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

Wyróżnienie
As an aside, I saw people on this thread speculating on what the (paraphrasing a bit here) "look up bankruptcy laws in NY" could be referring to.

Might be a stretch, but... does anyone think that could be referring to our good ol' Jewish pal Akiva Cohen? He does live on Long Island, which is (disgustingly) expensive. He also appears to be facing some money problems from his divorce.
 
Lemoine as a witness:

1574378097882.png

https://archive.ph/cOpmO
 
EmuWarsVeteran powiedział(a):
Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel when chupp asked lemoine if he was gonna bill 280k... He might have been intentionally stabbing him in the gut and twisting the knife. I mean think about it. What situation does that put lemoine in?
-if he said no, he just admitted to an ethics violation.
-if he said yes but then didn't do it, he lied under oath
-if he said yes and then went ahead and did it there's no way moronica ain't suing his sorry as and they'd likely win.
Chupp might have been sick enough of wheezie's shit that he went and thought "fuck it I'm ending this man's career" and he actually went and did it. I might also be too optimistic and chupp didn't even notice how dangerous that question was. But ya know. There's a chance.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Well, Chupp basically backdoored Aids into admitting to being an unethical lawyer with that "You would charge 280K to your clients if awarded $0" question. It was a loaded question of the russian roulette nature--with 6 slugs in the chambers. Indirectly, Aids admitted he is going to charge his clients for some bankruptcy payment plan for a NY case on a Texas TCPA filing.

I doubt any ethics violations will come of it, but it torpedoed Aid's credibility of filing and will force Chupp to actually look over his bill. Chupp would look like a fucking moron for granting shekels for Erick looking over a NY case.
 
EmuWarsVeteran powiedział(a):
Try to get chupo to chupp it by using tcpa law that doesn't apply. I'm not saying he did it on purpose, but if he did that's not s good move.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
So arguing against sactions is sleazy? Yeah you're right bring Ty back so he can impotently stand there while his client gets fisted again like he did at the TCPA hearing.
 
I think Martinez arguing the sanctions was a smart move regardless given how much money was being asked for by the defendants. It would've been dumb not to at least try.

The worst answer he could get was a no, but not asking at all might have been the difference between a little and a lot.
 
Monkey Prick powiedział(a):
So arguing against sactions is sleazy? Yeah you're right bring Ty back so he can impotently stand their while his client get fisted again like he did at the TCPA hearing.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Arguing for 1$ sanctions is what he should've done from the start. Lying to a judge in such an easy to catch manner, plus in a way that would get caught by the appeals anyway, is moronic. Leave the lying to lemoine. I'd rather not have to be second guessing Vic's team too. There's such a thing as a bad tactic for a good cause.
 
EmuWarsVeteran powiedział(a):
Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel when chupp asked lemoine if he was gonna bill 280k... He might have been intentionally stabbing him in the gut and twisting the knife. I mean think about it. What situation does that put lemoine in?
-if he said no, he just admitted to an ethics violation.
-if he said yes but then didn't do it, he lied under oath
-if he said yes and then went ahead and did it there's no way moronica ain't suing his sorry as and they'd likely win.
Chupp might have been sick enough of wheezie's shit that he went and thought "fuck it I'm ending this man's career" and he actually went and did it. I might also be too optimistic and chupp didn't even notice how dangerous that question was. But ya know. There's a chance.

EDIT: also I gotta say if Martinez intentionally did something that sleazy, I think I prefer ty. I'd rather they stat honest. But I'd rather get the transcript first because fuck twitter.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
What... sleaze? He didn't realize that the case was going off the prior TCPA version. One that came out like.. a couple months after the case was filed, making it a super easy mistake.
 
Gehenna powiedział(a):
What... sleaze? He didn't realize that the case was going off the prior TCPA version. One that came out like.. a couple months after the case was filed, making it a super easy mistake.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...


OH OH OH! Didn't Chupp use the new rules in denying some evidence which favoured the plaintiff in his final TCPA ruling?

I think Martinez might be on to something here. If Chupp used the new amended rules then, he has to use them now.

@AnOminous do you recall or have Chupps final ruling pdf?
 
diskboomer powiedział(a):
OH OH OH! Didn't Chupp use the new rules in denying some evidence which favoured the plaintiff in his final TCPA ruling?

I think Martinez might be on to something here. If Chupp used the new amended rules then, he has to use them now.

@AnOminous do you recall or have Chupps final ruling pdf?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I don't think he did. The difference in language is minimal, aaaaand nothing in Chupp's ruling really stood out as being from one or the other. Largely because it was devoid of literally anything.
 
Gehenna powiedział(a):
What... sleaze? He didn't realize that the case was going off the prior TCPA version. One that came out like.. a couple months after the case was filed, making it a super easy mistake.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I'm not saying he's immediately satan. But I sure will start checking for further incidents. Could be an honest mistake but he was hired quite a while ago and it's literally his job to know this shit, and ty sure as shit knew of the changes, we have records of that through rekieta. So its hard to believe he didn't. Just saying, I know damn well why lawtwit has sniped that snippet immediately, it IS good ammo for them, and he sure as shit handed it on a silver platter.
 
EmuWarsVeteran powiedział(a):
Arguing for 1$ sanctions is what he should've done from the start. Lying to a judge in such an easy to catch manner, plus in a way that would get caught by the appeals anyway, is moronic. Leave the lying to lemoine. I'd rather not have to be second guessing Vic's team too. There's such a thing as a bad tactic for a good cause.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Still isn't "sleazy" just misinformed or chancing something that has no negative impact. As for second guessing Vic's team...the only reason I have any hopes for this case moving forward is due to Martinez, Ty got too wrapped up in having legal slapfights with opposing counsel and boomered on important shit.
 
EmuWarsVeteran powiedział(a):
I'm not saying he's immediately satan. But I sure will start checking for further incidents. Could be an honest mistake but he was hired quite a while ago and it's literally his job to know this shit, and ty sure as shit knew of the changes, we have records of that through rekieta. So its hard to believe he didn't. Just saying, I know damn well why lawtwit has sniped that snippet immediately, it IS good ammo for them, and he sure as shit handed it on a silver platter.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
How is it possibly hard to believe? He is a new attorney, on a case he did not follow, that occured only 2 months before the TCPA ruling changed.

There are so many levels of "Ways he missed the TCPA version" here.

1: Thought the case was filed later
2: Thought the TCPA change was earlier
3: Is not familiar with the language of the TCPA and was going off the most recent version.

He made an off-hand comment and was wrong about a version that's difference was a matter of months. Calm your leg down, its jerking is kicking the table.
 
Wyróżnienie
Musisz się zalogować lub zarejestrować, aby odpowiedzieć.
Wstecz
Top Na dole