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

[Null]

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

They don't run any service. No one published any information through them. What the fuck is this fucking garbage? If I was the judge I would be personally offended by this shit.

 

[Spicybeef]

View attachment 864955

They don't run any service. No one published any information through them. What the fuck is this fucking garbage? If I was the judge I would be personally offended by this shit.

Sure, but to be honest, After that 500+ page TCPA that was just a pile of defamation and hearsay, I'd be surprised if THIS is the straw that breaks the judge's patience.

 

[MakeAnimeGA]

Looks like Funi supplemented their motion by saying "Hey, Monica, Ron, and Jamie's evidence is our evidence too."



I could be wrong, just judging from the thumbnail. At 59 pages, I'm not giving TXCourts another $6.

 

[PrinceofAllCucks]

Looks like Funi supplemented their motion by saying "Hey, Monica, Ron, and Jamie's evidence is our evidence too."

View attachment 864958

I could be wrong, just judging from the thumbnail. At 59 pages, I'm not giving TXCourts another $6.

Gotcha fam

 

[RodgerDodger]

If I had to guess this amendment is to try and get retweets, likes and responses knocked out. Seems a bit of a reach.

 

[DragoonSierra]

View attachment 864955

They don't run any service. No one published any information through them. What the fuck is this fucking garbage? If I was the judge I would be personally offended by this shit.

The only thing i can think of that would apply was thier discord nonsense but thats not even their servers legally anyway.

You should write an angry letter to Ty

If I had to guess this amendment is to try and get retweets, likes and responses knocked out. Seems a bit of a reach.

I dont see why likes would come into play anyway. Theyre not really indicative of anything.

Either way they dont own the physical space where the original posts are so they arent a service provider. Also the original posters arent "users" of anything Monica or Toye own.

 

[N1bbaN3rd]

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."

CDA 230?
So their latest defense is "we Twitter now."
Nick must be happy to know that he's got something fresh to sink his teeth into when he gets back to the vault.
Great to see that the League of Exceptional Lawyers is totally confident that their TCPA motion will hold up and win the case.

 

[Francis York Morgan]

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."

J. Dolph must be convinced that the judge is as stupid or neurologically fucked as he is to think this is going to be a good move.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

J. Dolph must be convinced that the judge is as stupid or neurologically fucked as he is to think this is going to be a good move.

Or MoRon read it someplace or heard it from Law Twitter and J Dolph is just passing it along.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Gotcha fam

Jesus christ, they're actually going for the "libel-proof" argument. I think they just fucked themselves.

Volney, I know you're trying your best, but come on. This is just embarrassing.

 

[I can't imagine]

Jesus christ, they're actually going for the "libel-proof" argument. I think they just fucked themselves.

Volney, I know you're trying your best, but come on. This is just embarrassing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the "libel-proof" argument pretty much only work for people that have actually been convicted of the crimes the alleged defamation was based on? Like, a convicted murderer trying to sue someone for claiming he's a murderer or something?

 

[AnOminous]

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.

Yes, it's worthless. I read the available bar opinions, which at least limit themselves to facts instead of hysterical REEEEEing about how freedom of speech is "far right" and Randazza is literally Hitler for defending it because the current batch of censors trying to destroy freedom are Puritan leftists rather than fundies.

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.

So they discovered Barrett v. Rosenthal? I haven't seen any analog to that oddball California case in Texas, though.

Looks like Funi supplemented their motion by saying "Hey, Monica, Ron, and Jamie's evidence is our evidence too."

This reads more like an admission of conspiracy than a defense. They're basically admitting their strategy is to spam defamation so profusely that the plaintiff is rendered "libel-proof" somehow by the sheer volume of lies they've spammed at him.

 

[waffle]

Unless local practice is vastly different in Texas I think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill with regard to their joint filings. Those are generally permissible in my jurisdiction and its No problem for a judge to say "I grant the motion for party x and not party y". As long as Monica and Ron are telling their lawyers the same story there is no nonwaviable conflict.

My personal read on the story is that Vic fucked Monica with her enthusiastic consent at some point in the past, and when Ron found out he was mad So she cried rape to calm him down and from there bpd Monica has just kinda leaned into it in an attempt to bring down Vic because she is now envious of his success.

The thing is that as long as they both deny that and the lawyers at least pretend to believe it they're probably fine to file joint pleadings

 

[mindlessobserver]

Yes, it's worthless. I read the available bar opinions, which at least limit themselves to facts instead of hysterical REEEEEing about how freedom of speech is "far right" and Randazza is literally Hitler for defending it because the current batch of censors trying to destroy freedom are Puritan leftists rather than fundies.



So they discovered Barrett v. Rosenthal? I haven't seen any analog to that oddball California case in Texas, though.



This reads more like an admission of conspiracy than a defense. They're basically admitting their strategy is to spam defamation so profusely that the plaintiff is rendered "libel-proof" somehow by the sheer volume of lies they've spammed at him.

The logic of it is escaping me. Wasn't funi's best defense the fact that there was only one truly defamatory tweet and that none of the other tards were acting as their agents? It would seem to me they would want to distance themselves and not tie their defense together.

 

[TheClappening]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the "libel-proof" argument pretty much only work for people that have actually been convicted of the crimes the alleged defamation was based on? Like, a convicted murderer trying to sue someone for claiming he's a murderer or something?

Being libel-proof is for people like Hitler. Not some hypothetical, he's-not-liberal-thus-he's-Hitler deal, literally I-gassed-6-million-Jews Hitler. The reasoning is that someone's reputation is so bad, defamation wouldn't hurt him anymore.

No one (well, barring Stormfront people or whatever) would stand in line for a Hitler autograph. If someone defamed him by calling him a pedophile he wouldn't be suffering any damages.

 

[Wake me up]

What the fuck is this fucking garbage?

As I've been saying all along: the desperate actions of a lawyer that knows their case is indefensible and is willing to try anything to give their clients the slightest chance of not owing Vic a million dollars once this is all over and done with. So basically a defense attorney doing his job when the clients made it impossible to do so without hoping for the impossible.

If I was the judge I would be personally offended by this shit.

It's not even the first time either - if you want more and haven't seen it already, check out MoRonica's initial defense pleading/motion/whatever. AnOminous had a blast with that one (I think we all did). Casey embarrassed himself, his client, the Judge and the entire judicial system when a simple "my client generally disregards all causes of action as false" would've worked, which is exactly what Marchii's attorney chose to do, weeks later, as a non-totally-exceptional Super Lawyer.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

Being libel-proof is for people like Hitler. Not some hypothetical, he's-not-liberal-thus-he's-Hitler deal, literally I-gassed-6-million-Jews Hitler. The reasoning is that someone's reputation is so bad, defamation wouldn't hurt him anymore.

No one (well, barring Stormfront people or whatever) would stand in line for a Hitler autograph. If someone defamed him by calling him a pedophile he wouldn't be suffering any damages.

Eh, I might. Collector's item, don'tcha know?

Jokes aside, yeah. I referenced creepshow Brett Kimberlin a while back, and he was adjudicated to be libel proof. Because he'd been convicted of perjury, drug offenses, and setting off bombs to divert attention from a murder case, not to mention being slammed as a pedophile (and not being able to get out from under the slam). Also, he's a shitty musician.

I would say that's the minimum rung you need to hit to be libel-proof. IIRC, there's also a court case -- Proxmire? -- which states that the nature of someone's 'libel-proofness' can't be reliant solely on your own personal campaign to smear them. In other words, just because you say he's a creep does not mean he IS a creep, nor can you use your repeated stating that he's a creep to protect from being sued.

 

[Harvey sheckelburg]

The logic of it is escaping me. Wasn't funi's best defense the fact that there was only one truly defamatory tweet and that none of the other tards were acting as their agents? It would seem to me they would want to distance themselves and not tie their defense together.

Funi is creating a fall back position in the worst case scenario that most of their TCPA filing gets stuck for hearsay. I can also see them panicing when people start talking about having the IRS take a look at the indipendent contractor status of VAs.

 

[fat ugly sped]

View attachment 864955

They don't run any service. No one published any information through them. What the fuck is this fucking garbage? If I was the judge I would be personally offended by this shit.

It's probably a notice that they intend to raise this defense in the full trial, but put in before the TCPA motion hearing for some reason? Probably just shenanigans to try to confuse BHBH and waste their time before the TCPA motion hearings. "When you've got neither the facts nor the law, pound the table" and all that.

It's exceptional enough of a move to help build a case for sanctions (or increase the amount awarded with sanctions).

 

[PeruvianPerun]

The logic of it is escaping me. Wasn't funi's best defense the fact that there was only one truly defamatory tweet and that none of the other tards were acting as their agents? It would seem to me they would want to distance themselves and not tie their defense together.

Well, they do trying to distance themselves at page 3 using MoRons's depositions and Jamie's filing.