So erhm. This is on tv and shit:
Now all the Vic fans are saying , "We May have lost but FUNimation has destroyed its reputation and Toei will take the Dragon Ball license from them because they're angry!"
That's my question
Destroyed their reputation*Now all the Vic fans are saying , "We May have lost but FUNimation has destroyed its reputation and Toei will take the Dragon Ball license from them because they're angry!"
So erhm. This is on tv and shit:
Toei is already used to otaku shitstorms over stupid minutiae, so this is just foreign drama for them.
Does Toei even know?
I mean, so does the lawsuit. That's one of the legal accusations.So get this.... this guy seriously believes that there was a conspiracy to ruin Vic's life.
From the plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss said:The evidence shows that Defendants' objective here was simple: run Vic out of Funimation, ruin his reputation, and get him kicked from conventions ... i.e., #kickVic. Jamie Marchi signaled the plan: the best way to ruin a career is to "name and shame."
Monica initiated Funimation's internal investigation. Funimation shared details with Monica and Ronald, and both publicly goaded Funimation to release the content of its investigation while bombarding Vic with defamatory tweets. Meanwhile, despite Funimation's argument that she had no authority to speak for the company, Monica and several Funimation employees (with whom she is "very good friends") emailed back and forth about the investigation and how to make Monica "feel better" and what Monica could say to the public. Even Marchi tweeted about the investigation. Seeing conventions cancel after Monica's retweet of @hanleia's false accusations, Funimation tweeted its defamatory statement that it was parting ways with Vic after its "investigation" because of abusive and harassing behavior. Monica then tweeted her endorsement of Funimation's investigation. And Ronald tweeted gleefully that Vic's career was over. Mission accomplished. Funimation has stood by Jamie, Monica and Ronald, exposing themselves to damages – fulfilling its part of the conspiracy by lending credence to Monica's [and Jamie's] allegations. They have played their role as the sine qua non of the conspiracy.
This is the person who wrote this article earlier.So erhm. This is on tv and shit:
Imagine thinking a Judge is supposed to be biased, lmao.Something I randomly wanted to comment on: I saw someone say that Ty Beard didn't bungle the case like an idiot, it was the judge who was "legally required" to be on Vic's side, he should've made the case for Vic and Beard, and he didn't, therefore this is a mistrial and Vic and Beard will win on appeal. I just wanted to sort out where we actually are with this case.
It'd be easier to list the ways he didn't fuck up.
Literally everything.
Since the hearing? He hasn't (because he hasn't done anything.) We're kinda in the quiet times now, but he fucked up so much in his TCPA response and in that hearing that the suit is almost definite dead.
basically he was born and then it's too many to count
Yep, there's also evidence that the whole casting couch comment was about Vic:
This is going about as well as GeriatricGerbil from 2014.So erhm. This is on tv and shit:
Not sure if anyone posted this yet but it's hillarious. The discussion of conspiracy made me remember it.
Not sure if anyone posted this yet but it's hillarious. The discussion of conspiracy made me remember it.
That doesn't even make sense.Rekieta and Beard seem to be under the impression that with Texas' anti-SLAPP thing, the judge is supposed to show prejudice favouring the plaintiff. It's something like, he's supposed to take their stories and evidence in the most favourable light for now and then let the defendant try to break them down later.
This is getting into some real specifics and I have no idea if that's true - at least, it's not absurd when applied to only this particular part of the case, since in the rest the judge is supposed to be favouring the other way - but that seems to be stretching that idea into "he has to let Vic win regardless of what Vic's side actually produces". Even if it's true, the judge couldn't do a whole lot that because Beard rarely had any evidence for the judge to work with.
As far as i know he's supposed to view the evidence in the best possible light.... But you need actual evidence for that to happen not your personal thoughts about what something might mean without context like beard was trying to argue.That doesn't even make sense.
When would anti-SLAPP ever apply if the judge had to give an automatic win to plaintiffs?
Actually, now that we're discussing this. Maybe this is why Greg Doucette didn't think things were going get struck down at that hearing. It makes sense if the plaintiff's case was meant to be looked at in the most favourable light, and so many of the claims being dismissed were a result of Beard making such a weak case that it can't stand even when the judge is trying to favour it.That doesn't even make sense.
When would anti-SLAPP ever apply if the judge had to give an automatic win to plaintiffs?
For reference, about a decade or so ago when Funimation was first getting into streaming, they accidentally leaked a One Piece episode ahead of it's Japanese broadcast. If Funimation could repair their relationship with Toei from that grave of a mistake, I doubt they're really going to give two shits from Funimation sacking one of their voice talents.
Rekieta and Beard seem to be under the impression that with Texas' anti-SLAPP thing, the judge is supposed to show prejudice favouring the plaintiff. It's something like, he's supposed to take their stories and evidence in the most favourable light for now and then let the defendant try to break them down later.
Actually, now that we're discussing this. Maybe this is why Greg Doucette didn't think things were going get struck down at that hearing. It makes sense if the plaintiff's case was meant to be looked at in the most favourable light, and so many of the claims being dismissed were a result of Beard making such a weak case that it can't stand even when the judge is trying to favour it.
Exactly but that doesn't mean that the judge has to give an automatic win based on the rambling of the plaintiffs' attorneys either.As far as i know he's supposed to view the evidence in the best possible light.... But you need actual evidence for that to happen not your personal thoughts about what something might mean without context like beard was trying to argue.
Well yeah, Ty tried to drown the opposition in pointless paper but forgot to consider that he might be asked what proof there might be in there.Actually, now that we're discussing this. Maybe this is why Greg Doucette didn't think things were going get struck down at that hearing. It makes sense if the plaintiff's case was meant to be looked at in the most favourable light, and so many of the claims being dismissed were a result of Beard making such a weak case that it can't stand even when the judge is trying to favour it.
Actually, now that we're discussing this. Maybe this is why Greg Doucette didn't think things were going get struck down at that hearing. It makes sense if the plaintiff's case was meant to be looked at in the most favourable light, and so many of the claims being dismissed were a result of Beard making such a weak case that it can't stand even when the judge is trying to favour it.
Not sure if anyone posted this yet but it's hillarious. The discussion of conspiracy made me remember it.