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

[biteXsized]

One thing I noticed right now:

In their motion MoRon's counsel asked the Court to extend the deadlines for both their Cross-Appellant Brief and their Appellee's Response Brief to March, 19th.

Spoiler: Link to document

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=c86e0e84-9558-445f-ad96-e3873c69c9fe&coa=coa02&DT=Motion&MediaID=77175119-b47a-4675-859f-733a9fc5ea50

The Court granted the motion but to me it sounds like they did so only for their overdue Cross-Appellant Brief:

Spoiler: Link to document

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=7676324a-6106-4bbb-9681-1d4dbfe25e3c&coa=coa02&DT=MT%20EXT%20BRIEF%20DISP&MediaID=abbfaea6-a4c2-4061-8134-2376abb491f3

The deadline for the apellee's response briefs is March 10:

Spoiler: Link to document

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=33099bab-35d5-49b0-b0eb-7452735bb863&coa=coa02&DT=EBRIEF%20FLD%20YES&MediaID=6782b9e8-ec98-485d-b15b-5bcdfabf4648

I know it will most likely be a nothingburger. But I'm going full LMAO, if WP will miss just another brief's deadline.

 

[AnOminous]

One thing I noticed right now:

In their motion MoRon's counsel asked the Court to extend the deadlines for both their Cross-Appellant Brief and their Appellee's Response Brief to March, 19th.

Ver archivo adjunto 1159978

Spoiler: Link to document

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=c86e0e84-9558-445f-ad96-e3873c69c9fe&coa=coa02&DT=Motion&MediaID=77175119-b47a-4675-859f-733a9fc5ea50

The Court granted the motion but to me it sounds like they did so only for their overdue Cross-Appellant Brief:

Ver archivo adjunto 1159977

Spoiler: Link to document

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=7676324a-6106-4bbb-9681-1d4dbfe25e3c&coa=coa02&DT=MT%20EXT%20BRIEF%20DISP&MediaID=abbfaea6-a4c2-4061-8134-2376abb491f3

The deadline for the apellee's response briefs is March 10:
Ver archivo adjunto 1159982

Spoiler: Link to document

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=33099bab-35d5-49b0-b0eb-7452735bb863&coa=coa02&DT=EBRIEF%20FLD%20YES&MediaID=6782b9e8-ec98-485d-b15b-5bcdfabf4648

I know it will most likely be a nothingburger. But I'm going full LMAO, if WP will miss just another brief's deadline.

The situation seems to invite a request for clarification.

 

[Kendrick]

The situation seems to invite a request for clarification.

By who? Plaintiff or MoRons?

I don't see how asking for clarification would be anything positive for Vic. Heck, Ty could argue they missed their deadlines if MoRons assume it's the same date for both.

And I don't see MoRons asking for clarification. That would be something to untangle the case, and we know they love nothing more than to vomit meaningless word salads for 1200+ pages.

 

[biteXsized]

By who? Plaintiff or MoRons?

By MoRons, obviously. And Ty won't need to do anything, the Court will remind them if they miss a deadline, again.

Gosh, I really hope Rusty O'Lemons are so far up their own asses drafting their things that they won't notice this issue.

 

[AnOminous]

By who? Plaintiff or MoRons?

MoRons as they are the ones with one (or possibly two) deadlines to blow very soon.

 

[Harvey Danger]

MoRons as they are the ones with one (or possibly two) deadlines to blow very soon.

It's possible the CoA didn't catch the discrepancy. If I were BHBC, I'd wait until March 9th to file a request for clarification, maybe prompt them to say "uhhhh right, that makes sense, March 10th deadline".

 

[TexOffender]

We got a short vid on appeals.

 

[I'm not a Robot]

HaygoodLaw posted a 69 tweet appraisal of the appeal brief,

https://archive.ph/NB1nq

https://archive.ph/cKBYB

 

[LawTwitter is Dumb]

HaygoodLaw posted a 69 tweet appraisal of the appeal brief,

https://archive.ph/NB1nq

https://archive.ph/cKBYB

I know these people are idiots, but god, NONE of them have understood how the TCPA works this entire damn time.

Lane you pedo looking creep, the charges never happened or came up in any reality, Ron know he was lying, but thats for actual trial, past TCPA, which Vic 200% proved here.

 

[TexOffender]

I know these people are idiots, but god, NONE of them have understood how the TCPA works this entire damn time.
Ver archivo adjunto 1160224
Lane you pedo looking creep, the charges never happened or came up in any reality, Ron know he was lying, but thats for actual trial, past TCPA, which Vic 200% proved here.

Oh so him saying he personally knew all these women and was going to bring him down when he just heard about him hitting on the twins is not lying? Oh ok.

bruuuuuh

 

[Nontransferable]

I know these people are idiots, but god, NONE of them have understood how the TCPA works this entire damn time.
Ver archivo adjunto 1160224
Lane you pedo looking creep, the charges never happened or came up in any reality, Ron know he was lying, but thats for actual trial, past TCPA, which Vic 200% proved here.

If I may borrow a phrase,

Ron doesn't know what he's doing

 

[Kendrick]

If I may borrow a phrase,

Ron doesn't know what he's doing

You could have stopped earlier: Ron doesn't know.

 

[Riku]

More like...he doesn't recall!
He's a sheepdog with the brain of a goldfish, like he proved already during the hearing.

 

[774]

like he proved already during his deposition.

FTFY.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

I know these people are idiots, but god, NONE of them have understood how the TCPA works this entire damn time.
Ver archivo adjunto 1160224
Lane you pedo looking creep, the charges never happened or came up in any reality, Ron know he was lying, but thats for actual trial, past TCPA, which Vic 200% proved here.

Lane Haygood here actually is a Texas lawyer. Which should really tell you something about the quality of service you'd get from him if he believes any lawsuit becomes a SLAPP suit that needs to be dismissed if the defendant says "you can't prove it". Brilliant defense, Avenatti shouldn't have gone to jail because he could've just told Nike and the Feds "you can't prove I actually meant to extort you".

If you want to know more about this guy he's some sort of free speech type and is conservative enough to have gotten into a fight with Twitter troons/TDS sufferers that a clickbait site noticed and did an article on. Which is again should worry potential clients since this guy is wasting his time on Twitter all day on slapfights and Popehat orbiting. That, and his definition of free speech seems to be so ludicrously broad I'd not want him on my side in any case involving the TCPA. Wonder what he'd think if someone put up posters in his town declaring him a rapist, pedo, and shitty lawyer? Obviously if he sues it's a frivolous lawsuit since he can't prove they were deliberately lying.

 

[AnOminous]

That, and his definition of free speech seems to be so ludicrously broad I'd not want him on my side in any case involving the TCPA.

If he's remotely competent he'd be entirely capable of arguing against his most deeply held beliefs.

 

[TheClappening]

I know these people are idiots, but god, NONE of them have understood how the TCPA works this entire damn time.
Ver archivo adjunto 1160224
Lane you pedo looking creep, the charges never happened or came up in any reality, Ron know he was lying, but thats for actual trial, past TCPA, which Vic 200% proved here.

He better hope the appeals court upholds Vic's public figure status. Knowledge of falsity only comes into play with a public figure. If Vic is considered a private citizen, then the standard is negligence, and saying "Vic assaulted four women" or "criminal charges are coming" without good proof is negligent as fuck.

If he's remotely competent he'd be entirely capable of arguing against his most deeply held beliefs.

Has anything displayed by lawltwitter ever suggested and kind of competency?

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

If he's remotely competent he'd be entirely capable of arguing against his most deeply held beliefs.

I wonder if Lawtwitter is a sort of mock Twitter trial thing. Popehat picks a position and you have to argue for Popehat's position. Popehat does not like this lawsuit, ergo you must spend hundreds of hours bashing this lawsuit. Best arguments get the peepee touches.

 

[break these cuffs]

I wonder if Lawtwitter is a sort of mock Twitter trial thing. Popehat picks a position and you have to argue for Popehat's position. Popehat does not like this lawsuit, ergo you must spend hundreds of hours bashing this lawsuit. Best arguments get the peepee touches.

I thinks that is what happens except Popehat doesn't have to direct anything. His orbiters are so pathetic and sycophantic that they do it all on their own in the hopes of getting whatever the lawyers equivalent of feet pics are.

 

[Five Percent]

I know these people are idiots, but god, NONE of them have understood how the TCPA works this entire damn time.
Ver archivo adjunto 1160224
Lane you pedo looking creep, the charges never happened or came up in any reality, Ron know he was lying, but thats for actual trial, past TCPA, which Vic 200% proved here.

Haygood, you fool! You fell victim to one of the Chuppic blunders, the most famous of which is, “Never rule from the bench on Church financial squabbles,” but only slightly less well known is this:

Spoiler

“Defeating TCPA only requires a prima facie showing!”