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
repentance said:
The shoe-eater claimed the attorneys for the other defendants were there because they were co-ordinating their defences.

He was right about Funi's lawyer being present, but that seems to be about it.
Click to expand...

The only coordinating you will see between the three defense teams will be on basic calendar and housekeeping matters. "Can we line up all depositions of Witness A on the same day?" sort of thing. They can't do more than that. They are expressly forbidden from that. Their charge is to represent their individual clients best interests. And None of the 4 defendants have the same legal interests in this. Heck Casey is heading into dangerous territory and a certain conflict by rep'ing both Ron and Monica. Those KC Texts should cause a divergence in their interests.
 
repentance said:
The shoe-eater claimed the attorneys for the other defendants were there because they were co-ordinating their defences.
Click to expand...
They shouldn't be coordinating their defences. Funimation has no interest in tying themselves to MoRonica. If they wanted to have coordinated defences, then they'd be represented by the same counsel.

It's just like with the lolsuit. Weber Shandwick had no reason to stick their necks out for their employee when they could just say "we have no involvement in this, this is a matter between the other defendants". Funimations best strategy here would be to settle and cooperate with the plaintiffs to mitigate their damages and their liability.
 
PrinceofAllCucks said:
https://twitter.com/shane_holmberg/status/1134691855923318784?s=20
Click to expand...
Always archive. Always always always.
Capture.PNG


Edit: Also, @Shane_Yes_That_One - no one was laboring under that delusion. You're just another cow.
 
I find it hilarious he came back again acting like there was something to rub our faces in. Like he legit though he could lord this over us somehow.
 
Farmer Y said:
I had to get up to speed on archiving too. Really easy. Go to https://archive.fo then paste the URL of the site you want to archive into the red box. It will then generate a link after loading the page or say this page is already archived with the link displayed.
Click to expand...

If you're using Chrome as your browser there's a button which makes it even easier as you don't even need to paste the link.
 
Shane_Yes_That_One said:
Or better yet I call out someone betraying Monica who gave Nick info without names, and yall name Chuck Huber. Thanks!
Click to expand...
You literally posted about Huber earlier today and how he was one of two people there. Remember this?

Shane_Yes_That_One said:
the 2nd person being Huber is only slightly surprising.
I Won't be mentioning him on Twitter for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
Unless Monica knows Nick's discord pal, you couldn't have been talking about anyone but Huber, dummy.
 
780513

archive.fo

Shane Holmberg on Twitter: "Vicstans: Vic only wanted the confidentia…

archived 1 Jun 2019 05:23:12 UTC
archive.fo archive.fo

This is actually a good question to ask and it illustrates why it’s important for everyone to think for themselves and not just parrot whatever Nick says. According to him, Ron and Monica want to make public:

- The identities of PULL users.
- The names of alleged victims.
- The names of anyone calling up cons or e-mailing signing events and committing tortious interference.

That reads like a wish list for Vic, so why would his legal representation spend their time and his money fighting for a confidentiality agreement on behalf of those who want him cancelled? The lawsuit made it clear that they don't believe that many of these purported accusers even exist, which was why Ron was asked to name all “100+ ladies”. It makes little sense to suggest that the purpose of the confidentiality agreement was for anything other than Vic's benefit.
 
Nontransferable said:
View attachment 780513
archive.fo

Shane Holmberg on Twitter: "Vicstans: Vic only wanted the confidentia…

archived 1 Jun 2019 05:23:12 UTC
archive.fo archive.fo

This is actually a good question to ask and it illustrates why it’s important for everyone to think for themselves and not just parrot whatever Nick says. According to him, Ron and Monica want to make public:

- The identities of PULL users.
- The names of alleged victims.
- The names of anyone calling up cons or e-mailing signing events and committing tortious interference.

That reads like a wish list for Vic, so why would his legal representation spend their time and his money fighting for a confidentiality agreement on behalf of those who want him cancelled? The lawsuit made it clear that they don't believe that many of these purported accusers even exist, which is why Ron was asked to name all “100+ ladies”. It makes little sense to suggest that the purpose of the confidentiality agreement was for anything other than Vic's benefit.
Click to expand...
I don't know what random Vic supporters have said.

To clarify what Nick actually said though it was that Casey was arguing that EVERYTHING about this should be public - Nick then just gave some examples of what EVERYTHING would include.

And of course the confidentiality agreement was to benefit Vic - though actually (at least if we trust Nick's explanation) the confidentiality motion was largely a ploy to ensure they didn't have Vic's deposition posted on the internet with a TCPA motion blocking them from getting Ron and Monica's depositions for upto 90 days.
 
Nontransferable said:
View attachment 780513
archive.fo

Shane Holmberg on Twitter: "Vicstans: Vic only wanted the confidentia…

archived 1 Jun 2019 05:23:12 UTC
archive.fo archive.fo

This is actually a good question to ask and it illustrates why it’s important for everyone to think for themselves and not just parrot whatever Nick says. According to him, Ron and Monica want to make public:

- The identities of PULL users.
- The names of alleged victims.
- The names of anyone calling up cons or e-mailing signing events and committing tortious interference.

That reads like a wish list for Vic, so why would his legal representation spend their time and his money fighting for a confidentiality agreement on behalf of those who want him cancelled? The lawsuit made it clear that they don't believe that many of these purported accusers even exist, which was why Ron was asked to name all “100+ ladies”. It makes little sense to suggest that the purpose of the confidentiality agreement was for anything other than Vic's benefit.
Click to expand...
This is why people need to stop listening to fucktards like Shane.

The confidentiality agreement was only ever presented as a means to keep confidential the contents of the deposition in 2 instances:

1. It would keep the contents hidden for a time period, so neither party could share the info online. Yes, this would benefit both sides, but Vic was the focus. The concern was that MoRon would ask questions of a volatile nature that could be twisted to sound further defamatory. Since both sides have been doing this since before the trial (hell, neither side can agree who came out on top in this recent hearing) it was a means to calm the waters for a time.

2. Same basis, but it would move to keep confidential things that were not relevant to the case. Arbitrary information, like social security #, sure, but also bits that were a wee bit more in depth. Like the number of sexual partners a person has had. Stuff generally like that.
 
Hey, @Shane_Yes_That_One I have a couple of genuine questions for you about your take on the confidentiality order:

What do you think Casey "won" by defeating the request for the confidentiality agreement. As this will also affect his own clients, why would he be so opposed to an order in which both parties agree on which information deserves to go public? And what does he stand to gain by doing so?

What is your take on why Vic's lawyers wanted the confidentiality order in the first place? Because we have our own theory as to why, I'm just curious why do you think they wanted one.

And lastly, why did Ron Toye protect his tweets right after the hearing and the confidentiality order was rejected? Didn't he say he wanted everything to be public? Why the sudden change of heart?
 
Nontransferable said:
It's time to name and shame all those who were dumber than the shoe-eater. Nick confirmed that Funimation's lawyer was present at the hearing.
Click to expand...
That's the problem when you have no credibility though, people might have been more inclined to believe him if he didn't just make things up all the time. Boy who cried wolf and all that.

Lets add it to the list.

List of things Shane was right about:
-an email address
-a lawyer being at a location

And because Shane is strangely vindictive about Vic, he can't help but go for the second part of the saying "lying 'n' implying" which doesn't repair his credibility even when he is provably correct, as he just can't help make up a reason as to why the thing be as it do.
 
BigDuckEnergy said:
That's the problem when you have no credibility though, people might have been more inclined to believe him if he didn't just make things up all the time. Boy who cried wolf and all that.

Lets add it to the list.

List of things Shane was right about:
-an email address
-a lawyer being at a location

And because Shane is strangely vindictive about Vic, he can't help but go for the second part of the saying "lying 'n' implying" which doesn't repair his credibility even when he is provably correct, as he just can't help make up a reason as to why the thing be as it do.
Click to expand...
To add to this, Shane was still wrong as in this very thread he said it was to let the lawyers work together. More likely, it was the lawyers getting a read on the judge while also getting to guage Ty Beard in practice.
 
Gehenna said:
To add to this, Shane was still wrong as in this very thread he said it was to let the lawyers work together. More likely, it was the lawyers getting a read on the judge while also getting to guage Ty Beard in practice.
Click to expand...
Honestly I think it was just Funi lawyers getting a read on everything. Marchi seems to be going the reasonable budget route so paying for her lawyer to sit in on something that doesn't involve her seems unlikely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom