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

[AnOminous]

Your asking a profession that only requires a degree not one specifically in English Writing/Lit. I mean sure there are lawyers with English Degree's and such but they are not common but not quite Unicorn status.

Lawyers with STEM undergraduate degrees are few and far between (6%) and the overwhelming majority are from majors that require writing. Law itself requires writing.

 

[Gehenna]

Lawyers with STEM undergraduate degrees are few and far between (6%) and the overwhelming majority are from majors that require writing. Law itself requires writing.

Hell, I am getting a Political Science degree before I try to get a Juris Doctor.

 

[Allanon]

There is a difference between "Technically applies" and "Certainly applies". It can, and will, be argued by Beard that it does apply, I personally hold that it should, but it would have been easy to get hard numbers here to shore up the case.

Beard did a lot of this, skirting tot he very edge of what he needed by technicality rather than shoring up his case to be 100% sure it could win. Ideally, he'd have done everything he could to make it worthy of Summary Judgement. Because while, yes, that requires discovery, if you aim for the evidentiary burden above what you need you are certain to succeed.

Unless your judge is Chupp.

 

[Gehenna]

Unless your judge is Chupp.

Actually, Chupp is basically an extreme example of WHY you do it. Different judges have a different tolerance for what counts as reasonable evidence for an evidentiary burden. Chupp, for reasons that defy logic, wanted the next level of evidence than what was needed. Had Beard aimed for it, as caution dictates he should have, he MIGHT have succeeded.

Mind, that still means Chupps a fucking idiot.

As an addendum: Frankly, Beard's actions are... baffling to me. There was no reason to not throw everything they had at the TCPA. If they built it up with everything they very clearly had or should have had, they probably could have beaten an actual summary judgement let alone the TCPA. Perhaps there is a reason to withold evidence, in which case @AnOminous , please fill me in on it.

Addendum two: Lets run through this.

1: Throw in the affidavits first, lock that shit down.
2: Get numbers for the early damages, make note of damages unable to be found out without discovery. CLEARLY delineate the two, put the onus on the defendants.
3: Attempt to preserve and gather evidence, discovery may be stayed but that only means you can't compel people. You can still ask politely. Find discords, mentions of phone calls, find evidence you can clearly point to for at LEAST a reasonable glance and that the judge can take a glance at and go "Yah, that's suspicious". Do this for everything, not just select things.
4: Any and all communications the Plaintiff received, declaring broken contracts, people pulling out, etc, put that IN.
5: Structure the damn thing better. Don't be fancy with the language, be blunt. Once your message is 100% clear, then make it sound nicer.
6: index every single piece of this, this is why you do 5, now you have a clear roadmap that you can look at the table of contents of and get a picture of it.

 

[Allanon]

Actually, Chupp is basically an extreme example of WHY you do it. Different judges have a different tolerance for what counts as reasonable evidence for an evidentiary burden. Chupp, for reasons that defy logic, wanted the next level of evidence than what was needed. Had Beard aimed for it, as caution dictates he should have, he MIGHT have succeeded.

Mind, that still means Chupps a fucking idiot.

As an addendum: Frankly, Beard's actions are... baffling to me. There was no reason to not throw everything they had at the TCPA. If they built it up with everything they very clearly had or should have had, they probably could have beaten an actual summary judgement let alone the TCPA. Perhaps there is a reason to withold evidence, in which case @AnOminous , please fill me in on it.

So exactly which standard of evidence would have rescued Ty from Chupp refusing to look at his evidence binder and only looking at the defense's, Chupp claiming he was going to consider evidence he later didn't, so Ty couldn't object or argue why it should be, Chupp refusing to rule on matters so that nothing could actually be argued on those matters, or Chupp applying his own magical standards like 'Vic is a public figure because people are in the room', 'to prove one instance of TI, you need two or more instances', and 'Ron is an independent contractor for Funimation because I say so'?

 

[Gehenna]

So exactly which standard of evidence would have rescued Ty from Chupp refusing to look at his evidence binder and only looking at the defense's, Chupp claiming he was going to consider evidence he later didn't, so Ty couldn't object or argue why it should be, Chupp refusing to rule on matters so that nothing could actually be argued on those matters, or Chupp applying his own magical standards like 'Vic is a public figure because people are in the room', 'to prove one instance of TI, you need two or more instances', and 'Ron is an independent contractor for Funimation because I say so'?

The standard by which Beard didn't put several affidavits up last minute, made a filing that was disorganized and unclear, and which he put all the available evidence up from the start rather than trickling it in bit by bit and leaving out things that should have been in there.

Chupp has paralegals whose job it is to write him briefs. A clearly structured and cleanly written piece with everything up front at once would have received a pretty decent brief.

I already said Chupp is an idiot, but this is a case where both the Judge and Lawyer were autistic as fuck and sniffing their own farts. Just because Chupp was a screaming autist didn't mean it was IMPOSSIBLE to work with what they got.

Instead, Beard decided to play it stupid and failed to make his case as strong as possible through some VERY stupid and self inflicted fuckups while at the same time Chupp decided to abandon all professionalism and throw shit throughout the courtroom.

 

[DragoonSierra]

and if that doesn't work and you get chupped? probably screw you later in higher courts if you short hand it for just 1 human instead of laying it all out there.

Ty really didnt know what he was getting with Chupp before that hearing though An Lee might have told him a few days before the filing that Chupp was an idiot. That probably why the filing was such a mess

 

[Gehenna]

Ty really didnt know what he was getting with Chupp before that hearing though An Lee might have told him a few days before the filing that Chupp was an idiot. That probably why the filing was such a mess

There are deeper problems here. As far as I can tell, there really is no reason to withold evidence and just provide the bare minimum. Meaning Beard's attempt to do just that is... entirely pointless. So he witheld evidence, for some strategy that makes no sense, found out that Chupp is autism incarnate, then rushed to add in the evidence that should have been in it from the start.

 

[theworstkindofeurofag]

Ty really didnt know what he was getting with Chupp before that hearing though An Lee might have told him a few days before the filing that Chupp was an idiot. That probably why the filing was such a mess

That doesn't really make much sense, though. He knew Chupp was an idiot, so he messed up the filing? If he really knew how autistic Chupp was, he should've put extra work hours into writing the filing and he should've made sure it was absolutely perfect.

 

[teriyakiburns]

That doesn't really make much sense, though. He knew Chupp was an idiot, so he messed up the filing?

No, he found out late on that Chupp would be inconsistent and tarded, so threw a bunch more into the filing at the last minute to try and shore up, which led to a chaotic filingright on the deadline.

That was the hypothesis I'd developed a few dozen pages back, anyway.

 

[Allanon]

There are deeper problems here. As far as I can tell, there really is no reason to withold evidence and just provide the bare minimum. Meaning Beard's attempt to do just that is... entirely pointless. So he witheld evidence, for some strategy that makes no sense, found out that Chupp is autism incarnate, then rushed to add in the evidence that should have been in it from the start.

Ty absolutely had reason to hide evidence, because the defendants are actively committing extortion and witness intimidation, playing discovery games, refusing to actually do the lawsuit properly, and doing their best to destroy or ruin any evidence. Keeping evidence close to their vest is pretty smart, as showing Chuck's affidavit - for instance - would have given the defense x amount of time before the hearing to intimidate, harass, or otherwise extort Chuck into backing off or retracting it. There's no reason to show their whole hand when they absolutely didn't need to.

 

[Gehenna]

Ty absolutely had reason to hide evidence, because the defendants are actively committing extortion and witness intimidation, playing discovery games, refusing to actually do the lawsuit properly, and doing their best to destroy or ruin any evidence. Keeping evidence close to their vest is pretty smart, as showing Chuck's affidavit - for instance - would have given the defense x amount of time before the hearing to intimidate, harass, or otherwise extort Chuck into backing off or retracting it. There's no reason to show their whole hand when they absolutely didn't need to.

You are aware what you are describing is a felony, yes? And someone making a sworn affidavit then retracting that under suspicious circumstances WOULD in fact be something the court wants to look in on? And oh yah, if a witness is found to have been tampered with their prior testimony is to be understood in the LEAST charitable light possible for the tampering party?

What you described isn't a reason to hold stuff to your chest, its a reason to release it all and HOPE your opponent is that monumentally retarded.

 

[Adach_Ame]

There are deeper problems here. As far as I can tell, there really is no reason to withold evidence and just provide the bare minimum. Meaning Beard's attempt to do just that is... entirely pointless. So he witheld evidence, for some strategy that makes no sense, found out that Chupp is autism incarnate, then rushed to add in the evidence that should have been in it from the start.

Ever heard the term "Never show all your cards" Basically if you showed all your evidence all upfront, you basically show your entire plan with the elements you have to the opposing party so that they can systematically pick apart and plan around. It's actually quite a sensible tactic. However there is no contingency for a rogue judge, it's a completely not plannable factor in this.

I have seen a path of thought that I consider a plausible thing, which would you rather have to deal with, 1 appealing party or 3 collaborating appealing parties(We know they are with Volney's fees filing.) If that is Chupp's thinking, could potentially be why he left his judgement so vague in the first place, that and well not wanting to deal with a shit show that is this case that no matter what he decided, it would be appealed no matter which side he weighed on. A mix of potentially laziness and well basically expediting this whole things to appeals as soon as possible.

"Never show all your cards" is a phrase that means never reveal your plan to the opposing party. It's a phrase which it's meaning is as old as poker, and other card games.

 

[Gehenna]

Ever heard the term "Never show all your cards" Basically if you showed all your evidence all upfront, you basically show your entire plan with the elements you have to the opposing party so that they can systematically pick apart and plan around. It's actually quite a sensible tactic. However there is no contingency for a rogue judge, it's a completely not plannable factor in this.

I have seen a path of thought that I consider a plausible thing, which would you rather have to deal with, 1 appealing party or 3 collaborating appealing parties(We know they are with Volney's fees filing.) If that is Chupp's thinking, could potentially be why he left his judgement so vague in the first place, that and well not wanting to deal with a shit show that is this case that no matter what he decided, it would be appealed no matter which side he weighed on. A mix of potentially laziness and well basically expediting this whole things to appeals as soon as possible.

"Never show your hand" only works when keeping your hand hidden doesn't fuck you. In a lawsuit, it does. Since you need to inevitably show your hand to the judge and put it on record for the public to see. In fact, I'd say that saying only works in law when your case is already 100% air tight. Beards was not, even if you ignore Chupp's exceptionalism. While I do personally hold it was, by the requirements, sufficient it was only that by the narrowest margins in several areas.

Addendum: I would say it has MORE of a place at the trial stage. When you have a LOT more freedom to carefully time reveals. It has absolutely no place until after discovery though, at the very earliest.

Addendum 2: This actually makes LESS sense as a saying the more I think of it. The defense cannot undermine hard numbers of costs. They cannot undermine people confirming there WAS a contract and it WAS breached. The saying only works if they were presenting evidence which could possibly even BE picked apart.

 

[Adach_Ame]

"Never show your hand" only works when keeping your hand hidden doesn't fuck you. In a lawsuit, it does. Since you need to inevitably show your hand to the judge and put it on record for the public to see. In fact, I'd say that saying only works in law when your case is already 100% air tight. Beards was not, even if you ignore Chupp's exceptionalism. While I do personally hold it was, by the requirements, sufficient it was only that by the narrowest margins in several areas.

Addendum: I would say it has MORE of a place at the trial stage. When you have a LOT more freedom to carefully time reveals. It has absolutely no place until after discovery though, at the very earliest.

Wrong. In a lawsuit it's ESPECIALLY important to not show your entire hand, your entire plan, which can be seen why with the defendant side. Who want that GFM dollar dollar bills. And are shown that they are openly collaborating with each other.

It's easy to say things from an audience perspective, but it's not as easy to do that when you are in the storm. Game Plans are a crucial factor in lawsuits.

 

[Gehenna]

Wrong. In a lawsuit it's ESPECIALLY important to not show your entire hand, your entire plan, which can be seen why with the defendant side. Who want that GFM dollar dollar bills. And are shown that they are openly collaborating with each other.

It's easy to say things from an audience perspective, but it's not as easy to do that when you are in the storm.

Name a single thing I have suggested they should have revealed which possibly even could have been picked apart.

Addendum: Let me be clear, there is a time, place, and method when secrecy is useful. The TCPA (And Summary judgement) are not that. Your whole case is at the mercy of a single person who gets to use their own subjective judgement to determine if it is sufficient. The TCPA especially is not the time, as it is without discovery which means every single fact you can present is just as available to the other party as it is to you. This means that there is no point in keeping your cards close to your chest at this stage, as the other side has those exact same cards.

At the TCPA stage, you should set out every fact you can sans-discovery to make the strongest case possible that the judge should allow this to go on. From there, you enter Discovery and can get 'Cards' unique to your side and THEN you should start being careful and selective, since your case is no longer at the whim of a single person, you now have things the other side is likely to not, and you have more room to accept setbacks.

 

[Allanon]

You are aware what you are describing is a felony, yes? And someone making a sworn affidavit then retracting that under suspicious circumstances WOULD in fact be something the court wants to look in on? And oh yah, if a witness is found to have been tampered with their prior testimony is to be understood in the LEAST charitable light possible for the tampering party?

What you described isn't a reason to hold stuff to your chest, its a reason to release it all and HOPE your opponent is that monumentally exceptional.

Are you forgetting that from the outset of this, before the lawsuit was ever filed, Chris Sabat threatened Todd Haberkorn with being destroyed simply because he took the same lawfirm that Vic did? And that, despite being on moderately friendly terms with Vic, basically on the same side, and friendly enough with Nick to voice one of his intros, Todd has strangely been silent about all of that? You can talk all you want about how it's a felony and how 'ohoho the sanctions would be surreal!' but it doesn't change that it would mess up the lawsuit and potentially lose a bunch of sources and opportunities for Vic to get what he wanted out of the lawsuit (not just money). The court can give you money when your opponent breaks the law and messes up your case, but it can't change that your client just got defamed more, and that the PR side of the lawsuit might have been entirely derailed with "But look, this and that happened, they only defeated the defendants on technicalities because the law is cruel" or such things.

And ultimately, there is no reason to prepare for summary judgement - even if you can - when you're going into a TCPA hearing, anymore than you should be prepared for a jury trial. It's just completely unreasonable.

 

[Gehenna]

Are you forgetting that from the outset of this, before the lawsuit was ever filed, Chris Sabat threatened Todd Haberkorn with being destroyed simply because he took the same lawfirm that Vic did? And that, despite being on moderately friendly terms with Vic, basically on the same side, and friendly enough with Nick to voice one of his intros, Todd has strangely been silent about all of that? You can talk all you want about how it's a felony and how 'ohoho the sanctions would be surreal!' but it doesn't change that it would mess up the lawsuit and potentially lose a bunch of sources and opportunities for Vic to get what he wanted out of the lawsuit (not just money). The court can give you money when your opponent breaks the law and messes up your case, but it can't change that your client just got defamed more, and that the PR side of the lawsuit might have been entirely derailed with "But look, this and that happened, they only defeated the defendants on technicalities because the law is cruel" or such things.

And ultimately, there is no reason to prepare for summary judgement - even if you can - when you're going into a TCPA hearing, anymore than you should be prepared for a jury trial. It's just completely unreasonable.

I'd note, what Sabat did isn't a felony. What you described them doing to tamper with evidence is.

As to your last sentence... you should be preparing for a trial at the start of the case. So... well, you are wrong. You should also be preparing for the defendants trying to get it dismissed. So... you are just wrong.
Any plaintiff's attorney must be considering, in order, the TCPA, Summary Judgement, and the Trial. Your evidence for the first is set up sans-discovery, you make that as strong as possible. If you can get it strong enough to beat both TCPA AND Summary Judgement then you can focus all your discovery on the trial, if not then you definitely knocked the TCPA out and now know exactly where the holes are to shore up your case against Summary Judgement. So not only is it reasonable, it would actually be the best economical use of an attorneys time.

 

[Adach_Ame]

Name a single thing I have suggested they should have revealed which possibly even could have been picked apart.

Addendum: Let me be clear, there is a time, place, and method when secrecy is useful. The TCPA (And Summary judgement) are not that. Your whole case is at the mercy of a single person who gets to use their own subjective judgement to determine if it is sufficient. The TCPA especially is not the time, as it is without discovery which means every single fact you can present is just as available to the other party as it is to you. This means that there is no point in keeping your cards close to your chest at this stage, as the other side has those exact same cards.

At the TCPA stage, you should set out every fact you can sans-discovery to make the strongest case possible that the judge should allow this to go on. From there, you enter Discovery and can get 'Cards' unique to your side and THEN you should start being careful and selective, since your case is no longer at the whim of a single person, you now have things the other side is likely to not, and you have more room to accept setbacks.

I mean to be fair, the opposing parties are not normally this exceptional and bat-shit insane. And remember An Lee was opposing council of a previous case Ty had done. That seems like a sensible thing to not consider your opposing party to be disingenuous, lying, and outright foaming at the mouth dipshits. The more I look at this, the more I think, if they had just settled under agreeable terms, their exceptional behavior would not have come to light.

 

[Gehenna]

I mean to be fair, the opposing parties are not normally this exceptional and bat-shit insane. And remember An Lee was opposing council of a previous case Ty had done. That seems like a sensible thing to not consider your opposing party to be disingenuous, lying, and outright foaming at the mouth dipshits. The more I look at this, the more I think, if they had just settled under agreeable terms, their exceptional behavior would not have come to light.

To this, you and I can agree. I am noticing that both of the fairly reasonable lawyers for MoRon stopped appearing. i can only assume they BTFO'd as soon as they had a legitimate reason to. If Casey reappears, I will boil and eat my hat.