I am officially going against the current zeitgeist with regards to appeals outcomes. I think that it's more likely than not that charges come back for Funi, Monica and Ron.
I think a lot of the pessimism is not wanting a repeat of the optimism leading into the TCPA hearing. It's a psychological reaction as much as, if not more than, a logical one. I also think a lot of the negativity is the line that the appeals court doesn't like to overturn the trial court.
Okay, let's say that's true. However, does the appeals court like to overturn themselves? Where there have been clear rulings from the appeals court on the matter that support Vic's case, they would have to overrule their previous decisions in order to decide against him now. Are they really going to put siding with Chupp and his total lack of legal reasoning provided in his decision over believing they were correct when they previously interpreted the law? They have a vested interest in their rulings being consistent, because if they start contradicting themselves, it's going to make it harder for the lower courts to know how to interpret the case law, and it would result in them having to face more murky appeals on the subject, and having to decide between their own contradictions in order to sort things out.
When we presumed how Chupp would rule, we had very little information on his previous rulings or his style in the courtroom. No one had provided transcripts of his previous rulings. I don't think we even dug up his history of getting writs of mandamus until after his decision. However, we have looked at some rulings provided by the court of appeals. They appear to a) be familiar with the TCPA, both the actual law and the reasoning behind the law, b) look at the documents provided them (at least the appeals briefs) and c) have a coherent, logical way of reaching their conclusions about the cases. That bodes well for Vics case.
I think defamation comes back for Ron, Monica and Funi. I think TI comes back for Ron, Monica and Funi (because Monica asked Funi what she was able to say in that email). I think prospective TI comes back for those three. I think defamation is less likely to come back for Jamie, because her statement is harder to classify as defamation per se, and there might not be enough evidence to link her directly to damages. I have no opinion one way or the other about conspiracy, but I think defamation for Jamie only comes back if conspiracy comes back.
They didn't provide physical copies ahead of time for the TCPA hearing. They brought one to the hearing, but Chupp refused to take it. There are still six days for them to submit physical copies. I think it would be a mistake for them not to. Even if it doesn't matter for the court of appeals, it matters for the court of public opinion.
