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: 9205026" data-attributes="member: 7808">There have been so many fake accounts used in this saga that it's hard to keep track, isn't it?  The most prominent anonymous accounts have been IDed, but not all of them.  At this point, I know of at least one fake account that was positively traced back to Lanasa, a couple that are extremely likely to be him, and a handful that are from someone at the NuTSR camp but would be more or less impossible to prove it was anyone specific. Legally speaking, one critical point is that there was already a hearing about harassment earlier where the judge basically said "I'm not going to sanction anyone now, but everyone needs to knock it off immediately."  As a result, this latest motion only addresses stuff that happened fairly recently.  Most of the fake account stuff, including the one that was beyond-a-reasonable-doubt Lanasa, is old enough that it wouldn't be considered now. WotC made it a specific point in their complaint that "Harassment by [Lanasa] Resumed After TSR LLC Filed Its Bankruptcy Petition."  And it's worth noting that the donosemora.com went live about a week after the bankruptcy was filed.  In their response, NuTSR's lawyers felt it was very important to note that NuTSR's bankruptcy was well published news, hence the documentation of outlets where it was reported.  I think they're trying argue that because the news about the bankruptcy was very well known, some third party (totally not Lanasa) could have latched onto that news as an opportunity to harass Don.  Personally, think it's a really thin argument, and a really weird thing to fixate on.  And, as [USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER] noted, using an affadavit from the lawyer to address this is even weirder.  But it's there in the filing, so   <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />Reading between the lines on this one a little, my impression is that Lanasa's lawyers are trying to re-litigate the decision that came from the bankruptcy case in NC court.  The Trustee in NC is the one who basically said he didn't care if this moves ahead.  But Lanasa is obviously using the bankruptcy as a way to stave off any movement in this case.  Since he didn't get the decision he wanted in NC, he's going to try it again here.  Now, I know from watching enough court on YouTube that this tactic is a great way to piss off some judges. But it's also tried often enough that it must work ocassionally.</blockquote>

Verification