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

[Iron Hamster]

What is 2AP?

 

[Felonious Monk]

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.

The collateral source doctrine would have worked the other way if Vic had won. The defendants would be barred from arguing to reduce his award by saying he was already compensated through fan donations to the GFM.

 

[Kendrick]

What is 2AP?

Second Ammended Petition.

 

[I can't imagine]

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.

Not to be a downer, but I'm pretty sure the entirety of their argument that the case is frivolous is the fact that the TCPA resulted in the dismissal of the case. Pending appeal, the case has been deemed frivolous.

 

[Iron Hamster]

Not to be a downer, but I'm pretty sure the entirety of their argument that the case is frivolous is the fact that the TCPA resulted in the dismissal of the case. Pending appeal, the case has been deemed frivolous.

That's why I don't understand Phlegm being allowed to throw paper at the court and basically proving Vic's case in defaming him even more. Don't see how any judicial body can be happy about that. He's weaponizing it.

 

[Markorian]

I want to say "they're not sending their best" but the sad reality is that they probably are. For all you loltwatter spergs, get my damn coffee already.

 

[Felonious Monk]

That's why I don't understand Phlegm being allowed to throw paper at the court and basically proving Vic's case in defaming him even more. Don't see how any judicial body can be happy about that. He's weaponizing it.

Litigation privilege. Texas lawyers have absolute immunity from defamation claims for the things they say in the course of a court proceeding.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Litigation privilege. Texas lawyers have absolute immunity from defamation claims for the things they say in the course of a court proceeding.

we know that thank you

 

[Confused Doggo]

I want to say "they're not sending their best" but the sad reality is that they probably are. For all you loltwatter spergs, get my damn coffee already.

It would be best if they don't get the coffee, since they'll jerk off into it and then accuse you of harassment when you find out what they did.

 

[Much Ado About Nothing]

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

He did not sign vic's name. He attempted to alter it to become vic's full first name. That ACT for all we know, could have been permitted by vic.

Under written forgery there is still a demand for it to with intent to harm and defraud. Neither which he attempted to do here. He is not posing as vic, nor did he INTEND doing any harm by it.

 

[Felonious Monk]

we know that thank you

And yet he said he didn't understand why it was allowed.

 

[Immaculate Ape]

There is literally no point in even having a discussion with the attention seeking law trolls.

They have their own point they're trying to prove hidden in their tiny brains, and that's what they'll argue and screencap people's responses to the ambiguous and ever-changing point they are arguing.

Just remember they're bored, and so pathetic that they have to come on here to bait people into giving them attention.

If play a sad note on a trumpet but that'd be a waste of oxygen.

Can we just bitch about somethi g actually relevant, like what Chupp will decide to wear to his swearing in ceremony to the supreme court, after he fails so hard upwards they can't deny him?

 

[AnOminous]

There's no First Amendment violation here; the right to petition is about petitioning the government.

What do you think the judiciary is? It's a branch of government.

From one of the very first cases ever discussed when the nature of the courts are discussed:

"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection." Marbury v. Madison.

And Marshall makes it clear it's courts he's talking about: "In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court."

 

[Much Ado About Nothing]

And yet he said he didn't understand why it was allowed.

Does law-degrees automatically make you autistic? How does this work.

This is them expressing disbelief over such a thing being permitted when it can push people into suicide and ruin their lives forever by being a shit during the process. And we know west Nile is trying!

 

[Felonious Monk]

He did not sign vic's name. He attempted to alter it to become vic's full first name. That ACT for all we know, could have been permitted by vic.

Under written forgery there is still a demand for it to with intent to harm and defraud. Neither which he attempted to do here. He is not posing as vic, nor did he INTEND doing any harm by it.

It could have been with permission, but permission doesn't make it kosher - for exactly the reason I already explained. Subsections i, ii, and iii are "or" statements, and permission isn't an excuse to falsifying time/place/order.

With regard to the intent element I think it is close to the borderline but not close enough that any DA would consider it seriously, especially when the reward is a mere class B misdemeanor. Beard is that special kind of special that can argue with a straight face that he didn't know what he was doing would cause the defendants to rely to their detriment on a document that was forged, so the intent element isn't rock solid.

 

[WarJams]

What do you think the judiciary is? It's a branch of government.

From one of the very first cases ever discussed when the nature of the courts are discussed:

"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection." Marbury v. Madison.

And Marshall makes it clear it's courts he's talking about: "In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court."

A lot of shitty civics teachers have convinced children that it only means they get to yell at their elected representatives over the phone to change laws, the same way they've been lying about only the military having the right to have guns, and so many of our other rights which are being mal-educated out of existence. Just waiting for the inevitable day they try to make me quarter soldiers.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

It could have been with permission, but permission doesn't make it kosher - for exactly the reason I already explained. Subsections i, ii, and iii are "or" statements, and permission isn't an excuse to falsifying time/place/order.

With regard to the intent element I think it is close to the borderline but not close enough that any DA would consider it seriously, especially when the reward is a mere class B misdemeanor. Beard is that special kind of special that can argue with a straight face that he didn't know what he was doing would cause the defendants to rely to their detriment on a document that was forged, so the intent element isn't rock solid.

Its not even close to borderline. There was no intent to defraud anyone.

 

[I can't imagine]

There is literally no point in even having a discussion with the attention seeking law trolls.

They have their own point they're trying to prove hidden in their tiny brains, and that's what they'll argue and screencap people's responses to the ambiguous and ever-changing point they are arguing.

Just remember they're bored, and so pathetic that they have to come on here to bait people into giving them attention.

If play a sad note on a trumpet but that'd be a waste of oxygen.

Can we just bitch about somethi g actually relevant, like what Chupp will decide to wear to his swearing in ceremony to the supreme court, after he fails so hard upwards they can't deny him?

Nah, we need them here. People around here are so super serious they start freaking out the second someone, even a troll, dares to suggest that something they said might be (gasp) wrong! This place is already a total fucking echo chamber; even bad arguments are better than the 900th "Chupp's such an idiot" "A total idiot" "Did I mention he's an idiot" conversation.

 

[Stoneheart]

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.

Its very unprofessional. you have the line where the signature goes and the name printed out behind it.

 

[AnOminous]

Nah, we need them here. People around here are so super serious they start freaking out the second someone, even a troll, dares to suggest that something they said might be (gasp) wrong! This place is already a total fucking echo chamber; even bad arguments are better than the 900th "Chupp's such an idiot" "A total idiot" "Did I mention he's an idiot" conversation.

Defending that notarial idiocy is completely unnecessary regardless of whether or not it was a crime (it wasn't). Not even Ty himself would defend that absolute bungling, which is part of why it's good someone else will be defending it on appeal. You just don't want to be in a position as a lawyer where you're spending time defending your own (indefensible) conduct.