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

[fat ugly sped]

It may be he's a fuckup, or someone REALLY doesn't like him. Defending such 'unpersons' as Andrew Anglin, Alex Jones, etc would most certainly draw the ire of SJW activist types.

Anyone who goes after attorneys for who they represent shouldn't be involved in the legal profession in any professional capacity. The right to an attorney is a fundamental right granted to Americans, and going after that via targeting attorneys is beyond despicable.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

Anyone who goes after attorneys for who they represent shouldn't be involved in the legal profession in any professional capacity. The right to an attorney is a fundamental right granted to Americans, and going after that via targeting attorneys is beyond despicable.

Which of course didn't stop the usual suspects from screaming about Professor Ronald Sullivan for representing Harvey Weinstein, to the point where he was removed as a faculty dean.

In the eyes of the left, you have no rights and no freedoms, because you are evil.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Anyone who goes after attorneys for who they represent shouldn't be involved in the legal profession in any professional capacity. The right to an attorney is a fundamental right granted to Americans, and going after that via targeting attorneys is beyond despicable.

It cannot be stated enough that far left activists don't believe certain people are entitled to rights based upon arbitrary classifications of oppression that they alone are allowed to apply. To other people. It is not surprising at all.

 

[Fapcop]

Unsurprisingly for the HuffPo, they dishonestly describe it as a "disbarment hearing" when they weren't even at the penalty phase and in fact, he wasn't disbarred, just suspended as reciprocal discipline for the Nevada case. And it's actually quite unusual for a bar association to go after you because they don't think another bar association was hard enough on you.

Randazza is a brilliant lawyer, a real pain in the ass, has no problem pissing people off, and apparently, has played fast and loose with legal ethics, which can be rather dangerous if you like making lots of enemies who are politically well placed.

Huffington Post as a "reliable source" for someone they clearly absolutely hate, whose clients they want to see destroyed, is standard Wikipedia bias.

The Huffington Post? A “reliable source”?

My sides!

Perhaps one day, when the definition of “reliable source” has been changed to: “Weaponized blogging for political warfare”, or some shit like that.

And a deep, hearty fuck you to Wikipedia, for conclusively proving that the even the most noble of ideas have a very short half-life, when there is a slow but steady influx of people who like using a self-contradictory and vague set of rules as a club against opinions they disagree with.


Anyways, I quite like Randazza who has always seemed like the classic First amendment lawyer: Brusque, loud and absolutely necessary.

Could you enlighten us as to what legal crimes he stands accused of?

 

[Skeptical Idiot]

Could you enlighten us as to what legal crimes he stands accused of?

He loaned money to a client without telling him to get a separate legal opinion and he did something that may have delayed the disbursement of settlement funds to his client. I've attached a copy of the order relating to the bar's actions. I don't want to minimize ethical violations, but I don't think he did anything with a bad motive. It's not like Avenatti who based on news reports appears to be a thief.

Randazza fights like hell for his clients. He's won some amazing First Amendment victories. I'd call myself a fan of his work.

In the meantime, I'm gritting my teeth and waiting for August 8th, not that I expect an actual ruling on that date.

 

[AnOminous]

Could you enlighten us as to what legal crimes he stands accused of?

Some pretty questionable actions. Possibly the most questionable isn't what he did exactly but how he worded it, specifically offering to take retainers for legal services up front specifically to conflict him out of being able to sue them in the future. You're actually kind of sort of allowed to do that, you're just not allowed to say it.

It's usually done in reverse, though, with a slimy litigant "consulting" with every lawyer in town who specializes in some specific issue to keep them from being able to represent your ex or whatever. And again, it's not illegal to actually do that, but if you admit to why you're doing it it might be.

 

[Fapcop]

Apparently he also had some trouble with his old employer. (Gay porn producers.)

Something about him representing other porn companies in piracy cases, while also being full time counsel for his old firm.

Again, something that may not be illegal, not even necessarily improper, but def. doesn’t look good.

Looks like Rantazza forgot that when you have thousands of screeching SUW autists gunning for you, you need to keep your shit 100% clean. Even if you haven’t broken any laws.

Some pretty questionable actions. Possibly the most questionable isn't what he did exactly but how he worded it, specifically offering to take retainers for legal services up front specifically to conflict him out of being able to sue them in the future. You're actually kind of sort of allowed to do that, you're just not allowed to say it.

It's usually done in reverse, though, with a slimy litigant "consulting" with every lawyer in town who specializes in some specific issue to keep them from being able to represent your ex or whatever. And again, it's not illegal to actually do that, but if you admit to why you're doing it it might be.

Did you see the HP article? It’s such a total smear job, with half a dozen negative adjective used about Rantazza just in the first couple of paragraphs.

Shit, they even used editing and formatting to put Rantazza in the worst possible light, and quoted him dishonestly in one section.

 

[Slab Bulkhead]

So apparently this was filed late friday and boy is it one hell of an exceptional defense.

 

[BaldBoomerBoy]

So apparently this was filed late friday and boy is it one hell of an exceptional defense.

I made an account just so I could ask what the fuck that means, I don't understand why its so short compared to any of the other bullshit paperwork they've filed.

 

[Slab Bulkhead]

Well, from what I notice: Firstly only J. Sean signed off on it, possibly a sign that Casey and Andrea finally got tired of not being paid?

Second, as you can see here they're adding in a new affirmative defense.

It just seems to be their new affirmative defense is "We're a publisher. Also we dindu nuffin."

 

[TenMilesWide]

So apparently this was filed late friday and boy is it one hell of an exceptional defense.

>Neither Rial nor Toye created the content at issue

Didn't Ron have like 20 pounds worth of defamatory tweets that he never retracted? Is that not content at issue?

 

[HTTP Error 404]

CDA 230 is literally the law that protects Twitter from being liable for what their users posts. "I'm a platform not a publisher" or whatnot. (They're violating this law by censoring anyone who doesn't buy into their politics, but, yeah.)

In short: This is the most desperate hail mary we've seen yet. MoRonica are claiming ... what? Their first idiot lawyer already confirmed the posts were Ron's. I guess they're claiming they merely typed shit into Twitter, it was Twitter that put them online for everyone to see?

 

[Kosher Salt]

So apparently this was filed late friday and boy is it one hell of an exceptional defense.

Their time to respond is over, I thought. Can they just add affirmative defenses at this point, or is it too late?

When I saw "supplemental affirmative defense," I thought maybe they were supplementing the affirmative defenses that they had already pled by adding some additional supporting information. But they're not; they're trying to add a brand-new affirmative defense.

 

[GethN7]

Well, from what I notice: Firstly only J. Sean signed off on it, possibly a sign that Casey and Andrea finally got tired of not being paid?

Second, as you can see here they're adding in a new affirmative defense.
View attachment 864855

It just seems to be their new affirmative defense is "We're a publisher. Also we dindu nuffin."

So they should not get in trouble because they knowingly regurgitated lies told by other people they knew would hurt the party the lies were aimed at, but because they didn't come up with them originally, they just made sure they'd get a ton of traction, they should be held innocent of wrongdoing because they didn't come up with the defamatory material themselves.

That's as stupid as saying you didn't break into a store yourself, but you were playing lookout man for the guy who did while handing him a spare torsion bar so he could force open a door to do the crime.

 

[Slab Bulkhead]

So they should not get in trouble because they knowingly regurgitated lies told by other people they knew would hurt the party the lies were aimed at, but because they didn't come up with them originally, they just made sure they'd get a ton of traction, they should be held innocent of wrongdoing because they didn't come up with the defamatory material themselves.

That's as stupid as saying you didn't break into a store yourself, but you were playing lookout man for the guy who did while handing him a spare torsion bar so he could force open a door to do the crime.

And that's if you account for Monica's first-hand accounts of "He pulled my hair. He kissed me in his hotel room, then we went out for dinner and he forced me to come back to his room so I could talk to his girlfriend on the phone."

 

[mindlessobserver]

So say chupp rejects all the TCPA motions and they appeal, does the discovery hold stay in place or will we get to see Marchi and Denbow deposed while we wait for the appeals court?

 

[774]

The only thing I can think of that they're referring to in the CDA is (c)(1): "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Setting aside claims they actually originated, I guess they think the "or user" part applies to them. I can't imagine it actually does. Otherwise, defamation law is significantly weakened, right? Can someone explain?

 

[Slab Bulkhead]

Basically how I read it is, if we take a forum as an example:

User A likes to shitpost in a forum but is generally harmless other than being a memelord.
User B uses the same forum but spams the forum about how X is a pedo/sexual abuser and so on. Something that is clearly defamation.

Well if person X finds out, they can file a lawsuit against user B (the creator of said defamation)
but they cannot lump user A in with the defamation suit even though they may have been engaging with User B (so long as user A did not say anything defamatory themselves). Nor can person X file a lawsuit against the site's owner simply for hosting the forum.

The thing to note though is repeating the defamation as a statement of fact is still defamation even if you were not the original source. If User B says person X is a kiddy diddler, and user A goes around repeating verbatim "Person X is a kiddy diddler" even though they are not the origin, they're still spreading defamation.

TL&DR:

You can't file a lawsuit against someone under the guise of 'guilty by association'. If A, B, C, and D are all part of an online group and D does some stupid/illegal stuff, A, B, and C are not on the hook for said stupid stuff just for sharing a group.

 

[Fapcop]

So apparently this was filed late friday and boy is it one hell of an exceptional defense.

Lololol

Here’s a question to ponder...

If you were their lawyer, and believed there was a good chance the TCPA would go your way.

Would you bother filing something this exceptional?

 

[774]

Well if person X finds out, they can file a lawsuit against user B (the creator of said defamation)
but they cannot lump user A in with the defamation suit even though they may have been engaging with User B (so long as user A did not say anything defamatory themselves).

This is, of course, the reasonable explanation here. But I think they're trying to claim that X can't sue A even if A does repeat B's posts.