US Law – A gentleman with opinions

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,¹ but he continued it, lost, and then — seemingly just to set more money on fire — as he appealed the defamation suit against Tenkar.² 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)³ 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.

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.)

Jobst v Mitchell : ROUND TWO!

So, having spent years mocking Billy Mitchell(Billy) and then suffering a humiliating defeat in court against him – followed by declaring bankruptcy and having to deal with an audience who feel betrayed Karl Jobst(Karl) decided to press Start to continue and launched a lawsuit against Billy in Florida.¹

Of course, since Karl is bankrupt, he’s filing this pro se, meaning after losing a law suit in Australia² where he had the best representation that Notch’s money could buy – he is no proceeding without a lawyer in a foreign legal system.

This is not something I would recommend. But, so far Karl seems to have spent $405 US (~$567 Australian) on this so… I guess he’s not taking advice on it. For some reason it makes me think of Llamas with Hats. If you know, you know. If you don’t… you can go watch it I guess?

So, let’s have a look at Karl’s complaint, whether it’s got legs and what the scope of possible outcomes are. The complaint and the exhibit are a mess, so I’m going to try to structure them in a more familiar method and skip going over the entire background.

1
Jobst v. Mitchell, 0:26-cv-60997, (S.D. Fla.)
2
Mitchell v Jobst [2025] QDC 41

X nee Twitter’s Terms of Service

First a disclaimer, my name is Kim, I’m not a lawyer – more importantly I’m not your lawyer and I am not a lawyer in the United States of America. Nothing following it to be taken as personal legal advice, it certainly does not form a lawyer-client relationship and please do not take legal advice off random bloggers.

So, a lot of people have been posting screenshots of the new Terms of Service (“XTos”) on X nee Twitter (“Xitter”), but I haven’t seen many people doing much of an analysis into what they actually mean. So I decided to look into it before 15 November 2024, when all these changes take effect.

While some of the changes have been, on the surface, a little alarming most of it is fairly banal when taken in isolation. When looked at a whole, it paints a rather grim picture for the platform, those who continue to make use of it, and the those who are not on there but are directly impacted by the activities there.

It’s bad, but to truly understand how bad, we need to have a good look at everything and see the overall picture that it paints.