Iago, Igor & Renfield Speculation - A Shakespearean Mystery

[East_Clintwood]

They are irrelevant to this case and everyone's lives.

"Shane is irrelevant, and not just in the lawsuit, but in the lives of everyone" Man, Nick was on fire with his rants last night

 

[mindlessobserver]

DC Douglas came up in discussion as to the identity of Iago. He wasn't, but he could be renfield. Dude is a professional rival of Vics. Schemmel is insane though so that works better from a descriptive standpoint

 

[In Heaven]

DC Douglas came up in discussion as to the identity of Iago. He wasn't, but he could be renfield. Dude is a professional rival of Vics. Schemmel is insane though so that works better from a descriptive standpoint

According to the Anime Outsider guy in an interview with Nick, Douglas is legit mentally ill and has a history of... weird behavior. Granted, he's also a druggie.

 

[damian]

Why is Renfamous still on the list? I'm fairly certain Nick has said multiple times that she isn't on the chopping block for suits because she's just a Twitter sperg.

Yeah, no orcas or chair molesters are involved.

They are irrelevant to this case and everyone's lives.

Thanks for reminding me.

DC Douglas came up in discussion as to the identity of Iago. He wasn't, but he could be renfield. Dude is a professional rival of Vics. Schemmel is insane though so that works better from a descriptive standpoint

According to the Anime Outsider guy in an interview with Nick, Douglas does have a mental illness and a history of... weird behavior. Granted, that's also because of drugs.

Added DC Douglas to possible Renfield suspects.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

Ayyy, that Sabat check list looks a little familiar...

Neat.

I'm also a plus one for Igor being Schemmel.

Also plus point for using Eyegor (played by the much missed and brilliant Marty Feldman) there.

 

[Recoil]

This whole setup reminds me of those logic puzzles they give you on the LSAT.

 

[spam.mask]

Been lurking for a while, but I finally had to join in because things are getting close to dropping. I'm about to pull a Donny here and inject myself in the middle of the conversation ("I am the walrus"), but how do we know all the clues are actually accurate?

I don't know much about most of the candidates, and Iago sure sounds a lot like Sabat, but two data points, if we know them to be factually true, would take Sabat out of the running - 1) The voice and 2) being a "vice principal." What are the chances that these two are inaccurate?

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

Been lurking for a while, but I finally had to join in because things are getting close to dropping. I'm about to pull a Donny here and inject myself in the middle of the conversation ("I am the walrus"), but how do we know all the clues are actually accurate?

I don't know much about most of the candidates, and Iago sure sounds a lot like Sabat, but two data points, if we know them to be factually true, would take Sabat out of the running - 1) The voice and 2) being a "vice principal." What are the chances that these two are inaccurate?

Because this is the kind of shit the Farms does for shits and giggles. We get given clues from Beard or Nick and then put them together. That's when we've not been charting the non-stop textual diarrhoea of the primary targets.

Now, Ty could've done this whole thing as a sleight of hand, but he also knows these morons don't have eyes here at all. We know this because, do you honestly think they wouldn't have had this fucking giant melt down and a thousand tweets about the evil KW FRS?

 

[spam.mask]

Because this is the kind of shit the Farms does for shits and giggles. We get given clues from Beard or Nick and then put them together. That's when we've not been charting the non-stop textual diarrhoea of the primary targets.

Now, Ty could've done this whole thing as a sleight of hand, but he also knows these morons don't have eyes here at all. We know this because, do you honestly think they wouldn't have had this fucking giant melt down and a thousand tweets about the evil KW FRS?

Oh, I know WHY we do it - sorry if my response intimated we shouldn't be or questioned it. I was just wondering, insofar as we want to try to get an accurate prediction, how sure we are of each clue, because 1) and 2) I listed above, rules out Sabat categorically.

1. Sabat's voice is the opposite of high pitched and whiny, so if Iago is indeed Sabat, that means the description of his voice was sarcastic and operates merely as a red herring.
2. I can't find any information that Sabat is a "vice-principal" of anything, which is a very specific title that places him subordinate to someone else in a hierarchy. Would you ever describe Trump, for example, as a "vice-principal" of anything?

Just trying to shake out the key players as best as I can, that's all!

 

[UnKillFill]

Oh, I know WHY we do it - sorry if my response intimated we shouldn't be or questioned it. I was just wondering, insofar as we want to try to get an accurate prediction, how sure we are of each clue, because 1) and 2) I listed above, rules out Sabat categorically.

1. Sabat's voice is the opposite of high pitched and whiny, so if Iago is indeed Sabat, that means the description of his voice was sarcastic and operates merely as a red herring.
2. I can't find any information that Sabat is a "vice-principal" of anything, which is a very specific title that places him subordinate to someone else in a hierarchy. Would you ever describe Trump, for example, as a "vice-principal" of anything?

Just trying to shake out the key players as best as I can, that's all!

Ignoring all the other clues, the high pitched whiney voice kind of makes me think Schemmel.

 

[Sharp Dressed Klan]

Iago is Sabat. Opened a new studio in LA in 2017 under the same name as his studio in Texas. Sounds like something you'd need to be pouring money into to get off the ground

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

Iago is Sabat. Opened a new studio in LA in 2017 under the same name as his studio in Texas. Sounds like something you'd need to be pouring money into to get off the ground

Which is located on a road where there's been 34 murders within a mile in the last 19 years. Gotta save that rent money somehow, eh, Sabat?

Just for some context, Pillockshire's last murder was somewhere in the 1990s. Entire county. Not Rural East.

 

[spam.mask]

Iago is Sabat. Opened a new studio in LA in 2017 under the same name as his studio in Texas. Sounds like something you'd need to be pouring money into to get off the ground

Taking a single clue out of a litany doesn't get us closer to an actual identity. Until someone can reconcile the two clues that rule Sabat out, I'm not sure how he can be a considered a contender.

It's like I gave you 4 clues to guess an animal:

1. It has 4 legs
2. It's poisonous
3. It is a carnivore
4. It is shrill

1) It has 4 legs

Oh, oh, I know! Dogs have 4 legs. It must be a dog.

I REALLY want to know who it is, which is why I'm hoping people smarter than me can tell me how they can reconcile what seem like categorical nullifiers.

 

[1Tonka_Truck]

I can't find any information that Sabat is a "vice-principal" of anything, which is a very specific title that places him subordinate to someone else in a hierarchy. Would you ever describe Trump, for example, as a "vice-principal" of anything?

Do we have a head-desk emoji? We need one. Definition of vice principal from a month ago:

Vice principals are these:

"(a) Corporate officers;  (b) those who have authority to employ, direct, and discharge servants of the master;  (c) those engaged in the performance of nondelegable or absolute duties of the master;  and (d) those to whom a master has confided the management of the whole or a department or division of his business."

I'm not gonna go find it, but there a decent amount of evidence Sabat has hiring privileges at least when it comes to things dragonball. This would make him a vice principal of Funimation.

I theorized, much earlier, that they bought Funimation to gain more market share, and are probably gonna ultimately fold it into Aniplex.

I would think if that was Sony's plan all along, the 2 studios wouldn't be owned by hilariously distance branches of the company. Then again, it is Sony.

 

[spam.mask]

Do we have a head-desk emoji? We need one. Definition of vice principal from a month ago:

I'm not gonna go find it, but there a decent amount of evidence Sabat has hiring privileges at least when it comes to things dragonball. This would make him a vice principal of Funimation.

I would think if that was Sony's plan all along, the 2 studios wouldn't be owned by hilariously distance branches of the company. Then again, it is Sony.

It's a bit clearer what was meant by vice-principal now, thanks. It is being referred to as a legal construction based on the elements, rather than a conferred title. No head banging necessary, that's simply unclear. Legal constructions, though, are a separate domain and are being conflated with notions of legal ownership here, which is unhelpful.

What I'm gathering from this is it might have come up during a conversation of corporate authority while trying to establish the elements of defamation. This sounds like the attack vector that has been theorized to go after Funimation. Can anyone confirm that it was Ty Beard that referred to Iago this way and might someone have a link?

I do think the OP should be edited to make clear the scope of the term was as a legal construction and de facto, not de jure, since specificity and accuracy are paramount objectives.

 

[AnOminous]

It's a bit clearer what was meant by vice-principal now, thanks. It is being referred to as a legal construction based on the elements, rather than a conferred title.

You would never actually want to confer the title of "vice principal" on someone even if that were a thing. It's a phrase generally used when you're suing a corporation for the action of such a person, and the last thing the corporation wants is for their dirty deed doing little monkey to be a vice principal.

In Texas, it makes the corporation open to punitive damages if the vice principal acts with "gross negligence or malice." And Sabat has acted with clear malice while in the role of a vice principal.

This is why if you are a corporation you do not let the lunatics run the asylum.

 

[spam.mask]

You would never actually want to confer the title of "vice principal" on someone even if that were a thing. It's a phrase generally used when you're suing a corporation for the action of such a person, and the last thing the corporation wants is for their dirty deed doing little monkey to be a vice principal.

In Texas, it makes the corporation open to punitive damages if the vice principal acts with "gross negligence or malice." And Sabat has acted with clear malice while in the role of a vice principal.

This is why if you are a corporation you do not let the lunatics run the asylum.

I'm not sure I'm tracking this statement. Every single corporation has principals and managers, with their own related sets of obligations, including fiduciary duties, etc. The reason why there are so many VPs in banks is specifically because they confer upon them authority to sign on behalf of the financial institution. Vice Principal, in this context, is a legal construction describing a de facto agency, tacked by respondeat superior. (Assuming my assumption regarding the source of the term is correct). There is also myriad law which governs corporate culpability when agents act in apparent authority, even when there is none, where/when equity demands it. Legal constructions are relied upon to bridge common law concepts of equity.

 

[1Tonka_Truck]

I'm not sure I'm tracking this statement. Every single corporation has principals and managers, with their own related sets of obligations, including fiduciary duties, etc. The reason why there are so many VPs in banks is specifically because they confer upon them authority to sign on behalf of the financial institution.

I've never seen a VP in a corporate structure that wasn't a vice president. Most, if not all, vice presidents would qualify as a vice principal though.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm not sure I'm tracking this statement. Every single corporation has principals and managers, with their own related sets of obligations, including fiduciary duties, etc. The reason why there are so many VPs in banks is specifically because they confer upon them authority to sign on behalf of the financial institution.

VP stands for "Vice President."

"Vice Principal" is not a title you would confer. It is a group of people defined by Texas law as:

(a) Corporate officers;​

(b) those who have authority to employ, direct, and discharge servants of the​

master;​

(c) those engaged in the performance of nondelegable or absolute duties of the master; and​

(d) those to whom a master has confided the management of the whole or a department or division of his​

business.​

So any actual corporate officer would fall into this category. You would not generally refer to them as a "vice principal," though, because you would simply refer to them by their title.

When the term comes up in litigation, it is usually when attempting to establish liability for the actions of someone in one of the other categories, because there is no point in arguing about whether a corporation is liable for a corporate officer acting within his corporate duties.

 

[spam.mask]

I've never seen a VP in a corporate structure that wasn't a vice president.

This is what I meant by the discussion conflating the de facto authority as a legal construct with lay titles that most people are accustomed to. They are two different things, in the same way that a court might find an employee relationship to exist even when someone was hired as a contractor. The scope of duties, obligations, liabilities, etc depend very much on the de facto agency relationship, and lay titles can inform that legal analysis, but are not necessarily dispositive/defining.

The confusion here is why a clarification needs to be made in the original post.

VP stands for "Vice President."

"Vice Principal" is not a title you would confer. It is a group of people defined by Texas law as:

(a) Corporate officers;​

(b) those who have authority to employ, direct, and discharge servants of the​

master;​

(c) those engaged in the performance of nondelegable or absolute duties of the master; and​

(d) those to whom a master has confided the management of the whole or a department or division of his​

business.​

So any actual corporate officer would fall into this category. You would not generally refer to them as a "vice principal," though, because you would simply refer to them by their title.

When the term comes up in litigation, it is usually when attempting to establish liability for the actions of someone in one of the other categories, because there is no point in arguing about whether a corporation is liable for a corporate officer acting within his corporate duties.

I never said VP didn't stand for Vice President. I agree, "Vice Principal" is not a title you confer - that's my entire point. It's not a title, because it's a de facto corporate status specifically within a legal context. It seems like you understand that, but I'm not sure everyone that has been participating in the conversation fully understands that. Chiefly indicative of this, Sabat is theorized to fit this because he is an owner of Okratron.