LaNasa v. Tenkar – Defamation how?

So, the sage seemed the saga mostly over. nuTSR was banished via the conditions of a confidential agreement of settlement. The house which had been the source of it was destined to dispense cheese, and the Dungeon Hobby Shop page was reduced to posting weird nonsense. Wizards of the Coast(WotC) had gone back to business as usual.

However, it seems that Justin LaNasa(LaNasa) still wanted to try to make the world a little bit worse. He had already started a defamation suit against Tenkar,¹LaNasa v. Stiene, 1:22-cv-05686, (E.D.N.Y) [LaNasa v. Tenkar] but he continued it, lost, and then — seemingly just to set more money on fire — as he appealed the defamation suit against Tenkar.²LaNasa v. Stiene, 24-1325, (2d Cir.) [LaNasa v. Tenkar II] The one where after two amendments to the complaint, the judge concluded there was no actionable claim.

When discussing the TSR LLC v. Wizards of the Coast LLC(nuTSR v. WotC)³TSR LLC v. Wizards of the Coast LLC, 2:21-cv-01705, (W.D. Wash.) case, I specifically did not name LaNasa’s lawyer as while I disagreed with some of their decisions – I felt they were sincerely doing the best with what they could work with, and trying to resolve the matter ethically. They did not deserve to be dragged down in the mud with him.

The lawyer in the defamation case, was not. Bernard V. Kleinman(Bernie) from start to finish, was a disgrace to the profession, made a mockery of the process and demonstrated nothing but contempt for the concepts of law and justice. He facilitated a petty grievance and conspiracy theory — apparently pocketing over a hundred thousand dollars while blundering around in an area of law he had no understanding of or apparent respect for.

Table of Contents

I. BERNIE SUCKS ↳A. Fundamentally Incompetent ↳B. Morally Reprehensible II. THE LAW ↳A. Defamation In The USA ↳B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ↳C. Extra Concepts ↳D. SLAPP III. THE COMPLAINT (MK 1) ↳A. Criteria ↳B. Speaking To The Facts ↳C. Evidence ↳D. Criticism IV. THE COMPLAINT (MK 2) ↳A. Criteria ↳B. Speaking To The Facts

↳C. Evidence ↳D. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot V. DISCOVERY OF WHAT? ↳A. Tenkar’s Lawyers Discovery ↳B. LaNasa’s Discovery Disaster VI. THE COMPLAINT (MK 3) VII. DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ↳A. Jurisdiction ↳B. Serving Tenkar’s wife, Rachel ↳C. Was There Any Validity? VIII. THE APPEAL ↳A. How Appeals Work ↳B. This Appeal ↳C. The Oral Arguments ↳D. The Final Judgment IX. CONCLUSION

I. BERNIE SUCKS

Brooklyn’s own Ron Coleman, right down to being very excited to minimize protections against fascism, while clearly being high up the list for their inevitable purges. Bernie is most famous for his being on the defence team for Ramzi Yousef, the World Trade Center bomber and later representing people accused of terrorism. Maybe he does it for altruistic reasons, but I doubt it.

To be perfectly clear: Objectively terrible people should have legal representation. Not just because the entire system is built around the assumption they will, but because the opposite would mean many good people go without due to assumptions. Terrible people deserve lawyers who will work to put their best case forward and help them get Justice. Bernie does not do that.

Now, to be charitable, Bernie is no spring chicken and so its possible at some point he practiced competently – but he is definitely, at last update, incompetent and completely reprehensible. ⬆️

A. Fundamentally Incompetent

For the sake of keeping this to a vaguely reasonable length, I have glossed over most of Bernie’s ridiculous mistakes. Going over them could be several chapters in this saga in itself, as while discussing them on EN World we kept finding it was getting worse and worse.

Bernie would cite cases that stood for the opposite of what he proposed, claim cases established a particular definition and quote the case quoting Black’s Law Dictionary as one of many potential definitions.

He’s barely more competent than non-lawyer Australian YouTuber Karl Jobst. ⬆️

B. Morally Reprehensible

At the same time he trying to help proud reactionary LaNasa there was a motion to sanction him county court for ongoing, deliberate misgendering.⁴Jonathan Bremner etc al v. Charlotte Bush, N.Y. App. Div. 521618/2018, 06/011 <iapps.courts.state.ny.us> He was also accusing proudly and clearly orthodox jewish lawyer Akiva Cohen of being ignorant of the Holocaust.⁵Kathryn Tewson (8 August 2024) @kathryntewson.bsky.social Blue Sky <bsky.app>

Afterwards, in Johnson v. Clearview AI, Inc.,⁶Johnson v. Clearview AI, Inc., 1:23-cv-02441, (S.D.N.Y.) Bernie represented an actual holocaust denier. The other side pointed out that Bernie kept misspelling the opposing party’s name in the documentation – and his client has been sanctioned for a combination of lack of cooperation, thwarting discovery, spreading misinformation and open racist rants regarding the proceedings (which Bernie should have been aware of when he came in).

(Bernie left his case due to lack of payment by his client, it seems there are some lines that Bernie will not cross.)⁷Johnson v. Clearview, above, Document #101, 3 August 2025

Also he had to go to Texas for another case with the same client,⁸Point Bridge Capital, LLC v. Johnson, 4:24-cv-00988, (N.D. Tex.) where he argued said guy was “a man of limited means”,#6, at 1 but was unable to explain how such a person could brag about a $82.27 million purchase of DNA data gathering company, 23andMe.⁹“From Felonies To Centure: The Moral Quagmire Facing Today’s Legal Defenders” (21 November 2024) ALAB News<alabnews.com>

Clearly Bernie has no compunctions about just repeating whatever nonsense he thinks will make an argument, and worrying about if he’s misleading the court or undermining his own client never.

He sucks. He’s not a terrible lawyer, and he’s arguably a worse human being. That’ll be illustrated throughout this entire process. ⬆️

II. THE LAW

The core of the lawsuit was based off torts – that is laws which were decided by judges in response to incidents, and that have been expanded and refined via rulings and legislation since.

Generally speaking lawyers always try to operate within the framework of the existing law if they can – while you can argue for a new tort to be created, or a major change to be made to the interpretation of a law – it is usually high risk at best.’

It’s also important to remember that when you are putting these arguments forward, you are not feeding them into a machine to ask it to calculate an outcome – you are talking to a human with years of life experience and education that has led to them being appointed as a judge.

So, let’s go over a very bare bones, fundamental breakdown of the most relevant law. ⬆️

A. Defamation In The USA

So, defamation is one of the oldest torts – that is a law which was invented by judges and has evolved independently throughout the Common Law world. In the US it is approached uniquely, due to historic interpretation of The Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment.

To succeed with a claim for defamation in the US, whether at a state or federal level, a plaintiff must show:

1. The defendant communicated something that was factually untrue about them(statement)
   In Australian, New Zealand, England and many other areas it can be “substantially untrue”, but in the US there must be at least 1 element of factual dishonesty.
2. To at least 1 other person(audience)
3. The statement was harmful to the plaintiff’s reputation or standing with 1 or more people. It made people see them differently(sting).
4. This impacted the plaintiff in a demonstrable way(damages) or met special criteria where no harm is required (known as “defamation per se”)
5. If the plaintiff is a public figure, they must show the defendant either knew that the statement was false and harmful, or did not care if it was.¹⁰New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 383 U.S. 254 (1964)
   This is known as “actual malice” even though it has nothing to do with regular malice — it’s really more a form of negligence. But it is often confused, even by people as prestigious as the director of the FBI.¹¹Kash Patel (12 April 2026) @FBIDirectorKash X née Twitter <x.com> (📸 screenshot)

In New York, the criteria for defamation per se are:

1. False accusations of a serious crime (murder, arson, serious fraud, etc)
2. Claims that injure a person in their trade, business or profession (eg, claiming a surgeon works drunk, an author is a plagiarist, etc)
3. Claims that a person has a loathsome disease (they mean sexually transmitted)
4. Claims of serious sexual misconduct (formerly “unchastity”)

Notably also, while we all know corporations are people – only natural persons can claim damages for emotional harm – companies must settle for demonstrable financial damages (lost sales, etc).

The accepted affirmative defences to defamation are:

1. Truth, notably it needs to be true at the time – you can’t count on them making it true after the time you spoke it and if you play this defence and aren’t convincing, it can make things worse for you come time for damages because it signals you are remorseless in your defamation.
2. Honest opinion, which must be either clearly an opinion or supported by true evidence (eg “Kim is an awful writer” – clearly an opinion, or “Kim is a criminal because he’s from Australia” – weird take, but clearly you saying you believe x because y).
3. No harm, in which you specify the sting was already in effect with the audience, the damages were actually from an unrelated source, etc. This can result in a weird outcome where the plaintiff wins but is only assigned “nominal damages” (usually rounded up to 1 dollar).
4. Absolute Privilege. In certain situations you simply can’t be charged with defamation because a layer of legal privilege protects you – such as when talking to your own lawyer about legal matters, being on the stand as a witness, etc. This is codified in New York,¹²NY Civ Rights L § 74 (2022) and in various Supreme Court rulings in common law.
5. Neutral reportage. This generally requires you be some sort of journalist, and that in your reporting you made reasonable efforts to provide the truth and share everything relevant with the audience. Generally speaking it is highly advised to provide your sources and give the (then potentially future) plaintiff a right of reply.

In New York, a partially successful defence can mitigate damages.¹³NY Civ Rights L § 78 (2022)

It’s also important to understand that interpretation is a major part of both the claim and the defence. Each side may submit an interpretation of the statement, and that can form the basis of a complaint or a defence.

To use an absurd example: Someone calls me a Nazi. If I were to try to sue them for defamation per se I could argue this is defamation pre se, because the Nazis did some pretty serious war crimes and thus this person is accusing me of having participated in international crimes including genocide. Any competent defence lawyer would argue that they meant it an a derogatory epithet, and thus it is an opinion and protected.

Pretty silly, but you get the point.

That’s the bare bones – for any actual legal case you’d refer to case law to find similar situations to the one you’re in, so you can bring them to the court’s attention and instruct the court on what is binding, persuasive, etc. ⬆️

B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

This is perhaps the most misunderstood tort in existence, and frequently the last resort. It’s history is essentially in being invented on the spot as a stopgap for an extraordinary situation, and to ensure fair support was provided to the victim of a terrible event. Generally speaking: tough situations, make for bad laws.

In order to succeed with a claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotion Distress(IIED), the plaintiff needs to show that the defendant:

1. Communicated something objectively outrageous, meaning that it would be outrageous to anyone – not just the plaintiff
2. They did so knowing, or not caring, that the communication would profoundly upset the plaintiff and cause them emotional harm
3. The outrageous statement genuinely harmed the plaintiff in a demonstrable and serious way
4. There must be no other clear remedy (eg, defamation)

Due to all this, it is often referred to as a tort of last resort.

For context, in the original case a man told a pregnant woman her husband had been crippled in a beating, and would never be able to provide for her – causing her to have a panic induced miscarriage on the spot. It was pretty horrible and it is understandable why the judge felt it was necessary for her to be compensated.

At time of the proceedings, no IIED claim had ever succeeded in New York, with the most relevant case being Chanko v. American Broadcasting Cos¹⁴Chanko v. American Broadcasting Cos., 2016 NY Slip Op 02478 essentially found there were pretty much always better ways to approach it within the state of New York.

On top of this, the Supreme Court has concluded that the where the speech is directed to the public, about an issue of politics or public interest, the standard is exceptionally high¹⁵Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) and (also relevant to defamation) that parody in regards to political issues is sacrosanct and thus can pretty much never be defamation.¹⁶Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) ⬆️

C. Extra Concepts

There were a few other concepts in the court proceeding, which I will sum up with lawyer maxims.

Service is jurisdiction, jurisdiction is service. The rules regarding the process of serving document upon parties are sacrosanct to courts. It is understood that the act of being served by the court, is what notifies you that the court has jurisdiction – therefore it is always critical that you serve the right party, the right way, at the right time.

Any variations from the standard process must be approved by the court in advance, after providing full disclosure why they’re necessary and showing you have exhausted the conventional methods.

It’s never a Prima Facie Tort! This is brought up a lot because while torts themselves have quite clear rules (above) there exists an option to argue that a case is exceptional – it needs to be exceptional. A prima facie tort is one where:

1. The actions of the defendant would normally be completely lawful, except for these particular extraordinary situations
2. The defendant did them specifically to harm the plaintiff, in the way that the tort describes
3. The harm actually occurred
4. There isn’t already a better way to deal with it (for example, if someone creates misinformation by saying something factual about you in a way it leads people to wrong conclusions the same was a lie would that’s not prima facie defamation – that’s “false light”)

Prima facie torts can happen but they rely upon convincing the court that this was indeed and extraordinary set of events where the defendant acted in a way the law did not intend, yet somehow permitted. It’s uphill all the way.

Inherent powers. In order to ensure the law is served in a fair and orderly manner, judges are given broad powers over their own courts – most commonly manifesting in their writing specific rules for the minutiae. In the most dramatic cases, this the judge punishing parties for contempt of court.

Therefore one must always approach speaking to the judge or the bench (ie multiple judges) carefully, as to walk the fine line where you are explaining and instructing the law to them, and doing everything to help your client, without creating unnecessary problems or making the court feel disrespected.

Federal jurisdiction. In law, there is a general principal that the plaintiff needs to justify to the court why the action should be in that particular court. There are different courts for different types of matters, including specialty courts.

There’s a lot of rules, but for our purposes the reason give was matters where damages are $75,000 or greater.¹⁷28 U.S. Code §1332

In cases where a federal suit is brought and found that it had no merit for being in the federal court – the defendant may be able to recover costs.¹⁸28 U.S. Code §1919 ⬆️

D. SLAPP

If you’re not aware it, stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. That is a lawsuit which is essentially meritless and simply intended to weaponize the system and use the process as a punishment against the defendant. Defamation is a popular choice for this, as it is expensive to defend and can easily be used to put the defendant in a bad light for months or years on end.

In 2020 the law was introduced which allows full recovery of costs etc where:¹⁹NY Civ Rights L § 70-A (2021)

…that the action involving public petition and participation was commenced or continued without a substantial basis in fact and law and could not be supported by a substantial argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law…

This is a magnificently vague standard to apply but essentially exists to stop people bringing nonsense claims simply as a way to silence someone or bankrupt their critics. It is rated as A by the Public Participation Project.

However it is worth remembers that unlike Australia, New Zealand and England – costs are not generally awarded in the US so this very much an all or nothing matter, much like every clause relating to costs in the US. ⬆️

III.THE COMPLAINT (MK 1)

The original complaint was, frankly, incomprehensible and if I had submitted it as an assignment in first year law school I would have expected to be failed. I’m not going to go over it point-by-point because this would turn into a 300 page report that nobody is paying me for. ⬆️

A. Criteria

As stated above, there are specific criteria for both defamation and IIED, so any complaint that is filed is expected to explain and illustrate them.

Bernie didn’t do that, in fact it wasn’t even clear if he understood what the torts were at the time of writing. This is, of course, absurd because the judge is not supposed to know either what is or isn’t true about LaNasa, nor what would genuinely hurt his reputation, etc. The whole reason you hire a lawyer is to explain these things.

Some of it was just very self-explanatory not defamation by way of the obvious defence – such as when he provided 2 “quotes” which was spoken by Tenkar²⁰LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Sep 23, 2022) ECF No. 1, [1st Complaint], at [17] at 9, near 3-16 (paragraph 17 is 2.5 pages long) while he was reading a third party tweet – which was visible on the screen. ²¹Erik Steine “TSR3 Mole Exposes Justin’s Private Chats and More via Massive Twitter Thread -Scorched Earth Anyone?” (9 February 2022) @TenkarsTavern YouTube <www.youtube.com>

My personal favourite was the claim that Tenkar saying if someone came to his house to threaten him they better like lead as IIED. Regardless of what you think about gun laws in the US, it’s going to be an uphill battle to argue that someone who lives in a Castle Doctrine state will use a gun to defend themselves if their home is threatened is “shocking”.

Perhaps most baffling of all – the complaint makes no attempt to quantify the damage beyond the oft repeated phrase “as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have
been damaged in a sum exceeding the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction over this matter.” Sometimes with random hyphens included.²²1st Complaint, above n 20, at [60]

So, right off the basis for it was not clear.

It was also especially not clear since the complaint was on behalf of three entities, only one of them was a human capable of suffering emotional harm. The other two were companies owned by that human. ⬆️

B. Speaking To The Facts

Perhaps the most infamous moment in tort of defamation was when Ty Beard typed out, presumably proof-read, and then sent out these famous words:

…you stated, “She [Monica] did nothing wrong. That Fucking piece of shit did.” This statement is defamatory and false because Mr. Mignogna is not a piece of shit (that is another name for feces, thus it is impossible for him to be a “piece of shit”)

This is both hilarious, and honestly better than anything that Bernie filed – because he can see the facts, and we can follow Ty’s chain of logic to the natural conclusion before we point and laugh at it.

Compare that with Bernie simply copy-pasting this sentence into his complaint and leaving it without explanation.²³1st Complaint, above n 20, at [17], at 9, near 38

Bernie… that’s not even talking about LaNasa, that’s not even stating a fact. Why is it in there? Are you, a lawyer who argued to the supreme court that yelling racial slurs shouldn’t make an assault charge more severe, trying to censor humour? Do you have no respect for the 1st Amendment!? Amazingly this continued after LaNasa’s idol, Elon Musk, declared that comedy was then legal (again)!²⁴Elon Musk (29 October 2022) @elonmusk X née Twitter <x.com>

Similarly, when he argues “per se” there’s no connection between the quotes he provides and the claims that makes.²⁵1st Complaint, above n 20, at [31]-[32]

Even before we factor in that the quotes about gay-bashing etc are Tenkar reading out a tweet by Chad Revenge, there’s no connection at all and no chain of logic to follow here. ⬆️

C. Evidence

So, you’ve probably noticed that Bernie likes re-using the same quotes over and over – so you might wonder what evidence did he submit? The transcript for particular videos? No.

Rather he provided a huge list (3 pages) of YouTube videos (~100 individual videos),²⁶1st Complaint, above n 20, at 4-7 & 13 a few out of context quotes and – as Tenkar’s counsel pointed out – essentially asked the court to find the defamation for him. This is generally unethical and terrible for a lawyer to do for two reasons.

The first is that it fails to do the work of the plaintiff, to state the case clearly and explain the case to the court. The judge isn’t supposed to make your case for you, they’re supposed to assets the merits of the case you bring.

The second is that it places an absurd, unfair burden on the defence – in order to properly prepare a response they’re expected to look at and assess all relevant evidence. If the videos had an average run-time of 6 minutes, that’s be 10 billable hours of just watching them and taking notes.

It would also be a massive liability in the event that a trial had actually taken place, because Bernie would have been expected to answer questions of the contents and facts of each of the ~100 videos. ⬆️

D. Criticism

It wasn’t just me that said that, the judge also felt the complaint was unsuitable – hearing the request to dismiss and telling Bernie to review and make sure he followed her rules.

Bernie responded by “well actually”‘ing the judge and essentially telling her that she needed to learn her own rules – a motion to dismiss wasn’t a motion for more time, so they can’t have more time.²⁷LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1 (28 November 2022 & 2 December 2022)

Now, I am not a practicing attorney in New York, but I cannot imagine there is anything in their jurisprudence culture that makes this okay. That’s before we consider that it is, universally, standard practice to pause proceedings whenever a motion to dismiss has been filed so as to avoid a lot of redundant work.

In any case, she decided that Bernie had in fact communicated his case so badly she couldn’t decide if it was invalid or not and instructed him to refile. In summary her criticisms were:²⁸LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1 (6 January 2023)

1. She could not tell what injury the companies were supposed to have sustained.
2. “many of Plaintiffs’ allegations were conclusory, without context, and were unlikely to be found to state a claim” ie Bernie was just telling her there was a claim but not explaining what it was how it would be confirmed.
3. It didn’t seem there was $75,000 of damages here

Once he fixed those basic errors, they’d look at if they wanted to dismiss then. ⬆️

IV. THE COMPLAINT (MK 2)

So, Bernie set to work revising his complaint and served it on Tenkar and Tenkar’s mother. This was immediately suspicious because while Tenkar’s mother had never participated in his videos – she does own property roughly the value of the new stated damages. Almost like they worked backward on that point.

Anyway, yes – when LaNasa first sued Wizards of the Coast, he started in the wrong court – this time he added an unrelated third party. He’s not very good at this.

Bernie finally got around to stating the damages, and how much was the damages?²⁹Lanasa v. Stiene, 1:22-cv-05686, (E.D.N.Y Jan 23, 2023) ECF No. 20, [Amended Complaint] at 31-32

Times 4. He cites 4 causes of action and they were all for no less than $1,000,000 each.

The new complaint did not really improve on any of the issues criticised above, in fact in many ways its worse.

This time though, there’s at least Exhibits. ⬆️

A. Criteria

So after the preamble, Bernie goes right and points out Tenkar has an Amazon site and that… is tortious?³⁰Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [18]-[19] Then he finally get around to stating some vague events and consequences.

1. Steven He, you’re up³¹Steven He “When “Asian” is a Difficulty Mode: EMOTIONAL DAMAGE” (24 February 2022) @StevenHe <www.youtube.com>, at 2:50

This one is incredibly badly stated, Bernie relies on the background he supplies and then just basically lists off all the criteria that can be used to show personal harm rather than anything that demonstrates it. ⬆️

2. The tour was cancelled

After Tenkar posted a video about an attempt to dox his wife,³²Erik & Rachel Stiene “Justin is Trying to dox My Wife Rachel – Go F’ Yourself LaNasa!” @TenkarsTavern Youtube <www.youtube.com> GeekNation cancelled their tour and that apparently cost lost revenue to TSR LLC and Dungeon Hobby Shop Museum LLC. This raises some questions that sadly, we never got to explore in the bankruptcy – but at least is a cause and effect.³³Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [24]

Probably because Bernie didn’t manage to explain the falsity – nor the specific cause/effect that would link it to Tenkar.

Bernie got to a D on a first year assignment. Round of applause! ⬆️

3. Won’t someone think of the children?!

Bernie points to an instance of LaNasa’s wife showing up in Tenkar’s chat, and due to the way she runs his chat’s her avatar popping up. It happens to be the wife and their child,³⁴Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [25]-[26] so Bernie claims this is a breach of privacy under New York law (criminal law, not civil),³⁵Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [25] a breach of Google’s terms of service (not a law)³⁶Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [27] and IIED by way of the potential backlash leading to people using Deepfake technology to create sexual abuse content of LaNasa’s daughter³⁷Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [27]-[33] and witness intimidation (LaNasa’s wife was not called as a witness).³⁸Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [34]

This is particularly strange since if you’ve been following the saga, you know there are photos of said child all over the Internet and LaNasa posted them on the business pages on multiple occasions.

This is argued to be both a prima facie tort, and require multiple pages explaining how it could become a tort if someone very evil does something. He also doesn’t actually cite the privacy stuff as part of a claim, hence why I didn’t cover it in the law section – nor does he confirm he reported it to the police. ⬆️

4. General tortious conduct

This isn’t really a claim it’s a tweet filed in PACER. Bernie essentially alleges that all the above happened so it should just be agreed that there was definitely a lot of harm here and it was all work a million dollars.

Now, sometimes a catch all cause of action is fine. But in this case he’s mixing and matching all the above causes of action into a general cause of “tortuous conduct”. This is not a thing, it’s basically saying: “he did an illegal, money please!”

Again, Bernie somehow does not understand that the idea of these complaints is to explain your argument clearly, cogently and comprehensively to both the defendant and the court so they can both work out how to proceed. ⬆️

B. Speaking To The Facts

Okay, in this one Bernie is both better and worse so let’s do them one by one.

1. Geek Nation Tour

This one is the shortest but the best explained, he says clearly that after Tenkar posted a video Geek Nation cancelled a tour that was going to be a money maker for both companies, and hence LaNasa personally. He makes it clear why it was harmful, and why its supposed to be wrong.

He doesn’t, however, explain the falsity. You can infer it, but he doesn’t spell it out clearly and he should have been aware there was going to be some evidence that’d make the claim that Mario77 was not LaNasa very awkward. ⬆️

2. Personal Harm to LaNasa

As mentioned, the big one here is he basically explained the criteria you would use to show personal harm – not the actual facts of the personal harm. This is a real no brainer as anyone with a hint of civil court experience would know that he needs to be specific because there’s going to need to be evidence of harm.

LaNasa needs to produce the theoretical person who was going to be nice to him but has changed their mind due to a lie spoken in Tenkar’s Tavern. Instead he simply says:³⁹Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [64]

…making false statements which tended to expose Plaintiffs to public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace, and induced an evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking persons, and deprived him (and continues to deprive him) of their friendly intercourse in society.

Who?! Who is this person who will take the stand and say that they have an evil opinion of LaNasa because Tenkar said a thing, and for that reason they will not consider being friends with him?!

Bernie inquiring minds want to know! ⬆️

3. Theoretical pedo revenge porn

This is, objectively, the most batshit claim that Bernie made and the one that he spent by far the most effort on. It is such a tortured claim that it reminds me of the point the philosopher Natalie Wynn makes in her seminal work,”Conspiracy“,⁴⁰Natalie Wynn “Conspiracy | ContraPoints” (25 March 2025) @ContraPoints YouTube <www.youtube.com> that people often invent these convoluted scenarios to get off on terrible shit without taking responsibility for it and even getting to blame others for things that happened entirely in their imagination.

In order for this to make sense, Bernie would have had to have shown that somehow Tenkar was primarily responsible for their being a risk of LaNasa’s daughter being the subject of AI generated child sexual abuse imagery. In order to reach this conclusion you had to ignore:

1. LaNasa’s wife made the decision to use the picture as her avatar and voluntarily entered Tenkar’s chat using it
2. That Tenkar and everyone opposed to LaNasa in this saga was, by and large, pretty disgusted with his objectification of female employees in the grits wrestling incident
3. That LaNasa himself was the biggest distributor of images of his daughter on the Internet, including on his controversial business sites after the controversies started
4. The complete lack of any evidence of this being a harassment tactic in general.

It proposes the likely, pretty much almost inevitable outcome of Tenkar choosing to highlight LaNasa’s wife when she came into his stream chat is:

1. Someone who hates LaNasa, entirely based off Tenkar’s comments, will take this as an opportunity for revenge
2. They will use the image from chat to specifically create abuse imagery, which will essentially require that they either have abuse imagery on hand or will acquire it just for this purpose
3. They will then distribute it in a way to cause emotional harm… just to LaNasa. Not his wife or daughter (who are not claimants).

Somehow Bernie has come out with a theory that is more ridiculous and illogical than anything QAnon came up with, and that was what he thought would be his knockout punch in this litigation.

Again, Bernie is arguing this is a super crime but makes no claim to having had reported it to the police. ⬆️

4. I can’t even

Obviously he didn’t speak to the facts on the last one because it’s not a thing. ⬆️

C. Evidence

So, I mentioned there was an exhibit. The exhibit is a letter from Bernie to Tenkar in which he provides a terrible summary of defamation law.⁴¹LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Jan 23, 2023) ECF No. 20-1

Also like, straight up no Bernie the plaintiff does not have to prove the statement is false – the plaintiff has to explain how the statement is false and burden of proving truth falls onto the defendant. This is, in part, because the law recognizes it is impossible to prove a negative, but relatively easy to make sure you don’t say anything spicy without being able to back it up.

Notably the letter does not include any mention of IIED law, so what was the point?

Anyway, point by point. ⬆️

1. Trespass to Feelz

Bernie provides no evidence that anyone dislikes LaNasa because of what Tenkar said – in fact he repeats the submissions where a casual review of the video would show he is presenting Tenkar providing neutral reportage on Chad Revenge as Tenkar sharing his own opinions.

In New Zealand, we call this misleading the court.

Bernie provides no information on who the people who won’t be friends with LaNasas are, what events he is unwelcome to because of Tenkar, etc. Not only does this not bode well in terms of likelihood of success, but it also means that both sides have to waste

Hilariously the complaint regularly claims that LaNasa and his family have had to seek professional counselling, etc but no evidence of such was ever provided. Personally I think on the list of things a therapist would want to talk to LaNasa about, mean videos by Tenkar would be pretty low priority. ⬆️

2. Geek Nation did cancel

As part of the proceedings etc, LaNasa was able to prove that Geek Nation did in fact cancel the tour. They were able to confirm that.

Eventually. ⬆️

3. Not how you protect children

So weirdly, Bernie, after claiming that providing an image of LaNasa’s wife and child to the public — includes a screencap with the uncensored, unredacted, unblurred image in the submission.

Just for the complete avoidance of doubt here – Bernie did supply any evidence of the potential harm beyond links to some papers discussing how it could be a problem in the theoretical harm. Nor did he supply any evidence that people were already using image of LaNasa’s child to harass him.

So really, he just made this outcome he was allegedly combating more probable by putting the image on the public record for the foreseeable future.

Bernie fucking sucks. ⬆️

4. This is going to get weird

So, this is where I get into my conspiracy theory as to why we had this weird non-cause of action mixed in with the causes of action.

It has been observed that LaNasa does not seem to have a good grasp of what goes into a legal complaint. In a very Sovereign Citizen kind of way he seems to simply rely upon non-compliance and burying people in ridiculous paperwork that doesn’t really relate to anything.

So, in lieu of providing a tight, focused argument with clear evidence of harm – Bernie and LaNasa have opted to toss in a whole bunch of strange claims and “gotcha” type claims in the hopes it’ll all amount to something.

They also seem to have a not-so hidden agenda. ⬆️

D. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Bernie also included lots of stuff in this complaint that was just… bizarre. ⬆️

1. Random commentators

At one point in a list of URLs that Bernie is dropping, hoping that it somehow proves that a lot of content on the Internet proves there’s a lot of defamation against Justin he includes a bunch of links to other people’s YouTube videos and a random TikTok video that agreed that the information that came off a site Tenkar did not control what made nuTSR look bad.⁴²Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [44]

The exact wording is “he Defendants (in an attempt to make the named Plaintiffs into some kind of public persona) allowed and encouraged other parties to re-publish these statements, causing further harm to the Plaintiffs.

This is not how defamation works – you don’t get to point at other people saying similar things based off the same source and blame the defendant, and if anything – it kind of indicates LaNasa and nuTSR might have been defamation proof already.

Also good luck proving people need Tenkar’s permission to have opinions. ⬆️

2. Is this a fetish?

Upon realizing that he was supposed to explain why various this were defaming and he did, again, include the comment about growing a cock for him to eat with the following explanation:⁴³Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [22] (page 8, paragraph 22 goes over multiple pages)

…making violent sexual misconduct statements as to the Plaintiff LANASA

We heard it from Bernie, the mere concept of futa blowjobs are violent sexual misconduct. I’m really starting to think this guy does want to live in a high surveillance fascist state.

Also, Bernie, not defamation. Not even by your incoherent own standards.

Bernie fucking sucks. ⬆️

3. Can Bernie count?

As part of his bogus claim that the video where an image that LaNasa’s wife (who was not part of the action) brought to the video, Bernie tries to stress the harm by insisting that we should all be shocked and horrified that 473 people have seen it.⁴⁴Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [76]

Not even 500 people

This is the population size that Bernie proposes could definitely contain someone who’d go on a revenge campaign by using that 1 photo to create abuse imagery and deepfake videos.

Who are also the target demographic Justin’s business would rely upon.

Between this and the millions of dollars in damages I’m deeply concerned that Bernie may have had to pay people to take his math exams for him from grade school onward. ⬆️

4. Bernie says LaNasa is a coward

One of the funniest things about this saga is that LaNasa, despite being visibly unfit, unintimidating and essentially inept – likes to promote himself as some sort of hardcore badass, former tier one operator type. He owns a stupid armored vehicle that he is so bad at operating he beached it in a Mr Beast video.⁴⁵ William “Jimmy” Donaldson “I Ubered Random People In A Tank” (12 July 2018) @MrBeast YouTube <youtube.com>, at 7:50 In a now deleted Mr Beast video, that LaNasa has re-uploaded on his own channel, he shows of his .50 rifle (and inability to operate it effectively, seriously he’s a terrible shot.)⁴⁶William “Jimmy” Donaldson “.50 Cal vs 1,000,000 Legos” @MrBeast YouTube <deleted> reuploaded as Justin LaNasa “Mr. Beast 50 cal 1 million Lego’s” (7 August 2022) @Hardwiretattoo YouTube <youtube.com>

One of the allegations in the nuTSR Insider video was he apparently tells people he used to be a Blackwater operator.

So it’s very funny when you read the amended complaint and it includes a claim that LaNasa is afraid that if he ever confronts Tenkar – then Tenkar will go full John Wick on not just LaNasa, but his whole family.⁴⁷Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [74]

As a direct result of this outrageous conduct on Defendant’s part, Plaintiff has suffered serious and continuous psychological trauma. Plaintiff is in fear that if he ever confronts the Defendant [Tenkar], the Defendant will, without cause or provocation, seek to harm him, his wife, and his minor daughter.

This is very funny in prima facie, but gets funnier when we see the submissions. ⬆️

V. DISCOVERY OF WHAT?

So the judge eventually decided that she wanted it to proceed, despite the many issues she wanted to explore if there was a there there.

This brings us into discovery and submissions based on that. Discovery is a process where each side can ask one another questions and request documents in order to firm up their case and cement their arguments.

It is not, as Vic Mignogla defenders claimed – a process where you get to finally find out if there is some evidence behind your claims. It is also not, as Logan Paul seems to think it is, an opportunity to try to attack people reporting on and bypass discovery rules in other lawsuits you’re already in.⁴⁸Paul v. Findeisen, 5:24-cv-00717, (W.D. Tex. Jan 17, 2025) ECF No. 26

Now, this is a start of the process so you a competent lawyer should talk to their client to feel out any issues in advance — both to prepare and to make sure they don’t put in any claims that will get obliterated in discovery.

Actually let’s start with a good example. ⬆️

A. Tenkar’s Lawyer’s Discovery

Tenkar had hired a very competent law firm, who took a focused and methodical approach to discovery with the goal of establishing the absolute defence of truth. ⬆️

1. LaNasa’s military career

As mentioned, LaNasa is very proud of his service – a common sentiment. He does, however lack the sort of humility that is often common among those who did out out of a feeling of duty or camaraderie. He likes to make people think he was somebody.

One of the statements that he made the unfortunate choice to call out was the one that implied he had left the military because he had no leadership potential. Tenkar’s lawyers demanded documents and then, when LaNasa didn’t want to concede they supplied them to the court.

Putting them on the public docket – making them relevant, public information for the purposes of reporting on this series of events.

Because of this, we know that LaNasa did indeed demonstrate the minimum amount of potential for recruit when he was in the army, leaving his tour as a P-V1.⁴⁹LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 20, 2023) ECF No. 47, at 45

For those not familiar, PV-1 is the rank assigned to those in basic training. The rank has no insignia, recruits become eligible for promotion after six months and their primary role is to obey orders.⁵⁰U.S. Army Ranks https://www.army.mil/ranks/ This would suggest that LaNasa’s experience in the Army can be summed up in 1 Full Metal Jacket clip.

But what about in the Coast Guard? That’s where he cites his heroic service right? It’s the basis for his claim of being in federal law enforcement, to having saved lives during the event he somehow mistook for The Perfect Storm of 1991.⁵¹Justin LaNasa “Politics” <justinlanasa.com>

Well he left the reservists as a Seaman, which is the rank above apprentices. It is the most common rank in the Coast Guard,⁵²Tiffini Theisen and Stephen Bajza “Coast Guard Ranks: A Complete Guide to Enlisted and Officer Ranks” (03 October 2025) Military.com <www.military.com> and thus leaving with it after already having experience in the Army cements LaNasa as fundamentally going nowhere and confirmed to have no noteworthy potential.⁵³LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 20, 2023) ECF No. 47-1, [Perjury Exhibit] at 46

This is all public record linked to an issue of public interest, now. ⬆️

2. LaNasa’s criminal history

Another statement that LaNasa took issue with was the claim his criminal history was public record, I assume he had to clarify he meant this means he had a criminal record since in the USA it’s pretty much all public unless you find a way to get it sealed.

The strange defence that LaNasa’s lawyer proposed that was since LaNasa did not have fingerprints on file with the FBI that proved there was no criminal history – despite it being well established there are plenty of jurisdictions that don’t print you for minor crimes that go on your record etc.⁵⁴LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 20, 2023) ECF No. 47

Well okay, he agreed there was a single vandalism charge in 2002, which he was found guilty of for $100.

So it was fairly trivial for Tenkar’s lawyers to get records showing LaNasa being charged and it was confirmed by his full name, address etc. He had a vandalism charge, and while Bernie tried to make it look like LaNasa had no records it turns out he had 5 accidents between 1993 to 2020, and got booked for an improper speedometer in 2012.⁵⁵LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Nov 30, 2023) ECF No. 57

Also there was the time, when he was in basic training in the Army, they he got arrested for assault and terroristic threats he did in 1989, that were dismissed due to “victim in the Army”.⁵⁶Perjury Exhibit, above n 53 at 21 LaNasa’s lawyer claims he was exonerated by the Army, but anyone who has met an MP knows that they are not in the business of forgiveness and exoneration.

Also, briefly try to imagine a scenario where you are arrested and charged for “terroristic threats” and it’s concluded you did nothing wrong and it was all a confusion – but you don’t want to explain that story.

Guess its no surprised that he finished effectively as a trainee.

Oh, and I want to mention that Tenkar’s team did this despite Bernie lodging objection to every single interrogatory and document requests. Including claiming they couldn’t ask about Dave Johnson, the specific Nazi in the group, because he wasn’t a plaintiff,⁵⁷Perjury Exhibit, above n 53, at 6-7 (what happened to full disclosure Bernie?) insisting repeatedly that without a timeframe they would not look for any particular document, (what happened to full disclosure Bernie?)⁵⁸Perjury Exhibit, above n 53, at 8-15 and – he misspelled his own client’s name in the process.

Bernie fucking sucks. ⬆️

B. LaNasa’s Discovery Disaster

So, Tenkar’s lawyers made effective use of the discovery process, despite Bernie being the one they had to go to for information in the first instance. To understand this process, and how it’s going off the rails – it’s probably best to understand 2 things about discovery.

1. Anything requested has to be relevant to the proceedings; and
2. You can request unlimited documents, and a specific number of interrogatories (questions that must be answered truthfully in writing).

The process can be multi-step, and repeated as many times as necessary until both sides are confident they have all the information to proceed – thus it can be subject to complaint if one side does not respect the process. ⬆️

1. Going full Vic Mignogla

A bunch of Bernie’s questions essentially boiled down to “please agree that you defamed him and/or find something defaming you said for us”.

This is not how it works. The onus is on Bernie to identify the statements, explain the sting and assure the court that the audience would interpret things they way he advised they would, and show the damages.

Hilariously, in some cases Bernie seemed to misunderstanding his own claims were — such as when he wanted Tenkar to prove he’d been a cop because this would allegedly validate the threat of having a firearm. Aside from that in Castle Doctrine states you should probably assume everyone in a house is armed, cop or not, this had zero impact on the claims of defamation or IIED because those are based on the information at the time.

Many of these included requests for all communications with third parties, which was way outside the scope of the proceedings and could only be interpreted as what is commonly referred to as a “fishing expedition”.⁵⁹LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 11, 2023) ECF No. 46, at 2

This was the interrogatory in question, and it’s difficult to see how Bernie could claim this was 1. a question with an a definite answer rather than a regular discovery request; and 2. not Bernie basically asking them to hand over their entire work product so he could avoid doing his own and find more people to harass.⁶⁰LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 31, 2023) ECF No. 50-1, at 12

Interrogatory 24: If you claim that Plaintiff LANASA made any admissions as to the subject matter of this lawsuit, state: the date made; the time and address for each person to whom any such admission was made; where made; the name and address for each person present at the time any such admission was made; the contents of the admission; and if in writing, attach a copy.

Also he spelt David Flor‘s name as “David Flo”.⁶¹LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 4, 2023) ECF No. 45-1, [Exhibit Interrogatories] at 15 4 letters. Truly there is no limit to Bernie’s carelessness.

Bernie for his part insisted this was totally normal,⁶²Lanasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 04, 2023) ECF No. 45, at 3 and very common because the rules say you can’t withhold information that is against your interests.⁶³Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 804(b)(3) For my money, I think he’s confusing how in a criminal investigation the police have to give the defendant all the evidence, whether they intend to use it or not due to the whole “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

For this civil case, briefly consider how could it possibly be against their interests to disclose the source of information they are not planning to submit to evidence. The burden is on them to prove what they said is true, not Bernie to prove it’s false. There is no legally useful purpose to this. The judge didn’t buy it and ordered them to talk together.

Also, just while we’re here – anyone else think it’s weird Bernie didn’t remember that when handling LaNasa’s criminal history huh?

Perhaps the funniest one being his wanting to know about what Tenkar might have said to Charlie Hall,⁶⁴Exhibit Interrogatories, above n 61, at 15 then the TTRPG Editor for Polygon, a site Tenkar was regularly critical of, who was clearly doing his due diligence independently.

The pettiest was his adding Victor Dorso and Peter Adkinson, people who run conventions that he was banned from due to:

1. The transphobic and reactionary meltdowns early in the nuTSR Saga (Peter Adkinson, GenCon)
2. Demanding free entry because Ernie Gygax was a guest, and so LaNasa should be allow to ride on that (Victor Dorso, Davecon)

It seems like Bernie and LaNasa think every negative consequence due to being openly terrible in public is part of a master plan by Tenkar. ⬆️

2. Going full Logan Paul

More alarmingly, it seemed that LaNasa was attempting to use the defamation lawsuit to bypass discovery in the nuTSR v. WotC case. He wanted to see documents from people who had connections to that case, but not connection to Tenkar’s statements.

Donald O Semora did not contribute to, nor appear in, any of the materials that Bernie cites in his work – yet his name appeared on the list.⁶⁵Exhibit Interrogatories, above n 61, at 14 Don was, however, a witness for Wizards of the Coast.

Michael K Hovermale did not contribute to,m nor appear in, any of the materials that Bernie cites – and was frequently the subject of Tenkar’s ire – yet his name appeared on the list.⁶⁶Exhibit Interrogatories, above n 61, at 14 Michael was likely to be called as a witness in the nuTSR v. WotC case.

Luke Gygax also had nothing to do with any of the statements, and never mentioned anything about LaNasa in the stream where he talked with Tenkar.⁶⁷Exhibit Interrogatories, above n 61, at 15 He was, however, a previous holder of the TSR trade marks.

None of these people could have possibly contributed anything to Bernie’s points – the only reasons to put them in there were harassment and/or fishing for information in an unrelated case. ⬆️

VI. THE COMPLAINT (MK 3)

Eventually, after trying to get Bernie to act like a reasonable lawyer – Tenkar’s lawyers had enough and went to ask the court to intervene. The term perjury was used and it was pointed out that Bernie’s submissions were just riddled with lies. Not mistakes, just outright lies.⁶⁸LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 20, 2023) ECF No. 47

So, after it was confirmed that Bernie had in fact added an innocent third party to the complaint – and had been misleading the court about facts which he was clearly aware of. The court gave him one last chance to amend his complaint again.⁶⁹LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, Docket entry (Jan 9, 2024)

This was, given how rude Bernie is to the court, a remarkable display of magnanimity – especially given Tenkar’s lawyers were demanding LaNasa and Bernie be required to explain themselves. Naturally Bernie fucked it up in the rudest and most incompetent way possible.

Bernie was instructed to do three things:⁷⁰Above

1. Remove Tenkar’s mother from the complaint
2. Remove the false claims from the complaint
3. Provide a redline version so that the court could easily verify and review the amendments

Very simple instructions, even a high school student could do it.

Bernie instead:

1. Swapped out Tenkar’s mother for Tenkar’s wife
2. Removed the some of the false claims
3. Provided a version that concealed his swapping in Tenkar’s wife

This was an incredibly unwise move – Tenkar’s lawyers spotted it immediately and raised it with the court. It did not go down well.

Also… just… Bernie.⁷¹LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Feb 06, 2024) ECF No. 65 ⬆️

VII. DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

Tenkar’s lawyers essentially argued that enough was enough, it was past time this suit was kicked to the curb, curb-stomped and then kicked again. Naturally, Bernie disagreed with that assessment. They sought costs. ⬆️

A. Jurisdiction

The first way Tenkar could have had it dismissed with costs is if it turned out that this was not a federal matter. As all defendants, actual and theoretical, resided in New York – so the key factor was if there was going to be $75,000.00 or more at stake.

Bernie’s argument was truly absurd and showed he failed even basic statutory interpretation – a subject we cover in first year of studying law in New Zealand. LaNasa submitted that he had probably lost $75,000 because of the Geek Nation cancellation based on projected income, and that he’d already spent >$135,000 on the proceeding “due to actions of the Defendants”.⁷²LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Feb 06, 2024) ECF No. 65, at 38-39

I present the wording of 28 U.S. Code §1332, which Bernie quotes himself:

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—

Honk! Honk! Fucking. Clown. Shoes.

So yeah, the costs were right out the window.

The judge did, however, conclude that it was possible that if they proceeded further that the speculative value of year-on-year contract could eventually have added up to $75,000.00. She specified courts are loathe to argue either way with projected amounts, and are obligated to accept a plaintiff’s good-faith claim (unless proven otherwise), so she did not want to speculate that it could never have been $75,000 or more.⁷³LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Apr 17, 2024) ECF No 75 [1st Judgment]

So, recovery of costs via lack of jurisdiction was off the table. ⬆️

B. Serving Tenkar’s Wife, Rachel

In an extended explanation, the judge concluded what was pretty obvious – the rules for service are crystal clear and no amount of whining about “they should have guessed I really meant to serve her, not Tenkar’s mother” would help.

Essentially Bernie’s argument hinged on the idea that when he was told he should “remove” Tenkar’s mother from the proceedings, the natural reading of this meant that he should “replace with the person you meant to serve”. Leading to the judge having to cite Meriam-Webster in her judgement, to explain this to him.⁷⁴1st Judgment, above n 73, at 16

She also addressed that since allowing leniency due to this kind of clown show would undermine the purpose of rules – so even if they’d asked for an extension to serve they wouldn’t have received it.

Kind of horrifying that Bernie needed that explained to him. Also if you’re wondering, yes he explained the judge’s own instructions to her.⁷⁵LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Feb 6, 2024) ECF No 65, at 12

So the complaint against her was dismissed without prejudice, purely because assigning it prejudice would imply the complaint ever actually commenced properly in the first place.⁷⁶1st Judgment, above n 73, at 16-17

Fortunately the limitations period has expired now, so it may as well be with prejudice for all the impact it can have. ⬆️

C. Was Their Any Validity?

The second way that Tenkar could have been assigned costs was under Anti-SLAPP, if it was concluded that there was no basis to the action.

Unfortunately, the district courts in New York have created some obstacles to this – firstly they expect a counter-claim of some sort to be applied, which is not necessarily viable in all cases and places cost burdens on the defendant.

Secondly, there are conflicts with the District Court rules and Federal rules of civil procedure that essentially do not allow a dismissal on the basis of “no substantial basis”,⁷⁷Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12 and there’s no allowances for it in summary judgement rules.⁷⁸Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56

This is why my opinion of rating the anti-SLAPP law should be given differs wildly from that of the Public Participation Project.

So, costs were off the table – but did she think there was any real basis? ⬆️

1. Defamation

No, she even pointed out that he continued to fail to meet the basic standards after the court explained it to him – and she was not impressed with the Sovereign Citizen-esque attempts to bury people in paper and moving goal posts.⁷⁹1st Judgment, above n 73, at 20

As the Court warned LaNasa in pointing out the defects in his original complaint, (see ECF No. 54, Jan. 6, 2023, Pre-Mot. Conf. Tr., 4:1–8), a plaintiff cannot avoid Rule 8’s requirement to provide a short, plain statement of his claims simply by overwhelming the court with lengthy exhibits without context and assigning the court the task of reviewing them and searching for a plausible claim, see United States v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 518 F. Supp. 2d 422, 461 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).

She explained that most of the things did not meet the expected standard of “exposes a person to public contempt, ridicule, aversion[,] or disgrace” (especially stuff like his LLC that is not a non-profit is a for profit business).⁸⁰1st Judgment, above n 73, at 23

Next, the statements that could be facts, and could be defaming — these were not really actionable because Bernie had never taken the time to bother explain what element of them was false. It’s not enough just to say “It’s a lie!” You have to explain what is false.⁸¹1st Judgment, above n 73, at 24-25

So yeah, LaNasa lost by default because Bernie couldn’t follow basic instructions. ⬆️

2. IIED

It turns out that nothing that Tenkar did on YouTube rose to the extremely high standard of “extreme and outrageous” which probably explains why he hasn’t been banned from YouTube at time of writing.⁸²1st Judgment, above n 73, at 25

Hilariously the judge glossed over Bernie’s multi-page essay on how featuring a picture of LaNasa’s daughter, by way of his wife entering Tenkar’s chat, could not meet the criteria for some sort of secret child abuse material conspiracy because even if such a concept was vaguely viable — Tenkar clearly lacked any intention for it to happen.⁸³1st Judgment, above n 73, at 27

Yeah it turns out you can’t claim IIED for things that happen entirely in your imagination and only your imagination (or dreams). ⬆️

3. Procedural matters

The judge did take the time to explain that the could not be prima facie torts because Bernie had not bothered to even attempt to meet the criteria for them. It turns out if you want to go for a very special approach you have to walk the court through why this exception applies.⁸⁴1st Judgment, above n 73, at 27-31

She also took the time to explain that there would be no further opportunities to amends the complaints since the deficiencies had been explained in detail, and that he there had been little improvement along with a reckless disregard for court protocols – the court was under no obligation to allow a fourth attempt at making a coherent argument.⁸⁵1st Judgment, above n 73, at 28-31

In my opinion, this raises the issue with the reliance on state level Anti-SLAPP laws that can be defeated by particular interpretations of federal rules. ⬆️

VIII. THE APPEAL

So, having been smacked down in an expensive and humiliating defeat — where it was explained in excruciating detail that he had no hope of ever progressing — LaNasa appealed to the 2nd Circuit with Bernie as his counsel.⁸⁶LaNasa v. Tenkar II, above n2 ⬆️

A. How Appeals Work

Appeals are a very special kind of litigation – such that there are lawyers who essentially specialize in them and thus it is not uncommon to employ a new or additional lawyer for your appeal.

In an appeal, the question to be answered is “Did the lower court handle the matter correctly?”. You can argue an error of law or an error of procedure, you can’t argue that you just need another go to get it right. If you want to review based on new evidence, you pretty much always have to give the original court a fresh crack at it.

As you can imagine, this means that appeals rely heavily upon skilled oration, but even more heavily upon research, attention to detail and mastery of the law. There are lawyers who pretty specialize entirely in appeals.

They are also complicated in that you can appeal multiple areas and get mixed results – 3 judges may agree on point 1, 2 judged on point 2 with a dissent, and all 3 judges strike down point 3. This also applies to “cross appeals” where the other side wants to appeal some element.

So you can very easily go into appeal and come out worse than before, with the other side winning points or the the court agreeing to let you go back for review but with one hand tied behind your back, giving the other side an opportunity for a counter-suit or having you sanctioned. They are stressful.

Generally parties are allowed one appeal by default, as a means to ensure that there is accountability within the judiciary. After that, you can seek an appeal but must convince the superior court that there is a special basis. As the philosophy Marshal Mathers III said, “You get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow!”⁸⁷Marshal Mathers III as Eminem “Lose Yourself” (28 October 2002) Single and featured on 8 Mile : Music from and Inspired by the Motion Picture 54 Studio

You can probably guess how things are going to go with Bernie at the wheel. ⬆️

B. This Appeal

Appeals are a slow process, so it wasn’t until 8 September 2024 that Bernie would place his masterpiece before 3 very seasons judges and make his arguments as to why he was right, and one of their wrong.⁸⁸LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 2, (2d Cir. Aug 09, 2024) ECF No. 25 [Appellant Brief]

His appeal is bloated with large amounts of legally irrelevant information, like that Tenkar’s Tavern has affiliate links, and his arguments can be summarized as such:

1. He totally served Tenkar’s wife⁸⁹Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 33-36
2. He definitely made out the criteria for defamation in the complaint⁹⁰Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 36-38
3. He also definitely made out the criteria for IIED in the complaint⁹¹Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 48-54
4. They were also definitely prima facie torts, he made out the criteria for that too⁹²Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 54-58
5. He should be allowed another chance to do all the above properly⁹³Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 60-66

Weirdly a lot of the wording in his opening seems to reflect the wording on LaNasa’s complaint against me – drafted some 8 months earlier. I will leave you to your own conclusions as the implications of that.

Given how long this has gone on, and how this ends – I am not going to go into analysing the response from Tenkar’s lawyer other than to say it was of high quality, and did not opt for a cross-appeal.⁹⁴LaNasa v. Tenkar II, above n 2, (2d Cir. Nov 05, 2024) ECF No. 29 ⬆️

1. Service to Rachel

It takes Bernie an entire page to get around to explaining that when he served Tenkar’s mother with the complaint, there could have been no doubt that Tenkar’s wife knew it it was actually for her.⁹⁵Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 34

His argument in favour of this is that he essentially referred to her as “Rachel” (factually incorrect Bernie, you referred to her as “Rahcel”) and that Tenkar’s lawyers did not assume he meant Rachel, and just somehow let him have his cake (serving the right person) and eat it to (making a 3rd party liable).⁹⁶Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 34-36

He does not, at any point, explain how he originally made what he essentially argues is a comically ridiculous mistake – or accept responsibility for it. Rather, it is simply posed as opposing counsel’s job to do the work for him.

This is, not a terribly compelling argument. ⬆️

2. Valid grounds for defamation

Bernie goes in hard accusing the judge of not understanding how defamation works, and explaining that she failed to grasp the statements were made in a context.You’ll never guess what he immediately moves onto as an example.⁹⁷Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 38

He then insists that none of the statements were opinions, or a mix of fact-and-opinion (ie opinions supported by facts, ie opinions) but were in fact factually incorrect statements.⁹⁸Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 39-45

The statement he chooses to really drill down on to illustrate this is the statement that LaNasa included a Nazi in his company.⁹⁹Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 40 Specifically he brings forth an authority to support this: Christopher v. American News Co.¹⁰⁰Christopher v. American News Co., 172 F.2d 275, 279 (7th Cir. 1948) A judgment from 1948. I wonder if the term Nazi had different implications back then, or if a news outlet stating it as a fact hit differently.

Then he goes back to whining about Chad Revenge and pretending that he’s an expert on queer culture theory to argue that his client has never engaged in gay bashing or said women actually belong in the kitchen.¹⁰¹Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 42-45 Because you know, the best way to convince people you’re not involved in something is to tell them you didn’t do the most extreme version of it.

He then rages on about he did not make any mistakes, he certainly didn’t fail to explain statements are false because he is definitely a good lawyer and it’s confusing the judge disagreed.¹⁰²Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 45-48 He is definitely not mad that he got shot down for failing to do his job. ⬆️

3. IIED

Once again, he insists he made no error:

1. it was definitely outrageous for Tenkar to let LaNasa’s wife chat in his stream when her avatar included LaNasa’s daughter, and it wasn’t up to the judge to decide that¹⁰³Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 49
2. Intentionally putting an image on the screen is effectively the same as wanting people to wage psychological warfare on a child in the image¹⁰⁴Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 51
3. People not wanting to work with LaNasa is basically the same as severe psychological harm¹⁰⁵Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 51-52
4. Tenkar to respond to being doxed by threatening to employ his right to use a firearm to defend himself, and announcing he knew LaNasa’s phone number, address, and his wife’s phone number (all public information in the US) in the same as him going to LaNasa and family in person, and screaming “vile obscentities” and threatening harm)¹⁰⁶Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 52
5. He should definitely have been able to explain all his theories until such time as a jury says otherwise, essentially eliminating the role of a judge in proceedings¹⁰⁷Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 52-54

And now he doesn’t explain how he thinks anything Tenkar did is extreme and outrageous, he just seems to take it for granted we all agree it was. ⬆️

4. Prima facie tort

Naturally Bernie goes all in on his argument that his theory about the risk of child abuse imagery as a revenge tactic from a small audience of (presumably) otherwise law abiding people is a good one.

He goes on about this, then tries to explain how a prima facie tort works – asserting it only requires the base tort, a malicious intent and being otherwise law abiding then goes on to rant about:

1. The hypothetical scenario where someone will be able to make child abuse material because of Tenkar, and not the hundreds of images freely available due to LaNasa (hasn’t happened, no reason to believe it will)¹⁰⁸Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 56
2. Tenkar saying he knows LaNasa’s phone number and address (not a tort)¹⁰⁹Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 57
3. The time Rachel said if she could, she would grow a cock so LaNasa could eat it (also not a tort)¹¹⁰Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 57

Insisting all these caused “special damages”,¹¹¹Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 58-59 but never points to where he demonstrated it or how it would even work in the US free speech framework. ⬆️

5. Leave to amend

Strong start – begins by saying the judge didn’t understand her own order and he actually complied with it better than she asked him to – so really a further amendment would be a courtesy to the person who didn’t want it.¹¹²Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 59

Bernie insists he was actually correct to just swap out Tenkar’s mother for Tenkar’s wife because he had included an “aka” in the details – thus, it should have been obvious to everyone that the lawyer who is charged with writing exact documents clearly meant that other party, not the one actually named.¹¹³Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 59-62

Again, he just states there could have been no doubt of that and doesn’t provide any explanation on how, if it was indeed so obvious there could be no mistake – he made the mistake.¹¹⁴Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 62-63 ⬆️

6. BONUS: No cross-appeal, no takebacks!

When you lodge an appeal, you open up the door for the other side to piggyback and appeal some element of the decision themselves – similar to how you can counter-sue. Once the appeal was raised, there was discussion that it could be an opportunity for Tenkar to appeal the decision regarding costs.

Ultimately Tenkar decided not to cross-appeal. I don’t have any inside knowledge on this but I can confirm that in his reply to the response, Bernie wasted precious pages and seconds of the court’s time ranting about how they had not filed a cross-appeal so they could not file a cross-appeal!¹¹⁵LaNasa v. Tenkar II, above n 2, (2d Cir. Nov 26, 2024) ECF No. 32

This was doubtlessly very confusing to the panel of judges who could see that, and were not following the conversation online so had no reason to expect that Tenkar would lodge a cross-appeal. ⬆️

C. The Oral Arguments

The big day came, Bernie had the chance to explain himself 2nd Circuit bench of 3 seasoned judges, all well versed on federal and state law, on why he was right.¹¹⁶LaNasa v. Tenkar II, above n 2, (Feb 21, 2025) Oral Arguments [Oral Arguments] His knees were weak, arms were heavy… I’m kidding.

The judges did speak to both sides, and did grill Tenkar’s lawyer on where he felt the exact lines for various things were – like where is the line between “tough guy talk” and actual threats. This is standard for an appeal, your lawyer is professing to be an expert on the areas of law after all.

For Bernie, it was a different experience, he got to speak twice and managed to say nothing of any real value.

They told him they wanted to examine some of his points in detail but it got derailed when they asked him to explain why he felt calling someone a Nazi couldn’t be an opinion.¹¹⁷Oral Arguments, above n 116, at 6:00

Bernie then went on a ramble about how Nazis were a real thing, in the face of the judges and Tenkar’s lawyers explaining it’s an epthet. Ultimately in his concluding arguments, Bernie claims its normal to expect that if you can call someone a Nazi you should be able to prove they’re a member of the Nazi Party or put it to a jury.¹¹⁸Oral Arguments, above n 116, at 35:00 He does not explain how this is supposed to be possible in the modern world, given the Nazi Party was disbanded in October 1945.

This is beyond cringe, even before you consider that the person we’re talking about Dave Johnson, who had a Twitter account proudly declaring he was a Nazi. Bernie used his one shot to try to say that assessing that should go to a jury. ⬆️

D. The Final Decision

After having been subjected to Bernie first hand, the bench decided to do a de novo review of the judgement. This means that rather than engage with one element of law, they went through everything that was submitted step-by-step to establish if they would have reached the same conclusion.

Unanimously, they reached the same conclusion, in less pages than it took for Bernie to explain why he was sure it was really defamation.¹¹⁹LaNasa v. Tenkar II, above n 2, (2d Cir. Mar 24, 2025) ECF No. 40 [Final Judgment] ⬆️

1. Not Served

This one was very simple – they noted that Rachel could not have been served because the process server never went to the house, and thus never explored who “aka Rachel” was. Tenkar’s mother was served via his lawyers, who could not be expected to assume another lawyer was incompetent and serving the wrong person.¹²⁰Final Judgment, above n 119, at 2-3 ⬆️

2. Defamation

They concluded that the original judge was right – nothing in the claim was defamation since it all fitted into insults, opinions, etc.¹²¹Final Judgment, above n 119, at 3-7

Hilariously, the judges clearly looked at the videos because they pointed out that simply reading out Twitter posts on a YouTube video cannot be defamation.¹²²Final Judgment, above n 119, at 5

It turns out if you call someone a Nazi these days, we don’t assume you mean they were an active member of the German Nazi Party prior to October 1945 – we assume you’re calling them a hateful reactionary.¹²³Final Judgment, above n 119, at 6

It is not defamatory to apply obvious insults and it is not defamatory. Also it is not defamatory to refer for a for-profit “museum” as being for profit. Also, if you want to claim something is false – you have to specify rather than just drop a YouTube link and go “done”.¹²⁴Final Judgment, above n 119, at 7

Finally, you do have to actually explain how a statement is false… not just drop it in the paperwork and expect everyone to agree.¹²⁵Final Judgment, above n 119, at 8 ⬆️

3. IIED

It turns out that asserting you will protect your home, and showing an image already in the public domain are not extreme and outrageous things.¹²⁶Final Judgment, above n 119, at 8-9 ⬆️

4. Prima Facie tort

Again it turns out the district court judge who looked up how prima facie torts actually knew what she was talking about. Perhaps to be sure there is no disagreement, they 2nd Circuit chose to highlight that on top of the other issues – Bernie never specified what the “special damages” were (possibly because his scenarios were entirely hypothetical).¹²⁷Final Judgment, above n 119, at 9-10 ⬆️

5. Unaddressed

They had already found the court correct, they did not need to drill down into every detail and explore every avenue. Thus there was one issue that the 2nd Circuit decided to tastefully leave unmentioned.

The non-defamatory statement that if she could, Rachel would grow a cock for LaNasa to eat. Because they’re better than Bernie.

Bernie fucking sucks. ⬆️

IX. CONCLUSION

The case was an immensely stressful and expensive waste of time. A demonstration of the flaws in the common law system and particularly the failings of the New York Anti-SLAPP legislation.

LaNasa would have been better off simply setting money on fire since it would have only been his money at stake, and it would have prevented him being further humiliated.

The entire fiasco, from start to finish, had no basis in law and was perpetuated because there was a lawyer in New York who was willing engage in all kinds of non-sense to perpetuate action that was without basis. A clear example of who the US defamation standard does not, as people who hate J.K. Rowling insist, prevent abuse of the system (even when there are anti-SLAPP laws in place).

LaNasa fucking sucks, and Bernie fucking sucks.

Also Bernie, check the spelling of people’s names for fuck’s sake. ⬆️

• 1
  LaNasa v. Stiene, 1:22-cv-05686, (E.D.N.Y) [LaNasa v. Tenkar]
• 2
  LaNasa v. Stiene, 24-1325, (2d Cir.) [LaNasa v. Tenkar II]
• 3
  TSR LLC v. Wizards of the Coast LLC, 2:21-cv-01705, (W.D. Wash.)
• 4
  Jonathan Bremner etc al v. Charlotte Bush, N.Y. App. Div. 521618/2018, 06/011 <iapps.courts.state.ny.us>
• 5
  Kathryn Tewson (8 August 2024) @kathryntewson.bsky.social Blue Sky <bsky.app>
• 6
  Johnson v. Clearview AI, Inc., 1:23-cv-02441, (S.D.N.Y.)
• 7
  Johnson v. Clearview, above, Document #101, 3 August 2025
• 8
  Point Bridge Capital, LLC v. Johnson, 4:24-cv-00988, (N.D. Tex.)
• 9
  “From Felonies To Centure: The Moral Quagmire Facing Today’s Legal Defenders” (21 November 2024) ALAB News<alabnews.com>
• 10
  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 383 U.S. 254 (1964)
• 11
  Kash Patel (12 April 2026) @FBIDirectorKash X née Twitter <x.com> (📸 screenshot)
• 12
  NY Civ Rights L § 74 (2022)
• 13
  NY Civ Rights L § 78 (2022)
• 14
  Chanko v. American Broadcasting Cos., 2016 NY Slip Op 02478
• 15
  Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)
• 16
  Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)
• 17
  28 U.S. Code §1332
• 18
  28 U.S. Code §1919
• 19
  NY Civ Rights L § 70-A (2021)
• 20
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Sep 23, 2022) ECF No. 1, [1st Complaint], at [17] at 9, near 3-16 (paragraph 17 is 2.5 pages long)
• 21
  Erik Steine “TSR3 Mole Exposes Justin’s Private Chats and More via Massive Twitter Thread -Scorched Earth Anyone?” (9 February 2022) @TenkarsTavern YouTube <www.youtube.com>
• 22
  1st Complaint, above n 20, at [60]
• 23
  1st Complaint, above n 20, at [17], at 9, near 38
• 24
  Elon Musk (29 October 2022) @elonmusk X née Twitter <x.com>
• 25
  1st Complaint, above n 20, at [31]-[32]
• 26
  1st Complaint, above n 20, at 4-7 & 13
• 27
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1 (28 November 2022 & 2 December 2022)
• 28
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1 (6 January 2023)
• 29
  Lanasa v. Stiene, 1:22-cv-05686, (E.D.N.Y Jan 23, 2023) ECF No. 20, [Amended Complaint] at 31-32
• 30
  Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [18]-[19]
• 31
  Steven He “When “Asian” is a Difficulty Mode: EMOTIONAL DAMAGE” (24 February 2022) @StevenHe <www.youtube.com>, at 2:50
• 32
  Erik & Rachel Stiene “Justin is Trying to dox My Wife Rachel – Go F’ Yourself LaNasa!” @TenkarsTavern Youtube <www.youtube.com>
• 33
  Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [24]
• 34
  Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [25]-[26]
• 35
  Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [25]
• 36
  Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [27]
• 37
  Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [27]-[33]
• 38
  Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [34]
• 39
  Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [64]
• 40
  Natalie Wynn “Conspiracy | ContraPoints” (25 March 2025) @ContraPoints YouTube <www.youtube.com>
• 41
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Jan 23, 2023) ECF No. 20-1
• 42
  Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [44]
• 43
  Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [22] (page 8, paragraph 22 goes over multiple pages)
• 44
  Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [76]
• 45
  William “Jimmy” Donaldson “I Ubered Random People In A Tank” (12 July 2018) @MrBeast YouTube <youtube.com>, at 7:50
• 46
  William “Jimmy” Donaldson “.50 Cal vs 1,000,000 Legos” @MrBeast YouTube <deleted> reuploaded as Justin LaNasa “Mr. Beast 50 cal 1 million Lego’s” (7 August 2022) @Hardwiretattoo YouTube <youtube.com>
• 47
  Amended Complaint, above n 29, at [74]
• 48
  Paul v. Findeisen, 5:24-cv-00717, (W.D. Tex. Jan 17, 2025) ECF No. 26
• 49
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 20, 2023) ECF No. 47, at 45
• 50
  U.S. Army Ranks https://www.army.mil/ranks/
• 51
  Justin LaNasa “Politics” <justinlanasa.com>
• 52
  Tiffini Theisen and Stephen Bajza “Coast Guard Ranks: A Complete Guide to Enlisted and Officer Ranks” (03 October 2025) Military.com <www.military.com>
• 53
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 20, 2023) ECF No. 47-1, [Perjury Exhibit] at 46
• 54
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 20, 2023) ECF No. 47
• 55
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Nov 30, 2023) ECF No. 57
• 56
  Perjury Exhibit, above n 53 at 21
• 57
  Perjury Exhibit, above n 53, at 6-7
• 58
  Perjury Exhibit, above n 53, at 8-15
• 59
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 11, 2023) ECF No. 46, at 2
• 60
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 31, 2023) ECF No. 50-1, at 12
• 61
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 4, 2023) ECF No. 45-1, [Exhibit Interrogatories] at 15
• 62
  Lanasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 04, 2023) ECF No. 45
• 63
  Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 804(b)(3)
• 64
  Exhibit Interrogatories, above n 61, at 15
• 65
  Exhibit Interrogatories, above n 61, at 14
• 66
  Exhibit Interrogatories, above n 61, at 14
• 67
  Exhibit Interrogatories, above n 61, at 15
• 68
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Oct 20, 2023) ECF No. 47
• 69
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, Docket entry (Jan 9, 2024)
• 70
  Above
• 71
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Feb 06, 2024) ECF No. 65
• 72
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Feb 06, 2024) ECF No. 65, at 38-39
• 73
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Apr 17, 2024) ECF No 75 [1st Judgment]
• 74
  1st Judgment, above n 73, at 16
• 75
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 1, (E.D.N.Y Feb 6, 2024) ECF No 65, at 12
• 76
  1st Judgment, above n 73, at 16-17
• 77
  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12
• 78
  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56
• 79
  1st Judgment, above n 73, at 20
• 80
  1st Judgment, above n 73, at 23
• 81
  1st Judgment, above n 73, at 24-25
• 82
  1st Judgment, above n 73, at 25
• 83
  1st Judgment, above n 73, at 27
• 84
  1st Judgment, above n 73, at 27-31
• 85
  1st Judgment, above n 73, at 28-31
• 86
  LaNasa v. Tenkar II, above n2
• 87
  Marshal Mathers III as Eminem “Lose Yourself” (28 October 2002) Single and featured on 8 Mile : Music from and Inspired by the Motion Picture 54 Studio
• 88
  LaNasa v. Tenkar, above n 2, (2d Cir. Aug 09, 2024) ECF No. 25 [Appellant Brief]
• 89
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 33-36
• 90
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 36-38
• 91
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 48-54
• 92
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 54-58
• 93
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 60-66
• 94
  LaNasa v. Tenkar II, above n 2, (2d Cir. Nov 05, 2024) ECF No. 29
• 95
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 34
• 96
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 34-36
• 97
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 38
• 98
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 39-45
• 99
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 40
• 100
  Christopher v. American News Co., 172 F.2d 275, 279 (7th Cir. 1948)
• 101
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 42-45
• 102
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 45-48
• 103
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 49
• 104
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 51
• 105
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 51-52
• 106
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 52
• 107
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 52-54
• 108
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 56
• 109
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 57
• 110
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 57
• 111
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 58-59
• 112
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 59
• 113
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 59-62
• 114
  Appellant Brief, above n 88, at 62-63
• 115
  LaNasa v. Tenkar II, above n 2, (2d Cir. Nov 26, 2024) ECF No. 32
• 116
  LaNasa v. Tenkar II, above n 2, (Feb 21, 2025) Oral Arguments [Oral Arguments]
• 117
  Oral Arguments, above n 116, at 6:00
• 118
  Oral Arguments, above n 116, at 35:00
• 119
  LaNasa v. Tenkar II, above n 2, (2d Cir. Mar 24, 2025) ECF No. 40 [Final Judgment]
• 120
  Final Judgment, above n 119, at 2-3
• 121
  Final Judgment, above n 119, at 3-7
• 122
  Final Judgment, above n 119, at 5
• 123
  Final Judgment, above n 119, at 6
• 124
  Final Judgment, above n 119, at 7
• 125
  Final Judgment, above n 119, at 8
• 126
  Final Judgment, above n 119, at 8-9
• 127
  Final Judgment, above n 119, at 9-10