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

2lolis1cup

Made you imagine it
kiwifarms.net
Yes, but they can assert that, and the court can agree. They have the right to be right, and they're not going to be precluded from it just because someone doesn't think Vic held a position of power & influence.
The court has agreed Ron and Monica didn't commit a tort, so I don't really see a point of using Chupp as a example of good law. It also isn't going to be "just someone" it is going to be a jury. They will see how easily his life was destroyed by the defendants. How he had no recourse other than sue or kill himself.

Maybe you can find a jury to find that Vic was so influential that others would be wary of challenging him. Just forget about all the intentional sabotage and name calling behind his back. Vic was influential and in a position of power auditioning for roles and jumping through hoops to get some of them.

If you think Vic was in a position of power and influence I have a bridge to sell you.
 

AnOminous

I'm not mad at anyone, honest.
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
I dont like public figure doctrine. At all. Unless you are a government official, either elected or accepting your paycheck from the government budget, you are not a public figure. Hulk Hogan was not a public figure and neither is Kevin spacey.
Hogan's win wasn't on defamation but invasion of privacy. A public interest defense is something different there. Still, while "Hulk Hogan" may be a public figure, is Terry Bollea? Hulk Hogan is a character played by Terry Bollea.
 

Sheryl Nome

Listen to my song
kiwifarms.net
The court has agreed Ron and Monica didn't commit a tort, so I don't really see a point of using Chupp as a example of good law. It also isn't going to be "just someone" it is going to be a jury. They will see how easily his life was destroyed by the defendants. How he had no recourse other than sue or kill himself.

Maybe you can find a jury to find that Vic was so influential that others would be wary of challenging him. Just forget about all the intentional sabotage and name calling behind his back. Vic was influential and in a position of power auditioning for roles and jumping through hoops to get some of them.

If you think Vic was in a position of power and influence I have a bridge to sell you.
You're misunderstanding. I am not saying that Vic definately is this. I'm saying that Vic MAY be this and its not actually that far out there for him to be considered that. I do not know the extent of his influence in the industry, maybe he did have some level of control that could reflect that influence, that is something that could be proved.
 

2lolis1cup

Made you imagine it
kiwifarms.net
You're misunderstanding. I am not saying that Vic definately is this. I'm saying that Vic MAY be this and its not actually that far out there for him to be considered that. I do not know the extent of his influence in the industry, maybe he did have some level of control that could reflect that influence, that is something that could be proved.
I wouldn't put it past 12 of the slowest and dimmest of us to find this. Throw enough large words and spin a meaning of a word hard enough to start a ship and anything is possible. I can already see the defenses power point now.

*huauauauugh* consluts ladies and gentlemen of the jury look at this article. Look at this imbd page. Look at this fan line. Look at this ...
It is unfortunate for Vic that law worded for public figures like celebrities, teachers, and public officials could work on him. I don't consider him a celebrity and the accusations so far against him have nothing to do with anime. He hasn't thrusted himself into a spotlight. He wasn't in a position to ruin any of the defendants careers either.
 

DragoonSierra

kiwifarms.net
That should be considered on ice. The legal team was hoping for something more solid during discovery, but that would have to wait until after a successful appeal now. Unlikely to happen under the 1 year statute of limitations, unless I miss my guess.
Well its one year after you discover it. There could potentially be a TI they dont know about. So if they find something during discovery with MoRon or Funi that may either extend the statute of limitations or reset the clock. They could even discover a completely separate tort they dont know about.

What he's not telling you is that you can just open a new suit with new parties.
Well if thats true then theres nothing to worry about.

He made a few. Any reference to preponderance indicates a factual finding. If a factual finding was necessary to a legal conclusion he reached, he had to have found that fact or one of the many possible facts that could support that conclusion. What does the appeals court uphold of these findings? They'll look in vain through Chupp's opinion for any ghost of which specific facts he's actually found.

They'll basically have to do his job for him entirely.

That's what Chupp did. He shit himself and did nothing.
So youre saying that Chupp finding Vic a public figure means that if they go after Sabat then Sabat can use that as a fact in his tcpa? Do I have that right?

Even I think that Lane v Phares arguably makes vic a public figure but the argument that 'the facts are the same'. Nah.
Even if he were, malice is so easily provable in many of the counts.

Vic held a position of power & influence.
Didnt Vic assert in the deposition that he never had that kind of authority? That can really be looked at by examining how lousy the Funi investigations are. Another issue is that they use his popularity with his fanbase to say that hes using that nefariously to give himself power and influence in the industry. The thing is they cant produce any evidence of Vic doing that other than the mob they themselves provoked. Even if they use the fact that hes been a Director at Funimation they themselves have had that role too. Im not sure what argument they have that he has power and influence other than that rumors panel and thats a dumb example.

Anyway shouldnt being found a public figure be post tcpa? Is it possible the appeals court could just undo that ruling then say thats a fact to be found after tcpa and not rule either way?
 

Sheryl Nome

Listen to my song
kiwifarms.net
Well its one year after you discover it. There could potentially be a TI they dont know about. So if they find something during discovery with MoRon or Funi that may either extend the statute of limitations or reset the clock. They could even discover a completely separate tort they dont know about.


Well if thats true then theres nothing to worry about.


So youre saying that Chupp finding Vic a public figure means that if they go after Sabat then Sabat can use that as a fact in his tcpa? Do I have that right?


Even if he were, malice is so easily provable in many of the counts.


Didnt Vic assert in the deposition that he never had that kind of authority? That can really be looked at by examining how lousy the Funi investigations are. Another issue is that they use his popularity with his fanbase to say that hes using that nefariously to give himself power and influence in the industry. The thing is they cant produce any evidence of Vic doing that other than the mob they themselves provoked. Even if they use the fact that hes been a Director at Funimation they themselves have had that role too. Im not sure what argument they have that he has power and influence other than that rumors panel and thats a dumb example.

Anyway shouldnt being found a public figure be post tcpa? Is it possible the appeals court could just undo that ruling then say thats a fact to be found after tcpa and not rule either way?
It needs to be determined at least at some level at TCPA, because actual malice is an element that has to be proved then
 

Gehenna

With every step, my Autism grows.
kiwifarms.net
It needs to be determined at least at some level at TCPA, because actual malice is an element that has to be proved then
Even then, it does not necessarily have to be determined. At least if I was a judge, in a case where actual malice is proven, I'd make a decision like "The claim meets the requirements for defamation under a non public figure, and meets the requirements of Actual malice for a public figure".

Probably a more eloquent way of phrasing it, but the idea is the same. Establishing the evidence presented meets the criteria, without saying that criteria is necessarily the one used.
 

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

Still Pimpin
kiwifarms.net
Anyway shouldnt being found a public figure be post tcpa? Is it possible the appeals court could just undo that ruling then say thats a fact to be found after tcpa and not rule either way?
The Public Figure question is a question of law, not fact. The law finder is the judge, so he could determine that at this point in the proceedings. I'd say he'd probably have to to reach a conclusion for the purpose of the TCPA. That being said, Vic is almost certainly not a general purpose public figure or public official. As for limited purpose, there are two meanings to that:

1. A person who "have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974).
2. individuals who have distinguished themselves in a particular field, making them "public figures" regarding only those specific activities.

Vic wouldn't meet the first meaning as he did not thrust himself into a major controversy, but was forced into it by the tortuous actions of the defendants. The second meaning is also limited. To quote, "These limited-purpose public figures are not the Kobe Bryants, who are regarded as all-purpose public figures, but rather the journeymen basketball players of the league." Also, for these limited purpose public figures, "the actual malice standard extends only as far as defamatory statements involve matters related to the topics about which they are considered public figures. To return to our basketball example, the actual malice standard would extend to statements involving the player's basketball career; however, it would not extend to the details of his marriage." In Vic's case, the defamatory statements made against him have nothing to do with his career as a voice actor; he wasn't alleged to have used his position for sexual favors, to have been a bad employee, or to have robbed his employer. The defamatory statements were made about his private life, his private sexual conduct, and his private interactions with the defendants and their acquaintances. None of the alleged incidents of Vic's behavior happened on company time or involved the company. Under That standard, I would say that Vic is not a limited public figure in this case, and this is the best argument moving forward.

Also, in regards to whether or not someone has forced their way into a case to become a limited purpose public figure the court looks at:

1. The depth of the person's participation in the controversy.
2. The amount of freedom he or she has in choosing to engage in the controversy in the first place (e.g., if they were forced into the public light). See Wolston v. Reader's Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157 (1979).
3. Whether he has taken advantage of the media to advocate his cause. See Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976).

To further elucidate how the court may rule on this subject, here is a list of those found to be limited purpose public figures:

1. A retired general who advocated on national security issues. See Secord v. Cockburn, 747 F.Supp. 779 (1990).
2. A scientist who was prominent and outspoken in his opposition to nuclear tests. See Pauling v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co., 362 F.2d 188 (1966).
3. A nationally-known college football coach accused of fixing a football game. See Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967).
4. A professional belly dancer for a matter related to her performance. See James v. Gannet Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415 (1976).
5. A Playboy Playmate for purpose of a parody. See Vitale v. National Lampoon, Inc., 449 F. Supp 442 (1978).

And here is a list of those NOT found to limited purpose public figures:

1. A well-known lawyer and civic leader engaged in a very public trial involving police brutality. See Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1972).
2. A socialite going through a divorce who both collected press clippings on herself and held press conferences regarding the divorce. See Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976).
3. A Penthouse Pet for purposes of parody. See Pring v. Penthouse Int'l Ltd., 695 F.2d 438 (1982).
 

OneHandClapping

Shamefur dispray
kiwifarms.net
Didnt Vic assert in the deposition that he never had that kind of authority? That can really be looked at by examining how lousy the Funi investigations are. Another issue is that they use his popularity with his fanbase to say that hes using that nefariously to give himself power and influence in the industry. The thing is they cant produce any evidence of Vic doing that other than the mob they themselves provoked. Even if they use the fact that hes been a Director at Funimation they themselves have had that role too. Im not sure what argument they have that he has power and influence other than that rumors panel and thats a dumb example.
Vic directed episodes 19 and 20 of Claymore, and the entirety of Zodiac Wars (12 episodes). Compared for Monica or Jamie, both who have many more directing and script writing roles, he no power.

Ironically, Vic handpicked his good friends Monica Rial and Daman Mills for their roles in Zodiac Wars.

In Vic's case, the defamatory statements made against him have nothing to do with his career as a voice actor; he wasn't alleged to have used his position for sexual favors, to have been a bad employee, or to have robbed his employer.
Chuck's declaration might be enough to push that angle, though. As far as I can tell he never tried to use whatever influence he had to bang coworkers, just fangirls who wanted to hump Edward Elric or whatever.

1570340713992.png
 
Last edited:

jellycar

Actually Patty Hearst/Fake Jan Brady
kiwifarms.net
Vic directed episodes 19 and 20 of Claymore, and the entirety of Zodiac Wars (12 episodes). Compared for Monica or Jamie, both who have many more directing and script writing roles, he no power.

Ironically, Vic handpicked his good friends Monica Rial and Daman Mills for their roles in Zodiac Wars.
That ugly rat bastard faggot....I could get herpes every time he speaks.
 

Gehenna

With every step, my Autism grows.
kiwifarms.net
Vic directed episodes 19 and 20 of Claymore, and the entirety of Zodiac Wars (12 episodes). Compared for Monica or Jamie, both who have many more directing and script writing roles, he no power.

Ironically, Vic handpicked his good friends Monica Rial and Daman Mills for their roles in Zodiac Wars.


Chuck's declaration might be enough to push that angle, though.

View attachment 960914
What he BELIEVES is irrelevant. Can he provide PROOF? Can he provide PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of it? The Chuck Affidavit only really serves on purpose, to establish what DID occur in Funi.
 

AnOminous

I'm not mad at anyone, honest.
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
The Public Figure question is a question of law, not fact. The law finder is the judge, so he could determine that at this point in the proceedings. I'd say he'd probably have to to reach a conclusion for the purpose of the TCPA. That being said, Vic is almost certainly not a general purpose public figure or public official. As for limited purpose, there are two meanings to that:
On the good side, an issue of law is something that can be reversed on appeal on a de novo standard of review but as this is a TCPA case, that was already the case for issues of law and fact anyway.

It's also a weird standard, stated that way, because certainly, if a judge found that you were a public figure based on the fact you were the President of the United States, landed on the Moon, and could leap tall buildings in a single bound, and none of this were true, it would be pretty relevant to whether it were a valid decision.
 

Gehenna

With every step, my Autism grows.
kiwifarms.net
On the good side, an issue of law is something that can be reversed on appeal on a de novo standard of review but as this is a TCPA case, that was already the case for issues of law and fact anyway.

It's also a weird standard, stated that way, because certainly, if a judge found that you were a public figure based on the fact you were the President of the United States, landed on the Moon, and could leap tall buildings in a single bound, and none of this were true, it would be pretty relevant to whether it were a valid decision.
I would take it then that finding someone is a Public Figure because (Reason not stated), is effectively something that the appeals court just goes "What, no" to in a decision?
 

Sheryl Nome

Listen to my song
kiwifarms.net
I would take it then that finding someone is a Public Figure because (Reason not stated), is effectively something that the appeals court just goes "What, no" to in a decision?
I mean, the appeals court reveals de novo so they could go "No idea what trial court said, but we find he is a limited purpose public figure"
 

AnOminous

I'm not mad at anyone, honest.
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
I would take it then that finding someone is a Public Figure because (Reason not stated), is effectively something that the appeals court just goes "What, no" to in a decision?
They can. Issues of law are reviewed de novo. I think the main consideration, though, is that it takes what is ultimately a factual decision about how prominent someone is in society out of the hands of the jury, who should be deciding such issues. However, that's the law, that's Supreme Court precedent, it's what has to be lived with.

In this case it's actually slightly good it's an issue of law and not fact. They're used to overruling judges on it even outside of TCPA cases.

I mean, the appeals court reveals de novo so they could go "No idea what trial court said, but we find he is a limited purpose public figure"
The appeals court could find everything Chupp said is gibbering idiocy and he failed to do his job but that his actual decision itself was right anyway and uphold all the dismissals, giving their own reasons for doing so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kosher Salt

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

Still Pimpin
kiwifarms.net
Chuck's declaration might be enough to push that angle, though. As far as I can tell he never tried to use whatever influence he had to bang coworkers, just fangirls who wanted to hump Edward Elric or whatever.
That would be an important distinction to make, though. To go back to the basketball player example I used: If our theoretical journeyman basketball player was accused of cheating on his wife with a fan by a jealous colleague and this costed our basketball player his marriage, and he sued said colleague for defamation, that would not make him a limited purpose public figure because that directly pertains to his personal life, not his career or position within the basketball industry; said fan might as well be a random woman he slept with for the purposes of the allegation, as it still would of had the same effect regardless of who the woman was. However, if he was accused of using his position as a basketball player to force interns working for the franchise he is playing for to have sex with him, that would make him limited purpose because that directly pertains to his career as basketball player and his conduct as a member of a basketball franchise. Same if he was accused of throwing one of his games, versus someone claiming he engages in dog fights on his spare time; the first regards his career as a player, the second does not.

Vic never used his position or influence to, say, coerce younger actresses or other personnel working on his shows to have sex with him, nor is he even alleged to have done so. Sleeping with those few people who are fans of his shows and/or of him personally doesn't make him a public figure, even a limited purpose one, anymore than if he was sleeping with random women. Merely being appealing to women because of his job doesn't make him a public figure, anymore than a lawyer being rich enough to have any woman he wants be enough to make him a public figure.
 

DragoonSierra

kiwifarms.net
The Public Figure question is a question of law, not fact. The law finder is the judge, so he could determine that at this point in the proceedings. I'd say he'd probably have to to reach a conclusion for the purpose of the TCPA. That being said, Vic is almost certainly not a general purpose public figure or public official. As for limited purpose, there are two meanings to that:

1. A person who "have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974).
2. individuals who have distinguished themselves in a particular field, making them "public figures" regarding only those specific activities.

Vic wouldn't meet the first meaning as he did not thrust himself into a major controversy, but was forced into it by the tortuous actions of the defendants. The second meaning is also limited. To quote, "These limited-purpose public figures are not the Kobe Bryants, who are regarded as all-purpose public figures, but rather the journeymen basketball players of the league." Also, for these limited purpose public figures, "the actual malice standard extends only as far as defamatory statements involve matters related to the topics about which they are considered public figures. To return to our basketball example, the actual malice standard would extend to statements involving the player's basketball career; however, it would not extend to the details of his marriage." In Vic's case, the defamatory statements made against him have nothing to do with his career as a voice actor; he wasn't alleged to have used his position for sexual favors, to have been a bad employee, or to have robbed his employer. The defamatory statements were made about his private life, his private sexual conduct, and his private interactions with the defendants and their acquaintances. None of the alleged incidents of Vic's behavior happened on company time or involved the company. Under That standard, I would say that Vic is not a limited public figure in this case, and this is the best argument moving forward.

Also, in regards to whether or not someone has forced their way into a case to become a limited purpose public figure the court looks at:

1. The depth of the person's participation in the controversy.
2. The amount of freedom he or she has in choosing to engage in the controversy in the first place (e.g., if they were forced into the public light). See Wolston v. Reader's Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157 (1979).
3. Whether he has taken advantage of the media to advocate his cause. See Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976).

To further elucidate how the court may rule on this subject, here is a list of those found to be limited purpose public figures:

1. A retired general who advocated on national security issues. See Secord v. Cockburn, 747 F.Supp. 779 (1990).
2. A scientist who was prominent and outspoken in his opposition to nuclear tests. See Pauling v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co., 362 F.2d 188 (1966).
3. A nationally-known college football coach accused of fixing a football game. See Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967).
4. A professional belly dancer for a matter related to her performance. See James v. Gannet Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415 (1976).
5. A Playboy Playmate for purpose of a parody. See Vitale v. National Lampoon, Inc., 449 F. Supp 442 (1978).

And here is a list of those NOT found to limited purpose public figures:

1. A well-known lawyer and civic leader engaged in a very public trial involving police brutality. See Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1972).
2. A socialite going through a divorce who both collected press clippings on herself and held press conferences regarding the divorce. See Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976).
3. A Penthouse Pet for purposes of parody. See Pring v. Penthouse Int'l Ltd., 695 F.2d 438 (1982).
Are any of those Texas cases?

The appeals court could find everything Chupp said is gibbering idiocy and he failed to do his job but that his actual decision itself was right anyway and uphold all the dismissals, giving their own reasons for doing so.
That doesnt seem likely considering he has to go through an appeals court and the Texas Supreme Court

That would be an important distinction to make, though. To go back to the basketball player example I used: If our theoretical journeyman basketball player was accused of cheating on his wife with a fan by a jealous colleague and this costed our basketball player his marriage, and he sued said colleague for defamation, that would not make him a limited purpose public figure because that directly pertains to his personal life, not his career or position within the basketball industry; said fan might as well be a random woman he slept with for the purposes of the allegation, as it still would of had the same effect regardless of who the woman was. However, if he was accused of using his position as a basketball player to force interns working for the franchise he is playing for to have sex with him, that would make him limited purpose because that directly pertains to his career as basketball player and his conduct as a member of a basketball franchise. Same if he was accused of throwing one of his games, versus someone claiming he engages in dog fights on his spare time; the first regards his career as a player, the second does not.

Vic never used his position or influence to, say, coerce younger actresses or other personnel working on his shows to have sex with him, nor is he even alleged to have done so. Sleeping with those few people who are fans of his shows and/or of him personally doesn't make him a public figure, even a limited purpose one, anymore than if he was sleeping with random women. Merely being appealing to women because of his job doesn't make him a public figure, anymore than a lawyer being rich enough to have any woman he wants be enough to make him a public figure.
Monica and Jamie wouldnt qualify as fellow contractors at Funimation? Even if the acts Jamie accused Vic of doing occured on Funimation property? Wouldnt Funimation's defamation be career based since it was an official statement? Could he be found to be lppf and not lppf on separate causes of action?
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino