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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wincenworks" data-source="post: 9154384" data-attributes="member: 7038835">Justin's lawyer has predictably provided his "No, YOU learn the law!" response, providing this time what is at least a motion which will require a response.Interestingly, I'm currently doing Civil Procedure in New Zealand and as part of the proceedings, we were treated to a lecture by one of the top judges in New Zealand as to what to do and not do during appeals but also general motions, etc.  One of the things that he said which echoed the sentiments of former US Supreme Court Justice Scalia (prior to becoming a judge he was known as a very effective advocate... regardless on your opinion of him as a human being) is that judges are rarely impressed with long lists, appeals to emotion or treating the page limit as a quota.   You are generally better properly stating and fully exploring one or two excellent arguments than rattling off ten undercooked points while berating your opponent.So... let's have a look at the motion from Justin's lawyer...[ATTACH=full]301587[/ATTACH]Yeah he has a three page limit and he put in ten points which are... well they're certainly... a choice..  Let's have a look at #24 for example...[ATTACH=full]301588[/ATTACH]"Give me the name and address of anyone who snitched... regardless of whether you intend to call them as witness..."He's also cited this quote from Hickman v. Taylor, a US Supreme Court case, this is their... fourth point.[ATTACH=full]301879[/ATTACH]Which is kind of a choice when you consider the first objection is...[ATTACH=full]301881[/ATTACH]And that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hickman_v._Taylor" target="_blank">Hickman v. Taylor</a> is widely understood to stand for the general rule that particular things can be protected against discovery, though more specifically it relates to documents created in preparation of the proceedings, ie you cannot tell the other side to show you their working, do all your research for you and help you win the case against them.  You have to work on your own merits.  The comment about a fishing trip is there for contrast, to ensure that they not being understood that their ruling was a narrow one and not a way for future lawyers to simply shut down discovery.It's also a case from 1947, when there were very different standards for discovery across the world because computers had not yet become the standard, there were no photo copiers and so the volume of documentation and the work involved in replicating documents was incredibly different.  The current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure include specific rules about electronic documents etc - in 1947 there were arguing over whether you still had the shorthand notes the secretary took at the meeting, so they can be compared against the final minutes that were eventually typed up as the official record.  There is a lot of opportunity for lawyers to claim any given case is distinguished from it.Justin's lawyer is simultaneously claiming both:1. He has provided a clear and logical explanation for every single request (he has not, but he claims he has in the preamble); and2. There doesn't need to be a clear explanation for anything because it's possible further actions and motions will be raised (third point)"I definitely have my eye on the prize but I have no idea what's going on."  Again, this seems to be Bernie is used to be the defence on criminal proceedings - where in the interests of justice they are required to simply given him everything up front and he is entitled to scream outrage if the withhold anything (even if it's later found to be justified).But lets have a look at some his explanations for why there's a clear connection and is definitely staying in scope.[ATTACH=full]301882[/ATTACH]But lets have a look at what the actual demand is:[ATTACH=full]301883[/ATTACH]Oh dear.And in regards to his weird claim that he is allowed to simply demand anything because anything could happen, and it's not his problem, etc, the relevant Rule is 26 (b) (1) states:[ATTACH=full]301885[/ATTACH]So it's generally understood to be quite a complicated balancing act where the lawyers are generally expected to sort it out between themselves, and a surprising about of legal fees is both sides lawyers meeting to have discussions about what they need, why they need it - if they can't have the thing they need then why can't they and what can they have etc.  Judges generally encourage both sides to be open and communicate - and if they can't reach a compromise to come to them with a clear "this is what I'm asking for, this is what will be required of them, and this is why I think my request is warranted"Now it's also worth mentioning... 25 is the limit of interrogatories by default... so Justin has gone for the maximum and has spent at least one of them on what looks suspiciously like an attempt to bypass the rules set out in the case that his lawyer cites as the reason why he should be allowed to ask for anything he wants unquestioned - while also asking pretty much nothing actually useful for him.The only things he could have asked for that would have been useful were things that directly demonstrated that something Tenkar said was known to be factually false by Tenkar, because that's the core of defamation and also the only thing that will allow him to reach the standard of actual malice.Instead he's asked (remember, these are his 25... any more he needs leave from the court, and he's not supposed to use these for the obvious or for things that can be confirmed by other means - its to sort out things that only Tenkar can answer which are core to the dispute)1. Tell me everything about everyone who knows the facts that are relevant to the case2. Tell me all lawsuits you've ever been involved in and all the details of each3. Tell me all the details of any eye witnesses to any event relevant4. Tell me how much money your YouTube channel made from 2017 - 2023, and all the parties you have a contract with, and any assets that your YouTube channel owns5. Tell me everyone else whose voice is in these videos (spoiler: It's his wife Rachel, who is named in the lawsuit)6. Why do you think Justin is dishonest?7. Why did you say Justin doesn't pay his employees (awkward) and then lists Greg Bell as one of Justin's employees....8. Why did you say that the DHSM was for profit enterprise...9. Why did you say Justin doesn't like homos... (spoiler: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJDAtBlR6vc" target="_blank">He was reading a Chad Revenge tweet</a>)10. Why do you say Justin thinks he's a warrior for regressive (spoiler: He was reading a Chad Revenge tweet)11. Why did you, a resident of Castle Doctrine state, say you would take advantage of that if necessary? (spoiler: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxsDOlDPkDc" target="_blank">It was over various instances of targetted harassment including doxxing</a>)12. Why did you say the Mario77 account was Justin? (spoiler: the screenshot of a text from Justin saying he had a Mario account is public knowledge at this point)13. Why did you say that Justin doxxed you... (spoiler: the screenshots and videos about that are also public knowledge)14. Why did you say that Justin doxxed your wife (spoiler: Because the Mario77 account did)15. Why did you say Justin's adult criminal history, which is public information in the USA, was public information?16. Why did you express a negative opinion of nuTSR's fanbase? (remember, opinion is excluded from defamation)17. Why did you read out a thing that was on the screen that someone else wrote and you wanted to talk about?18. Why did you say <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djYL3joFZqQ" target="_blank">that Ernie</a> (who is not part of the suit) did a bad thing? (Yes, Tenkar is addressing Ernie and Justin is claim he's the one being addressed)19. Please explain why you referred to nuTSR as having a Nazi in the company... and who is that? (Yes, Justin apparently intends to argue Dave Johnson is not part of the company, after he is credited as the author on Star Frontiers)20. Why did you say that you know Justin's address and phone number (spoiler: It's posted everywhere because Justin lists it everywhere and his personal information is on a lot of publicly available documents)21. Explain why you posted a screencap of Erika's comment she posted in the chat of one of your live videos and why Erika's avatar includes a photo of herself and her child (neither Erika, nor the child are part of the proceedings)22. Do you have a gun? If so send us all the details and prove to us you're licensed.23. Give us all the information relating to your career as a police officer, especially all the stuff protected under privilege24. Tell us everything about anyone who would tell you that Justin admitted to doing these things... and all the specifics25. Give us all the records from these random people about this... and also about the other lawsuit currently in progressSo yeah, he had 25 questions and most of them will be blatantly obvious when you open up the YouTube video and see what is on the screen, several of them are attempts to bypass privilege, others are attempts to make Tenkar liable for things other people said and one of them is an attempt to make Justin able to sue because he didn't so something that Tenkar accused Ernie of.This may actually be a worse understanding of defamation that was demonstrated when it was claimed that it was defamation to refer to Vic Mignogna as a piece of naughty word "because Mr. Mignogna is not a piece of naughty word (that is another name for feces, thus it is impossible for him to be a "piece of naughty word")".You better believe I am buying more popcorn.</blockquote>

Verification