-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Vic Mignogna Lawsuit |OT| Hold My Beard (Update: Appeal lost, Mignogna must pay attorney fees to defendants)
- Thread starter Sibersk Esto
- Start date
There's this problematic idea, not just in this case with Vic but with many other anti-#MeToo movements, that you cannot be denied a job so long as you have the skills/talents and a spotless criminal record. From this idea, two additional ideas sprout from it: that Funimation has to prove that Vic is a criminal in order to justify firing him, and conversely that Funimation must keep him in their employ if he is found innocent.
Let's ignore that Vic is neither an employee of Funimation or even the defendant in this case. The far grander point is that, as anyone who's ever worked a decent job can attest, many other factors can determine one's current employment and future employability, including one's personality and one's reputation from prior work. After all, even giant corporations and industries are at their absolute endpoints groups of people, and those groups of people still need to deal with you in some way.
My point is that even if Vic was somehow "proven innocent" in this whole case Funimation has no obligation to keep him around, and every right to ignore him simply because he's a massive creep and they don't want to deal with bullshit like this. And that can be attested to the fact that the whole reason there's even a court case is because Vic was convinced to push for one.
My usual response to people who have such thoughts is to tell them to go to their job and every five minutes for a week yell out something like "Pokemon is the best cartoon ever." at the top of their lungs.
When they are asked to stop doing that just keep doing it. It's not a crime, they won't get a criminal record for that. But they sure as hell won't have a job at the end of the week.
You're correct though, far to many people seem to think that someone like Vic is entitled to his job, and it's right to have it as long as he isn't a criminal. There is far more than just, are you good at your job to determine if you keep your job though.
At the very least Vic was creating an uncomfortable work place, and that is more than enough to get anyone fired.
In the latest news regarding "jesus christ are they seriously doing this", Beard filed a motion to dismiss FUNi's affidavits on the grounds they're inadmissable/heresay.
Don't have time to read it now, but the snippets I'm seeing from Greg's Twitter are, uh, something.
Don't have time to read it now, but the snippets I'm seeing from Greg's Twitter are, uh, something.
Last edited:
In the latest news regarding "jesus christ are they seriously doing this", Beard filed a motion to dismiss FUNi's affidavits on the grounds they're inadmissable/heresy.
Don't have time to read it now, but the snippets I'm seeing from Greg's Twitter are, uh, something.
I assume you mean hearsay. (They did make a blasphemy argument though.)
Whoops, yeah. And by said argument you mean the one I provided or...?
Honestly, for all the good they'll do, they might as well be filed as heresy.
Seems to me like more grifting off of that GoFundMe pool.
EDIT: After reading the motion, all I have to say is:
No no, there was an earlier document where they responded to an angry "Jesus should send Vic to hell" tweet with "actually jesus loves everyone according to the bible, the defense is making a blasphemous argument".
Just started combing through it, but the document you sent looks like they're saying that under preponderance of the evidence they can provide proof against their opponents to compare which is more likely, which is true, and that there's no facts supporting the statements made.
Not an expert so I can't speak confidently here. What I'm thinking is that it's true that it's mostly hearsay, and that tends to happen with sexual assault because it moves along the lines of normal social behaviour and a lot of its evidence is hidden there, but there's no hard evidence for Vic's side for exactly the same reason. Vic's the one with something to prove since he's the plaintiff, and when it's just a battle of people's claims you have to deal with the fact that it's Vic's word against a dozen people, so it doesn't make Vic's side any stronger even if the argument's valid.
Last edited:
Oh yeah I forgot about that one! lol
Anyway, here's what one lawyer -- and his account's locked, so I'll quote it for posterity -- had to say about the specific example I provided, so make of it what you will:
Not quite.
I'm studying for a state bar exam now (so not a full lawyer, but studying a lot of relevant material atm), and this motion is a tire fire. Even assuming it's being brought at the right time and is asking for something that can be requested at this stage (which, based on some of the Texas lawyer twitter statements, is not true), it gets authentication and hearsay both disastrously wrong.
Let's take a step back. What is hearsay? Hearsay refers to evidence submitted that refers to:
- Statements by someone other than the person speaking,
- whose statements are being offered to prove the truth of those statements.
This is generally inadmissible at trial because the whole point of putting witnesses and statements in front of a jury is so the jury can assess the credibility of the person delivering the evidence. The jury can't assess the credibility of someone who isn't there. This rule means, for instance, that I couldn't talk about reading a Twitter post of someone relating their experience being assaulted by Vic and use that as proof that that experience actually occurred.
That isn't what Funimation is doing in their motion. They're talking about the basis of the investigation that they carried out. Their decision to carry out the investigation happens regardless of whether any allegations are actually true, because their existence caused them to be suspicious and feel the need to investigate. None of this stuff is being submitted for its truth.
Unfortunately, Beard acts as though every single time an affidavit mentions a statement said by someone else, it's hearsay. Like, look at this example:
Yes, there were allegations on social media. Were they true? Who knows. That's not the point of their inclusion in the affidavit, and that's why it's not hearsay. The standard he is pretending exists would be completely unworkable in practice.
As an aside, that would also be true for most of the stuff in the Marchi/Toye TCPA motion. The personal accounts are not hearsay because they're firsthand, but stuff heard from others is being offered not because it's necessarily true, but because it gave the defendants reason to believe that Vic was a predator (which means that they didn't make their statements with actual malice). Therefore, it's not hearsay.
The other basis of objections, that the VP of Operations for Funimation does not have sufficient basis for stating facts about what Funimation knew and what authority they had, shows the same level of misunderstanding about what is required for basis as Beard already showed when he threw a fit about Ron Toye's deposition answers regarding his tweets.
Of course, the whole point of striking evidence is to make sure a jury doesn't see it, and right now the case is before a judge who is expected to be competent enough to weed out bad and misleading evidence on his own. This is stuff you do before trial, not before summary judgment or this TCPA hearing. So even if the arguments in the motion were right in themselves, it'd still be badly timed.
This motion is a complete waste of the judge's time and of Beard's client's money.
TL;DR:
(EEEK, sorry about the formatting 'work' & whatnot on this capture)
Says "No Memory of Events" in that thumbnail btw.
YouTuber I had been following just for anime reactions is on the ISWV side yet they don't watch English anime dubs, and had never heard of Vic before then
Anyhoo, I'm afraid to watch their video, but is this actually seriously going to be of any consequence? They may not realize this is more than just Monica Rial lol
(EEEK, sorry about the formatting 'work' & whatnot on this capture)
Says "No Memory of Events" in that thumbnail btw.
YouTuber I had been following just for anime reactions is on the ISWV side yet they don't watch English anime dubs, and had never heard of Vic before then
Anyhoo, I'm afraid to watch their video, but is this actually seriously going to be of any consequence? They may not realize this is more than just Monica Rial lol
Someone saying they have no memory of events neither proves nor disproves anything, since they are literally saying they don't know what occured. So anyone using that as a gotcha is just projecting.
(EEEK, sorry about the formatting 'work' & whatnot on this capture)
Says "No Memory of Events" in that thumbnail btw.
YouTuber I had been following just for anime reactions is on the ISWV side yet they don't watch English anime dubs, and had never heard of Vic before then
Anyhoo, I'm afraid to watch their video, but is this actually seriously going to be of any consequence? They may not realize this is more than just Monica Rial lol
Probably talking about Stan Dahl.
Short answer is "no". Long answer is what boredandlazy said above me.
Of consequence to who?
(EEEK, sorry about the formatting 'work' & whatnot on this capture)
Says "No Memory of Events" in that thumbnail btw.
YouTuber I had been following just for anime reactions is on the ISWV side yet they don't watch English anime dubs, and had never heard of Vic before then
Anyhoo, I'm afraid to watch their video, but is this actually seriously going to be of any consequence? They may not realize this is more than just Monica Rial lol
Certainly not to the case. If this is what I think it is, it's an affidavit from someone Monica says knocked on Vic's hotel door, interrupting Vic's sexual assault. That person says he doesn't remember the events. It's meaningless. It can't contradict (or support) anything.
To the Youtuber? It could be an indication that they might be shifting away from the anime reaction market, and towards reactionary political content.
I'm going to assume that Beard is just doing shit to bill hours because that motion is very, very fascinating.
Like, I have read way, way objectively worse motions by people trying to represent themselves over the years. This motion is fascinating because it literally looks like one of those mock motions you'd see in a first or second year law school course that you're supposed to pick apart after you learn some stuff because, it doesn't seem bad, and Beard technically cites (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt) evidentiary law and case law that is technically correct, but is actually quite awful once you get some knowledge.
In this case, you can defeat 90% of this motion by noting that this just isn't hearsay because it's not being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but merely effect on the listener (i.e, what the listener did next).
I''m hoping Beard is just billing because if he's not, he just made a catastrophic error in this case by thinking that this case is only about showing that Vic innocent or guilty as truth; the core of all of this, is essentially whether the Defendants acted in a manner allowable by law. What I mean by this is that even if some act of God Vic is 100% innocent of everything, what this is going to come down to is whether everyone acted within the confines of this law based on the entire context (Funimation hears allegations, has employees that hear and see shit, they do their investigation, their investigation was normal, they made the choice not to associate with Vic anymore because of all of what they found). The tl;dr on this is "defendants can still win because it may not even matter if vic did that shit or not"
Like, I have read way, way objectively worse motions by people trying to represent themselves over the years. This motion is fascinating because it literally looks like one of those mock motions you'd see in a first or second year law school course that you're supposed to pick apart after you learn some stuff because, it doesn't seem bad, and Beard technically cites (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt) evidentiary law and case law that is technically correct, but is actually quite awful once you get some knowledge.
In this case, you can defeat 90% of this motion by noting that this just isn't hearsay because it's not being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but merely effect on the listener (i.e, what the listener did next).
I''m hoping Beard is just billing because if he's not, he just made a catastrophic error in this case by thinking that this case is only about showing that Vic innocent or guilty as truth; the core of all of this, is essentially whether the Defendants acted in a manner allowable by law. What I mean by this is that even if some act of God Vic is 100% innocent of everything, what this is going to come down to is whether everyone acted within the confines of this law based on the entire context (Funimation hears allegations, has employees that hear and see shit, they do their investigation, their investigation was normal, they made the choice not to associate with Vic anymore because of all of what they found). The tl;dr on this is "defendants can still win because it may not even matter if vic did that shit or not"
Such a packed day, everything is basically falling on this date.
Everyone see the DragonCon 2013 videos that have come to light?
Edit: That's going to be yes then. Good job BTW on not linking directly to the videos. Not a joke, probably don't want to actually have 'em up in the thread.
Edit: That's going to be yes then. Good job BTW on not linking directly to the videos. Not a joke, probably don't want to actually have 'em up in the thread.
It's amazing how that video can come up every couple of weeks, and then new people freak out about it like it hasn't already come up. I mean, all the same, I'm glad people keep talking about it.
But then all those defenders also come out of the woodworks every time, too, so...
But then all those defenders also come out of the woodworks every time, too, so...
Yeah, no way I'm linking directly to the vids.
They're fucking horrible. What the fuck. This dude is even more of a creeper than I thought was possible. How can someone keep tanking my expectations for them, even after knowing that they probably got fired from a teaching job for trying to sleep with a high school student. Like, wtf how despicable can you be?
Won't ask for a link, but could someone please give a quick description of what happened in the video? Best in a spoiler tag so people don't have to read what I presume is upsetting material
There's a saying in the comic industry often attributed to Stan Lee: "Every comic book is someone's first issue."
It's an adage I've found quite relevant for how people interact with social justice and anti-social justice movements like this. And no, the internet doesn't help - hell, it's probably made it worse.
I remember even KV was shocked when they saw it when they tried to dox someone. A few even dared to mention that this is kinda sick. But the rest ordered them quickly back to follow the herd mentality of "everything is just about jellybeans" and "Don't let the SJW manipulate you".
Tbh. A combination of womenhating incels and horny teenagegirls fighting for the same predator? A match made in... well not heaven.. but somewhere.
Basically a cosplay-contest that Vic was moderating. During the contest he asks a 8 (or 5?) year old Wonderwoman-Cosplayer what she would be doing after the show? When they crowd boos his only reply is "She's wonderwoman!" (as if being a creep to an adult woman was ok)
And in the same video, about 20 minutes later, he asks a Beastboy-Cosplayer (about 14-15 years old) if she was an orion slavegirl. When she declines, he asks if she wants to be one.
So basically coming unto minors two times in less than 30 minutes. In front of hundreds of people. I think that's what you call libel-proof.
Again, Vic has a huge pattern of behaviour that leads me to think he's a textbook megalomaniac (I guess narcissist is the term nowadays, but somehow that feels too harmless for Vic). Everything he does is about gaining or flaunting power.
- Vic's targeting underage girls in general, who are obviously more vulnerable than adults (that's pretty much the whole idea of being underage).
- Vic works as a schoolteacher, which gives him power over underage girls.
- Vic works as a police officer, which gives him power over civilians.
- Vic works as a voice actor and builds a fanbase of girls around himself, who call him the Fuhrer (even ignoring that he's being compared directly or by proxy to Hitler, the literal meaning of the word is essentially "leader" or "one who guides", innately a figure of trust and authority).
- Styles himself as a Christian youth minister, which he is known to use as a pretext for predating on girls.
- Makes his own Star Trek fan show, and casts himself as Captain Kirk, the roguish captain who seduces women every episode, puts godlike beings in their place, beats up superhumans, and repeatedly and intentionally breaks his organization's rules with no consequence. Contrast to other popular Star Trek characters like Spock, Picard, and Worf, who are defined by their rigid senses of personal discipline (and even genuine religious conviction in some cases!).
- Numerous cases of sexual assault.
- Vic's repeated statements about how silence is consent, both as replies and completely unprompted.
- According to one report (from someone who has joined here, so they should feel free to correct my misinterpretation of it if desired), he ignored a con that tried to ban him, and then continually harassed the staff member that was assigned to watch over him instead.
- Tries to silence truthful accusations made against him through a legal show of force, most likely being fully aware of how incapable he would be of actually disproving the assertions.
There are one or two of these bullet points that might appear to be innocent by themselves, but when you look at them in the greater context of how Vic behaves it fits in too comfortably into an uncomfortable picture. If you could remove the abusive part of Vic's personality, would there even be anything left?
Is this also a Dragoncon video?
Last edited:
Yes, it is.
Additional bullet point to add above:
- Made a masturbatory fan film about turning into the character he was best known for (Ed Elric) and tried to shove it into the program of as many conventions as possible in the mid-2000s.
Just to add for anyone who can't see the video. Vic also uses his cosplay during this contest to justify his "jokes". The cosplay is Kirk. When the audience express their distaste, Vic exclaims "COME ON, I'm KIRK!"
It's been a while since I last saw it.. but I don't think anyone laughed during the video. He received disgust from the audience. Like the deposition, its one of those rare moments caught on film: Vic in a room with people who aren't his fans and don't find his behavior charming.
I made a tweet about Nintendo replacing Niosi in Fire Emblem Heroes already and said It made me more upset that Funimation didn't replace Vic in the home release of Broly and didn't include any hashtags, then about one minute later an ISWV dude replied to it, complete with anime girl avatar. Looked at their feed and it's full of them bragging that people block him.
These people really have nothing better to do than just search Vic's name on Twitter, do they? Lmao.
These people really have nothing better to do than just search Vic's name on Twitter, do they? Lmao.
Last edited:
Just watched episode one of The Boys, The Homelander looks like Vic. It was pretty fitting.
Wow Nintendo replaced Niosi??? Isn't that game coming out very soon? I'm so surprised.
Funimation really should have replaced Vic. It's disappointing.
I believed Nintendo will not credit Niosi. The game is already out today so Nintendo can't stop/delay the game and replace him. For any future FE DLC, it will be a different VA.
He is being replaced in Fire Emblem Heroes, the mobile game, no word yet on if he'll be replaced in Three Houses, which just came out today.
Was he cosplaying as Kirk for any particular reason, like tied to Star Trek Continues? Or is it just another sign that he really, really identifies with the character?
Maybe it's me starting out with TNG, maybe I'm just not hardcore enough to be a true Trekkie, but I also find it weird if he just pulled out the term "Orion slave girl" like that. I was actually watching a bunch of TOS a while ago and I still had to look that name up. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about a one-scene one-off character from a TV show's pilot episode, you know? (Or Enterprise, which apparently had a storyline with them for a season.)
I was going to make this post about how the difference was that Captain Kirk was actually charming and also it was a 60 series so some of the more non-consent stuff that happens with a product of its time.
Then I realized that Vic probably actually thinks he's Captain Kirk.
He grew up on the original TOS series and decided to emulate that behavior. Even as times changed. And now I feel even grosser than I originally did.
So glad I only watch ten minutes of Star Trek Continues before deciding it was trash. I would feel so bad right now if I had actually been a fan of that.
Then I realized that Vic probably actually thinks he's Captain Kirk.
He grew up on the original TOS series and decided to emulate that behavior. Even as times changed. And now I feel even grosser than I originally did.
So glad I only watch ten minutes of Star Trek Continues before deciding it was trash. I would feel so bad right now if I had actually been a fan of that.
Hell even it its time they showed boundaries. The "dark side" of Kirk tried to force himself on Yoeman Rand and this was very clearly portrayed as a bad thing.
Actually, now that I think about it, Vic kinda is like Kirk, evil Kirk from The Enemy Within.
Rekieta just defended that video on the grounds that "this is a joke that has been made a billion, billion times" and "the little girl was flirting with Vic."
I need a shower.
I need a shower.
There was an episode of CSI where a peadophile used this to excuse his actions.
So we're literally talking schlocky TV crime show villian level defense.
How evil and twisted do you have to be to say stuff like this without vomiting?