TSR The Full & Glorious History of NuTSR

DLIMedia said:

DHSM seems to be having a normal one...

View attachment 267274

It should come as no surprise that they got the quote wrong.

View attachment 267273

Click to expand...

JackMann said:

So, a qualified attorney, but not the linchpin of their legal team.

I wouldn't read too much into it. Maybe some personal stuff came up, or maybe they realized they didn't need that one more attorney on the team and assigned her on some cases that needed the extra body more.

Click to expand...

It could also be the big dogs did their thing, and laid down a blueprint for how to proceed, and have moved on to other major projects.

…or a potential conflict of interest has arisen.

…or there’s a scheduling conflict.

And so forth. The one thing for sure is they haven’t dropped WotC as a client.

CleverNickName said:

View attachment 267467

Click to expand...

I think that’s misattributed.

Dannyalcatraz said:

I think that’s misattributed.

Click to expand...

"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."
-Abraham Lincoln

You may recall that Lanasa also sued Tenkar (@tenkar) for defamation and libel in September. Well, Tenkar's lawyer has officially filed a response to LaNasa's civil suit. And dang does it deliver. The short summary is that Tenkar is making a motion to dismiss for all the reasons you would expect: Tenkar was telling the truth, Lanasa is a public figure (which creates a much higher standard for slander and defamation that Lanasa really can't meet), and Lanasa failed to properly ask for damages. There's a bonus defense in there as well, basically saying that Lanasa's reputation is already so terrible it's impossible to defame him. Tenkar's lawyer also mentions New York's anti-SLAPP laws, but has not formally filed a claim under that law AFAICT.

I won't post the full text, because it contains some colorful language between the two parties (PM me if you want a copy). But here are some highlights (emphasis mine):

-----
This lawsuit stems from Plaintiff Lanasa’s conscious involvement in public controversy (e.g.,
as a public figure repeatedly running for public office), engagement in myriad forms of inappropriate
conduct, and invitation attention from the public and Defendant (e.g., by publicly harassing Defendant
and, upon information and belief, mailing feces to Defendant’s home). Such conduct by Plaintiff
Lanasa also includes distribution of reprehensible racist materials, open affiliation with individuals
who publicly disseminate vile pro-Nazi and white supremacist materials, and other forms of conduct
that we respectfully submit render Plaintiffs defamation-proof. Naturally, the internet is replete with
criticism of Plaintiff Lanasa’s conduct, a small portion of which comprises criticism of Plaintiffs by
Defendant. Although Defendant has endured extensive and patently-actionable misconduct by
Plaintiffs, Defendant would prefer to refrain from burdening the Court with disagreements between
the parties, move to dismiss this meritless action with prejudice, and get on with his life.
-----

-----
DEFAMATION
Plaintiffs’ defamation claims fall within New York’s recently-amended anti-SLAPP law,(2) and
because Plaintiff Lanasa is, at minimum, a limited-purpose public figure, Plaintiffs must plausibly
allege Defendant acted with actual malice to sustain their claim.(3) A defamation complaint “us[ing]
actual-malice buzzwords” that are not “backed by well-pled facts” cannot survive a motion to dismiss. (4)
Plaintiffs’ defamation per se claims, e.g., one passing reference to “criminal history” also do not
constitute any of the “four types of statements . . . per se actionable under New York law: those that
‘imput[e] unchastity to a woman,’ assert that a plaintiff has a ‘loathsome disease,’ tend to injure him in
his profession, or charge a plaintiff with a serious crime.” (5) Statements that “fail to portray . . . a serious
crime” are not “per se actionable.”(6) Because Plaintiffs have failed to plead any facts that, even if true,
could establish Defendant made any statement about any Plaintiff that was defamatory, known to be
false, and/or made while entertaining serious doubts regarding its truth, Plaintiffs defamation claims
must be dismissed.(7) “Truth” is also “an absolute defense to an action based on defamation.” (8) To the
extent Plaintiff Lanasa attempts to characterize a passing reference to “criminal history” as
defamatory, Defendant avers, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff Lanasa has been convicted
of at least one crime. Finally, Defendant plans to invoke “the libel-proof plaintiff doctrine,” which
applies when “there is little or no harm to a plaintiff’s already low reputation,” in which case, “the
claim should be dismissed.”
-----

As for future activity on this suit, Tenkar's lawyer proposes a schedule that would see more paperwork be filed in December, with the next (first?) hearing with the judge on Jan 23, 2023.

Deset Gled said:

those that ‘imput[e] unchastity to a woman,’

Click to expand...

Holy crap, that filing doesn't pull any punches.

"We harmed your reputation? What reputation?"

Deset Gled said:

Finally, Defendant plans to invoke “the libel-proof plaintiff doctrine,” which
applies when “there is little or no harm to a plaintiff’s already low reputation,” in which case, “the
claim should be dismissed.

Click to expand...

Stop, he's already dead!