TSR The Full & Glorious History of NuTSR

Maxperson · Sep 29, 2023

Deset Gled said:
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure suing someone doesn't give you the right to demand access to their private conversations with a dozen different people (none of whom are named in the lawsuit). Also, here's to @DLIMedia; you didn't make it onto Lanasa's hate list, but you got your name into one of the legal cases.

Relevance to the case the key. If that dozen different people are relevant to the case, you can request information and production regarding them. For example, if someone is suing a game company for stealing a game from you, company and game information about the designers working on that game would be relevant, as would emails, memos etc. between them and other people in the company regarding the game, even though you are probably not suing all of the individual people who worked on it. Information about the CEO's gardener and papers about how much he gets paid would not be relevant.

Deset Gled · Sep 30, 2023

Maxperson said:
Relevance to the case the key. If that dozen different people are relevant to the case, you can request information and production regarding them. For example, if someone is suing a game company for stealing a game from you, company and game information about the designers working on that game would be relevant, as would emails, memos etc. between them and other people in the company regarding the game, even though you are probably not suing all of the individual people who worked on it. Information about the CEO's gardener and papers about how much he gets paid would not be relevant.

Theoretically, yes, that could eventually happen. But this case is so far removed from that scenario.

Lanasa hasn't laid foundation. He's offered any information about how these people related to his lawsuit. He hasn't made any motions to compel Tenkar to supply private info. He hasn't even identified who these people are. He's just fishing, which isn't how this works.

Maxperson · Sep 30, 2023

Deset Gled said:
Theoretically, yes, that could eventually happen. But this case is so far removed from that scenario.

Lanasa hasn't laid foundation. He's offered any information about how these people related to his lawsuit. He hasn't made any motions to compel Tenkar to supply private info. He hasn't even identified who these people are. He's just fishing, which isn't how this works.

I know how it works. I was a litigation paralegal for 9 years. It's probably way too soon for motions to compel in any case. You start with RFAs, RFPs, and interrogatories. Maybe depositions, but it's likely early for that as well.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "laying foundation." Discovery is discovery. You ask it and if it's not relevant or is a fishing expedition, the other side objects and doesn't respond to those particular requests.

Wincenworks · Sep 30, 2023

Maxperson said:
And I'm not sure what you mean by "laying foundation."

I think what me means is Justin's pleas have been such a shitshow it's pretty much impossible for him to request much of anything under discovery except maybe copies of the videos he's cited in the claim.

Half the stuff he asked for is stuff the other side would volunteer anyway (eg proof Justin "doesn't like the homos") and the other half is just weird naughty word that ties into a weird conspiracy theory that is unclear and was never put before the court.

It's the kind of thing you'd expect from a SovCit adjacent pro se litigant... but here done by an actual long time NY attorney.

Maxperson · Oct 1, 2023

Wincenworks said:
I think what me means is Justin's pleas have been such a shitshow it's pretty much impossible for him to request much of anything under discovery except maybe copies of the videos he's cited in the claim.

But it doesn't work that way. You still get to ask for discovery. If what you ask for is not relevant for some reason, and heck even if it is relevant, it gets objected to. That asking party can just eventually get the information anyway if it's relevant and objected to.

Wincenworks said:
Half the stuff he asked for is stuff the other side would volunteer anyway (eg proof Justin "doesn't like the homos") and the other half is just weird naughty word that ties into a weird conspiracy theory that is unclear and was never put before the court.

That doesn't matter, though. He still gets to ask for it. If it's crazy and not relevant, he just won't get the information and has wasted some of his discovery. If it's crazy enough and he's persistent enough, it's it might be possible for him to get tagged for abuse of the discovery process, though that typically happens when responding to discovery, not asking for it.

Wincenworks · Oct 1, 2023

Maxperson said:
If it's crazy and not relevant, he just won't get the information and has wasted some of his discovery.

That is pretty much exactly what has happened - and Justin's lawyer's letter that the judge was dismissive of is essentially claiming that this is some sort of outrageous contempt for the justice system rather than the natural consequence of demanding things that either don't exist or the other side can object to.

Hence why the judge's response basically amounts to "I don't know what you want me to do, maybe consider following the process instead of wasting everyone's time - especially your own."

Part of it seems to be that he is a criminal defence lawyer, so is used to a standard of discovery that is much, much more in his favour where the prosecution must essentially hand over almost anything that he claims is relevant to the case, whether they think it is or not.

Nylanfs · Oct 3, 2023

I bet Troll Lords new announcement annoys Jason to no end.

Deset Gled · Oct 4, 2023

A couple of updates. First, back in September the trustee in the NuTSR bankruptcy filed for employment of Special Council to assist with "legal issues surrounding intellectual property matters". That employment has now been granted.

Second, @Jedion357 posted a video today that explores how Justin Lanasa is doing a very weak job of hiding/moving things between NuTSR and his other (but not new) LLC, OSR Games. There is also some good info about halfway through about the unaccredited co-author of Those Pesky Goblinz:

To add to Tom's notes about "TSR" logo-ed stuff still appearing on the DHSM website, I would also like to point out that Mick McArt has also been still using the TSR logo in his advertising for NuTSR. He's proudly showing the NuTSR (not OSR) version of Dungeon Crawl on his social media:

McArt also still has pages for NuTSR and Dungeon Crawl on his website.

It's worth noting that McArt has also taken some credit for helping produce the Dungeon Crawl game. This conversation is from a time McArt tagged Ernie in one of his recent Dungeon Crawl FB posts:

I'm not sure if that's something I'd want to share publicly while NuTSR is going though bankruptcy.

fettpett · Oct 6, 2023

Deset Gled said:
It's worth noting that McArt has also taken some credit for helping produce the Dungeon Crawl game. This conversation is from a time McArt tagged Ernie in one of his recent Dungeon Crawl FB posts:

View attachment 299323

I'm not sure if that's something I'd want to share publicly while NuTSR is going though bankruptcy.

LMFAO..."Michiana isn't in Michigan" what a putz...Michiana IS Michigan...and Indiana, it's the area around South Bend, IN and Niles, MI (along with Mishawaka, Edwardsburg, Elkhart, etc).

Wincenworks · Oct 6, 2023

Justin's lawyer has predictably provided his "No, YOU learn the law!" response, providing this time what is at least a motion which will require a response.

Interestingly, I'm currently doing Civil Procedure in New Zealand and as part of the proceedings, we were treated to a lecture by one of the top judges in New Zealand as to what to do and not do during appeals but also general motions, etc. One of the things that he said which echoed the sentiments of former US Supreme Court Justice Scalia (prior to becoming a judge he was known as a very effective advocate... regardless on your opinion of him as a human being) is that judges are rarely impressed with long lists, appeals to emotion or treating the page limit as a quota. You are generally better properly stating and fully exploring one or two excellent arguments than rattling off ten undercooked points while berating your opponent.

So... let's have a look at the motion from Justin's lawyer...

Yeah he has a three page limit and he put in ten points which are... well they're certainly... a choice.. Let's have a look at #24 for example...

24. If you claim that Plaintiff LANASA made any admissions as to the subject matter of this lawsuit, state: the date made; the time and address for each person to whom any such admission was made; where made; the name and address for each person present at the time any such admission was made; the contents of the admission; and if in writing, attach a copy. ANSWER:

"Give me the name and address of anyone who snitched... regardless of whether you intend to call them as witness..."

He's also cited this quote from Hickman v. Taylor, a US Supreme Court case, this is their... fourth point.

A screenshot where I've highlighted the section where he cites no longer can the time-honored cry of 'fishing expedition' serve to preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent's case.

Which is kind of a choice when you consider the first objection is...

And that Hickman v. Taylor is widely understood to stand for the general rule that particular things can be protected against discovery, though more specifically it relates to documents created in preparation of the proceedings, ie you cannot tell the other side to show you their working, do all your research for you and help you win the case against them. You have to work on your own merits. The comment about a fishing trip is there for contrast, to ensure that they not being understood that their ruling was a narrow one and not a way for future lawyers to simply shut down discovery.

It's also a case from 1947, when there were very different standards for discovery across the world because computers had not yet become the standard, there were no photo copiers and so the volume of documentation and the work involved in replicating documents was incredibly different. The current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure include specific rules about electronic documents etc - in 1947 there were arguing over whether you still had the shorthand notes the secretary took at the meeting, so they can be compared against the final minutes that were eventually typed up as the official record. There is a lot of opportunity for lawyers to claim any given case is distinguished from it.

Justin's lawyer is simultaneously claiming both:

1. He has provided a clear and logical explanation for every single request (he has not, but he claims he has in the preamble); and
2. There doesn't need to be a clear explanation for anything because it's possible further actions and motions will be raised (third point)

"I definitely have my eye on the prize but I have no idea what's going on." Again, this seems to be Bernie is used to be the defence on criminal proceedings - where in the interests of justice they are required to simply given him everything up front and he is entitled to scream outrage if the withhold anything (even if it's later found to be justified).

But lets have a look at some his explanations for why there's a clear connection and is definitely staying in scope.

Eighth, the Interrogatories are clear and relate to the case at Bar. For example, Interrogatory/Demand 25 demands “documents, emails, records, and communications in which any of the named Defendants had any contact with the name party below regarding the matters and causes of action set forth in the Amended Complaint, . . .”, and enumerates fourteen persons, some of whom have already been listed as potential witnesses. It only seeks such documents related to this litigation. And, it seeks this information for the purpose of demonstrating the Defendants’ repeated publication of the defamatory statements. It is reasonable and justifiable under the liberal interpretation of the Rules.

But lets have a look at what the actual demand is:

Screenshot showing the inquiry also specifies , and./or in the matter of TSR, LLC v. Wizards of the Coast,21.-cv-1.7 05 (W.D. Wash.):

Oh dear.

And in regards to his weird claim that he is allowed to simply demand anything because anything could happen, and it's not his problem, etc, the relevant Rule is 26 (b) (1) states:

(b) DISCOVERYSCOPEANDLIMITS. (1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

So it's generally understood to be quite a complicated balancing act where the lawyers are generally expected to sort it out between themselves, and a surprising about of legal fees is both sides lawyers meeting to have discussions about what they need, why they need it - if they can't have the thing they need then why can't they and what can they have etc. Judges generally encourage both sides to be open and communicate - and if they can't reach a compromise to come to them with a clear "this is what I'm asking for, this is what will be required of them, and this is why I think my request is warranted"

Now it's also worth mentioning... 25 is the limit of interrogatories by default... so Justin has gone for the maximum and has spent at least one of them on what looks suspiciously like an attempt to bypass the rules set out in the case that his lawyer cites as the reason why he should be allowed to ask for anything he wants unquestioned - while also asking pretty much nothing actually useful for him.

The only things he could have asked for that would have been useful were things that directly demonstrated that something Tenkar said was known to be factually false by Tenkar, because that's the core of defamation and also the only thing that will allow him to reach the standard of actual malice.

Instead he's asked (remember, these are his 25... any more he needs leave from the court, and he's not supposed to use these for the obvious or for things that can be confirmed by other means - its to sort out things that only Tenkar can answer which are core to the dispute)

1. Tell me everything about everyone who knows the facts that are relevant to the case
2. Tell me all lawsuits you've ever been involved in and all the details of each
3. Tell me all the details of any eye witnesses to any event relevant
4. Tell me how much money your YouTube channel made from 2017 - 2023, and all the parties you have a contract with, and any assets that your YouTube channel owns
5. Tell me everyone else whose voice is in these videos (spoiler: It's his wife Rachel, who is named in the lawsuit)
6. Why do you think Justin is dishonest?
7. Why did you say Justin doesn't pay his employees (awkward) and then lists Greg Bell as one of Justin's employees....
8. Why did you say that the DHSM was for profit enterprise...
9. Why did you say Justin doesn't like homos... (spoiler: He was reading a Chad Revenge tweet)
10. Why do you say Justin thinks he's a warrior for regressive (spoiler: He was reading a Chad Revenge tweet)
11. Why did you, a resident of Castle Doctrine state, say you would take advantage of that if necessary? (spoiler: It was over various instances of targetted harassment including doxxing)
12. Why did you say the Mario77 account was Justin? (spoiler: the screenshot of a text from Justin saying he had a Mario account is public knowledge at this point)
13. Why did you say that Justin doxxed you... (spoiler: the screenshots and videos about that are also public knowledge)
14. Why did you say that Justin doxxed your wife (spoiler: Because the Mario77 account did)
15. Why did you say Justin's adult criminal history, which is public information in the USA, was public information?
16. Why did you express a negative opinion of nuTSR's fanbase? (remember, opinion is excluded from defamation)
17. Why did you read out a thing that was on the screen that someone else wrote and you wanted to talk about?
18. Why did you say that Ernie (who is not part of the suit) did a bad thing? (Yes, Tenkar is addressing Ernie and Justin is claim he's the one being addressed)
19. Please explain why you referred to nuTSR as having a Nazi in the company... and who is that? (Yes, Justin apparently intends to argue Dave Johnson is not part of the company, after he is credited as the author on Star Frontiers)
20. Why did you say that you know Justin's address and phone number (spoiler: It's posted everywhere because Justin lists it everywhere and his personal information is on a lot of publicly available documents)
21. Explain why you posted a screencap of Erika's comment she posted in the chat of one of your live videos and why Erika's avatar includes a photo of herself and her child (neither Erika, nor the child are part of the proceedings)
22. Do you have a gun? If so send us all the details and prove to us you're licensed.
23. Give us all the information relating to your career as a police officer, especially all the stuff protected under privilege
24. Tell us everything about anyone who would tell you that Justin admitted to doing these things... and all the specifics
25. Give us all the records from these random people about this... and also about the other lawsuit currently in progress

So yeah, he had 25 questions and most of them will be blatantly obvious when you open up the YouTube video and see what is on the screen, several of them are attempts to bypass privilege, others are attempts to make Tenkar liable for things other people said and one of them is an attempt to make Justin able to sue because he didn't so something that Tenkar accused Ernie of.

This may actually be a worse understanding of defamation that was demonstrated when it was claimed that it was defamation to refer to Vic Mignogna as a piece of naughty word "because Mr. Mignogna is not a piece of naughty word (that is another name for feces, thus it is impossible for him to be a "piece of naughty word")".

You better believe I am buying more popcorn.

TSR The Full & Glorious History of NuTSR

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Deset Gled

.

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Wincenworks

Hero

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Wincenworks

Hero

Nylanfs

Hero

Deset Gled

.

fettpett

Explorer

Wincenworks

Hero

Similar Threads

Into the Woods

Related Articles

Into the Woods