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

[Gehenna]

I swear lawspeds are getting dumber. Motte and fucking bayley, it's just one step above the fucking gish gallop. I wasn't kidding when I said I missed BurnBabyBurn, hell even the birdbrain, whatever can add some more chuckles. But this newfag just sucks too much, he's fallen even beyong mein feuhrer waluigi's logic by the second post, and then kept digging.

The birdbrain, as much as I find the to be a raging lunatic on occasion, is in fact occasionally right or brings up an interesting, if almost always misinterpreted, point of law.

Technically there were 3 different affidavits Ty appears to have forged signatures for. Math isn't my strong suit, but I believe that qualifies as "two or more".

The only standing one is the Vic one. Something LawTwitter likes to ignore is that, upon being notified he fucked up, Beard immediately pulled them and released proper ones. That matters, a lot. Showing that one is trying to comply to law and immediately correcting to the point that the alleged crime is no longer having any effect pretty well nullifies that alleged crime.

To use a fairly common example. Sometimes old people walk out of the store forgetting to pay for an item. This is theft. If they are notified of it and that old person immediately returns and pays for it, it is no longer theft as any court which has received such a case immediately asks "What was the harm?". Since there was none, they reject outright.

 

[BurnBabyBurn]

The only standing one is the Vic one. Something LawTwitter likes to ignore is that, upon being notified he fucked up, Beard immediately pulled them and released proper ones.

Not true. He withdrew the affidavits and resubmitted them as unsworn declarations. Not the same thing legally speaking.

 

[Gehenna]

Not true. He withdrew the affidavits and resubmitted them as unsworn declarations. Not the same thing legally speaking.

I worded poorly. By 'standing' I mean the only one they still harp on. It is much harder for them to go after the other two since that was literally just "I thought I could notarize over the phone", where as the Vic one has an extended signature.

As for legally speaking... exactly. That's what matters. He realized he fucked up and immediately did his best to comply with the law by removing the affidavits and resubmitting them as unsworn declarations.

He took the improper thing, removed it from the table entirely, and replaced it with a proper thing. That is what matters legally, as it shows intent to comply with the law, corrects in a timely manner, and the correction removes the offense from the metaphorical board.

 

[AnOminous]

To use a fairly common example. Sometimes old people walk out of the store forgetting to pay for an item. This is theft. If they are notified of it and that old person immediately returns and pays for it, it is no longer theft as any court which has received such a case immediately asks "What was the harm?". Since there was none, they reject outright.

It was never theft. Theft, or larceny, generally requires an intent to deprive the owner of possession permanently. If the person intended to purchase it but simply forgot, it's a mistake, not theft, although it could ripen into theft if they discovered their error and decided to keep it.

 

[Gehenna]

It was never theft. Theft, or larceny, generally requires an intent to deprive the owner of possession permanently. If the person intended to purchase it but simply forgot, it's a mistake, not theft, although it could ripen into theft if they discovered their error and decided to keep it.

I'm aware of the distinction, but I am responding to someone who thinks what Beard did was a crime. Ergo, if I am to convince them that it is not, I need to speak in the context of another situation with similar facts in a consistent language.

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

I'm aware of the distinction, but I am responding to someone who thinks what Beard did was a crime. Ergo, if I am to convince them that it is not, I need to speak in the context of another situation with similar facts in a consistent language.

It doesn't matter if one corrects the problem if it was intentional, though. Being caught does not eliminate a fraud, if it was indeed a fraud. Just like being chased down by the store owner and giving an item back doesn't make you not guilty of theft IF you took it with that intention. The relevant question is whether or not there was intent or it was an innocent fuckup. I suspect the latter but he could have taken steps to correct the situation in either case.

 

[Gehenna]

It doesn't matter if one corrects the problem if it was intentional, though. Being caught does not eliminate a fraud, if it was indeed a fraud. Just like being chased down by the store owner and giving an item back doesn't make you not guilty of theft IF you took it with that intention. The relevant question is whether or not there was intent or it was an innocent fuckup. I suspect the latter but he could have taken steps to correct the situation in either case.

The thing is, the law doesn't purport to read minds, it bases the decision of intent on demonstrable action.
You can break it down into four parts:
1: How severe was the purported crime?
2: Was there a reasonable cause for the misconduct?
3: How soon after knowing one has erred did one attempt to correct?
4: Does the correction fully nullify the misdeed.

For accidental shoplifting it is:
1: Minor, an item forgotten to be paid for
2: Simple forgetfulness
3: As soon as notified, or realized.
4: Item paid in full.

For Beard it is:
1: Minor, the affidavits were 'proper' in that the people they are by did mean them to be done, the issue is purely with notarization.
2: Simple forgetfulness, Beard thought he could just notarize by phone. As to the signature, while unprofessional, vic still signed the Vic part and likely gave permission to add in the -tor.
3: He pulled the affidavits quickly and immediately.
4: The above satisfies 3 and 4, but he also replaced them with unsworn declarations which further satisfies 4.

Ergo, all critieria of intent being to not commit a crime is met, easily and without question.
The only way you can claim otherwise is to assume to read beard's mind, which the law does not and cannot do.

 

[AnOminous]

Ergo, all critieria of intent being to not commit a crime is met, easily and without question.
The only way you can claim otherwise is to assume to read beard's mind, which the law does not and cannot do.

The only thing Ty is actually being accused of in the context of the case is some sort of "fraud on the court" because of "fraudulent affidavits." Generally, the purpose of a notary is to assure that the person who executed a document is actually the person who made the statement it contains, whatever legal impact that document or statement has.

In the case of court documents, it's to prevent submitting fake statements by people who didn't make them. It's not because there's some magical significance to the people in question being in the same room that somehow alters the worth of the statements made.

Well, every single "fraudulent affidavit" contains what the people in question wanted to say and wanted submitted to the court. Nobody was tricked, no party was deceived, and no unfair advantage was obtained. Had he thought to do so, Ty could simply have hired someone who actually did have the remote notary certification, or had them go to a nearby bank or any other place with a notary. This would have been trivial.

The idea that it was anything other than a mistake is the diseased fantasy of the brain-damaged and malevolent J. Sean Lemoine.

 

[Dr. Dickhead]

Not true. He withdrew the affidavits and resubmitted them as unsworn declarations. Not the same thing legally speaking.

Did we ever get confirmation that Ty forged ANYTHING? I had a case where my lawyer would email me shit to sign, I'd sign the signature page, email it back, and he would print and Notarize it. Oddly enough I asked him if that was okay, as it happened around the tine this fiasco with the affidavits did, and he assured me that it is. Not gonna dox state or anything, but it could very well just be a misinterpretation of the requirements of a TX notary.

Food for thought

 

[teriyakiburns]

Did we ever get confirmation that Ty forged ANYTHING? I had a case where my lawyer would email me shit to sign, I'd sign the signature page, email it back, and he would print and Notarize it. Oddly enough I asked him if that was okay, as it happened around the tine this fiasco with the affidavits did, and he assured me that it is. Not gonna dox state or anything, but it could very well just be a misinterpretation of the requirements of a TX notary.

Food for thought

No, we don't. We have Ty admitting that he thought he could notarise remotely and withdrawing the defective affidavits to correct that oversight. Everything else is birther-level shit that simply isn't worth arguing about, for anyone.

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

This might've been answered in the past, but checking the ALAB and even Lawtwitter critiques of Ty, I'm now curious how many lawsuits involving the TCPA he's been involved with, particularly as a plaintiff's attorney. Considering his practice is mostly dealing with estates, wouldn't that law not often come up in those cases or otherwise would face next to no hurdle considering those cases don't involve a free speech issue (which defamation ultimately is) or something as nebulous as tortious interference?

 

[Red Wizard]

This might've been answered in the past, but checking the ALAB and even Lawtwitter critiques of Ty, I'm now curious how many lawsuits involving the TCPA he's been involved with, particularly as a plaintiff's attorney. Considering his practice is mostly dealing with estates, wouldn't that law not often come up in those cases or otherwise would face next to no hurdle considering those cases don't involve a free speech issue (which defamation ultimately is) or something as nebulous as tortious interference?

As far as I remember, BHBH (BHBC now) dealt mainly with estate law. Considering the level of autism involved in all of this, the choice of law firm was....questionable.

 

[2lolis1cup]

View attachment 1000783

Silence is consent.

Oh boy those #metoo people sure would like to have a word with you. Also I believe Vic specifically denounced any hateful messages.

 

[Tour of Italy]

View attachment 1000783

God dammit they need to stop with this fucking line. Vic said it in the context of a recording session, there’s nothing sinister about it.

Although I do love the fact that the first thing Dunford does here is unironically admit he’s a puss.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

As far as I remember, BHBH (BHBC now) dealt mainly with estate law. Considering the level of autism involved in all of this, the choice of law firm was....questionable.

I think Ty and his firm should've helped get things started but referred Vic to another firm more suited to dealing with this. There's gotta be better law firms in Texas than BHBC or the two Vic initially talked to for dealing with this sort of case. Hell, Martinez Hsu might've great had they been here earlier, since they do a lot contract law AND Hsu's appeared in front of Judge Chupp before. Or if not them, someone else to do the real work in the case. It seemed strange that BHBH's site updated not long after the lawsuit with Ty's profile there suddenly listing his expertise at defamation and tortious interference.

 

[Slimy Time]

As far as I remember, BHBH (BHBC now) dealt mainly with estate law. Considering the level of autism involved in all of this, the choice of law firm was....questionable.

Might be why they took on two more lawyers who appear to be knowledgable about Appeal Courts and commercial litigation. Hsu and Martinez.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Might be why they took on two more lawyers who appear to be knowledgable about Appeal Courts and commercial litigation. Hsu and Martinez.

Which seems like too little too late on getting it past Chump and avoiding the inevitable blitz of "VIC PROVEN BY A COURT OF LAW TO BE A PEDORAPIST" which is going on right now. An Lee Hsu didn't join this case until a few days before the hearing while if possible he or someone like him should've been there months ago.

 

[EmuWarsVeteran]

Which seems like too little too late on getting it past Chump and avoiding the inevitable blitz of "VIC PROVEN BY A COURT OF LAW TO BE A PEDORAPIST" which is going on right now. An Lee Hsu didn't join this case until a few days before the hearing while if possible he or someone like him should've been there months ago.

As many keep reminding you, while Ty was far from spectacular, he defended TI more than enough. He fucked up on MARCHI, and the conspiracy cause, but even defamation was sufficient. Chumpo couldn't have been avoided by even the best lawyers. He simply sperged out like Hitler's historical AI in HOI4 does when poland invades czecoslovakia before he can. Much like Thanos, his ultraspedness was inevitable. This wouldn't have fixed shit.

 

[TexOffender]

As many keep reminding you, while Ty was far from spectacular, he defended TI more than enough. He fucked up on MARCHI, and the conspiracy cause, but even defamation was sufficient. Chumpo couldn't have been avoided by even the best lawyers. He simply sperged out like Hitler's historical AI in HOI4 does when poland invades czecoslovakia before he can. Much like Thanos, his ultraspedness was inevitable. This wouldn't have fixed shit.

Remember on Marchi, sam played the clip of Vic making the hair pull motion with no audio. In the audio he said explicitly he didn't pull her hair like he did with the motion, just touched it. Ty wasn't allowed to really raise any objections even though it's allowed in a TCPA hearing.