• Announcements

    • Clarifying How To Use the Report Feature   06/29/20

      Hello. I have noticed a great deal of confusion regarding how to use the report feature and what is expected regarding reports, so I am making a clarification announcement to users who may be unfamiliar with how the report feature works. Please note we have this rule regarding reports: 16.  Do report. Do not make frivolous reports (such as "I don't like this person"). Frivolous reports will result in a warning and possible ban. a. When reporting, please give a reason. Reports citing what rule the post is breaking and giving some information are way more valuable and will get the issue resolved faster. (Reports with no explanations sometimes require mods to go through and skim the entire thread to find out what's going on. Please save us time if you can). b. Don’t waste the mods’ time. Report people for breaking the rules, otherwise don’t report. [Rules in their entirety can be found here.] We also have a wonderful tutorial on how to use the report feature created by one of our former moderators which you can find here. In essence, we enforce the rules as they are written. In a rare occasion there may not be a direct violation but the user is still conducting themselves inappropriately and how we handle that is up to the moderators discretion. We do our best. We also encourage you to use the report feature to report posts that have been edited down to nothing or if you double posted and would like your double post hidden. Also, please note that we do not provide updates on reports. We get far too many to be able to keep up with every one. You are welcome to message a moderator to ask about your report, but please know that we cannot and will not divulge any information on whether we banned the user you are reporting. Simply that we have taken appropriate action. I hope this helps provide further clarification on how to use the report feature. Should you have any questions not clear in these instructions, please feel free to message me or Nyx. Thank you. *Please allow up to 3 business days (as we tend to be slower on weekends) for a response and for reports to be cleared.
    • Reputation Has Increased!   07/06/20

      Hello. You have been asking for it and it is finally here. We have increased the number of reputation given in a day from 25 to 50. We will see how well 50 works out and if that is enough. Please continue to provide feedback and we will reevaluate as needed. This change has been added to the site changes thread located here. Happy repping. Thank you.

Vic Mignogna


9705 posts in this topic

Posted

Vic should just sue Ty and get it over with. If he feel like the verdic was wrong then sue fucking Ty for fucking him over

 

He should also sue Screech because Screech is the one who pushed Ty on him. Also has Percy come back from his "vacation"? X3

3

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

He should also sue Screech because Screech is the one who pushed Ty on him. Also has Percy come back from his "vacation"? X3

 

if he got time to file a bullshit thing like this then yeah 

2

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

[...] Also has Percy come back from his "vacation"? X3

 

Lol no

e4IweDxqBY49I8XwcJXRZPqIJgb3KP5uszfJYUO3

Lol, more than a month of vacation? So soon after that hearing? How smart is this law firm again?

oiXmUVd6W1oxa5rKF5SZ47je0CI9-lHfjkuY236r

 

2

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Well welcome to year two of Screeching people. This is gonna be insanity. Just how many appeals does Screech and Vig will they file. Because this is ridiculous.

 

How many wanna bet that Ty is gonna try to file anyway? 

Edited by Fairyduster
6

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

I usually go with SQWs, status quo warriors. It’s nice that the narrative isn’t being driven almost exclusively by YouTube grifters now, and they’ve all kind of faded into irrelevance. Vic’s now a known creep that tried to sue people into silence, failed, and now has to pay for it. He’s done.

 

I'm hoping by the new year they all have given up and move on to whatever else they move on to. Cause there's no way Vic's winning anything at this point lol.

I mean they can support him in Prince Adventures lmao :happee:

Well welcome to year two of Screeching people. This is gonna be insanity. Just how many appeals does Screech and Vig will they file. Because this is ridiculous.

 

Oh, well, this is just great and dandy. Guess we have to put up with ol Screechy and his gang for who knows how much longer.

I'll be in a corner eating popcorn and sipping delicious hot tea.

7

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

I'm hoping by the new year they all have given up and move on to whatever else they move on to. Cause there's no way Vic's winning anything at this point lol.

I mean they can support him in Prince Adventures lmao :happee:

Oh, well, this is just great and dandy. Guess we have to put up with ol Screechy and his gang for who knows how much longer.

I'll be in a corner eating popcorn and sipping delicious hot tea.

 

Tbh I can't wait to see how badly prince adventures goes just from the demo video it seems like its going to be a mess. 

4

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

So wait is the appeals already over? And Vic lost again?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

So wait is the appeals already over? And Vic lost again?

 

Appeals are still pending at this time.

Edited by Pierced Areolas
3

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Appeals are still pending at this time.

 

and apprently hes been invited to two cons for this year

https://animecons.com/guests/bio/517/vic-mignogna

 

Good evening, #Threadnought - it's almost 7:30, and I've now heard Lara Croft say the same exact thing - in a DLC challenge tomb - 15 times in very short succession, punctuated by 15 or so falling screams. So it's definitely time for a break.
So let's get started on this.

So - basic ground rules for the next several nights. This transcript is damn near 200 pages. I'm going to try and keep it to about 2 hours a night, or less. That'll probably change if I get really interested in the reading, but I'm not sure how much that'll happen. 
My expectation based on a lot of the hearing notes is that much of the testimony is going to be fairly technical and repetitive. I'll go through that probably fairly quickly, without getting into excessive detail. 
On the other hand, we know the end result of this hearing, and we know appeals are coming. I'll probably do a little more commenting than I have with other filings/transcripts on what I think various participants were trying to accomplish.

With that out of the way, let's dig in. 
We'll skip the appearances section except to note that there are additional lawyers for all parties - that's because the attorneys have to testify (at least in Texas) as to their fees, and it's a bit awkward to try and ask yourself questions on the stand (to say the least). 
The start isn't unusual from what we've seen of Judge Chupp. Minimal pleasantries, maximum efficiency.ENZpztWUEAEKyHI.png
JSL is ready to start with witnesses. Martinez wants to talk about his motion for continuance first.
Judge Chupp indicates that Martinez didn't set it for hearing. I thought it had been set, but if Judge Chupp was correct, that was a bit of a blunder.ENZqnMaVAAAqsC5.png
In either case, the pragmatic approach (have the hearing then see if more time is needed) carries the day, and Martinez is sharp enough to let it go at that.
Hellberg (JSL's partner) steps up to start the fees presentation. 
There's some momentary confusion over the basis for admitting evidence. This is technical, but the hyper-simplified version is just that affidavits aren't business records, but the affidavits provide the basis for claiming that the documents attached to them are business records.ENZrv4yXsAA4emv.png
I will say at this point that I did reasonably well in Evidence - well enough to get hired as the TA for the following year - but I'm still not confident I truly understand the underlying logic behind a lot of the associated rigmarole. 
Anyway - Martinez demonstrates that he maybe hadn't read the stuff he was objecting to as thoroughly as he could have (or as thoroughly as Judge Chupp did), but he at least recovers fairly gracefully.ENZtM0wUcAAZ0tn.pngENZtM0bXkAAS848.png
JSL takes the stand to testify to his fees and their reasonableness, and there's the usual background stuff. (I'll probably start skipping chunks of material in favor of summarizing, where stuff is mundane.)ENZty0qUEAAMaj5.png
The next several pages set out Lemoine's background as an anti-SLAPP expert, which is both something that most of us are relatively familiar with at this point and reasonably impressive. It's a niche area, and he's clearly highly skilled in this area. 
As an aside, I've read a lot of attorneys fees cases in the past, from a lot of jurisdictions. I don't remember if this has come up in Texas, but there's caselaw in a bunch of places to the effect that a party shouldn't be penalized for choosing a skilled (& expensive) lawyer. 
Anyway, the testimony establishes who Lemoine talked to locally to get opinions on what a reasonable range of hourly rates would be, and then he starts to talk specifics.ENZvdJwXkAEJ1d1.png
One area that might have warranted a bit more discussion, and may re-appear during either cross-examination or Judge Chupp's questions, is Casey Erick's rate, which is quite low even compared with his associate.ENZwDWVWsAIUL5G.png
The discussion of billing discretion is interesting to legal geeks (I'm wondering if the addition makes a practical difference or it's just Texas courts saying "either you do it or we'll do it for you and you won't like it if we do it for you"). But prob. limited actual interest.ENZwum7WkAEKyAg.png
Now we get to the meat of the matter - the discussion of reasonableness. I don't know if this goes to Judge Chupp's overall level of impatience with the whole hearing or not, but my understanding is that this stuff is handled on the papers in a lot of places. And I can see why.ENZxovsWwAA8ro1.png
There just doesn't seem to be a lot about fees that would require this sort of testimony to take place live - everything that the lawyers will testify to is in the papers, and the bulk of the cross could be dealt with the same way. Which would be a lot faster than doing it live. 
So there's some more talk about billing discretion here. Essentially, the reason is this: fees awards are there to make the party receiving one whole, not to be a windfall for the lawyers. So the expectation is that you bill everything the way you would a client.ENZykhuWsAYQqZ0.png
There's some additional discussion of rates and reasonableness, and the entry of part of an exhibit that deals with the fees incurred since the filing of the motion. I'm not going to go into detail, but I will say this much: 
In a law school class consisting of Nick, Ty, the rest of BHBWhoever, and Martinez, it's clear that Martinez wins the Cali.

I am aware of exactly how faint that praise is, but it's too early to say more for sure.ENZzqCRXUAAL76g.png
Skipping through more material, it also seems that they noted, and addressed, the issue with Erick's billing that had Kiwi Farms and the tinfoil hat brigade all worked up - it was an error that was removed when they finally caught it.ENZ0SlqWwAAA1WP.png
By the way - if I skip stuff that you have specific questions about, leave a comment & I'll try to go back to it. It's just that this stuff isn't spectacularly interesting even by my idiosyncratic standards, and there's not much that looks worth sinking my teeth into in this bit. 
Of course, as soon as I say that we hit a more interesting bit - both in general terms and because we know that JSL's explanation didn't satisfy Judge Chupp.ENZ1abtW4AAL3oB.png
I've got a few different things to say about this bit here.ENZ1yIzXsAAyosM.png
The first is that sometimes one of the risks of hiring an expert is that experts can get a little more sucked into the weeds than a situation really deserves, and it's legitimate to inquire as to whether that results in some unreasonable billing in any particular case. 
I don't think it did here, or at least not to the extent that Judge Chupp thinks it did. There are a lot of legitimately unique elements about this case, and if Ron and Monica - who were facing a career-ending threat with this case - wanted to ensure all the bases were covered, 
that's a reasonable choice, and not one that they should have to bear the costs of when there's a fee-shifting statute in place.
Twibel is one of the legitimately interesting, and unique, aspects. And it's not just me or JSL who think that. 
There have been a few law review articles written on the topic, and it's come up quite a bit when Popehat (who I'll not be tagging into this thread) and Josh Barro talk about Trump and defamation. The question is whether this being a hellsite is a legally relevant factor. 
(One of the questions, that is; there are others.) That is, do reasonable people take Tweets the same way that they receive other forms of communications, or are we more willing to assume hyperbole over literal truth? That can matter for defamation. 
It's reasonable to question how much research on Twibel should be billed to a client rather than looked at as continuing education-type material, but in a case like this, I'd say a fair amount of research on that would be. 
This is also relevant, I think - and was largely overlooked by the court. There were, as Nick and the NMC constantly reminded us, an insane number of tweets in question, all presented without context.ENZ4bbqXsAA5KzY.png
Finding that context is a necessity. I'm not a litigator, but even I know that it's dumb idea to not try to become better informed than the opposition. And - due respect to the defendants - but there are reasons to get independent confirmation beyond what the client says. 
If I had been given the "notice-pled" craplaint that Ty started with, and was told that I was defending that case, and knew that there was a chance I'd see stuff for the first time in the response to a TCPA motion, I'd sink a bunch of time into those hundreds of tweets. 
This one, particularly in combination with the Twibel issue, is a huge one. "Sexual predator" is in that blurry area between fact and opinion. I sunk more time into that question out of curiosity than JSL billed for it, and didn't find a hell of a lot.ENZ6VttXYAE9UDD.png
And that's a huge one. It was probably one of the more clear accusations in the case. If it's not opinion, it's probably defamatory per se, which has critical TCPA implications. And it's a statement that's very much defamatory outside the USA. 
Ty did things that ran up the cost. The hellfiling was the biggest example, IMO, but there were lots of others. I think that's a point that could have been made more clearly in the fees motions (all 3 of them).ENZ7DT6WkAAi_zI.png
And, yeah - the depositions were unusual. I think all of us were clear on that. They also were a risk that paid off massively for the defendants - the best evidence against Vic is Vic's deposition.ENZ7gR0W4AAc7VQ.png
The CDA defense for retweets is pretty new everywhere - and in this case, it literally wasn't clear until the TCPA hearing itself whether or not pure retweets were being claimed as defamatory.ENZ719JW4AATIuM.png
And a few other issues - also legitimate - and then we get to Nick. Because 2020, and we shouldn't have hoped for better than 2019.ENZ8sOIWwAghjuV.png
I understand both why Judge Chupp was pissed that Nick kept getting dragged in, and why JSL thought it necessary. I think the main problem was the difficulty in explaining in a way that fit the judge's experience - that didn't happen, and it hurt the defendants. No doubt.ENZ9mRqWwAMtcGZ.png
The explanation is reasonable - if Nick is talking to Ty, and particularly when Ty is appearing to blather about the case - it's almost negligent to *not* watch.
No, scratch that. Not "almost negligent." Negligent. A Whipplecast might substitute, but some monitoring is needed.ENZ-cjBX0AI_1yI.pngENZ-cjUXsAYuC3o.png
The judge's question is good. JSL's answer is good. But there's a missing piece.

I'm not sure how YouTube works - and particularly how livestreams work - was clear to Judge Chupp. But it also wasn't clear how to bridge that gap without exceeding his tolerance.ENZ-_e2WkAIuFM2.png
In a typical case that falls within normal people's experience, you can count on the judge being up there with you on the background. Unfortunately, this is kind of the opposite of that kind of case. 
The judge makes his impatience clear, and they move on.ENaAaZPWoAAO_9N.png
There are a few more pages of testimony, mostly on appellate fees, followed by some testimony on costs. Here, we're back to technical, so I'm not going to screenshot. 
And with this glorious little moment, which I'll go out on a limb and suggest wasn't the high point of JSL's 2019 experience, we conclude JSL's direct examination.ENaBs6eWsAE2XXe.png
It's been almost exactly two hours since I started, so I think I'll break here for tonight, and pick up with the cross-examination around the same time tomorrow.

Not enough covered to have much new to say beyond what's in the thread, so no recap. 
Night, all - I'll check comments and then try to get Lara across the bridge she keeps getting blown off by the wind a few more times. Or maybe a few dozen more. 
Edited by Fairyduster
2

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

 

and apprently hes been invited to two cons for this year

https://animecons.com/guests/bio/517/vic-mignogna

 

 

Why though would any cons invite him with this court show still going on?

I mean I get voice of edward and all that but who wants to deal with this? 

3

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

Why though would any cons invite him with this court show still going on?

I mean I get voice of edward and all that but who wants to deal with this? 

 

The really need to re-dub FMA because at this point that's what's going to save Vic despite all this shit. 

Good thing I never want to go to a con again so I will never have to meet him :D

So happy the first and last one I went to did not have him.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

 

4

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Why though would any cons invite him with this court show still going on?

I mean I get voice of edward and all that but who wants to deal with this? 

 

Looks like the Savannah con also got Chuck Huber....

https://savannahmegacc.wixsite.com/mysite/registry

OH AND THEY ALSO GOT THE HEAD FROM FANTASY SOFT :frowny: And GothicSushi

Ok this is "Vic and his Lickers" con.

 

Edited by Red Porcupine
3

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Looks like the Savannah con also got Chuck Huber....

I didn't realize this but Vic, Todd, Chuck and Michelle are part of the cast of the bootleg Star Trek Continues??

LMAO Vig is literally the Adam Sandler of Anime? (Adam Sandler is renowned for hiring his mates as cast members and cranking out shitty movies that rip off Sony) 

 

https://savannahmegacc.wixsite.com/mysite/registry

 

OMG Wix..really?.Looks really professional...

Hang on whats going on here....

http://www.savannahanimazingcon.com/  OK original site that clicks forward....

https://savannahmegacc.wixsite.com/mysite Dead! /Facepalm

https://www.sumtersc.gov/event/low-country-comic-con-sumter Soo this was supposed to run in October and got pushed to the end of Jan?


https://savannahmegacc.wixsite.com/mysite/registry This is the updated site that links

https://twitter.com/LCCC_Present which links to the broken website...wait.. What the actual fuck???

 

OH AND THEY ALSO GOT THE HEAD FROM FANTASY SOFT :frowny: And GothicSushi

Ok this is "Vic and his Lickers" con.

A pinned tweet with Tony Privette, Screech, Mrs Screech and Gothic. (Not Pictured the screechlets)

http://whois.domaintools.com/savannahanimazingcon.com

 

I swear the Wix site went down/was pulled in the last 10 minutes...

Edited by Ume Ochazuke
Typo
3

Share this post


Link to post