Vic Mignogna

[Gyt Kaliba]

I don't think so. As far as I know, since he's the one taking them to trial at the moment, absolutely no legal downfalls of that kind can befall him. The worst that can happen is he loses or gets the case thrown out and he's hit with a shit-ton of legal fees.

That's kind of insane to me. So if it's revealed through this case that Vic (as an example) murdered somebody, he can't be arrested for it??

It's definitely pretty crazy, but from what I understand? Pretty much. I'm far from a legal expert though (hell, I'm not even a legal amateur), so if someone with more knowledge on that sort of thing can correct or confirm me on this, it'd be appreciated even if (or actually especially if) I'm wrong.

[Fionordequester]

It's definitely pretty crazy, but from what I understand? Pretty much. I'm far from a legal expert though (hell, I'm not even a legal amateur), so if someone with more knowledge on that sort of thing can correct or confirm me on this, it'd be appreciated even if (or actually especially if) I'm wrong.

I'm not a legal expert... but as far as I'm aware, the "statute of limitations" is there to protect defendants. For example, if the police accuse you of having murdered someone just yesterday, that's really recent. You have fresh DNA samples, you have security footage, you have people who can clearly remember what you were doing that day, or where you were, you have plenty of time to catch the real suspect (if it isn't, in fact, you)... Basically, you can actually resolve things.

If, however, this happened a couple of MONTHS later, after the fact... well, it's a lose-lose for everyone. The DNA samples are gone, the footage has been scrapped, people are starting to forget key details, and the real suspect is already long gone. The accusers can't PROVE a blasted thing against you... But at the same time, you don't have anything with which to DISPROVE your accusers with, either.

In fact, professional "accusers" used to do this back in the olden dayes, to cast shade upon an enemy's reputation. They'd file a lawsuit they knew they'd have no chance of winning, just to dog their enemies with accusations they had no way of disproving. So, we implemented the "statute of limitations" to prevent abuses like that for civil cases. Plus, we were hoping to prevent "he said, she said" situations like... well... precisely what's happening now.

...Yes, that does also mean Vic can't really be prosecuted by most of his victims... But it's still better than the alternative.

[KBABZ]

I'm not a legal expert... but as far as I'm aware, the "statute of limitations" is there to protect defendants. For example, if the police accuse you of having murdered someone just yesterday, that's really recent. You have fresh DNA samples, you have security footage, you have people who can clearly remember what you were doing that day, or where you were, you have plenty of time to catch the real suspect (if it isn't, in fact, you)... Basically, you can actually resolve things.

If, however, this happened a couple of MONTHS later, after the fact... well, it's a lose-lose for everyone. The DNA samples are gone, the footage has been scrapped, people are starting to forget key details, and the real suspect is already long gone. The accusers can't PROVE a blasted thing against you... But at the same time, you don't have anything with which to DISPROVE your accusers with, either.

In fact, professional "accusers" used to do this back in the olden dayes, to cast shade upon an enemy's reputation. They'd file a lawsuit they knew they'd have no chance of winning, just to dog their enemies with accusations they had no way of disproving. So, we implemented the "statute of limitations" to prevent abuses like that for civil cases. Plus, we were hoping to prevent "he said, she said" situations like... well... precisely what's happening now.

...Yes, that does also mean Vic can't really be prosecuted by most of his victims... But it's still better than the alternative.

Thanks for the explanation! Makes a lot of sense why that sort of thing would be implemented.

[PhoenixEX]

Honey, the US imprisoned and tortured Chelsea Manning for exposing war crimes committed with our taxes and name. This was done under Obama, who was supposed to be a lefty. Our government is our enemy. Russia isn't the reason 80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Russia didn't bail out the banks and not prosecute anyone. Russia didn't give us $1.6 trilliom in student loan debt. Russia didn't stagnate our wages since the 1970s, leading to the working-class to begin to use credit cards which now amounts to over a trillion dollars. Russia didn't stick us with over a trillion in medical debt. Russia didn't thrust us into eight illegal and offensive wars against sovereign nations that didn't attack us.

Russia's conservative government and its treatment of my fellow gender, sex and racial minorities is hideous and wrong but it's done nothing to harm the US like the US government and its forty years of conservative presidents have.

No offense, I'm sure you're a wonderful person but please don't ever, ever call me Honey again. That made me feel uncomfortable. Thank you.
As for your reply, what I meant to say was that we need to stop focusing on non-issues and get back to the real issues, which include Russia's meddling. Our government has done terrible things, yes, but compared to Russia's government at least we have the capability to create real change if we don't like what they're doing. A lot of today's misfortunes are due to the fact that no one really held anyone accountable for the actions of the generation before us, and when the rich and powerful ARE held accountable, many times they're disciplined with a couple of fines and a pat on the hand. What happened during the Financial Crisis is a great example of that. No administration is perfect but all of that seems to be changing though. The newly elected younger members of Congress like AOC are a direct result of the incompetence of the US government, and their progressiveness is promising. We need more progressive leaders. This is why it's important that people, especially the younger folks, get out and VOTE, especially for candidates that aren't held at gunpoint by lobbyists and by Wall Street and are willing to go out of their way to do all they can to create a better future for every single US citizen. If you don't go out and vote, if all you are is a keyboard warrior, don't complain when things don't change in 2020 and Donald Trump stays in power for another four years. Also, it's important to not only focus on the racist in chief, but on those around him as well. Mitch McConnell? Another worthless pile of trash that people need to pay attention to. Vote them all out! Get motivated and motivate those around you to act and once we finally have a Progressive in office everyone should stay attentive to make sure they govern exactly how they said they'd govern.

[Captain Awesome]

It's definitely pretty crazy, but from what I understand? Pretty much. I'm far from a legal expert though (hell, I'm not even a legal amateur), so if someone with more knowledge on that sort of thing can correct or confirm me on this, it'd be appreciated even if (or actually especially if) I'm wrong.

I'm not a legal expert... but as far as I'm aware, the "statute of limitations" is there to protect defendants. For example, if the police accuse you of having murdered someone just yesterday, that's really recent. You have fresh DNA samples, you have security footage, you have people who can clearly remember what you were doing that day, or where you were, you have plenty of time to catch the real suspect (if it isn't, in fact, you)... Basically, you can actually resolve things.

If, however, this happened a couple of MONTHS later, after the fact... well, it's a lose-lose for everyone. The DNA samples are gone, the footage has been scrapped, people are starting to forget key details, and the real suspect is already long gone. The accusers can't PROVE a blasted thing against you... But at the same time, you don't have anything with which to DISPROVE your accusers with, either.

In fact, professional "accusers" used to do this back in the olden dayes, to cast shade upon an enemy's reputation. They'd file a lawsuit they knew they'd have no chance of winning, just to dog their enemies with accusations they had no way of disproving. So, we implemented the "statute of limitations" to prevent abuses like that for civil cases. Plus, we were hoping to prevent "he said, she said" situations like... well... precisely what's happening now.

...Yes, that does also mean Vic can't really be prosecuted by most of his victims... But it's still better than the alternative.

You’re right about the statute of limitations but you’re conflating statutory limitation periods for civil actions with criminal charges. A statutory scheme will set out the limitation period for a civil action in tort, contract etc, however criminal actions depending on the severity generally have much longer (or none at all) limitation periods for public policy reasons.

And you absolutely can get in a lot of trouble as a plaintiff in a lawsuit, perjury being the simplest illustration.

[Fionordequester]

You’re right about the statute of limitations but you’re conflating statutory limitation periods for civil actions with criminal charges. A statutory scheme will set out the limitation period for a civil action in tort, contract etc, however criminal actions depending on the severity generally have much longer (or none at all) limitation periods for public policy reasons.

Gah... I think I knew that, but accidentally used a criminal case example like murder. Yeah, those're a bit different from what Vic's being accused of. In Vic's case, his crimes were "minor" enough that the statute of limitations is probably up for most of his victims.

Right?

And you absolutely can get in a lot of trouble as a plaintiff in a lawsuit, perjury being the simplest illustration.

But not for stuff you did long in the past, right? So long as they weren't bad enough someone could file a criminal case?

[Zephyr]

You realize that the US government is currently trying to strip away the human rights of transgender folks such as myself, right? That's going to get this little girl killed.

This is to say nothing of a billion other things they're doing to siphon the working-class' money away to the owner-class.

Yes, the very real tangible threat that the people in positions of power pose to everyday folks, yourself included, myself included, in all of the different ways that they do, merely by being in said positions, was indeed something I factored into my point there.

Mentally conceptualizing other individuals as enemies is intellectual and emotional poison, no matter how justified and romantic doing so may seem at times. In addition to being cartoonishly-reductive, such a conceptualization is one way that hatred, oppression, and war perpetuate: it's a necessary component of all of them. Reciprocating such a mental conceptualization of others validates their doing it.

And no, before anyone starts, I'm not saying "just sit there and take it", or "just get over it", or "don't do anything about it", or "that makes you the REAL oppressor", or any of the other bullshit mischaracterizations of the kind of point I'm trying to make that are in-vogue nowadays. You can recognize that someone poses a tangible threat to yourself and others, and make efforts render that not the case, without ever conceptualizing them as your "enemy". They're in this with all of the rest of us, and unless you are calling for them to all be executed (and I genuinely don't think you are), then a less-than-black-and-white approach is necessary.

In other words, I think "threat" and "enemy" are worth distinguishing from one another. If that's too pedantic for some, then that's fair I guess, and there's no strict need to continue the conversation (especially since this isn't on topic right now; apologies to the mods for that). Though, if nothing else, I'd at least advise continuing to mull the distinction over.

[Gyt Kaliba]

ANN has updated with another article in their latest big update, going further into detail on the Mari Ijima incident. It's stuff that may have already been this spelled out in the court documents, but for anyone like me who sometimes struggles to make heads or tails of those things, this is probably worth a read.

[Mr.Saturn99]

ANN has updated with another article in their latest big update, going further into detail on the Mari Ijima incident. It's stuff that may have already been this spelled out in the court documents, but for anyone like me who sometimes struggles to make heads or tails of those things, this is probably worth a read.

I knew about the Mari Iijima stories, but I don't think I realized they were at two separate conventions. Yikes.

Have we brought up ANN's new Mignogna articles previously? They're great summaries for those who struggled through the numerous motions/affidavits/depositions and whatnot.

[Gyt Kaliba]

Have we brought up ANN's new Mignogna articles previously? They're great summaries for those who struggled through the numerous motions/affidavits/depositions and whatnot.

You know...I'm not sure. In case they haven't been -

The Mignogna Deposition (this one is just a hub article for the other articles, but it does have some other context of it's own briefly)
Vic Mignogna Admits to Pulling Jamie Marchi's Hair, Denies it Was Sexual
Vic Mignogna Admits to Pulling Monica Rial's Hair, Denies Kissing Her
Former Tekkoshocon Staff Allege Mignogna Harassed Macross Voice Actress Mari Iijima (same one I linked before)
The Funimation Investigation
Fan Interactions and The Affidavits

[EXBadguy]

Shit, I knew about the interactions with Rial and Marchi, but I didn't know Kara Edwards was part of the victim list too. Dicknogna must really love mixing business with pleasure. Sick ass creep!

I'm way too out of the loop, but then again, I think it's better off that way. Those case articles are juicy as hell though!

[Fionordequester]

Mentally conceptualizing other individuals as enemies is intellectual and emotional poison, no matter how justified and romantic doing so may seem at times. In addition to being cartoonishly-reductive, such a conceptualization is one way that hatred, oppression, and war perpetuate: it's a necessary component of all of them. Reciprocating such a mental conceptualization of others validates their doing it.

To add on to this... Most villains aren't the cackling sociopaths you see on TV. Sociopaths only make up about 2% of the Earth's population... and even most of THEM don't become criminals.

No, most of the greatest threats are people like Zamasu. People who're incomprehensibly self-deluded. People who think they're the "victims", or that you "deserve" what's happening to you. Odd as it may sound, treating them as respectfully and non-violently as possible (while still insisting on what's true) really is the best way of "defeating" them. Striking their hearts while also making it impossible for them to fully rationalize the awful things they want to say or do to you.

For example, just last week... I went over to Vic Mignogna's Twitter page, and fired off an extremely long series of tweets regarding what's being done in his name, why Kiwi Farms are bad, and why he needs to say something to discourage what's happening. Basically pounding on his door.

https://twitter.com/ArceorKoga/status/1 ... 79136?s=20

I didn't have a lot of hope as to him actually responding... But I still wrote as though he were a good man. I thought of him as a nice, but overly handsy, man who loved the LORD as much as I did. That way, it'd come through in my messages.

By doing that, I accomplished something important. I was able to show the Vic Stans who engaged me a different person than the boogeymen in their heads. I ALSO ensuring Vic received 2-3 days worth of posts tagging him! They came even when I tried NOT to tag him any more!! I started untagging my responses at about the 2nd day, but, for some reason, a lot of the responses that came back to me were STILL tagged!

Now he can't claim "ignorance". The fact that he's ignoring it indicates to me that his ignorance is willful. He doesn't know what's going on, because he doesn't WANT to know what's going on.

Had I been more aggressive, I would've made the entirety of #KickVic look bad. They'd be claiming "See?! Now THEY'RE harassing Vic on HIS Twitter!". I would've made an enemy out of every single one of the 7-12 people who responded to me! Actually, they DID respond to me as though I were their enemy, at first! Some of their replies were countering arguments I had never even made!! But then their feelings cooled. They responded to what I was actually saying, rather than what they thought I was saying (or thought). By the end, they seemed to think of me as a decent (if excessively self-righteous) guy.

So, TL;DR, Zephyr's right. You really can accomplish a surprising amount of things by approaching people as though they're friends, rather than enemies. It takes a lot of patience and a lot of mental grit, but the results are rather stunning. Just ask Martin Luther King.

[Captain Awesome]

You’re right about the statute of limitations but you’re conflating statutory limitation periods for civil actions with criminal charges. A statutory scheme will set out the limitation period for a civil action in tort, contract etc, however criminal actions depending on the severity generally have much longer (or none at all) limitation periods for public policy reasons.

Gah... I think I knew that, but accidentally used a criminal case example like murder. Yeah, those're a bit different from what Vic's being accused of. In Vic's case, his crimes were "minor" enough that the statute of limitations is probably up for most of his victims.

Right?-

It isn't my jurisdiction but it depends on the crime, in Texas I believe the minimum is three years.

But not for stuff you did long in the past, right? So long as they weren't bad enough someone could file a criminal case?

People don't file criminal cases the state prosecutes. I also think you're confused about how a trial works, if you're the plaintiff bringing a civil action you're not simultaneously on trial for whatever the defence happens to bring up, they can file a cross-claim but it isn't a see-saw that can just tip in the other direction.

The conduct of a plaintiff (or defendant) in civil legal proceedings may give rise to a later criminal prosecution but that doesn't just happen there and then on the day.

[Fionordequester]

I also think you're confused about how a trial works, if you're the plaintiff bringing a civil action you're not simultaneously on trial for whatever the defence happens to bring up, they can file a cross-claim but it isn't a see-saw that can just tip in the other direction.

The conduct of a plaintiff (or defendant) in civil legal proceedings may give rise to a later criminal prosecution but that doesn't just happen there and then on the day.

Oh, no, I know that. That was my entire point. That even should the defense prove that Vic did some bad stuff in the past, he wouldn't get in trouble for it until someone tried to take him to court on a later date. Then HE would be the defendant, and the other person would be the plaintiff.

At least, that's what I was trying to say. Sorry if I wasn't super clear.

[8000 Saiyan]

Something that struck me was a Twitter exchange (which I unfortunately can't find) in which somebody tweeted the video of one of the depositions, and somebody who was, at the time, on one side of this issue, tweeted back something to the effect of, "Yikes...well I feel bad for backing the wrong horse now."

It was this reply to the video Terez shared of Nick openly hoping that Vic would lie about the hair pulling. And while that one reply is encouraging, sadly there are very few people being swayed like this. For the most part, they just double down and come up with excuses for why even admissions from Vic himself are somehow not proof that he did anything wrong. I naively hoped as well after seeing that person change their mind that more would follow, but unfortunately I don't see others doing the same, even with all the affidavits that are now accessible. Instead of taking them at face value, they're tearing them apart, trying to poke holes in them any way they can, and once they latch onto one specific detail that they believe to be false (even if that belief is based on their own misunderstanding of what's being said), suddenly the entire account is "debunked, false, so-and-so is a LIAR" etc. Whenever I engage with ISWV people, I certainly try to stay factual and non-insulting so as not to set them off even more, but it honestly feels like most of them are a lost cause at this point.

I'd say they were a lost cause from the beginning. Most of them seem to view Mignogna as this perfect being who can do no wrong. The guy could kill someone and they probably wouldn't believe he was guilty sadly.

[Mr.Saturn99]

Update: The judge has granted Beard's request for a continuance, with relevant proposals by both teams found here. To summarize: Beard wanted additional time to review the case (as I mentioned earlier, this wasn't exactly done in good faith), but the defense also received the 7-day TCPA response time they wanted before the hearing, so it's not the win Rekieta and co. are pretending it is. Regardless, Greg's Threadnought gets into the news as it develops, so check that out if the legal speak's too difficult to wade through.

As I'm understanding it, this is common litigation procedure for the sake of discouraging appeals. (Or at least on the grounds of "we didn't have enough time to review.") I've also read this protects the defendants from "hearing by ambush," although I'm not familiar with the term to elaborate.

For the record Greg and some of the other lawyers already predicted this would happen given how common scheduling orders are, so this isn't a left-field decision.

[Kokonoe]

Side-bar: can someone be arrested based on actions revealed in a court case? Like, uh... what's being revealed right now?

And as far as Vic thinking nothing was weird about it, he's either in such a self-defense mode now that he can't even admit that anything he's done is wrong, or he's playing it up to act like he understands absolutely nothing of social norms.

Again I think he's just dangerously naive and genuinely doesn't see anything wrong with what he's doing.

He has to know with what he did with that student of his a decade or two ago.

He wants you to think he is naive, its all an act.

[Fionordequester]

Unfortunately, that is very likely the case. That, or his naivety is something he goes out of his way to maintain (by purposely ignoring the truth at every turn, as he did with me).

Either way, he fully deserves absolutely everything going on.

[Soppa Saia People]

that's just how abusers work. they want you to feel bad for them, or for you to think that they don't know what their doing, or things like that, so that it becomes harder for you to speak up or that you blame yourself. it's such a manipulative and classic behavior that i have experienced so much lmao.

[Cursed Lemon]

Agonizing over whether or not it's naivete vs. malice is ultimately irrelevant when he refuses to stop after very obviously being made aware of the negative impact of his behavior. He's hurting people and this needs to be done.