LaNasa v Wincen (it me!)

That’s right, I’m part of this story now.

This one technically started after the on case against Tenkar,1 Lanasa v. Stiene, 1:22-cv-05686, (E.D.N.Y) but was resolved quicker due to the appeal,2 Lanasa v. Stiene, 24-1325, (2d Cir.) so I’m covering it first. We’re on the home stretch, I promise you.

Back on 10 March 2023, I was contacted over Facebook, then phone, by NetSafe to let me know that Justin LaNasa (LaNasa) had lodged a complaint about me and they were following process as they were required to do.

On 30 January 2024, LaNasa filed his follow up with Netsafe, and it was immediately put before Judge P R Rzepecky made a decision on the papers to take no immediate action but to refer the matter to a NetSafe technician (as LaNasa indicated it might involve an order to a hosting service), and then proceed with a case management conference and a half-day hearing.

On 12 April 2024 my wife told me there was someone was here to see me, quite confused why someone wearing a stab proof vest with a notice that it was recording on bodycam was there to deliver a giant parcel of documents to me.

I accepted service from a confused bailiff, who was grateful that I understood what it was about. She had been tasked with serving me over 110 pages, and was mostly screenshots without context, with the front cover being written in Lower LaNasian and Netsafe’s summary buried in the documentation.

They say that a man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client, so with God as my witness I immediately made a declaration.

Now, I wasn’t a lawyer that the time I received this – but I was a law student so I treated this as a kind of unofficial extra credit job. So, in the spirit of making this a robust analysis, as would be expected of a law student, I’ll be using the CLEO method.

So, let’s talk about that time I got served by the courts over some blog posts and bunch of comments on Facebook (many of which I didn’t even make).

Before we commence – nothing here is personalized legal advice. I’m not your lawyer, and you should not rely on a random blog to tell you how to deal with any personalized legal issues.

You also shouldn’t represent yourself in court, the only reason I did is because the stakes could not have been lower. I fully recommend looking at every legal complaint on its own merits.

I. CLAIM

Weirdly this is the most difficult part as despite LaNasa’s claim beginning with “It Is important to understand precisely what this case is about.” he didn’t really ever explain it. He did claim:

  1. Freedom of speech did not apply (false) and I said I was reporting facts (true) but this was not true (false).
  2. Claim I appeared to “work for or benefit from wizards of Coast” (Fun fact: I did work for Wizards of the Coast as a paid role-playing chat moderator, but gig ended in 2003 in such a manner I felt no ongoing loyalty to Wizards of the Coast and received nothing I haven’t paid for from since. So false).
  3. LaNasa was in a federal lawsuit with Wizards of the Coast over a trademark dispute, (true) and was going to file a defamation claim against Wizards of the Coast (this never happened and the statute of limitations for such as passed. So false).
  4. My “attacks” at LaNasa had caused him and his family personal and economic harm, causing him to require counselling (no evidence he has ever gone to counselling, no info on how I may have harmed him or his family).
  5. I was “almost psychologically obsessive” about this particular topic (true).
  6. This manifested in me “posting scores of online posts over multiple platforms” (true) which he felt targeted him and sought to do harm to him, his businesses, his family, anyone that associates with him “beyond the norm” (I don’t know what this means).

The technician dutifully poured over the documents, and essentially game to the conclusion that the potential claim was:

Is it lawful for me to document all the nuTSR antics, and share my opinions on the parties involved – or is it actionable online harassment in New Zealand as breach of the Harmful Digital Communication Act (The Act)?3 Harmful Digital Communication Act 2015

Did any of the following infringe on LaNasa’s rights not to be grossly offended, harassed or suffer false allegatiosn?

So that’s the claim I went with, and we’ll go with for the purpose of this analysis.

Also just to be clear here, The Act does have provisions for criminal penalties where serious harm is caused but this isn’t a thing you get going by NetSafe,10 Harmful Digital Communications Act, ss 21 – 28 it’s a thing where you have to report it to Police and they decide if they think there’s a crime happening.11 Harmful Digital Communications Act s 11(d) It is possible to privately prosecute crimes but that requires approval from the court.12 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 26

I was not, at any time, at risk of criminal consequences.

II. LAW

I was actually quite excited to discover that while it is certainly imperfect, there was quite a lot of law built up around this relatively new avenue. Multiple statutes, and even some common law I could rely upon.

Harmful Digital Communication Act

This law is, as far as I am aware, unique to New Zealand and was passed with the intention of preventing harassment campaigns as well as particular types of harassment such as revenge porn.

The act is split. The general public can report breaches of ten communication principles, essentially seeking injunctions to prevent it further, take down content, receive apologies, etc.13 Harmful Digital Communication Act, ss 15 – 20 There are also provisions for criminal charges that the Crown can prosecute in the event of non-compliance or where serious harm has already been done.14 Harmful Digital Communication Act, ss 21 – 28

It’s basically a weaker but more accessible action against defamation, harassment, interference with privacy etc that is deliberately made so you don’t need a lawyer and can easily seek a halt to the behaviour – or bring accountability where it has already been too late.

Everything is supposed to be simple, and very straight forward, so as to be faster and more efficient.15 Digital Harmful Communication Act, s 3

Privacy Principles16 Harmful Digital Communication Act, s 6

There are ten privacy principles which the act considers to be the ways we determine what is and isn’t harmful digital communication.

…
Principle 3: A digital communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual.
…
Principle 5: A digital communication should not be used to harass an individual.
Principle 6: A digital communication should not make a false allegation.
…

There are interpreted through New Zealand law in general, which has statues and common law regarding ideas like harassment, “grossly offensive”, etc.

I’m not going to go into the explicit case law on the spectrum and definitions, because it wasn’t part of my response and much of it was not relevant.

Netsafe

In order to mitigate these issues before they become something a court needs to address, and to assist victims of harassment – New Zealand has established the NetSafe office.17 Harmful Digital Communication Act, ss 7 – 10 These people do the noble work of trying to make the Internet a nicer place by dealing with both the harassed and the harassers.

It is mandatory to contact Netsafe and ask them to review your situation, and/or attempt intervening before you can lodge any complaint under the Harmful Digital Communication Act. If that falls through, you can ask NetSafe to essentially help you lodge the complaint with the court.18 Harmful Digital Communication Act, s 12(`1)

If a judge is satisfied that there as been a breach which caused or is likely to cause harm, the District Court will proceed. Harmful Digital Communication Act, s 12(2) The court does have the discretion to dismiss, but it must be satisfied without a hearing that it is frivolous or vexatious.19 Harmful Digital Communication Act, s 12(3)

Harmful Digital Communication Rules (The Rules) 20Harmful Digital Communication Rules 2016

As mentioned above, the process is meant to be accessible and simple – so it has its own set of rules which effectively suspends many of the expectations for a court proceeding. This reduces the administrative requirements, but also excludes many interlocutory actions (legal actions you take in the same case, but outside of the trial).21 Harmful Digital Communications Rules, rr 3 & 49

So that essentially means there is no discovery – both sides just present their own evidence without being able to demand anything from one another. The Act is intended to deal with things going on mostly in the public arena or within private communications, and discovery is one of the most expensive aspects of a trial – so its deliberately excluded.22 Harmful Digital Communications Rules, rr 3 & 49

So this was going to be done on affidavits and oral arguments. If you’ve been following the story, you probably have a good idea of how confident I was feeling about this.

Other Authorities

New Zealand law operates on a lot of different acts, which have their own rules regarding the hierarchy and common law with the hierarchy of courts being (from highest to lowest) Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, District Court, and tribunals.

Harassment Act 1997

Harassment in New Zealand law is defined under section 3 of this act, and refers to specified acts that are defined under section 4. The closest definitions relating to online behaviours are:

(d) making contact with that person (whether by telephone, correspondence, electronic communication, or in any other way):
(e) giving offensive material to that person or leaving it where it will be found by, given to, or brought to the attention of that person
(ea) giving offensive material to a person by placing the material in any electronic media where it is likely that it will be seen by, or brought to the attention of, that person
(f) acting in any other way—
     (i) that causes that person (person A) to fear for his or her safety; and
     (ii) that would cause a reasonable person in person A’s particular circumstances to fear for his or her safety

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA)23 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

Often referred simply as NZBORA is one of these documents, and a source of shame to Americans who assume only they have a Bill of Rights. We don’t have a formal written constitution, or a supreme document… but given how that’s working out in the USA I’m okay with that.

A key value in New Zealand is Freedom of Expression.24 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, s 14

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

Importantly, unlike the US 1st Amendment, or many other constitutional documents, this is not an supreme piece of legislation that overrules other laws etc. Rather it can be overruled by laws, but when there is ambiguity it can only be limited “to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”25 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, s 5

Common Law

There have also been a few cases that were relevant to these shenanigans.

Hosking v Runting (Court of Appeal)26Hosking v Runting [2004] NZCA 34
Full citation: Hosking v Runting [2004] NZCA 34
This is the central case on freedom of expression in New Zealand, what it stands for and what is required to suppress speech – specifically public publication of information about individuals. It has, however, had wide reaching implications for Freedom of Expression in New Zealand.27 Jane Norton “Hosking v Runting and the Role of Freedom of Expression” (2004) 10 Auckland U L Rev 245 This differs from the US approach is several ways:

  1. Where silencing is being considered, the importance of Freedom of Expression is weighed against the legitimate public concern.28 Hosking v Runting, above, at [132]
  2. Public interest in New Zealand means the public has an interest in the information, not merely that the public finds it interesting or is curious about.29 Hosking v Runting, above, at [134]
  3. To succeed, a claim for prior restraint must present “exceptional, clear and compelling reasons”.30 Hosking v Runting, above, at [152]

Essentially the court treats each case as balancing act and the more extreme the silencing you request, the more extreme the explanation.

Tranter v Kemp (High Court)31Tranter v Kemp [2020] NZHC 1257
Full citation: Tranter v Kemp [2020] NZHC 1257
This was regarding a complaint under the Act which affirmed that the individual who operates a business must accept criticism of their business in public, valid or otherwise.32 Tranter v Kemp, above, at [24]

Richmond v Flutey (District Court)33Richmond v Flutey [2022] NZDC 22381
Full citation: Richmond v Flutey [2022] NZDC 22381
This was another complaint under the Act, which was not binding but was likely to be persuasive since it was rare for a complaint to reach judgment and this one was within 2 years my own issue.

It essentially argued that, when establishing what was highly offensive the court would generally rely on the standards of defamation case law. This means that similar discussions of defence were up for consideration.

III. EXAMINATION

So, lets see – when apply the facts to the law, how does it look?

Again, this is tricky since we basically have to infer what Justin’s arguments were going to be, and what he assumed the law to be.

A. We can throw out 90%

The law required that all the complaints be relevant to the individual filing the complaint – so all the comments at the expense of Dave Johnson, Stephen Erin Dineart IV, Vincent “The Evil Dungeon Master” Florio, etc are all irrelevant.

Criticisms of business, valid or otherwise, must be accepted.34Tranter v Kemp, above n 32, at [24] So everything about the products, the general running of the business etc. You can’t make a complaint over mean reviews, me thinking the business model was unworkable, the PR was disastrous, etc.

Certainly my criticism of other people’s businesses are doubly protected, so we have a handful of mean comments.

Also since LaNasa did not specify which comments by third parties were offensive/incorrect, etc it was going to make it very hard – if not impossible, to argue the lack of notice to me as to what I was supposed to do about them and why.

B. Was any of it grossly offensive?

This is a very high bar to raise, as it means that would lower the opinion of the plaintiff in the minds of “right thinking persons”. Examples include falsely accusing the person of criminal wrongdoing (even just calling the person a “grifter”) without evidence.35Richmond v Flutey, above n 33, at [19]

Nothing I ever wrong about LaNasa was unsubstantiated, and while there were certainly other people making statements that would probably be grossly offensive – not me. Everything I said is substantiated with a screenshot, a link to a post, etc and while some of it may lower right-thinking people’s opinion of him that’s due to the demonstrable reality, not anything I’m fabricating.

It would be one thing if I just posted statements about him without context, etc, but I always brought receipts and I was ready to share them all in court.

C. Was any of it harassment?

The biggest hurdle to this element of the claim would be that I don’t send anything to LaNasa. I don’t tag him in anything, I don’t leave comments on his Facebook pages. Despite the fact he has numerous contact details publicly available, I did not send him any communication by phone, email or post.

I post on my own profile, and in groups and forum threads where this conversation is the norm and easily avoided by someone who doesn’t want to engage in it. Accounts block me, and I let them.

So I wasn’t really sending him anything, or laying it in places for him to find it. So the material couldn’t really be harassment by way of sending offensive material.36Harassment Act, s 4(d) – (ea)

Also, none of it involved threats to Justin, posting his private details or information about his family etc (which would have added an extra level of complexity since information like home addresses and phone number is not “private” in the USA). So it couldn’t be harassment by way of making him fear for his life.37Harassment Act, s 4(f)

D. Was any of it false allegations?

I don’t think so, and LaNasa didn’t show any evidence any of it was false.

Literally he just sent in copies of screenshots, and my blog posts, with no elaboration on it. So while it’s possible that there were mistakes that were in there but given Justin made no attempt to correct me, and that pretty much all my opinions and deductions were supported with information – why would anyone assume any of it was just false or wrong?

Also, it really didn’t help that I was able to provide a hoard of screenshots of posts by the Dungeon Hobby Shop Museum social media that supported all the essential claims that I made.

So my argument was that there was no evidence of defamatory claims, and if there was anything that he could raise under such it would need to be raised as defamation to facilitate proper process and full access to relevant defences such as substantial truth. (Unlike Karl Jobst, I know how that works)38 Kim Wincen “Mitchell v Jobst – A Low Score” (3 May 2025) <blog.wincenworks.com>

This also, in my experience represents a very common type of bad faith on the Internet where will claim they have proof x person is wrong about them, etc then threaten action against people with the assumption simply saying “it’s wrong because I say so, and I’ll prove it” is sufficient.

Courts don’t look kindly on this as generally they hope to be the last resort, not just the person people tattle to in the hopes of scaring people or getting paid.

E. What was the public interest?

LaNasa was claiming that his companies were essentially taking ownership of the the TSR Inc brand at the height of its relevance, and expressly attempting to politicize it.39 Justin LaNasa “Support TSR against Wizards of the Coast” IndieGogo <www.indiegogo.com> This included attempts to re-write history of a massively popular hobby and attempts to re-interpret the meaning of the massively distributed work.

On top of this, they had tried to recruit Elon Musk into assisting him,40 Justin LaNasa (10 November 2022) Dungeon Hobby Shop (@HobbyMuseum) X née Twitter <now deleted> 📸 and insisted that freedom of expression/speech trumped other people’s comfort.41 Justin LaNasa (28 June 2022) Dungeon Hobby Shop (RPGANONYMOUS) Facebook <www.facebook.com> 📸 All the grandstanding about how they were saving the hobby, culture waters nonsense, etc – all that was evidence for this.

So, the balancing act was everyone agreed this was a matter of substantial public interest to millions of people around the world, and the stakes for LaNasa were a record of his public statements combined with my opinions of them.

This, to me, is what made his attempt to claim I was obsessed with this – the entire venture was built on the idea that wide spread obsession would make it profitable, that nerds would spend fortunes on the foggy memory of a early Dungeons & Dragons.

F. Did any of it really harm Justin?

Proving harm is not necessary under the legislation, but it can obviously be a major part in any argument based in public policy and how the court should lean in areas where there is discretion. It’s 1 of 12 factors the court must take account to.42Harmful Digital Communication Act, s 19(5)

Most of the other ones were also in my favour (particularly thanks to LaNasa bragging about his wealth, influence, etc).

It also speaks to whether things are grossly offensive or not. Someone who is defamation proof due to say, being a self-confessed serial sex pest (like Vic Mignogna) can’t really claim it’s grossly offensive misremembers one of the many, many incidents.43Kaylyn Saucedo “The Entire Vic Mignogna Story – The Face of Anime’s Dumbest Culture War” (17 January 2025) MarzGurl YouTube <www.youtube.com>

Likewise, if you do go to the extent of causing serious emotional harm, there can be criminal charges.44 Harmful Digital Communication Act, s 3, 21 – 22

LaNasa already suing Tenkar for $1,000,000,45 LaNasa v. Steine, above n 1, Document #62 (16 January 2024), at 32 and had a long history of doing things that the average person would consider detrimental to his standing as a hobbyist, business man and political candidate.

The notion that anything I had done was so substantial it could be separated from and be significant in comparison to that harm was highly dubious.

IV. OUTCOME

I submitted my arguments, LaNasa did not submit a response. As I live in Wellington, the matter was reassigned to Judge K Kelly.

On the day of the initial hearing, I attended court in person and (after the court room was cleared out, standard procedure with these kinds of matters) – we spent a substantial amount of time with LaNasa unable to connect the call.

At this point, the judge looked at the volume of material (about 300 pages), and concluded that we needed to have a half-day trial (as per the original proposal). Eventually the date for which was set.

No further documents or information were submitted during the window offered.

I showed up to trial on the day, and waited outside the court with the general plan that they would attempt to get LaNasa on the video call and all set up before I came in, then send for the judge.

I waited patiently. After a while I was advised they had not received a call attempt from LaNasa – so they were emailing him and if they did not get a response, they would call him.

Again, I waited, and was then informed that they called LaNasa and his answering machine indicated his was out hunting or something – so the judge was going to be looking into what options he had.

Finally, I entered the court room and was told that as LaNasa had failed to attend for his own action, it was dismissed with prejudice and could only be recommenced if he could prove a miscarriage of justice. Also, due to changes in New Zealand law, LaNasa owed me $250 NZ for costs/expenses (ie my time).

As this was dismissed, there’s no official public facing court record – but was given a copy of minutes for the hearing, which is hilarious as it states the message declared LaNasa was “hunting the massive sasquatch.”

I don’t know what that means, but I hope the sasquatch is okay.

I know I was kind of disappointed because the hearing was set to be 2 hours of LaNasa struggling to explain himself to the judge, then 2 hours of me going over everything had factually done, explaining all the unkind realities.

Anyway, between when the complaint was lodged and we went to court, LaNasa released the book on orcs… and I need to tell you how bad it was.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *