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

Destacado
Girlboy69 dijo:
So Chupp being either lazy, incompetent, or both isn't actually an exaggeration?
Presiona para expandir...
He literally broke the law by not answering to Lemoine's beggs for explanation about anything he's done so far. Oh no. There ain't no exageration there. Either chupp has no idea how to make a legal argument, or he's stopped giving a single fuck about his job.
 
EmuWarsVeteran dijo:
He literally broke the law by not answering to Lemoine's beggs for explanation about anything he's done so far. Oh no. There ain't no exageration there. Either chupp has no idea how to make a legal argument, or he's stopped giving a single fuck about his job.
Presiona para expandir...
Well, he was an attorney before becoming a judge. You'd think he'd know how to do that. But then, we have multiple counterexamples, don't we?
 
LawTwitter is Dumb dijo:
Isn't there a case where he doesn't actually have to answer it at all? Since there wasn't a actual Trial with jury and actual fact finding?
Presiona para expandir...

There was a hearing with evidence taken from multiple witnesses over the course of a day, longer than many actual trials. It was a fact finding and he clearly based his decision on what came out at that hearing, not from just what was on the papers. The legal argument was overshadowed by the testimony, and this imo entitled the defendants to findings of fact and conclusions of law justifying its decision.

I guess it's up to MoRon to argue that successfully now. Of course the underlying TCPA decision has to stand up for that even to matter.
 
He just said that "clear and specific" is a higher standard than "preponderance". I thought it was lower; at least that's what I've heard. Is he, perhaps, confusing it with "clear and convincing", or am I the one confused?
 
HTTP Error 404 dijo:
Is it odd that the appeal brief never made it on the website?

Case Detail

www.search.txcourts.gov www.search.txcourts.gov
Presiona para expandir...

It's on research.txcourts.gov. I assume these things are mirrored over eventually.

774 dijo:
He just said that "clear and specific" is a higher standard than "preponderance". I thought it was lower; at least that's what I've heard. Is he, perhaps, confusing it with "clear and convincing", or am I the one confused?
Presiona para expandir...

Yes, that's the most basic bitch mistake imaginable. If he really said that, you can stop wasting your time listening to an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about.

And looking at his YouTube he's "covered" the case before so if after months he still doesn't even know this absurdly basic thing, he doesn't even have the excuse of being new, he's just dumb.
 
AnOminous dijo:
Yes, that's the most basic bitch mistake imaginable. If he really said that, you can stop wasting your time listening to an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about.
Presiona para expandir...
At 36:50, if anyone cares to hear him say it.

And looking at his YouTube he's "covered" the case before so if after months he still doesn't even know this absurdly basic thing, he doesn't even have the excuse of being new, he's just dumb.
Presiona para expandir...
Got more good news. He also said he's going to be, as he calls it, "waiving in" to the Texas bar (i.e. getting admitted without an exam).
 
AnOminous dijo:
And looking at his YouTube he's "covered" the case before so if after months he still doesn't even know this absurdly basic thing, he doesn't even have the excuse of being new, he's just dumb.
Presiona para expandir...
Apparently he's blind, because In Re Lipsky's opinion on the matter is there on page 20
1582262293986.png
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo