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

[theworstkindofeurofag]

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.

What I get from you is that you think Ty isn't a very good lawyer. Is that correct? I'm also extremely critical of Ty nowadays, but I don't really have enough knowledge about the law to put my criticism of him into clear words. I'm feeling pretty damn exceptional for ever buying into the hype when it comes to Ty. "He has a beard and his last name is Beard. So cool!! He has guns! He watched anime in the 80's! He went on the internet to say cancel culture bad! What a cool guy!!!" etc. Now I just think he's a dude who got too high sniffing his own farts. I also think he's a good lawyer when it comes to taking care of the little fuckups of rich people kids and estate planning. I don't think he's necessarily a good lawyer for this case. He put "defamation" on his website as an area of expertise after taking Vic's case. He's clearly making some questionable decisions and mistakes.

It's all pointless now anyway. The TCPA hearing is done. Vic's not going to fire Ty for someone else. He did hire additional counsel, so, that's good. We'll see what happens during appeals. We'll see what happens during the sanctions hearing.

I'm not optimistic. I do still wish Vic the best. And I'll gladly eat my words if Ty suddenly brings his best A game and blows us and the opposition away.

 

[Gehenna]

What I get from you is that you think Ty isn't a very good lawyer. Is that correct? I'm also extremely critical of Ty nowadays, but I don't really have enough knowledge about the law to put my criticism of him into clear words. I'm feeling pretty damn exceptional for ever buying into the hype when it comes to Ty. "He has a beard and his last name is Beard. So cool!! He has guns! He watched anime in the 80's! He went on the internet to say cancel culture bad! What a cool guy!!!" etc. Now I just think he's a dude who got too high sniffing his own farts. I also think he's a good lawyer when it comes to taking care of the little fuckups of rich people kids and estate planning. I don't think he's necessarily a good lawyer for this case. He put "defamation" on his website as an area of expertise after taking Vic's case. He's clearly making some questionable decisions and mistakes.

It's all pointless now anyway. The TCPA hearing is done. Vic's not going to fire Ty for someone else. He did hire additional counsel, so, that's good. We'll see what happens during appeals. We'll see what happens during the sanctions hearing.

I'm not optimistic. I do still wish Vic the best. And I'll gladly eat my words if Ty suddenly brings his best A game and blows us and the opposition away.

Actually, no. I think he is a decent lawyer.
I also think he tried to be 'smart' and it backfired absolutely stupendously in a self own due to his plan being smarter than he was.
He had several 'smart' ideas, and completely lost sight of what had to be done before he could do them. You could ascribe a few reasons as to why; incompetence, lack of skill, lack of experience. Personally, I'd say it was something more insidious to someones skills. Hubris. He bought into his own hype, and it bit him in the ass.

 

[teriyakiburns]

He bought into his own hype, and it bit him in the ass.

The irony is, he warned Nick's viewers about that exact thing early on.

 

[Gehenna]

The irony is, he warned Nick's viewers about that exact thing early on.

Usually, those giving in to hubris recognize it on some level if they have some level of professionalism. Everything is going too well, everything seems to fit suspiciously perfectly. Beard did not catch himself as he gave in to it, but he definitely showed signs that his professionalism was trying to clue him in to it.

It is ironically why I think he is a decent lawyer. He definitely had the finely tuned professionalism to realize his hubris was getting the better of him. He simply failed to take heed of it in time.

It also explains his showing in the court room. Yah, it was a kangaroo court, but any reading of the transcript shows that Beard was caught flat footed and was utterly unable to pivot on the spot and only started to show his competence well after the damage had been done. That, to me, is the damning evidence of his hubris as it played out like a textbook example of someone who had given in to it, and suddenly had reality slam them in the face that they weren't as smart as they thought they were.

 

[Notspecialdude]

Usually, those giving in to hubris recognize it on some level if they have some level of professionalism. Everything is going too well, everything seems to fit suspiciously perfectly. Beard did not catch himself as he gave in to it, but he definitely showed signs that his professionalism was trying to clue him in to it.

It is ironically why I think he is a decent lawyer. He definitely had the finely tuned professionalism to realize his hubris was getting the better of him. He simply failed to take heed of it in time.

It also explains his showing in the court room. Yah, it was a kangaroo court, but any reading of the transcript shows that Beard was caught flat footed and was utterly unable to pivot on the spot and only started to show his competence well after the damage had been done. That, to me, is the damning evidence of his hubris as it played out like a textbook example of someone who had given in to it, and suddenly had reality slam them in the face that they weren't as smart as they thought they were.

That's fair. Ty thought he had a slam dunk case, and neglected the possibility of a hostile judge.

What matters now is how he moves on from that case. Its clear he's taken the lesson to heart as hes appeared less on Nick's show and has filed his appeal. Everyone makes mistakes so im not going to condemn Ty the label of incompetent just yet.

If he screws up again, then there is no excuse.

 

[Padoru]

Usually, those giving in to hubris recognize it on some level if they have some level of professionalism. Everything is going too well, everything seems to fit suspiciously perfectly. Beard did not catch himself as he gave in to it, but he definitely showed signs that his professionalism was trying to clue him in to it.

It is ironically why I think he is a decent lawyer. He definitely had the finely tuned professionalism to realize his hubris was getting the better of him. He simply failed to take heed of it in time.

It also explains his showing in the court room. Yah, it was a kangaroo court, but any reading of the transcript shows that Beard was caught flat footed and was utterly unable to pivot on the spot and only started to show his competence well after the damage had been done. That, to me, is the damning evidence of his hubris as it played out like a textbook example of someone who had given in to it, and suddenly had reality slam them in the face that they weren't as smart as they thought they were.

genuine question: You kept saying earlier that you think Ty is incompetent. But you also say you think he's a decent lawyer. Now you say he showed competence...that doesn't align. He can't be both decent as a lawyer but also unable to perform his job when you even say he was able to show his competence after all. Is it maybe that instead of incompetent you mean overconfident?

 

[Super Smelly Vagina]

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.

No amount of evidence could overcome Chupp's "I don't gib a fuck 'bout dis sheit" attitude.

 

[Gehenna]

genuine question: You kept saying earlier that you think Ty is incompetent. But you also say you think he's a decent lawyer. Now you say he showed competence...that doesn't align. He can't be both decent as a lawyer but also unable to perform his job when you even say he was able to show his competence after all. Is it maybe that instead of incompetent you mean overconfident?

I reanalyzed and reconsidered. My strongest comments against beard were baffled and bewildered swings, but as I have learned more about the trade of being a lawyer and have reanalyzed prior material through that lens, I have reformed my opinions.

Edit: unless you mean earlier in this specific convo in which case... I didn't? Do you mean earlier as a matter of weeks, or earlier in the past 24 hours?

 

[DinkyCowSow]

You do not need to show how you can calculate damages to prove there was damage. Its insane to suggest that a prima facie showing should require the ability to calculate damage, at that point you might as well throw the tort out entirely because it becomes nigh impossible to make a case.

Discovery exists for a reason.

The purpose of the TCPA and other anti-slapp statutes is to throw out OBVIOUSLY unmeritorious lawsuits outright, like those with absolutely no proof of what they're alleging in the first place, no testimony, not enough to support even a basic showing.

Making it fucking impossible to sue people for any speech based torts is definitely not the intention nor even the wording, I have no idea why people have this obsessively high ask of Ty's evidence for a mere prima facie showing, it seems to increase every time its brought up in this thread.

It is exceedingly simple to show that you can at least estimate your damages. The job of the court at the TCPA stage is not to make a determination of the exact amount of damages, because that would be a factual finding that is left to the jury, but to see that the plaintiff has some modicum of evidence that he has calculable damages that can be addressed by the court. Maybe some courts would accept outlining where costs were spent without including the costs, but I'm yet to be convinced, and haven't seen any other lawyer try it. It's very kind of Ty to attempt to get clarification of this issue at the appeals court for future plaintiffs by withholding that evidence from his filings.

The job of the TCPA is to allow you to present your best possible case, where your opponents don't have a real option to challenge your assertions. Later on in the case, the defendants might put forward evidence that hurts your case (like what if you actually made more money because of the controversy), but for now you have the spotlight, and you have to show you have good reason for each tort you are listing.

 

[Padoru]

I reanalyzed and reconsidered. My strongest comments against beard were baffled and bewildered swings, but as I have learned more about the trade of being a lawyer and have reanalyzed prior material through that lens, I have reformed my opinions.

Edit: unless you mean earlier in this specific convo in which case... I didn't? Do you mean earlier as a matter of weeks, or earlier in the past 24 hours?

oh nevermind i mixed you up with somebody else. Dunno how that happened. My apologies

 

[Allanon]

My opinion about Ty hasn't changed at all. I think he's a cool dude that's also as much of a nerd as a boomer can be, and that he's a good lawyer who is passionate about Vic's case because it's become personal for him. Maybe if he'd screwed up the hearing through his own sheer incompetence I'd have changed my opinion, but he didn't. You can talk all you want with hindsight and say 'well he should have been prepared for a flatly inappropriate standard of evidence, because MAYBE the judge was going to be crazy and decide to run it with his own kooky standards that vaguely resemble summary judgment (but aren't)', but that's just not reasonable nor feasible. You're saying he should have wasted his client's money doing things that should have been totally unnecessary on the off-chance of ending up with a weirdly hostile judge.

Yes, his filing was a little sloppy, but in the end it didn't even matter. The filing wasn't important, and it didn't ruin or 'lose' the case. It was all Chupp, and it was always going to be Chupp. If not for Chupp, it would have just been an ugly filing that still ultimately did what it was supposed to.

And with all that, we should also probably consider that some of the 'close to the vest' behavior may actually have been Vic not letting slip the dogs of war and wanting to be gentle and only do what was necessary to Funi et al.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

I have a suspicion that with this latest filing, wherein the new firm actively asks Chupp for sanctions against Lemonfurher, that Vic might have finally allowed the lawyers off their chains.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

It is exceedingly simple to show that you can at least estimate your damages. The job of the court at the TCPA stage is not to make a determination of the exact amount of damages, because that would be a factual finding that is left to the jury, but to see that the plaintiff has some modicum of evidence that he has calculable damages that can be addressed by the court. Maybe some courts would accept outlining where costs were spent without including the costs, but I'm yet to be convinced, and haven't seen any other lawyer try it. It's very kind of Ty to attempt to get clarification of this issue at the appeals court for future plaintiffs by withholding that evidence from his filings.

The job of the TCPA is to allow you to present your best possible case, where your opponents don't have a real option to challenge your assertions. Later on in the case, the defendants might put forward evidence that hurts your case (like what if you actually made more money because of the controversy), but for now you have the spotlight, and you have to show you have good reason for each tort you are listing.

The only question at TCPA stage is that if there -is- damage, not what the amount of damages is. You're just wrong about this. There's nothing more to say. You're just fucking wrong.

 

[Markorian]

I have a suspicion that with this latest filing, wherein the new firm actively asks Chupp for sanctions against Lemonfurher, that Vic might have finally allowed the lawyers off their chains.

Or at least loosened them. I think Ty probably explained how dire the situation is and how they need to get through appeals as quickly as possible for there to even be a round 2. The only one Vic seems to actually harbor some real resentment against is Sabat, and if there's no round 2, he slips through the cracks.

 

[Red Wizard]

And with all that, we should also probably consider that some of the 'close to the vest' behavior may actually have been Vic not letting slip the dogs of war and wanting to be gentle and only do what was necessary to Funi et al.

This is very likely. It's been very clear that Vic didn't want this to balloon into what it became, and the "hiding" of the affidavits could very well have been a case of "well we have these, but lets not get Chuck or Chris any more involved than we have to". When they found out that Chupp may be difficult, they had to pull them out of their back pocket.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

Or at least loosened them. I think Ty probably explained how dire the situation is and how they need to get through appeals as quickly as possible for there to even be a round 2. The only one Vic seems to actually harbor some real resentment against is Sabat, and if there's no round 2, he slips through the cracks.

I'm not even sure what to call this. It's the opposite of poor client management. Allowing your own client to manage you so thoroughly that you can't even get past the basic first steps of the lawsuit? The TCPA motion has already been granted, and they can't introduce new evidence to surpass it at the Appeals court level. If Ty held back introducing evidence because Vic didn't want to be mean to people, then either Ty did a poor job of explaining how costly that could be, or Vic ignored it and hamstrung his own case.

 

[Red Wizard]

It's the opposite of poor client management.

Isn't the opposite of poor client management good client management?

 

[DinkyCowSow]

Isn't the opposite of poor client management good client management?

That's one opposite. But if we reverse client instead, it becomes poor attorney management. It's interesting to me, because it's much more common that the lawyer has problems because they have difficulty managing their client, rather than the client managing their lawyer.

Rial and Toye's sanctions brief is up: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DEnSBee6VAqg2UF-JYEHlKyaRi3y67YP/view

Kiwi Farms gets a mention by name as early as page 3!

Edit: Marchi motion here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DFooUgjjAar5jOg05CVtGvZSEzQhjBAa/view

 

[Sheryl Nome]

How dare Vic not stop this man he has no control over

This is the dumbest shit Lemoine has done, he huffs his farts way too hard

"Guys I incurred EXACTLY the go-fund-me

Good god

 

[HighwayStar]

Rial and Toye's sanctions brief is up: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DEnSBee6VAqg2UF-JYEHlKyaRi3y67YP/view

Kiwi Farms gets a mention by name as early as page 3!

Let me get this straight: they bitch about Vic sharing photos with Nick Rekieta in Hawaii and Anime Matsuri, but they had no issue with sharing their photos and having their stories covered by Dallas Morning News and letting J. Sean Phlegmoine do an interview with Derek Petulant from Dao of Dragon Ball? Do these people genuinely think we’re that dumb and forgetful?

View attachment 998324
How dare Vic not stop this man he has no control over

This is the dumbest shit Lemoine has done, he huffs his farts way too hard

Yeah, how dare Vic not say something about a show he has no control over. By the way, Moronica, why didn’t you stop Amanda Winn Lee, Daman Mills, Leah Clark, Shane Holmberg, T. Greg Doucette, Jamie Marchi and Dominique Stink from calling Vic “predator”, “pedophile”, “rapist” and “monster”? They are truly grasping straws.

On the bright side, at least it looks like BHBH are finally getting more and more aggressive, which is what they need to do right now.