Forum - View topicNEWS: Funimation Files Response to Vic Mignogna's Lawsuit
|
Goto page Previous Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Aresef
Posts: 914 Location: MD |
|
|||||
Vic Mignogna has been behaving the same way for as long as he has been doing conventions. Fans and congoers and conrunners his peers in the industry all had their own stories, but because of the hushed-tones manner in which we all used to talk about this sort of thing, Mignogna was protected in a perverse way from the consequences of his actions. One person might have known one thing but it wasn’t enough to reconsider inviting him to a con or casting him in a project: He knows what he did, and he certainly knows it was wrong. Yet he continued to deny deny deny and to this day continues to enable through his silent complicity the vicious treatment of his accusers, particularly Monica Rial and Jamie Marchi, and of signal-boosters and allies like Jaylyn Saycedo and Jamie McGonnigal. Mignogna and others who have behaved like him (as we know, the spreadsheet included once-prominent fans) have no place in our community. And those who have knowingly enabled, excused or denied his behavior and those who continue to do so should take some time to reflect, to listen to the victims before continuing to participate in this community. |
||||||
|
||||||
Commander Cluck
 Posts: 123 |
|
|||||
|
Yikes. Apparently some guy tried to assault Vic at Anime Matsuri. Thankfully it was stopped and no one was hurt. The dude is now having a nice chat with the police. Stay safe out there, folks. Don't let the craziness get to you.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
ranran-001
Posts: 537 |
|
|||||
Until formal charges are pressed don't jump to conclusions. Second, Vic is still an unrepentant creep. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
lossthief
ANN Reviewer
 Posts: 1404 |
|
|||||
Actually from what I can tell the incident didn't happen at all - searching twitter all I can find is a couple of responses to a now-deleted tweet from a user who's since retracted the statement, claiming the incident was a fan asking for an autograph who wouldn't leave. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ranran-001
Posts: 537 |
|
|||||
That sounds about right, someone posted a pic online of what looked like a black man having a chat with two people in uniform, not sure if they were police or just security. If there was going to be an attempted assault he'd be on the ground or in handcuffs no question. Conveniently such a pic was missing. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ANN_Lynzee
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 2959 Location: Email for assistance only |
|
|||||
|
I hope it's not the same guy that was kicked out of AnimeNorth.
I've been on the internet a long time and this specific type of thing has been here even longer. I've known plenty of people both online and off, of all stripes, that approach others with this kind of specific anger and it usually stems from the same place. |
||||||
|
||||||
Ambimunch
 Posts: 2012 |
|
|||||
|
Funimation doesn't have anything to say other than "no we didn't" - how sad. Can't wait to see how that plays out when their so called investigation surfaces and we see what type of evidence they had against him (probably none).
|
||||||
|
||||||
Spastic Minnow
 Bargain HunterExempt from Grammar Rules  Posts: 4617 Location: Gainesville, FL |
|
|||||
|
I would say their response isn't so much "No we didn't" as it is a sassy "Oh no you di'int!"
Bounding Into Comics' article lists Funimation's defenses, which largely seem to comprise "No we didn't, but even if we did, your lawsuit is so badly worded as to make any argument moot. “1. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff’s own acts or omissions proximately caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries. 2. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because Defendant’s allegedly defamatory statements were substantially true. 3. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff (and/or his agents) consented to and/or published the allegedly defamatory statements by discussing them in public and on social media outlets. 4. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s previously diminished reputation. 5. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff on the grounds that Defendant was induced and provoked to make the statements by the wrongful and malicious acts of Plaintiff. 6. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff for allegedly defamatory made by third-parties, including any allegedly defamatory statements made by any other defendants sued in this lawsuit because those other defendants were not agents or employees of Defendant and therefore were not acting within the course and scope of any agency or employment. 7. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because the allegedly defamatory statements were not made with actual malice. 8. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because any alleged defamatory statements were statements of opinion. 9. Defendants is not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff does not identify a valid contract that was the subject of any alleged interference. 10. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff waived or otherwise forfeited any contractual rights he claims to have had through Plaintiff’s own conduct. 11. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff is libel-proof. 12. If Defendant is found liable for damages, Defendants intends to seek a reduction of damages under the proportionate-responsibility statute, including any credits for a settling person. 13. Plaintiff is not entitled to exemplary damages in regard to any defamation claim which Plaintiff failed to timely serve a request for correction, retraction or clarification within 90 days after learning of the publication of the alleged defamatory statement. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE§ 73.055(c). 14. If Defendant is found liable for exemplary damages, those damages must be capped under the Texas Damages Act, the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, and the Due Course of Law provisions of the Texas Constitution.” [also in the article:] While members of the public have attempted to refute Funimation’s aspects of these defenses they believe to be factually wrong, lawyer Nick Rekieta confirmed that these numerous defenses were standard legal procedure: “If you fail to plead an affirmative defense, you lose the opportunity to raise that affirmative defense at trial. They are pleading the affirmative defenses even if they may not necessarily apply, but you’ve gotta plead them just in case they do. Because if you win on an affirmative defense, you win.” |
||||||
|
||||||
Lynx Raven Raide
 Posts: 412 Location: Central Coast, AU |
|
|||||
|
Not quoting because long post, but he is screwed on points 3 (Nick and his YouTube channel alone...) and 13 (articles were late Jan/early Feb meaning late Apr/early May deadline).
6 is a big one, though, because the other articles were published and Rooster Teeth pulled the trigger before Funimation and that fall out happened, which would play into 4 as well. It should be interesting... |
||||||
|
||||||
|
iamtooawesome
Posts: 351 Location: Thailand |
|
|||||
|
Vic is actually digging his own grave. If the lawsuit prolongs then the old tweet won't be the only thing thats gonna be used as a preponderance of evidence against him. The investigatives can issue a warrant access to his personal accounts such as his private dm's or chatrooms and he's gonna be vulnerable to a greater exposure more than the alleged assaults. Reminds me of the recent case of "Burning Sun Scandal"altho we wish it doesn't come to that.
|
||||||
|
||||||
Sethimothy
 Posts: 121 |
|
|||||
|
For those who may be interested but didn't see it elsewhere, #140Law released the TCPA Motion to Dismiss and holy fun times if it ain't a well worded, heavy document.
19 pages of arguments. 149 pages of evidence. Funimation's argument is basically "Throw this case out and pay us legal fees as allowed by Texas law, because the Plaintiff if clearly a public figure, the allegations against him are well documented and shared in good faith, our employees acted in a reasonable manner, and we aren't beholden to our subcontractors' actions." But you know, "where is the evidence" "our boy ain't a public figure" "voice actors can do no wrong" "why is our boy on trial" etc etc etc /s /s /wrist |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Aresef
Posts: 914 Location: MD |
|
|||||
|
You ain't kidding. Rial and Toye's counsel has also notified individuals including Haberkorn and Rekieta to preserve related documents including communications with Vic about the defendants and other parties, communications between or among them and Rial/Toye, Mignogna's lawyers or between or among themselves about Vic or the suit. They also want documents and other information about the GoFundMe and "communications to any person in which you exchange personal or identifying information concerning the Defendants in the lawsuit, any witnesses to Mignogna’s behavior at fan conventions, and any individuals who testify in the Lawsuit," specifically including Kiwi Farms and Risembool Rangers.
|
||||||
|
||||||
jr240483
 Posts: 4386 Location: New York City,New York,USA |
|
|||||
highly doubt that will ever do any type of independent investigations. will be surprised if it does happen, BUT its as i said. there is zero chance they will do an independent investigation ala the muller report or even that baseball report during the steroid era. its basically committing PR suicide by doing this. especially in the me too movement! |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group