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

[Laundui_or_douchette?]

I think they're aware that they're in trouble. Anyone who loses their TCPA has to think there is a valid case against them, which is why they're doing what they can to prejudice the court itself against Vic. Jdolf, in particular--being a TCPA expert--has to realize the precarious position he's in: if he loses to Ty, it's likely he's not being paid at all, and as a TCPA expert he lost to a "novice". It's an ego thing at this point.

If J Dolf loses ANOTHER TCPA I don’t think his credibility as a TCPA expert will go down well with his Super lolyer colleagues.

 

[AnOminous]

I think they're aware that they're in trouble. Anyone who loses their TCPA has to think there is a valid case against them, which is why they're doing what they can to prejudice the court itself against Vic. Jdolf, in particular--being a TCPA expert--has to realize the precarious position he's in: if he loses to Ty, it's likely he's not being paid at all, and as a TCPA expert he lost to a "novice". It's an ego thing at this point.

Shouldn't he be used to losing TCPA motions by now? Maybe that's what he's an expert in. An expert at being a loser in TCPA motions.

 

[Urbanmech]

So the only thing people have found on him is 5 TCPA in appeal right now?

 

[774]

How in the fuck is filing your TCPA on the day of the extended deadline "timely"?

Uh, that's how deadlines work. Even if it's an extended deadline, as long as they don't wait until after that, it's timely by definition. The issue is whether anything after that can be timely, just because it happens to supplement something that is.

Why are they still harping on the twins story so much?

Because they're still trying to defame through the court as much as they can before they get slapped down, knowing full well this stuff is being given a platform it wouldn't have in almost any other case.

 

[Spectre_06]

Shouldn't he be used to losing TCPA motions by now? Maybe that's what he's an expert in. An expert at being a loser in TCPA motions.

To be fair, he just says he's a "TCPA expert". He never says he's a successful TCPA expert,

 

[RodgerDodger]

I think much of the hearing is going to focus on the motions to strike. Chupp asked for an extremely detailed list of everything in all of the evidentiary filings, mainly affidavits, matrixed with the arguments for striking them, and a checklist style form for deciding whether or not to strike them.

There's no reason for him to request creating such a time consuming thing if he thinks all that crap is admissible.

I don't expect much on the defamation per se claims other than strict legal argument, though, because once Vic provided his prima facie evidence of falsehood of the defamatory statements, there is no affirmative defense of truth. If the jury believes his sworn statement that the events didn't happen, they didn't happen. So all of the defense's arguments on that point are irrelevant to anything, and since they're irrelevant, so are the exhibits supporting them.

The plaintiff has already met that burden. van der Linden v. Khan is very clear about that at least as it relates to Rial. Marchi's is a little trickier and I wouldn't rule out that TCPA quite yet.

The conspiracy claims remain the most problematic to me but we'll get some idea what Chupp thinks about that at the hearing.

What are the odds Ty attempts to slap Lemonfuhrer down with a motion for sanctions regarding suborning of perjury for those oh so legit affidavits?

 

[AnOminous]

What are the odds Ty attempts to slap Lemonfuhrer down with a motion for sanctions regarding suborning of perjury for those oh so legit affidavits?

Unlikely.

 

[Urbanmech]

To be fair, he just says he's a "TCPA expert". He never says he's a successful TCPA expert,

I always forget how different military to civilian standards are.

 

[774]

Funimations response to motion to strike

Good lord, are all the responses going to be the day before the plaintiff's deadline, just to try to bury them under more shit they have no time left to answer? It's strange, since the defendants' own deadline isn't for almost another week, four days after the plaintiff's, so it shouldn't matter, right? But it is a bit suspicious to me.

 

[NotaLolyer]

Shouldn't he be used to losing TCPA motions by now? Maybe that's what he's an expert in. An expert at being a loser in TCPA motions.

He’s an expert at begging judges to side with him with jibberish letters and filings. This filing basically read as please judge I read somewhere there were over 300 rulings. I didn’t really read them but trust me I’m an expert and I have a blog where I’ll write about this if the court wants to challenge my subpar writings I’ll threaten you with this appeal (that my clients can’t afford but I’ll tell you it’s possible).

 

[Francis York Morgan]

I think they're aware that they're in trouble. Anyone who loses their TCPA has to think there is a valid case against them, which is why they're doing what they can to prejudice the court itself against Vic. Jdolf, in particular--being a TCPA expert--has to realize the precarious position he's in: if he loses to Ty, it's likely he's not being paid at all, and as a TCPA expert he lost to a "novice". It's an ego thing at this point.

Maybe it's also him feeling that the end is near. It'll be fun to see what gets him first - the virus or Texas court system closing the loopholes he abuses for his "TCPA Expert" status.

 

[I can't imagine]

Shouldn't he be used to losing TCPA motions by now? Maybe that's what he's an expert in. An expert at being a loser in TCPA motions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no rule requiring you to actually be an expert in anything as an attorney to declare yourself an expert, right?

 

[774]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no rule requiring you to actually be an expert in anything as an attorney to declare yourself an expert, right?

Pretty sure it's misrepresentation if it isn't true. Sure, you can technically practice in any area, but AFAIK, you're supposed to know the limits of your expertise, and especially not lie to clients or prospective clients about it, which is the sort of thing a bar association or ethical responsibility board or whatever it is in one's state does not like to see.

 

[I can't imagine]

Pretty sure it's misrepresentation if it isn't true. Sure, you can technically practice in any area, but AFAIK, you're supposed to know the limits of your expertise, and especially not lie to clients or prospective clients about it, which is the sort of thing a bar association or ethical responsibility board or whatever it is in one's state does not like to see.

Some professional fields are pretty loose with the use of the term expert, so I actually wasn't sure. I suppose it makes sense, given that the governing bodies for lawyers tend to be a lot more concrete in their rules.

 

[774]

Some professional fields are pretty loose with the use of the term expert, so I actually wasn't sure. I suppose it makes sense, given that the governing bodies for lawyers tend to be a lot more concrete in their rules.

I know Nick has made a point of not using that particular word for lawyers. I forget what exactly the issue is. It might be that it's reserved for witnesses or whatever, or it might be because of ethical difficulties.

 

[BaldBoomerBoy]

Some professional fields are pretty loose with the use of the term expert, so I actually wasn't sure. I suppose it makes sense, given that the governing bodies for lawyers tend to be a lot more concrete in their rules.

So why hasn't anyone filed a complaint about it yet? You would figure claiming to be an expert and consistently failing to succeed in the claimed field of expertise would've been noticed by a client by now and reported to the board.

 

[774]

So why hasn't anyone filed a complaint about it yet? You would figure claiming to be an expert and consistently failing to succeed in the claimed field of expertise would've been noticed by a client by now and reported to the board.

Just wait until this case is over. If MoRonica are going to file ethics complaints like we think they might anyway, maybe complaining about the TCPA incompetence will be in the mix.

 

[Urbanmech]

So why hasn't anyone filed a complaint about it yet? You would figure claiming to be an expert and consistently failing to succeed in the claimed field of expertise would've been noticed by a client by now and reported to the board.

isn't all his cases still on appeal? I mean until those start getting shot down permanently don't think anyone will complain.

 

[I can't imagine]

I know Nick has made a point of not using that particular word for lawyers. I forget what exactly the issue is. It might be that it's reserved for witnesses or whatever, or it might be because of ethical difficulties.

After this, I looked into this a bit. Based on some cursory research, there doesn't seem to be a consistent policy across the country on this. At least in my state, you can call yourself an expert, but there are specifically outlined requirements (certifcation, minimum #/% of hours, etc.) in order to hold yourself out as an expert; it seems to be more-or-less synonymous with specialist here. For Texas, you can apparently use the term in advertising as long as it isn't "misrepresentation", though I can't find a specific description of what qualifies as misrepresenting. I'm sure people with actual knowledge of TX ethics rules could answer with more certainty than that, though.

 

[AnOminous]

Pretty sure it's misrepresentation if it isn't true. Sure, you can technically practice in any area, but AFAIK, you're supposed to know the limits of your expertise, and especially not lie to clients or prospective clients about it, which is the sort of thing a bar association or ethical responsibility board or whatever it is in one's state does not like to see.

It's like the Super Lawyer term. It isn't inherently deceptive but if you make such a claim as some kind of guarantee of specific results or as a misrepresentation of your record, it could be covered under professional conduct rules similar to the Model Rules, e.g., Rule 7.1: Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services.