Question: If none of the stories were consistent, therefore indicating Monica was lying, how come the court case was ruled in her favor?
I don't know. You tell me. For TCPA, it goes like this.
To claim TCPA, the defendants have to show that the TCPA applies to their case. After that, the plaintiff now has to show that he has a viable claim under preponderance of the evidence. After that, the defendants can attempt to defeat the lawsuit with affirmative defenses (e.g. they were telling the truth, and truth is not actionable, Vic is libel-proof, etc).
The defendants successfully claimed TCPA because defamation necessarily implicates free speech.
Vic then had to show he had viable claims (defamation, tortious interference with existing contracts, tortious interference with prospective business relations, civil conspiracy, and vicarious liability against Funimation only). This is where Chupp ruled Vic failed. He was supposedly unable to show evidence for the elements of his torts. Which elements (defamation has like 5 separate elements, for example), we don't know, because Chupp's ruling had virtually no legal or fact findings. Well, he did find that Ron was an independent contractor of Funimation, which is fucking stupid since not only is there zero evidence of this, literally no party in the lawsuit made that assertion. He pulled that fact out of his ass.
The truth or falsity of Monica's story was never taken into account because the motion never got to the third step. So the talking point that the bajillion affidavits made a difference are patently false. They were never even looked at.
