- Joined
- Jul 29, 2020
I guess my question is how likely the appeals court is going to decide the rulings were made in error. Time will tell but it hasn't gone very well so far.
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
- Joined
- May 4, 2022
I mean the most important thing is that it takes longer for any of the shitbags to get money from Vic. Probably a lot longer now (I imagine the TX Supreme Court will take forever to tell them to fuck off). I mean with Beard involved, the filing is going to be utter garbage, so there's zero chance of a victory, but prolonging the time before they get their hands on THE DAMN GFM MONEY is a cause I can get behind.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2019
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2019
Uh fuck, looks like I'm stuck here until 2025.
I hate to admit it, but I agree with you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't SCoTx only review cases if they think they present an issue that is relevant to the (Texan) constitution, or is it that something that only SCOTUS does (but with the US constitution)?
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
Reading it now I have the time. It's not written by Beard, or not primarily. Within the restrictions of the required form and structure, the language just doesn't read like his writing style.
There's not enough typos, for one.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Vic's appeal fits within the designated parameters.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2019
I only came back to remove the watch on this thread and wonder why the fuck anyone was posting in it. Why won't this damn thing end?
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
People here unironically confused as to why someone is fighting to salvage his reputation after being falsely called a rapist and a pedo. What's wrong with you lot?
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2019
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2016
because he's tilting at windmills and losing
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
I am not actually sure the panel was correct about their nearly Kafkaesque interpretation of how stringently a Rule 11 (not the federal rule) agreement should be interpreted. In fact, I think it was kind of shit, although I am not a Texas appellate lawyer and every single one of those judges is.
I think it's a terrible way to operate, but that doesn't mean it isn't completely valid Texas law, and three Texas appellate judges also think so. I am in no position to question their wisdom.
It's still at least remotely possible they are wrong and SCOTX will say so, but obviously don't get your hopes up.
Farmer Y
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
Maybe this is the higher calling God is giving Vic. Fix Texas law.
So will this be months of F5 on Thursdays or do they post on a different day?
So will this be months of F5 on Thursdays or do they post on a different day?
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
>respondant may file either a response, or a waiver of response
Oh joy, one last opportunity for Lemonlungs to weigh in on the cawnsluts, the GoFundMe warchest, Nick Rekieta, and all the other topics on his mind.
Hopefully this won't cost Vic too much. I really hope Ty is bankrolling all of this himself at this point when he's the biggest reason why this is happening to begin with.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
They're addressing the reversible errors made by both courts regarding the tcpa hearing. The other torts weren't strictly in play at the time.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
The dismissal of the other torts were reversible errors, at least according to the list of reversible errors in the first few pages.
I feel like I'm missing something obvious though.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Tortious interference (with Business relations or with a contract) tends to require an underlying tort or some unlawful underlying action. If Vic is found to not be defamed, the TI sorta falls apart (and they only argued TI in regards to torts, not other unlawful actions that could also give rise to TI, though personally I think going after TI was the more likely to succeed choice). Conspiracy works the exact same way. They are what is called a "derivative tort". See Agar Corp., Inc. v. Electro Circuits Int'l, LLC, 580 S.W.3d 136 (Tex. 2019) for Conspiracy, and see Wal-Mart Stores v. Sturges, 52 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. 2001) for TI, though they didn't use that exact phrase in the second citation.
They release miscellaneous orders whenever they feel like it, but release actual important stuff on Fridays usually. See:
TJB | SC | Orders & Opinions | 2022
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
I suppose I’m deranged but I’m still at a loss for how alleging that a person is a “rapist”, a “pedophile” and a “sexual predator” when they’ve not been legitimately investigated for, let alone charged with or convicted of any sexually-based criminal act, isn’t specific enough to be considered defamatory.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
Ask the judge about that one. Whatever we might blame Beard for, Chupp ultimate made the decision based on how many people were in the room. The appeals court sided with him for no obvious reason.
I still think Beard should have made more of the fact that Chupp told him to stop objecting.