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

  • Apologies for the site issues. The server's shipment was delayed. I'll ask again about it and if they can't provide it I'll source another.

OneHandClapping

how could you
kiwifarms.net
You saying that Chupp is not a judge? He operates exactly like that. Fuck off mongoloid.
Judges are lawyers, and as Weeb Wars has shown a lot of lawyers are exceptional.

There's a reason why Wallach got appointed to the 2nd Court Of Appeals and not Chupp. I don't even know if Wallach is a particularly good judge, I can just assume he's not as Chupp as Chupp.
 
Last edited:

Sheryl Nome

Listen to my song
kiwifarms.net
Do we know if the COA will actually look into this or just kick it back?

I mean, unless they are genuinely interested in correcting errors by the lower courts, do they even care in extremely exceptional cases like this? Do we have any data on how they acted in similar cases?

I could well imagine that they would think, "I dont care about this vic exceptional individual, I care even less about all the other exceptional individuals.
Only thing I care about is I don't want to get involved in this retardness". and just kick it back because they just don't want to get dog poop on their hands?

I just know that if I were on the COA I would dismiss everything. I am not getting involved in this mongoloid shit. Appeal above me, I dont care as long as I dont have to touch this turd.
They literally have no choice but to either correct errors or affirm them, that is their entire job.

They really don't care about 'this retardness' because its actually extremely small in the world of legal controversies.

This appeals court has dealt with cases that were far more controversial than this
 

AStupidMonkey

srsly, wtf is dis shit?
kiwifarms.net
Do we know if the COA will actually look into this or just kick it back?

I mean, unless they are genuinely interested in correcting errors by the lower courts, do they even care in extremely exceptional cases like this? Do we have any data on how they acted in similar cases?

I could well imagine that they would think, "I dont care about this vic exceptional individual, I care even less about all the other exceptional individuals.
Only thing I care about is I don't want to get involved in this retardness". and just kick it back because they just don't want to get dog poop on their hands?

I just know that if I were on the COA I would dismiss everything. I am not getting involved in this mongoloid shit. Appeal above me, I dont care as long as I dont have to touch this turd.
Not a lawyer, but if I have this right:

If the CoA affirms this shitshow (And it doesn't get appealed to an even higher court), then that sets one precedent that even bringing a prima facie case does not defeat the TCPA. Which the TCPA explicitly says it should. So now not only do you have a blatant contradiction in the case law, but people (even millionaire normies) can use that as a cudgel to defame people in Texas (and a litany of other offenses that can be argued to be "free speech.")

There's case law already that shows the opposite, but that's the can of worms you open when you allow a capricious judgement to stand. The CoA would be creating even more work for itself in the future.

(Not that it wouldn't be fun for Texan shitposters.)
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Terrifik and Crabbo

Sheryl Nome

Listen to my song
kiwifarms.net
Not a lawyer, but if I have this right:

If the CoA affirms this shitshow (And it doesn't get appealed to an even higher court), then that sets one precedent that even bringing a prima facie case does not defeat the TCPA. Which the TCPA explicitly says it should. So now not only do you have a blatant contradiction in the case law, but people (even millionaire normies) can use that as a cudgel to defame people in Texas (and a litany of other offenses that can be argued to be "free speech.")

There's case law already that shows the opposite, but that's the can of worms you open when you allow a capricious judgement to stand. The CoA would be creating even more work for itself in the future.

(Not that it wouldn't be fun for Texan shitposters.)
It doesn't just set precedent, it sets binding precedent that a lower court would have to follow, including other non-chupp judges.
 

Save the Loli

kiwifarms.net
Not a lawyer, but if I have this right:

If the CoA affirms this shitshow (And it doesn't get appealed to an even higher court), then that sets one precedent that even bringing a prima facie case does not defeat the TCPA. Which the TCPA explicitly says it should. So now not only do you have a blatant contradiction in the case law, but people (even millionaire normies) can use that as a cudgel to defame people in Texas (and a litany of other offenses that can be argued to be "free speech.")

There's case law already that shows the opposite, but that's the can of worms you open when you allow a capricious judgement to stand. The CoA would be creating even more work for itself in the future.

(Not that it wouldn't be fun for Texan shitposters.)
Not necessarily. They'd write that the case is not a prima facie case because X, Y, and Z. Then another defamation/TI/similar case comes through and is appealed, they cite "in Mignogna v. Funimation the CoA found...", it gets appealed, and then the Supreme Court of Texas strikes it down. If the Supreme Court doesn't, that's when things get fun.
 

AStupidMonkey

srsly, wtf is dis shit?
kiwifarms.net
Not necessarily. They'd write that the case is not a prima facie case because X, Y, and Z. Then another defamation/TI/similar case comes through and is appealed, they cite "in Mignogna v. Funimation the CoA found...", it gets appealed, and then the Supreme Court of Texas strikes it down. If the Supreme Court doesn't, that's when things get fun.
If you meant the "making more work for themselves" part, I'm not just talking about Vic's case. I simply meant that opportunistic lawyers are likely to hop on that finding if it matches their case, ergo creating more cases the CoA has to review. Now you have 10, maybe more, cases each year appealing under Chupp's version of TCPA, instead of how it is actually written (which people are also already often appealing based on.)

If you're only saying "they can just declare it not prima facie and call it a day," well... stupider shit has happened. But again, see above.

And then there's the snake-pit of timing you have to unravel when you have overlapping precedents (some being appealed, some not) and now you have to decide which interpretation to use. Did the alleged tort occur during the 6-12 month window of appeals? Did it go to court after Vic's TCPA issue is settled?

Statute of limitations limits the confusion in the long run, but I'm pretty sure they're still making themselves more work.

And let's not even get started with the implications of a judge ordering a party to "stop objecting," or "I don't need your evidence, the hostile party has already submitted it for you." Anything Ty missed or that doesn't get included in the record, Vic's team can argue that "we were going to object to their evidence," or "we tried to submit that evidence." Can the CoA actually say "too bad, so sad, we don't have a procedure for that"?

And remember: I am not a lawyer. I just LARP as one on the internet!
 

Harvey Danger

getting tired of this whole internet thing
kiwifarms.net
Not necessarily. They'd write that the case is not a prima facie case because X, Y, and Z.
That would actually be one of the more interesting outcomes. If they're going to toss it due to something like timing, technicalities, or a quirk of the specific TCPA law, fine. However, as far as I can tell, Vic has one of the most blatantly obvious prima facie cases of defamation possible. Any legal argumentation explaining that away would have to be exceptional.

It's been a while since I read the filings, but I don't think even Lemoine, in his most disease-addled brain farting moments, made a serious argument against a prima facie showing. He had to argue that 400 tweets of blatant lies were merely irrelevant because of Vic's pre-existing reputation, or because of news articles that came out earlier (though he outright lied about that timeline).

I've read some pants-on-head legal reasoning from various cases over the years, including from SCOTUS itself. But a decision that says 400+ tweets and pages of texts with con runners aren't at least a reasonable-looking case of defamation, would rank right up there with the dumbest.
 

AStupidMonkey

srsly, wtf is dis shit?
kiwifarms.net
Cuckoman. Somehow he made me miss that fucking DrinkyCowSow or whatever his name was with Drinky Crow as his avatar. And God damn was that fucking bird exceptional.
Well, at least that makes some sense.

But aside from some questionable ALR shit, he just seems like he has a massive hate-boner for Chupp.

Mildly exceptional and MATI, but I can't say I blame 'em. At worst, a broken clock is right twice.

Thanks for the clarification.
 

774

私は誰?
kiwifarms.net
unless they are genuinely interested in correcting errors by the lower courts
That's literally the job of a court of appeals (well, that, and deciding novel matters of law that could become issues in future cases, so lower courts will have some guidance, or something along those lines). They don't get to refuse merely because the judges there aren't personally interested in the subject.

Cuckoman. Somehow he made me miss that fucking DrinkyCowSow or whatever his name was with Drinky Crow as his avatar. And God damn was that fucking bird exceptional.
Eh, I dunno. Sounds kinda dumb so far, but there's not enough data to make a comparison yet.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: AStupidMonkey

Garm

kiwifarms.net
That's literally the job of a court of appeals (well, that, and deciding novel matters of law that could become issues in future cases, so lower courts will have some guidance, or something along those lines). They don't get to refuse merely because the judges there aren't personally interested in the subject.


Eh, I dunno. Sounds kinda dumb so far, but there's not enough data to make a comparison yet.
The bird at least pretended to know what he was rambling about. This guy here seems to have failed high school civics.

Or he's foreign. Which... Doesn't really help.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: EmuWarsVeteran

EmuWarsVeteran

I feel the salt overtaking me...it is a good pain.
kiwifarms.net
Well, at least that makes some sense.

But aside from some questionable ALR shit, he just seems like he has a massive hate-boner for Chupp.

Mildly exceptional and MATI, but I can't say I blame 'em. At worst, a broken clock is right twice.

Thanks for the clarification.
To clarify further:
What made me suspect foul play was his shoehorn of the term "mongoloid" and the overtly agressive attitude. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with slurs and learned back in my /tg/ browsing days how flagrantly intentionally offensive people can get. But he was obviously fishing for a reaction. This leaves me with two options, either he is what some here call a "tokyo rose", or he just got triggered by something and was taking it on the thread.
The purpose of my comment was not just to distinguish, but possibly to stop his onslaught, as people who are just generally MATI tend to reconsider and stop when called out on it, hence I was hoping it would have such effect. That is not to say it had since he could've just left of his own accord, but hey, either way I'm just sad he wasn't a tokyo rose, 'cause that means we get no more tard cum.
 

Gehenna

With every step, my Autism grows.
kiwifarms.net
To clarify further:
What made me suspect foul play was his shoehorn of the term "mongoloid" and the overtly agressive attitude. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with slurs and learned back in my /tg/ browsing days how flagrantly intentionally offensive people can get. But he was obviously fishing for a reaction. This leaves me with two options, either he is what some here call a "tokyo rose", or he just got triggered by something and was taking it on the thread.
The purpose of my comment was not just to distinguish, but possibly to stop his onslaught, as people who are just generally MATI tend to reconsider and stop when called out on it, hence I was hoping it would have such effect. That is not to say it had since he could've just left of his own accord, but hey, either way I'm just sad he wasn't a tokyo rose, 'cause that means we get no more tard cum.
If he was fishing for a response, then he must be sorely dissapointed.
 

774

私は誰?
kiwifarms.net
Over/under that we see the filing today compared to Monday? I hope bhbh doesn't boomer tf out of this again.
They'll want to make it as good as possible, since there will always be room for improvement, and they only get one shot at it. Therefore, it's unlikely they will submit it before Monday. I also understand it's not Ty or Jim who will be doing this, but the people they brought in from Martinez Hsu, people who specialize in appeals.

(BTW, it's BHBC now, ever since Hughes left and Christie was made a partner.)
 
Last edited:

Harvey Danger

getting tired of this whole internet thing
kiwifarms.net
They'll want to make it as good as possible, since there will always be room for improvement, and they only get one shot at it. Therefore, it's unlikely they will submit it before Monday. I also understand it's not Ty or Jim who will be doing this, but the people they brought in from Martinez Hsu, people who specialize in appeals.

(BTW, it's BHBC now, ever since Hughes left and Christie was made a partner.)
I've already written my post flaming BHBC if that thing gets uploaded later than 4:00 PM on Monday.
 
Tags
None