introvertedobserver
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2020
Gonna call it now, nadda.
Gonna call it nadda for next week too.
I'm putting my money on some time in Q2.
Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.
- Thread starter 5t3n0g0ph3r
- Start date
-
Registration is closed without referral. This is a website about Internet drama.
Gonna call it nadda for next week too.
I'm putting my money on some time in Q2.
This is a bad investment. I'm calling it: there's o way to predict when it falls, and any attempt at guessing is less likely than winning 50$ with a random lottery ticket.
I got Vic's lawsuit docket bookmarked and I'll gladly refesh this evening, but I expect absolutely nothing in the foreseeable future.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2020
Mine's on Q3.
In the off-chance the CoA come back in Vic's favor, I'm certain Soye'll be too busy shitting himself to even sperg out.
Further back in this thread, one of the ways I'm guessing the CoA can rule is moving the case past the TCPA stage, but I'm keeping a can of oxygen nearby, just in case.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
- Highlight
- #19,904
....
Almighty Tzeentch, the changer of ways, the grandmaster of the Great game in this reality and all others, I come with sacrifice! For I was going to buy bourbon today, but instead altered my fate and am now Sober! Forgoing my weekend routine and changing in my own way the nature of reality itself!
Take unto you my humble sacrifice and delight in all the ways this one small change in the grand skein of reality has altered fates immeasurable! And if it so pleases you, maybe cast your gaze upon this case that has been held immovable, fated to oblivion.
Oh Tzeentch, reach out thy hand and bring to light that which was in the dark!
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
- Highlight
- #19,905
Even in Texas people begin to find it questionable when cases just get sat on for years on end. They're going to have to come to a decision at some point.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
This court has been doing that.
The most recent TCPA case, Miller v. Schupp, cited Chupp's reversed chuppery, Ramsey's Rods v. Maggrets.
Ramsey's Rods v. Maggrets itself referenced a previous TCPA decision, Watkins v. Miller.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
Corona will be over before there's a ruling on Vic's appeal.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2020
We won't see anything until summer at the earliest, gotta let the dinosaurs on CoA warm up a little.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
The carpal tunnel was in vain lads:
As far as I can tell, no TCPA or Chupp cases.
As far as I can tell, no TCPA or Chupp cases.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2019
Oh well, see ya next week. This wait is making me hopeful that they are not wiping their ass with it.
Save the Loli
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
I wonder what goes through Ron's head on Thursday evenings? You just know he dreads Thursdays because it could be the day Vic beats his ass in court and costs him 6 figures and a chunk of his ego. I can just imagine him clutching a remote tight as he maddeningly reloads the page.
Wasn't Miller v. Schupp filed after Ramsey's Rods?
LMAO, Muslims suing an airport.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
Order is
Watkins v. Miller (cites established cases like Khan v. Van Der Linden)
Ramsey's Rods v. Maggrets (cites Watkins v. Miller)
Miller v. Schupp (cites Ramsey's Rods v. Maggrets)
It all happened because one of them tried to allahu snackbar a train without his boom boom vest, got splattered, and the family sued because they didn't take into account suicidal retards
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2020
You know he sweats every time he looks at his bank account because, so long as the CoA doesn't make a decision regarding the case, Vic can get away with not paying a dime to anyone except Beard.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
Grief is a powerful motivator.
That said, in this case, I suspect the "mental health incident" was the woman deciding she had no way out of the islamic hell that was her home life. From what I can find, she was a 20 year-old university student (at Princeton no less), where she had no doubt deluded herself with a bunch of fantasies about islam that were at odds with the reality at home. They had probably introduced her to the cousin she was due to marry, and given her self-professed "strong" muslim faith, they no doubt assumed that she'd be perfectly content to give up the freedom she had enjoyed and start crapping out children for the man she was going to belong to for the rest of her life.
Also funny, the original obit claims she was "playing with cousins" and "accidentally encountered" the train. They were setting up the lawsuit from the moment her death was publicised.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
The UK just declared Corona over. No word from them on Vic however.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
It depends on the kind of case and when it happened. Many civil cases are going to have what is called pipeline retroactivity, which means any new legal principles stated therein are now binding precedent on any case currently being tried or on direct appeal.
There are times when it isn't practical to impose retroactivity, though, and retroactivity can range from none at all to total retroactivity, i.e. you can actually go back and reopen a now-closed case. This happened with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), where literally thousands of cases were sent back for resentencing.
An example where retroactivity wasn't imposed was Miranda of the famous "Miranda warning." It would make no sense to expect police to have, in the past, recited a bunch of magic words the Court just made up.
There's also something called collateral estoppel where the factual findings from another case apply to the current case, and you had an opportunity to argue that issue in the previous case (but lost). Those factual findings can be held against you.
In this case, since neither the trial court nor the appeals court is supposed to be resolving substantial factual disputes, legal rules set out in other cases before the appeals court comes to a decision should (probably) be applied retroactively, at least the kind of TCPA cases we've seen in the past year.
There's another kind of retroactivity here, which is statutory retroactivity. It doesn't seem the recent changes to the TCPA apply to this case, which is operating on the statute as it existed when the suit was filed. That might also contribute to the seeming lack of enthusiasm to come to a speedy resolution.
I don't see how the changes affect anything in this case, but the appeals panel may.
So do juries, generally. It's very rare to win a case like this even if it isn't outright dismissed like this case. The government generally does not have the obligation to keep you from offing yourself, even when they have the authority. Generally, municipal liability is heavily limited and has a heavy burden for the plaintiff to establish such liability. Even when there is liability, what safety measures are obligatory are those that are reasonable under the circumstances. There quite simply isn't a practical way to idiot-proof a train so that nobody can jump in front of it.
One generally has little duty to an adult trespasser other than not deliberately setting up death traps.
Throw in that Texas has gone through some fairly aggressive tort reform legislation in the last couple decades (including the TCPA itself). In any event Texas courts are not a friendly forum for suing other people for shit you did to yourself.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
I expect our scumbag politicians to do the same before the midterms. I am betting saving their own asses will take precedence over build back better bullshit.