I can't imagine
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 1 de Jul, 2019
I'm gonna guess he probably just collected the money, but other members of the #LawTwitter gang actually provided the funds.
Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.
- Iniciador del tema 5t3n0g0ph3r
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 On-and-off DDoS attacks. (July 25th: On-going connection issues.)
🧅 Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/ -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
I'm gonna guess he probably just collected the money, but other members of the #LawTwitter gang actually provided the funds.
quickthrowaway
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 26 de Feb, 2019
A literal physical representation of autism.
- Registrado
- 6 de Mayo, 2019
I do not live in texas, sooo
- Registrado
- 9 de Mayo, 2017
I have a hopefully simpler law question. Suppose Ty successfully appeals the TCPA. The appeals court looks at what Chupp did, agrees that it's totally boned, and gives Ty a do-over. Now, does the actual case proceed under Chupp, or someone else? And if it goes back to Chupp, is he going to go out of his way to screw over Ty?
Son of Sparda 84
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 23 de Feb, 2019
- Registrado
- 26 de Sep, 2017
... We need to give lawtwitter a thread in community watch for shit like this.
- Registrado
- 28 de Feb, 2019
It goes back to Chupp, and if his last big clusterfuck -- where he said, paraphrasing, "Lets get rid of US Law and use Internal Church Law to determine property rights" -- is any consideration, he'll immediately find in the exact same way, only using a slightly different reasoning.
Son of Sparda 84
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 23 de Feb, 2019
I know right
- Registrado
- 27 de Mar, 2019
That watermark violated me so hard I'll never be able to be a bride now.
(Also, he set up a GFM for it.)
UPDATE: I'm trying to get this worthless watermark removed.
I didn't think I could think any more poorly of this man but here we are.
...that's why we encourage people to go to the nearest hospital to get a rape kit done. So there's tangible, traceable evidence beyond the testimony of the victim.
Well, unless you're a rape culture apologist that wants to make proving rape beyond difficult, wants rapists to go free as much as possible, and wants that mainly mentally unwell women weaponize rape accusations so prolifically that our society at large has their inherent trust in women and particularly female sex assault victims undermined, to the detriment of actual victims seeking even a sliver of justice for the profound injustice they suffered.
Then you just shout "believe all women", "testimony is evidence, you rape apologist", and "this is why women are afraid to speak out" without actually encouraging them to speak out in any meaningful and effective way.
This man was a respected lawyer?
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 29 de Jun, 2019
On a side note, let's take a moment to laugh at this moron,
"MR. LEMOINE: Okay. And then one other issue. I've never practiced in front of the Court before, so you can't really tell just looking at me, but I have pretty severe neurological damage to my body. "
"MR. LEMOINE: Okay. And then one other issue. I've never practiced in front of the Court before, so you can't really tell just looking at me, but I have pretty severe neurological damage to my body. "
AnOminous
IS THIS DIVINE INTELLECT? OR IS IT NIGGERLICIOUS?
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
All of his posts have been on the specific topic of the suit and issues in it, so it's not off topic. I wouldn't bother responding if he was just posting non-germane gibberish or something.
Unless the judge recuses himself for bias or is disqualified, the case will be heard before Chupp. One can only hope he won't be so assblasted that he takes revenge on the parties for the appeals court telling him he was wrong.
To be fair to Chupp, actually disentangling secular and church law is not exactly easy, and that's the reason that whenever remotely possible, courts outright refuse to intervene in cases like this. Unfortunately for them, the issue of property ownership is justiciable and they have to do their best under the circumstances.
I assume he meant the specific court.
He apparently has a habit of trying to curry sympathy by sniveling about his mosquito ravaged mind and body as if anyone gives a fuck.
- Registrado
- 29 de Jun, 2019
So, reading over the opening interactions... Chupp never actually stated on way or another that he wasn't going to take the second amended petition. He said he'll decide on it later.
He basically just scolded Ty for not filing it within the 30 day period. Volney was arguing hard to get it tossed but it never got tossed officially. Very, weird interaction. An Tsu was making a pretty good argument, but seemed to get tied up in his "unsworn declarations are an instrument of the court" argument, and Chupp seemed to get pissed that both Ty and An were trying to make arguments jointly.
Edit:
This part is also pretty interesting. Chupp seems to concede that the TCPA hearing isn't a trial, and imposing some kind of unprecedented rule of when things need to be filed.
THE COURT: Yeah, I mean, how soon -- can you amend them the day of trial without leave?
MR. BEARD: Not a trial, but this isn't a trial. This is a hearing.
THE COURT: Well, this is -- this could dismiss your case, and at some point you've got to stop amending pleadings so they can actually file a motion to dismiss on this. And that has to happen at some point in time, doesn't it?
He basically just scolded Ty for not filing it within the 30 day period. Volney was arguing hard to get it tossed but it never got tossed officially. Very, weird interaction. An Tsu was making a pretty good argument, but seemed to get tied up in his "unsworn declarations are an instrument of the court" argument, and Chupp seemed to get pissed that both Ty and An were trying to make arguments jointly.
Edit:
This part is also pretty interesting. Chupp seems to concede that the TCPA hearing isn't a trial, and imposing some kind of unprecedented rule of when things need to be filed.
THE COURT: Yeah, I mean, how soon -- can you amend them the day of trial without leave?
MR. BEARD: Not a trial, but this isn't a trial. This is a hearing.
THE COURT: Well, this is -- this could dismiss your case, and at some point you've got to stop amending pleadings so they can actually file a motion to dismiss on this. And that has to happen at some point in time, doesn't it?
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 27 de Mar, 2019
This hearing was a mess.
- Registrado
- 29 de Jun, 2019
This transcript does show why Chupp came in hot on Ty though. Chupp assumed that Ty filed on Sept 3rd. It wasn't until after his tirade that Ty explained they had technical issues and filed it 15 minutes late, and it appeared on the system as Sept 3rd because of Labor Day.
Edit:
I also have to say, this exchange is fucking gold.
THE COURT: I mean, people post pictures of their cat on Facebook, and I like them, you know, I hit like. I'm not in a conspiracy with that person because I liked their cat photo.
MR. BEARD: Well, Your Honor, there's no -- there's no --
THE COURT: And I'm not even saying I like cats. I'm just saying that I liked your picture, and it's not a conspiracy. MR. BEARD: I agree, Your Honor, but here's the thing. There is no such thing as a tort for posting cat photos.
It was at this moment, Ty knew he was in clown world
AnOminous
IS THIS DIVINE INTELLECT? OR IS IT NIGGERLICIOUS?
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
That's an utterly nonsensical threshold fuckup at the outset. If you're in a court you're arguing about the operative pleadings. Chupp refused to even tell the parties which pleadings exactly they were even arguing about?
- Registrado
- 6 de Mayo, 2019
Co
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that right there appealable on its face?
- Registrado
- 27 de Mar, 2019
This transcript does show why Chupp came in hot on Ty though. Chupp assumed that Ty filed on Sept 3rd. It wasn't until after his tirade that Ty explained they had technical issues and filed it 15 minutes late, and it appeared on the system as Sept 3rd because of Labor Day.
Edit:
I also have to say, this exchange is fucking gold.
THE COURT: I mean, people post pictures of their cat on Facebook, and I like them, you know, I hit like. I'm not in a conspiracy with that person because I liked their cat photo.
MR. BEARD: Well, Your Honor, there's no -- there's no --
THE COURT: And I'm not even saying I like cats. I'm just saying that I liked your picture, and it's not a conspiracy. MR. BEARD: I agree, Your Honor, but here's the thing. There is no such thing as a tort for posting cat photos.
It was at this moment, Ty knew he was in clown world
It's surprise admissible evidence considerations.
I believe it was on the Dahlin stream that Nick said that he was still combing over to see what could likely be appealed.
This entire trial needed to go into the trash from the jump. After Chupp adjourned the hearing, he needed to tell all parties that literally nothing that they said during this hearing mattered and that he was going to be immediately sodomized in appeals, and he should have told the stenographer to throw his stenograph in a fire because it was tainted by virtue of having been used to record this absolute mess of a hearing.
- Registrado
- 29 de Jun, 2019
Okay, so this came after Chupp dismissed Marchi for defamation... and Ty is showing her involvement in conspiracy, and Chupp literally states something that contradicts his opinion that he just ruled on...
THE COURT: I don't think that's rational to think if somebody posts and somebody likes the post somewhere or retweets something, I don't think that means you're in a conspiracy with them.
MR. BEARD: Even if they retweet --
THE COURT: I don't think so. MR. BEARD: -- defamation per se?
THE COURT: No, I think they're -- they may be responsible for their tort of retweeting it. They're not in a conspiracy with the other person.
So, because Ty couldn't immediately find a tweet where Marchi referenced Vic by name, which Ty actually pointed out to Chupp after a short recess, that in Johnson's own defensive argument he included a tweet that had the 4 screencapped images of Marchi's fanfic, named Vic several times and ONLY Vic... Chupp disregarded that point because he already ruled on it.
If I wasn't following this, I would have sworn this was a movie script
THE COURT: I don't think that's rational to think if somebody posts and somebody likes the post somewhere or retweets something, I don't think that means you're in a conspiracy with them.
MR. BEARD: Even if they retweet --
THE COURT: I don't think so. MR. BEARD: -- defamation per se?
THE COURT: No, I think they're -- they may be responsible for their tort of retweeting it. They're not in a conspiracy with the other person.
So, because Ty couldn't immediately find a tweet where Marchi referenced Vic by name, which Ty actually pointed out to Chupp after a short recess, that in Johnson's own defensive argument he included a tweet that had the 4 screencapped images of Marchi's fanfic, named Vic several times and ONLY Vic... Chupp disregarded that point because he already ruled on it.
If I wasn't following this, I would have sworn this was a movie script
- Registrado
- 26 de Sep, 2017
... Now I'm just embarrassed for Chupp, it looks like he just had an awful day
- Registrado
- 27 de Mar, 2019
Okay, so this came after Chupp dismissed Marchi for defamation... and Ty is showing her involvement in conspiracy, and Chupp literally states something that contradicts his opinion that he just ruled on...
THE COURT: I don't think that's rational to think if somebody posts and somebody likes the post somewhere or retweets something, I don't think that means you're in a conspiracy with them.
MR. BEARD: Even if they retweet --
THE COURT: I don't think so. MR. BEARD: -- defamation per se?
THE COURT: No, I think they're -- they may be responsible for their tort of retweeting it. They're not in a conspiracy with the other person.
So, because Ty couldn't immediately find a tweet where Marchi referenced Vic by name, which Ty actually pointed out to Chupp after a short recess, that in Johnson's own defensive argument he included a tweet that had the 4 screencapped images of Marchi's fanfic, named Vic several times and ONLY Vic... Chupp disregarded that point because he already ruled on it.
If I wasn't following this, I would have sworn this was a movie script
Remember when I said this?
Much simpler times.