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

[Superman93]

Sometimes people's individual wishes do bleed through. Cause whether you agree or disagree, Vic was dealt dirty.

I do feel that way too absolutely but at the same time I think it's important to keep your center to prevent yourself from looking exceptional.

 

[Garm]

If Vic had $200k of liquid assets, he'd have just filed a lawsuit, no GoFundMe required. So, he doesn't have anywhere near that amount of cash, the TCPA judgement is likely dischargeable in bankruptcy, and Texas's bankruptcy rules are extremely favorable to debtors. So yeah, they aren't getting anywhere near that much money.

Vic was already looking for lawyers. Nick started the GoFundMe because people were asking to help Vic. I think he already had the money to do this.

Guess what? It doesn't matter. Ty fucked up making any good argument in his filing or at the hearing.

I expected disappointment from this notification. It met my expectations.

 

[Markorian]

I'll hold onto it for at least a little while longer. There's a decent chance the appeals court doesn't ever get to it. If the other lawyers are right that mere reinstatement of the contract is enough to ruin the TI claim, then the appeals court will likely stop there and not bother ruling in either direction whether statement of sources of damages are enough to survive TCPA. That's the poor thing about appellate courts: they don't bother going through all the ways they could have made their decision, they generally just go until they make there decision and announce, "We aren't dealing with any other factors now".

If the appeals court does say that TI can survive on Kamehacon, I will admit I was wrong. If they say that TI can't survive on Kamehacon, will you admit you were wrong about the law, or will you insist the appeals court is wrong?

I get that subsisting on a diet of popehat semen leaves the iq in the room temperature range, but a NEW contract isn't reinstatement of the original contract. I'd ask your mother to clarify that for you the next time she changes your diaper during the commercials of rick and morty reruns because you REEEEE at her when she does it during the show despite the fact you've seen that episode 2 dozen times.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I'll hold onto it for at least a little while longer. There's a decent chance the appeals court doesn't ever get to it. If the other lawyers are right that mere reinstatement of the contract is enough to ruin the TI claim, then the appeals court will likely stop there and not bother ruling in either direction whether statement of sources of damages are enough to survive TCPA. That's the poor thing about appellate courts: they don't bother going through all the ways they could have made their decision, they generally just go until they make there decision and announce, "We aren't dealing with any other factors now".

If the appeals court does say that TI can survive on Kamehacon, I will admit I was wrong. If they say that TI can't survive on Kamehacon, will you admit you were wrong about the law, or will you insist the appeals court is wrong?

The contract wasn't reinstated, so the other lawyers are wrong, or are not working with all the facts

 

[fat ugly sped]

Vic was already looking for lawyers. Nick started the GoFundMe because people were asking to help Vic. I think he already had the money to do this.

You can have a shitty plan to like, take out a home equity loan or raid your IRA to pay for the legal fees. These are exempt assets in bankruptcy in Texas, so it's a kind of shitty plan if there are any other options, but you can do it. Texas is awesome like this, you could be able to come up with something north of $500k if you really need to and yet still be able to declare bankruptcy and turn over zero assets to your creditors.

 

[Nontransferable]

Vic was already looking for lawyers. Nick started the GoFundMe because people were asking to help Vic. I think he already had the money to do this.

Svetlana said that one of the attorneys that was consulted said that Vic couldn't afford the lawsuit.

I keep seeing the wild KV logic leap from my statement of "we spoke to two different firms before hiring Ty" to "two different attorneys told Vic the case was shit."

No.

Attorney #1 (consulted - never actually hired): "You've definitely got a strong case, but you can't afford it."

Attorney #2 (the one who sent a C&D to Saucedo): "I understand your world is burning at Twitter speed. I'll get that motion filed sometime in the next 2 months-ish."

Exactly zero lawyers told us that the case had no merit. Quite the opposite.

 

[Garm]

Svetlana said that one of the attorneys that was consulted said that Vic couldn't afford the lawsuit.

I remember that. Either that guy was assuming Vic was poor or that the lawsuit would mushroom out of control. I doubted it got beyond the initial consultation.

 

[Allanon]

Vic was already looking for lawyers. Nick started the GoFundMe because people were asking to help Vic. I think he already had the money to do this.




I expected disappointment from this notification. It met my expectations.

Doesn't that mean you weren't disappointed?

 

[I can't imagine]

I remember that. Either that guy was assuming Vic was poor or that the lawsuit would mushroom out of control. I doubted it got beyond the initial consultation.

Realistically, this will probably cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don't think you have to assume someone is poor to think that might be a risky proposition.

 

[Apterigo]

I'll hold onto it for at least a little while longer. There's a decent chance the appeals court doesn't ever get to it. If the other lawyers are right that mere reinstatement of the contract is enough to ruin the TI claim, then the appeals court will likely stop there and not bother ruling in either direction whether statement of sources of damages are enough to survive TCPA. That's the poor thing about appellate courts: they don't bother going through all the ways they could have made their decision, they generally just go until they make there decision and announce, "We aren't dealing with any other factors now".

If the appeals court does say that TI can survive on Kamehacon, I will admit I was wrong. If they say that TI can't survive on Kamehacon, will you admit you were wrong about the law, or will you insist the appeals court is wrong?

I legit have no idea because I'm a layman, but would a situation like this be considered reinstatement of the contract? I would argue that this instance has led to a brand new contract that would not have previously been necessary, but I don't know for sure from a legal perspective.

 

[Allanon]

I legit have no idea because I'm a layman, but would a situation like this be considered reinstatement of the contract? I would argue that this instance has led to a brand new contract that would not have previously been necessary, but I don't know for sure from a legal perspective.

No, it was a different contract. The new one regulated him to a separate floor, didn't allow him to attend other panels he was supposed to attend, and required him to hire thousands of dollars worth of 'security'. And that assumes nothing else was changed in it. It's literally just not the same contract, any more than the contract for a CEO of a company is the same as the one for the VP of the company just because they're working in the same company.

 

[Garm]

Doesn't that mean you weren't disappointed?

Damn it. I thought I had clarified it to say I was disappointed.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

I legit have no idea because I'm a layman, but would a situation like this be considered reinstatement of the contract? I would argue that this instance has led to a brand new contract that would not have previously been necessary, but I don't know for sure from a legal perspective.

I am also a layman. I have just noticed a pattern of lawyers commenting on the case, seeing that Vic had a contract to go to Kamehacon which got cancelled, but that he ended up going to Kamehacon on another contract, and saying that ruins the TI claim. I'm still not entirely sure why, but that's the pattern I've seen. First the judge stated that if he was allowed to go, even if there were any additional costs he agreed to, TI was dismissed. Then Internet Law Review did a stream where he thought it was fair that conceding to the changes in the contract to reinstate it was enough. There was also a podcast that discussed it and also tended to agree.

I however am not entirely sure I agree, especially since I haven't seen a cite for it. The pattern is there and has me curious, though. In any case, I'll continue to argue not attaching the second contract, detailing the additional costs, was a foolish move. A bill from a security firm (or a copy of the check paid to the conference to pay for it), total sales from previous years and lower sales this year (with the rational inference it was caused by the worse location, which you can see happened because of the difference in the provided contracts). Something that lets the court believe you have a way to calculate damages.

 

[AnOminous]

I legit have no idea because I'm a layman, but would a situation like this be considered reinstatement of the contract? I would argue that this instance has led to a brand new contract that would not have previously been necessary, but I don't know for sure from a legal perspective.

No, it is novation, in this case the creation of an entirely new contract after the breach of the first, with materially different terms entirely detrimental to one party without any additional consideration by the other party. The original contract has been extinguished and replaced with a new contract with new terms.

 

[Markorian]

I am also a layman. I have just noticed a pattern of lawyers commenting on the case, seeing that Vic had a contract to go to Kamehacon which got cancelled, but that he ended up going to Kamehacon on another contract, and saying that ruins the TI claim. I'm still not entirely sure why, but that's the pattern I've seen. First the judge stated that if he was allowed to go, even if there were any additional costs he agreed to, TI was dismissed. Then Internet Law Review did a stream where he thought it was fair that conceding to the changes in the contract to reinstate it was enough. There was also a podcast that discussed it and also tended to agree.

I however am not entirely sure I agree, especially since I haven't seen a cite for it. The pattern is there and has me curious, though. In any case, I'll continue to argue not attaching the second contract, detailing the additional costs, was a foolish move. A bill from a security firm (or a copy of the check paid to the conference to pay for it), total sales from previous years and lower sales this year (with the rational inference it was caused by the worse location, which you can see happened because of the difference in the provided contracts). Something that lets the court believe you have a way to calculate damages.

Those alleged lawyers take on just as many cases as any layman here. This is why they have so much time to spend on twitter, in between coffee runs.

 

[FGO-Professor-P2PBTW]

When is Chupp supposed to make a ruling on the costs? Has to be soon, considering someone FINALLY put out a number.

 

[Gehenna]

I am also a layman. I have just noticed a pattern of lawyers commenting on the case, seeing that Vic had a contract to go to Kamehacon which got cancelled, but that he ended up going to Kamehacon on another contract, and saying that ruins the TI claim. I'm still not entirely sure why, but that's the pattern I've seen. First the judge stated that if he was allowed to go, even if there were any additional costs he agreed to, TI was dismissed. Then Internet Law Review did a stream where he thought it was fair that conceding to the changes in the contract to reinstate it was enough. There was also a podcast that discussed it and also tended to agree.

I however am not entirely sure I agree, especially since I haven't seen a cite for it. The pattern is there and has me curious, though. In any case, I'll continue to argue not attaching the second contract, detailing the additional costs, was a foolish move. A bill from a security firm (or a copy of the check paid to the conference to pay for it), total sales from previous years and lower sales this year (with the rational inference it was caused by the worse location, which you can see happened because of the difference in the provided contracts). Something that lets the court believe you have a way to calculate damages.

To the first paragraph. Assumption. Most of the lawyers commenting on it look at it at a glance and see he went to Kamehacon and then assume it was under the same contract.
If it was under the same contract, there would be no TI.
It was NOT under the same contract.
Ergo, TI.


Those that don't assume it... are just baffingly wrong. If you have a contract and it is broken, then a new contract is made, it does not remove that broken contract from the board. That is TI.

The fact they have NO citation backing that up should really tell you all you need to know there. There is citation that, under plain reading, says TI occurred. They make a separate claim to refute it, but provide no proof. Ergo, onus of proof is on them and they have failed to meet it.

 

[BigDuckEnergy]

I am also a layman. I have just noticed a pattern of lawyers commenting on the case, seeing that Vic had a contract to go to Kamehacon which got cancelled, but that he ended up going to Kamehacon on another contract, and saying that ruins the TI claim. I'm still not entirely sure why, but that's the pattern I've seen. First the judge stated that if he was allowed to go, even if there were any additional costs he agreed to, TI was dismissed. Then Internet Law Review did a stream where he thought it was fair that conceding to the changes in the contract to reinstate it was enough. There was also a podcast that discussed it and also tended to agree.

I however am not entirely sure I agree, especially since I haven't seen a cite for it. The pattern is there and has me curious, though. In any case, I'll continue to argue not attaching the second contract, detailing the additional costs, was a foolish move. A bill from a security firm (or a copy of the check paid to the conference to pay for it), total sales from previous years and lower sales this year (with the rational inference it was caused by the worse location, which you can see happened because of the difference in the provided contracts). Something that lets the court believe you have a way to calculate damages.

I agree with you in a lot of ways. I'm a layman too, so i am going to take various people's word that for a prima facie showing, Ty didn't need any of that stuff for the TCPA hearing.

However, where we are in agreement i think, even if that stuff wasn't needed at this point, Ty should have had it all filed anyway and ready to show.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I agree with you in a lot of ways. I'm a layman too, so i am going to take various people's word that for a prima facie showing, Ty didn't need any of that stuff for the TCPA hearing.

However, where we are in agreement i think, even if that stuff wasn't needed at this point, Ty should have had it all filed anyway and ready to show.

Its not possible for Ty to have it all filed and ready, thats why its just Prima Facie, and why discovery exists.

 

[Takayuki Yagami]

Then here's another, vodka-soaked idea. Spam the internet in a campaign to get Chupp promoted. He's like ~47 years old, which is the target age for an appointment to a federal court or state appellate court (the Texas governor appoints people to fill vacancies, which is how Chupp got his current job). Most judicial appointees are in their 40's or early 50's.

If there was a sudden internet upswell for the Wise Jurist Chupp to be properly recognized and appointed to higher office, perhaps the powers that be would notice and promote him.

Then Vic's case would be reassigned to someone else.

The best interpretation of his actions paint him as a comically lazy bastard who likes to let the appeals court do his job. Why the fuck would you kick him up the road to do even more damage?