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: 9430595" data-attributes="member: 7038835">The brief of appellant <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ACleppqPo6qb4YFSvcgMQhdmo1p4KHsV/view?usp=drive_link" target="_blank">is up</a> (and <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013066/lanasa-v-stiene/#entry-25" target="_blank">on Courtlistener</a>).  Submitted at 5:41 AM.As a side note, it appears Justin's lawyer is currently dealing with a motion for sanctions due to disrespecting opposing counsel, and seems to be handling that issue <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/kathryntewson.bsky.social/post/3kz6czgog4o2x" target="_blank">even more bizarrely</a> than this appeal.But back to nuTSR stuff, I suspect [USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER] will find some great comedy material in here.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Primary dispute to the incorrect serving of Rachel, Tenkar's wife, is it was allegedly her job to know that she'd been served and to bring this to the attention of the court (ie no explanation why they served the wrong person at all)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">He insists that insults can be defamation by wanting the context to be considered.  Given that the context for some of them is Tenkar is reading out a third party's words in order to report on events... this does not seem like a wise plan.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Remarkably at one point they try to define honest by citing a case which cites Black's Law Dictionary...</li> </ul>[ATTACH=full]375974[/ATTACH]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">He also argues that it is "perplexing" that the judge's conclusion was that maybe some of it could be defammatory with some context... and don't consider maybe that context should have been in the complaint rather than saved up for a last minute reveal at trial.</li> </ul>[ATTACH=full]375975[/ATTACH]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">They are fully mad the judge just dismissed the IIED and insist that she was wrong to do so, and immediately starts getting confused on between Facebook and YouTube images - insisting that if you share a publicly available image of a person on the Internet this is inherently a violation to third parties. No he does not explain how that was is supposed to work.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">They insist it was absolutely a prima facie tort because of the weird conspiracy theory that by sharing an image of Justin's child (which is publicly available, like countless others of her) this will somehow result in inappropriate media being created of her via AI.  He then immediately pivots into how Tenkar's statement he would take advantage of NY self defense laws if someone came into his house is also clearly illegal because... he wants it to be?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Lastly he insists he should have been given leave to amend (again) because this time he'll right for sure... and presumably if he doesn't it's someone else's job to assume he will.</li> </ul>In summary, while I haven't had a chance to read it thoroughly or check any of this authorities, I don't think think this is going to come across as super convincing even before opposing counsel get to respond.</blockquote>

Verification