Shane Holmberg / Shane Presley Holmberg - The Containment Cell for The Breaker of Chairs, Eater of Shoes, Groomer of His Child Bride

  • Thread starter Thread starter AJ 447
  • Start date Start date
  • 🔧 Issue with uploading attachments resolved.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Hopefully in a week or so we'll have some more info and get to see Shane change his story yet again. That said I wonder what it will be next.
 
AnOminous said:
Unlike most dumb things Shane says, it will probably be some time later in the year that a court actually rules on that. And there is about zero chance of it being found frivolous. This is just objective legal fact.
Click to expand...
It's also an objective fact that Shane is stupid.
 
some_crazy said:
Hopefully in a week or so we'll have some more info and get to see Shane change his story yet again. That said I wonder what it will be next.
Click to expand...
"See? I told you guys the entire time that they were going to file a TCPA motion. What about the evidence? Well, looks like we just have to wait until trial until we can drop it."
 
AnOminous said:
[Obligatory Shane is fucking dumb comment.]

Evidence and claims and arguments are two different things. If you don't put your defenses in your answer you waive them. "It wasn't defamation because here's this PULL thread" isn't even an argument.
Click to expand...
Question on the legal process here can a defendant either:
a) file an amended answer to add in a better argument OR
b) elaborate later from defences that are given without detail in the original answer e.g. the various one line statements Casey made
 
bigpicture.png


archive.fo

Shane Holmberg on Twitter: "If you think the big picture is just abou…

archived 23 May 2019 19:43:01 UTC
archive.fo archive.fo

Here's a challenge: Prove one.
 
some_crazy said:
Question on the legal process here can a defendant either:
a) file an amended answer to add in a better argument OR
b) elaborate later from defences that are given without detail in the original answer e.g. the various one line statements Casey made
Click to expand...

If it's dismissed for form or not stating a claim but could be amended, it wouldn't be dismissed as frivolous at all.

If you mention a claim or an affirmative defense at all, you can flesh it out later. In fact, that's what you're intended to do. In Texas, if you bring up an affirmative defense in one of these shotgun pleadings, though, even if you never do elaborate on it, the other side is presumed to have had to prepare to address it and can ask for costs and fees for doing so if it proves to be nonsensical or frivolous.

A dismissal under the TCPA would be with prejudice, precluding amending it and refiling it or sneaking off to federal court to try to file it there instead.

Army Burger said:
View attachment 769728

archive.fo

Shane Holmberg on Twitter: "If you think the big picture is just abou…

archived 23 May 2019 19:43:01 UTC
archive.fo archive.fo

Here's a challenge: Prove one.
Click to expand...

That isn't how this works. That isn't how any of this works.

Ron has claimed hundreds of victims. He has claimed Vic is a serial rapist. He has to prove that, not that Vic might have hugged someone once or eaten a jellybean.
 
AnOminous said:
If it's dismissed for form or not stating a claim but could be amended, it wouldn't be dismissed as frivolous at all.

If you mention a claim or an affirmative defense at all, you can flesh it out later. In fact, that's what you're intended to do. In Texas, if you bring up an affirmative defense in one of these shotgun pleadings, though, even if you never do elaborate on it, the other side is presumed to have had to prepare to address it and can ask for costs and fees for doing so if it proves to be nonsensical or frivolous.

A dismissal under the TCPA would be with prejudice, precluding amending it and refiling it or sneaking off to federal court to try to file it there instead.



That isn't how this works. That isn't how any of this works.

Ron has claimed hundreds of victims. He has claimed Vic is a serial rapist. He has to prove that, not that Vic might have hugged someone once or eaten a jellybean.
Click to expand...
I can't wait for the "great" info that Soye will leak to Shane.
 
Nontransferable said:
There is no scenario where they don't come out on top.
Click to expand...

Unless Funimation gets hit too hard and has to go after the other three to make up for their loss. If Jamie and Monica get dropped from their Funi contracts because of this, there's no denying that they have lost.

AnOminous said:
Ron has claimed hundreds of victims. He has claimed Vic is a serial rapist. He has to prove that, not that Vic might have hugged someone once or eaten a jellybean.
Click to expand...

In order to get out of the defamation claim they need to prove all of their statements are true, and that's going to be hard because some of them are incontrovertibly false, such as saying Vic is under a criminal investigation and charges are going to be filed.

And even then, Ron, Jamie, and Monica (depending on what their messages reveal) still have to fight the TI claim, where truth will not help them. Ron is already doomed because Kamehacon said that they based their decision on the possibility of Vic's victims being voice actors, and Ron told them that Vic assaulted voice actors at cons. Shane is trying to argue that Kamehacon said no one interfered or that they already knew this info, but in the text Ron says that the VAs hadn't gone forward yet. That's a TKO for Ron.
 
Last edited:
Army Burger said:
I would love to see Shane spin that as a win.
Click to expand...

"Vic's never getting jobs again for his malicious retaliation. He can sue all the 'liars' into the ground he wants but no one is gonna hire a degenerate who destroys a company for not tolerating his sick perverted life choices."
 
Monkey Prick said:
But Nick said last night that Shane was claiming Ty sent him a C&D on behalf of Nick. Nothing to do with Ron at all.
Click to expand...
That's what Shane claimed but in reality this is what it is, and we have confirmation of this in Casey's response. It was a request to retract, and a notice to preserve evidence. No C&D.

GenericReviewerDraco said:
"Vic's never getting jobs again for his malicious retaliation. He can sue all the 'liars' into the ground he wants but no one is gonna hire a degenerate who destroys a company for not tolerating his sick perverted life choices."
Click to expand...
This has always been Shane's dumbest take. His concern trolling plan to save Vic's career was: admit that he did everything, hide for half a year, then come back and pretend nothing happened. It didn't work for Spacey, who was accused of far less and is known a lot more, so there's no way it'll work for Vic, who works in a field where you can always be replaced by someone who can pull off a reasonable facsimile of your voice.
 
Army Burger said:
View attachment 769808

archive.fo

Shane Holmberg on Twitter: "Yesterday we were talking about Tys "a pe…

archived 23 May 2019 20:54:32 UTC
archive.fo archive.fo
Click to expand...
This is in response to me asking what Nick did not know that Shane did, and I pointed out the specific example of Shane claiming Nick was hiding texts, when in reality, Shane had no idea that Nick had revealed all of the texts. So far, nothing of any value. It seems all of the stuff that Ron has drip fed him is stuff that we already know about.
 
Army Burger said:
View attachment 769808

archive.fo

Shane Holmberg on Twitter: "Yesterday we were talking about Tys "a pe…

archived 23 May 2019 20:54:32 UTC
archive.fo archive.fo
Click to expand...

Oh? Engaging in legitimate gaslighting now are we?

Nothing pisses me off more than revisionism. You were prattling on about how the lawsuit was a myth in its entirety back then. You do not get to suddenly argue semantics about this.

Ty, through Nick, has stated that he has never sent you anything. Stop lying.

Nobody gives a shit about whether or not it was a Kamehacon contract at the time it was being used for. It was not presented as a Kamehacon contract, and was used as an example of what a boilerplate convention contract would look like. Context matters.

And lastly, verifying your information is something we used to call "good, responsible journalism". Not like you'd know anything about that, SJW.
 
Last edited:
ErbBetaPatch said:
archive.li

Shane Holmberg on Twitter: "The entire GFM could be donated to victim…

archived 23 May 2019 21:01:48 UTC
archive.li archive.li

Didnt Vic say he was going to donate everything to the Salvation Army? This just seems like more of the same. "Vic could have had a career if he didn't waste all of his money on a frootulous lawsuit."

Also net worth =/= disposable income
Click to expand...

Think leftover funds will be going to the Salvation Army. Probably won't be much left over with how this is dragging out.
 
ErbBetaPatch said:
archive.li

Shane Holmberg on Twitter: "The entire GFM could be donated to victim…

archived 23 May 2019 21:01:48 UTC
archive.li archive.li

Didnt Vic say he was going to donate everything to the Salvation Army? This just seems like more of the same. "Vic could have had a career if he didn't waste all of his money on a frootulous lawsuit."

Also net worth =/= disposable income
Click to expand...
No - Vic said any money left in the fund after the lawsuits were done would be donated.

Nick has repeated this several times as well BUT has explicitly stated that he expects that the fund will be completely used up considering how this suit is beginning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom