So Peter Cowan and the other lawyers for the Trump Organizations have come up with a new reason as to why the Court should dismiss my video: “Judges cannot be expected to be mind readers.” Yikes. That’s *why* there’s video.
Here’s their argument, (from document 161.)
“The Court did not commit a manifest error of law by excluding information in appendixes.
Webber’s argument that the Court should have considered all of the material listed in his 31-pages of Appendixes fails. Webber bore the burden to make a prima facie showing that the Court had jurisdiction over the Trump Organization Defendants. Sawtelle v. Farrell, 70 F.3d 1381, 1387 (1st Cir. 1995). That burden required him to identify specific facts to support the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction—he could not rest solely on his pleadings. Forest-Miller, Inc. v. Babcock & Wilcox Canada, 46 F.3d 138, 145 (1st Cir. 1995). Webber’s assertion that the Court should have sifted through numerous vague descriptions of internet sources, news articles, and YouTube videos, without explicitly identifying the sources with dates, authors, or hyperlinks ignores this burden.
The First Circuit has repeatedly observed that “[o]verburdened trial judges cannot be expected to be mind readers.” McCoy v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 950 F.2d 13, 22 (1st Cir. 1991). If Webber could make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction, he should have done so by explicitly identifying those facts in objection to the motion to dismiss. He did not. Accordingly, the Court did not make a manifest error of law, and Webber’s Motion should be denied.”
Obviously, in the complaint, the facts were identified, detailed descriptions were given, and the author was identified. They complained and complained that my complaint was too long. And then when I point to facts, they say that I didn’t provide enough detail. This is our legal system.
Here are the most recent filings in the case:
155 Judge’s Order
156 Judge’s Order
157 Reconsider Order
158 Reconsider Order