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

[Five Percent]

Preserving for eventual schadenfreude.

EBS on Twitter

“Appellees’ briefs, paraphrased Marchi: This ain’t it, son. Funi: The law and facts are in our favor Rial/Toye: Law, facts, & 🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕”

twitter.com

EBS on Twitter: "Appellees’ briefs, paraphrased Marchi: This ain’t it…

archived 6 Apr 2020 03:28:31 UTC

archive.li

 

[Riku]

Preserving for eventual schadenfreude.
Ver archivo adjunto 1217011

EBS on Twitter

“Appellees’ briefs, paraphrased Marchi: This ain’t it, son. Funi: The law and facts are in our favor Rial/Toye: Law, facts, & 🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕”

twitter.com

EBS on Twitter: "Appellees’ briefs, paraphrased Marchi: This ain’t it…

archived 6 Apr 2020 03:28:31 UTC

archive.li

Dearly hope this gonna age like milk instead of wine, will be just another thing to laught about in the far future.

 

[Adach_Ame]

I'm not even sure Ty even said 'axe' and not 'acts', which would've been more in line with the measured comments he's made about the case in the past.

Oh but I think Ty was not specifically referring to the word count, but the tone and what are said in the briefs that will be on the chopping block. They all used their briefs to further defame his client, thus attempting to color the appellate court against the plaintiff with blatant smoke and mirror tactics here. That is a valid avenue of approaching these collective smear briefs they each filed.

 

[Mocha Shaka Khan]

and one of my own hands tried to attack me.

With or without the remote?

 

[Riperoni6]

Spectre relayed that Ty was sharpening his ax because the defendant's briefs exceeded their allotted word limit. He has to put it away because they didn't.

Ah, ok. Thank you for the explanation

 

[Ken Jennings]

Check 9.4. I think there's a whole allotment of words for any party in an appeal. So if you're in an appeal and a cross appeal, you get both allotments. So 27,000 words for all parties for each appeal as an aggregate total of all legal argument filed by the party.

Is this citation from Avery v. Baddour any help with determining word count rules as it discusses combined filings and word count?

Spoiler: Avery v. Baddour

On April 15, 2016, appellees/cross-appellants, Dylan Baddour and Hearst Communications, Inc. (collectively, "Hearst"), filed an agreed motion that Hearst be allowed to consolidate their cross-issues with their appellees' brief. The motion is GRANTED, and the following deadlines and word limits are hereby ORDERED:

Ronald Avery's opening appellant's brief is due May 2, 2016, and is subject to a 15,000-word limit. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1), (2)(B); TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

Hearst's combined opening appellees/cross-appellants' brief is due twenty days from the filing of Avery's brief, and is subject to a combined word limit of 30,000. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1), (2)(B)-(C); TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

Avery's combined appellant/cross-appellee's reply brief is due twenty days after Hearst's combined appellees/cross-appellants' brief, and is subject to a 22,500-word limit. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1), (2)(B)-(C); TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

Hearst's cross-appellants' reply brief is due twenty days after Avery's combined appellant/cross-appellee's brief, and is subject to a 7,500-word limit. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1), (2)(C); TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

/sneed/_________
Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 21st day of April, 2016.

/sneed/_________
Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court

 

[AnOminous]

Is this citation from Avery v. Baddour any help with determining word count rules as it discusses combined filings and word count?

Sounds like exactly the rules applicable in this case, so yes.

 

[DragoonSierra]

Sounds like exactly the rules applicable in this case, so yes.

so its just confirmation that they are within the word limit yes?

 

[Ken Jennings]

so its just confirmation that they are within the word limit yes?

I would lean that way but in this case the parties appeared to request to the court to combine the two. WP did not do this, so it's possible they could still get some repercussions from the court. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong AnOminous.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

In the end, especially if BH and Hsu are going to ask for an extension of their reply word count, it's unlikely they're going to go after any word count or weirdness issues right now. They're gonna want to look like the bigger men who are taking this more seriously.

I do suspect that they might bring the combined document up and the long worded, possibly fraudulent upon the court nature of the defendant's replies (read: they blatantly lied to the court, as Nick has pointed out repeatedly) as to why they need a lot of extra reply room.

 

[Allanon]

It seems highly likely if they request leave for more they'll be granted it, since the 7,500 wordcount was written with one defendant/opponent in mind, not 4. Thus, 'give us 7,500 to respond to each' seems reasonable, especially as they were well within their limits for the initial filing and didn't ask for extra for the 4 that time. Well, even half that for all would be better than nothing.

 

[DragoonSierra]

In the end, especially if BH and Hsu are going to ask for an extension of their reply word count, it's unlikely they're going to go after any word count or weirdness issues right now. They're gonna want to look like the bigger men who are taking this more seriously.

I do suspect that they might bring the combined document up and the long worded, possibly fraudulent upon the court nature of the defendant's replies (read: they blatantly lied to the court, as Nick has pointed out repeatedly) as to why they need a lot of extra reply room.

they only need to file for a motion if the defendants oppose it

 

[HTTP Error 404]

they only need to file for a motion if the defendants oppose it

The defendants have taken to openly lying to the court knowing full well that BH / Hsu are going to call them out for it.

Yes, they will fucking oppose it just to maximize the odds that it'll fuck with BH/Hsu.


Edit: In fact, I suspect part of their plan was to fill it with bullshit BH/Hsu is gonna have to call out -- remember, all the defendants have opposed Oral arguments, so BH/Hsu is gonna have to argue for that, too -- in writing.

They're Gish Galloping BH/Hsu in a legal document.

 

[Allanon]

The defendants have taken to openly lying to the court knowing full well that BH / Hsu are going to call them out for it.

Yes, they will fucking oppose it just to maximize the odds that it'll fuck with BH/Hsu.


Edit: In fact, I suspect part of their plan was to fill it with bullshit BH/Hsu is gonna have to call out -- remember, all the defendants have opposed Oral arguments, so BH/Hsu is gonna have to argue for that, too -- in writing.

They're Gish Galloping BH/Hsu in a legal document.

Lemoine's action plan has been 50% defamation with the protection of a legal document and 50% gish gallop from the beginning. The fact that Chupp was lazy enough to recoil from a complex looking case like a vampire from garlic only emboldened him with that. We can hope that appellate judges find complex cases to be par for the course and aren't dissuaded by them. (Plus they don't have to worry about any 1,200 page monstrosities)

 

[Kendrick]

remember, all the defendants have opposed Oral arguments, so BH/Hsu is gonna have to argue for that, too -- in writing.

Marchi is against it, Funimation doesn't want it but requested to be included if it happens, and MoRon asked for them.

Because let's be honest: The less explanations are shown, the better it is for Marchi.

Funi doesn't care much.

MoRon wants more avenues to barf out their lies, slanders, bad arguments, verbal diarheas.

 

[Stoneheart]

Marchi is against it

First time she is against Oral...

 

[774]

MoRon wants more avenues to barf out their lies, slanders, bad arguments, verbal diarheas.

It's my impression that appeals court judges don't take your shit in oral arguments. They're there to discuss questions of law and how they apply to the case, not listen to someone spew what might otherwise possibly be slander, so if someone tries to veer off-topic, it might not go too well for them. Again, though, just my impression.

But if this is true, I would love to see just how well it goes for them... or doesn't.

 

[Spectre_06]

It's my impression that appeals court judges don't take your shit in oral arguments. They're there to discuss questions of law and how they apply to the case, not listen to someone spew what might otherwise possibly be slander, so if someone tries to veer off-topic, it might not go too well for them. Again, though, just my impression.

But if this is true, I would love to see just how well it goes for them... or doesn't.

More than one appeals court has Riverdance'd on someone's dick for trying that shit and overturning the verdict that was in their favor.

 

[AnOminous]

It's my impression that appeals court judges don't take your shit in oral arguments. They're there to discuss questions of law and how they apply to the case, not listen to someone spew what might otherwise possibly be slander, so if someone tries to veer off-topic, it might not go too well for them. Again, though, just my impression.

You don't even necessarily get to make your arguments. They can take up your whole time with a bunch of questions and never even let you get to what you planned on saying. Sometimes they'll give you a few minutes to make up for what they used, sometimes they won't. They do whatever the fuck they please, from sitting there in stone silence not even visibly paying attention to giving you the third degree.

 

[Fox Fucker]

I had a random thought which I may have thought before and had explained here but can't remember. Putting aside whether Chupp would get mad at him for bringing it up or not if Ron gets shot back to trial court, could they argue that they never actually confirmed his tweets were made by him? I remember that Casey Erick just said "He said they seemed like his tweets" or something, but never outright said "Yes" when Chupp asked if he wanted to confirm that those tweets were Ron's. And given how weasely lawyers are, and Lemonhead speccifically, I would assume that hed try to get the evidence struck under the claim that nobody can confirm if Ron tweeted them out.

I know they confirmed some indirectly through their motions and petitions, but there were hundreds of tweets and maybe only a dozen were confirmed indirectly.