TSR The Full & Glorious History of NuTSR

Faolyn · Dec 1, 2022

Veltharis ap Rylix said:
I'm just going to choose to believe he now identifies as a Yugoloth.

Hmm. Randomly attacks both allies and people he thinks are against him, but also runs for office, hides behind lawyers, and thinks he can rules-lawyer his way out of legal problems. Yep, sounds neutral evil to me.

Faolyn · Dec 1, 2022

Kannik said:
Never mind the grammar, why are the font sizes different between the two? Why does Mi-Kar have the text indented for 'Realms' but the 'adventure' is still hidden beneath the staff? Are these fixed already, or are they examples of what is to be/being fixed? (Might be a rhetorical question...)

Because LaNasa has no understanding of layout or design.

DLIMedia · Dec 1, 2022

Kannik said:
Never mind the grammar, why are the font sizes different between the two?

Inability to pick one font and stick to it is kind of their thing.

Sacrosanct · Dec 1, 2022

Faolyn said:
Because LaNasa has no understanding.

I normally never do this, but...fixed it for you.

Deset Gled · Dec 1, 2022

Deset Gled said:
... and the judge has already responded to Lanasa. Emphasis mine.

...

Translation: Your yammering about not filing on time is complete BS, and you'll get one more chance to actually respond to the very real points brought up by Tenkar or the case will be dismissed. I think I like this judge.

"Plaintiffs are advised to review Chambers Practices." Ha. Hope you spent good money on that garbage, Lanasa.

We should have an update response from Lanasa in three days, and a real court date on Jan 6th, 2023.

Lanasa's next response in this case is in, and it's absolutely terrible. He basically* just repeats the same arguments from his last filing, complaining about the filing date of Tenkar's response.

I'm going to jump around here and pull out what I think are the key bits:

-----
Your Honor:
I submit this Letter in Response to the Letter Motion filed by counsel for the Defendant. ECF
No. 14.

Underlying Facts
[5 paragraphs re-hashing the times when things were filed] ...

The Court Should Deny the Request for Additional Time and Treat the Letter as Efiled on November
21, 2022 as Defendant’s Rule 12(b) Motion in its Entirety

[half a page of the same BS that he already said in his last filing]

Thus, based upon this Court’s Rules alone, it should deny Defendant’s counsel’s Letter motion in
its entirety in so far as a request is made for an extension. The Court should hold that the mutually
agreed upon Stipulation should be fully enforced as to Attorney Schneider and his client

[another page and a half repeating things from the past filing] ...

Conclusion
As was noted above, Attorney Schneider has had more than five weeks to prepare any motion to
dismiss. This Court should deny the request as made by Attorney Schneider for an extension and an
Initial Conference. It is further respectfully requested that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ counsel
permission to respond to this Motion for Rule 12(b) relief within the time constraints of the Federal
Rules, from the date of the Court’s ruling on this motion for an extension.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Bernard V. Kleinman
Bernard V. Kleinman, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
-----

That's it. No discussion of the actual important things said in the motion. No discussion of the case itself at all*. Literally, no defense. He completely ignored the judges last statement. He basically just re-submitted his last document. Completely phoned it in.

Based on the judge's last ruling, I don't think this is going to go well for Lanasa.

*Edit: Buried in three pages of absolute crap, Lanasa's lawyer did actually spend one paragraph addressing Tenkar's reasons for dismissing the case. Formatting and emphasis mine:

-----
Attorney Schneider makes his request based upon an alleged planned Rule 12 Motion to dismiss.
This Court should construe the letter motion (ECF No. 14) as that Motion under the Stipulation, with
whatever persuasiveness, and shortcomings it may possess. The letter motion submitted by Attorney
Schneider sets forth both a legal and factual basis for his Rule 12 request for relief. While it may
contain any number of shortcomings, such as supported evidence, affidavits, etc., as it also contains
any number of specious arguments and assertions as made by Attorney Schneider, and not
represented as relying upon statements of his client, and these should be treated appropriately. For
example, Attorney Schneider, himself[1] makes the following (unsupported) statements of “fact”:

"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, . . ."

See Letter Motion at p. 1, ¶ 2. Emphases added.[2]
Further, Attorney Schneider has already laid out a legal argument as a basis for his proffered
Rule 12 relief; citing to both case law and statute. See Letter Motion at pp. 2-3, Ns. 2-16. He has
cited to more than fifty cases. Thus, his Motion as having been researched and briefed
-----

Basically, this is claiming that Tenkar's lawyer (not Tenkar himself) is saying all these things about Lanasa without properly laying the foundation (e.g. evidence). I don't think it's well stated, but it is a real, legal argument. It might be just barely enough to prevent the case from be summarily dismissed.

Ancalagon · Dec 1, 2022

Deset Gled said:
Lanasa's next response in this case is in, and it's absolutely terrible. He basically* just repeats the same arguments from his last filing, complaining about the filing date of Tenkar's response.

I'm going to jump around here and pull out what I think are the key bits:

-----
Your Honor:
I submit this Letter in Response to the Letter Motion filed by counsel for the Defendant. ECF
No. 14.

Underlying Facts
[5 paragraphs re-hashing the times when things were filed] ...

The Court Should Deny the Request for Additional Time and Treat the Letter as Efiled on November
21, 2022 as Defendant’s Rule 12(b) Motion in its Entirety

[half a page of the same BS that he already said in his last filing]

Thus, based upon this Court’s Rules alone, it should deny Defendant’s counsel’s Letter motion in
its entirety in so far as a request is made for an extension. The Court should hold that the mutually
agreed upon Stipulation should be fully enforced as to Attorney Schneider and his client

[another page and a half repeating things from the past filing] ...

Conclusion
As was noted above, Attorney Schneider has had more than five weeks to prepare any motion to
dismiss. This Court should deny the request as made by Attorney Schneider for an extension and an
Initial Conference. It is further respectfully requested that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ counsel
permission to respond to this Motion for Rule 12(b) relief within the time constraints of the Federal
Rules, from the date of the Court’s ruling on this motion for an extension.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Bernard V. Kleinman
Bernard V. Kleinman, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
-----

That's it. No discussion of the actual important things said in the motion. No discussion of the case itself at all*. Literally, no defense. He completely ignored the judges last statement. He basically just re-submitted his last document. Completely phoned it in.

Based on the judge's last ruling, I don't think this is going to go well for Lanasa.

*Edit: Buried in three pages of absolute crap, Lanasa's lawyer did actually spend one paragraph addressing Tenkar's reasons for dismissing the case. Formatting and emphasis mine:

-----
Attorney Schneider makes his request based upon an alleged planned Rule 12 Motion to dismiss.
This Court should construe the letter motion (ECF No. 14) as that Motion under the Stipulation, with
whatever persuasiveness, and shortcomings it may possess. The letter motion submitted by Attorney
Schneider sets forth both a legal and factual basis for his Rule 12 request for relief. While it may
contain any number of shortcomings, such as supported evidence, affidavits, etc., as it also contains
any number of specious arguments and assertions as made by Attorney Schneider, and not
represented as relying upon statements of his client, and these should be treated appropriately. For
example, Attorney Schneider, himself[1] makes the following (unsupported) statements of “fact”:

"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, . . ."

See Letter Motion at p. 1, ¶ 2. Emphases added.[2]
Further, Attorney Schneider has already laid out a legal argument as a basis for his proffered
Rule 12 relief; citing to both case law and statute. See Letter Motion at pp. 2-3, Ns. 2-16. He has
cited to more than fifty cases. Thus, his Motion as having been researched and briefed
-----

Basically, this is claiming that Tenkar's lawyer (not Tenkar himself) is saying all these things about Lanasa without properly laying the foundation (e.g. evidence). I don't think it's well stated, but it is a real, legal argument. It might be just barely enough to prevent the case from be summarily dismissed.

again, IANAL, but... with a bit of a weak argument like that, ignoring the previous directive from the judge is... not a good way to get them to entertain the argument?

Deset Gled · Dec 1, 2022

Ancalagon said:
again, IANAL, but... with a bit of a weak argument like that, ignoring the previous directive from the judge is... not a good way to get them to entertain the argument?

Especially when the underlying argument is so fundamentally stupid. The idea that when a judge says "This is due by Nov 21" what he really, legally means is "This is due by Nov 17" is blatantly a losing proposition. I have to admit it's so wrong that it makes me step back and wonder "what am I missing here?".

But then I remember that the brains in this operation is the guy couldn't even get his name right when suing someone; the legal company name is "TSR Hobbies, LLC", but is referred to as just "TSR LLC" in the court docs for this case.. The stupidest explanation is usually best; this is probably all the work that Lanasa could afford to pay his lawyer for.

Staffan · Dec 2, 2022

Deset Gled said:
That's it. No discussion of the actual important things said in the motion. No discussion of the case itself at all*. Literally, no defense. He completely ignored the judges last statement. He basically just re-submitted his last document. Completely phoned it in.

Dannyalcatraz · Dec 2, 2022

Deset Gled said:
View attachment 268431

That text on Lady Betty…

I’m reminded of:

Jeremy Thomas · Dec 2, 2022

Deset Gled said:
Dungeon Crawl updates! Just a reminder, this product was original taking pre-orders for delivery in time for Xmas 2021.

View attachment 268431

Ahh yes, the traditional druidic nature-based death ray. What an iconic ability...