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

[Sheryl Nome]

It kind of was? He took a part of Vic's signature, he added to it to make it look like it said Victor instead of Vic, and he pasted it into a document while asserting under oath that it was Vic's true and correct signature. That sounds remarkably like forgery to me.

If you ignore the intent element, a lot of things sound like crimes!

 

[10SorrowfulObject]

If you ignore the intent element, a lot of things sound like crimes!

Are you saying that Ty accidentally added "tor" to Vic's signature? Like... did his finger slip? Repeatedly?

 

[DinkyCowSow]

Succinct analysis and I agree. This is the whole raison d'etre for the TCPA. How the TCPA was meant to be applied and how it is actually being used is something that the Supreme Court of any State with an Anti-SLAPP law should be looking at. I am now curious to see the arguments and rulings of the Courts that struck down SLAPP in their states.

The two states that have had anti-SLAPP statutes that were struck down both required the judge the evaluate both supporting and opposing information in determining whether the claim had a probability of success. This made the judge a finder of fact, which the constitution (and the TCPA) do not allow. Of course, I don't think Chupp has made an error here: I think the Appeals Court is likely to hold that Chupp was correct in accepting the withdrawal of the original notarized documents but then rejecting it when Ty tried to days after the due date reapply them. In the best interest of his client, Ty should have asked for leave of court to replace the defective documents. Instead: Sean had a sperg attack and immediately blew his load trying to call out Ty for his evidence being defective, but Ty responded by double-or-nothing freaking the fuck out and just flat out withdrawing all his evidence and then sitting around with his thumb up his ass for a week.

(Interesting side note about the cases striking down the two: one of them happened to be a case where the prevailing party was suing to stop a boycott of Israel, and the other ruling was in favor of a group suing an asian women's shelter)

Interesting enough, several people on here actually seem to be calling for a strengthening of anti-SLAPP laws into a generic new pre-trial motion. The TCPA and other anti-SLAPP laws generally seem to be an attempt to create a balance between the 1st and 7th Amendments. Sure, you have the right to use the government as a tool to address civil greviences, but you also have the right to speak your mind without the government getting all up in your biz (even if it is just another citizen trying to force the government to do it). Several people here seem to want to get rid of the requirement to prove there is a 1st Amendment issue, and just allow you to immediately require at the start of any lawsuit the other party must be able to instantly provide evidence of every single element of every tort without any discovery. I'm not necessarily against that, but I have a feeling the courts might strike that down as overbroad when there isn't the need to prove a balance of another constitutional right against that of the 7th Amendment.

 

[Felonious Monk]

If you ignore the intent element, a lot of things sound like crimes!

Texas Penal Code § 32.21(1)(A)(ii): "'Forge' means ... to alter, make, complete, execute, or authenticate any writing so that it purports ... to have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case."

Beard altered a signature and then authenticated it as having been executed at a time and in a place other than what was in fact the case.

Was this a forgery? Yes, definitely it was under the definition provided by the penal code for forgery. I will grant you though, that Beard's intent to defraud is borderline, so it probably wasn't a crime, or at least not a crime I think any DA would have any interest in prosecuting.

 

[Immaculate Ape]

It kind of was? He took a part of Vic's signature, he added to it to make it look like it said Victor instead of Vic, and he pasted it into a document while asserting under oath that it was Vic's true and correct signature. That sounds remarkably like forgery to me.

Since we're arguing ancient, irrelevant red herrings, when does the argument about the magic bullet and second shooter start up?

At least thatd be more interesting than watching NPCs from law Twitter puking up stale arguments

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Are you saying that Ty accidentally added "tor" to Vic's signature? Like... did his finger slip? Repeatedly?

No i'm saying that it wasn't forgery, because it doesn't meet the intent elements for forgery.

Texas Penal Code § 32.21(1)(A)(ii): "'Forge' means ... to alter, make, complete, execute, or authenticate any writing so that it purports ... to have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case."

Beard altered a signature and then authenticated it as having been executed at a time and in a place other than what was in fact the case.

Was this a forgery? Yes, definitely it was under the definition provided by the penal code for forgery. I will grant you though, that Beard's intent to defraud is borderline, so it probably wasn't a crime, or at least not a crime I think any DA would have any interest in prosecuting.

>Without intent it wasn't a crime

Then it wasn't forgery, you fucking brainlet. Forgery is a crime, you can't say the man committed a crime and then go 'oh well he didn't commit a crime'

If you think you're going to pull this Motte and Bailey shit on the farms, you need to reassess, this isn't twitter.

 

[Dumb Bitch Smoothie]

Since we're arguing ancient, irrelevant red herrings, when does the argument about the magic bullet and second shooter start up?

At least thatd be more interesting than watching NPCs from law Twitter puking up stale arguments

They all suddenly flock here when they're "winning" like it's some achievement. Only showing up when there isn't any room for them to be wrong in their minds because they're too big of pussies to actually make an effort when things aren't going well.

Really paints a picture of how their mental gymnastics work.

"Well, the court said this so I'm right and you're wrong"

What a successful strategy.

 

[Much Ado About Nothing]

Welcome sailors of the spednaught.
Can not stay for long, but if you are uncertain about forgery law, please take a look at this excerpt that can explain it to you:

Texas forgery law makes it a crime to forge a "writing" with intent to defraud or harm another person. If the defendant is being charged with having forged two or more writings, then there will be a presumption that he or she did intend to defraud another person.

As long as ty has not done anything to defraud, or harm he is ok. If he got permission to do so from vic, he's also OK.

Texas Forgery Laws - FindLaw

Texas forgery law makes it a crime to forge a "writing" with intent to defraud or harm another person. Learn more about this and other fraud-related crimes at FindLaw.com.

statelaws.findlaw.com

 

[Felonious Monk]

Then it wasn't forgery, you fucking brainlet. Forgery is a crime, you can't say the man committed a crime and then go 'oh well he didn't commit a crime'

The act of creating a forgery is necessary but not sufficient for the crime of forgery. I can paint my best version of Van Gogh's Starry Night, I can lie up and down the street telling anyone who will listen that it is the real deal, but unless I try to sell it under his name it isn't a crime.

Remind me where I said he committed a crime? I said it was a forgery, and the law agrees with me. I never said he committed the crime of forgery.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

The act of creating a forgery is necessary but not sufficient for the crime of forgery. I can paint my best version of Van Gogh's Starry Night, I can lie up and down the street telling anyone who will listen that it is the real deal, but unless I try to sell it under his name it isn't a crime.

Remind me where I said he committed a crime? I said it was a forgery, and the law agrees with me. I never said he committed the crime of forgery.

Yes, this is whats called the motte and bailey, its blindingly obvious you want to say he did commit a crime, but when called out on that you retreat to 'oh no I just mean he did it in the non-legal sense'

Good fuck you are bad at this.

 

[teriyakiburns]

The affidavits are KV's long form birth certificate obsession.

 

[Spectre_06]

Since we're arguing ancient, irrelevant red herrings, when does the argument about the magic bullet and second shooter start up?

At least thatd be more interesting than watching NPCs from law Twitter puking up stale arguments

Fucking Eric Lensherr....

 

[10SorrowfulObject]

It violates the US Constitution, in particular "right to petition" (1st Amendment) and "trial by jury" (7th Amendment). It probably violates the Texas Constitution as well, but I'd need to look into that.

There's no First Amendment violation here; the right to petition is about petitioning the government. The First Amendment acts more to prevent defamation suits than it does to enable them; the freedom of speech clause is the basis for the public figure rule in NYT v Sullivan.

The Seventh Amendment argument is probably the best one I've seen here. Vic can't argue it at appeal because he didn't raise it at trial, but I think it's the most colourable one. Other states' anti-SLAPP legislation has been overturned on Seventh Amendment grounds because the specific procedure outlined made the trial court a finder of fact, which impeded their right to a jury trial.

I don't think that's the case with the TCPA; the court isn't finding facts, instead it's deciding whether the evidence provided is adequate to proceed. I think that the TCPA test — whether they established by way of clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of each claim — is a question of law and not fact.

 

[Much Ado About Nothing]

The act of creating a forgery is necessary but not sufficient for the crime of forgery. I can paint my best version of Van Gogh's Starry Night, I can lie up and down the street telling anyone who will listen that it is the real deal, but unless I try to sell it under his name it isn't a crime.

Remind me where I said he committed a crime? I said it was a forgery, and the law agrees with me. I never said he committed the crime of forgery.

Did you not just read your own words and phrasing?

"He took a part of Vic's signature, he added to it to make it look like it said Victor instead of Vic, and he pasted it into a document while asserting under oath that it was Vic's true and correct signature. That sounds remarkably like forgery to me."

Implying he produced forged documents under oath to the court. Then like the sped-Sailor you are decide to quote criminal law, cause you are totally not accusing him of a crime right?

Only that he did that thing that wasn't a crime according to you just now.

Remind me where I said he committed a crime? I said it was a forgery, and the law agrees with me. I never said he committed the crime of forgery.

Try being less exceptional

 

[Felonious Monk]

You are, of course, completely right. My error. Altering a signature, certifying that it was true, correct, and signed in your presence, then submitting same to a court isn't forgery. It is just a teeny tiny whoopsie doodle. Hardly worth talking about.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

You are, of course, completely right. My error. Altering a signature, certifying that it was true, correct, and signed in your presence, then submitting same to a court isn't forgery. It is just a teeny tiny whoopsie doodle. Hardly worth talking about.

You're -really- bad at this, here you are implying its a crime again. Just fucking stop I'm embarassed for you.

 

[PrinceofAllCucks]

You are, of course, completely right. My error. Altering a signature, certifying that it was true, correct, and signed in your presence, then submitting same to a court isn't forgery. It is just a teeny tiny whoopsie doodle. Hardly worth talking about.

Either claim he's commit a felony or shut the fuck up about it. Flip flopping is just making you look like a pussy who doesn't want to look like an idiot for making the claim directly like Lynn or Shane.

 

[Much Ado About Nothing]

You are, of course, completely right. My error. Altering a signature, certifying that it was true, correct, and signed in your presence, then submitting same to a court isn't forgery. It is just a teeny tiny whoopsie doodle. Hardly worth talking about.

Quite literally the first part of Texas Penal Code § 32.21. Forgery

a) For purposes of this section:

(1) “Forge” means:

(A) to alter, make, complete, execute, or authenticate any writing so that it purports:

(i) to be the act of another who did not authorize that act;

If given permission he's good.

 

[Felonious Monk]

You're -really- bad at this, here you are implying its a crime again. Just fucking stop I'm embarassed for you.

Beard would have needed intent to defraud and that requires thinking more than one step beyond his current actions. Given his behavior in this case, we can can say pretty conclusively no crime was committed.

Quite literally the first part of Texas Penal Code § 32.21. Forgery

a) For purposes of this section:

(1) “Forge” means:

(A) to alter, make, complete, execute, or authenticate any writing so that it purports:

(i) to be the act of another who did not authorize that act;

If given permission he's good.

i, ii, and iii are "or" statements. Permission does not excuse falsifying the time/place/order.

 

[AnOminous]

Co


The collateral source doctrine bars evidence that a party has already been compensated through another source, so this isn't an argument Vic can make.

That hasn't stopped the defense from somehow making it their sole argument that somehow, the fact the plaintiff even has money to pursue the case is proof it's frivolous.