Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.

Destacado
Hoss dijo:
Yes. Most states have overturned theirs because of how it practically violates the 7th Amendment extremely.
Presiona para expandir...
I feel like the laws do less of the “prevent people from silencing others through legal action” thing and more of the “allow people to commit torts and beat the rap without proper consideration of the evidence” thing.

There’s another case I’ve been following of an indie comic artist who was accused of rape that looks like it conceivably could be a SLAPP, where he’s suing his accuser; but if anything way more people know about the whole messy business than before. So the whole “chilling effect” of the lawsuit kind of backfired in this case, and it seems like it tends to in general.
 
Última edición:
Tour of Italy dijo:
I feel like they laws do less of the “prevent people from silencing others through legal action” thing and more of the “allow people to commit torts and beat the rap without proper consideration of the evidence” thing.
Presiona para expandir...
Very rarely do laws serve the interests of the common man. This becomes increasingly true the more recent the law.
 
Urbanmech dijo:
Geez flashbacks to the military, had waaaay too many Death by powerpoints. Dwight is right Powerpoint is boring.
Presiona para expandir...
I don't know about that, some power points bring up ideas I never thought about.
EKO3dPD.jpg
 
2lolis1cup dijo:
I don't know about that, some power points bring up ideas I never thought about.
EKO3dPD.jpg
Presiona para expandir...
I would insert a joke about Army/Navy/Marines but during a Commander's Call about the Don't ask Don't Tell repeal, we had a guy actually stand up in front of everyone and ask "What if during urinalysis the urinalysis monitor is gay? Can I opt out of testing?". So all services have their dumb people.
 
Yep, this is a bit TL, so DFR it if you're so inclined...
To start off, I'd like to thank @5t3n0g0ph3r , @Far Queue , @Tipsy Tea Cup , and @damian for keeping up great reference indexes of the case, the events, and the players. It immensely helps me (and others I'm sure) to navigate around to the important parts of this case. Not that I don't enjoy the commentaries from fellow Kiwi's, but to see just one thread have 125+ pages in only 3 days can melt one's mind if not properly disciplined (or inclined to read the shitfights between Kiwi's for that matter).

I will quote this, and keep it in mind for the way forward regarding this case:
You're gonna set a new record at appeals for the quickest kick in the ass.
Presiona para expandir...
Before I get to the TCPA hearing itself, I did say the #metoo card getting played would have some kind of effect on this case, and IMO it appears that it did, a little. The Judge is an elected official, and is thus vulnerable to backlash/lost votes/an opponent from the screech movement should he seek re-election in 2022, should this case not go their way. Not that he should be concerned really, as he's run unopposed in the last two elections, and he got almost 300k more votes in 2018 vs. 2014. But, I've put it out there to be thought upon...
The first problem with the hearing was the two things that happened BEFORE the hearing. The Plaintiff's 2nd Amended Petition that was filed 3 business days prior to the hearing bloated the Original Petition by 429 pages, and you're expecting a Judge/his people to read, understand, and inflect on the evidence end-run by BHBH in just 3 days? It's no surprise to me he denied it's admittance into the record, sans the affidavits. Add in the 1188 page Plaintiff's MTD Response 5 business days before the hearing, trying to address all the TCPA's at once, and IMHO, you just showed the Judge that you've stepped down to opposing counsels level of legal filing bloat. Were they necessary? Maybe. Could it have been avoided and/or slimmed down? Again, maybe. Moving on to the hearing itself...

My overall impression was that the Judge didn't have all the information (or was ignorant of the evidence) to make an informed decision on one matter (Marchi Defamation/Conspiracy), and not enough information (or again ignorant of said evidence) on another matter (the two TI Counts). Both are due to the Defendant's discovery games pre-TCPA, the Defendant's bloat of a TCPA itself, the automatic wish-granted halt to discovery post-TCPA, and the Judge's denial of the 2nd Amended Petition.

The Judge tossed both TI counts, but IMO with a decent reason. I didn't say a good one though. The Plaintiff only provided one instance of TI, but didn't specifically say how much that one instance cost him. IMO, the Judge was looking for more than one specific instance of TI to establish a pattern of conduct, and to see the actual cost of damage(s) for any/all of the instances that it occurred. You can again thank the discovery games and the TCPA discovery freeze largely for those counts being tossed.

So Marchi's been removed from the lolsuit entirely?
Not surprised by that one, as she was my prediction for the "play the #metoo card, get out of court" winner.
She was an outlier to begin with, just chirping and mimicking Rial's words, stories, and actions to bolster Rial's “claims”. With that in mind, her attorney played the game of “less is more”, add in a mis-step from either the Judge denying the 2nd Amended Petition or BHBH not getting that evidence into earlier filings, and he got his client out of the shitshow. Counts A & D of the Plaintiff's Petition applied to her, and to remove her from one gave the Judge the authority for her to be removed from the other. Bad decision by him, as the evidence still clearly shows that Marchi was involved in the Civil Conspiracy count. It might come back to bite him later, but time will tell. So yes, her attorney gets paid, and by his efforts shown, it won't be very much.

So remember that appeals quote? I have a feeling she'll be back, just not soon enough for people here. Be it by either an appeal, or the Judge having a moment of clarity to realize he screwed up in letting her out of it.

For now, we'll just have to wait for the Judge's Opinion on the TCPA's regarding the remaining counts on the remaining players, and it's going to be mighty interesting one to read given his decisions and comments from Friday...
 
Mythrilius dijo:
Not that I don't enjoy the commentaries from fellow Kiwi's, but to see just one thread have 125+ pages in only 3 days can melt one's mind if not properly disciplined
Presiona para expandir...
Amen.

Mythrilius dijo:
So Marchi's been removed from the lolsuit entirely?
Presiona para expandir...

This reminds me. Did any of us from the hearing mention that Mr. Beard stood up there for at least five minutes, unable to find all of Marchi's tweets in his own pleadings?

It felt like longer. He clearly was unprepared to use the 1st amended petition, despite Lemoine's binders full of women motions including it.* Eventually the judge said, "Dismissed" and moved on. That was when I realized going to this hearing in person was truly a blessing in lulz.

I think it was after a short recess Mr. Beard tried to bring up the photo tweets with Marchi's fan-fiction account of her assault. "Is this for TI or defamation?" asked Judge Chupp. "Defamation, Your Honor." "I already dismissed that, weren't you listening?"

*(I actually have some documents sliced up into easy-to-use splits locally, but was too lazy to print them off and lug them around. Each exhibit its own PDF, indexed content by topic, etc. I kind of assumed lawyers were even more aggressive indexing their copies to avoid this exact situation.)
 
Mythrilius dijo:
Yep, this is a bit TL, so DFR it if you're so inclined...
To start off, I'd like to thank @5t3n0g0ph3r , @Far Queue , @Tipsy Tea Cup , and @damian for keeping up great reference indexes of the case, the events, and the players. It immensely helps me (and others I'm sure) to navigate around to the important parts of this case. Not that I don't enjoy the commentaries from fellow Kiwi's, but to see just one thread have 125+ pages in only 3 days can melt one's mind if not properly disciplined (or inclined to read the shitfights between Kiwi's for that matter).

I will quote this, and keep it in mind for the way forward regarding this case:

Before I get to the TCPA hearing itself, I did say the #metoo card getting played would have some kind of effect on this case, and IMO it appears that it did, a little. The Judge is an elected official, and is thus vulnerable to backlash/lost votes/an opponent from the screech movement should he seek re-election in 2022, should this case not go their way. Not that he should be concerned really, as he's run unopposed in the last two elections, and he got almost 300k more votes in 2018 vs. 2014. But, I've put it out there to be thought upon...
The first problem with the hearing was the two things that happened BEFORE the hearing. The Plaintiff's 2nd Amended Petition that was filed 3 business days prior to the hearing bloated the Original Petition by 429 pages, and you're expecting a Judge/his people to read, understand, and inflect on the evidence end-run by BHBH in just 3 days? It's no surprise to me he denied it's admittance into the record, sans the affidavits. Add in the 1188 page Plaintiff's MTD Response 5 business days before the hearing, trying to address all the TCPA's at once, and IMHO, you just showed the Judge that you've stepped down to opposing counsels level of legal filing bloat. Were they necessary? Maybe. Could it have been avoided and/or slimmed down? Again, maybe. Moving on to the hearing itself...

My overall impression was that the Judge didn't have all the information (or was ignorant of the evidence) to make an informed decision on one matter (Marchi Defamation/Conspiracy), and not enough information (or again ignorant of said evidence) on another matter (the two TI Counts). Both are due to the Defendant's discovery games pre-TCPA, the Defendant's bloat of a TCPA itself, the automatic wish-granted halt to discovery post-TCPA, and the Judge's denial of the 2nd Amended Petition.

The Judge tossed both TI counts, but IMO with a decent reason. I didn't say a good one though. The Plaintiff only provided one instance of TI, but didn't specifically say how much that one instance cost him. IMO, the Judge was looking for more than one specific instance of TI to establish a pattern of conduct, and to see the actual cost of damage(s) for any/all of the instances that it occurred. You can again thank the discovery games and the TCPA discovery freeze largely for those counts being tossed.

So Marchi's been removed from the lolsuit entirely?
Not surprised by that one, as she was my prediction for the "play the #metoo card, get out of court" winner.
She was an outlier to begin with, just chirping and mimicking Rial's words, stories, and actions to bolster Rial's “claims”. With that in mind, her attorney played the game of “less is more”, add in a mis-step from either the Judge denying the 2nd Amended Petition or BHBH not getting that evidence into earlier filings, and he got his client out of the shitshow. Counts A & D of the Plaintiff's Petition applied to her, and to remove her from one gave the Judge the authority for her to be removed from the other. Bad decision by him, as the evidence still clearly shows that Marchi was involved in the Civil Conspiracy count. It might come back to bite him later, but time will tell. So yes, her attorney gets paid, and by his efforts shown, it won't be very much.

So remember that appeals quote? I have a feeling she'll be back, just not soon enough for people here. Be it by either an appeal, or the Judge having a moment of clarity to realize he screwed up in letting her out of it.

For now, we'll just have to wait for the Judge's Opinion on the TCPA's regarding the remaining counts on the remaining players, and it's going to be mighty interesting one to read given his decisions and comments from Friday...
Presiona para expandir...
The 2nd amended petition I can understand however a TCPA case is supposed to be the plaintiff presenting his evidence to a prema-facie while all evidence of the non-movant party is to be believed. The other thing to note is that the Plaintiff is supposed to present their evidence first, therefore they are just required to prove there is a good possibility that their claims are true.

Chupps actions are the concern and the main reason why an appeal is likely to be won simply for the fact Chupp required a trial standard, and ignored the process of a TCPA hearing.

TI was the easiest as Slatosch, and Ron's tweets would've proven to a jury there was an intent to breach a contract (even though the original contract WAS breached). That is more than the minimum requirement for prema-facie with regards to TI.

Marchi already showed that she had malice towards Vic, therefore any normal Jury would question the authenticity of her statements. This was botched because Ty couldn't get the second amended petition where she admitted the head/ball tweet was related to Vic.
TI would've been presumed due to Slatosch's affidavit (which in a TCPA hearing would've been believed over the defendants words).

Funi should have had defamation for sure if he added the article that gave the generic public view with regards to it,
Conspiracy should have been easy because Jamie asked them to make a tweet and they did, this would, under Jury be seen as potential conspiracy.

Jamie and Ron should've been easily all of them.

The issue here is that it's supposed to be "would a Jury believe that story," not would it hold up in trial.
 
I know its not going to happen, but it would be extremely funny if somehow BHBH did somehow manage to use Vic's case to manage to strike the TCPA as unconstitutional, I might die laughing
 
Corypheus dijo:
Several states have done that or something close to it. You never know.
Presiona para expandir...

Both Washington State and Minnesota have thrown out anti-SLAPP statutes for doing what this appears to do, i.e. having a judge make factual determinations that plaintiffs have a constitutional right to be heard by a jury.
 
AnOminous dijo:
Both Washington State and Minnesota have thrown out anti-SLAPP statutes for doing what this appears to do, i.e. having a judge make factual determinations that plaintiffs have a constitutional right to be heard by a jury.
Presiona para expandir...
If it conflicts with the 17th amendment does that make it a civil or human rights violation? Or neither? Admittedly I know even less about the american constitution than I do law and that's already a pretty shallow pool.
And if it's a violation does that strictly mean the ability to appeal or would Vic be able to do something a bit stronger or more high risk/high reward?
 
SkeetNYeet dijo:
If it conflicts with the 17th amendment does that make it a civil or human rights violation? Or neither? Admittedly I know even less about the american constitution than I do law and that's already a pretty shallow pool.
And if it's a violation does that strictly mean the ability to appeal or would Vic be able to do something a bit stronger or more high risk/high reward?
Presiona para expandir...

I believe this is the 7th Amendment (right to being heard by a jury for civil disputes), not the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment is about Senators. It would be classified as a civil rights violation if that's the case. Ultimately, the manner of remedy would still be an appeal, it would just be different grounds to use.
 
I do hope these relatively minor setbacks means Ty and Nick start taking this a little more seriously. They are fighting an uphill battle and acting arrogant and flippantly about it on youtube and twitter is going to make it very easy to feed judges or jury bad impressions of you through subtle means. Making judges like this toss half your case when they think you're just wasting their time.
 
No Pact dijo:
I do hope these relatively minor setbacks means Ty and Nick start taking this a little more seriously. They are fighting an uphill battle and acting arrogant and flippantly about it on youtube and twitter is going to make it very easy to feed judges or jury bad impressions of you through subtle means. Making judges like this toss half your case when they think you're just wasting their time.
Presiona para expandir...

The more I'm hearing from people in the courtroom, the more I'm inclined to believe Chupp's behavior has nothing to do with Nick's stream, and everything to do with the back-and-forth squabbling between Ty and Jayshaun.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo