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

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Oh I know. But I can sit and relish the hilarious irony, that the crux of Sulivan's argument is they are bound to the "With the Leave of the Court" to dismiss, which he isn't giving. So the AG pulls out some actual law and decisions backing the fact that to file his appeal Sulivan may only do so "With the Leave of the Attorney General" which he isn't giving.
I'm skeptical of the argument that a federal judge needs anyone's permission to do anything. He is a party to the action and he filed it under his own name. The United States is represented in the case already.

Also apparently the Circuit wasn't impressed by the argument either.

They've granted the petition for en banc review. That doesn't mean they won't just affirm the panel decision, although the split decision hints the issue is a close one.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Bender

I bend the truth.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I'm skeptical of the argument that a federal judge needs anyone's permission to do anything. He is a party to the action and he filed it under his own name. The United States is represented in the case already.

Also apparently the Circuit wasn't impressed by the argument either.

They've granted the petition for en banc review. That doesn't mean they won't just affirm the panel decision, although the split decision hints the issue is a close one.
This whole discussion would be so much simpler to follow if you didn't flex your knowledge of obscure legal terms and just said what, for example, an en banc review meant instead of making me Google it or ask what it means. Please, can you dumb it down like the people reading your posts are the laymen in a jury who don't know anything about legalese and never learnt French or Latin? It's like I'm reading a foreign language.
 

murdered meat bag

kiwifarms.net
This whole discussion would be so much simpler to follow if you didn't flex your knowledge of obscure legal terms and just said what, for example, an en banc review meant instead of making me Google it or ask what it means. Please, can you dumb it down like the people reading your posts are the laymen in a jury who don't know anything about legalese and never learnt French or Latin? It's like I'm reading a foreign language.
law is a foreign language. its why everyone thought vic had a surefire victory and now we're hoping the appeals will resurrect his case.
 

5t3n0g0ph3r

Resident Archivist
Local Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
It's been so long, wasn't it him who sent a bar complain about Nickyboy and listed himself as Mr/Ms?
It was Toye and a few others who tried to Karen the Minnesota State Bar to cancel Nick's lawyer's license.
I love how Ron just assumed that Minnesota State Bar knew who Vic was or about a case outside their jurisdiction.
Rube.
 

DragoonSierra

kiwifarms.net
Cases where the lower court's unlawful order will cause immediate harm that cannot reasonably be repaired by appealing the order.

For example, one of Chupp's writs concerned his decision to allow several individual plaintiffs to represent themselves as "The Episcopal Diocese of Forth Worth" and "Corporation for The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth." The plaintiffs were of a minority segment of the Episcopal diocese of Fort Worth, which had attempted and failed to gain control of the diocese during its annual convention; they then held a special convention (not authorized by the diocese's constitution) and claimed that they "took over" the diocese. They subsequently filed suit against the diocese in the matter, both calling themselves the diocese and claiming to sue it.

The diocese's proper leadership filed a rule 12 motion, arguing that the plaintiffs (who they called "the diocesan minority") were not agents having authority to act for the Corporation or for the Diocese, and neither they nor their lawyers were authorized to sue on behalf of either entity. Allowing someone to potentially represent you in court if you haven't authorized them to represent you is a violation of your fundamental right to access the legal process; you get to choose when and who you are going to sue, not someone who falsely claims to represent you.

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Civ. P. 12. A party in a suit or proceeding pending in a court of this state may, by sworn written motion stating that he believes the suit or proceeding is being prosecuted or defended without authority, cause the attorney to be cited to appear before the court and show his authority to act.​

Additionally, because the plaintiffs both claimed to represent the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and also to be suing the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, their lawsuit was a legal impossibility: a corporation or entity cannot sue itself.

In such a mess, Chupp was obligated to sort out who (if anyone) was actually authorized to represent the corporation, and who was appearing in an individual capacity. Chupp declined to rule that the plaintiffs' lawyers were not authorized to represent the corporation generally, and this prompted the diocese to file a petition for writ of mandamus. Chupp allowing the lawsuit to proceed any further would have resulted in a giant tangled clusterfuck that would have been impossible to unravel on appeal, and would have violated the rights of the corporation to have proper access to the legal system.

Allowing the plaintiffs' coup d'état would, by recognizing them as legal agents of the diocese, have also potentially allowed them to take other legal actions in the diocese's name, with serious consequence: for instance, as The Diocese of Fort Worth, they could have filed eviction actions against congregations which had opposed their coup, attempting to oust them from their places of worship. There would be no simple way to obtain relief if this occurred. An ordinary appeal would not have been an adequate remedy to correct the harm that could and would occur.

Effectively, the petition for writ of mandamus asked that the plaintiffs' status be clarified as leaders of "the diocesan minority" instead of the diocese itself. The diocese asked the court to dismiss itself as a plaintiff and to bar the plaintiffs' lawyers from representing it, the diocese. They could represent the plaintiffs as individuals, allowing them as individuals to sue the diocese; they simply could not claim to be the diocese in their suit.
so how did that work in US vs US district court? What couldnt be undone in that?
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Case events from the last five Second District cases with memorandum opinions, specifically the dates between submission and the opinion being rendered.

1596477113632.png

1596477122170.png

1596477130627.png

1596477141613.png

1596477150580.png


None of these were accelerated appeals, while this case is. The period between submission and rendering opinion range between 22 days and slightly over seven months.
 

Kendrick

Do not believe anything I say.
kiwifarms.net
Case events from the last five Second District cases with memorandum opinions, specifically the dates between submission and the opinion being rendered.

View attachment 1492795
View attachment 1492796
View attachment 1492797
View attachment 1492798
View attachment 1492799

None of these were accelerated appeals, while this case is. The period between submission and rendering opinion range between 22 days and slightly over seven months.
No matter how "accelerated" an appeal is, if all the filing parties are spergs, it'll take long to render an opinion. Especially considering there's two appeals at the same time, where one appeal might severely influence the other, and the documents are terrible too.

Let's not forget that two parties went beyond their time limit, and one forgot to ask for a time extension too!
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
No matter how "accelerated" an appeal is, if all the filing parties are spergs, it'll take long to render an opinion. Especially considering there's two appeals at the same time, where one appeal might severely influence the other, and the documents are terrible too.
It's pretty easy to see what order to decide them. Decide the main first. If MoRon go back on everything their appeal on the fees is entirely moot. If they go back on everything but conspiracy and that was covered by the TCPA, then it should be recalculated but only for whatever went into TCPA'ing it, literally a few sentences of writing. MoRon are the only ones who appealed fees.
 
Tags
None