Vic Mignogna

[WhowhoYouwho]

Alright so, I haven't been discussing much in this thread anymore after the big thing I did a while ago because it became obvious all the people left here agree with each other and pat each other on the back for their gotchas on a constant basis, all the while lambasting their opponents across the isle for doing the same thing.

I don't like hypocrisy, but it's obvious that many that now reside in this thread (plus the moderators) have no idea the meaning of that word, nor of how to have a discussion like adults. That's fine. You can have your hugbox where you criticize others for being monsters at worst or ignorant innocents who just need to be shown "the correct path" at best. Everyone needs a place to vent venom now and again, and its obvious that's what this place is for.

However, when I see garbage like this:

Rekieta caught lying again -- apparently he'd been spinning some narrative over Monica and Ron's supposed hypocrisy over filing a confidentiality agreement, although they're only keeping quiet on anonymous victims.

I get a bit peeved, because it shows a lack of doing even the most BASIC of fact checking for oneself. I don't know when the art of actually looking up things to see if they are true became lost, but apparently a refresher is in order.

So, Shane says that Nick wants to dox people, and that the victims of Vic want to remain anonymous. Too bad that's an easily disprovable lie if one were to actually look at the documents being discussed.

https://ibb.co/j6QYg4F
https://ibb.co/4VHfXh2

This is a document reporting on an interaction between Vic and Monica/Toye's lawyers over disputes regarding the confidentiality of the case. TAKE NOTE OF THE DATE: MAY31st.

So, the document goes on for a bit, with both sides discussing things with the judge (with a special note of his comment on anime being "It's little cartoons of some sort, and they're Japanese usually, right?", I just find that endearing and really funny). In any case, this goes on for a while before Casey Erick, who represents the interests of Monica and Toye I remind you, says this.

https://ibb.co/zm9tdDR

HUH, it almost seems like Erick wants this to be fully open to the max! No hiding names, no hiding of sensitive details like their locations or such, nope, just full open season on everything for everyone. He even claims the victims have stated they wanted it this way as well.

MMMMMM, almost seems like what Shane is saying is contradicting what Monica and Toye's own lawyer is saying what both they and the victims want. Almost like he may be...lying.

Now, what did Vic's lawyers say they wanted out of this situation originally.

https://ibb.co/t8KdZZ5
https://ibb.co/xzcbNLY

What a strange turn of events, it seems like it's Vic's lawyers who are expounding that there should be protection for the victims! Now why would they want that, could it be some dastardly maneuver? Maybe some evil scheme to hide what they say so that the TRUTH dosen't come out! Or...maybe...just maybe...Vic and his lawyers actually care about the anonymity of these people more than Monica and Toye do.

That does lead us to a good question though, why would Monica and Toye NOT want such things protected. Maybe the document has some sort of answer to this.

https://ibb.co/BjSF4Tn
https://ibb.co/TRwsg63

Oh me oh my, it seems that there is a possibility of Vic going first in depositions and then Monica and Toye immediately being able to file a frivolous motion to delay their own depositions, and the rest of discovery for that matter, while being able to cherry pick and give nuggets to their followers if there isn't any confidentially/protections in place. Oh but what proof is there of that? It's not like there are documents of Casey being a little troglodyte and desperately wanting Vic to go first, all the while trying to say that he gets dips on the deposition orders without citing any actual law and instead misrepresenting cases to try and get what he wants when they contradict him.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Z7dbJ ... FyvIX00Phv (the whole document)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l-toHQ ... sp=sharing (the parts where is obviously lied)

Oh wait, he was.

BUT WAIT, for there is more to these shenanigans than that! You see, even though Casey outlined throughout that whole court document that he wanted no confidentiality or protections of any kind, he suddenly decided that this case needed a rule 11 agreement to give it confidentiality and protections.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gaFJja ... sp=sharing

Now, on JUNE 10 SUDDENLY things have changed dramatically and they need that confidentially and protections and all that other good stuff RIGHT NOW. Even though they went in front of a judge on MAY 31 proselytizing about how they DIDN'T want all that stuff.

It's almost like they keep changing their moves to try and get a gotcha by abusing the legal system.

Now, I know most of the people here won't even look at what I've posted. They won't look at the contradictions, the documents, or Nick's streams where he shows both the court document and follow up document (plus all the other documents I've used here) and instead put their fingers in their ears. I'll be called a victim blamer, a Nick suck up, a Vic fanyboy, and any other name someone wants to use to deflect. I expect that, and that makes me sad. I just hope everyone likes this hugbox while it lasts, because at some point any box must be opened.

I just hope you won't wince when it's opened.

[WittyUsername]

Alright so, I haven't been discussing much in this thread anymore after the big thing I did a while ago because it became obvious all the people left here agree with each other and pat each other on the back for their gotchas on a constant basis, all the while lambasting their opponents across the isle for doing the same thing.

I don't like hypocrisy, but it's obvious that many that now reside in this thread (plus the moderators) have no idea the meaning of that word, nor of how to have a discussion like adults. That's fine. You can have your hugbox where you criticize others for being monsters at worst or ignorant innocents who just need to be shown "the correct path" at best. Everyone needs a place to vent venom now and again, and its obvious that's what this place is for.

However, when I see garbage like this:

Rekieta caught lying again -- apparently he'd been spinning some narrative over Monica and Ron's supposed hypocrisy over filing a confidentiality agreement, although they're only keeping quiet on anonymous victims.

I get a bit peeved, because it shows a lack of doing even the most BASIC of fact checking for oneself. I don't know when the art of actually looking up things to see if they are true became lost, but apparently a refresher is in order.

So, Shane says that Nick wants to dox people, and that the victims of Vic want to remain anonymous. Too bad that's an easily disprovable lie if one were to actually look at the documents being discussed.

https://ibb.co/j6QYg4F
https://ibb.co/4VHfXh2

This is a document reporting on an interaction between Vic and Monica/Toye's lawyers over disputes regarding the confidentiality of the case. TAKE NOTE OF THE DATE: MAY31st.

So, the document goes on for a bit, with both sides discussing things with the judge (with a special note of his comment on anime being "It's little cartoons of some sort, and they're Japanese usually, right?", I just find that endearing and really funny). In any case, this goes on for a while before Casey Erick, who represents the interests of Monica and Toye I remind you, says this.

https://ibb.co/zm9tdDR

HUH, it almost seems like Erick wants this to be fully open to the max! No hiding names, no hiding of sensitive details like their locations or such, nope, just full open season on everything for everyone. He even claims the victims have stated they wanted it this way as well.

MMMMMM, almost seems like what Shane is saying is contradicting what Monica and Toye's own lawyer is saying what both they and the victims want. Almost like he may be...lying.

Now, what did Vic's lawyers say they wanted out of this situation originally.

https://ibb.co/t8KdZZ5
https://ibb.co/xzcbNLY

What a strange turn of events, it seems like it's Vic's lawyers who are expounding that there should be protection for the victims! Now why would they want that, could it be some dastardly maneuver? Maybe some evil scheme to hide what they say so that the TRUTH dosen't come out! Or...maybe...just maybe...Vic and his lawyers actually care about the anonymity of these people more than Monica and Toye do.

That does lead us to a good question though, why would Monica and Toye NOT want such things protected. Maybe the document has some sort of answer to this.

https://ibb.co/BjSF4Tn
https://ibb.co/TRwsg63

Oh me oh my, it seems that there is a possibility of Vic going first in depositions and then Monica and Toye immediately being able to file a frivolous motion to delay their own depositions, and the rest of discovery for that matter, while being able to cherry pick and give nuggets to their followers if there isn't any confidentially/protections in place. Oh but what proof is there of that? It's not like there are documents of Casey being a little troglodyte and desperately wanting Vic to go first, all the while trying to say that he gets dips on the deposition orders without citing any actual law and instead misrepresenting cases to try and get what he wants when they contradict him.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Z7dbJ ... FyvIX00Phv (the whole document)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l-toHQ ... sp=sharing (the parts where is obviously lied)

Oh wait, he was.

BUT WAIT, for there is more to these shenanigans than that! You see, even though Casey outlined throughout that whole court document that he wanted no confidentiality or protections of any kind, he suddenly decided that this case needed a rule 11 agreement to give it confidentiality and protections.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gaFJja ... sp=sharing

Now, on JUNE 10 SUDDENLY things have changed dramatically and they need that confidentially and protections and all that other good stuff RIGHT NOW. Even though they went in front of a judge on MAY 31 proselytizing about how they DIDN'T want all that stuff.

It's almost like they keep changing their moves to try and get a gotcha by abusing the legal system.

Now, I know most of the people here won't even look at what I've posted. They won't look at the contradictions, the documents, or Nick's streams where he shows both the court document and follow up document (plus all the other documents I've used here) and instead put their fingers in their ears. I'll be called a victim blamer, a Nick suck up, a Vic fanyboy, and any other name someone wants to use to deflect. I expect that, and that makes me sad. I just hope everyone likes this hugbox while it lasts, because at some point any box must be opened.

I just hope you won't wince when it's opened.

The irony here is that your post is no better than the people you’re complaining about. Your post comes across as being painfully condescending and vindictive.

[WhowhoYouwho]

The irony here is that your post is no better than the people you’re complaining about. Your post comes across as being painfully condescending and vindictive.

Condescending and vindictive? Maybe, I'd say more disappointed and outright done with the wrongthink mentality of this thread.

Also, I notice you didn't actually say anything against the veracity of my claims.

[WittyUsername]

The irony here is that your post is no better than the people you’re complaining about. Your post comes across as being painfully condescending and vindictive.

Condescending and vindictive? Maybe, I'd say more disappointed and outright done with the wrongthink mentality of this thread.

Also, I notice you didn't actually say anything against the veracity of my claims.

I never intended to dispute your claims. I’ve generally tried my best to stay out of this thread, and I’m no expert on court proceedings, so I’m not even going to bother with that. I was simply pointing out how the way you went about displaying your claims was full of condescending remarks where you accuse other people of acting like childish hypocrites who label other people “monsters” and who need a “hug box”. Seriously, if you want to make a case in Mignogna’s favor (and no, I’m not accusing you of being a Vic Stan) it might help if you didn’t come across as being so emotional while doing so.

[Cursed Lemon]

Oh.

Whoops.

[WhowhoYouwho]

I tried to do that in the past in this thread. Lovely people like Cursed Lemon, Kunzait_83, and Kinokima made me a bit less amendable than I would like to be despite those efforts. It's not right, I'll admit that, but I won't apologize for it when so many others have done it in the past and rarely got any flak for it. Again, that's not a justification, just an explanation of why this post is more vitriolic.

Oh.

Whoops.

Also speak of the devil. Glad you didn't look at what I posted that shows that's a contradiction to what Casey said in court. Glad your ability to shield your eyes and clog up your ears hasn't lessened any.

[Cursed Lemon]

Also speak of the devil. Glad you didn't look at what I posted that shows that's a contradiction to what Casey said in court. Glad your ability to shield your eyes and clog up your ears hasn't lessened any.

Yeah.

If he was specifically referring to all of the victims.

Which is a big-ass assumption on your part.

[WhowhoYouwho]

Yeah.

If he was specifically referring to all of the victims.

Which is a big-ass assumption on your part.

Oh yes, I can see how "...we don't want a confidentiality order, we don't want a protective order and neither do they" and "they want their names out there, they want their names know" could possibly lead one to believe he is referring to all the victims. Clearly, he only meant a subset when he uses strong wording like that.

[Cursed Lemon]

Oh yes, I can see how "...we don't want a confidentiality order, we don't want a protective order and neither do they" and "they want their names out there, they want their names know" could possibly lead one to believe he is referring to all the victims. Clearly, he only meant a subset when he uses strong wording like that.

Oh, so your evidence that it's literally impossible for competing protective orders by two opposing attorneys to coexist - differing in their nuance of what is confidential and what isn't - is a text transcription utilizing what you are emphatically asserting is "strong wording".

The presses. Stop them.

Meanwhile, please do continue to pretend like most of the recent attention focused in this thread hasn't been about Nick and Ty's wildly juvenile and unprofessional conduct and how that reflects back on Vic - which, IMHOtep, is a matter of fact and not opinion.

[WhowhoYouwho]

Oh, so your evidence that it's literally impossible for competing protective orders by two opposing attorneys to coexist - differing in their nuance of what is confidential and what isn't - is a text transcription utilizing what you are emphatically asserting is "strong wording".

The presses. Stop them.

Ah, love the none answer to the actual words themselves. Now we moved the goal post to how the orders differ in their wording of protective orders. Except you forget what a rule 11 agreement is good sir. It is, as the name implies, an agreement. As shown in these

https://ibb.co/t8KdZZ5
https://ibb.co/xzcbNLY

which i know were hard to find so I forgive you on that, Vic's lawyers wanted to greatly protect the identities of the victims. What part of "those people are entitled, because they have not put themselves into this case, put themselves into this public forum, to have those identities protected" would prevent a rule 11 agreement in confidentiality/protections; leading to the court date in question due to both sides inability to resolve that issue. From the words of their lawyers, it seems Vic wanted protections while Monica/Toye did not.

So let's move that goal post back to the original problem you had and get a clear answer from you. How do Casey's words in court not show that he was referring to all the victims and their apparent desire to have NO confidentially or protections?

[Cursed Lemon]

I'm going to go ahead and let you explain what you think Rule 11 is about, and how you think it's relevant to the matter of what was actually in either request for confidentiality. Here, I'll even link you to it. Hint: only one party need be involved

So let's move that goal post back to the original problem you had and get a clear answer from you. How do Casey's words in court not show that he was referring to all the victims and their apparent desire to have NO confidentially or protections?

Given what Monica just very plainly described - an intuitive and glaringly simplistic approach to the situation - how do you know what Casey meant, especially without the documents detailing their request available to read?

Could it be...you're just a touch biased, like you're accusing everyone else of being?

[Mr.Saturn99]

Alright so, I haven't been discussing much in this thread anymore after the big thing I did a while ago because it became obvious all the people left here agree with each other and pat each other on the back for their gotchas on a constant basis, all the while lambasting their opponents across the isle for doing the same thing.

What you refer to as "gotchas" -- or at the very least, over the past couple weeks -- have been a public spotlight on the childish ineptitude of Rekieta/Beard, not the least in their pathetic attempts at citing "defamatory statements" and, uh, calling on Kiwifarms to dox a random lawyer. And you expect us to believe Vic and co. care about their opponents?

(And don't even start with "lol it was just a joke" -- they've been resorting to intimidation tactics from day one and that you're apparently okay with all that is far more indicating of your character than our own.)

Now, on JUNE 10 SUDDENLY things have changed dramatically and they need that confidentially and protections and all that other good stuff RIGHT NOW. Even though they went in front of a judge on MAY 31 proselytizing about how they DIDN'T want all that stuff.

Putting aside Monica's assertion Vic's the only one pursuing confidentiality, supposing what you're saying is actually the case, I imagine it'd have to do with, again, Beard calling on a site founded for the purposes of online harassment not even a week before.

Gotta say, I'd be far more willing to review your "evidence" from an objective standpoint if it you weren't a) citing a blatant grifter who has a vested interest in this case, and b) accusing Monica/Ron/Casey of the very same nonsense that Rekieta/Beard have done, not the least in "cherrypicking" and "abusing the legal system." Your emotional hysterics aren't helping.

[jjgp1112]

So your smoking gun in all of this that has you raving like a crazy person is your own interpretation of semantics? In that first document you linked, in the highlighted text, he says there are women who want to state their case and don't wish the be anonymous. Not every single women making accusations ....just "there are women."

And then you yourself says that they wanted to have the women who wish to remain anonymous...remain anonymous.

So uh...what's exactly the issue here? Seems like you just ignored a piece of nuance for the sake of going gotcha

[WhowhoYouwho]

Meanwhile, please do continue to pretend like most of the recent attention focused in this thread hasn't been about Nick and Ty's wildly juvenile and unprofessional conduct and how that reflects back on Vic - which, IMHOtep, is a matter of fact and not opinion.

I didn't notice this part, so let me show you just a few of the incidents of Monica and Toye being shall we say, "juvenile and unprofessional".

https://ibb.co/Zc4r8s1
https://ibb.co/KDZSTck
https://ibb.co/XbqFP9X
https://ibb.co/PWw4HyK

And don't even get me started on Jamie
https://ibb.co/z8YHt1T

I'm going to go ahead and let you explain what you think Rule 11 is about, and how you think it's relevant to the matter of what was actually in either request for confidentiality. Here, I'll even link you to it. Hint: only one party need be involved

Thank you for proving that you, indeed, can't read what you don't want to see.

"In Texas, Rule 11 refers to the procedural rule requiring agreements between attorneys or parties concerning a pending suit to be in writing, signed, and filed in the court's record or made on the record in open court. It is codified at Tex. R. Civ. P. 11."

How does that show that "only one party need be involved"? Are you referring to the parts where they talking about being "unrepresented"? That's referring to people who chose to not use a lawyer and represent themselves. Even then, it clearly states that

"Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name--or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented."

I don't even understand how you can come to the conclusion that only one party needs to be involved when the thing is called a rule 11 AGREEMENT. You can't agree if a party can just throw crap at the wall and it sticks without needing the approval of the other party.

Could it be...you're just a touch biased, like you're accusing everyone else of being?

Yeah, I'm on Vic's side. If making that decision through looking at the documents themselves, looking at various people discussing these issues, and trying my damnedest before to speak to you in a affable manner only for you to accuses me of making conspiracy crap

You're just doing what others here and half of Youtube/Twitter are doing which is trying to fabricate a conspiracy to bring down a guy who didn't do anything wrong, even though that makes less than no sense

then yes, I am biased.

[WittyUsername]

Meanwhile, please do continue to pretend like most of the recent attention focused in this thread hasn't been about Nick and Ty's wildly juvenile and unprofessional conduct and how that reflects back on Vic - which, IMHOtep, is a matter of fact and not opinion.

I didn't notice this part, so let me show you just a few of the incidents of Monica and Toye being shall we say, "juvenile and unprofessional".

https://ibb.co/Zc4r8s1
https://ibb.co/KDZSTck
https://ibb.co/XbqFP9X
https://ibb.co/PWw4HyK

I should point out that the very first screenshot you provided was not a KickVic thing. It was a silly tweet from 2015 that was most likely meant to just be a friendly jab that wasn’t supposed to be taken seriously, and as far as I know, no one at the time took it seriously.

[WhowhoYouwho]

You know what, I'm getting to angry about this. I was bottling this up for too long and let it spill over. I should have stuck to my guns on being amicable, but I failed. I've shot any chance of the arguments I've made being any good because I filled it with ad hominium attacks of my own. I'm getting to emotional over something that dosen't concern me.

I'm not going to get rid of the posts. Let them stand as what could have been and as a reminder to me that I've failed in my goals here.

I won't fight back anymore.

Say what you wish of me, I deserve it.

[Gyt Kaliba]

I didn't notice this part, so let me show you just a few of the incidents of Monica and Toye being shall we say, "juvenile and unprofessional".

https://ibb.co/Zc4r8s1

This first example is an example of absolutely nothing, no matter how much you want it to be. I explained it way, way earlier in the thread (like before page 100 even), but this one is merely a jest based around the characters they play. First off, look at the date - 2015. That's way before our current mess started, and possibly before Monica had any idea of how Vic was. Even beyond that though, the question she's asked is about their characters. The Renge she's asked about is the character that Monica herself plays, and 'harassing Vic' is in reference to how often her character harasses his character, Tamaki. It's nothing more than a nod to their character's relationship as shown here, absolutely not evidence one way or the other.

https://ibb.co/KDZSTck

As for this one, while I can certainly see how it could be seen as being "too hostile", honestly ask yourself this - how would you sound if people were harassing your wife over something she'd said, especially something as sensitive as this? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be sounding any more eloquent or less angry than he is. I don't blame him in the least.

https://ibb.co/XbqFP9X

Likewise, while this may not have been the best response in the world, it's certainly an understandable enough one to use to try and get people to leave her alone when she was tired of people harassing her. It's absolutely more classy at least than the Vic side of things with their constant 'lolz jellybean' BS responses.

https://ibb.co/PWw4HyK

Again, I won't claim it's the best response she could have given, but it's hardly incorrect. There's absolutely no reason for her not to be angry when people were being as big of assholes as they were, and she's right - none of us, on either side of this, are due any evidence or information more than she's willing to give us, both because that's the thing she'll be giving to her lawyer, and because who the fuck are we to deserve such a thing from a victim anyway?

And don't even get me started on Jamie
https://ibb.co/z8YHt1T

This one though, I will at least agree is probably not helping in the long run. I can't blame Marchi for being angry, not one bit, but unfortunately it's given way too many people "evidence" of how "violent the anti-Vic side is", and unfortunately can be way too easily mistaken as an actual threat. Anyone who reads it and understands the situation would normally be able to tell that it's hyperbole, but considering the mindset of most people still on Vic's side (to say nothing of his lawyer and the youtube asshole and their 'my client is a human being, not actually a turd, therefore that's defamation' joke of a defense), it's something that she probably should have phrased differently, for her own good if nothing else.

[Fionordequester]

This one though, I will at least agree is probably not helping in the long run. I can't blame Marchi for being angry, not one bit, but unfortunately it's given way too many people "evidence" of how "violent the anti-Vic side is", and unfortunately can be way too easily mistaken as an actual threat. Anyone who reads it and understands the situation would normally be able to tell that it's hyperbole, but considering the mindset of most people still on Vic's side (to say nothing of his lawyer and the youtube asshole and their 'my client is a human being, not actually a turd, therefore that's defamation' joke of a defense), it's something that she probably should have phrased differently, for her own good if nothing else.

The difference between her, and Vic's lawyers, is that one is just a normal person... While the others are legal professionals representing a client.

I mean, sure, Nick isn't really Vic's lawyer so much as he's basically a talk show radio host... But he's still the face of Vic's legal defense. You'd expect a higher level of professional conduct from him & Beard... Yet there they are, spouting the virtues of doxing, and otherwise just as childish as the people they're supposedly against...

Still, I appreciate the fact that Whowho apologized... So after racking my brain, I'll at least grant him this: Vic himself has acted professionally with his Twitter. Not once has he ever publicly criticized anyone through the use of his Twitter...

Doesn't mean much when he lets his lawyers make asses of themselves in his place, but... That's about as big of a bone as I can throw to Whowho.

[Brodes]

This one though, I will at least agree is probably not helping in the long run. I can't blame Marchi for being angry, not one bit, but unfortunately it's given way too many people "evidence" of how "violent the anti-Vic side is", and unfortunately can be way too easily mistaken as an actual threat. Anyone who reads it and understands the situation would normally be able to tell that it's hyperbole, but considering the mindset of most people still on Vic's side (to say nothing of his lawyer and the youtube asshole and their 'my client is a human being, not actually a turd, therefore that's defamation' joke of a defense), it's something that she probably should have phrased differently, for her own good if nothing else.

The difference between her, and Vic's lawyers, is that one is just a normal person... While the others are legal professionals representing a client.

I mean, sure, Nick isn't really Vic's lawyer so much as he's basically a talk show radio host... But he's still the face of Vic's legal defense. You'd expect a higher level of professional conduct from him & Beard... Yet there they are, spouting the virtues of doxing, and otherwise just as childish as the people they're supposedly against...

Still, I appreciate the fact that Whowho apologized... So after racking my brain, I'll at least grant him this: Vic himself has acted professionally with his Twitter. Not once has he ever publicly criticized anyone through the use of his Twitter...

Doesn't mean much when he lets his lawyers make asses of themselves in his place, but... That's about as big of a bone as I can throw to Whowho.

Because Vic doesn't need to act 'unproffesionaly', he just has to sit back and let his followers do all the attacking and bullshit without lifting a finger. Even if he doesn't endorse it, he has done absolutely nothing to stop it. Not. A. Single. Word of protest.

[KBABZ]

Because Vic doesn't need to act 'unproffesionaly', he just has to sit back and let his followers do all the attacking and bullshit without lifting a finger. Even if he doesn't endorse it, he has done absolutely nothing to stop it. Not. A. Single. Word of protest.

On the one hand, Vic has said he'd prefer if his followers acted rationally... on the other hand, from what I know he's only done that one single time on Twitter MONTHS ago.