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

[Garm]

Okay so, I THINK I can explain this from a layman's perspective. TCPA locks all discovery, which it's designed to do. The issue here is that Discovery is a stage 1 part of a lawsuit, that once a Trial process occurs (Which in this case is the TCPA Hearing can't be 30 days before that). You have reached stage 2, which unless you have a court filing requesting leave to conduct discovery and have it granted by the court, you cannot conduct discovery, period. Basically the TCPA is DESIGNED to stop all discovery to cut down on legal costs.

Its a policy argument, the point of the TCPA is to swiftly dispose of frivilous lawsuit, if a lawsuit against you is frivilous, the last thing you want to do is engage in discovery and go through unnecessary cost, because the thing that frivilous lawsuits utilize to intimidate people is the cost of litigation. Even having your lawyer be present while you're deposed is screamingly expensive.

Thus, that is why the TCPA, and other anti-slapp statutes stay discovery (to prevent costs from being inflated), and awards costs to the defendant if they win (So that the costs of the lawsuit that would be forced onto them by the plaintiff are not)

By engaging in discovery, there is an argument, and let me make a point that it is not an insubstantial one, that the defendant is arguably waiving their right to the TCPA by implicitly agreeing that the lawsuit is NOT frivolous, by engaging in discovery. Because a truly frivolous lawsuit would get a TCPA response and nothing else.

There is a real argument that the TCPA may not apply here, it would not be beyond the pale for the courts to decide that beginning the discovery process in a lawsuit waives the right to the TCPA.

Why would you need evidence? It should be apparent on the face of the complaint that it is frivolous and lacks a basis in law and that the plaintiff either hasn't or can't present anything in support of it. At most, the plaintiff is put to find at least one witness who can back up each element of each claim or the plaintiff goes away.

Whether the TCPA applies in a defamation case is inherent in the claims made. If they're defamation it almost automatically applies. Then why is discovery needed? Either the plaintiff presents a prima facie case or just flat out loses.

the plaintiff couldn't force shit if you don't comply with it as seen by MoRon. Here a quick reminder to you that they literally ignored almost all discovery requests by Ty entirely BEFORE they filed their TCPA. They were already a week late on it but Ty was being too nice to them and only after them being bitches even THEN filed the motion to compel which is still outstanding should appeals be granted regarding them. And you have to remember that this is while they conducted discovery completely irrelevant to the TCPA: Vic's Deposition for example didn't even have any questions that would ever lead to answers showing that his Lawsuit is frivolous. Half their discovery requests were about shit THEY should be providing etc.

Arguing with the bird is a road to nowhere.

 

[Lord Xenu]

TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund on Twitter

“The TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund is proud to support Jamie Marchi and Dina Lee Almeida in their fight for justice.”

twitter.com

TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund on Twitter

““In most instances, money is a big barrier to suing… many people such as paramedics, housekeepers and waitresses simply don't make enough for a lawyer to take their case,” said @TIMESUPLDF director @SharynTejani to @NPR https://t.co/BdaSDcYIaQ”

web.archive.org

 

[The Singer Of Songs]

TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund on Twitter

“The TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund is proud to support Jamie Marchi and Dina Lee Almeida in their fight for justice.”

twitter.com

TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund on Twitter

““In most instances, money is a big barrier to suing… many people such as paramedics, housekeepers and waitresses simply don't make enough for a lawyer to take their case,” said @TIMESUPLDF director @SharynTejani to @NPR https://t.co/BdaSDcYIaQ”

web.archive.org

Now we know where Firecrotch gets her funding from. No need for money from Vic.

 

[Adach_Ame]

Arguing with the bird is a road to nowhere.

I wasn't arguing with them, I was explaining to them.

 

[WarJams]

It never astounds me, the amount of horrible lawyers organizations that exist. I guess this sort of idiocy is to be expected from the sort of organization that still bleats about the farcical "gender pay gap." I'd wager that bitter, man-hating shrew from the Dallas Morning News got her this hook up.

 

[Garm]

I wasn't arguing with them, I was explaining to them.

I know you were making the attempt and you should be sainted for attempting to educate the less fortunate but somethings are simply beyond the means of mortal men.

 

[10SorrowfulObject]

Its a policy argument, the point of the TCPA is to swiftly dispose of frivilous lawsuit, if a lawsuit against you is frivilous, the last thing you want to do is engage in discovery and go through unnecessary cost, because the thing that frivilous lawsuits utilize to intimidate people is the cost of litigation. Even having your lawyer be present while you're deposed is screamingly expensive.

Thus, that is why the TCPA, and other anti-slapp statutes stay discovery (to prevent costs from being inflated), and awards costs to the defendant if they win (So that the costs of the lawsuit that would be forced onto them by the plaintiff are not)

By engaging in discovery, there is an argument, and let me make a point that it is not an insubstantial one, that the defendant is arguably waiving their right to the TCPA by implicitly agreeing that the lawsuit is NOT frivolous, by engaging in discovery. Because a truly frivolous lawsuit would get a TCPA response and nothing else.

There is a real argument that the TCPA may not apply here, it would not be beyond the pale for the courts to decide that beginning the discovery process in a lawsuit waives the right to the TCPA.

This isn't a thing. Texas Civ Prac and Rem Code 27.003 defines when the TCPA motion can be filed. If Texas wanted discovery to foreclose TCPA motions, they would have written the law differently. You'll also recall that they extended the TCPA deadline.

Yes, TCPA applies here.

No, the courts will not rewrite the TCPA because reasons. The legislature wrote the law, and the court is obligated to respect that unless there is a constitutional issue and there's none here.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

This isn't a thing. Texas Civ Prac and Rem Code 27.003 defines when the TCPA motion can be filed. If Texas wanted discovery to foreclose TCPA motions, they would have written the law differently. You'll also recall that they extended the TCPA deadline.

Yes, TCPA applies here.

No, the courts will not rewrite the TCPA because reasons. The legislature wrote the law, and the court is obligated to respect that unless there is a constitutional issue and there's none here.

The court can absolutely read those sort of things into laws, they do it all the time.

If you think they don't, you have very little knowledge of law.

 

[10SorrowfulObject]

The court can absolutely read those sort of things into laws, they do it all the time.

Give me an example of a court rewriting a procedural item like this.

 

[Adach_Ame]

I know you were making the attempt and you should be sainted for attempting to educate the less fortunate but somethings are simply beyond the means of mortal men.

I can at least say I can try. Hahah

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Give me an example of a court rewriting a procedural item like this.

You want me to give you a citation of statutory interpretation existing?

I mean, are you wanting a specific procedural thing? I won't spend the time for that. But courts reading into statutes is literally their job and it is more than possible for them to go beyond the text.

 

[Markorian]

Arguing with the bird is a road to nowhere.

You don't argue with him, you make an example of him.

 

[10SorrowfulObject]

You want me to give you a citation of statutory interpretation existing?

This isn't statutory interpretation. The text of the law is crystal clear. Rewriting the law to mean something entirely other than what the law says, which is what your interpretation requires.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

This isn't statutory interpretation. The text of the law is crystal clear. Rewriting the law to mean something entirely other than what the law says, which is what your interpretation requires.

This is absolutely statutory interpretation. Its kind of absurd to suggest that its not.

Courts absolutely can read in ways that statutes can disallow some actions, usually for policy reasons. Like say, not letting defendants in a lawsuit abuse a law by driving up costs in complete opposition to that law's public policy intent.

 

[Red Wizard]

This isn't statutory interpretation. The text of the law is crystal clear. Rewriting the law to mean something entirely other than what the law says, which is what your interpretation requires.

The text of the law also states that it's meant to quickly do away with "frivolous" lawsuits, and can only be filed within the first 30 days of a lawsuit. It can be argued that the defendant no longer considered the lawsuit "frivolous" when they conducted discovery. And, might I add, in this case, INSISTED THEY WENT FIRST.

 

[Ivan Shatov]

TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund on Twitter

“The TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund is proud to support Jamie Marchi and Dina Lee Almeida in their fight for justice.”

twitter.com

TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund on Twitter

““In most instances, money is a big barrier to suing… many people such as paramedics, housekeepers and waitresses simply don't make enough for a lawyer to take their case,” said @TIMESUPLDF director @SharynTejani to @NPR https://t.co/BdaSDcYIaQ”

web.archive.org

This is interesting.

Times Up doesn't just write checks, they hook people up with big media. There will be talking points, media contacts, she probably has her own PR person already. There will be lots of behind the scenes activity, calls by executives asking to cancel Nick. Politicians will make statements of support. Willing to bet this is related to Dick Masterson's payment processor problems.

We are about to see an escalation of the most exceptional sort.

 

[Screech Man Bad]

The National Women's Law Center Founders

Read more about NWLC's Founders from NWLC.

nwlc.org

The National Women's Law Center Founders

archived 6 Nov 2019 05:49:11 UTC

archive.is

I went looking and there it is.

 

[Red Wizard]

This is interesting.

Times Up doesn't just write checks, they hook people up with big media. There will be talking points, media contacts, she probably has her own PR person already. There will be lots of behind the scenes activity, calls by executives asking to cancel Nick. Politicians will make statements of support. Willing to bet this is related to Dick Masterson's payment processor problems.

We are about to see an escalation of the most exceptional sort.

I'm confused here. Is TIMES UP now accusing Vic of Sexual Harassment?

 

[Lord Xenu]

This is interesting.

Times Up doesn't just write checks, they hook people up with big media. There will be talking points, media contacts, she probably has her own PR person already. There will be lots of behind the scenes activity, calls by executives asking to cancel Nick. Politicians will make statements of support. Willing to bet this is related to Dick Masterson's payment processor problems.

We are about to see an escalation of the most exceptional sort.

Interesting that it is only Jamie Marchi involved. Could it be because Ron Toye is a menace to women and children and makes Monica and him a huge liability for promoting their agenda?

 

[HTTP Error 404]

Here's a sick thought. What if they're so desperate to get Slaytosch on the stand (outside of trial) because they've flipped him.

I'm confused here. Is TIMES UP now accusing Vic of Sexual Harassment?

Indirectly, yes. Times Up is a Feminist Cultural Marxist advocacy group. They're Neo-Marxist foot soldiers that support MeToo accusers. They're going to try and tie Marchi with the term "rape victim" despite her, you know, being 100% unfuckable. (Not even with a borrowed dick.)

As Ivan mentioned above, Times Up has a lot of connections. We're about to see KV on a media blitz to try and push Vic into suicide before he can win his appeal.