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

[Sheryl Nome]

The more I'm hearing from people in the courtroom, the more I'm inclined to believe Chupp's behavior has nothing to do with Nick's stream, and everything to do with the back-and-forth squabbling between Ty and Jayshaun.

I'm almost certain it was because of Ty and Lemoine's motion squabbling, and really the squabbling Ty has had to do with Casey as well.
Ty played into it with the late filing and the and amended petition shit too.

 

[Immaculate Ape]

I'm almost certain it was because of Ty and Lemoine's motion squabbling, and really the squabbling Ty has had to do with Casey as well.
Ty played into it with the late filing and the and amended petition shit too.

The defense is doing a good job of selling Ty as an exceptional jerk. Not that Ty is doing himself any favors.

I do remember him recounting a few times he tried clever shit in a courtroom, only to have it blow up in his face (He tried to get things struck or not allowed, and the judge slapped him on the wrist and allowed all of it anyway)

I don't think it's a bad approach, per se. It all depends on how he adjusts when he finds out it falls flat.

As the old management saying goes, "It's easier to be a strict jerk and ease up on things, than it is to be relaxed and lenient and suddenly have to crack down."

 

[ES 195]

The defense is doing a good job of selling Ty as an exceptional jerk. Not that Ty is doing himself any favors.

I do remember him recounting a few times he tried clever shit in a courtroom, only to have it blow up in his face (He tried to get things struck or not allowed, and the judge slapped him on the wrist and allowed all of it anyway)

I don't think it's a bad approach, per se. It all depends on how he adjusts when he finds out it falls flat.

As the old management saying goes, "It's easier to be a strict jerk and ease up on things, than it is to be relaxed and lenient and suddenly have to crack down."

I'm expecting a far better showing from Ty in the next hearing. He most likely won't make any stupid blunders like that again.
I'm actually looking forward to seeing him show off his years of experience now, maybe actually take the gloves off Vic's requests be damned.

 

[Immaculate Ape]

I'm expecting a far better showing from Ty in the next hearing. He most likely won't make any stupid blunders like that again.
I'm actually looking forward to seeing him show off his years of experience now, maybe actually take the gloves off Vic's requests be damned.

Hearing Chupp's age, he's apparently in his 30's, I'm thinking this whipping was a reminder of who's courtroom it is. Hearing several accounts which all say the same thing, he wasn't having any of it if he believed any party was trying to dick around the wording of law with him.

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

If all evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, then Id imagine a tweet without context should be taken at its face value. This whole thing is exceptionally retarded.

 

[ES 195]

Hearing Chupp's age, he's apparently in his 30's, I'm thinking this whipping was a reminder of who's courtroom it is. Hearing several accounts which all say the same thing, he wasn't having any of it if he believed any party was trying to dick around the wording of law with him.

It's not much of a surprise considering he seems to really distrust Ty. Ty just really needs to earn Chupp's respect at this point.

 

[AnOminous]

I believe this is the 7th Amendment (right to being heard by a jury for civil disputes), not the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment is about Senators. It would be classified as a civil rights violation if that's the case. Ultimately, the manner of remedy would still be an appeal, it would just be different grounds to use.

It's likely a Texas court finding the Texas TCPA unconstitutional would do so under the Texas Constitution's right to trial by jury, much as Washington and Minnesota invalidated their state's anti-SLAPP based on their respective state constitutions. That would prevent SCOTUS review, since if they based it on the U.S. Constitution, SCOTUS would have final say on that.

Specifically: "The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. The Legislature shall pass such laws as may be needed to regulate the same, and to maintain its purity and efficiency." Tex. Const. art. I, § 15.

 

[10SorrowfulObject]

It's likely a Texas court finding the Texas TCPA unconstitutional would do so under the Texas Constitution's right to trial by jury, much as Washington and Minnesota invalidated their state's anti-SLAPP based on their respective state constitutions. That would prevent SCOTUS review, since if they based it on the U.S. Constitution, SCOTUS would have final say on that.

Specifically: "The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. The Legislature shall pass such laws as may be needed to regulate the same, and to maintain its purity and efficiency." Tex. Const. art. I, § 15.

It’s worth mentioning that the WA and MN statutes were invalidated because they required the trial judge to make factual findings (normally the purview of the jury if one is selected). My read of TCPA is that the judge is not conducting any fact findings, they’re determining whether the facts presented demonstrate clear and specific evidence, which is a question of law.

So the Texas statute is probably safe.

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

http://archive.is/oIY5n

 

[Immaculate Ape]

Ver archivo adjunto 929498

http://archive.li/oIY5n

Look, it's Wolman trying to chase clout like a fat kid chasing the school bus he missed.

 

[AnOminous]

Ver archivo adjunto 929498

http://archive.li/oIY5n

Is this guy a moron or is he pretending?

"If the parties do intend to contract orally, the mere intention to commit the agreement to writing does not prevent contract formation before execution of that writing, Winston v. Mediafare Entertainment Corp., 777 F.2d 78, 80 (2d Cir.1985), and even a failure to reduce their promises to writing is immaterial to whether they are bound. Schwartz v. Greenberg, 304 N.Y. 250, 107 N.E.2d 65 (1952)."

This is from a case involving an oral contract. It's called Texaco v. Pennzoil. It resulted in a jury verdict of $10.53 billion. On an oral contract. Jesus fucking Christ this is first year contracts.

 

[Urbanmech]

Is this guy a moron or is he pretending?

"If the parties do intend to contract orally, the mere intention to commit the agreement to writing does not prevent contract formation before execution of that writing, Winston v. Mediafare Entertainment Corp., 777 F.2d 78, 80 (2d Cir.1985), and even a failure to reduce their promises to writing is immaterial to whether they are bound. Schwartz v. Greenberg, 304 N.Y. 250, 107 N.E.2d 65 (1952)."

This is from a case involving an oral contract. It's called Texaco v. Pennzoil. It resulted in a jury verdict of $10.53 billion. On an oral contract. Jesus fucking Christ this is first year contracts.

They keep mentioning the Nature of Parole evidence rules.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

They keep mentioning the Nature of Parole evidence rules.

It doesn't have to make sense. It just has to make enough sense that people will like it, call them smarties, and get them Popehat cummies.

 

[Urbanmech]

It doesn't have to make sense. It just has to make enough sense that people will like it, call them smarties, and get them Popehat cummies.

Yea it seems that thing they are quoting is for verbal contracts made into paper ones and if not all the stuff agreed upon verbally is in the paper one its gone. That's what I think it means....maybe.

IDK I think Lawtwitter should just exclusively fly Beoing's 737 MAX's, they are TOTALLY safe......

 

[变性黑鬼]

Hearing Chupp's age, he's apparently in his 30's, I'm thinking this whipping was a reminder of who's courtroom it is.

No way. There are judges who are that young? This whole time I was picturing a cranky, senile old man who misapplied the law because he could handle getting up early for a day long hearing and was perhaps shitting himself.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

Yes. Most states have overturned theirs because of how it practically violates the 7th Amendment extremely.

This... is 100% false. 29 states currently have some form of anti-SLAPP law. That is the majority of states.

Zero states as far as I can tell have passed an anti-SLAPP law only for the legislature to later vote to remove the law. Two states once had anti-SLAPP laws but had them overturned by judges (Washington, Minnesota). Both of those anti-SLAPP laws required the judge to make decisions on facts, which the Texas law does not do (that's the prima facie part of the law).

Two out of fifty is 4%. 4% is not a majority.

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

Is this guy a moron or is he pretending?

"If the parties do intend to contract orally, the mere intention to commit the agreement to writing does not prevent contract formation before execution of that writing, Winston v. Mediafare Entertainment Corp., 777 F.2d 78, 80 (2d Cir.1985), and even a failure to reduce their promises to writing is immaterial to whether they are bound. Schwartz v. Greenberg, 304 N.Y. 250, 107 N.E.2d 65 (1952)."

This is from a case involving an oral contract. It's called Texaco v. Pennzoil. It resulted in a jury verdict of $10.53 billion. On an oral contract. Jesus fucking Christ this is first year contracts.

Man they're giving Nick shit for this

 

[Immortal Technique]

No way. There are judges who are that young? This whole time I was picturing a cranky, senile old man who misapplied the law because he could handle getting up early for a day long hearing and was perhaps shitting himself.

He isn't now, but he made judge at 37 years old in 2009.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

Man they're giving Nick shit for this

The worst thing is every single person on Law Twitter who passed the bar knows EXACTLY what Nick is talking about, but it's a slightly esoteric idea to a layperson so they're all pretending to be fucking dipshits so they can pretend Nick is from outer space or something.

 

[AnOminous]

They keep mentioning the Nature of Parole evidence rules.

Parol evidence means you can't introduce verbal evidence extraneous to a written contract to add terms or conditions to it, with few exceptions. Eliminating arguments about what the contract is is why you have a written contract in the first place. That doesn't mean there's no such thing as an oral contract, and the idea there isn't is a layman's fallacy based on the usual difficulty of establishing one.

It's embarrassing to see a lawyer confused by the concept when there are numerous, famous cases of oral contracts in the very jurisdiction the lawsuit's in.