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

[instythot]

I work with and use notaries all the time. It's virtually impossible to fuck up aside from signing in the wrong place or whatever.

And yet, this happened. Never underestimate the ways people can manage to fuck up the simplest of tasks, especially when it counts

 

[Reverend]

What? But Phoenix Wright taught me that every tiny mistake could lose the case. Are you telling me pop-culture isn't a good place to learn law? I can't handle that truth.

The "Law and Order" TV show is how the real world works. Even to and including all those awesome sounds when people done fucked up.

Dontcha know that? Everyone on Twitter does...sheesh.

 

[fat ugly sped]

@Animegate19 posted this in the main Weeb Wars thread (link) but I'm going to add it here because it's a legal filing and I've been linking all of the Index entries to this thread.

Here's An Lee Hsu's profile on his firm's website: http://www.martinezhsu.com/index.php/attorney/an-lee-hsu/

My quick take is that Ty might want some additional hands on deck, particularly if he feels strapped for time and that his latest filings suffered and came out sloppy because they've got too many other cases on their plate. It could also signal that they're going to bring in Igor and Iago soon and anticipate the need for additional personnel for that reason as well. @Ivan Shatov has a different take (link) and thinks that BHBH may be bringing on someone with some specialty in employment laws to go after FUNimation. Regardless, it's likely to be interesting.

Specifically with respect to employment law and Funimation, there's an open legal question of whether Funimation's voice acting contracts make their voice actors "agents" of the company. Also, there's an argument to be made that their VAs are misclassified as contractors instead of employees, but you have to make the argument and you'd likely want someone who's had those arguments before.

 

[Legioneer]

The state presses charges all the time my dude. You don't always need a victim to press charges. I'm not saying that will happen here, but that's rather irrelevant to the case anyway. What is relevant is possible sanctions for misconduct and the judge looking poorly on Ty.

Now you're starting to get close to something, but there are still many steps left.
The key question is who suffered presumable damage in a particular situation. You are making generalizations (like Jay M. Wolman in the picture below). You need to look more at specifics. Just because something happens doesn't mean it happens all the time, nor does it mean that it' s the only possible scenario. And it doesn't mean that you can apply it where and when you want. The state will not be a plaintiff if you have taken a valuable thing from a friend's home without his permission, and if he decided not to press charges.

 

[Techno-primitivist]

And yet, this happened. Never underestimate the ways people can manage to fuck up the simplest of tasks, especially when it counts

How do you unintentionally "fuck up" signing a notarized affidavit without the affiant present? Do you walk on a banana peel and accidentally, in your stumble, manage to sign and stamp the paper wit your notary stamp?

How do you "fuck up" signing and stamping an affidavit without the affiant present, when your signature and stamp are litteraly next to a text saying this:

 

[instythot]

How do you unintentionally "fuck up" signing a notarized affidavit without the affiant present? Do you walk on a banana peel and accidentally, in your stumble, manage to sign and stamp the paper wit your notary stamp?

How do you "fuck up" signing and stamping an affidavit without the affiant present, when your signature and stamp are litteraly next to a text saying this:

Here's a scenario:

Several paras and juniors feverishly working in a shared document approaching 1200 pages in length. One of them raises "would this be better notarized? What do you think?" , and drops the text into the notary form/pile in case. Someone else says "ah, we don't need that" but fails to remove the prepped documents. Deadline approaches and someone else notices "Hey Ty, there's some stuff in here that needs a notary stamp. Is it ok if you stamp it?"

Ty, under deadline pressure and thinking about not only this case says "sure I guess" . Lemon Hitler finds the docs, freaks out, Ty asks paras and juniors what happened and says "ah, fuck. Well, we need to be more careful guys. Put together the unsworn versions we should have submitted"

 

[Techno-primitivist]

Here's a scenario:

Several paras and juniors feverishly working in a shared document approaching 1200 pages in length. One of them raises "would this be better notarized? What do you think?" , and drops the text into the notary form/pile in case. Someone else says "ah, we don't need that" but fails to remove the prepped documents. Deadline approaches and someone else notices "Hey Ty, there's some stuff in here that needs a notary stamp. Is it ok if you stamp it?"

Ty, under deadline pressure and thinking about not only this case says "sure I guess" . Lemon Hitler finds the docs, freaks out, Ty asks paras and juniors what happened and says "ah, fuck. Well, we need to be more careful guys. Put together the unsworn versions we should have submitted"

You don't get it do you? In your scenario he intentionally notarize a document when he should not have been.

Texas Government Code:
Sec. 406.009. REJECTION OF APPOINTMENT; SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF COMMISSION.

• (a) The secretary of state may, for good cause, reject an application or suspend or revoke the commission of a notary public.
• (b) An action by the secretary of state under this section is subject to the rights of notice, hearing, adjudication, and appeal.
• (c) An appeal under this section is to the district court of Travis County. The secretary of state has the burden of proof, and the trial is conducted de novo.
• (d) In this section, "good cause" includes:
  • (1) a false statement knowingly made in an application;
  • (2) the failure to comply with Section 406.017;
  • (3) a final conviction for a violation of a law concerning the regulation of the conduct of notaries public in this or another state;
  • (4) the imposition on the notary public of an administrative, criminal, or civil penalty for a violation of a law or rule prescribing the duties of a notary public; or
  • (5) performing any notarization when the person for whom the notarization is performed did not personally appear before the notary at the time the notarization is executed.
• (e) The following may not be considered a conviction for the purposes of determining eligibility and good cause:
  • (1) a dismissal of a proceeding against the defendant and discharge of the defendant before an adjudication of guilt; and
  • (2) a finding of guilt that has been set aside.

 

[AStupidMonkey]

How do you unintentionally "fuck up" signing a notarized affidavit without the affiant present? Do you walk on a banana peel and accidentally, in your stumble, manage to sign and stamp the paper wit your notary stamp?

How do you "fuck up" signing and stamping an affidavit without the affiant present, when your signature and stamp are litteraly next to a text saying this:

Here's a scenario:

Several paras and juniors feverishly working in a shared document approaching 1200 pages in length. One of them raises "would this be better notarized? What do you think?" , and drops the text into the notary form/pile in case. Someone else says "ah, we don't need that" but fails to remove the prepped documents. Deadline approaches and someone else notices "Hey Ty, there's some stuff in here that needs a notary stamp. Is it ok if you stamp it?"

Ty, under deadline pressure and thinking about not only this case says "sure I guess" . Lemon Hitler finds the docs, freaks out, Ty asks paras and juniors what happened and says "ah, fuck. Well, we need to be more careful guys. Put together the unsworn versions we should have submitted"

You're giving this dude a bit much credit. His last argument got BTFO'd, so he's back to take another blind stab at it.

We don't even know (nor do we have particularly good reason to suspect) the affiants weren't present for the notarization.

Assuming no shenanigans, it's a good idea to replace them because Ty wouldn't want to get called as a witness in his own case.

Other theories include: Ty retained a notarized and unnotarized version, and the wrong one got put in. Or that it's a big-brained bluff that caused Lemwah's recent sperg-out.

 

[instythot]

You don't get it do you? In your scenario he intentionally notarize a document when he should not have been.

Texas Government Code:
Sec. 406.009. REJECTION OF APPOINTMENT; SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF COMMISSION.

• (a) The secretary of state may, for good cause, reject an application or suspend or revoke the commission of a notary public.
• (b) An action by the secretary of state under this section is subject to the rights of notice, hearing, adjudication, and appeal.
• (c) An appeal under this section is to the district court of Travis County. The secretary of state has the burden of proof, and the trial is conducted de novo.
• (d) In this section, "good cause" includes:
  • (1) a false statement knowingly made in an application;
  • (2) the failure to comply with Section 406.017;
  • (3) a final conviction for a violation of a law concerning the regulation of the conduct of notaries public in this or another state;
  • (4) the imposition on the notary public of an administrative, criminal, or civil penalty for a violation of a law or rule prescribing the duties of a notary public; or
  • (5) performing any notarization when the person for whom the notarization is performed did not personally appear before the notary at the time the notarization is executed.
• (e) The following may not be considered a conviction for the purposes of determining eligibility and good cause:
  • (1) a dismissal of a proceeding against the defendant and discharge of the defendant before an adjudication of guilt; and
  • (2) a finding of guilt that has been set aside.

Right, those are the statutes and guidelines.

You are not taking into account how an office works or how people will skip steps like researching basic items or stopping to read and understand what they're signing when a deadline is approaching, especially when they're still in the office at midnight and tired and possibly a notary who doesn't do a whole lot of notarizing. This is how the mistakes and accidents happen, and is a really easy charitable read of the situation.

 

[solidcloud]

Long time lurker here, just a newfag, but is it the consensus that no matter what the Judge rules, either side will end up appealing?

 

[2lolis1cup]

And yet, this happened. Never underestimate the ways people can manage to fuck up the simplest of tasks, especially when it counts

Like theoretically forgetting you need a special license to notarize remotely.

I hate to wade into Stamp drama after I denounced it, but I really think people are overplaying the competency of a single person.

Ty from what I can tell has been focused heavily recently on a different case being heard in front of a judge these past couple weeks. The fact that a senor attorney would be involved in vic's case solely is a silly idea. He most likely pawned off all grunt work to lower attorneys in his employ and signed off on final draft. The attorneys probably said something along the lines of "this needs to be notarized". Ty being a forgetful boomer probably notarized them when he legally couldn't. When it was pointed out he couldn't legally notarize them, he withdrew them.

I get no feeling of malice or deception from Ty's actions or statements.

• Does he get a slap on the wrist and talking to by the judge? Maybe

• Does he lose the case? Not unless the judge likes being appealed.

• Does he get a few ethics violations complaints? Without a doubt.

 

[fat ugly sped]

Frequently Asked Questions for Notaries Public

Frequently Asked Questions for Notaries Public

www.sos.state.tx.us

Claiming a notary wasn't present for a notarization is such a common chickenshit move that the Texas notary FAQ has a specific section dedicated to how they don't investigate that shit unless you have both been personally harmed by the notarization and have personal knowledge of their misconduct, and they specifically call out "unsupported allegations regarding the geographic location of the notaries and signers" as something they give zero fucks about.

 

[AStupidMonkey]

Right, those are the statutes and guidelines.

You are not taking into account how an office works or how people will skip steps like researching basic items or stopping to read and understand what they're signing when a deadline is approaching, especially when they're still in the office at midnight and tired and possibly a notary who doesn't do a whole lot of notarizing. This is how the mistakes and accidents happen, and is a really easy charitable read of the situation.

Also, if you read what he quoted (as I'm certain he didn't) these are causes to revoke Ty's notary commission, temporarily or permanently. OH NO, IF TY LOSES HIS NOTARY PUBLIC, HE LOSES THE CASE!

Who the hell cares?

 

[Techno-primitivist]

Other theories include: Ty retained a notarized and unnotarized version, and the wrong one got put in. Or that it's a big-brained bluff that caused Lemwah's recent sperg-out.

Yeah, jeopardizing your notary public appointment just to make some other lawyer sperg out is really so big brained 6D level chess. Congrats.

Right, those are the statutes and guidelines.

You are not taking into account how an office works or how people will skip steps like researching basic items or stopping to read and understand what they're signing when a deadline is approaching, especially when they're still in the office at midnight and tired and possibly a notary who doesn't do a whole lot of notarizing. This is how the mistakes and accidents happen, and is a really easy charitable read of the situation.

No, you don't understand how notarizing documents work. If your office is organized in the way you describe to notarize documents, then your license should be revoked, because every time your notary public is signing and stamping those documents he's breaking the rules. The "but this is how office works" argument is not gonna be of any help the day your notary public will be sued by someone he caused harm after having notarized a document he shouldn't have.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Look, all that likely comes of this is that it rightfully harms Ty's reputation infront of Chupp, thats not the end of the case most likely, move on.

 

[Legioneer]

Long time lurker here, just a newfag, but is it the consensus that no matter what the Judge rules, either side will end up appealing?

If the plaintiff loses, he'll appeal. About the defendants personally I don't know. In my opinion, anything is possible.

 

[Techno-primitivist]

Also, if you read what he quoted (as I'm certain he didn't) these are causes to revoke Ty's notary commission, temporarily or permanently. OH NO, IF TY LOSES HIS NOTARY PUBLIC, HE LOSES THE CASE!

Who the hell cares?

This is a thread about the lawsuit. And law nerds will care. I'm sorry that making fun of exceptionalism on both side is making you so butthurt.

Is this gamergate 3.0?

 

[fat ugly sped]

Long time lurker here, just a newfag, but is it the consensus that no matter what the Judge rules, either side will end up appealing?

IIRC, if the motion is granted in part and denied in part, then there's some procedural issues that prevent an appeal of the TCPA motion from being reviewed until after the trial has concluded, but I don't remember the specifics of it.

 

[AStupidMonkey]

Yeah, jeopardizing your notary public appointment just to make some other lawyer sperg out is really so big brained 6D level chess. Congrats.

What's your point? That Ty wasted the $50 $21 application fee? Which probably won't even happen, because literally who cares? Good grief.

Posts like this need an extra exceptional rating. I dub it: autisti-dumb-at-the-internet!

 

[instythot]

The "but this is how office works" argument is not gonna be of any help the day your notary public will be sued by someone he caused harm after having notarized a document he shouldn't have.

And a whole lot of places have just horrendous paper flow and only clean things up when they get in trouble. See: the entire government