-
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
I've seen this shared around, but I thought the notarization fraud was just limited to the signatures or did I misunderstand that?
Noted.
So much for "Let the courts decide!".
I mean, it was heavily redacted and was missing parts, and the final version of it was done without the person it's named after.
It was signed without them.
So regardless, shady shit.
There is legitimacy, but Huber is trying to present them in a way that presents Vic Mignogna as innocent and Chris Sabat as the villain.
For Chris Sabat calling Vic homophobic slurs, several people - including two affidavits- have noted that they legitimately thought Vic was gay on first impression. In one of the affidavits, one of Vic's victims posited that he intentionally presents that image to lure women into a false sense of security. A Funimation employee told Anime News Network something to the effect of that Vic's sexuality was discussed there because there were also men at Funimation who felt that Vic was making advances on them.
I don't believe Huber specifically said that Sabat was exchanging contracts for sexual favour. However, Vic did bring in one long-time girlfriend (not his fiancee) into a project that he was director on. At least in the redacted version of affidavit that we saw, Huber didn't name names and allowed his general paranoia over Chris Sabat to paint him as the perpetrator.
Don't know about the former voice actor for Gohan/Kid Goku; it's been discussed but I'm not familiar with the voice actor so I've had difficulty following that conversation. I think the possibility of a Twitter hack has come up but I can't discuss the validity of it.
Stephanie Nadolny, there's a lot of mystery around her. The place claiming that it's true is coming from "Her" Twitter account, but she never actually said anything herself only liked comments about the situations including a screenshot of a DM from Facebook of her saying that Sabat has been trying to ruin her life since 2007*. Nothing however has been on the account from her about the subject which I think is an important point. There was also another screenshot of her saying that she doesn't have control of that Twitter account and that she was hacked.
*I starred the 2007 thing because it's worth mentioning because that is when Chuck claimed they started work on Kai (Despite it not even debuting in Japan until 2009 & the US in 2010). It frankly seems like somebody running that account read Chuck's affidavit with no knowledge of the time frame for Dragon Ball and parroted his 2007 date. As for that BoundingIntoComics article, they're attempting to tie the events she talks about in her interview about her personal problems in 2009 and lead readers on a journey that she was let go because she wouldn't have sex with Sabat which she never so much as implied. If Stephanie is as open as she is on Twitter with her likes, if something happened with her and Sabat she can set the record straight and say it, but as of right now? I'm not believing Chuck's ramblings or a screenshot.
The current unconfirmed info on Stephanie Nadolny is that her twitter was hacked and that her loss of voice acting career was destroyed by her ex instead of what the conVics said.
This is a bit of an aside, but when my relative and I were discussing this case I didn't really remember most of the names associated with it. When I started talking on the legal side since I don't think he's ever taken any law courses, I mentioned that there was a guy among the defendants whose name I didn't know and he instantly jumped up with "Chris Sabat!" Who happens to be one of the few voice actors I actually knew the name of already, so I at least knew that he wasn't one.
So I'm left wondering if that's a coincidence from this relative being dumb or if there was actually a long term hit job out on Sabat for some reason.
Overall, "does the alt-right make money" tends to be a complex question. There are obviously people living off of it like Nick, but then you also have plenty of high profile failures like Freestartr, the crowdfunding website that didn't restrict freedom of speech (by which I mean it existed entirely to serve white supremacists), which seemed to have pretty pathetic results for the part from what I can remember. I think its goofy Comicsgate venture was the only thing that attracted people.
There's also the risk that alt-right personalities are supported more for the side they're supporting than themselves as individuals. So when they're dropped, they tend to instantly crater. See Milo Yiannopolois. So it's not hard to imagine that when Vic stans get tired of losing and move on to something else, they don't take Nick with them and he's left asking how he can support his family when the first thing an employer's going to see on googling him is him being a huge asshole and a failure at law.
(Hell, if you want to get all historical. A lot of modern racism probably comes from the desire to develop justifications to support the exploitative practices of colonial mercantilism. Like, pseudo-scientific claims of white supremacy spread so that people could make money off the slave market rather than it just being an outcropping of general xenophobia. At the same time, a lot of the death of colonial empires comes from the fact that colonies that aren't India tend to end up being big money pits. Canada, for example, basically became independent for asking nicely and Britain didn't really care anymore.)
And there are often powerful, rich single investors propping particular groups up even outside the internet. Steve Bannon got a lot of money from Seinfeld reruns and used it to run Breitbart. So it's not particularly implausible that something like that's happening here. Vic himself is supposedly rich so his money could also be supporting it.
At any rate, if we're talking what the support for Vic looks like, I don't think we have the information to clearly say how well it maps up to what it looks like. You're essentially left trying to get a view of reality from looking at a sea of people who want to distort it.
So I'm left wondering if that's a coincidence from this relative being dumb or if there was actually a long term hit job out on Sabat for some reason.
If it's a factor, it's a factor. Maybe someone could investigate further into the Gofundme's investment situation but even then we're taking certain things on faith; people calling their bank to pull out of crowdfunding payments is supposedly pretty common for instance.
Overall, "does the alt-right make money" tends to be a complex question. There are obviously people living off of it like Nick, but then you also have plenty of high profile failures like Freestartr, the crowdfunding website that didn't restrict freedom of speech (by which I mean it existed entirely to serve white supremacists), which seemed to have pretty pathetic results for the part from what I can remember. I think its goofy Comicsgate venture was the only thing that attracted people.
There's also the risk that alt-right personalities are supported more for the side they're supporting than themselves as individuals. So when they're dropped, they tend to instantly crater. See Milo Yiannopolois. So it's not hard to imagine that when Vic stans get tired of losing and move on to something else, they don't take Nick with them and he's left asking how he can support his family when the first thing an employer's going to see on googling him is him being a huge asshole and a failure at law.
(Hell, if you want to get all historical. A lot of modern racism probably comes from the desire to develop justifications to support the exploitative practices of colonial mercantilism. Like, pseudo-scientific claims of white supremacy spread so that people could make money off the slave market rather than it just being an outcropping of general xenophobia. At the same time, a lot of the death of colonial empires comes from the fact that colonies that aren't India tend to end up being big money pits. Canada, for example, basically became independent for asking nicely and Britain didn't really care anymore.)
And there are often powerful, rich single investors propping particular groups up even outside the internet. Steve Bannon got a lot of money from Seinfeld reruns and used it to run Breitbart. So it's not particularly implausible that something like that's happening here. Vic himself is supposedly rich so his money could also be supporting it.
At any rate, if we're talking what the support for Vic looks like, I don't think we have the information to clearly say how well it maps up to what it looks like. You're essentially left trying to get a view of reality from looking at a sea of people who want to distort it.
Last edited:
Not a long term one. Just a wide net hoping to catch as many as possible.
Think of this.
The recent "Funileak" had Sean Schemmel using the f-word, but the conVics were all obsessing with Sabat's mulit character lewd scene.
Huber's affidavit, which based on some had some parts removed. (Remember kids edit your pdfs in Acrobat not Photoshop Element) , never cites Sabat as the casting couch person.
But the conVics and altish-rightish youtube and all that want that to stick. So they post it everywhere and even people on Era find it.
So the people who are only casually interested will find the bullshit rather than what's actually going on.
See my annoyance that Google ever suggests BoundingintoComics to.
Now imagine someone without our the savvy just randomly looking up. Thanks to Mr. Duchette for making some things show up in a Google search.
Really this could be a thread on it's own :/
Anyways, tracked down the guy and reported him. Not like I can do much more to help :(
Why the hell is this fucking psychopath not being arrested as we speak?
Also reported him.
Unless I made a mistake, it seems like most of that guy's tweets are in Dutch, so there's a decent chance he's nowhere near anyone related to this case. (EDIT: He appears to be talking about some local Netherlands stuff as well.)
The ones that are in English are what you'd expect though. Like, saying that the Christchurch mosque shoots proves that Muslims are allowed to kill people (what).
The ones that are in English are what you'd expect though. Like, saying that the Christchurch mosque shoots proves that Muslims are allowed to kill people (what).
Last edited:
You see shit like this, and you wonder how anyone *even now* can't see that Nick is just telling these people what they want to hear.
"You don't need physical evidence of contracts when judges ask you for it" FOH
Even if we took everything at face value, at the very minimum to have a verbal contract hold up in court you would need proof the verbal contract existed. So likely sworn testimony from all parties involved (not just the contracting party)
But alas this is the same side that seemed to think that if vic swore something wasn't true than the burden of proof would shift because Vic = infallible and the others are just dirty liars.
The funny thing is that you don't, not for a con appearance.
An oral contract, especially in this time of smart phones, mms texts, and the like.
It's extremely easy to prove an oral contract. The hilarious part is thst Ty could not. And then claimed Disocery hold for the reason he couldn't.
IANAL but eve watching Law and Order and People's Court I know that.
Hell, watching Night Court and Golden Girls I knew that.
Wouldn't texts technically be a written contract? (also yes... most likely there should have been an email or text somewhere to show people agreeing to things. They either don't exist or Ty was just too inept to think to include them in the lawsuit.)
Yeah. I can't imagine it would be a formal contract via text (maybe via email but still unlikely all the contracts I did with my anime club where just "Hey, can we have permission to do this." and getting a response of yes and no with some loose rules. Though we just got rights to show stuff not any guests because we were too tiny)
It's mostly oral = by mouth and texts are typing so it seems more logical they would be some form of written contract instead.
This
Also I accidently ended up in Srceech's live stream for a moment. He's doubling down harder than a CYOA book made for kids when you make the wrong choice
In most USA Juristicitions texts are considered part of an oral contract because texts are considered part of a casual conversation.
Ah. Either way, if such texts exist they should have been included in the case. Not that it would prove the defendants personally caused him damages with those contracts, but it would at least set the bare minimum to have a case to try to prove that he was damaged by the defendants.
Like Screech is kind of correct for the question of, "what is a contract?" because the answer is usually "whatever the two parties, presumably sober, agree to, as long as it's not about doing crime".
And yet Beard still couldn't do that much
(Coming from Canadian contract law but...)
Whether it's written or oral, contracts are considered valid if you have:
1. Offer ("I will give you my car in exchange for...")
2. Acceptance ("I will accept your car in exchange for...")
3. Consideration ("...$1000 dollars".)
You have to be able to demonstrate all three exist to have a contract binding by law.
Written is obviously easier to prove if anything is in contention.
🤷🏻♀️ Going to bet a lot of these "contracts" probably didn't contain all three elements and were likely in a "we'll probably invite you", "yeah I'll check my schedule" kind of stage, which does not make a contract.
Plaintiff saying "yeah they intended to invite me" is not a contract.
Whether it's written or oral, contracts are considered valid if you have:
1. Offer ("I will give you my car in exchange for...")
2. Acceptance ("I will accept your car in exchange for...")
3. Consideration ("...$1000 dollars".)
You have to be able to demonstrate all three exist to have a contract binding by law.
Written is obviously easier to prove if anything is in contention.
🤷🏻♀️ Going to bet a lot of these "contracts" probably didn't contain all three elements and were likely in a "we'll probably invite you", "yeah I'll check my schedule" kind of stage, which does not make a contract.
Plaintiff saying "yeah they intended to invite me" is not a contract.
Marc Whipple suffered for our sins and transcribed Screech's livestream for us, be sure to thank him for saving us from having to listen to that insufferable con-artist :
IANAL, but from what I've seen from LawTwitter, even a social media post announcing him appearing/cancelling his appearance could have been used to show that a oral contract existed between Vic and a con, and Beard couldn't even come up with that. He'd still need to provide evidence of Consideration, but it should have got it past this hurdle.
IANAL, but from what I've seen from LawTwitter, even a social media post announcing him appearing/cancelling his appearance could have been used to show that a oral contract existed between Vic and a con, and Beard couldn't even come up with that. He'd still need to provide evidence of Consideration, but it should have got it past this hurdle.
Last edited:
The discovery stay is also a bullshit excuse because Texas allows early discovery. Ie: Ty should have gotten affidavits from convention organisers backing that there were oral contracts that were broken before even filing the lawsuit. But also, a stay in Discovery only prevents them looking into their opponents, not getting evidence to back their own claims.
Bare minimum Ty is completely incompetent and didn't think that he needed evidence to win a case but it's equally possible these contracts just never existed.
Bare minimum Ty is completely incompetent and didn't think that he needed evidence to win a case but it's equally possible these contracts just never existed.
It's sad to see that when reading through some youtube comments about a completely unrelated legal situation another youtuber was going through, there were people recommending that person contact Nick for his expert advice...
This is a fun combo of statements (the first one is the later one)
(This is what he said earlier in the stream)
I'm sure Marchi will have a hard time coming back up with the "nickel" she spent. Oh wait... Oops I think he just admitted she is getting paid something significant.
also...
despite lawtwitter's efforts they still don't seem to understand Actual Malice :P
(This is what he said earlier in the stream)
I'm sure Marchi will have a hard time coming back up with the "nickel" she spent. Oh wait... Oops I think he just admitted she is getting paid something significant.
also...
despite lawtwitter's efforts they still don't seem to understand Actual Malice :P
I'm caught up... 3 more interesting posts so I need a new post for them :P
what the new console supposedly is
comments about the gofundme and how they already drained it
and remember that post we were making fun of about shonen heroes and how they get back up after being beaten down... yeah nick went there
what the new console supposedly is
comments about the gofundme and how they already drained it
and remember that post we were making fun of about shonen heroes and how they get back up after being beaten down... yeah nick went there
God that anime analogy shit is the dumbest. Also surprised they haven't pitched another GFM yet but I bet that's coming. I want to say I'm not sure how BFL and Beard could be worse at what they're doing but I've been consistently surprised during this debacle, lol.
I'm actually impressed Nick managed to pass the bar exam anywhere with this level of understanding
Multiple people in that thread and in Nick's own thread with that tweet point out that no, oral evidence does not supersede written evidence as best evidence in contract law. It is assumed that the final written contract, if one exists, represents a compromise of all parties previous written agreements. Nick arguing that written contracts are inferior evidence to oral contracts is factually wrong and dangerously misleading to Vic's case. As pointed out, there are multiple ways they could have obtained documentation to verify an oral agreement, "it was assumed" or "I don't have that today" was never going to pass the bar of clear evidence.
Is Nick saying that for prima facie, you don't need to produce the actual contract? That testimony that there was a contract is enough?
You'd think this would be a giant red flag for ConVics that they're getting hustled, but I guess not.
Nick and Beard believe that "Prima Facie" means "We don't need any evidence."
60k isn't gonna be close to enough
They would be stupid to try and appeal. Their only chance is appealing and get a judge as bad at law as they are
Hubert probably getting canned, Haberkorn... depends on if he opens his mouth again or not since most people forgot that whole debacle. And he'll still do watch mojo videos for YouTube I guess.
I read somewhere that Vic may need to put down a very large bond if he were to try to appeal.
I never said they weren't stupid
And its gonna end horribly especially when they can't fund the appeals. Which is gonna cost a lot more than what is already spent
Oh it's not going to stop being hilariously stupid now. It'll only get more dumbfounding as long as Ty and Nick are involved.
Though it's possible Vic will throw in the towel when the financial burden more clearly becomes inescapable. Then we get to see ISWV say "Damn this world, Vic was on the verge of absolute victory if it weren't for this biased and expensive judicial system."
Our eidetic master strategist is still at work baaaaby!
I mean, who wouldn't trust Blackface lawyer on this right.
I mean, who wouldn't trust Blackface lawyer on this right.