NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wincenworks" data-source="post: 9244772" data-attributes="member: 7038835">Justin's lawyer has refiled his motion in the LaNasa vs Tenkar case and... well...[ATTACH=full]343751[/ATTACH]Firstly the illustrative strike outs are very sloppily applied, (taking out the "and" which was definitely in the final version) but more importantly not really addressing the error he made when he served Tenkar's mother.  He may very well have thought he was serving Tenkar's wife, and meant to serve his wife... but he didn't.  Rachel is a different party, so he would need to apply for special leave to provide her a late service... which he doesn't do.[ATTACH=full]343746[/ATTACH]For the uninitiated, a common maxim in Civil Procedure classes is "service is jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is service" - if you haven't served the proper party then the court will refuse to do anything due to lack of jurisdiction, no matter how compelling your evidence.  Serving someone in the same house, or a spouse, etc is not good enough - you need to serve the person involved.  Courts do not like people trying to sneak another party in midway through proceedings as it denies that party their right to due process.This is particularly not a great idea since the judge specified he was to stay as close to the original complaint as possible... and trying to add a new party is a pretty big jump.Also the redline version doesn't show the additions he did, just the parts he removed which makes it... very confusing to read - thus defeating the stated point of him supplying it.  So... in terms of pleasing the court... dubious.In terms of substantial changes, Justin's lawyer has made practically none - the vast majority are to change the references to Tenkar's mother to Tenkar's wife (who again, they haven't served) with the sole major change being the removal of the claim that it was defamatory to refer to Justin as having a criminal history.[ATTACH=full]343747[/ATTACH]And it's... very funny when you see the paragraph that puts into context how absurd that is:[ATTACH=full]343748[/ATTACH]As a general reminder.... <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Nazi and white supremacist is Dave Johnson... who posted about how eugenics saves species in his Star Frontiers teaser in Alarms & Journeys #13 - and <a href="https://nohateingaming.com/" target="_blank">there is a web site documenting his sins</a> in this regard; and</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the anti-homosexual conduct evidence is Tenkar reading out some Chad Revenge tweets... with the tweets on screen so you can see exactly where they're from - and <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150910161420/https://luminanews.com/2014/04/state-candidates-debate-issues-at-forum/" target="_blank">Justin has previously said he's anti-marriage equality in his campaigns</a>; and</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> the failure to pay debts is not demonstrated in the submission... but there is a court judgement that Justin's oxygen bar failed to pay its taxes available to the public; and </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the "other statements" are mostly whinging about things that are not defamation (saying rude things, expressing a dislike of a person, threatening to invoke Castle Doctrine if attacked, and/or not censoring out Justin's child from his wife's avatar when talking about her comments)</li> </ul>I'm not convinced the judge is going to believe Justin's lawyer did his due diligence this time around.</blockquote>

Verification