Talk:Vic Mignogna/@comment-10390252-20190909160815/@comment-38846708-20190918032518

It's unlikely that the judge is going to be changed. Judge Chupp is still going to preside over the case as judge. And I would very much doubt and caution calling that judge "corrupt". A more accurate description would be that Judge Chupp was emotionally compromised. Emotionally compromised in the sense that, if you watch the second link which has 4 people who were at the actual hearing recalling what they saw, the 4 of them all notice and observed that Judge Chupp entered into that hearing irate, irrational, and short fused. The Judge might have been having a bad day or a bad week and that may have primarily affected his judgement during his presiding and ruling on that day of hearing. Judges are people. They are just as prone to biases, political divides, stupidity, ignorance, emotions, etc. as the rest of us, even if they are expected to do their level best to avoid such impediments and be as impartial in understanding the law. That whole Supreme Court debacle a few years ago in 2016 is proof of that.

Anyways, the point is that a lot of people who were at the hearing  noticed that Judge Chupp was in a very bad mood when he entered and that made him act in arbitrary and irrational ways that he most probably may not have acted had he entered the hearing on that day calm, cool, collected, and level-headed. It's not really any malice on the Judge's part. Just unfortunate emotional circumstances.

Cheesedude, then what is your completely unbiased source of information for this case? Tell me, who? No one has been on top of the blow by blow movements of the Vic Mignogna lawsuit case as Nick Rekieta has for the past several months. And trust me, if you were as in depth to the Vic Mignogna case, you'd have seen affadavits that complete decimate Rial and Marchi's accusations against Vic. Like, those accusations got nuked like Nagiasaki and hit harder than Hiroshima by those affadavits.

He never claims to be completely unbiased as he is firmly #IStandWithVic but he is a legitimate professional attorney whose provided his legal analysis. All he asks is that he says his piece on whatever legal thing his Stream's focusing on and let his audience think for themselves and just judge Rekieta by his record. Because unlike those armchair lawyers on Twitter, those imbeciles who are horribly misinformed on the particulars of the case and Texas Law, and who've consistedly been proven wrong time and time again on how the case ends up turning out, unlike those clowns, Nick Rekieta has been correct on almost everything that has happened in the Vic Mignogna case since he first started reporting and talking about it. You may not like him at all. Whatever. That's fine. But his consistent track record in being right speaks for itself in his reliability.

And again, if you bother to watch the Streams, you can see that he doesn't pull any punches in giving criticism to all the parties and lawyers involved in the case on what happened in the hearing. He dishes out in equal measure to both the defendants' who he's repeatedly insulted with demeaning (and hilarious) insults and to Vic's lawyer Ty Beard, who he's had on the show multiple times and who are pretty close. That doesn't prevent Rekieta from giving criticism to Beard and the rest of Vic's lawyers. The man's consistent record speaks for itself in terms of reliability. And again, the second link has the perspectives of 3 people other than Nick Rekieta who were at the hearing and give their layperson's account of what happened. They may not be #KickVic but they're as honest and close to the truth as you're going to get when it comes to hashing out what happened at that hearing on September 6.