I mean, it is. Things might have been different, if only Ty Beard had made that observation himself.
What you missed:
There are bigger problems at play than just Vic (such as the courts trying to rewrite all laws and caselaw regarding contracts and public figures), and even if there wasn't, he shouldn't just give up and let his abusers win. All issues aside, that sends the wrong message. He should fight for justice. I don't know why you lot keep complaining, not like you're losing anything.
He did. Ty addressed that in his appeal to both the appellate and the Texas Supreme Court
If Ty is as much a man of honour as has been claimed, if he loses at the texas supreme court, he should find some way to make Vic whole again. Even if it means selling his beloved general.
Only if Ty contested.
I have a feeling that if this goes how we think it goes (dies without getting cert), Ty would do something for Vic, somehow.
rumble.com
He can most definitely appeal to SCOTUS but that would be the same deal. They are not even required to give him the time of day. Off hand though, the most clear arguments would be to challenge the finding of Vic as a public figure (thus enticing the court to reverse NYT v. Sullivan) and maybe a due process claim based on the evidentiary standards of the TCPA that essentially forced Vic to prove with evidence after the TCPA foreclosed the collection of evidence. That sort of thing always rubbed me as a potential 14th amendment violation.
Bad idea. It would be far easier to convince the court that the Public Figure standard was misapplied (true) than to convince them to get rid of it entirely. They had better cases for that, and refused to do so, even at the urging of sympathetic justices.
The intermediate appellate opinion all but outright accuses him of malpractice. I think a jury would probably look at it that way as well, although I seriously doubt Vic even wants to go there.
They already know they're not getting paid.
No Ty in fact did not turn things in on time. In fact looking through the appeals decision right now he gets shredded for this very fact by the appeal judges. Dude fucking sucked at this all the way through.
He did submit it on time, tho. It wouldn't even be an issue if the appellate court didn't try to rewrite all the contract law just to misread an agreement so simple that even a preschooler could understand it (that, of course, explains why the appellate court was unable)
What the fuck are you on? There are 14 lawyers on this case.
False.
Chupp messed up. He was trying to apply far harsher standards on TCPA than was applicable. I'm not saying that Ty didn't make any mistakes, he did, but pretending Chupp was good at what he did is insane.
I made my thoughts on that quite clear the last time you came back here to complain about not knowing anything about the case.
Appellate court was quite simply wrong.
Shocking discovery! An last resort appeal has low success rate! What new wisdom will you lay upon us next? Sky is blue?
1. Not notarized which is a big fucking oops on Ty's part. He then fucked off and didn't submit the redone one on time and tried to sneak it back in as a unsworn declaration. This fuck up cost Vic the case end of fucking story. That's not a Chupp issue but a inept lawyer issue.
Tldr: "Ty is super wrong on everything and anyone who disagrees is delusional".
I mean the man himself came onto the appeal stream and admitted he fucked it all up and Vic's chances for reconsideration and SC appeal were next to nothing on chances of winning. Suggest you go back and reread the appeals brief whatever fuck ups Chupp made pale in comparison to Ty's. Not getting the 2AP in was the nail in Vic's coffin.
I hope the best for Vic and I really hope that the SCOTX decide to take the appeal and rule in his favor. If they don't, I do think - high cost or no - he should go for the SCOTUS. Does he have a high chance of success? No. But as I said before, there's not much worse of a position for him to be in. Vic isn't one to do something out of spite, even though he should in this case, but the law has been wholly and repeatedly misapplied in his case. No matter how much Ty failed Vic, the judges in these cases have failed him way more. Chupp ruled something that wasn't even suggested by either party, and the court of appeals apparently spent all that time looking for any excuse they could to throw out the case rather than rule on it properly. Did they even bother to comment on "Ron Toye is an independent contractor of Funimation" between throwing out all of the overwhelming evidence because it was slightly over deadline? I don't remember reading that they did. Even if it's a hail mary he kind of has to at this point.
No
It really wasn't. Rule 11 agreement said nothing about Amended petitions, and in Texas, Rule 11 agreements are to be considered contracts, and should not be given greater effect than the parties intended. Similarly, all terms are read in its legal meanings. See, for example, Pathfinder Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Great W. Drilling, Ltd., 574 S.W.3d 882 (Tex. 2019), Shamrock Psychiatric Clinic, P.A. v. Tex. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 540 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. 2018 ), both of which are Supreme Court of Texas cases. Nor was it in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 63 which states "Parties may amend their pleadings, respond to pleadings on file of other parties, file suggestions of death and make representative parties, and file such other pleas as they may desire by filing such pleas with the clerk at such time as not to operate as a surprise to the opposite party; provided, that any pleadings, responses or pleas offered for filing within seven days of the date of trial or thereafter, or after such time as may be ordered by the judge under Rule 166, shall be filed only after leave of the judge is obtained, which leave shall be granted by the judge unless there is a showing that such filing will operate as a surprise to the opposite party." because TCPA hearing's are not considered trials on the merits and is not designed to replace one (see, for example, Davis v. Gulf Coast Auth., No. 11-19-00309-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 11, 2020) ). Rule 63 talks about trials on the merits, see, for example, Suite 900, LLC v. Vega, No. 02-19-00271-CV (Tex. App. May. 21, 2020), Grand Prairie Hospital Authority v. Tarrant Appraisal District, 707 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. App. 1986) (case overruled "insofar as it requires that property be devoted exclusively to the use and benefit of the public to be tax exempt under tax code section 11.11(a)." by Tarrant Appraisal Dist. v. Tarrant Reg'l Water Dist., 547 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App. 2018 ) ) )
Isn't this what we said about the initial appeal?