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
  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • 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
I've spoken to him about cons before on his discord, it's just as boring and deflective as anything else this rat fuck talks about. He'd make a good politician if he wasn't so dumb and good at pissing everyone off in a 30 mile radius.
I don't think I'd want Shane within 1,000 miles of any event held. He's an utter vapid idiot. The only profession he would be successful at would be medieval sapper; he's great at sabotaging whatever he comes into contact with, albeit unintentionally.
 
I watched the whole thing. He seems like a reasonable, level-headed guy and I think he would be a good guest for Nick to have on his show as someone who can offer a different perspective on the lawsuit. His analysis isn't Texas-specific, so that would be a good conversation for them to have.

@KEK7go Mind passing this to Nick to see if he can arrange this?
 
Pardon my tardiness if this has been posted, but did anyone see that popehat retweeted Shane?

Because oh how embarrassing for his credibility.

I don't think he's seen the Shane stream.
lmaodontencouragehim.png
 
I'm a bit disappointed that Jesus' teachings were used in a legal document, I don't think religion or religious texts have any place in a court of law, only facts do.

Think of it legally, though. If she had said, 'What would Pinhead do? Light him on fire and drag him to hell,' then that would probably be accurate because Pinhead (I assume) was an evil monster who would torture/kill people regardless of their guilt or innocence. He just liked to kill people. The statement has a totally different meaning because of the religious doctrines regarding Jesus and his nature, so I don't think BHBH had any choice but to acknowledge the religious context of the tweet.
 
Think of it legally, though. If she had said, 'What would Pinhead do? Light him on fire and drag him to hell,' then that would probably be accurate because Pinhead (I assume) was an evil monster who would torture/kill people regardless of their guilt or innocence. He just liked to kill people. The statement has a totally different meaning because of the religious doctrines regarding Jesus and his nature, so I don't think BHBH had any choice but to acknowledge the religious context of the tweet.
Nick did say that BHBH is covering ANY possible defamatory comments due to if they do win, the defense could try to pin any comment not listed in the letter as the comments that did damage and not the ones in the letter. Key word is they can TRY so why bother giving them this option though.
 
I'm a bit disappointed that Jesus' teachings were used in a legal document, I don't think religion or religious texts have any place in a court of law, only facts do.
Vic. But as you have noticed, I refer to to Ty and Vic as being the plaintiff in this case.
Hey Shane you are aware you messages between you and Ron are going to have to come out in discovery right? Since you are discussing Vic with him, you know between the pegging sessions. We can't wait to read those.
 
The voice chat that you said not to post was already posted here, you shoe-eating idiot.
This little tidbit came to me over the course of the night. Recorded June 4 2019 in his public discord. Going to leave it for other kiwis to dissect.
The TL;DR version is that Shane alleges Vic was working with the defendants on a statement before Ty got involved. This never happened because they couldn't come to an agreement and the talks stopped when Vic's middleman learned that Monica had hired an attorney. Shane questions why Nick (or anyone) would stand up for Vic when no who knew him has done so. He says the cons are more to blame than Monica, Ron, Jamie or Marzgurl. He says that Vic is not a criminal. What he has done is simple assault or sexual harassment. He says that cons were very different 10, 15, 20 years ago. You could hug and kiss someone back then. People were more touchy touchy-feely. He denies doing the same things as Vic. He says that people are not on camera 24/7 at cons and that guests can go places that attendees can't. He says at while Vic was at Kameha Con all weekend, there isn't more than an hour's worth of footage of him.

One thing I would like to point out is that Shane is obviously talking about Vic at the start, but he says Nick and I'm not sure if the person he's talking to noticed because they then go into a discussion about Nick. Shane asking why Nick has empathy is just bizarre, "Everyone is throwing stones at this guy, why would you step in and help him?" The part where they talk about innocent until proven guilty is aggravating. Shane speaks as if the presumption of innocence doesn't apply in a civil matter and then they conflate what Vic has done with what Monica/Ron did even though they are two separate things.

Here's a transcript for the first 8 minutes of that conversation.
P.S. Why did you say "were actual lawyers":
Did you mean "we're"?
 
The voice chat that you said not to post was already posted here, you shoe-eating idiot.
Wait is he talking about the "Vic was going to admit guilt but THEY couldn't decide on concessions" crap?
 
I almost forgot about this, but Shane missed his own deadline.

On May 23rd, he said that evidence would start coming out in 7-12 days, (Witnesses, other victims, etc.) The only thing that's been disclosed is stuff that Ty sent the defendants. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 
Back
Top Bottom