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

[Kendrick]

@Sheryl Nome calm down. You know the saying:

"Don't play chess with a pigeon. He'll knock down pieces, shit everywhere, and strutt on the board like he won".

You cannot convince someone who is not open the the tiny, microscopic idea that maybe, possibly, he was misled on information and he might be wrong on a subject.

And let's just clarify it:
1- Defamation's damage is assumed.
2- TI damage is shown and explained in Slatoch's unsworn declaration. Contract existed, Roye and Rial called in, contract got broken. Contract only got a new version after costs of a legal team was burdened on plaintiff, and even then the contract was less favorable that the initial contract.
3- Conspiracy: really hard to just outright prove, but the patterns shown in evidence could create doubt that it exists to a jury.

 

[Bender]

@AnOminous, @DinkyCowSow, @Sheryl Nome, @2lolis1cup and newfriend @Kendrick having an argument over law stuff?

Edit: How could I forget @Gehenna, @Red Wizard and @RodgerDodger?!

This thread just got really interesting, and possibly even informative.

 

[AnOminous]

@Sheryl Nome calm down. You know the saying:

"Don't play chess with a pigeon. He'll knock down pieces, shit everywhere, and strutt on the board like he won".

You cannot convince someone who is not open the the tiny, microscopic idea that maybe, possibly, he was misled on information and he might be wrong on a subject.

And let's just clarify it:
1- Defamation's damage is assumed.

Only for defamation per se. Otherwise you have to plead special damages.

Clearly, this isn't the case here.

2- TI damage is shown and explained in Slatoch's unsworn declaration. Contract existed, Roye and Rial called in, contract got broken. Contract only got a new version after costs of a legal team was burdened on plaintiff, and even then the contract was less favorable that the initial contract.
3- Conspiracy: really hard to just outright prove, but the patterns shown in evidence could create doubt that it exists to a jury.

I am not and never have been happy with how conspiracy is pled in this case.

 

[Immaculate Ape]

Every time.

 

[Apterigo]

Every time.

Ver archivo adjunto 934948

Not exactly like he's hiding it, he even said he joined recently

Frankly I'm just happy there's an opposing opinion here that's more intelligent than most of the drooling morons I see on twitter, not that that's a terribly high bar.

 

[Immaculate Ape]

Not exactly like he's hiding it, he even said he joined recently

Frankly I'm just happy there's an opposing opinion here that's more intelligent than most of the drooling morons I see on twitter, not that that's a terribly high bar.

An opposing opinion just for the sake of opposition is just being as contrarian as the moronic spergs on Law Twitter.

Ignoring blatant facts and refusing evidence you asked for, makes for a quick trip to the cow shed. If you're that bored that you need to make up imaginary arguments to try and dunk on people on the internet, log off and take up masturbating to your own image in the mirror.

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

Well this is more entertaining and less smug than lawtwitter

 

[2lolis1cup]

Well this is more entertaining and less smug than lawtwitter

It truly is lawtwitter coming here with smug self satisfaction. Then they have one fact they believe they are correct on and Ty is wrong on. They harp over and over on this one set of facts, regardless if they are proven wrong.

They throw sources that contradict themselves, but don't bother to acknowledge it. They post multiple times over the same argument and are oblivious to any point of view other than their gospel.


I can only mock him/her/degenerate for being an idiot. I will say he is a decent troll that made me respond more than once 6/10

 

[HTTP Error 404]

...

There's no fucking way he's still talking about Lipsky, is there? And being wrong in the same exact way that I covered like 8 hours ago? With citations?

I mean seriously at the start I thought he was just taking a bad citation from Law Twitter, but he's literally retreated to the exact same citation and getting it the exact same 180 degrees wrong despite multiple people pointing out he has it ass fucking backwards.

 

[Gehenna]

An opposing opinion just for the sake of opposition is just being as contrarian as the moronic spergs on Law Twitter.

Ignoring blatant facts and refusing evidence you asked for, makes for a quick trip to the cow shed. If you're that bored that you need to make up imaginary arguments to try and dunk on people on the internet, log off and take up masturbating to your own image in the mirror.

A contrarian who acknowledges being a contrarian can be useful, if done right. Since it will help make those who believe themselves to be in the right self-examine their own claims in order to defend it. That being said, being a contrarian JUST for the sake of being a contrarian is pointless and stupid.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

I am not just being a contrarian. I would like you all to consider entertaining for a moment that I actually don't believe that Ty has met the burden for proving damages. There are no cases that I have been able to find of someone winning a TCPA with only an affidavit enumerating specific damages but quantifying them or providing other supporting documents.

I do understand that the TCPA does not require an exact proof of damages for TIEC. I do understand that Ty has reasonably proven both the existence of the contract and that the contract has been terminated because of the defendants. I am not convinced of proving damages. I will gladly accept a citation of someone winning a TCPA with only an affidavit that listed damages with no amounts or supporting documents.

Side note: transcript will apparently be out shortly.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I am not just being a contrarian. I would like you all to consider entertaining for a moment that I actually don't believe that Ty has met the burden for proving damages. There are no cases that I have been able to find of someone winning a TCPA with only an affidavit enumerating specific damages but quantifying them or providing other supporting documents.

I do understand that the TCPA does not require an exact proof of damages for TIEC. I do understand that Ty has reasonably proven both the existence of the contract and that the contract has been terminated because of the defendants. I am not convinced of proving damages. I will gladly accept a citation of someone winning a TCPA with only an affidavit that listed damages with no amounts or supporting documents.

What the fuck are you not convinced on proving damages. They do not need amounts. If you had to allege a specific amount than even Defamation Per Se would need amounts, even though the damage is presumed.

The question is not of the amount of damage, it is of IF there is damage, and if it rationally flows from the defendant

Is there damage? Yes. There is absolutely damage. You cannot deny that. The amount of the damage is a fact question to be dealt with by a Jury, it is NOT the job of a Judge to assess the amount of damage.

Nobody is going to comb every TCPA case to tell you something that basic about how the law works.

 

[Bender]

An opposing opinion just for the sake of opposition is just being as contrarian as the moronic spergs on Law Twitter.

Agreed, let's just make this entire subforum a #KickVic echo chamber, we can rely on the mods to purify this thread if we ever see an opinion against Vic.

Just because someone on the farms has a contrary opinion doesn't mean they're running gay-ops, (OCCAMS RAZOR: maybe they just interpreted things differently to you) and even if they are deliberately attacking I feel it'll be more helpful to not be a cunt.

#1

#2

Stop double-posting.

 

[Gehenna]

I am not just being a contrarian. I would like you all to consider entertaining for a moment that I actually don't believe that Ty has met the burden for proving damages. There are no cases that I have been able to find of someone winning a TCPA with only an affidavit enumerating specific damages but quantifying them or providing other supporting documents.

I do understand that the TCPA does not require an exact proof of damages for TIEC. I do understand that Ty has reasonably proven both the existence of the contract and that the contract has been terminated because of the defendants. I am not convinced of proving damages. I will gladly accept a citation of someone winning a TCPA with only an affidavit that listed damages with no amounts or supporting documents.

You are asking for an absolutely absurd thing to prove you wrong. MOST cases don't leave much of a trail, so in order to provide this a bunch of people would likely need to go tot he court houses themselves, pay up some money, and get a stack of cases to review for this one specific criteria. That is absurd. Short of such a case existing in something that left an online trail, which would necessitate another lengthy and costly search, you are asking for something that'd take weeks if not months to do and find due to the sheer, absolute bulk of what such a trolling expedition would require.

That is also assuming such a case exists, it could really be a case of "This has simply never been ruled on".

By the language of the statue, it is allowable and permissible. That is sufficient, unless YOU can find a supreme court case saying otherwise that is materially similar to this one, or at least not so materially different as to be pointless.

Edit: because I AM absurd, have something to meet your insane request halfway. https://www.fwlawreporter.com/2019/...roof-of-damages-in-responding-to-tcpa-motion/

TL;DR, the supreme court found that simply demonstrating that there WERE specific damages (Specific in this case meaning, I can point to how this damaged me and how that connects to the defendant) is sufficient for the TCPA.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Edit: because I AM absurd, have something to meet your insane request halfway. https://www.fwlawreporter.com/2019/...roof-of-damages-in-responding-to-tcpa-motion/

TL;DR, the supreme court found that simply demonstrating that there WERE specific damages (Specific in this case meaning, I can point to how this damaged me and how that connects to the defendant) is sufficient for the TCPA.

Heroic.

Please note the language used.

"sufficient to allow a rational inference that some damages naturally flowed from the defendant’s conduct. "

The Plaintiff need only provide enough evidence to support a rational inference. That is a very, very low standard.

 

[Bender]

Heroic.

Please note the language used.

"sufficient to allow a rational inference that some damages naturally flowed from the defendant’s conduct. "

The Plaintiff need only provide enough evidence to support a rational inference. That is a very, very low standard.

Is this what it feels like to be sitting in the gallery watching lawyers flinging shit at each other, because I have a very warm feeling in a very sensitive place just witnessing Twatter-level bitch-fights.

 

[Gehenna]

Heroic.

Please note the language used.

"sufficient to allow a rational inference that some damages naturally flowed from the defendant’s conduct. "

The Plaintiff need only provide enough evidence to support a rational inference. That is a very, very low standard.

I can FEEL the autism growing inside, it must be purged with fire.

Is this what it feels like to be sitting in the gallery watching lawyers flinging shit at each other, because I have a very warm feeling in a very sensitive place just witnessing Twatter-level bitch-fights.

IANAL, I am just good at research.

 

[Bender]

IANAL, I am just good at research.

So you say you're good at research, so go research any relevant case law and dump it all in this thread, I don't think I can since I'm:
1) Not Texasian
2) Not Americalandian
3) So drunk I've had to use my backspace key so much it's gotten jammed

 

[Arcturus]

In case no one else posted it yet. https://www.dropbox.com/s/whietmuru04a1mz/2019-09-06 TCPA Hearing Transcript - Marked.pdf?dl=0

 

[Sheryl Nome]

In case no one else posted it yet. https://www.dropbox.com/s/whietmuru04a1mz/2019-09-06 TCPA Hearing Transcript - Marked.pdf?dl=0

>that threadnought watermark

Yikes... Thats just pathetic T-Greg

Apparently he scrounged up the money for this somehow, you would think he would pay off his fucking debts.