[UPDATED! Johnson’s lawyer responds to Gawker’s denial to extend deadline — promptly! Imagine that. See below.]
Gawker.com is opposing Chuck C. Johnson’s request for an extension on his
homework response to Gawker’s motion to dismiss his libel suit against them.
In his request for an extended response deadline, Johnson’s lawyer stated that Gawker’s lawyers had agreed to a week’s delay, as GotNwes reported earlier.
Perhaps that was before Gawker got wind of Johnson’s futile, 11th-hour attempts to obtain evidence “using clearly improper means,” to quote the motion for denial. [Full text below.]
The judge has yet to rule on this latest wrinkle in this fascinating case of two media giants duking it out miles from either’s home base. If the judge rules in favor of Gawker, Johnson’s libel suit could be dismissed and he’d be liable for all costs, including Gawker’s attorney costs.
Beans and rice, and ramen noodles for a few years to come, sonny.
Meanwhile, Johnson has been replaying with Facebook his broken romance with Twitter. After at least three suspensions for violating the Twitter TOS, the service kicked him to the curb over Memorial Day weekend. Today, Facebook suspended Johnson’s personal page at least twice, and yanked his GotNewsDotCom page entirely — for (you guessed it) violating Facebook’s TOS.
Words. They have meaning.
UPDATE: Hot on the heels of the Gawker motion to deny the deadline extension, John C. “Quick Draw” Burns (sometimes known as Jonathon) filed another plea to extend the deadline to — get this — Saturday, October 17. Previously, he had asked for a delay to Oct. 16.
So he’s asking for another extension on top of the one he’s already asked for.
Burns also denies there is any conspiracy to obtain information by improper means, and whines that he’s just a one-man show with help from another lawyer, and they have been “craftily” organizing their response. So, they need more time. Pretty please, with sugar on top. [See details below the Gawker motion.]
In the course of his attempts to wangle some imaginary Gawker memos from former Gawker staffer Adam Weinstein last week, Johnson said he didn’t really need Weinstein’s reluctant help, because he had what he needed — memos that were damaging to Gawker’s defense.
In fact, those memos were as substantial as smoke in the wind. Johnson’s source was another blogger who was trolling him by pretending to have been briefly an editor-in-chief of Gawker.
In July, K. Thor Jensen pretended to have taken over the helm at Gawker, tweeting stuff like “Excited to share my second post as editor-in-chief of @Gawker.” Jensen was never an editor at Gawker; he was just having some fun at Gawker’s expense.
Well, a certain high-IQ Award Winning Journalist™ found those tweets and asked Jensen if he had access to editorial memos that would help Johnson’s case. Jensen played along, giving the keen-minded Johnson the impression that there were two physical binders of rules and regulations on every Gawker desk. As “former editor,” Jensen did not have those imaginary binders anymore, but promised Johnson he’d look for his notes about them as soon as his son’s big tae kwon do tournament was over.
Johnson offered to pay him money for the memos [he listed specific kinds he “knew” existed] or any information about them, as he had earlier offered Weinstein.
Hoooooly shit. At this point I knew I was dealing with a true madman. As anybody who has ever worked for any kind of reputable media organization or third-tier Internet gossip blog knows, the idea that memos of this type would exist is absolutely ludicrous. But let’s roll with it, shall we? … it was plainly obvious that Johnson was gullible enough to fall for anything that painted Gawker Media as a cartoon terrorist organization.
Jensen’s ruse ended after Johnson’s Friday (10/9) deadline passed and Johnson stopped communicating with Jensen.
In case it’s not obvious, offering to pay money for exculpatory evidence from someone is improper, as is threatening to sue someone (Weinstein) if they didn’t cooperate. Johnson apparently did both, and these are the “improper means” mentioned in Gawker’s most recent motion. You can read the whole thing below.
And the response from John/Jonathon C. Burns (whom everyone knows as “Nancy”):