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

secondclass said:
Also, WTF is an Exhibit letter? And why do the Kiwis think that sending Chupp a letter in is inappropriate? The letter vs. motion thing is purely stylistic. In some courts, almost all the motions/briefs are written in letter format. For example, in New Jersey, the court's own suggested brief format is in a letter style. See:
Click to expand...

This is utterly dumb and completely misses the point. A letter brief is, by definition, a brief in support of a motion already before the court. It isn't something seeking affirmative relief that is normally available by motion without actually filing a motion, or offering evidence to be used.

This literally prejudiced the TCPA hearing. Lemoine sent in this crap as "complimentary" binders of exhibits and didn't provide a copy to the plaintiffs based on bullshit reasons. Judge Chupp demanded evidence for certain claims before instantly dismissing them, and Ty tried to present him the binders he had containing the relevant exhibits, and Chupp refused to look at them, saying he already had the defendants' version. So presumably Ty had 10 seconds or so to point out the evidence in the defendants' version with different pagination or instantly have the entire case dismissed.

That's just one obvious example of bullshit.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Exterminatus, ConSluttant, Imperial Agent and 19 others
WarJams said:
Not just after any ol' deadline, after the statutory deadline. He allowed the defense to violate the actual law. Not the theoretical spirit of a Rule 11 gentlemen's agreement that says they'll both play nice. The actual fucking TCPA itself. Chupp is such a fuck up. I sure as fuck hope that gets highlighted to the appeals court.
Click to expand...
My concern is, now that he tried to play nice, that complaint hasn't been preserved for the record so it can't be brought up on appeals.. another Ty fuckup.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Allanon, GenericReviewerDraco, theworstkindofeurofag and 1 other person
AnOminous said:
This is utterly dumb and completely misses the point. A letter brief is, by definition, a brief in support of a motion already before the court. It isn't something seeking affirmative relief that is normally available by motion without actually filing a motion, or offering evidence to be used.

This literally prejudiced the TCPA hearing. Lemoine sent in this crap as "complimentary" binders of exhibits and didn't provide a copy to the plaintiffs based on bullshit reasons. Judge Chupp demanded evidence for certain claims before instantly dismissing them, and Ty tried to present him the binders he had containing the relevant exhibits, and Chupp refused to look at them, saying he already had the defendants' version. So presumably Ty had 10 seconds or so to point out the evidence in the defendants' version with different pagination or instantly have the entire case dismissed.

That's just one obvious example of bullshit.
Click to expand...
So there can't be a letter motion? Ok. Well here's an example of one:
www.aclu.org

Windsor v. United States - Plaintiff’s Letter Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

www.aclu.org www.aclu.org
Here's another:

In many federal courts, short motions (ie < 5 pages) are commonly submitted by letter. In New York, the rule is that motions <3 pages are done on letters. https://img.nyed.uscourts.gov/rules/ETB-MLR.pdf (Rule 2.A)

It's a common practice.
 
  • Dumb
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Dislike
Reactions: Imago, ManateeHunter, Coach Kreeton Of All That and 10 others
Allanon said:
Isn't it also worth noting that even if rule 63 applies to the 2AP, the fact that the defendants got to violate their rule 11 agreements mean that swapping out the affidavits for the declarations in the TCPA response shouldn't be an issue for the plaintiff, as the only issue there was a rule 11 agreement?
Click to expand...
How did the defense violate the rule 11 agreement?

AnOminous said:
This is utterly dumb and completely misses the point. A letter brief is, by definition, a brief in support of a motion already before the court. It isn't something seeking affirmative relief that is normally available by motion without actually filing a motion, or offering evidence to be used.

This literally prejudiced the TCPA hearing. Lemoine sent in this crap as "complimentary" binders of exhibits and didn't provide a copy to the plaintiffs based on bullshit reasons. Judge Chupp demanded evidence for certain claims before instantly dismissing them, and Ty tried to present him the binders he had containing the relevant exhibits, and Chupp refused to look at them, saying he already had the defendants' version. So presumably Ty had 10 seconds or so to point out the evidence in the defendants' version with different pagination or instantly have the entire case dismissed.

That's just one obvious example of bullshit.
Click to expand...
We dont even know what was in those binders do we? Is it even in the court record?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caffeinated Idol and Allanon
ConSluttant said:
Something I think y'all are forgetting... The reason it was so late was because the website didn't accept the filing and they had to compress it further - which resulted in the broken links that led to citations going nowhere.

This was a technical issue not a "hurt durr we haven't finished writing this " error. Saying that it shows that Ty et al are incompetent is just stupid. Step back a few and breathe y'all.
Click to expand...
Let's walk through this theory.

In order for this to work, the following needs to be true:
  1. The PDF compression process, which is designed to reduce the file size while still maintaining content fidelity, somehow started replacing "Exhibit 12" with "Exhibit __" or "Exhibit (green highlighted space)". Or "Vic's Deposition p. 123" with "Vic's deposition". And only in those specific areas. It didn't drop images, or any other text.
  2. BHBH then took said compressed document, didn't look at it after it was compressed, and uploaded it as-is.
  3. BHBH never mentioned that the file was mangled by PDF compression, never tried to submit an amended response.
Yeah, no.
 
  • Dumb
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: ConSluttant, ManateeHunter, Coach Kreeton Of All That and 5 others
DragoonSierra said:
How did the defense violate the rule 11 agreement?


We dont even know what was in those binders do we? Is it even in the court record?
Click to expand...
It was most likely his bloated motion for TCPA dismissal and other miscellaneous documentation and affidavits.

The TCPA was 529 pages just by itself.
 

Attachments

10SorrowfulObject said:
Let's walk through this theory.

In order for this to work, the following needs to be true:
  1. The PDF compression process, which is designed to reduce the file size while still maintaining content fidelity, somehow started replacing "Exhibit 12" with "Exhibit __" or "Exhibit (green highlighted space)". Or "Vic's Deposition p. 123" with "Vic's deposition". And only in those specific areas. It didn't drop images, or any other text.
  2. BHBH then took said compressed document, didn't look at it after it was compressed, and uploaded it as-is.
  3. BHBH never mentioned that the file was mangled by PDF compression, never tried to submit an amended response.
Yeah, no.
Click to expand...
My theory is that the weird omissions were because, after they submitted their filing and the system rejected it, they accidentally compressed and submitted one of the earlier draft versions by mistake.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: 774, ManateeHunter, Much Ado About Nothing and 2 others
ConSluttant said:
Something I think y'all are forgetting... The reason it was so late was because the website didn't accept the filing and they had to compress it further - which resulted in the broken links that led to citations going nowhere.

This was a technical issue not a "hurt durr we haven't finished writing this " error. Saying that it shows that Ty et al are incompetent is just stupid. Step back a few and breathe y'all.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but if they'd gone ahead and been ready more than a few minutes before the deadline they wouldn't have had a problem. But as pointed out, the filing being 30 minutes late didn't end up being the problem; the notary stuff was, though, even if indirectly. I don't see any way to explain that except for incompetence unless malice comes into play (which I don't believe).

I feel like being more hard on Beard and Co. because they're the ones I see ranting and sneering on videos about how stupid the defense lawyers are yet those same defense lawyers are doing a much better job of navigating the process (including the judge) than the plaintiff's. Maybe if I spent any time on twitter and had to see Lawtwitter or whatever it's called I would be rolling my eyes more at them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL and theworstkindofeurofag
secondclass said:
So there can't be a letter motion? Ok. Well here's an example of one:
www.aclu.org

Windsor v. United States - Plaintiff’s Letter Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

www.aclu.org www.aclu.org
Here's another:

In many federal courts, short motions (ie < 5 pages) are commonly submitted by letter. In New York, the rule is that motions <3 pages are done on letters. https://img.nyed.uscourts.gov/rules/ETB-MLR.pdf (Rule 2.A)

It's a common practice.
Click to expand...

You don't even apparently understand what my criticism is and that it is not merely corresponding with the court. Also you keep idiotically citing New Jersey rules, New York rules, federal courts, and everywhere but Texas.

You do understand, do you not, that submitting a letter motion or brief pursuant to an actual rule is entirely different than completely informal communications pursuant to no rule?

DragoonSierra said:
We dont even know what was in those binders do we? Is it even in the court record?
Click to expand...

It was just a "courtesy copy" of stuff already in the record, but arranged (and with titles for reference) that favored the defense position. It looks innocuous enough and that's why Lemoine does bullshit like this. It contributed to a hearing that was already chaotic that Chupp was referencing material like this that, while it was in the record, actually wasn't, and expecting Beard to provide references to shit in a document he didn't even have a copy of rather than what he had prepared for the hearing, which he incomprehensibly refused even to look at.

In retrospect it's easy to say he should have printed out a copy of this shit Lemoine sent the court and had it ready, but how the fuck would he have known that extremely specific Chupp-up would occur?

Also to answer the second question, yes, it's technically in the court record in that it's on the electronic docket and there's a copy of it there, but Chupp apparently had a physical copy of it he was using, and Lemoine explicitly refused to provide a paper copy to Ty for bogus but seemingly sensible reasons. The upshot was Chupp refused to look at Ty's evidence because he "already had" some other differently organized document.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Feels
Reactions: Crabbo, ManateeHunter, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz and 10 others
Kosher Salt said:
My theory is that the weird omissions were because, after they submitted their filing and the system rejected it, they accidentally compressed and submitted one of the earlier draft versions by mistake.
Click to expand...
Still confounds me that they never considered the file size. I know lawyers are super boomers but you'd think this shit would be something you consider during those $400 hours.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: theworstkindofeurofag
Kosher Salt said:
My theory is that the weird omissions were because, after they submitted their filing and the system rejected it, they accidentally compressed and submitted one of the earlier draft versions by mistake.
Click to expand...

My theory is the team were tripping over each other's dicks at the last minute and had ___ for some exhibits because as they were adding and removing things, exhibit designations would change, and they intended to remove the placeholder ___ and other such text (and replace them with the final versions of the exhibit letters/numbers) but just fucked up and didn't, leading to that abortion we saw.

I submit that's a more parsimonious explanation of that document than whatever sunspots and gnomes related excuse was actually presented.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Exterminatus, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, theworstkindofeurofag and 4 others
Imagine my shock when I see "secondclass" as nothing more than a LawTwitter sperg who thinks they know everything. Hint: They don't.

Whatever the case may be, Chupp was wrong, It's going to appeals, It's going to get overturned, and LawTwitter is going to suck on apples. After telling the world that they have information that will lead to the arrest of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: NotaLolyer, theworstkindofeurofag, EmuWarsVeteran and 4 others
AnOminous said:
My theory is the team were tripping over each other's dicks at the last minute and had ___ for some exhibits because as they were adding and removing things, exhibit designations would change, and they intended to remove the placeholder ___ and other such text (and replace them with the final versions of the exhibit letters/numbers) but just fucked up and didn't, leading to that abortion we saw.

I submit that's a more parsimonious explanation of that document than whatever sunspots and gnomes related excuse was actually presented.
Click to expand...
Yep. Last minute disorganization and multiple people working on the same document up until the last minute is exactly what this looks like.
 
  • Dumb
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Agree
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, BasedRetard, lemmiwinks and 3 others
AnOminous said:
You don't even apparently understand what my criticism is and that it is not merely corresponding with the court. Also you keep idiotically citing New Jersey rules, New York rules, federal courts, and everywhere but Texas.

You do understand, do you not, that submitting a letter motion or brief pursuant to an actual rule is entirely different than completely informal communications pursuant to no rule?



It was just a "courtesy copy" of stuff already in the record, but arranged (and with titles for reference) that favored the defense position. It looks innocuous enough and that's why Lemoine does bullshit like this. It contributed to a hearing that was already chaotic that Chupp was referencing material like this that, while it was in the record, actually wasn't, and expecting Beard to provide references to shit in a document he didn't even have a copy of rather than what he had prepared for the hearing, which he incomprehensibly refused even to look at.

In retrospect it's easy to say he should have printed out a copy of this shit Lemoine sent the court and had it ready, but how the fuck would he have known that extremely specific Chupp-up would occur?

Also to answer the second question, yes, it's technically in the court record in that it's on the electronic docket and there's a copy of it there, but Chupp apparently had a physical copy of it he was using, and Lemoine explicitly refused to provide a paper copy to Ty for bogus but seemingly sensible reasons. The upshot was Chupp refused to look at Ty's evidence because he "already had" some other differently organized document.
Click to expand...

I cited the Texas Rule here: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/victo...uctions-llc-et-al.55556/page-604#post-5593672
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: ManateeHunter, Coach Kreeton Of All That, Caffeinated Idol and 6 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back