Notspecialdude
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 28, 2019
Eh... I doubt it will get as bad as the hearings. Most folks were pessimistic this time around and knew appeals were going to happen.
Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.
- Thread starter 5t3n0g0ph3r
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2019
So, looking over the ruling briefly.. Chupp changed his mind about using the unsworn declarations at all.
The whole thing just reads like he got his dick wrinkled about the late amendment to the petition
The whole thing just reads like he got his dick wrinkled about the late amendment to the petition
theworstkindofeurofag
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2019
Well, ty really did fuck up with the filing. Gotta be honest, maybe things would've gone a little bit differently if Ty hadn't been so sloppy. It doesn't matter eventually anyway. It'd have all gone to appeals either way.So, looking over the ruling briefly.. Chupp changed his mind about using the unsworn declarations at all.
The whole thing just reads like he got his dick wrinkled about the late amendment to the petition
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
That is... the most half-assed ruling I have ever seen. Is this normal? No citations tot he law, no saying how the prime facie case was failed to be met. Just "The court finds it to be true"?So, looking over the ruling briefly.. Chupp changed his mind about using the unsworn declarations at all.
The whole thing just reads like he got his dick wrinkled about the late amendment to the petition
Edit: I get that making a long thing ain't gonna fly for something as simple as a TCPA. But I figured he'd at least cite what section of the prime facie case he is claiming to have not been met.
Red Wizard
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
There's also contradictory logic in the opening - on Sept 3, we're going to accept your withdrawl of evidence, but on the same day we aren't going to allow you to resubmit it?
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2019
Seriously chupp?
The community at large is not actually in the suit and if anything the defendants sperging is the reason for the public concern.
The community at large is not actually in the suit and if anything the defendants sperging is the reason for the public concern.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
All charges being dismissed is one of the better outcomes from this shitshow for the time being, as it allows Vic to send it right up to appellate court. The only iffy bit is if the appellate court nails Ty on the second amended or some such.
And even then it'll end up going right back down to Chupp, who has shown he'll just make shit up to find the exact same way (see his galaxy brain take of "the US law doesn't overrule church law" mentioned earlier).
So yeah. The bad scenario -- a single charge being left behind -- was avoided. Onwards to appeals.
And even then it'll end up going right back down to Chupp, who has shown he'll just make shit up to find the exact same way (see his galaxy brain take of "the US law doesn't overrule church law" mentioned earlier).
So yeah. The bad scenario -- a single charge being left behind -- was avoided. Onwards to appeals.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2019
They hate Judges that don't give a damn that they constantly get overruled.
Yeah this is bar none the worst shit for the defendants. Appeals will SLAUGHTER it. The whole point of the hearing was to deem that it wasn't frivolous, not goddamn fact. I mean the Appeal is as simple as it gets.
"Your Honor please read this..."
@AnOminous didn't you state that Preponderance of the Evidence WASN'T needed here?
DumbDude42
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
ty status = exposed
vic status = destroyed
nick status = BTFO
lemoine status = laughing all the way to the bank
also everybody going "all charges dismissed is actually super good for vic and here's why" is coping super hard lmao
vic status = destroyed
nick status = BTFO
lemoine status = laughing all the way to the bank
also everybody going "all charges dismissed is actually super good for vic and here's why" is coping super hard lmao
Red Wizard
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2019
It screams of a Judge who has literally no clue what law he's applying. It's fine for him to apply a different evidentiary standard, but at least call it that.
You can't just substitute soy sauce for teriyaki and call it the same thing.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
We need a Law Kiwi to break this down for us. I am baffled, and have no idea if its because this is out of my knowledge depth or not. @AnOminous
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
So here's the question.
This is obviously going to appeals unless Vic is too defeated to keep fighting.
Is there a way to get Chupp recused from the case, or does it go right back to that fucking idiot in a few months?
This is obviously going to appeals unless Vic is too defeated to keep fighting.
Is there a way to get Chupp recused from the case, or does it go right back to that fucking idiot in a few months?
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2019
It's going back to this sour anus for the remainder of the case, unless he gives himself a hangman's necktie
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
Red Wizard
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
It'll go right back to him, since there's no basis to have him recused - that being said, he no longer will have direct influence like he does with the TCPA. It would be a jury deciding.
This document is just riddled with things that don't make sense: Accepting the withdrawal but not the resubmission of the same evidence, finding Vic to be a public figure even though the court can't pronounce his name correctly, the fact that he's considering the response to the motion to be an actual TCPA motion itself and very little citations as to how Vic failed to provide any evidence of anything.
Its almost as if Chupp is giving it to the appellate court.
This document is just riddled with things that don't make sense: Accepting the withdrawal but not the resubmission of the same evidence, finding Vic to be a public figure even though the court can't pronounce his name correctly, the fact that he's considering the response to the motion to be an actual TCPA motion itself and very little citations as to how Vic failed to provide any evidence of anything.
Its almost as if Chupp is giving it to the appellate court.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2017
The court 'Finding' things by the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Chupp literally has no idea what even is a TCPA. He literally thinks this was a summary judgement hearing.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
So, what we know: This is gonna go to appeals... probably win there, then go back to Chupp.
I do not have any faith in Ty Beard to not fuck it up, but as he is a professional he should, in theory at least, not repeat the same mistake of trying to play games way smarter than he is.
From there, it is a question of how Chupp takes appeals telling him "WTF"
Not... quite. From my understanding of TCPA, the Defense needs to make a case, by Preponderance of Evidence, that the case is frivilous. Then the Plaintiff gets to make a prima facie case that it is possibly not. A LawKiwi can correct me if I messed up, but that is my takeaway.
Emphasis mine. The text doesn't say limited purpose public figure, it just says "Public Figure". I can definitely see, and would even agree, to limited purpose... but the way it is phrased is if he determined Mignona to be a GENERAL purpose public figure.
I do not have any faith in Ty Beard to not fuck it up, but as he is a professional he should, in theory at least, not repeat the same mistake of trying to play games way smarter than he is.
From there, it is a question of how Chupp takes appeals telling him "WTF"
Not... quite. From my understanding of TCPA, the Defense needs to make a case, by Preponderance of Evidence, that the case is frivilous. Then the Plaintiff gets to make a prima facie case that it is possibly not. A LawKiwi can correct me if I messed up, but that is my takeaway.
Emphasis mine. The text doesn't say limited purpose public figure, it just says "Public Figure". I can definitely see, and would even agree, to limited purpose... but the way it is phrased is if he determined Mignona to be a GENERAL purpose public figure.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2019
One can actually hope that appelate court just rules on some things, period. Takes it out of Chupp's hands and then kicks it back to him and tells him to move on with the case beyond the TCPA
DinkyCowSow
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
Trial court rulings suck to read. Unless the judge is aiming to get a higher appointment or something, they very rarely throw in all the citations that you'd want. Par for the course, unfortunately.
It is possible to get Chupp excused from the case, but it's unlikely. If the appeals court overrules him, it goes right back to Chupp, and he procedes onto the next phase of the case. Which might be summary dismissal if the defendants make a motion for it. And if he makes a summary dismissal, it could go back to the appeals court. Or if the appellate court rules against plaintiff, but then Chupp grants an award that seems too high, it can go right back to the appellate. It's the ride that never ends!