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

[TheClappening]

"Accelerated appeal took 6 months." Fucking oof.

I'll take some time reading the 12-13-2018 opinion (this one), since Vic's is stuck in limbo. As Robot summarized, the original panel held that there was defamation against Lindawood by Taylor, but agreed with the other TCPA dismissals.

It's interesting that, in Kerr's dissent, she objected to the "light most favorable" standard used by the rest of the panel.

The enbanc opinion is interesting, notably page 43 of the 12-03-2020 opinion.

From what I'm understanding, they dismissed the seemingly defamatory per se claims because the defendants had used sworn testimony from the previous, unrelated deposition, and used that as reasonable basis for his claims, and thus would not be actual malice.

 

[DragoonSierra]

"Accelerated appeal took 6 months." Fucking oof.

I'll take some time reading the 12-13-2018 opinion (this one), since Vic's is stuck in limbo. As Robot summarized, the original panel held that there was defamation against Lindawood by Taylor, but agreed with the other TCPA dismissals.

It's interesting that, in Kerr's dissent, she objected to the "light most favorable" standard used by the rest of the panel.

The enbanc opinion is interesting, notably page 43 of the 12-03-2020 opinion.
View attachment 1772031

From what I'm understanding, they dismissed the seemingly defamatory per se claims because the defendants had used sworn testimony from the previous, unrelated deposition, and used that as reasonable basis for his claims, and thus would not be actual malice.

That might mean trouble for Vic with the fluffing of the hair comments made about Marchi. This of course only matters if Vic is indeed a limited public figure.

Also if its not in the light most favorable to the plantiff then what is it? Isnt that what prima facie is?

 

[TheClappening]

That might mean trouble for Vic with the fluffing of the hair comments made about Marchi. This of course only matters if Vic is indeed a limited public figure.

Not necessarily.

If, years from now, someone uses the deposition as a basis to make the statement that Vic is abusive towards women, then it would be similar to what happened to Lindawood.

In Vic's case, Marchi was a party to what happened, and what she described, in specific detail, is much different than a simple hair pull.

 

[DragoonSierra]

If, years from now, someone uses the deposition as a basis to make the statement that Vic is abusive towards women, then it would be similar to what happened to Lindawood.

Law Twitter did that since the depositions came out

 

[TheClappening]

Law Twitter did that since the depositions came out

LawlTwitter isn't being sued. It's Jamie, for that statement. She claimed to be party to the events in her statmenent, not some rando who was just passing along information.

 

[Laundui_or_douchette?]

Well well well, look who has stepped out from behind their protected tweets.

We must be getting closer. The dunkers are really starting to come out.

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

Well well well, look who has stepped out from behind their protected tweets.

We must be getting closer. The dunkers are really starting to come out.

View attachment 1774208

I don't think so. Maybe he just got tired of being in protected mode

 

[Laundui_or_douchette?]

I don't think so. Maybe he just got tired of being in protected mode

It’s an article specifically on the case of what was discussed earlier in this thread.

he is specifically using this for the same that Sexual predator is an opinion and not defamatory.

https://www.antislapptexas.com/blog/2020/12/7/en-banc-ft-worth-coa-says-sexual-predator-is-not-defamatory-and-remands-on-a-reverse-rohrmoosanalysis?format=amp#click=https://t.co/9KZNR3tPgf

 

[TheClappening]

Archive everything, You guys should know better.

https://archive.fo/sDGyi

Okay. What about:

Saying Vic lured you to his room, pinned you to his bed, forcibly kissed you, and only relented when a third party knocked on the door.

Saying Vic reached to the back of your head, grabbed your hair by the roots, wrenched your head back, restrained your movement, whispered something (possibly sexual, but you can't remember) into your ear, and only let go when you somehow pushed him of while yelling something to the effect "what fuck are you doing?"

Saying Vic sexually assaulted many women, including four that you know of.

Saying an investigation found Vic engaging in threatening and harassing behavior.

Those sure sound like they can be proven true or false.

 

[DragoonSierra]

Archive everything, You guys should know better.

https://archive.fo/sDGyi

View attachment 1774286
Okay. What about:

Saying Vic lured you to his room, pinned you to his bed, forcibly kissed you, and only relented when a third party knocked on the door.

Saying Vic reached to the back of your head, grabbed your hair by the roots, wrenched your head back, restrained your movement, whispered something (possibly sexual, but you can't remember) into your ear, and only let go when you somehow pushed him of while yelling something to the effect "what fuck are you doing?"

Saying Vic sexually assaulted many women, including four that you know of.

Saying an investigation found Vic engaging in threatening and harassing behavior.

Those sure sound like they can be proven true or false.

View attachment 1774291

Yeah exactly Vic was called way more than sexual predator and specific incidents were given. Theres also direct evidence of TI in the second amended petition.

Is Lemoine directly commenting on how this affects Vic's case? Or is he just implying

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

I wonder if Nick's gonna cover this

 

[Kosher Salt]

I wonder if Nick's gonna cover this

Maybe he'll read Lemoine's entire blogpost in Lemoine voice.

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

Maybe he'll read Lemoine's entire blogpost in Lemoine voice.

Wait Lemongrab wrote the article?

 

[teriyakiburns]

Wait Lemongrab wrote the article?

Yes, that's his website.

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

Yes, that's his website.

And like that Nick's bank account raise even higher that day

 

[LawTwitter is Dumb]

Well well well, look who has stepped out from behind their protected tweets.

We must be getting closer. The dunkers are really starting to come out.

View attachment 1774208

"Actual Law", yes your incompetent firm that has only currently "won" one TCPA case, a field you're supposedly an expert in. With "Experts" that lied to the court any opportunity they could.

 

[ElAbominacion]

There is a difference between saying something like "Vic is a pedophile" and actively giving out details on how he abused you and, just to add a cherry on top, say there are other four instances but you can't recall them or the names of the victims in court.

 

[DragoonSierra]

There is a difference between saying something like "Vic is a pedophile" and actively giving out details on how he abused you and, just to add a cherry on top, say there are other four instances but you can't recall them or the names of the victims in court.

Actually calling someone a pedophile is defamation per se. This case dealt with the term "sexual predator"

 

[ElAbominacion]

Actually calling someone a pedophile is defamation per se. This case dealt with the term "sexual predator"

Fair enough. I should have corrected myself but I was too lazy. In what world is sexual predator not on the same status level as pedophile?

 

[TheClappening]

Actually calling someone a pedophile is defamation per se. This case dealt with the term "sexual predator"

Fair enough. I should have corrected myself but I was too lazy. In what world is sexual predator not on the same status level as pedophile?

I dunno. In the diver guy vs. Elon Musk defamation suit, the courts held that Musk calling the diver a pedo wasn't defamaiton, per se or otherwise. Likewise, the Fort Worth court of appeals made the conclusion that calling someone a "sexual predator" isn't defamation, per se or otherwise. The reasoning, as far as I can tell, is that calling someone "pedo" or "sexual predator" are opinions that can't be disproven and/or are too open to interpretation

Which I think is... weird. Like, a killer, by the understanding of the words, has killed someone. You'd think a sexual predator has sexually preyed on someone, which would be provable one way or another.

Again, though, this stopped being about Vic being called a predator, sex pest, piece of shit, or whatever. The defendants have made specific claims of fact that are very damaging to Vic. There's Monica's hotel story, Jamie's battery story, Ron's claim that Vic has assaulted women, including someone that Ron specifically knew, and that Vic was terminated after an investigation found harassing and threatening behavior. Each of those claims can be proven true or false, and not just opinion.