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

Destacado
BarberFerdinand dijo:
Personally speaking, I'm not dissapointed that nothing(sans tax stuff) will be confidential. I wish Vic the best, and hope he triumphs, but a big part of me really wants all the nasty little secrets to be had from everyone.
Presiona para expandir...
As if Vic has any privacy left at this point. His shit is so widely discussed, they had to start making up new lore.
 
AnOminous dijo:
That misstates the burden of proof for exemplary damages in Texas, which is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "clear and convincing evidence." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. § 41.003(b).

So it appears there is some wonky shit in this, too.
Presiona para expandir...
AnOminous dijo:
He could be intending some kind of constitutional argument if it ever gets to that stage. Maybe he's a proponent of this fringe view of punitive damages, and fishing around for a chance to make the argument, and you can't make it on appeal unless you make it at trial.

I have no idea why it's in there. It doesn't actually harm anything so far as I can tell, but maybe it's a sign that we can expect future eccentricity.
Presiona para expandir...

That was my first thought. He is seeking to leave some opening for a Federal appeal on constitutional grounds. Which seems spectacularly exceptional (or would the term be exemplary in this case). It would be interesting to know if he has ever used this verbiage in responses before this? Trying to equate exemplery or punitive damages in a State Civil matter to be in some way covered by Constitutional protections in Criminal matters seems to be heading into “Sovereign Citizen” territory.

Gehenna dijo:
At least this eccentricity is benign? Assuming this is a pet project, then there is at least a fair chance he only inserted this in on the off-chance he gets to try to argue it. It definitely isn't a center point, so this isn't a for sure sign of exceptionalism.
Presiona para expandir...

W’ll have to see. He is inserting groundwork for a Federal Appeal all the way up to SCOTUS in his initial response filing regarding the Weeb Wars. That may not be small time insanity. That may be pants on head exceptionalism. He may view Marchi as the perfect vehicle for his pet cause. To “right the wrongs of Texas Tort ?Law! “ So pretty much par for the course for this mess.

On the plus side unlike Casey, he does seem to be focused on civil defense. Defending clients who are being sued. As opposed to Casey’s Ambulance chasing Plaintiffs Lawyer approach.
 
Última edición:
AnOminous dijo:
He could be intending some kind of constitutional argument if it ever gets to that stage. Maybe he's a proponent of this fringe view of punitive damages, and fishing around for a chance to make the argument, and you can't make it on appeal unless you make it at trial.

I have no idea why it's in there. It doesn't actually harm anything so far as I can tell, but maybe it's a sign that we can expect future eccentricity.
Presiona para expandir...
My guess is he knows he has a losing hand and is trying to benefit from the recent trend of excessive fines/penalties to best shield his clients assets when the verdict goes against them.
 
RodgerDodger dijo:
Trying to equate exemplery or punitive damages in a State Civil matter to be in some way covered by Constitutional protections in Criminal matters seems to be heading into “Sovereign Citizen” territory.
Presiona para expandir...
If the Articles of Confederation get brought up in this case I may shit a brick and die of laughter.
 
BoxofMonkeys dijo:
My guess is he knows he has a losing hand and is trying to benefit from the recent trend of excessive fines/penalties to best shield his clients assets when the verdict goes against them.
Presiona para expandir...

Well I guess that’s ethically better than Casey’s approach of shielding all of his clients assets by transferring all of them to himself via billing, before it all goes south.
 
Y'know way back when I was in a call center job to shill to random business men and women to be our "business leader" in a magazine. They can have an issue of it to litter their lobbies or frame it on a wall and a little trophy after they attend the ball of their awarding ceremony. Who fucking cares if they have shitty business acumen we're gonna do a write-up for them to make them seem competent.

So when I see these "super lawyers" I just see the same grift I worked for to make ends meet while I await to get into a more non-dubious job. Only with some requirements which is a low hurdle since you can just get some lawyer friends to vouch for all of yous.

Given it is also hard for a common person to find a quality lawyer with a reasonable rate without knowing someone in politics or corporate higher management.
 
AnOminous dijo:
He could be intending some kind of constitutional argument if it ever gets to that stage. Maybe he's a proponent of this fringe view of punitive damages, and fishing around for a chance to make the argument, and you can't make it on appeal unless you make it at trial.

I have no idea why it's in there. It doesn't actually harm anything so far as I can tell, but maybe it's a sign that we can expect future eccentricity.
Presiona para expandir...

So basically they are hoping for a real life written legal version of this?

 
mindlessobserver dijo:
He is a "rising" superlawyer though. Turns out that means he is the kind of lawyer that does not go full exceptional individual.
Presiona para expandir...

Give him time. He may be working up to it and not have achieved full Super Lawyer status. (Is that like a version of Super Saiyan?)

RodgerDodger dijo:
Trying to equate exemplery or punitive damages in a State Civil matter to be in some way covered by Constitutional protections in Criminal matters seems to be heading into “Sovereign Citizen” territory.
Presiona para expandir...

Some law review articles have argued this.

Footnote 7 in this lists some.

It's also been tried in federal court without success:
law.justia.com

United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., 748 F. Supp. 67 (W.D.N.Y. 1990)

United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., 748 F. Supp. 67 (W.D.N.Y. 1990) case opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
law.justia.com law.justia.com

And the Supreme Court addressed the issue once that I know of, unless it's revisited it since (someone can Shepardize it if they feel like it I suppose). In United States v. Regan, it declined to apply such a standard. 232 U.S. 37 (1914). Even given a subsequent opportunity to address the issue, it didn't, although Justice O'Connor in a concurring opinion suggested the punitive damages in that case ($1.6 million in punitive damages based on $20,000 in actual damages) raised the issue. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw, 486 U.S. 71 (1988).

The Court didn't reach the issue because it hadn't been raised during the previous course of the case.

In any event, it's not quite sovcit territory, but it's a decidedly minority view at present.
 
RodgerDodger dijo:
W’ll have to see. He is inserting groundwork for a Federal Appeal all the way up to SCOTUS in his initial response filing regarding the Weeb Wars. That may not be small time insanity. That may be pants on head exceptionalism. He may view Marchi as the perfect vehicle for his pet cause. To “right the wrongs of Texas Tort ?Law! “ So pretty much par for the course for this mess.

On the plus side unlike Casey, he does seem to be focused on civil defense. Defending clients who are being sued. As opposed to Casey’s Ambulance chasing Plaintiffs Lawyer approach.
Presiona para expandir...
Personally, I don't see a problem with wanting to nudge across a minority view held in earnest. So long as that nudge is done within the confines of the law and not the detriment of the courts, their client, or base civility. That being said, the track record of the Super Exceptionals makes me doubt this is such a case....
 
Gehenna dijo:
Personally, I don't see a problem with wanting to nudge across a minority view held in earnest. So long as that nudge is done within the confines of the law and not the detriment of the courts, their client, or base civility. That being said, the track record of the Super Exceptionals makes me doubt this is such a case....
Presiona para expandir...

Texas is not exactly a great state to make this argument, as they have a strict cap on exemplary damages set at twice the actual damages. A good case would be a ridiculous case, like that one in Mississippi, where they got $20K in actual damages and the jury threw in $1.6 million in punitive damages. That raises some issues.
 
AnOminous dijo:
Texas is not exactly a great state to make this argument, as they have a strict cap on exemplary damages set at twice the actual damages. A good case would be a ridiculous case, like that one in Mississippi, where they got $20K in actual damages and the jury threw in $1.6 million in punitive damages. That raises some issues.
Presiona para expandir...
True, but you make the case where you do business, not where you really wish you could.
 
chupp soye small.png
 
AnOminous dijo:
Texas is not exactly a great state to make this argument, as they have a strict cap on exemplary damages set at twice the actual damages. A good case would be a ridiculous case, like that one in Mississippi, where they got $20K in actual damages and the jury threw in $1.6 million in punitive damages. That raises some issues.
Presiona para expandir...
Capping it at twice the actual damages seems like quite a simple and effective way to prevent shenanigans like in the case you described.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo