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

Destacado
AnOminous dijo:
Maybe not all of it but while they may argue otherwise, the way they've phrased it explicitly asks for material that is clearly privileged. Usually the burden is on the party asserting a privilege to present a log of what they claim to be privileged but in this case the burden should be on the party requesting extremely unusual discovery to justify why it isn't privileged.

Of course this is Chupp World.
Presiona para expandir...

i really hate to be a conspiracy type, or see malfeasance where sim0le incompetence would explain it. But the student of human nature in me start to wonder what was in that extra special Ex parte binder Lemoine delivered to Chupp. And how many zero’s were in it? I’m not saying Lemoine bribed the Judge, I’m just saying the pattern of observable behavior and gross yet deliberate misapplication of the law, plus these strange leaps into bizarre territory make me wonder how much Lemoine paid to bribe the Judge?
 
20191023_223716.jpg 20191023_223754.jpg 20191023_224039.jpg 20191023_224129.jpg 20191023_224152.jpg
archive.is

Twitter

archived 24 Oct 2019 02:45:16 UTC
archive.is archive.is

@HTTP Error 404 he's calling you out
 
That was a bunch of nothing. It also was completely beside the point. The point wasn't ability to pay, it was that sanctions in excess of attorney's fees (which are compensatory) are punitive, and a major consideration with punitive sanctions is they need be set in an amount sufficient to deter the repetition of the wrongful action, both by the litigant in question as well as others who might feel inclined to try the same thing.

Part of the analysis is the net worth of who is being sanctioned because, for instance, sanctioning a billionaire $500 isn't going to be any kind of deterrent while it might be to someone on welfare. In this case, the appeals court concluded that merely being able to afford excessive sanctions didn't mean they weren't excessive, and took into consideration the number of similar cases the plaintiff had filed: none. Vic has also filed no similar cases.

At its crudest, the case might be seen as setting a rule of thumb that sanctions exceeding the award of attorney's fees are likely to be excessive without some more severe misconduct than having filed one lawsuit that could be dismissed under the TCPA.

It's not a huge case, and was really only discussed in passing because it was cited in the other recent Second District case that was the major topic of discussion.

I almost think it's irrelevant because I don't think Chupp takes any direction from precedent or authority or even the plain language of statutes.

Also I'm not sure why this cringy avatar guy thinks $450,000 is remotely near what the defendants could reasonably have spent when all they had to do was file a TCPA motion. None of their other extensive pointless motion practice or three depositions were remotely necessary.
 
1571885319174.png


I don't recognize this pathetic cock holster specifically, but he is on the list of Law Twitter accounts I mass blocked a while back, back when I mentioned In Re Lipsky, and how Law Twitter was getting it exactly 180 degreess ass fucking backwards. Which resulted in like 2 weeks of every fucking day waking up to 200 to 1000+ notifications from Law Twitter spergs spouting off the same fucking talking points, me pointing out the text of the law says the exact opposite thing, then them going in a big circle of 3 or 4 instances of other variants of the same fucking talking points, me pointing out they're wrong, yadda yadda yadda, all while they retweeted and liked each other over and over for SEO / Twitter clout while desperately glancing towards Popehat's dick, hoping it might twitch and give them the cum they so desperately wanted for dunkin' on the evil alt-right layperson.

I think I FINALLY banned enough of the faggots to stop it, as they slowly, ever so slowly, stopped fucking responding, but it took literally 2, almost 3 weeks of daily laughs. Although I also muted the thread, and uh

1571885770360.png


These are tweets from a few fucking days ago, and the in re lipsky thing was a month or two ago, so these faggots are STILL trying to "threadnought." According to the latest tweet from a ISWV user trying to laugh at them, there are almost 50 people being tagged in each fucking reply, and yes, Tyler's still actively fucking responding, and if you wanna see something fun:

1571886089781.png


66 likes = 66 notifications for the poor SOB this retarded fuckstick replied to, if not all 50 of them. And there are hundreds of these fucking responses every day, all equally vapid stupid shit.

Meanwhile, I'm a freelance bum and I even I don't have enough time to deal with this crap. How the hell these idiots manage to pay rent while spending all day posting hundreds if not thousands of dumb as a fucking post hot takes to twitter is beyond me.

tl;dr: Tyler Wolff is one of the idiots who couldn't even read in re lipsky right with a complete layperson pointing to the parts he was getting wrong. I would trust his take on anything exactly 0.
 
Última edición:
Oh goody, there's actually a case completely, directly on point as to the deadline for a TCPA appeal of an order on a TCPA motion.

The appeal of an order which rules on a motion to dismiss filed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act is expedited. TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. §27.008(b). Appeals which are required by law to be expedited are accelerated appeals. TEX.R.APP.P. 28.1(a). In an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal must be filed no later than 20 days after the date the order or judgment is signed. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1(b), 28.1(a).

On January 24, 2019, the trial court signed an order granting Appellees' motions to dismiss. Thus, Appellants' notice of appeal was due to be filed no later than February 13, 2019. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1(b).
Presiona para expandir...

Chambers v. Rivera, 08-19-00061-CV, (Tex. App. – Austin, June 28, 2019).

On October 4, Judge Chupp signed an order granting the motion of the defendants in this case to dismiss. Therefore, the appeal is to be filed no later than October 24, 2019, as I thought, as Nick thought, and as Ty apparently thought as well.

But see Song v. Lee, 13-18-00267-CV, (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi-Edinburg December 6, 2018) (saying the opposite ha ha). And this article: https://texasantislapp.com/texas-anti-slapp-statute-and-interlocutory-appeals/
 
AnOminous dijo:
That was a bunch of nothing. It also was completely beside the point. The point wasn't ability to pay, it was that sanctions in excess of attorney's fees (which are compensatory) are punitive, and a major consideration with punitive sanctions is they need be set in an amount sufficient to deter the repetition of the wrongful action, both by the litigant in question as well as others who might feel inclined to try the same thing.

Part of the analysis is the net worth of who is being sanctioned because, for instance, sanctioning a billionaire $500 isn't going to be any kind of deterrent while it might be to someone on welfare. In this case, the appeals court concluded that merely being able to afford excessive sanctions didn't mean they weren't excessive, and took into consideration the number of similar cases the plaintiff had filed: none. Vic has also filed no similar cases.

At its crudest, the case might be seen as setting a rule of thumb that sanctions exceeding the award of attorney's fees are likely to be excessive without some more severe misconduct than having filed one lawsuit that could be dismissed under the TCPA.
Presiona para expandir...

On the other hand, Ty has rather publicly referred to this lawsuit as "round one", so it could be inferred that Vic would intend to commence more lawsuits after this if he has the financial means to do so.

If I were guessing about what scheme Lemonhead might be hatching...I think he's trying to get evidence that Vic is intending to sue more people, and use it as proof that sanctions are necessary. I'll admit, it's a pretty ham-fisted strategy, but nothing he's done so far has indicated subtlety (or ethical standards, or good sense), so I think it's a reasonable guess.
 
Why don't these lawyers just come here and discuss this case without randomly picking and choosing posts? It's not like they'll be doxxed just because they showed up, and some of them have already been doxxed so they have nothing to lose. Not all of us are lawyers, not all of us are American, so currently my only window into the Texan legal system is through members of the Farms, and I'd like to see other viewpoints, because otherwise you're just in an echochamber.
 
Bender dijo:
Why don't these lawyers just come here and discuss this case without randomly picking and choosing posts? It's not like they'll be doxxed just because they showed up, and some of them have already been doxxed so they have nothing to lose. Not all of us are lawyers, not all of us are American, so currently my only window into the Texan legal system is through members of the Farms, and I'd like to see other viewpoints, because otherwise you're just in an echochamber.
Presiona para expandir...
I assume because its easier to rebut bullshit on the farms rather than on twitter where the nature of the platform makes it nigh impossible to make an easily understandable cromulent point and it tends to be spend among 13545 tweets with 103 other people responding and keeping track of any given conversation becomes impossible.
 
Bender dijo:
Why don't these lawyers just come here and discuss this case without randomly picking and choosing posts? It's not like they'll be doxxed just because they showed up, and some of them have already been doxxed so they have nothing to lose. Not all of us are lawyers, not all of us are American, so currently my only window into the Texan legal system is through members of the Farms, and I'd like to see other viewpoints, because otherwise you're just in an echochamber.
Presiona para expandir...
I agree in theory. However, we have already seen what happens in practice.
 
Hi Tyler

You look greasier than the grime they clean from the McDonald's fryers.

Maybe you should work on that instead of typing hot takes with one hand and jerking off to your perceived intelligence in the other.
 
HTTP Error 404 dijo:
Does he... not have his billable hours set as invoice? Is he having debates with his dipshit clients about what is and isn't billable?

If they're trying to find a way to get Greg T. Douche on the invoice, well, that'd be funny...
Presiona para expandir...
How the fuck is he not setting that in stone? Are his client’s insane to the point where he’s fucking arguing with him about hours when most lawyers are watching the clock like hawks? I hope it gets past appeal even more now. That’s goddamn absurd.
 
Bender dijo:
Why don't these lawyers just come here and discuss this case without randomly picking and choosing posts? It's not like they'll be doxxed just because they showed up, and some of them have already been doxxed so they have nothing to lose. Not all of us are lawyers, not all of us are American, so currently my only window into the Texan legal system is through members of the Farms, and I'd like to see other viewpoints, because otherwise you're just in an echochamber.
Presiona para expandir...
Tyler has to do it because he's a Australian lawyer, so has to look everything up as he's use to nanny country laws.

Also, tsk tsk Tyler; this site is blocked in Australia. Better watch out, your gov might think you're the next great Brenton Tarrant.
 
Immortal Technique dijo:
Tyler has to do it because he's a Australian lawyer, so has to look everything up as he's use to nanny country laws.

Also, tsk tsk Tyler; this site is blocked in Australia. Better watch out, your gov might think you're the next great Brenton Tarrant.
Presiona para expandir...

He's an Aussie?
This is precisely the kind of shit I'd expect from the descendent of prisoners that lost a fucking war to birds.

History repeats itself, only this time the flightless birds are much smaller.
 
GenericReviewerDraco dijo:
I dunno who would even be targets in round 2 outside Sabat and i09. ANN? ArmzGurl? Sean Schemmel? Gigajawllo? Feels like only Sabat and Schemmel would be profitable.
Presiona para expandir...
I would guess some other VAs who've been more quiet about backstabbing him and pressuring conventions to drop him. Possibly Roosterteeth or people at Roosterteeth if they've managed to fuck up somewhere and leave themselves open to being sued.

Beyond that, this lawsuit isn't about profiting, it's about forcing people to stop trying to ruin Vic's life. A lawsuit that ends in a settlement with i09 or ANN publicly retracting their claims about Vic and apologizing, and no money changing hands, would likely still be a win in Vic's book for example.
 
A_throwaway_name62919 dijo:
I would guess some other VAs who've been more quiet about backstabbing him and pressuring conventions to drop him. Possibly Roosterteeth or people at Roosterteeth if they've managed to fuck up somewhere and leave themselves open to being sued.

Beyond that, this lawsuit isn't about profiting, it's about forcing people to stop trying to ruin Vic's life. A lawsuit that ends in a settlement with i09 or ANN publicly retracting their claims about Vic and apologizing, and no money changing hands, would likely still be a win in Vic's book for example.
Presiona para expandir...
Most of us don't care about the money I would think. Most of us want the truth of the matter, which they have refused to give us any semblence of evidence outside of "Testimony is evidence."
 
Based on Nick's reading of Attorney Client privilege, I assume his entry (if this joke of an order gets executed) would look something like this:

Nick: Hey Vic, I heard about your blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda...
Nick: H- hello?
Vic: Oh, hai Nick! Sorry, despite claiming to answer any and all fanmail, here we are a month later, and someone said I should go back and look. Yes, I'd love to hear your thoughts on my legal situation!

[ALL ELSE REDACTED DUE TO ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVELEGE]
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo