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

[Hoss]

The judge can make any sanction that he thinks will deter Vic from filing a similar lawsuit in the future if this does not make it past TCPA. I doubt he can take the money from the GoFundMe, but can he fine Vic whatever he estimates is left in it if he wanted to be cheeky, or he could just fine the total that was donated.

I don't think that's likely, but judges have vast discretion.

Yeah that's practically an impeachable offence, and Ty has a partner that is a fucking Senator...

 

[AnOminous]

He goes A Mea Culpa and the defense goes apeshit. Chupp is also under a time frame he CANNOT extend unless permitted by law. He doesn't rule by Oct 3rd the TCPA gets tossed.

I mean fuck, this is why it required a Prima Facie case with a "preponderance of the evidence", not "clear and specific" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence.

This is about completely backwards.

A preponderance of the evidence is exactly what it doesn't need. That's a trial standard. That means all the evidence available. You don't need all the evidence available.

"Clear and specific evidence" is any amount of evidence and establishes a prima facie case. That's all you have to present.

 

[lawtwitterthrowaway]

Yeah that's practically an impeachable offence, and Ty has a partner that is a fucking Senator...

http://ia802603.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.130.0.pdf

Therefore, the Court awards attorney’s fees and costs in the sum of $40,659.86 to Doe: $36,150.00 for Pietz’s attorney’s fees; $1,950.00 for Ranallo’s attorney’s fees; $2,226.26 for Pietz’s costs; and $333.60 for Ranallo’s costs. As a punitive measure, the Court doubles this award, yielding $81,319.72. 5
5 This punitive portion is calculated to be just below the cost of an effective appeal.

Judges have vast discretion.

 

[Gehenna]

http://ia802603.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.130.0.pdf

Judges have vast discretion.

Notice, the thing you quote bases its punitive damages off the fees paid back. Basing the punitive damages off something unrelated (Like the GoFundMe) would be a no no.

 

[lawtwitterthrowaway]

Notice, the thing you quote bases its punitive damages off the fees paid back. Basing the punitive damages off something unrelated (Like the GoFundMe) would be a no no.

I have to admit, I don't really know what would be a bridge too far, legally speaking. Nevertheless, I wouldn't really be planning on sanctions at this stage of the lawsuit anyways. The real threat to the GFM is the fact that between paying Ty and company, and preparing to pay attorney's fees, Vic is likely to already be paying out of pocket.

 

[Hoss]

http://ia802603.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.130.0.pdf

Judges have vast discretion.

This is correct but Chupp is a State Judge in Texas, not a Federal Judge. He can't get away what those fuckers can get away with. (IE Federal Judges are judges until they die, he goes through elections). Being a Federal Judge is having a golden ticket to Assholeville.

This is about completely backwards.

A preponderance of the evidence is exactly what it doesn't need. That's a trial standard. That means all the evidence available. You don't need all the evidence available.

"Clear and specific evidence" is any amount of evidence and establishes a prima facie case. That's all you have to present.

You're correct. My bad.

I take issue with the fact that "A Preponderance of the Evidence" WILL be needed on this matter yet a stupid law blocks that ability to get said evidence AND the judge has full discretion of what is Prima Facie and what is not, It's an objective requirement with a subjective definition...even though they try to establish "legal standards", those standards are subjective themselves. I mean SHIT, this law gives judges extreme amount of power to potentially abuse. The last thing the court system needs is more damn appeals for a law that is unconstitutional to begin with.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

Notice, the thing you quote bases its punitive damages off the fees paid back. Basing the punitive damages off something unrelated (Like the GoFundMe) would be a no no.

The judge can base his damages on whatever he thinks will be enough to stop another lawsuit like this if he rejects it at TCPA stage.

The judge in that case (the Prenda Law cases were hilarious to follow back in the day) thought that doubling the fees that were paid to the other lawyers would be enough. So... assuming that each party's defense has cost them a minimum of 100k, then we are looking at at total minimum of 300k in fees. If Chupp uses the same logic, then it's an aditional 300k minimum in sanctions. More if the defendants paid more (this is also assuming that Chupp continues to dismiss the few remaining claims).

If the judge instead looks and sees that Vic might not have originally sued if it weren't for the GFM, then the judge could instead make Vic pay sanctions just of the total raised by the GFM, under the thought that it would be hard for him to raise double that money for a second lawsuit.

These are extreme cases, but not unheard of. It's also normal for judges to slice some fees off the top of whatever defendants say the lawsuit cost them to avoid looking like they are rubber stamping them.

 

[NotaLolyer]

I would agree with this if it wasn't a TCPA hearing. It would be prudent to take the oral rulings as wrote until the written rulings are filed.
The fact there is no filed ruling and the mediation order requires ALL parties to partake does indicate his rulings are not final.

In any other civil case his word would have been absolute, but Anti-SLAPP is a different beast entirely. From the looks of it, the TCPA takes absolute precedence here and dictates what an official ruling is. (It's also unconstitutional as shit because it specifically dictates that the Court deny the Plaintiff their right for a Civil Jury trial if they don't meet the "Prima Facie" requirements, which is subjective as hell. This is why the 7th Amendment exists. Pretty damn straightforward amendment that everyone, including the states, tends to forget. If the TCPA was decided via Jury, it would satisfy this amendment.)

Specifically I also want to question that the divorce in this case law is a ruling or a decree? Decrees are treated differently in other states. Also this isn't a "Trial Court" yet. A Verdict is WAY harder to appeal than a Ruling.
When a Jury makes a decision, the judgement is practically final with an exception of a mistrial or the judge nullifies the verdict.



Oh I know their appeal would be fucked, but it's still a damn time sink.

I still can not find a definitive citation for Tarrant County on final rulings, at TCPA level specifically as there are plenty of others for non TCPA that would probably apply but due to the 7th amendment the TCPA is all out broken garbage shit water served in a cup that the sun promised to clear up eventually.

Any way you look at it, it’s shit water none the less and should go away... Ty should be a man of his word and take that up on contingency to the Supreme Court and shut down idiots like Lemonfurher who essentially work on “well it doesn’t say we can’t and there hasn’t been a ruling out of all these rulings even though no one challenged it, so let’s throw this shit together”

It does the opposite of what it wants to accomplish.

 

[Hoss]

I still can not find a definitive citation for Tarrant County on final rulings, at TCPA level specifically as there are plenty of others for non TCPA that would probably apply but due to the 7th amendment the TCPA is all out broken garbage shit water served in a cup that the sun promised to clear up eventually.

Any way you look at it, it’s shit water none the less and should go away... Ty should be a man of his word and take that up on contingency to the Supreme Court and shut down idiots like Lemonfurher who essentially work on “well it doesn’t say we can’t and there hasn’t been a ruling out of all these rulings even though no one challenged it, so let’s throw this shit together”

It does the opposite of what it wants to accomplish.

It's honestly a law that makes lawsuits harder to accomplish period because it ALWAYS favors the defendant once it's filed. "Defending First Amendment Rights" is a load of horseshit because the First Amendment doesn't implicitly "defend" free speech, it prevents Congress from infringing upon citizen opinions, religions, and regulation of the Press. No where does it say Congress must "defend" free speech. Anti-SLAPP does exactly that. It defends Libel and Slander out the gate. Not only that but as I've said a dozen times before and as you have said, it's blatantly unconstitutional. Couple that with Warren's legal definition of Malice (New York Times Co. v Sullivan) and it makes Libel and Slander fucking IMPOSSIBLE to litigate against. I agree that Free Speech is a right, but outright defending baseless and malicious slander as a right is PURE bullshit. Especially when it ruins someone's life.

 

[A_throwaway_name62919]

The real threat to the GFM... Vic is likely to already be paying out of pocket.

That's not a threat, that's an expected eventuality. Vic was already looking to sue before Nick contacted him or set up the GFM. The GFM is merely a means for his fans to support him, and is essentially a luxury that helps defray some of the expected costs of the litigation necessary to clear his name and hold those who have defamed him accountable. It's existence was never a requirement for Vic to sue, nor would it being depleted be grounds for him to halt. Vic paying out of his own pocket for the suit is something he was expecting to do at the start, and something he'll have been expecting to still occur at some point. Furthermore Vic paying out of pocket doesn't mean that the GFM is gone or harmed. As long as the lawsuit continues there's no reason to close it, and even if donations slow to a trickle that's still support that helps defray his costs.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

Transcript for the hearing has been released. Chupp offers some thoughts.

He acknowledges that sometimes the appellate court overrules him.

He also hints that if things are appealed he'll be seeing people in 3 months, but he is talking to Marchi's lawyer at that point. Who has more familiarity with the rules for appeals in Texas? If they can appeal Marchi immediately and independent of the other defendants, then this probably means nothing. If they have to wait for the whole case to be over to appeal Marchi, then the judge may have just hinted that he's dismissing everything.

He also seems to be telling everyone to be checking over their shoulders - it looks like the threats have had a serious impact on him.

 

[Hoss]

Transcript for the hearing has been released. Chupp offers some thoughts.

He acknowledges that sometimes the appellate court overrules him.

He also hints that if things are appealed he'll be seeing people in 3 months, but he is talking to Marchi's lawyer at that point. Who has more familiarity with the rules for appeals in Texas? If they can appeal Marchi immediately and independent of the other defendants, then this probably means nothing. If they have to wait for the whole case to be over to appeal Marchi, then the judge may have just hinted that he's dismissing everything.

He also seems to be telling everyone to be checking over their shoulders - it looks like the threats have had a serious impact on him.

So...."Settle this stupid shit or take it to Appeals I'm done with this retardation for now. See ya at Christmas"

 

[fat ugly sped]

It's honestly a law that makes lawsuits harder to accomplish period because it ALWAYS favors the defendant once it's filed. "Defending First Amendment Rights" is a load of horseshit because the First Amendment doesn't implicitly "defend" free speech, it prevents Congress from infringing upon citizen opinions, religions, and regulation of the Press. No where does it say Congress must "defend" free speech. Anti-SLAPP does exactly that. It defends Libel and Slander out the gate. Not only that but as I've said a dozen times before and as you have said, it's blatantly unconstitutional. Couple that with Warren's legal definition of Malice (New York Times Co. v Sullivan) and it makes Libel and Slander fucking IMPOSSIBLE to litigate against. I agree that Free Speech is a right, but outright defending baseless and malicious slander as a right is PURE bullshit. Especially when it ruins someone's life.

Civil court is run by the government, so first amendment protections can and do include protection from civil court procedures that stifle free speech rights.

Like, I agree that the TCPA is a stretch, but "your first amendment rights include protection from civil court overreach" is settled law via New York Times vs Sullivan (among other cases)

 

[Padoru]

can somebody post the transcripts? The Drunken bird didn't and Low T. Greg block chains like the faggot he always was so i can't even try to find them

 

[BigDuckEnergy]

Are you faggots asleep or just too busy getting trolled...

 

[Hoss]

Civil court is run by the government, so first amendment protections can and do include protection from civil court procedures that stifle free speech rights.

Like, I agree that the TCPA is a stretch, but "your first amendment rights include protection from civil court overreach" is settled law via New York Times vs Sullivan (among other cases)

I've already brought up New York Times v Sullivan.. it's fucking retarded. Warren establishing a legal definition for Malice makes the fucking ruling EXTREMELY easy to fucking outmanuver. One is exactly what the NYT did. They claimed ignorance and won. Warren was pretty damn apt at changing his fucking mind RIGHT after he fucked up case law asunder.

 

[Padoru]

Are you faggots asleep or just too busy getting trolled...

thanks for providing us with the goods.

So in conclusion Chupp actually got scared by some faggot being just that. That much is fine some people are like that they get scared easily by dumb shit.

But the Crux seems to truly be what people suspected. He'd rather this case just end here and now and with how he addressed it probably wasn't gonna dismiss anything else.

Of course little does he know that the only possible settlement is "Everybody pays their own legal fees and we go back to how life was before 2019. Everybody apologizes to everybody and we just ignore each other beyond necessary work issues" and that will never happen because as i previously pointed out: This only benefits Vic

 

[Dumb Bitch Smoothie]

So they aren't gonna settle, and Chupp is gonna dismiss shit.

My initial assessment of nothingburger seems correct but I'm pretty sure it'll get appealed.

 

[I can't imagine]

Are you faggots asleep or just too busy getting trolled...

Well, what I take away from that is that:

1. Chupp seems to be taking the "threats" seriously, and thinks that the threats might extend to the counsel, defendants or plaintiff.

2. Chupp seems very aware that his ruling may be overturned on appeal, and seems to suggest this is a likely outcome.

Am I crazy, or...are these things that a judge really shouldn't be saying out loud in a meeting with legal counsel?

 

[X Prime]

So they aren't gonna settle, and Chupp is gonna dismiss shit.

My initial assessment of nothingburger seems correct but I'm pretty sure it'll get appealed.

What's interesting is, wouldn't saying to Marchi's lawyer "see ya soon", show that he thinks the appeal would succeed?