Garm
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 5 de Jun, 2019
Was it a monkey paw? Those things will fuck you over. This is more of a plague that anything.
Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.
- Iniciador del tema 5t3n0g0ph3r
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 DDoS attack. Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/.
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack). -
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
Was it a monkey paw? Those things will fuck you over. This is more of a plague that anything.
DinkyCowSow
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Sep, 2019
Actual damages, which are also called “compensatory damages” are awarded to compensate for an injury or to repair a wrong. Actual damages may be either economic or non-economic and do not include exemplary damages. Economic damages compensate for actual economic or pecuniary loss, and non-economic damages are awarded to compensate for physical pain and suffering, mental and emotional pain or anguish, disfigurement, physical impairment, loss of companionship in society, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, injury to reputation, and all other non-pecuniary losses, other than exemplary damages.
source
Vic needs to, as part of the TCPA, provide clear and specific evidence that supports a prima facie case for actual damages. Ty alleged economic damages. Claiming that you have actual damages is not enough to get past TPCA. Providing evidence of actual damages, even if you can't calculate it exactly down to the penny, is enough to get past the TCPA. I do not agree that listing sources of damage, without giving the court some way to at least estimate it, will get you past the TCPA. I'm not certain on that, but I think the evidence supports it.
I'm actually pretty certain it would fail if it was the only claim you have, because there are minimum damage amounts to be able to go to this type of court compared to a small claims court. Where there are several charges with a total amount I think it fails just because it is too close to simply restating the element without providing supporting evidence .
- Registrado
- 29 de Jun, 2019
You really shouldn't be so hard on yourself, there is a log off button if you're that triggered.
DinkyCowSow
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Sep, 2019
It's amazing because I keep getting all these great responses that get basic facts about the law wrong.
At this point I'm just setting something up I can come and laugh at once the case is finally over.
At this point I'm just setting something up I can come and laugh at once the case is finally over.
- Registrado
- 4 de Mar, 2019
DinkyCowSow
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Sep, 2019
Padoru
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 14 de Jun, 2019
who cares if the judge agrees with you as long as you are factually wrong?
- Registrado
- 26 de Sep, 2017
The court's job isn't to estimate damages lol why would they need to do that
Why would they give the court materials to estimate damages for a primary face case when all they need to prove is that damage exists.
The people who need information to estimate damage is the jury, they need those materials, not the court.
It's literally not in the ability of the court to estimate damages why are you saying the judge should be able to what the fuck lol
Why would they give the court materials to estimate damages for a primary face case when all they need to prove is that damage exists.
The people who need information to estimate damage is the jury, they need those materials, not the court.
It's literally not in the ability of the court to estimate damages why are you saying the judge should be able to what the fuck lol
- Registrado
- 6 de Mayo, 2019
He provided how much he generally makes per con, showed that he had the cons cancel on him, shows how he was moved from a prime spot, shows how he had to PAY for security. Tell me, what is it called when a tort makes you have to pay or make less money?
Damages.
Read the FIRST petition and everything I just said is in it. Actually. Read. It.
Here, let me add another thing on the pile of "Things you just ignore"
"Direct evidence of damages is not required, but the evidence must be sufficient to allow a rational inference that some damages naturally flowed from the defendant’s conduct. See id. at 591, 592."
"Lipsky offered little guidance for courts determining what type of evidence is necessary in any particular case. But, the evidence analyzed in Lipsky included affidavits and evidence of allegedly defamatory statements in a variety of formats. Lipsky also made clear that that circumstantial evidence may be used to respond to a motion to dismiss as well as opinion testimony that is “based on demonstrable facts and a reasoned basis”—not “are, baseless opinions do not create fact questions[.]” Id"
"The Texas Supreme Court recently elaborated on what is required to establish a prima facie case of damages under the TCPA in S&S Emergency Training Solutions, Inc. v. Elliott, 554 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. 2018). EMTS, a provider of paramedic training courses, sued its former employee, Elliott, for breaching a non-disclosure agreement she had signed when EMTS initially hired her. Id. Elliott moved to dismiss under the TCPA. Id. EMTS claimed that because of Elliott’s disclosures, a company called ACI had terminated its consortium agreement with EMTS, which EMTS needed to be accredited to offer approved paramedic training courses. Id. The question in the case was whether EMTS had provided sufficient clear and specific evidence of damages in response to Elliott’s TCPA motion sufficient to establish to establish a prima facie case. Id. The Dallas Court of Appeals had concluded that EMTS had not established its damages by clear and specific evidence. Id. EMTS petitioned for review in the Texas Supreme Court, arguing that the court of appeals had applied an erroneous standard regarding the damages element of its claim—the court measured the evidence by whether EMTS produced evidence of the specific amount of damages the disclosures caused instead of properly determining whether EMTS produced prima facie evidence that the disclosures simply caused it some damages. Id. EMTS argued that it had met the proper standard by providing evidence that it had lost an important contract because of Elliott’s disclosures, which in turn caused EMTS to be unable to conduct its profitable paramedic courses. Id. The Texas Supreme Court agreed with EMTS. It explained that EMTS was “not required to provide evidence sufficient to allow an exact calculation of the lost profits.” Id. (cites omitted). Instead, it was only required to present evidence sufficient to support a rational inference that Elliott’s actions caused it to lose some specific, demonstrable profits. See id. (citing Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 592-93). "
Let me quote this one AGAIN, "The Texas Supreme Court agreed with EMTS. It explained that EMTS was “not required to provide evidence sufficient to allow an exact calculation of the lost profits.” Id. (cites omitted). Instead, it was only required to present evidence sufficient to support a rational inference that Elliott’s actions caused it to lose some specific, demonstrable profits. See id. (citing Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 592-93)."
BUT OH! There is that word specific! Surely they had to point to revenue they actively LOST, right? NOPE! "Elliott had acknowledged in a letter that was in the record that under the consortium agreement, EMTS conducted approximately ten paramedic training classes of thirty students each and that each student paid tuition of nearly $5,000. Id. She also acknowledged that, “[w]ithout a consortium agreement, EMTS was not going to be able to offer future Paramedic courses.” "
OH! BUT A SPECIFIC NUMBER!
Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss, pg. 95. He outlinescon incomes by number. Which, ACCORDING TOT HE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, is not required. he has it anyway.
So would you kindly please shut the fuck up, and stop filling this thread with your drivel. You have proven to be either willingly ignorant of the facts or completely unwilling to listen.
It concludes: "Lipsky and S&S Emergency Training Solutions clarify the TCPA’s clear-and-specific evidence standard and shed much-needed light on what is required to demonstrate a prima facie case of damages sufficient to overcome a TCPA motion to dismiss. While general averments and conclusory assumptions are not enough, plaintiffs are not required to prove the specific amount of damages they have suffered. Instead, evidence that, if unrebutted, would support a rational inference that the plaintiff suffered some specific, demonstrable damages will suffice. See S&S Emergency Training Sols., 564 S.W.3d at 843 (citing Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 592-93). "
Última edición:
DinkyCowSow
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Sep, 2019
I am not saying the judge has to perform the actual calculation. But actual damages, specifically economic actual damages, is required to be calculable. If you have to make a case that you suffered actual damages, you have to show the court that you have damages that are calculable.
"Actual damages refer to the financial amount that is paid to a victim that suffered loss that can be calculated. Actual damages are often known as real damages or, legally, as compensatory damages. These are damages that arose from the neglect or mistake of another party."
source
"In Birsdsall, the Supreme Court wrote that 'the amount awarded shall be precisely commensurate with the injury suffered, neither more nor less.' When calculating damages, courts will often look at lost wages/income, related medical bills, the cost of repairs to damaged property, the costs of materials needed to deal with the injury (i.e. wheelchairs, prosthetic limbs, etc), and related job search expenses for a wrongful termination. Courts may include damages for emotional distress, however some are more hesitant to include these emotional damages. "
source
"Although under rule, a Plaintiff is not required to plead the measure of damages, and need only allege sufficient facts to stated cause of action from which the court and determine the proper measure of damages, the new Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain pleading requirements or the court may kick back the petition."
source
Again, we are at the TCPA stage. So, you don't have to provide an exact amount of damages that is 100% attributable to the defendant's actions. You just have to provide evidence that you have actual calculable damages. But, just as you cannot restate the element as proof, you cannot just list damages and restate that they are calculable. You must provide evidence that your damages are calculable.
There was a recent stream by a neutral lawyer posted by Son of Sparda, and that lawyer said even if you don't have the actual costs available you can have an expert witness testify as to what the additional costs would be $X and that would satisfy the burden.
- Registrado
- 5 de Mar, 2018
You're so close to being self aware here.
IANAL, but I think I have a decent grasp of what is going on and clearly you don't.
Ty is depending on discovery to get most of the really damning evidence he needs for TI and and conspiracy. The defendants were playing discovery games and didn't turn over everything (as admitted by at least Monica herself during depo, maybe Ron too, I can't recall) and discovery was stayed by Funi pretty early, IIRC, when they filed TCPA. All discovery is stayed right now since they all filed TCPA.
How is Ty supposed to turn up evidence he needs during investigation when the defendants are not turning over everything and staying discovery with the TCPA?
Answer: he can't, which is why that specific evidence isn't needed to pass TCPA, but will be needed if he wants a jury to go his way.
Seems pretty logical to me.
- Registrado
- 6 de Mayo, 2019
Your first quote does not apply, it only applies to the trial, This is TCPA.
Your second quote does not apply, it only applies to the trial, This is TCPA.
Your third quote does not apply to your defense, it applies to both sides.
- Registrado
- 26 de Sep, 2017
I'm just flabbergasted lol
Why is he talking about trial damages which are determined by a jury as if that's some sort of rebuke to me.
Why is he talking about trial damages which are determined by a jury as if that's some sort of rebuke to me.
- Registrado
- 11 de Jun, 2019
The Vic Mignogna lawsuit
www.youtube.com
Here's a video with a lawyer (who's not lawtwitter nor ISWV) going over the lawsuit
Here's him reviewing the TCPA hearing
The Vic Mignogna Sep 6 Hearing - I React to the Transcripts
At 9 minutes into the second video regarding Johnson's argument about plaintiff unable to provide damages for the defamation... "Well, if it's 'per se' defamation he doesn't need to..."
So, sat throught the entire second video (sped up 1.5x cause he's painfully slow)
Sadly he dropped his objective view on the case less than an hour in. He seems to not really understand why Ty kept having to try and explain things. The case isn't as simple as Chupp wants it to be, a lot of it depends on context, and the fact he keeps making fun of Ty for trying to give context is just dumb.
Sad that he glazed over the opening of the transcript for time-saving reasons, and missed that Chupp threw a curve at Ty which sent him off-balance, and he couldn't seem to understand why Ty was so flustered/"disorganized".
The only thing I disagree with the YTer about is actual malice, and it was really stupid for him to "dunk" on Ty for trying to explain elements about the "investigation", because that's key to showing that Funimation tweeting their second tweet was reckless because they knew they fired him for something that wasn't anywhere close to what they were inferring in the second tweet.
Same thing with Monica, and Ron. They knew there were no criminal charges coming yet still made allegations on twitter.
So, proving actual malice seems to be the least difficult thing to do. I think by the time he got to that part of the transcript, he was just too invested in the "Ty is being smacked around, LUL" to actually remain objective enough to understand why Ty was trying to lay that out.
Edit: The other thing I actually took exception with, was the guy's clear ignorance of the voice acting industry and conventions. The fact he took issue with "not knowing how much your client makes" is stupid. Vic isn't guaranteed money in his voice acting pursuits. That's like asking how much someone expects to make in commission work.
And the same thing goes for conventions. There are so many moving parts to conventions, it's very difficult to tell what damages Vic actually had from the TI that cancelled his original contract with KamehaCon, and impossible to tell what he lost from prospective contracts. He can't tell because there are any number of mitigating factors to a convention's attendance, and whether or not people are there for you specifically, if they have enough to spend on you etc.
So being abrasive about being unable to provide an exact number for commission-based work, is just dumb. Ty provided Vic's examples and Chupp scoffed at it, albeit by that time Chupp had already seemed to have enough of Ty.
If Ty was allowed a mulligan, and come back with the same evidence, I think it'd be a different outcome. That's the issue I have here. Chupp wasn't going to allow Ty to "ambush" the defendants, which is fine, but then ambushed Ty and refused any attempts from Ty to try and get his footing early on.
Wouldn’t really say he’s completely unbiased, he’s a patent attorney who regularly appeared on Leonard French’s show
One doesn’t exist because you’re wrong about clear and specific and you’ve been told several times. Even if you’re still that stupid, the numbers are there, judge didn’t want them because he had the defense ex parte binders
It’s settled, you just can’t read.
TCPA is the key you need to read, Vic is the expert in this case and he gave his numbers.
What do you want Ty to do if the person asking for evidence doesn’t want to be clear about what he’ll let you use? Ty asked him several times, It is clear that when Ty just straight up read from the second amended the judge didn’t bat an eye because he didn’t actually know what was in it and didn’t even read anything but the ex parte binders out of lazy ness.
You’re wrong, accept it.
If there is an appeal and all you look like morons you’ll be flipping scripts. If the judge reversed and says he considered the second amended and realizes his bench rulings are wrong based on the law you will look fucking stupid.
Stop regurgitating what people have proved you wrong about, with things that “don’t exist” because the law is clear but you refuse to accept because you want to be right.
DinkyCowSow
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Sep, 2019
I agree with you 100%. Ty was depending on discovery to get most of the evidence he needs for TI and conspiracy. The problem is, he needed to get that evidence before his opponents file a TCPA which stays discovery. Or, he needed to make sure he limited his case to only things he was sure could get past TCPA, so he could then find those additional facts out later in discovery once it was unblocked. The problem for Vic now is that he has to pay for the defendant' legal fees for everything he dismissed at this stage.
I am not saying this is fair. I am saying this is the law.
Those are to define what actual damages means. Actual damages is a legal term meaning damages that are calculable. Let's build a syllogism.
1) Actual damages means damages that are calculable.
2) The TCPA (for TIEC) requires you to provide clear and specific evidence that you had actual damages.
3) Therefore, the TCPA (for TIEC) requires you to provide clear and specific evidence of damages that are calculable.
It does not require him to give the exact loss as caused by the defendants at this stage. But he most prove there is a calculable loss. I will admit I was not aware of one additional way he can show actual damage (other than supporting documents): as this lawyer shows, you can provide an estimate at this state showing some damages with an expert witness testifying.
- Registrado
- 6 de Mayo, 2019
You don't need calcuable damages for TCPA
You are misusing Clear and Specific, AGAIN
No
Scroll up, i linked a long thing with quotes from the TEXAS STATE BAR, quoting from the TEXAS SUPREME COURT saying that you are flat out wrong.
BTW, your logic is circular. "Actual damages are damages that are calculable and you need actual damages for TCPA and actual damages are damages that are calculable"
You suppose that this is needed, provide no proof of this and in fact have been provided proof for its opposite. NONE of your points actually follow from eachother, unless you assume your rightness. Which obviously, no one does.
Edit number 2: GOD this gets worse the more I think about it. The first two quotes deal with trial, and you are just SAYING they count for TCPA with NO SUPPORT what so ever. I am up to FIVE missing stages in your logic.
EDIT THREE!IT JUST GOES DEEPER! His TCPA RESPONSE PROVIDES WHAT YOU JUST SAID WOULD COUNT, EXPLICITLY, WITH NUMBERS!
Edit 4: The stupidity of this post has reached a singularity. The Slattosh Affidavit + The Amended petition providing numbers (FIRST amended petition, btw. The SECOND is the one that got pseudo rejected), plus ASSUMING YOUR ARGUMENT IS TOTALLY CORRECT (It is not) means that BY YOUR OWN criteria you JUST set up. Everything is in the response needed to prove everything you just said. Meaning even if we assume EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID, he has it. So, congrats? You managed to twist it so hard it wrapped back into reality and you now HAVE to agree he can prove it and the only reason the judge ruled against it was because Ty couldn't bring up something on the spot that is IN the response and therefore still in play.
Última edición:
DinkyCowSow
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Sep, 2019
I would like you to consider the corollary: if there is an appeal and they also deny Ty, or there is no appeal after everything gets dismissed, then I look amazing and everyone attacking me looks foolish.
From your post: "Instead, it was only required to present evidence sufficient to support a rational inference that Elliott’s actions caused it to lose some specific, demonstrable profits"
Also from your post: "EMTS conducted approximately ten paramedic training classes of thirty students each and that each student paid tuition of nearly $5,000. Id. She also acknowledged that, “[w]ithout a consortium agreement, EMTS was not going to be able to offer future Paramedic courses.”"
They showed the prior profits... and then they showed that they would not be able to make those profits any more. Excellent. They demonstrated a way to calculate their loss: they showed how much they make per student, and they show that for every student they won't get any more they lose $5,000. Great! They provided a way to estimate their losses, even if it is not exact (because they might not know how many students they would have gotten in future years). Let's compare that to the TIEC case regarding Kamehacon. Vic lost the contract... but he got it back. Did they provide a way to estimate how much less he was paid for it by including the other contract? Did they provide a way to estimate how much he had paid for security (by providing receipts)? Did they provide any expert testimony on how much you could stand to lose in sales if you had a non-prime spot at a convention? No. They just claimed that there were damages.
Yes, they are not required to provide an EXACT calculation. They still do need to provide a way to make a prima facie case that they had calculable damages. That could be expert testimony of the costs. That could be estimates of how much they made the year before and the year after. It does not have to be EXACT, but it does have to be "specific, demonstrable profits" How is the judge supposed to make a rational inference about how much money he lost on having a worse spot at the convention without providing evidence for it?
General Relativity QM
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Jul, 2019
Calculable - you keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means. The word is calculable not calculated. In other words, can a finder of fact actually quantify the damages? It is not the plantiff alleges a prima facie reasonable amount of damage, but that plantiff shows there are damages and those damages alleged are actually calculable on prima facie. Incalculable means even with perfect knowledge of all facts, the amount of damage is not something knowable.
As has been pointed out many times, loss of sales, hiring of security, etc. are all things on record. The cost of security and his legal fees are certainly calculable at a minimum. Does defendant show damages and those damages are calculable prima facie? Without a doubt; Slatosh's affidavit does this all by itself with its attached contract. Remember all questions of fact go in Vic's favor at this point. We do not need to establish even a reasonable amount of compensation for the damages at this phase, just that there are damages and that we CAN calculate them.
Again, you cite the judge's agreement as if that is definitive. The judge is a human element, and another judge may disagree. Even if all 9 Justices of the Supreme Court said the 1st Amendment does not protect a right to a free press, I would say they are incorrect. "Well, the Supreme Court said there is no right to a free press; since they agree, it must be the case" is nonsensical and bad form all around. Please avoid doing that in the future. You have done this at least twice.
As far as what you are setting up to laugh at us, go ahead, chief. Have fun with that. I don't know why you felt the need to tell us. You should have just laughed at us. I hope things work out for you otherwise I think some peeps will rightly be insufferable if things turn out not in your favor. Hopefully, you have the courage to take your licks if you are willing to dish them out to others. Just sayin'
As has been pointed out many times, loss of sales, hiring of security, etc. are all things on record. The cost of security and his legal fees are certainly calculable at a minimum. Does defendant show damages and those damages are calculable prima facie? Without a doubt; Slatosh's affidavit does this all by itself with its attached contract. Remember all questions of fact go in Vic's favor at this point. We do not need to establish even a reasonable amount of compensation for the damages at this phase, just that there are damages and that we CAN calculate them.
Again, you cite the judge's agreement as if that is definitive. The judge is a human element, and another judge may disagree. Even if all 9 Justices of the Supreme Court said the 1st Amendment does not protect a right to a free press, I would say they are incorrect. "Well, the Supreme Court said there is no right to a free press; since they agree, it must be the case" is nonsensical and bad form all around. Please avoid doing that in the future. You have done this at least twice.
As far as what you are setting up to laugh at us, go ahead, chief. Have fun with that. I don't know why you felt the need to tell us. You should have just laughed at us. I hope things work out for you otherwise I think some peeps will rightly be insufferable if things turn out not in your favor. Hopefully, you have the courage to take your licks if you are willing to dish them out to others. Just sayin'
- Registrado
- 6 de Mayo, 2019
Page 95 of the response, vic provides what he made, and then mentions the cons that dropped him. Slatossh amendment outright says he was told BYDEFENDENTS they had contacted other cons.
Way to estimate damages, knowledge that they interfered, prima facie case.
Also, "How is the judge supposed to make a rational inference about how much money he lost on having a worse spot at the convention without providing evidence for it?" is a FACT question, ALL facts are assumed in the plaintiffs favor, in TCPA. Gueeeess whaaaaat, you agree there is enough for a prima facie case~
- Registrado
- 26 de Sep, 2017
The judge doesn't need to make a rational inference about how much money he lost you dummy
The judge just needs to see that a reasonable person could make a rational inference that Vic had lost money.
Since thats a fact question, its inferred in Vic's favor.
The judge just needs to see that a reasonable person could make a rational inference that Vic had lost money.
Since thats a fact question, its inferred in Vic's favor.