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

[BrandedWolf69]

My response was "lolno".

Dude, just drop it. redact identifying info and drop it. lose access? big woop, pay 5 more bucks on an alt. It's not fucking rocket science.

Or better idea, stop acting like a goddamn stripper about it and either disappear or give the goods.

 

[AnOminous]

Either post it or don't. The worst thing people do on this site is brag about top secret information they have that can lead to the arrest of hillary clinton.

This cocksucker has been told over and over to knock this shit off and keeps doing it anyway.

So it's really up to your mods at this point.

 

[Null]

I'll put a note on his profile. If he does it again report him.

 

[BigDuckEnergy]

Internet Dad won't whisper sweet nothings in his ear anymore if he does and he won't get the attention lusts after if he doesn't. He's in a real conundrum here. The fact that anyone is giving him attention other than calling him a tremendous attention whoring faggot is the worrying thing to me.

We all called him a faggot when he first started with the whoring.

 

[break these cuffs]

We all called him a faggot when he first started with the whoring.

Why did people stop?

 

[teriyakiburns]

you massive chud

cancelled

 

[mindlessobserver]

Nothing is worse then a VERY IMPORTANT PERSON who spends all day on the Internet letting people know how VERY IMPORTANT they are.

 

[Kendrick]

Why did people stop?

We never stopped calling his faggotry when he faggotred.

 

[Dumb Bitch Smoothie]

I came into this thread expecting a break in faggotry and now my asshole has a lisp.

Thanks Akiva.

 

[Adach_Ame]

I do have some underlying concerns about corona-chan fucking with the legal side of this lawsuit, in terms of the court appearances and oral arguments.

 

[AnOminous]

I do have some underlying concerns about corona-chan fucking with the legal side of this lawsuit, in terms of the court appearances and oral arguments.

There's only one physical appearance, probably months out. Everything else is on paper, and in actuality, purely electronic.

 

[LuNaS]

Ok had this thought cross my mind after reading something on the general Thread, for people here with legal backgrounds, how would you defend to position of the defendants during the appeals? For me when I try to put myself in their shoes I cannot find a good way to approach any argument that the defense could make that wouldn't either be flimsy or self contradictory.

They can't say Chupp was correct in his reasoning because he didn't give any solid reasoning on his ruling, they can't say that there is no case because Vic presented enough evidence to TCPA and they can't say the evidence is not valid because the judge never struck it and while they could argue that certain evidence should not be taken in account that would point towards Chupp having fucked up which would require the appeals court to fix things up because the judge made a mistake.

I seriously can't see a way to argue from the side of the defendants, am I being dumb and missing something obvious?

 

[Doodler98]

I seriously can't see a way to argue from the side of the defendants, am I being dumb and missing something obvious?

IANAL, but I'm gonna guess they'll argue along the lines of the 2AP not being admissible since Chupp disregarded it completely in his ruling, that Vic didn't meet the burden of proof for any of the 17 charges and that Chupp totally did a fine job ruling on the TCPA but maybe the fees and sanctions were a bit unfair and could the COA adjust those by oh say 300% please and thank you.

 

[LuNaS]

IANAL, but I'm gonna guess they'll argue along the lines of the 2AP not being admissible since Chupp disregarded it completely in his ruling, that Vic didn't meet the burden of proof for any of the 17 charges and that Chupp totally did a fine job ruling on the TCPA but maybe the fees and sanctions were a bit unfair and could the COA adjust those by oh say 300% please and thank you.

The problem I see with the first one is that it presents Chupp as having committed a huge fuck up, since there was a motion to strike the 2AP and him not actually striking it but still disregarding it seems like the exact thing appeals court should fix, the other ones seem like something they could argue but it leaves it on the hands of the appeals court to make the determination, those seem like arguments too weak to bet your whole case on.

 

[TheClappening]

Ok had this thought cross my mind after reading something on the general Thread, for people here with legal backgrounds, how would you defend to position of the defendants during the appeals? For me when I try to put myself in their shoes I cannot find a good way to approach any argument that the defense could make that wouldn't either be flimsy or self contradictory.

Depends on which defendants. Jamie Marchi has the weakest case against her. Looking at the Appellant Brief, the arguments for both flavors of TI seem kind of limp.

For defamation, I guess they could argue that Jamie saying Vic was a predator was hyperbole. I wouldn't be that convinced, but it's better than Ron fucking Toye tweeting the exact same thing 200 times. For the hair pull story, maybe they could argue that it isn't defamation per se, and that Vic can't show damages arising from that statement. Again, not convinced, but better than Funimation implying that they investigated and fired Vic for harassment. I think defamation has the best chance of making it back on appeals for Jamie.

For tortoise interference with existing contracts, the main argument seems to be that Jamie attended conventions that Vic was scheduled for as well, therefore TI-EC. Seems very limp. I guess the argument would be that coincidence is not causality.

For TI-PBR, I think it's limp, too. They bring up the "name and shame" tweet, which I could I guess be argued as hyperbole.

Vicarious liability seems 50/50. BHBC/MH makes some good arguments for why Monica should be covered under liability, but when they bring up Jamie, the argument is Jamie holds a similar position as Monica, therefore liable. Meh.

Civil conspiracy seems a little better than the TI and vicarious liability. Ignoring the novel argument that TCPA doesn't apply to conspiracy (who knows, it might work if the underlying defamation makes it through), they bring up the naming and shaming tweet again, as well as the discord chat logs. I guess it depends on how Sam Johnson argues against the discord server screenshots, since that shows there was a meeting of minds.

Monica and Ron are fucked if Slatosch makes it through.

 

[Allanon]

The problem I see with the first one is that it presents Chupp as having committed a huge fuck up, since there was a motion to strike the 2AP and him not actually striking it but still disregarding it seems like the exact thing appeals court should fix, the other ones seem like something they could argue but it leaves it on the hands of the appeals court to make the determination, those seem like arguments too weak to bet your whole case on.

The argument they could go with is "Chupp did well in what he did and doesn't need to be corrected BUT if he were to have made any mistake, it was to not officially disregard the 2AP earlier, and therefore the only correction required is to disregard the 2AP, which was disregarded in the final ruling." They have to argue that either nothing needs to be changed or the only things that should be changed are in their favor. It's rough, though, since Chupp gave them no ammo to make that argument with. Their biggest hope would be if the CoA redid it all fresh and then inexplicably came to the same conclusion as Chupp independently, without any information from Chupp on how or why he did that.

And then, you know, after agreeing with Chupp on that for no reason, the defendants would then have to hope that upon looking at the fees and sanctions where Chupp gave equally no reasoning for his decisions, CoA goes ahead and decides to flip around and disagree with all his choices independently and without knowing why he made his choices.

I honestly think that in this specific case the defendants have less of a chance of leaving with 100% of what they want than Vic does. Though it's not unreasonable to assume neither one gets 100% victory, the defendants going for that 100% is pretty hard due to the power of the Chupp.

 

[N1bbaN3rd]

The problem I see with the first one is that it presents Chupp as having committed a huge fuck up, since there was a motion to strike the 2AP and him not actually striking it but still disregarding it seems like the exact thing appeals court should fix, the other ones seem like something they could argue but it leaves it on the hands of the appeals court to make the determination, those seem like arguments too weak to bet your whole case on.

Won't the appellees also have to argue why the 2AP should be struck?
This appeal point alone will make or break the case in my opinion.

 

[Adach_Ame]

So wouldn't Corona-Chan likely freeze all non essential lawsuit and court cases? I've been hearing a few whispers of that being the case. If so, Corona-Chan is a master at blueballing

Imagine, 3 more months of lemoine not getting paid a dime. That's hilarious.

 

[break these cuffs]

So wouldn't Corona-Chan likely freeze all non essential lawsuit and court cases? I've been hearing a few whispers of that being the case. If so, Corona-Chan is a master at blueballing

It's already happening in some jurisdictions. It really depends on level of the court, how affected the states is by the virus, can hearings be done via telecoference, etc. For instance my state court suspended everything except emergency hearings; ie emergency custody, involuntary commitments, protective orders, etc. The hearings could easily be delayed. I dunno if motion deadlines or anything that doesn't require a face to face in court would be.

 

[Adach_Ame]

It's already happening in some jurisdictions. It really depends on level of the court, how affected the states is by the virus, can hearings be done via telecoference, etc. For instance my state court suspended everything except emergency hearings; ie emergency custody, involuntary commitments, protective orders, etc. The hearings could easily be delayed. I dunno if motion deadlines or anything that doesn't require a face to face in court would be.

Oh god a bunch of tech incompetent aged people doing anything involving tech. The boomering is going to be legendary