-
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 clearly a large contingent of MRA/Gamergate scum who latched onto this considering how the early days of this nonsense were filled with talks about how "Vic is Dragonball" when Broly is a movie side character, albeit a popular one. The real crazy Vic fans are those that mainly remember him for being Ed Elric in FMA, the role he used to form the basis of his fan club/cult of personality. You're absolutely right that a lot of the typical crossover of anime fans who also don't respect women and would be in Vic's corner are by and large a bunch of weeaboos who complain about muh censorship and original authorial intent.
But yes, this is very similar in a lot of ways to the Edge name squatting once upon a time. It's why Soul Calibur isn't Soul Edge 2.
Yeah I can see the Judge not wanting Ty to be forced to take the stand unless an absolute last resort. Not only can it open the door to ethic rule headaches, but it would make the case even more bogged down in litigation than it already is.
other than that, seems like just standard litigation stuff right down to the Judge being like "you made shit needlessly more complicated because of your early appeal, fix this shit now unless you want to waste even more of everyone's time"
other than that, seems like just standard litigation stuff right down to the Judge being like "you made shit needlessly more complicated because of your early appeal, fix this shit now unless you want to waste even more of everyone's time"
It speaks to my own arrogance to think it would end in any other way, but it was still disappointing to see the usual response from Vic-stans when you post peer reviewed studies and other formal sources about the actual rates of false sexual assault reports and the systemic and cultural barriers that disincentive women from reporting.
Dunford with expanded thoughts on the hearing yesterday based on clarifying info from Sean Hassan.
Was just coming here to post that. Good follow up.
We will know the specifics when the transcript is out.
His explanation sums it up. To abridge it even more, the problem here is that no one is 100% sure who actually has jurisdiction (the ability to decide anything) on the case right now; Judge Chupp, or the Appellate Court. There is a 99% chance that Judge Chupp still has jurisdiction and can proceed with his stuff, so the new defense attorney can fix this by dropping his appeal, and then appealing again (properly) after Chupp's final order. There is a 1% chance that the appellate court now has jurisdiction of the case and Chupp can't do anything, even if the Appellate Court is going to say "you did this too early" and kick it back to the lower court to Chupp. A court cannot make decisions directly affecting a case if it never had jurisdiction in the first place.
The catch is that in that 1% scenario, if the defense drops the appeal now, you typically can't get two bites at the apple (making corrections to a filed motion is one thing, but if you flat out drop/withdraw/etc your valid appeal, most courts will not let you re-file). On the other hand, if Chupp proceeds and the Appellate Court later tells him "sorry we had jurisdiction for these few weeks" and kicks it back down, Chupp not only has to redo everything after the appeal was filed because he technically never had the power to do anything once that appeal was filed, but guess who's going to knock on Vig's door for even more fees for having to deal with this?
It's one of those situations where local court rules and statutes probably haven't accounted for an attorney doing something really, really dumb
Great explanation, thank you!
Edit: Still amazed that people will ignore explanations from people who know wtf they are talking about, and instead say stuff like "he dismissed with prejudice, meaning he knew he was biased!"
Last edited:
Awwww man some of my favorites from the law one didn't make it. :< In either case we know who is winning the brains category LOL.
Legoshi Beastars, YES! (Aww shoot tho, this person got banned)
That series is coming to Netflix soon, and may likely have a dub too.
A bit of a shame Vig had to be part of both Baki's dub (written by Beastars' author's father) and JoJo in the last year...blehhっ
I love last week, and typically wait to watch this with my SO but sat down and watched this right now. This was great, though the really depressing part of this is that it seems like if Vic had wanted to he could have filed the lawsuit from West Virginia even though he nor the defendants live there and while the case likely would have played out basically the same the defendants would have been out all their legal fees.
I did keep hoping that he would take a minute to talk about Vic as an example of how antislapp is supposed to work though :(
Well, let's hope the Texas Court of Appeals handling Vic's appeal receives no payment by November 14th. Here's a letter that was uploaded into the Google Drive I have bookmarked and there's a link to this Google Drive I posted in this thread a while back stating that if the Court of Appeals receives no payment by November 14th, the appeal will be dismissed:
and on top of that I think everyone is now expecting it to be withdrawn anyway subsequent to the hearing last week.
I don't know what I am expecting anymore. I used to go by "Ty can't really be that stupid? He has to do [insert less than dumbest choice]" but have realized that, no, he will do the dumbest thing imaginable.
But with extra council, and Vig + Ty called to the stand on the 21st, I am finally thinking that they might choose the second but dumbest choice next time.
But then again, I do put too much faith in people very often. So I am sure I will be proven wrong.
LOL I didn't even have to say it, everyone knows what I'm talking about. XD
That'll definitely be the eternal Vicstan excuse. I can taste it now. "We would have won on appeals, if only we didn't suffer that unfortunate technical error"
No, mostly talks about the same coal mine owning douchebag that they've done a segment previously that ultimately lead to Oliver/HBO being sued by a SLAPP case that they finally won somewhat recently. Also mentions other cases but most (if not all) of those are also related to the same shitstain of humanity.
From what I remember they didn't win. They withdrew the lawsuit from West Virginia because of an impeachment that happened.
West Virginia doesn't have a SLAPP law that helps prevent litigious lawsuits.
WV doesn't have an anti slapp law so they couldn't recover fees. It doesn't make it not a SLAPP lawsuit though.
they did however win, and then it was appealed and then because Bob's company is going under and they couldn't afford to bleed money anymore they withdrew the appeal. They didn't withdraw because of the impeachment instead their lawsuit kind of got stalled out for a year because of it.
it's all in the video.
Lol, basically just Beard begging the court to not make him appear because he doesn't know anything and he's just Vic lawyer, so nyah. Maybe in fewer words than I used.
I feel like this protective order kind of inflames the situation. Judge Chupp seems to be doing everything he can in regards to pretending the falsely notarized affidavits don't exist and trying to get JSL to not go down that rabbit hole but Ty and crew are just blowing that rabbit hole to kingdom come trying to weasel out of any possible accountability. I'd laugh if JSL came back with some sort of zinger based on the crime-fraud exception and the fraudulent notarization.
The idiot picked the wrong date...
September 21 instead of November 21...
He listed both.
Been wondering that myself. But not efficient enough in legalese to understand how he comes to that conclusion. Might be the "option to reurge the relief sought at the hearing on November 21, 2019." part? But honestly have no clue.
This is what was in the order proposed by JSL vs the Ty brief that explicitly didn't mention it.
If he granted the order for Slatosch, he's going to grant the one for Beard.
It looks like this new firm is quickly trying to extricate everyone from this situation. I'd be surprised to see an appeal at this rate (unless the sanctions are crazy, which is probably not likely given the new ruling).
It looks like this new firm is quickly trying to extricate everyone from this situation. I'd be surprised to see an appeal at this rate (unless the sanctions are crazy, which is probably not likely given the new ruling).
This isn't really a big deal; it's just Chupp just putting what happened in last weeks hearing in a formal order. It's basically stuff we already knew just based on what Chupp said at the hearing; 1) No to deposing Slatosch right now, but if it turns out that his testimony and documentation are needed, Defendants can re-raise that issue at the next hearing; 2) No to deposing Beard because Chupp already said he wants that to be an absolute last resort, but again, if it turns out that his testimony is needed, then the Defendants can bring that up again, and; 3) no sanctions on Lemonie because that was a dumb idea to start with
In short, Chupp probably thinks the Defendants can establish what's needed for the sanction standards even without their testimony, but he's leaving that door open just in case the next hearing goes off the rails or the Defendants can make a good case why they need Slatosch or Beard.
In short, Chupp probably thinks the Defendants can establish what's needed for the sanction standards even without their testimony, but he's leaving that door open just in case the next hearing goes off the rails or the Defendants can make a good case why they need Slatosch or Beard.
Last edited:
Thanks for the summary. English isn't my first language, so some of these documents finer points seem to go straight over my head. So many little turns of phrases and words that suddenly have a slightly different meaning (or I guess a clearly legally defined one I just have no clue about) in legalese.
