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

AnOminous

So what?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
I can tell you from experience, the idea is to scribble down as much information it takes to get to the magical ending phrase "Concluded here."
Maybe if you're a minimum effort bozo who will be investigating shoplifters and vandalism for the rest of your career, but a serious police officer wants something that gets a conviction, and can be consulted on the stand when they testify without "refreshing their recollection" looking so obvious. The quality is a lot higher with someone like an experienced homicide detective who has given a lot of testimony.
 

Stoneheart

Well hung, and snow white tan
kiwifarms.net
but a serious police officer wants something that gets a conviction, and can be consulted on the stand when they testify without "refreshing their recollection" looking so obvious. The quality is a lot higher with someone like an experienced homicide detective who has given a lot of testimony.
CNN told me that "black" is all an officer needs to write down.
 

RodgerDodger

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I've seen these range from clear, concise and informative to literal drooling idiocy, as in you question who the guy blew to graduate high school.
You should try reading some EMS Call Reports some time. It's remarkable how many creative ways they have for calling the patient a Fucking Moron who did something imbecilic.
 

5t3n0g0ph3r

Resident Archivist
Local Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I made a few updates to the OP, but nothing too drastic. This includes updating the FAQ to mention that Ron has an account here as well as mentioning the accounts of those associated with the parties like @GlueStick, Erica McCord, and Lisa Hansell. I also put to bed the Iago, Igor, Renfield speculation. I'm not sure If I should update the current status of the case now or after the judges make their review.
 

KillThemCrackasBabies

kiwifarms.net
I just got fresh ratings from posts over a year ago and recalled I got VERY VERY MAD! at the insinuation Vic wasn't mere weeks away from a multi-million dollar payout due to a conspiracy over him loving The Lord. Was I wrong? Has big baller Vic bankrupted the kike-infiltrated animu industry yet or did that not quite pan out as of now?
 

Laundui_or_douchette?

kiwifarms.net
Trivial update:

09/10/2020Additional copies of documents received after initial filing

We already had the letter these are related to, but this is just a note that the actual copies have arrived. These are just three courtesy copies of the briefs themselves, on paper, one for each judge.
Please tell me that Beard and Harris having given copies of the documents also? I know they aren’t mandated to, but it is like putting a cover letter on your resume. Just do it
 

DragoonSierra

kiwifarms.net
No, it isn't always preponderance. There's "clear and convincing" and plenty of other standards. And I was just quoting the federal standard for the "scintilla" thing but even Texas courts have used that language. "The trial court may not grant a no-evidence summary judgment if the respondent brings forth more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact." Oasis Oil Corp., 60 S.W.3d at 250; Zapata, 997 S.W.2d at 747.

That's from the ridiculously named Bonifacio Moron case. Yes, someone was actually named that.

Preponderance would not be remotely appropriate at summary judgment, because it would require the judge to decide the weight of evidence. The judge is literally not allowed to do this at all. If the judge could just decide the facts in any case, it would completely eliminate the right to trial by jury enshrined in the Seventh Amendment.

(Arguably, allowing summary judgment at all violates the Seventh Amendment but this is an issue argued and lost long ago.)
lol "Good Fated Moron"
 

ShinyStar

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Shane.
kiwifarms.net
I am officially going against the current zeitgeist with regards to appeals outcomes. I think that it's more likely than not that charges come back for Funi, Monica and Ron.

I think a lot of the pessimism is not wanting a repeat of the optimism leading into the TCPA hearing. It's a psychological reaction as much as, if not more than, a logical one. I also think a lot of the negativity is the line that the appeals court doesn't like to overturn the trial court.

Okay, let's say that's true. However, does the appeals court like to overturn themselves? Where there have been clear rulings from the appeals court on the matter that support Vic's case, they would have to overrule their previous decisions in order to decide against him now. Are they really going to put siding with Chupp and his total lack of legal reasoning provided in his decision over believing they were correct when they previously interpreted the law? They have a vested interest in their rulings being consistent, because if they start contradicting themselves, it's going to make it harder for the lower courts to know how to interpret the case law, and it would result in them having to face more murky appeals on the subject, and having to decide between their own contradictions in order to sort things out.

When we presumed how Chupp would rule, we had very little information on his previous rulings or his style in the courtroom. No one had provided transcripts of his previous rulings. I don't think we even dug up his history of getting writs of mandamus until after his decision. However, we have looked at some rulings provided by the court of appeals. They appear to a) be familiar with the TCPA, both the actual law and the reasoning behind the law, b) look at the documents provided them (at least the appeals briefs) and c) have a coherent, logical way of reaching their conclusions about the cases. That bodes well for Vics case.

I think defamation comes back for Ron, Monica and Funi. I think TI comes back for Ron, Monica and Funi (because Monica asked Funi what she was able to say in that email). I think prospective TI comes back for those three. I think defamation is less likely to come back for Jamie, because her statement is harder to classify as defamation per se, and there might not be enough evidence to link her directly to damages. I have no opinion one way or the other about conspiracy, but I think defamation for Jamie only comes back if conspiracy comes back.

this isn't the first time that beard harris didn't provide physical copies while the opposition did, if I recall correctly
They didn't provide physical copies ahead of time for the TCPA hearing. They brought one to the hearing, but Chupp refused to take it. There are still six days for them to submit physical copies. I think it would be a mistake for them not to. Even if it doesn't matter for the court of appeals, it matters for the court of public opinion.
 

Kendrick

Do not believe anything I say.
kiwifarms.net
I've never put stock in that particular court because the judge, jury, and executioner are all retards.
This is the main reason why I don't care much if they give physical documents or not.

All the documents needed are on the docket. They have access to the docket. Physical documents sounds like they'd be worth it only for when they're in the court to have a well-indexed reference to say "Turn to page 15" to the judge/panel.

What Chupp did by refusing Beard's copy was prejudicing that side. Instead of having his reference ready, he had to search in the pile of documents that Lemoine prepared (and potentially omited certain documents, like he kept doing with most of his "email transcripts").
 

AnOminous

So what?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
This is the main reason why I don't care much if they give physical documents or not.

All the documents needed are on the docket. They have access to the docket. Physical documents sounds like they'd be worth it only for when they're in the court to have a well-indexed reference to say "Turn to page 15" to the judge/panel.

What Chupp did by refusing Beard's copy was prejudicing that side. Instead of having his reference ready, he had to search in the pile of documents that Lemoine prepared (and potentially omited certain documents, like he kept doing with most of his "email transcripts").
If there is any one thing Chupp did that betrayed absolute ineptitude as a judge, that was it. Asking for evidence and then refusing to take it was pure idiocy.
 

Allanon

kiwifarms.net
I am officially going against the current zeitgeist with regards to appeals outcomes. I think that it's more likely than not that charges come back for Funi, Monica and Ron.

I think a lot of the pessimism is not wanting a repeat of the optimism leading into the TCPA hearing. It's a psychological reaction as much as, if not more than, a logical one. I also think a lot of the negativity is the line that the appeals court doesn't like to overturn the trial court.

Okay, let's say that's true. However, does the appeals court like to overturn themselves? Where there have been clear rulings from the appeals court on the matter that support Vic's case, they would have to overrule their previous decisions in order to decide against him now. Are they really going to put siding with Chupp and his total lack of legal reasoning provided in his decision over believing they were correct when they previously interpreted the law? They have a vested interest in their rulings being consistent, because if they start contradicting themselves, it's going to make it harder for the lower courts to know how to interpret the case law, and it would result in them having to face more murky appeals on the subject, and having to decide between their own contradictions in order to sort things out.

When we presumed how Chupp would rule, we had very little information on his previous rulings or his style in the courtroom. No one had provided transcripts of his previous rulings. I don't think we even dug up his history of getting writs of mandamus until after his decision. However, we have looked at some rulings provided by the court of appeals. They appear to a) be familiar with the TCPA, both the actual law and the reasoning behind the law, b) look at the documents provided them (at least the appeals briefs) and c) have a coherent, logical way of reaching their conclusions about the cases. That bodes well for Vics case.

I think defamation comes back for Ron, Monica and Funi. I think TI comes back for Ron, Monica and Funi (because Monica asked Funi what she was able to say in that email). I think prospective TI comes back for those three. I think defamation is less likely to come back for Jamie, because her statement is harder to classify as defamation per se, and there might not be enough evidence to link her directly to damages. I have no opinion one way or the other about conspiracy, but I think defamation for Jamie only comes back if conspiracy comes back.



They didn't provide physical copies ahead of time for the TCPA hearing. They brought one to the hearing, but Chupp refused to take it. There are still six days for them to submit physical copies. I think it would be a mistake for them not to. Even if it doesn't matter for the court of appeals, it matters for the court of public opinion.
I agree with this, though I think Marchi's case for defamation is stronger than most give credit, because it's not based on the 'I want him to suffer' tweet that lawtwitter loves focusing on, but the factually incorrect story about Vic grabbing her hair and whispering sexual things to her. Vic has directly controverted her story, no matter how much Sam and Marchi want to pretend she told a different version of that story now, and that means it should at the very least make it through TCPA. It's harder to say if he'll win the whole lawsuit against her, but TCPA should be solid. Mostly though I see people being pessimistic as a combination of overcompensating for the excessive optimism of before (which will immediately come back if Vic crushes appeals) and the psychological effect of it taking so long. As I mentioned before, Vic has been in the state of 'losing' basically for an entire year because of appeals dragging its feet, and an annoying part of human nature is to quickly adapt to any prolonged situation by thinking 'it's always been this way and it always will be'. It's a great mechanism for dealing with long term unpleasant situations and loss, but with short term things like this you get unwarranted pessimism.

There's also the added issue that Vic has been in the state of 'losing' for a year primarily because nothing of real consequence has happened basically since September aside from the fee hearing, but weeb wars has continued to have constant social media fights, weird events and the endless circlejerk. It gives the impression that because things have happened elsewhere, things have also happened in the lawsuit, and thus Vic must have been consistently losing through those events, when in reality it's still just the one loss he suffered a year ago, and since then he's actually only gotten positive results.
 

OneHandClapping

EZ Lefty, just add 5.56
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I agree with this, though I think Marchi's case for defamation is stronger than most give credit, because it's not based on the 'I want him to suffer' tweet that lawtwitter loves focusing on, but the factually incorrect story about Vic grabbing her hair and whispering sexual things to her. Vic has directly controverted her story, no matter how much Sam and Marchi want to pretend she told a different version of that story now, and that means it should at the very least make it through TCPA. It's harder to say if he'll win the whole lawsuit against her, but TCPA should be solid.
I think the thing with Jamie's story is if the event itself is considered per se defamation. It certainly seems like some kind of battery (painful head yank, physical restraint, some kind of sexual whisper, and needing to physically fight off Vic for him to release her), but I guess that's up to the court. Alternatively, if it's not per se, can Vic link her statements to damage? Vic's declaration did have an argument for damages, so there's that.

If it does get past TCPA, I see her folding quickly. More than anyone she doesn't have the finances to fight this lawsuit.
 

AnOminous

So what?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
I think the thing with Jamie's story is if the event itself is considered per se defamation. It certainly seems like some kind of battery (painful head yank, physical restraint, some kind of sexual whisper, and needing to physically fight off Vic for him to release her), but I guess that's up to the court. Alternatively, if it's not per se, can Vic link her statements to damage? Vic's declaration did have an argument for damages, so there's that.

If it does get past TCPA, I see her folding quickly. More than anyone she doesn't have the finances to fight this lawsuit.
This is what I hope the appeals court realizes about this. There are objective differences of great legal significance between Marchi's story and Vic's. If Marchi is telling the truth, Vic literally committed a crime for which he could be jailed. If she is lying, she is accusing him falsely of a crime. In Vic's recounting of events, he did nothing for which he could even be sued, much less prosecuted.
 
Tags
None