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

Spectre_06 said:
A judge has a requirement to familiarize himself with the case at hand, and the relevant law. This portion of the ruling says he did neither.

View attachment 959191
Click to expand...
Just noticed that they misspell "liability" two times. But they spell it correctly once in between those two. As if the content itself wasn't enough that this was shit out the day of.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: 7proxy, NotaLolyer and Legioneer
TherapyMan said:
The statute doesn't require that (point me to where it's written in the statute, and I'll gladly concede this point), most cases certainly are not dismissed with prejudice, and cases dismissed for lack of jurisdiction would almost certainly be dismissed with prejudice because the defect is incurable.
Click to expand...

By definition it's a decision on the merits, and that is with prejudice. It's inherently a finding that the suit is meritless, and entitles the defendant to costs and attorney's fees and sanctions, which strongly implies it has to be with prejudice, because these are all things generally done after a final judgment.

quickthrowaway said:
Just noticed that they misspell "liability" two times. But they spell it correctly once in between those two. As if the content itself wasn't enough that this was shit out the day of.
Click to expand...

As if this asshole couldn't underscore it even more (and put it in bold too) that he is just too lazy to do his job and is throwing a temper tantrum.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Kosher Salt, GenericReviewerDraco, Exterminatus and 6 others
Harvey Danger said:
Slightly different take: this is Chupp trying to outsource the proper disposition of TCPA.

Chupp realized after the hearing that everything was fucked, but he already made some rulings, and couldn't come up with anything consistent. Mediation was a long shot that no one had faith in.

So he blanket dismissed everything, and (reasonably) figured the stuff that should have passed TCPA would come back down from appeals. No need for reasoning, citations, or following the intricacies of the TCPA; that becomes someone else's problem, and he'll get back a list of "proper" causes of action to proceed on.

I didn't think this accusation was supportable based on what we had before now, but this ruling is pretty blatantly passing the buck. It doesn't make sense for him to write out a full justification for his rulings, since appeals are de novo review and that second look is inevitable.

You can read this as Chupp trying to "do the right thing" and get a corrected suit going, but it's still him not putting in the work to do this properly at the trial level.
Click to expand...
Or alternatively, he's a lazy fuck who doesn't want to do his job so he wants the superior court to do it for him.


I wonder if Judge Chump can be reamed with another writ of mandamus. His lawhole is probably gaping from the previous ones so he might not feel it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco and 7proxy
www.youtube.com

Forum Weapon: Anakin Skywalker- This Is Where The Fun Begins!

Oh, Anakin. From Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith. Fun fact, made this video because of Honest Trailers.
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
This was a few weeks coming. Now we bear the full force of Law Twitter and KickVic and visit the appeals court as we witness the fake news dance in victory.

A sane law system has a midpoint from letting Jonathan Yaniv theoretically rake in millions from people calling him a pedo despite him attending city council meetings to fund topless swim parties for teenagers and a case like this where you can be slandered as a rapist and have your life and career be destroyed and be destroyed for suing over it.

The system has failed despite the good intentions of the TCPA. It's up to the appeal courts to salvage this, and up to the Texas Legislature to fix the legal system they broke. Even if this is denied by the appeals court, I'll still feel the same way about it. Free speech has an abridgement when you use your position to slander someone as a rapist and pedophile with no evidence, and if the alleged pedorapist tries and sues to protect their reputation, their defendents better present the evidence. Some Anti-SLAPP laws like this, as good as their intentions are, are not protecting free speech but are giving more money to the legal system and denying legitimate cases. This is a worst case scenario, where "free speech" is interpreted a license to defame the plaintiff. The law is not updated to the internet era--expect a few weeks of defamatory articles from clickbait sites aimed at Vic and to a lesser extent Nick Rekieta and Ty Beard before they get bored.

This case and the Covington kid Nick Sandmann's case should be a serious warning that the court system is not your friend when you face blatant injustice. When "free speech" includes the right of the powerful (journalists, your famed comrades, etc.) to slander you as pure evil, you're dealing with a broken system. Anyone angry at this should campaign against anti-SLAPP laws on the basis of the legal system's general inability to deal with them as they cost both plaintiff and defendent undue financial burden. New York is easy for SLAPP suits, yet Maddox still cost his enemies a lot of money suing over being called a cuck, and he even had a sympathetic judge who bought his position named Andrew Borrok to help him and his alcoholic lawyer.

Now let's await the fun of appeals and Vic's case being celebrated as the second coming of the dreaded Gamergate in the media.

lawtwitterthrowaway said:
You know what? I'm willing to admit it. I was wrong. Completely, totally, and thoroughly wrong.

I thought Chupp would formally consider the withdrawn affidavits. Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
Click to expand...
You've won for today, enjoy it.
 
  • Feels
  • Autistic
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco and Imperial Agent
Save the Loli said:
You've won for today, enjoy it.
Click to expand...
Well, more like for at least another year, minimum. When (not if, Nick and Ty aren't getting off this grift train any time soon) the appeal is filed, it's going to take a while it to make its way through the appellate court. But until then, all 17 counts are dismissed and a hearing on attorney's fees and sanctions is coming up in about a month.

So yeah, I guess I'm gonna enjoy it. Martini glasses full of the Farm's tears, etc. etc.
 
  • Dumb
  • Disagree
  • Autistic
Reactions: Kosher Salt, GenericReviewerDraco, Coach Kreeton Of All That and 13 others
lawtwitterthrowaway said:
Well, more like for at least another year, minimum. When (not if, Nick and Ty aren't getting off this grift train any time soon) the appeal is filed, it's going to take a while it to make its way through the appellate court. But until then, all 17 counts are dismissed and a hearing on attorney's fees and sanctions is coming up in about a month.

So yeah, I guess I'm gonna enjoy it. Martini glasses full of the Farm's tears, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

>at least another year
>Chupp says "See you in 3 months"

Yeah k.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Kosher Salt, GenericReviewerDraco, Exterminatus and 7 others
lawtwitterthrowaway said:
Well, more like for at least another year, minimum. When (not if, Nick and Ty aren't getting off this grift train any time soon) the appeal is filed, it's going to take a while it to make its way through the appellate court. But until then, all 17 counts are dismissed and a hearing on attorney's fees and sanctions is coming up in about a month.

So yeah, I guess I'm gonna enjoy it. Martini glasses full of the Farm's tears, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
What do you plan on doing if you lose? You know people around here tempered their expectations after the initial hearing, what if the appeals court brings a defendent or three or four back into things? Popehat only has a limited amount of peepee touches to go around after all.
 
Save the Loli said:
What do you plan on doing if you lose? You know people around here tempered their expectations after the initial hearing, what if the appeals court brings a defendent or three or four back into things? Popehat only has a limited amount of peepee touches to go around after all.
Click to expand...
I plan on following the appellate arguments with interest, and discussing any conclusions as to matters of law they reach. If such a thing were to come to pass, I'd probably zone out all the way through discovery and only manage to gin up enough interest to look at the final summary judgement ruling. But eh, hypothetical futures.
 
  • Dumb
  • Optimistic
  • Autistic
Reactions: Kosher Salt, GenericReviewerDraco, Coach Kreeton Of All That and 3 others
lawtwitterthrowaway said:
I plan on following the appellate arguments with interest, and discussing any conclusions as to matters of law they reach. If such a thing were to come to pass, I'd probably zone out all the way through discovery and only manage to gin up enough interest to look at the final summary judgement ruling. But eh, hypothetical futures.
Click to expand...
So if you're hypothetically proven wrong, you're just going to ignore it and leave? To be fair, that's exactly what everyone expects lawtwitter to do, but I didn't think you'd just straight up admit it.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Kosher Salt, NotaLolyer, Struggler and 3 others
WrenchWring said:
So if you're hypothetically proven wrong, you're just going to ignore it and leave? To be fair, that's exactly what everyone expects lawtwitter to do, but I didn't think you'd just straight up admit it.
Click to expand...
I'll be totally honest with you. I don't actually much care about the defendants or the plaintiff. I'm here because Ty is hilariously incompetent and this whole case has been a symposium on bile fascination.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Kosher Salt, GenericReviewerDraco, Coach Kreeton Of All That and 5 others
Hoss said:
The TCPA and Anti-SLAPP laws in general are designed to kill lawsuits DEAD. Honestly they violate the fuck out of the 7th Amendment out the ass. The First Amendment says NOTHING of "Protecting" speech. In fact it says that's to be avoided (IE promoting thereof). The First Amendment PREVENTS Congress from stymieing speech. It says NOTHING about Congress fighting FOR it. Passing Laws promoting Free Speech are redundant and unconstitutional if it deprives someone of another granted right, such as the 7th Amendment which is a citizen SHALL have the right to have a trial by JURY in all civil cases involving damages of 20 dollars or more. That's up to 300 dollars in today's money. The amount that was assumed damages? Up to 1 Million. Vic's 7th Amendment Right was ABSOLUTELY violated. Period
Click to expand...

The 7th Amendment would only apply to the Defendants in this case. You can't file a civil trial and then demand it make it all the way to the jury when the judge dismisses your case.

Hoss said:
Judges are often lazy. The 6th Amendment did jack shit honestly.
Click to expand...

Again, the 6th Amendment would only apply to the defendants in this case. It specifically says the 'accused' have a right to a speedy trial and that's not Vic in this lawsuit.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Kosher Salt, GenericReviewerDraco, JohnDoe and 1 other person
DragoonSierra said:
So this is actually the best case scenario considering all the fuck ups correct?


Can more parties still be added? What does this 3 month appeal window look like for the statute of limitations on Sabat?


So its gonna take longer than 3 months?
Click to expand...
Best case scenario would be if Chupp had lost his mind, reversed his bench decisions, and upheld all causes. Vic gets peace of mind, and we get to laugh at meltdowns. Sadly, Vic has a little extra stress and KV are going victory laps.

We'll see at appeals. I know they're expedited since they're from TCPA, but I don't know the timetable.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco, not william stenchever and Iron Tarkus
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back