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

[HTTP Error 404]

By the way, what does Ty need to do in this situation? Simply give to the court 3 notarized (not by him or his firm) affidavits that yes, we went to the BHBH and personally gave these testimony?

Nah, all he has to do is pull them before the court date on Friday.

You know... exactly what he did?

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Nah, all he has to do is pull them before the court date on Friday.

You know... exactly what he did?

Thats not entirely true, them having his stamp in the first place is a real problem.

 

[Mr. Zed da Robot Poon Fed]

Vic is pedophile! Vic molest children all the time! Vic preys on children! ..oh we are getting sued Vic doesn't molest children but he tried to have sex with legal twins and ate a jelly bean. I think he cheated on his wife as well.

Oh we can say anything in filings, since it's privileged. Well if you insist.
View attachment 920918

We’re talking about harassment, not abuse. Those two are different from each other. That was what the lawsuit was about.

If Vic was sexually abusing children publically, he would have been arrested and it in jail already.

 

[Legioneer]

Thats not entirely true, them having his stamp in the first place is a real problem.

But they don't have the documents themselves. If Ty withdraws documents from the electronic records system, do they have a right to try to prove anything on the basis of PDF?
Before the paper originals were transferred to the court, or the documents themselves used at the hearing?

 

[Br'er Rabbit]

Thats not entirely true, them having his stamp in the first place is a real problem.

I feel like i'm missing something. You're not supposed to notarize documents that you personally will benefit from, but in Texas, at least, you can notarize documents for your employer. Wouldn't that apply to this?

 

[HTTP Error 404]

I feel like i'm missing something. You're not supposed to notarize documents that you personally will benefit from, but as far as I can tell, in Texas, at least, you can notarize documents for your employer. Wouldn't that apply to this?

If Ty notorized documents for people in California and Japan, when he was physically in Texas... That's the problem.

 

[teriyakiburns]

If Ty notorized documents for people in California and Japan, when he was physically in Texas... That's the problem.

He didn't notarize anything for Erica.

 

[Garm]

I'm going to trust Ty on this.

Right now LawTwitter sounds like the pro Magic The Gathering people who win by rule and procedure lawyering rather that skill.

 

[Laundui_or_douchette?]

Also, holy shit Sam Johnson was reading my mind this entire weekend.

Right when I was writing this post wondering why Ty hadn't entered Jamie's hair-pulling tweet into evidence, he was drafting up the same point:

View attachment 920901
View attachment 920902

GET OUT OF MY HEAD YOU THOT-DEFENDING WIZARD.

Good thing Ty added those tweets last night in the amended complaint, but I don't like how my autism is syncing up with this guy's.

Sam Johnson confirmed to be reading the farms and getting legal tips.

 

[Tight pantaloons]

Can someone summarize Lemwaaaah's filing for me? I started reading but i just can't, the Fuhrer's writing is exhausting and just drains the life out of me how is he still working?

 

[HTTP Error 404]

I'm going to trust Ty on this.

Right now LawTwitter sounds like the pro Magic The Gathering people who win by rule and procedure lawyering rather that skill.

A win by rule and procedure is still a win.

 

[The Singer Of Songs]

Let's play this out a bit: Why would Ty, someone who has 20 years of full-on experience and has done affidavits and notarizing for eons, jeopardize a pretty solid case on a technical issue? IF you are certain in your work, you're not going to commit fraud in order to get ahead.

I find that a lot of what the other side spergs over seems so insignificant and small, and easily rectifiable. It makes me think that there is a very simple fix that has been put into place, and that once trial comes along, that the other side is going to end up getting sodomized with a law book.

If that makes me exceptional or optimistic, I'm ready for the label.

 

[Imperial Agent]

I'm going to trust Ty on this.

Right now LawTwitter sounds like the pro Magic The Gathering people who win by rule and procedure lawyering rather that skill.

I don’t know any of these people, it would be short sided to assume a man I’ve never met is honest just because the defendants are cunts.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

But they don't have the documents themselves. If Ty withdraws documents from the electronic records system, do they have a right to try to prove anything on the basis of PDF?
Before the paper originals were transferred to the court, or the documents themselves used at the hearing?

If he stamped them and the person wasn't there infront of him, thats fraud. Done. Period.

 

[Imperial Agent]

Let's play this out a bit: Why would Ty, someone who has 20 years of full-on experience and has done affidavits and notarizing for eons, jeopardize a pretty solid case on a technical issue? IF you are certain in your work, you're not going to commit fraud in order to get ahead.

I find that a lot of what the other side spergs over seems so insignificant and small, and easily rectifiable. It makes me think that there is a very simple fix that has been put into place, and that once trial comes along, that the other side is going to end up getting sodomized with a law book.

If that makes me exceptional or optimistic, I'm ready for the label.

Likewise, why would ALL of the defendants lawyers co-sign an allegation that opposing counsel committed fraud?

Someone did here, and we don’t have enough info to know for sure which one yet.

 

[Urbanmech]

Likewise, why would ALL of the defendants lawyers co-sign an allegation that opposing counsel committed fraud?

Someone did here, and we don’t have enough info to know for sure which one yet.

What is the other fraud besides Ty's?

 

[The Singer Of Songs]

Likewise, why would ALL of the defendants lawyers co-sign an allegation that opposing counsel committed fraud?

Someone did here, and we don’t have enough info to know for sure which one yet.

Because all of the defendants' attorneys are morons. And they realize exactly what will happen once all this comes at them on Friday. It means they lose TCPA, they lose potential money, and they have to have a protracted fight which will expose a fuckton more for each person.

It is literally a last gasp effort, and they are going all in because there is nothing left to lose. It's the way of the moron.

 

[Imperial Agent]

Because all of the defendants' attorneys are morons. And they realize exactly what will happen once all this comes at them on Friday. It means they lose TCPA, they lose potential money, and they have to have a protracted fight which will expose a fuckton more for each person.

It is literally a last gasp effort, and they are going all in because there is nothing left to lose. It's the way of the moron.

This is not your typical “all in”.

This is more than a Hail Mary. Accusations like this are very serious, and the fact that several attorneys all were willing to co-sign it should give you pause. If it doesn’t you’ve drank the kool-aid.

Don’t assume Ty didn’t mess up just because he’s More likable, the easiest way to get burned is to marry yourself to beliefs you can’t independently verify.

I lean towards believing Ty, but I’m not going to blindly accept he didn’t do anything wrong. There is cause for concern, and until I see the notaries verified, that concern will remain.

 

[Cakeisjustok]

I don’t know any of these people, it would be short sided to assume a man I’ve never met is honest just because the defendants are cunts.

I mean if it happened it could help them with the case, and if not it is very little negative ramifications for them. Low risk high reward.

 

[Legioneer]

I don’t know any of these people, it would be short sided to assume a man I’ve never met is honest just because the defendants are cunts.

The most important thing so far is that he's always been honest with the other party. And always came to a compromise and on the way of least resistance. For example, he notarized his own words, just to avoid an unnecessary argument, even knowing that he would win it. In this case, we cannot rule out the possibility that they misunderstood him.

He told them "Why should you try to chase this argument when it leads to a dead end". They figured it out so that they finally found vulnerability. But he had never lied to them before. So it's possible that they'll end up deadlocked.

If he stamped them and the person wasn't there infront of him, thats fraud. Done. Period.

Suppose the witnesses signed the document in his presence, but not on August 30. How should the proof that he is a fraud be built? In conditions when the original documents with "wet" seal are not available?