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

[BigDuckEnergy]

To be fair to Lemon, that spergout about having the wording of "reurge" in the thing last week, Chupp does quite clearly say them same words here and it seems like a waste of time for BHBH to argue over it's inclusion.

 

[Garm]

Well, if what Nick says is true, Chupp did quip to Phlegmoine that he didn’t seem confident that he may win the appeals.

I think they would have to put the affidavit into evidence because Lemoine would look like a mental patient referring to a piece of paper not in evidence, yet important enough to spend several hours of effort to discredit.

 

[Harvey Danger]

Chupp showing the first signs that he is tired of Lemoine's shit.

"just came up with [the argument] right now"

Every damn person who's ever watched Law & Order had that argument on their minds when they saw you try to subpoena an attorney, Lemon Fuhrer. Do these people actually believe the BS trolling of the Spednaught, that Ty and company are just winging everything?

 

[AnOminous]

"just came up with [the argument] right now"

Every damn person who's ever watched Law & Order had that argument on their minds when they saw you try to subpoena an attorney, Lemon Fuhrer. Do these people actually believe the BS trolling of the Spednaught, that Ty and company are just winging everything?

This man is a fucking walking cartoon. The argument jumps out screaming from the nature of the demand. Only an absolute moron (or LawTwitter but I repeat myself) wouldn't see it instantly.

 

[xyz741]

Chupp seems rather short with Lemon man regarding possible work product privilage, and Lemon's attempts to try and get around it.

I'm glad Chupp(?) brought up attorney client priviledge in regards to this because that was my immediate thought about it. I waved it off in an "if I squint hard enough I can see it" way, but the whole thing seemed weird from the start.

 

[Dr. Geronimo]

The most important thing this transcript proves is that Chupp is definitely still neutral, although lazy and incompetent.

 

[Dumb Bitch Smoothie]

I'm still hung up over those typos man. Maybe I'm being exceptional but isn't not making mistakes part of the requirements for the job?

We've had dozens of pages of transcribed documents from Tina Fett and not one of them had typos until now. Even the long ass dismissal hearing didn't have typos.

Maybe I'm just tarding out but it doesn't sit right with me.

 

[diskboomer]

Chupp showing the first signs that he is tired of Lemoine's shit.

"just came up with [the argument] right now"

Every damn person who's ever watched Law & Order had that argument on their minds when they saw you try to subpoena an attorney, Lemon Fuhrer. Do these people actually believe the BS trolling of the Spednaught, that Ty and company are just winging everything?

He even points out What work product is to the Lemon's ramblings.

 

[FGO-Professor-P2PBTW]

While it does seem promising for Vic that Chupp is getting tired of the Fuhrer, I'll reserve judgement until we get to the actual sanctions hearing. This hearing was pretty cut and dry, having Chupp refuse both parties was way too obvious to see coming. When the sanctions and fees hearing happens, the hearing that will actually require more complex thought, then we'll see whether or not Chupp was just having a bad day or if he's just a lazybum.

 

[Immortal Technique]

Chupp may not like Ty, but it's obvious he doesn't like Lemon Aids either. Probably thinks he's a hack lawyer after the whole:
--"Based on my case research....None. None of my case research supports what I'm doing here"
--"Lawyer work privilege? What is this concept you speak of?"
--"$256k. As you've seen your honor, I'm well worth it. But wait! There's more."

Think my favorite part is how Chupp didn't trust a single word of his "expert" opinions on the appellate procedures. The faggot is a scrub lawyer riding the coat tails of success of Sam Johnson and thinking their his own.

 

[Nontransferable]

To be fair to Lemon, that spergout about having the wording of "reurge" in the thing last week, Chupp does quite clearly say them same words here and it seems like a waste of time for BHBH to argue over it's inclusion.

The hearing was a waste of time because Chupp's not sure what he wants to do. They got together specifically to argue about Slatosh and his decision was to kick the can down the road. He told Lemoine no, but said that he may say yes if he asks again in two weeks, if for some reason it comes up.

I don't think it was unreasonable for BHBH to put forth a proposed order allowing him to say no prior to the hearing. It would have saved everyone a lot of time and effort.

 

[diskboomer]

Think my favorite part is how Chupp didn't trust a single word of his "expert" opinions on the appellate procedures. The faggot is a scrub lawyer riding the coat tails of success of Sam Johnson and thinking their his own.

Well this is The First, TCPA Lemonwink has "won"; despite his self proclamation of being a TCPA expert.

Then he even admits, this case might not be frivolous in the record; which if so; means the TCPA doesn't apply.

 

[Monkey Prick]

Very impressed with Martinez, he navigated around both Chupp and Lemoine very well, could've done with this guy while Ty was busy smoking cigars on his back porch with Nick and generally being a giga boomer.

Lemon curd trying to snake his way into getting the plaintiff to miss the appeal window while he gets to rake in his fees still makes my blood boil slightly, but it does show that he's not as confident about the court of appeals seeing things his way. Even Chupp picked up on it, wonder if Chupp has realised he fucked up.

 

[Harvey Danger]

Looks like BHBC wasn't being lazy about those COA filing fees, they were waiting to spend the $3k until they knew the judge wasn't going to just throw it out. Once they had the hearing, and Chupp said to let it go ahead, then they decided the paperwork was going to stick enough to warrant the expense.



Lemoine, take note: this is what it looks like when a lawyer is trying to spend their client's money wisely, instead of blow it all like there's no tomorrow. (He could also learn from Sam Johnson on this point.)

I'm liking Martinez, his arguing reads like someone stripped down all the side points and presented the straightforward, so-easy-even-Chupp-can-follow version of what 100 KF autists wanted to argue in court.

Then he even admits, this case might not be frivolous in the record; which if so; means the TCPA doesn't apply.

A suit could be non-frivolous and dismissed by the TCPA. There are good faith reasons to believe in a case's merit, and even that someone's speech does cross over into a tort of some kind. The intent of the law is to stop infringements upon free speech in a specific way, even if the case would have merit under normal interpretations. That's a specific policy choice that was made by the legislature.

This is why Nick says the TCPA is a bad law, because he's a free speech absolutist and doesn't like substantive cases getting dismissed. Lemoine isn't wrong that marking a suit as "frivolous" is an extra label on top of "doesn't pass TCPA" (though he is wrong about nearly everything else).

 

[I can't imagine]

Well this is The First, TCPA Lemonwink has "won"; despite his self proclamation of being a TCPA expert.

Then he even admits, this case might not be frivolous in the record; which if so; means the TCPA doesn't apply.

Like many things about the TCPA, this is more open of a question than you might think. The TCPA, in spite of its professed goal of stopping frivolous lawsuits, doesn't actually statutorily require a lawsuit be frivolous to be dismissed; instead, it refers to lawsuits that are "without merit". The rules regarding frivolous lawsuits are in chapter 10 of the TRCP, and the rules regarding TCPA are in chapter 27.

So, stupid though it might be, there's an argument to be made that a lawsuit need not be frivolous to be dismissed under the TCPA, a law intended to prevent...frivolous lawsuits.

 

[Dumb Bitch Smoothie]

Even with the spednought branding and bullshit conspiracies my mind is cooking up aside, this has been delightful to read.

Finally feels like we're getting clarity.

 

[Urbanmech]

Looks like BHBC wasn't being lazy about those COA filing fees, they were waiting to spend the $3k until they knew the judge wasn't going to just throw it out. Once they had the hearing, and Chupp said to let it go ahead, then they decided the paperwork was going to stick enough to warrant the expense.

Wyświetl załącznik 1014663

Lemoine, take note: this is what it looks like when a lawyer is trying to spend their client's money wisely, instead of blow it all like there's no tomorrow. (He could also learn from Sam Johnson on this point.)

I'm liking Martinez, his arguing reads like someone stripped down all the side points and presented the straightforward, so-easy-even-Chupp-can-follow version of what 100 KF autists wanted to argue in court.



A suit could be non-frivolous and dismissed by the TCPA. There are good faith reasons to believe in a case's merit, and even that someone's speech does cross over into a tort of some kind. The intent of the law is to stop infringements upon free speech in a specific way, even if the case would have merit under normal interpretations. That's a specific policy choice that was made by the legislature.

This is why Nick says the TCPA is a bad law, because he's a free speech absolutist and doesn't like substantive cases getting dismissed. Lemoine isn't wrong that marking a suit as "frivolous" is an extra label on top of "doesn't pass TCPA" (though he is wrong about nearly everything else).

So if they had spent the 3k and it got thrown out that would have been 3k just wasted? So all that huffin and puffin here about BHBC being a "bad look" about not paying the fee was actually done on purpose to see if they get "Chupp'd" and not waste the money just in case.

 

[AnIncredibleDerp]

Looks like BHBC wasn't being lazy about those COA filing fees, they were waiting to spend the $3k until they knew the judge wasn't going to just throw it out. Once they had the hearing, and Chupp said to let it go ahead, then they decided the paperwork was going to stick enough to warrant the expense.

Wyświetl załącznik 1014663

Lemoine, take note: this is what it looks like when a lawyer is trying to spend their client's money wisely, instead of blow it all like there's no tomorrow. (He could also learn from Sam Johnson on this point.)

I'm liking Martinez, his arguing reads like someone stripped down all the side points and presented the straightforward, so-easy-even-Chupp-can-follow version of what 100 KF autists wanted to argue in court.



A suit could be non-frivolous and dismissed by the TCPA. There are good faith reasons to believe in a case's merit, and even that someone's speech does cross over into a tort of some kind. The intent of the law is to stop infringements upon free speech in a specific way, even if the case would have merit under normal interpretations. That's a specific policy choice that was made by the legislature.

This is why Nick says the TCPA is a bad law, because he's a free speech absolutist and doesn't like substantive cases getting dismissed. Lemoine isn't wrong that marking a suit as "frivolous" is an extra label on top of "doesn't pass TCPA" (though he is wrong about nearly everything else).

Chupp has no authority to tell the superior courts what to do. It's up to the superior courts. You could file an interlocutory appeal in the middle of a case if you want.

Very impressed with Martinez, he navigated around both Chupp and Lemoine very well, could've done with this guy while Ty was busy smoking cigars on his back porch with Nick and generally being a giga boomer.

Lemon curd trying to snake his way into getting the plaintiff to miss the appeal window while he gets to rake in his fees still makes my blood boil slightly, but it does show that he's not as confident about the court of appeals seeing things his way. Even Chupp picked up on it, wonder if Chupp has realised he fucked up.

We know Chupp has realized he fucked up from the moment he asked for mediation.

 

[Takayuki Yagami]

Nobody, including Chupp, cares that the response was filed at 12:30am instead of the midnight deadline. Chupp even accepted the filesize excuse and deemed the 12:30am filing as timely.

But then, because of the notary fuckup, Ty WITHDREW the affidavits, and tried to refile them a couple days later. Those were filed late. He could have filed on time (and did, except for the notary thing, and the fact that the affidavits are non-identical, which is a major problem imho). Then he un-filed the fucked up affidavits and tried to re-file late.

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: https://njcourts.gov/forms/11898_create_brief_sample_letter.pdf

In libertarian Texas, you can do whatever you want stylistically (vs. California, which has very particular style rules). The only general requirements for a motion/brief/request for relief are (Tex. R. Civ. P. 21):
1) It has to be in writing (unless during trial/hearing);
2) It has to be signed by a lawyer or the litigant himself (if he doesn't have a lawyer);
3) It has to be filed of record;
4) It has to be served on all lawyers (or parties, if unrepresented) to the case. This part automatically happens at step 3 now, because when you file anything, the electronic filing system immediately e-mails the filing to all the lawyers on a case.

Now lets look at the letters to Chupp. They are all 1) in writing; 2) signed; 3) e-filed; and therefore 4) automatically served on everyone. They function exactly the same as any other written motion/brief/application/etc to the court. I've known some Boomer lawyers that are in the habit of doing almost everything via letter motion or letter brief, even at the Texas Supreme Court level (although that's damned informal, if you ask me).

More relevantly for Vic, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals explicitly permits motions and briefs by letter. (2nd Court of Appeals Local Rule 1.D: https://www.txcourts.gov/2ndcoa/practice-before-the-court/local-rules/rules/).

So back to my question: WTF is an Exhibit letter?

Don’t downplay it. The defendants are guilty scum, clearly; but that doesn’t change that Ty made an unforced error that gave these fucks ammo.

 

[Dumb Bitch Smoothie]

So if they had spent the 3k and it got thrown out that would have been 3k just wasted? So all that huffin and puffin here about BHBC being a "bad look" about not paying the fee was actually done on purpose to see if they get "Chupp'd" and not waste the money just in case.

I think those of us who were frustrated (myself especially) jumped the gun. But it also seems like Martinez may have made that suggestion based on what he said.

I'm just glad they have a game plan.

Call me trigger happy but I'm on guard still. I want there to be a good result for Vic and what his case represents on a bigger scale.
I also wanna see some piggies squeal and a mosquito man get squashed but that's just a bonus.