Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

User avatar
Skip Intro
Posts: 3235
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:12 pm

Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#1

Post by Skip Intro » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:35 pm

CCJ has himself an idea.




In the Trump era anything is true if enough people believe it.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 21737
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#2

Post by RTH10260 » Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:24 pm





CCJ has himself an idea.









Solitary confinement, no prisoners in sight, he ought to look out for his Jack Ruby!

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7909
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#3

Post by Flatpointhigh » Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:31 pm

someone will be stupid enough to try.

My Name is...
Daffy Duck.. woo hoo!
Cancer broke me

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16769
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#4

Post by Suranis » Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:42 am

I notice Chuck isn't putting his own name or effort forward.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Skip Intro
Posts: 3235
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:12 pm

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#5

Post by Skip Intro » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:06 pm

In a brilliant legal move, CCJ has decided to become his own lawyer and file his Gawker suit in CA.

In the best tradition of CA legal heavyweight Orly Taitz, he just decided to copy his Missouri suit and file it as is, just changing the location.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/292825814/Ch ... -Complaint
In the Trump era anything is true if enough people believe it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26918
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#6

Post by bob » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:18 pm

Skip Intro wrote:In a brilliant legal move, CCJ has decided to become his own lawyer and file his Gawker suit in CA.
That should make applying California's anti-SLAPP laws that much easier.
In the best tradition of CA legal heavyweight Orly Taitz, he just decided to copy his Missouri suit and file it as is, just changing the location.
Speaking of his Missouri suit, does anyone know the latest on it?
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2917
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#7

Post by Fortinbras » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:19 pm

I think this very oblique comment (sort of "I wish someone would offer money to kill ...") is just barely one notch away from being a felonious solicitation of murder but since it does not say that money is actually waiting or that an identifiable person will pay, I think it falls just a millimeter short of being criminal.

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#8

Post by Kriselda Gray » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:32 pm

I think it's a lot more than a millimeter. People can say all kinds of threaty-sounding things without legal consequences. The IAALs here can give the specifics, but in my IANAL understanding, there has to be good cause to believe that the person making the threaty-sounding statement is quite serious about the threat and capable of carrying it out.

Wishing that something bad would happen to someone else without there being any evidence whatsoever that the person actually intends to cause the bad thing to happen is - to the best of my knowledge - protected free speech, putting it a few parsers away from being criminal.

IAALs, please correct me gently if I'm wrong. :)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3463
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#9

Post by Dan1100 » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:40 pm

Apparently refiled in California, even though Missouri case is still pending.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article ... re_We_Come
"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44695
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#10

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:43 pm

Skip Intro wrote:In a brilliant legal move, CCJ has decided to become his own lawyer and file his Gawker suit in CA.

In the best tradition of CA legal heavyweight Orly Taitz, he just decided to copy his Missouri suit and file it as is, just changing the location.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/292825814/Ch ... -Complaint
It's a cut and paste mess. The case is currently pending in Superior Court in Fresno County. It will shortly be removed to the Eastern District of California and be subject to an anti-SLAPP motion (as bob pointed out). And it will be dismissed on that basis and attorney's fees will be awarded against Johnson.

For a guy with an IQ of 158 he sure is stoopid.

(He alleges in the complaint he's never initiated an action for defamation before (paragraph 2, p. 2). I have two comments: So what? And what about the other lawsuit he filed?

User avatar
Skip Intro
Posts: 3235
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:12 pm

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#11

Post by Skip Intro » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:46 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Skip Intro wrote:In a brilliant legal move, CCJ has decided to become his own lawyer and file his Gawker suit in CA.


(He alleges in the complaint he's never initiated an action for defamation before (paragraph 2, p. 2). I have two comments: So what? And what about the other lawsuit he filed?
That's what happens when you just cut and paste. He should have hired Orly. She could have added all of her Obama detritus to the case and really impressed the court.
In the Trump era anything is true if enough people believe it.

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7909
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#12

Post by Flatpointhigh » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:49 pm

Some of those footnotes made no sense.

My Name is...
Daffy Duck.. woo hoo!
Cancer broke me

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44695
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#13

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:52 pm

Flatpointhigh wrote:Some of those footnotes made no sense.
Don't confine yourself to the footnotes!

TexasFilly
Posts: 18189
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#14

Post by TexasFilly » Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:02 pm

Yeah, he should have engaged Taitz. She works pro bono, ya know. And she knows all about removal to federal court and the anti-SLAPP jurisprudence. We have video! :lol:
I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill! I believe Dr. Ford!

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26918
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#15

Post by bob » Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:04 pm

TexasFilly wrote:Yeah, he should have engaged Taitz. She works pro bono, ya know. And she knows all about removal to federal court and the anti-SLAPP jurisprudence. We have video! :lol:
And they're besties:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7909
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#16

Post by Flatpointhigh » Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:50 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Flatpointhigh wrote:Some of those footnotes made no sense.
Don't confine yourself to the footnotes!
They were easier to wade through

My Name is...
Daffy Duck.. woo hoo!
Cancer broke me

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2917
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#17

Post by Fortinbras » Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:32 pm

Reading the Complaint he filed ....

https://www.scribd.com/doc/292825814/Ch ... -Complaint

... and seeing the footnotes, I would like to say:
1. My IQ used to be fairly high and my blood glucose levels used to be low, and now they've switched places
2. I have never before seen footnotes in a Complaint. I have seen them in various pleadings and motions, but not in the initial Complaint.
3. These footnotes seem to be a dodge to get around the Court Rules' specs for the number of pages, because the body of the Complaint is double-spaced per the Court rules and the footnotes are single-spaced, even one footnote from the next footnote.

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7653
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#18

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:43 pm

He's also ensnared in the lawsuit brought by the National Abortion Federation against Daleiden and CMP. Someone leaked video footage recorded at the 2014 and 2015 NAF annual meetings to Johnson -- video footage that was at the time subject to a TRO, which of course didn't stop Johnson from posting it on the Internet notwithstanding that notice of the TRO had been served on him. NAR served a subpoena duces tecum on Johnson and is seeking to take Chuckie's deposition in support of its motion to hold Daleiden in contempt and Chuckie, seeking to protect his confidential source, has moved to quash it.

In the Ninth Circuit the journalist's privilege is qualified. The privilege can be overcome by a showing that the materials are (1) unavailable despite exhaustion of all reasonable alternative sources; (2) noncumulative; and (3) clearly relevant to an important issue in the case. Shoen v. Shoen, 48 F.3d 412, 416 (9th Cir. 1995). Chuckie's argument is that NAF hasn't exhausted all reasonable alternative sources, presumably sources that could reveal who his confidential source was. :confused:

The hearing on the motion to quash is December 23 in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10429
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#19

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:47 am

bob wrote:Speaking of his Missouri suit, does anyone know the latest on it?
It's still live (probably), but it's kind of bogged down what looks to be a fairly spectacular morass of fail - even by our standards. I'm not going to take the time to wade through the entire docket (at least right now) - we're up to entry 61 already, with a shockingly large chunk of the entries dedicated to Chuckles and his counsel's attempts to get a First Amended Complaint filed. Here's a docket entry that gives a sense of the scope of flail:
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint is DENIED without prejudice for failure to submit a proposed amended complaint. [Doc. 38 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for leave to file in excess of page limitation is DENIED. [Doc. 39 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition To: I. Motion to Transfer Venue, II. Motion to Dismiss, III. California Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike/Dismiss And in Support of Plaintiffs' Arguments in the Alternative, Including: Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, and Motion to Stay Defendants' California Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss Pending Discovery, Motion for Leave to File Response in Excess Of Page Limit" is STRICKEN from the record for filing error, and the Clerk of the Court shall delete it from the record. [Doc. 37 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs are granted leave to file separate twenty (20) page memoranda in opposition to defendants' Motion to Dismiss Case (Doc. 14 ) and Special Motion to Strike the Complaint Pursuant to the California Anti-SLAPP Law (Doc. 20 ). Plaintiffs' opposition memoranda shall be filed by October 22, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any statement of facts filed by plaintiffs shall be filed as a separate document and shall conform to the requirements of Local Rule 4.01 (E) by including a separately numbered paragraph for each fact, indicating whether each fact is established by the record and, if so, providing an the appropriate citation. Plaintiffs shall specifically indicate which of their opposition memoranda or motions the statement of facts is intended to support. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion to Stay is DENIED without prejudice for failure to file a memorandum in support thereof as required by Local Rule 4.01(A); plaintiffs may refile this motion with a memorandum in support. [Doc. 40 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' 103 exhibits and the Declaration of Jonathon Burns are STRICKEN from the record for filing error, and the Clerk of the Court shall delete them from the record. [Docs. 41-43] Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 10/19/15. (JWD) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
There's at least a chance that they've just walked away from their case in Missouri, though. (Or are attempting to.) Plaintiffs were supposed to have filed a reply in support of their (latest) motion to amend pleading by December 4th, but do not appear to have done so as of yet.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

Somerset
Posts: 4170
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#20

Post by Somerset » Thu Dec 10, 2015 5:40 am

Fortinbras wrote:Reading the Complaint he filed ....

https://www.scribd.com/doc/292825814/Ch ... -Complaint

... and seeing the footnotes, I would like to say:
1. My IQ used to be fairly high and my blood glucose levels used to be low, and now they've switched places
Objection - Assumes facts not in evidence.

User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2455
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#21

Post by mmmirele » Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:58 am

Mikedunford wrote:There's at least a chance that they've just walked away from their case in Missouri, though. (Or are attempting to.) Plaintiffs were supposed to have filed a reply in support of their (latest) motion to amend pleading by December 4th, but do not appear to have done so as of yet.
Over at LittleGreenFootballs, where they have a peculiar interest in the guy they call the Rage Furby, there was a discussion over the weekend and into early this week about whether it was December 4 or 14. Of course, people went back to look at the docket and confirmed the docket says December 4, but allegedly Chuckles said somewhere (probably Facebook) that it was the 14th. What we do know is that Chuck's attorney tried to get the date moved as he was going to be on vacation or out of the country or something on the 4th.

So there's that.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44695
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#22

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:37 am

Oh, my. With the Missouri case still pending there's a possibility that Johnson will get hit with two sets of attorney's fees under the California anti-SLAPP statute.

In California, once an anti-SLAPP motion is filed, if plaintiff dismisses his/her case, the court is required to award attorney's fees.* So, if the Missouri court applies California law to the proceedings upon dismissal (a complex question usually decided in favor of applying "substantive" California law but not "procedural" California law and the anti-SLAPP statute is mostly substantive), Johnson gets to pay for all of defendants' attorney's fees which, from the busy docket, will be substantial.
_________________________________________________________________
* The case law on voluntary dismissal after an anti-SLAPP motion was filed is clear and was cited by the California Supreme Court in S.B. Beach Properties v. Berti (2006) 39 Cal.4th 374, 382 n.2 (a case where no motion had yet been filed) as follows:

[quote]See Pfeiffer Venice Properties v. Bernard (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 211, 218 ("a defendant who has been sued in violation of his or her free speech rights is entitled to an award of attorney fees . . . even if the matter has been dismissed prior to the hearing on that motion"); Kyle v. Carmon (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 901, 908, fn. 4 ("the parties agree that even if plaintiff's voluntary dismissal is valid, the trial court retained jurisdiction to award defendant attorney's fees pursuant to a section 425.16 motion filed before plaintiff dismissed the case"); Liu v. Moore (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 745, 751 ("We hold that a defendant who is voluntarily dismissed, with or without prejudice, after filing a section 425.16 motion to strike, is nevertheless entitled to have the merits of such motion heard as a predicate to a determination of the defendant's motion for attorney's fees and costs under subdivision (c) of that section"); Coltrain v. Shewalter (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 94, 107 ("where the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an alleged SLAPP suit while a special motion to strike is pending, the trial court has discretion to determine whether the defendant is the prevailing party for purposes of attorney's fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c)"); Ecash Technologies, Inc. v. Guagliardo (C.D.Cal. 2000) 127 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1083-1084 (awarding attorney fees and costs pursuant to section 425.16 even though the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action after the defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion); see also Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection Dist. v. Weir (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 477, 480 ("resolution of the underlying action [on the ground of lack of standing] does not moot a fee request under the SLAPP statute"); White v. Lieberman (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 210, 220-221 (allowing award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to section 425.16, subdivision (c) even though the trial court sustained defendant's demurrer without leave to amend without ruling on the pending anti-SLAPP motion); Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 446 ("Where a plaintiff dismisses an action while an anti-SLAPP motion is pending, the defendant may nonetheless be entitled to recover attorney fees").
[/quote]

If Johnson's adversaries are reading here, you're welcome. :wave:

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7909
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#23

Post by Flatpointhigh » Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:59 pm

couldn't happen to a nicer* asswhistle

*1obsolete
a : wanton, dissolute
4 obsolete : trivial
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nice

My Name is...
Daffy Duck.. woo hoo!
Cancer broke me

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26918
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#24

Post by bob » Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:55 am

Does anyone know the result of Johnson's motion to quash that was supposed to be heard two weeks ago?
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9772
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: Charles C. Johnson (the one with the 158 I.Q.)

#25

Post by GreatGrey » Fri Jan 15, 2016 2:36 pm

I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

Post Reply

Return to “Other Fringe Groups & Individuals”