Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 8844747" data-attributes="member: 7808">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. ECFNo. 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 November21, 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 inits entirety in so far as a request is made for an extension. The Court should hold that the mutuallyagreed upon Stipulation should be fully enforced as to Attorney Schneider and his client[another page and a half repeating things from the past filing] ...ConclusionAs was noted above, Attorney Schneider has had more than five weeks to prepare any motion todismiss. This Court should deny the request as made by Attorney Schneider for an extension and anInitial Conference. It is further respectfully requested that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ counselpermission to respond to this Motion for Rule 12(b) relief within the time constraints of the FederalRules, from the date of the Court’s ruling on this motion for an extension.Respectfully submitted,/s/ Bernard V. KleinmanBernard 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, withwhatever persuasiveness, and shortcomings it may possess. The letter motion submitted by AttorneySchneider sets forth both a legal and factual basis for his Rule 12 request for relief. While it maycontain any number of shortcomings, such as supported evidence, affidavits, etc., as it also containsany number of specious arguments and assertions as made by Attorney Schneider, and notrepresented as relying upon statements of his client, and these should be treated appropriately. Forexample, 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 ofinappropriate conduct, and invitation attention from the public and Defendant (e.g., bypublicly harassing Defendant and, upon information and belief, mailing feces to Defendant’shome). Such conduct by Plaintiff Lanasa also includes distribution of reprehensible racistmaterials, open affiliation with individuals who publicly disseminate vile pro-Nazi and whitesupremacist 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 profferedRule 12 relief; citing to both case law and statute. See Letter Motion at pp. 2-3, Ns. 2-16. He hascited 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.</blockquote>

Verification