but you still need to hire a law firm to prove this in court, and it will cost you around $500 an hour for hundreds, if not thousands of hours.

The soda can is worth exactly $0.00 to you, because to you it is garbage. You will never use it again, now that it has been emptied of it's carbonated elixir. You will throw the can away in the garbage later.

The can is worth $0.05 to the hobo. Do you defend the lawsuit, or do you give the Hobo the can?
Click to expand...
Decent enough analogy, but this is IP. Lawyers are set up to protect IP as they have no idea what it will be worth to the company in the future. Penders characters and ideas may be shit, but they are ideas that could be leveraged in the future.

It is just very weird to me that (with evidence on hand) the Archie Lawers just bailed on defending Archies/Sega IP assets.

Pixy said:
Because these are the documents submitted by Archie's legal team, we haven't seen whatever Penders brought to the table that allowed him to win.
Click to expand...
Like a post-it note saying "Nah ah! It's my stuff!"? I do not really get how you counter exact and specific and I assume authentic evidence showing Ken HAD a contract.


My scitzo theory with evidence on hand was that Sega forced everyone just to hand over the IPs to Penders so they could sanitize the Sonic cannons to something to their linking. Ken becomes the perfect reason to do so and is just a gullible scapegoat.
Sega orders Archie to throw the case in a settlement (even though they were to win). Sega then uses the loss of some of its IP as an excuse to gut out and snuff out the DiC and Archie cannons (via the Sega 'Mandates'). Then the Japs can enjoy their stories and only their stories forevermore.
 
lolwatagain said:
Imagine you're being sued by a hobo for possession of an empty soda can in your car. You can prove that you are the lawful owner of that soda can. You have the receipts. You can interview the cashier who sold it to you. You can prove that you typically bought a similar can of soda every week at the same location for years. All of this proof is available to you, but you still need to hire a law firm to prove this in court, and it will cost you around $500 an hour for hundreds, if not thousands of hours.

The soda can is worth exactly $0.00 to you, because to you it is garbage. You will never use it again, now that it has been emptied of it's carbonated elixir. You will throw the can away in the garbage later.

The can is worth $0.05 to the hobo. Do you defend the lawsuit, or do you give the Hobo the can?
Click to expand...
Pixy said:
Because these are the documents submitted by Archie's legal team, we haven't seen whatever Penders brought to the table that allowed him to win.

After the Penders decision, another former Archie Sonic artist/writer tried to pull the same thing. Could have been equally successful as Penders, but was prevented from doing so due to the statue of limitations having expired, rather than anything Archie had done on their part, they were supposedly unable to produce the correct contracts and documents refuting it.

That last one is secondhand hearsay from online forums in the 2010s and gets reposted on /c/ semifrequently.


He's closely related to fellow cow Dillin, though I suspect you've already known that. Not enough for a thread, but Dillin likes to bring him up semi-regularly when going on about his Ian Flynn rants.
Click to expand...
Spoilers: Penders didn't really bring *anything* to the trial. His lawyers drug their own feet and missed several deadlines for submitting things. When Archie's lawyers brought up the emails and the backup copies of the WFH agreement, Penders claimed "forgery" but his lawyers never called any kind of professional witness to confirm or deny those claims.

What ended up happening was the judge wanted Segas lawyer to get involved, but they were in New York and the case was being held in California. The Archie lawyer asked if the Sega lawyer could be present via phone, but the judge said "lol no" and wanted them to be there in person, which couldn't happen in what the court considered an acceptable amount of time, so the judge was like "well why don't you kids just figure this out on your own then".

Basically, Penders legal team used the same tactic my baby mama did during our custody hearing: kept making claims with no evidence to back it up and stalling for time until the Judge got sick of dealing with the case. Archie's lawyers were ass and should have had Sega involved from the start, but Sega was like "this is a you problem".
 
Wow, this has taken an interesting turn.
I just find it endlessly amusing Ken got "his" characters because sega just didn't give a rat's ass about any of them and just let Ken "win" them because they were worthless in the grand scheme of things.
All the while, Ken is acting like he sued God and came out on top.
It's kind of pathetic, and I love it.
 
Newman's Lovechild said:
I don't know if you meant 'mentally deluded' but I like 'mentally diluted' too.
Click to expand...

My apologies, English is not my first language so sometimes I write mix ups like this. Although "diluted" kinda does work better because I meant it as in "weakened" or "watered down" mental state and not in the sense of him being deluded for having a mistaken or false belief, but I'll take note of the fact the latter word is the correct term for this grammatical use case.
 
All this new information regarding the Pender/Archie court stuff is actually fascinating, and really paints the whole situation in a new light ( a light that exposes Penders for more of his lies).

The fact that it looks like SEGA just let him win cause they didn't care is actually really important to current events. If that is true and Penders is just fooling himself into thinking that he "Won a major legal battle", it really emphasizes what a bad idea it is to try and sue Paramount (Assuming that's something he still wants to do).

Paramount is unlikely to just "Let Penders win" like SEGA did since he'd be actively attacking a highly profitable movie franchise that Paramount has big plans for. They will hit Penders with a legal battle that Penders clearly isn't ready for.
 
Lemonz298 said:
The fact that it looks like SEGA just let him win cause they didn't care is actually really important to current events. If that is true and Penders is just fooling himself into thinking that he "Won a major legal battle", it really emphasizes what a bad idea it is to try and sue Paramount (Assuming that's something he still wants to do).
Click to expand...
It also emphasizes how much like Chris he really is, since he won a legal battle because the other side didn't care enough to rake a tard over the coals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom