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

[AnOminous]

Technically, I guess? But they're all set for 1:30 PM. So, I think it'll really be a single hearing where a number of matters will be discussed. It'd be inefficient to have separate hearings for such related things, don't you think?


What would be the point of that? Sounds inefficient, if you ask me. And isn't this supposed to be pursuant to the TCPA? Can the court really hold a hearing specifically for that purpose, especially when it's required, and then say, "Well, let's decide this at a later date"? At the very least, it can only be so much later.

The judge has 30 days after the hearing to reach a decision. Not reaching a decision causes the TCPA to be denied by operation of law. Montiel v. Lechin, 01-18-00781-CV, (Tex. App. – Houston [1st], March 14, 2019 no. pet. h) (mem. op.).

 

[General Relativity QM]

The judge has 30 days after the hearing to reach a decision. Not reaching a decision causes the TCPA to be denied by operation of law. Montiel v. Lechin, 01-18-00781-CV, (Tex. App. – Houston [1st], March 14, 2019 no. pet. h) (mem. op.).

Can not making a decision be subject to appeal? Would it be grounds to motion for the judge to recuse?

Edit:

I know I would be unhappy if I lost my TCPA because of a lack of decision. That's one of the primary responsibilities of a judge, to make decisions. I am not sure that I could trust the judge going forward.

 

[AnOminous]

Can not making a decision be subject to appeal? Would it be grounds to motion for the judge to recuse?

That's the interesting thing. The only case on point is the one where the judge failed to have the hearing on time and then granted the motion and on appeal it was ruled that the failure to decide in time amounted to a denial of the motion.

So a malicious judge could, conceivably, deliberately fuck up the procedural TCPA elements, then rule FOR the TCPA, and let the appeal go through which would result in a decision that the TCPA was procedurally denied and the case had to go forward, and his "decision" would effectively be unappealable.

I don't know if the recent amendments to the TCPA fix this somehow.

 

[2lolis1cup]

That's the interesting thing. The only case on point is the one where the judge failed to have the hearing on time and then granted the motion and on appeal it was ruled that the failure to decide in time amounted to a denial of the motion.

So a malicious judge could, conceivably, deliberately fuck up the procedural TCPA elements, then rule FOR the TCPA, and let the appeal go through which would result in a decision that the TCPA was procedurally denied and the case had to go forward, and his "decision" would effectively be unappealable.

I don't know if the recent amendments to the TCPA fix this somehow.

I actually want this. First twitter lawyers would be jumping for joy with, "I told you so". The Kick vic'ers would be reaching critical levels of smug and all the defendants would be making very large displays of self satisfaction. The appeal would be filed and further ridiculed by twitter. When the ruling is overturned on procedural ground the REEEEEEEEEEEEing would make the news after several wild aquatic mammals were sited rampaging through Texas screeching.

I don't think there is a chance in hell of this happening though. It seems uncharacteristically spiteful for Chupp, since he seems like he prefers for litigants to hang themselves and not needlessly dirty his own hands.

All that said I'm hoping for exactly this highly unlikely scenario for the freakout on both sides it would induce.

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

http://archive.is/jCAmH

http://archive.is/y6ggn

EDIT: I CAUGHT NICK'S BOOMERITIS AND SENT THE SAME PICTURE TWICE

 

[AnOminous]

View attachment 859309

http://archive.li/jCAmH

View attachment 859309

http://archive.li/y6ggn

Who is this diddler?

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Who is this diddler?

Who is this diddler?

Another (((Superlawyer)))

Jay Marshall Wolman - Randazza Legal Group

Jay Marshall Wolman is a Counsel at Randazza Legal Group. He is licensed in Connecticut, Massachusetts, D.C., and New York. He focuses his practice on First Amendment and intellectual property litigation.

randazza.com

Notably claims specialization in defamation claims... But he's not in Texas, so he probably has no idea that the Texas rules aren't his rules, because he's a superlawyer

 

[TexOffender]

View attachment 859309

http://archive.li/jCAmH

View attachment 859309

http://archive.li/y6ggn

oooooh he's wearing a suit in his profile pic. Nick is in trouble!

 

[AnOminous]

Another (((Superlawyer)))

Jay Marshall Wolman - Randazza Legal Group

Jay Marshall Wolman is a Counsel at Randazza Legal Group. He is licensed in Connecticut, Massachusetts, D.C., and New York. He focuses his practice on First Amendment and intellectual property litigation.

randazza.com

Notably claims specialization in defamation claims... But he's not in Texas, so he probably has no idea that the Texas rules aren't his rules, because he's a superlawyer

I hope Marc tells him he's making a fool of himself.

 

[PrinceofAllCucks]

Another (((Superlawyer)))

Jay Marshall Wolman - Randazza Legal Group

Jay Marshall Wolman is a Counsel at Randazza Legal Group. He is licensed in Connecticut, Massachusetts, D.C., and New York. He focuses his practice on First Amendment and intellectual property litigation.

randazza.com

Notably claims specialization in defamation claims... But he's not in Texas, so he probably has no idea that the Texas rules aren't his rules, because he's a superlawyer

Why does it always seem these driveby lawyers come from New York or the North-east area?

 

[Laundui_or_douchette?]

Why does it always seem these driveby lawyers come from New York or the North-east area?

Plenty of time sitting in hospitals waiting for potential customers to sit on Twitter.

 

[Cakeisjustok]

Plenty of time sitting in hospitals waiting for potential customers to sit on Twitter.

Always seems to be an IP attorney as well.

 

[BoxofMonkeys]

Can not making a decision be subject to appeal? Would it be grounds to motion for the judge to recuse?

Edit:

I know I would be unhappy if I lost my TCPA because of a lack of decision. That's one of the primary responsibilities of a judge, to make decisions. I am not sure that I could trust the judge going forward.

Think of a judge not making a decision on the TCPA as being similar to the presidents pocket veto.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Always seems to be an IP attorney as well.

hmmm, I wonder if a certain faggoty hat is behind this

 

[RodgerDodger]

I'd like to know which is the first part the Judge asks someone to explain.

“Can someone please explain the use of “consluts” in a filing? “

View attachment 859309

http://archive.li/jCAmH

View attachment 859383

http://archive.li/y6ggn

EDIT: I CAUGHT NICK'S BOOMERITIS AND SENT THE SAME PICTURE TWICE

If this dude Finds Lemonhead’s motion compelling than he is clearly insane or incompetent. Or more likely like all of loltwatter he hasn’t read it and is just going by what someone told him it said.

 

[repentance]

Another (((Superlawyer)))

Jay Marshall Wolman - Randazza Legal Group

Jay Marshall Wolman is a Counsel at Randazza Legal Group. He is licensed in Connecticut, Massachusetts, D.C., and New York. He focuses his practice on First Amendment and intellectual property litigation.

randazza.com

Notably claims specialization in defamation claims... But he's not in Texas, so he probably has no idea that the Texas rules aren't his rules, because he's a superlawyer

He's with the Randazza group, which means his cases would largely be First Amendment cases - so specialisation within specialisation but not necessarily relevant to this particular action.

The stance that Twitter law is taking is not surprising. The Popehat circle and the Randazza circle are both vehemently free speech. If anything, it's a little bit weird that in this particular instance we are not.

 

[instythot]

The judge has 30 days after the hearing to reach a decision. Not reaching a decision causes the TCPA to be denied by operation of law. Montiel v. Lechin, 01-18-00781-CV, (Tex. App. – Houston [1st], March 14, 2019 no. pet. h) (mem. op.).

So... does that make it conceivable that a certain TCPA doesn't get a decision because the judge couldn't parse sense out of it in 30 days?

 

[Sheryl Nome]

He's with the Randazza group, which means his cases would largely be First Amendment cases - so specialisation within specialisation but not necessarily relevant to this particular action.

The stance that Twitter law is taking is not surprising. The Popehat circle and the Randazza circle are both vehemently free speech. If anything, it's a little bit weird that in this particular instance we are not.

The problem is that Popehat's followers are retards

 

[fat ugly sped]

He's with the Randazza group, which means his cases would largely be First Amendment cases - so specialisation within specialisation but not necessarily relevant to this particular action.

The stance that Twitter law is taking is not surprising. The Popehat circle and the Randazza circle are both vehemently free speech. If anything, it's a little bit weird that in this particular instance we are not.

In this instance, the right to free speech comes up against the right to petition the government for redress (that is, to resolve your dispute with someone you allege caused your reputation damage through lies). It's necessarily a place where the government must balance opposing interests in different rights.

I mean, I guess the government could simply stop accepting defamation claims. But that'd pretty quickly lead to these disputes getting settled through much less pleasant means. People used to duel each other to resolve defamation claims. Can't see the government intentionally bringing that back.

 

[RodgerDodger]

So... does that make it conceivable that a certain TCPA doesn't get a decision because the judge couldn't parse sense out of it in 30 days?

I'm starting to think that it might get kicked for a far more basic reason. Monica and Ron are two separate independent defendants. Thier involvement and roles with regard to the Plaintiff's causes of action are different. With this unified motion how does the Judge parse the two? How does he find for one and not the other? I had been wondering how Ty and company could respond to that odd single filing. But thinking on it some more how does the Judge do so? And why would he be bothered trying to work it out the hard way? The defendants and council presume a joint status where none exists. That should be the opening element of BHBH's response. That the Defendants Entire Motion is Improper and illegitimate as filed. "Oh and BTW they are now well past deadline so tough titties!"