Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8599516" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Given that I occasionally drop into the various (and seemingly multiplying) threads on the TSR/WoTC litigation with brief-ish explanations as to what is going on, I thought I might as well give some background explainers on some of the choices made. Most of these will be in two parts- first, an explanation of the background principles, and second, the application thereof to the TSR/WoTC litigation. Finally, this is meant to be somewhat informative and mostly fun. Please do not confuse anything herein with actual advice. Remember- satisfaction guaranteed, or your money back.The first post will be about the difference between state and federal courts in America, and why the TSR litigation is in federal court, and why that matters. Depending on how I feel, there might be a part 2. Maybe. Writing is hard.A. The Difference Between State Court and Federal Court.Drawing on my fine command of the English language, I said nothing.For the first post in my highly irregular series on the TSR litigation and The Law™, I will be discussing the nature of the legal system in the only country that matters- America. In order to understand the American Legal System, as opposed to the common law systems of penal colonies like Australia, or shudder the civil law systems of brie-eating Francophones, you must first understand that we are a system of dual sovereignty… which means two things.Where was I? Ah, yes, it means that we have a federal system, and it means that at any point, you may challenge a person to combat and kill him. If you do not believe this inarguable truth, just ask Mr. Alexander Hamilton. He would tell you, but he didn't believe me (why didn't he believe me)? Due to the nature of this system, our courts are divided into two very dissimilar types of courts- the state courts, which consist (roughly) of 49 well-run systems with courts of competent jurisdiction as well as Mississippi, and then the federal courts. Today's lesson- what is the difference between the state courts and the federal courts?State courts are where, for the most part, all the action is, and where you will most likely find yourself someday. Fighting a traffic ticket? State court. Probate issue because Grandpa Bob didn't love you enough? State court. Killed someone with a trident? State court. Suing someone for running over you… three times? State court. Arguing with your ex over whether junior should be allowed to visit you this weekend? State court. And so on. State court is where you go with the common people, with the common problems. You mill about, lawyers say some fancy words (fanciness depending on how much you pay them), a judge ignores everyone, until eventually the judge says "'l'll allow it" and you go home. Sometimes you mill about, lawyers make some arguments, some unemployed  or under-employed people sitting in a box ignore you, and you go home. Unless you don't go home because those people in the box are sending you to prison. Don't worry- your friends will be with you there soon enough!Then there's federal court. Federal court is where you don't go. Federal judges hear "very important cases" (arising under the Constitution) or when people from one state sue another state, or certain kinds of laws are violated (these are called federal laws, in the United States Code, which was written in a manner to make it incomprehensible to anyone but the gibberingly insane devotees to Cthulhu). But federal judges are like Paxatauney Phil- they pop out once a year, max, to deal with cases. Otherwise, your attorneys will send them papers. And then, usually within 2-6 years, your attorney will tell you that you've the lost the case. Unless it's a federal criminal case, where the judge will punish you with prison time for making him show up in a courtroom.Finally, I will leave with this basic description with this. A general rule of thumb is that, in general for civil cases, plaintiffs' attorneys like to be in state court, and defense attorneys like to be in federal court. Why is this? Two reasons. State court is like the wild west. There are no laws. There are no rules. The law is whatever the judge can be convinced of that day, and you can get as much money as a bunch of slack-jawed yokels want to give you (after reasonable expenses, such as a giant billboard with your face on it and ads on TV for "The Hammer"). Conversely, federal court is nothing except rules, and federal courts love to do nothing more than kick out cases based on nothing more than small procedural mistakes. To quote a recent case, "While the Court's sympathy is with the plaintiff, who lost all of his limbs when the Defendant's improperly manufactured lawn mower spontaneously turned on and attacked him due to an obvious design defect, the Court also notes that the plaintiff submitted his Complaint in Times New Roman 11.5, not Times New Roman 12, as specified in Local Rule 9.238(g). As such, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the complaint is DISMISSED with PREJUDICE, the plaintiff is found in CONTEMPT OF COURT, and the clerk of court is directed to issue a WRIT OF POSSESSION for plaintiff's house."B. Why is the TSR Litigation in Federal Court? And what will that mean? The freelance writer is one who is paid per piece, or per word, or per haps.If you got through all of that (and did you?), you saw that federal courts deal with "very important cases" - such as federal law.  So now we get into a kind of weird issue; almost every case that a federal court can hear ... a state court can as well. There are complicated questions involved in strategy (such as where the person wants to file, and whether the defendant can "remove" the case to federal court) but generally the person filing gets to choose where to file. Except ... in a very limited number of areas, including tax issues and copyright violations, you can only file in federal court. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over those claims. The second claim in TSR's lawsuit is a declaratory judgment over copyright- as such, it is required to be filed in federal court. Specifically, the case is going to be litigated in the Western District of Washington., which means that they will be applying the law of the 9th Circuit. This is notable for a few reasons- first, the fact that the complaint originally filed in North Carolina was nearly identical to the one they filed here, combined with the recent pro hac vice appearance of LaNasa's North Carolina attorney, likely means that LaNasa's North Carolina attorney is going to be the primary litigator ... against WoTC's Seattle-based firm that has a strong knowledge of this forum, the judges, and the legal distinctions that would apply. Even moreso because there are state-law counterclaims that are based in Washington state law (counterclaims III and V). Next, for various historical reasons that will hopefully be rectified soon, it is somewhat harder to follow a federal case than it is most state cases. Simply put, you have to pay to see the documents that get filed (which most state courts will let you see for free). As I alluded to above, a primary difference between (most) federal courts and (most) state courts is the manner in which they handle cases. Most state courts will require a hearing in order to make any decision. This can greatly slow litigation. On the other hand, federal courts will usually decide things only by reading what the parties submit in writing- they will rarely require hearings. So if you're following this, you should expect, for any major event, a motion, a response, a reply, and then an "Order" from the court that decides the issue. But not necessarily a hearing. Finally, do not expect a trial. It could happen- anything is possible! The number of civil cases in federal court that gets decided by a jury is .... less than 1%. Civil trials, in federal court, while not extinct, or vanishingly rare. But if I do another post, I'll explain the different stages to look for.</blockquote>

Verification