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

[Garm]

I am not claiming direct evidence. Some of you don't seem to know what direct and circumstantial evidence mean. Yes, circumstantial evidence is allowed.

Direct evidence means evidence that, if unchallenged, is enough to establish the crime/tort/element. For instance, in this case, "I talked to [defandant] and because of that decided to cancel the contract," would be direct evidence that proves one of the elements (more than enough to surpass TCPA). Circumstantial evidence is evidence that supports the claim, but even if unchallenged does not establish the thing without rational inference. Circumstantial evidence that the defendants cancelled the contract might be the existence of a phone call between the convention and the defendants (it would not be enough to prove the contents, but it is circumstantial evidence that qualifies for the TCPA). The classic example of circumstantial evidence is "we found the defendant's fingerprints at the crime scene." Does this provide evidence that the defendant did the crime? Yes. Is it enough on it's own? No. Lots of peoples fingerprints might be at a crime scene who didn't do the crime.

Ty essentially attempted to argue that the confession of a single murder is circumstantial evidence that every other unsolved murder in the town was by the same person. That is not circumstantial evidence, and it is not a rational inference. I get some of you think that it is in fact a rational inference, but I think the judge is absolutely correct on this element.

If someone confesses to murder, that usually warrants at least an investigation, correct?

 

[I can't imagine]

It appears to me that the point of a TCPA is that if the evidence is laid out before a random layman, would the layman say "this is suspicious, we need to investigate further."

On defamation, I would think the sheer number of Ron's tweets trying to imply Vic is a pedophile and a rapist should raise a red flag. It was a sustained effort over several weeks. Monica is in a similar position. Funimation had a single tweet thread but it could be considered defamitory. What Marchi lacked in volume she made up for in viciousness.

Conspiracy will be difficult to prove until you can conduct discovery. But we seem to have emails where Monica asked Funimation to make a statement. That should be a red flag.

Tortuious Interference has text messages as well as an affidavit stating "they called, we cancelled the contract." This should be a giant red flag.

The problem I have with Chupp's ruling on TI is that it makes it more difficult to sue someone for interfering with a business contract. Right now it seems like if a contract gets cancelled but you renegotiate it with penalties for yourself just to save the contract, technically you didn't lose a contract. This seems like it would be bad for "average" people as well small businesses because they may have "only" one contract.

I know Chupp is wrong on the facts of the case. I know that. I'm just pointing out that right now the logic behind throwing out Tortious interference is problematic if applied any where else.

This is the abstract situation I'm looking at. The lawyer types can go back to arguing about the finer details.

I think you might be going a little too far into the abstract. This isn't the Supreme Court here. Nothing about this decision will necessarily affect anything else in any other lawsuit. Decisions get made by judges all the time, and almost none of them are ever brought up again in another lawsuit. And no other judge is going to be under any obligation to rule in this manner just because Chupp said so.

 

[Garm]

I think you might be going a little too far into the abstract. This isn't the Supreme Court here. Nothing about this decision will necessarily affect anything else in any other lawsuit. Decisions get made by judges all the time, and almost none of them are ever brought up again in another lawsuit. And no other judge is going to be under any obligation to rule in this manner just because Chupp said so.

I'm overthinking it. My point being that it would set a precedent that some lawyer in 20 years would look up and attempt to use in court.

I don't understand the finer details of our court system, I just know that precedent is important.

 

[2lolis1cup]

You are so, so fucking stupid. Honestly at this point I'm just flabbergasted. How can you not think its a rational inference that Ron called other cons? The only answer is that your personal biases prevent that.

You're pretending like these cons cancelling is like an unsolved murder. Its not. Its absolutely not. The big distinction is that we can draw a line from everything in Vic's case. Accusations come out, cons start cancelling on vic, we get evidence that at least one con was called. Thats enough to provide a rational inference that maybe more than one con was called.

Its not like there were cons cancelling prior to the accusations coming out and we're trying to link that, which is what your 'unsolved murder' analogy tries to do.

Your asking for the phonecall is literally asking for direct evidence. Its not circumstantial. The existence of a phonecall would be DIRECT evidence of TI, regardless of what was said, while we can only draw an inference from fact that one was called, and its more than possible others were called.

I made this in honor of your dedication to reaching out those with excess chromosomes and love of trains.

 

[I can't imagine]

I'm overthinking it. My point being that it would set a precedent that some lawyer in 20 years would look up and attempt to use in court.

I don't understand the finer details of our court system, I just know that precedent is important.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm an accountant, so I could be wrong on this exactly. I expect @AnOminous could answer a bit better, but I believe that decisions from lower courts can be considered by other judges, but they're under no obligation to follow them. Also, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that there's case law that would demonstrate that the opposite decision has been made in similar situations before, and should have been made here.

 

[Marissa Moira]

So are the good guys winning?

 

[Markorian]

So are the good guys winning?

We simply won't know until we get Chupp's full response. The two main theories are that Chupp wanted to punish Ty for his bad 1200 page filing and struck most claims, but will leave a couple as those defendants participated in near identical shenanigans. The other theory is that Chupp wants to dismiss the entire case and be done with it, evidence be damned, but realized that a couple causes had more concrete evidence than he planned for and is drafting a response to them to make it harder to appeal.

 

[General Relativity QM]

"Hello, Mr or Mrs (Mx) Con Owner or operator, this is Ty Beard from BHBH representing Victor Mignogna, who was formerly a guest slated to appear at your con. Victor has a lawsuit filed against Funimation, Monica Rial, Ron Toye, and Jamie Marchi, and we're asking if you will go on the record stating that Monica and Ron or any defendant interfered with an existing contract or a perspective contract with my client, Victor Mignogna. We have a respond to a motion by the defendants, and if you would be so kind as to respond by Aug 20, 2019, we can have you write a sworn affidavit and submit it to the court. Thanks again. Again, this is Ty Beard from BHBH at 903-509-4900."

Con Owner:
"So, I got a call from Vic's lawyer. He's asking me to talk about why didn't sign Vic (or we broke our contract with Vic). Do we have to respond? What's our potential liability?
......
....mmhmmm....
So, you're telling me that we can ignore him completely?
.....
Don't say anything until we get a subpoena - got it!
....
I don't remember if we signed Vic or just didn't invite him this year.
....
You mean we could face some liability if we admit that we broke the contract with Vic?
...mmhmmm...
That makes sense. I should be like Darth Vader and tell them to pray I don't change their contract further. hahahahaha.
...
But we make small changes to contracts all the time.
...
You mean I could be brought into the lawsuit if statements I said came out?
...
Civil Conspiracy? I was just passing along the things that Monica's boyfriend told me, and I told a few con owners to not invite Vic since it might be an issue for them due to the allegations and Monica's threats.
....
No, you're right. I don't want to invite a lawsuit, and I wouldn't want to get involved in this mess and potentially upset Funimation or have Monica and Jamie start a boycott with other guests. I mean that's why I didn't want to invite Vic in the first place. Monica's boyfriend or whatever said that Monica would get all the VAs to boycott my convention. I don't need that kind of drama. Vic's a nice dude; I would rather upset him than Funimation or Monica.
....No, I agree. I'll just keep my mouth shut until if and when they actually send a subpoena. Thanks again for the legal advice, Mr(s). Lawyer."

A con owner is under no obligation to respond to Ty's request for an affidavit detailing any potential interference. Ty, rightly in my opinion, reasoned that he had enough evidence to sustain the TI claim AT LEAST against Monica and Ron. If the TI claim survived TCPA, and why wouldn't it since it is the very definition of TI, and fits perfectly with a case in this circuit's court of appeals, Ty could resume discovery, and he could subpoena con owners to compel testimony, especially against those who might not be friendly to Vic, or those who might want to avoid liability themselves, or frankly those who have a vested interest in not being involved at all. At least one of the defendants is kind of a big player in the anime and anime con industry.

Again, this illustrates a problem with TCPA. It prejudices the plaintiff to make a case before plaintiff can actually use the tools that the Courts have said are instrumental in building a case, even a civil case. That's why the standard is prima facie - the most basic of case. To insist on anything above the most basic of case is depriving the plaintiff of their right to seek redress of grievances. It is meant to address obvious retaliations, but as applied, it is making the plaintiff survive a motion of summary judgement before discovery. That's why DinkyCowSow is raving about the amount of damages rather than thinking about the real purpose of the TCPA. The purpose of the TCPA is to prevent completely baseless lawsuits that stem from someone being butt-hurt about something someone said in the course of their obvious freedom of speech. It is so obvious that the plaintiff can't make even the most basic of showing of a case. 99 of 100 judges would toss it out immediately if they could, but they have to wait until summary judgement. What a waste of time! Some people get focused on the details so much that they miss what the details are there to support.

So are the good guys winning?

I'm winning. There is so much to laugh at and make fun of while analyzing the legal aspects. This case for a long time was the gift that kept on giving. I can't wait for the ruling. Either way, I will have fun laughing at the people who are upset that their team didn't win. They deserve each other.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

If someone confesses to murder, that usually warrants at least an investigation, correct?

Yes, it totally warrants an investigation! Which is why the detectives and officers would go around gathering additional evidence before they bring the additional charges. They might try to determine if the accused was in the same location at the same time (good circumstantial evidence). The district attorneys, police, and detectives also have some handy doctrines that allow them to accuse people of crimes and bring them to trial without repercussion in most cases. Even if you are innocent, you can't necessarily get damages from the police if they bring a case against you. However, in places with anti-SLAPP laws like Texas, you can be forced to pay the defendants if you don't do a good job presenting your case.

In civil court, you can also do some investigation. You have the same right to ask people to answer your questions. The power balance is a little different: police can pretty much ask anyone to come in and answer questions, but you are allowed to plead the fifth more broadly without consequence; civil cases sometimes have discovery stays that prevent you from forcing them to answer, but when you can do discovery pleading the fifth can be used against your targets.

What Ty attempted to do is, without turning up additional facts in investigation, go ahead and pursue the charges anyway. Because of the TCPA, that means Vic is currently on the hook for most likely the majority of the defendant's costs so far. If Chupp continues to rule against Vic, then this could go up to 100% of the fees, barring successful appeals. Ty probably had only two or three claims that could have gotten past TCPA, so he should have stuck with those until he could do discovery. Once he could do discovery he could determine if the defendants had contacted other cons and added additional charges. Instead, he's so far screwed Vic over.

I know some people are absolutely sure that Ty is right on this, but I would like you to consider that Chupp, as a Judge in Texas who oversees cases regularly, probably knows more about the nuances of the Law in Texas than you, me, or anyone else in this thread, and so far he has been absolutely unimpressed with how Ty has handled everything. Everything single ruling he has made so far has, barring successful appeal, cost Vic tens of thousands of dollars.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Pure Stupidity

You are actually too stupid to hold on a conversation with at this point. You're not even arguing anymore, you're just whining and saying 'CHUPP SAID SO HE MUST BE RIGHT'. Appeals courts exist because Judges are not always right.

Its incredible that you can type so much, and say so little.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

You are actually too stupid to hold on a conversation with at this point. You're not even arguing anymore, you're just whining and saying 'CHUPP SAID SO HE MUST BE RIGHT'. Appeals courts exist because Judges are not always right.

Its incredible that you can type so much, and say so little.

You, sometime between now and 6 months from now, insisting that actually all the judges are wrong, and it doesn't really matter because Vic restored his reputation (even as Vic is forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the people he is suing and the overwhelming media narrative for whoever bothers to cover this case is "Voice actor Vic Mignogna defamation lawsuit thrown out, forcing them to pay defendants fees") is going to be an interesting experience.

I cannot remember the last time I saw someone so sure of something in spite of all the evidence.

 

[General Relativity QM]

t I would like you to consider that Chupp, as a Judge in Texas who oversees cases regularly, probably knows more about the nuances of the Law in Texas than you, me, or anyone else in this thread

Classic appeal to authority fallacy. Oh dear... You know, if a Texas judge rules on something based on Texas laws, that judge must be right. That judge knows the nuance and the letter of the law. Why are we wasting money on an appeals court system if all Texas judges understand the nuance of any Texas law and will all rule the same given the same set of facts? What a colossal waster of tax payer money! This is why Texas doesn't offer free health-care to non-citizens. DinkyCowSow, thank you so much for pointing out the deficiencies of the Texas Court system.

That being said, I sincerely do appreciate you challenging things.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

You, sometime between now and 6 months from now, insisting that actually all the judges are wrong, and it doesn't really matter because Vic restored his reputation (even as Vic is forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the people he is suing and the overwhelming media narrative for whoever bothers to cover this case is "Voice actor Vic Mignogna defamation lawsuit thrown out, forcing them to pay defendants fees") is going to be an interesting experience.

I cannot remember the last time I saw someone so sure of something in spite of all the evidence.

I literally don't give a fuck about any of that shit.

What has annoyed me here is that under the Law, with the facts at hand, there's no way Vic does not have a slam dunk case of TI against Ron. That count is an absolute slam dunk.
And in my view, many other counts should have survived the TCPA, the Judge was erroneous for sure on TI.

I don't care if Vic kills himself in a gutter a year from now. I don't give a fuck about dubbed anime and I certainly don't give a fuck about him. I don't even really give a shit about any of the defendants outside of the fact that Ron in particular seems to be a vile human being.

 

[General Relativity QM]

I cannot remember the last time I saw someone so sure of something in spite of all the evidence.

Introduce yourself to a mirror then. You'll see it much more frequently.

 

[AnOminous]

Ty essentially attempted to argue that the confession of a single murder is circumstantial evidence that every other unsolved murder in the town was by the same person. That is not circumstantial evidence, and it is not a rational inference. I get some of you think that it is in fact a rational inference, but I think the judge is absolutely correct on this element.

Slatosch quite clearly stated that when Toye was interfering with his own contract with Vic, he also said he was contacting other conventions as well. That's pretty specific.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Slatosch quite clearly stated that when Toye was interfering with his own contract with Vic, he also said he was contacting other conventions as well. That's pretty specific.

Seems like enough for me to draw a rational inference from.

 

[2lolis1cup]

oh boy it looks like we are almost at the 1:1 ratio. lets see how the tards post influence his ratio from here.

 

[AnOminous]

Seems like enough for me to draw a rational inference from.

Correction: it wasn't in Slatosch's affidavit but attached to it as an exhibit, and it wasn't Slatosch saying he heard it, but Toye himself saying he was doing it in his DMs.

Also I don't know why we've been arguing about oral vs. written contracts because the written contract itself is attached as an exhibit to Slatosch's declaration as well.

 

[Gehenna]

@DinkyCowSow

You are not making a point, you are just ignoring everything everyone says and reasserting your original claims. I am going to, against my better judgement at this point, not simply assume you are trolling. Instead, I am going to tell you that you are wrong. You are flat wrong. You don't seem to understand even the most basic concepts of how the legal system works. For example, that judges are not libraries of law, and that they rely on lawyers to remind them of the law. This is a fact so absolutely basic to the legal system that anyone discussing legal topics should understand it. You do not. Ergo, perhaps it would be best for YOU to cease this tirade of ignorance as you have drawn even my patience and willingness to believe in the best in people to its absolute limit. I am probably the biggest here, and you just pushed past my willingness to accept your good faith.

 

[quickthrowaway]

Also I don't know why we've been arguing about oral vs. written contracts because the written contract itself is attached as an exhibit to Slatosch's declaration as well.

This all makes more sense if you believe DinkyCowSow is simply repeating what Chubbs said. Chubbs denied the TI despite a statement from the con runner and the person interfering admitting to it and claiming they're gonna do it with other conventions. Therefore Sow will deny it. Chubbs says that there are no contracts despite Ty having the Kamehacon one and saying others were oral contracts. Therefore Sow says there aren't any contracts.