Search results

Well they proposed he could - without going into the weeds there's a lot of possible reasons why a judge might do that but it's still considered a decision that Tenkar and his lawyers should make since they may also have independent factors influencing their preferences (including the infamous...

All evidence indicates the judge is willing to make a ruling now - and is basically giving Tenkar the option to just ask for a Summary Judgment rather than seek sanctions etc. For a judge to be interested in a motion for Summary Judgment usually indicates the believe that all the relevant facts...

Having a quick look at it seems Judge Scanlon has: Reminded Justin's lawyer the judge has inherent jurisdiction, and so won't sign an order that waives that Disagreed with the idea that because people are "regularly associated with" counsel they protected Reminded Justin's lawyer that expert...

They have weirdly added Tenkar's mother... but referred to her as though she's his wife. Conveniently around the time they raised the amount of damages. So um... the optics of it... they're something...

Update on the LaNasa vs Tenkar lawsuit. Docs are currently available on Court Listener. After all the ranting by Justin's lawyer, Tenkar's has now filed a motion to compel wrongful withholding of discovery and it... well.... Lawyers are legally obligated to do continuing education so that...

NZ biosecurity is super anal - that said you can buy them here, however forcing employees to wrestle in them is likely to get you in trouble with health & safety, and employee relations laws. Also it's more traditional for moral panics and resignations by political figures over general sleazy...

True - but technically under New Zealand law, filing a complaint with NetSafe is part of a legal process since it is a mandatory precursor to filing a complaint under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 so is kind of a weak form of Cease and Desist. But it's like a cease and desist...

To be fair someone claiming to be Justin LaNasa did send a complaint about me to NetSafe so there was potential for it to involve New Zealand law as well. There was no follow up to that though - at least to date.

And that's kind of the point. If someone who has extensive military experience says and article 15s means someone is a criminal, there's a good argument to be made that you know that's nonsense. Obviously if the person was a lawyer in the military this goes 10,000%. If a life long civilian...

Believe it or not I had to do 12 weeks of study on the idea of if we can trust the dictionary or the "ordinary usage"... and that was just regarding the wording in a statute. In defamation terms, this falls under "opinion" where someone can argue that it's their "opinion" that someone is...

(This is a pretty good example of the debate and back and forth I'm talking about when you can't just cite clear facts that amount to your statement being legally truthful. I'm not going to comment on which side would be right, because part of legal research would be checking to see if there...

It would be debatable. With defamation the majority of the arguing is usually over "what would the average, unbiased person understand this to mean..." where the plaintiff will argue the worst possible thing, and the defendant will argue some other thing. For example, it might be a debate over...