It seems this should go without
saying, but statements on The Write Agenda blog (see End note) that seem to suggest that the Bauer v. Glatzer case, which was dismissed against remaining
defendants in November 2010, could be re-filed against all defendants (named in the January 2008 Second Amended
Complaint) except for the Wikimedia Foundation—are
false and irresponsible.
The fact that I was one among
several people who were released from the lawsuit in 2008 is solidly supported
(regarding me in particular) by documents of which I now have pdfs. I will
first explain what each pdf file contains, then tell in what order you may read
these to make the most sense of them.
First set of documents
My own motion for summary
judgment I wrote myself, as I was pro se. Here is the first of three pdfs made in 2013 including
part of my MSJ, which I was not able to provide in January 2012.
The first file (beware: 5+ MB!!)
contains a few documents: the main thing is the brief (the substantive
written argument) including “points and authorities.” (Exhibits are not
included.) Before the brief in this first 2013 pdf are a selection of the cover pages comprising
forms that the state provides for legal motions. I include only the “A” forms, which
are (1) an initial cover sheet and (2) a so-called “Certification Regarding
Attempts to Resolve [the Dispute].” One interesting thing about these, on the
second page, is a brief note that I included to meet the requirement to
indicate whether “settlement” efforts went anywhere (of course, in my case, they
didn’t, and per Bauer’s methods, they couldn’t).
The other initial sheets that
are typically included with an MSJ (following the state’s forms), which are
quite routine, are not included in
this first 2013 pdf: the “B” ones (which include a sort of cover sheet introducing a
“certification” of presented facts and arguments for the motion, and a
certification of service to all parties) and the “C” one (the “form of order”
that the judge ordinarily would use to record his or her decision; mine wasn’t
used by the judge, but Bauer’s [from her opposition] was used instead, for the
decision granting the motion in my favor).
Also included, at the end of
this first 2013 pdf package, is a copy of the
judge’s order (using Bauer’s attorney’s form of order) that granted my MSJ. (While showing the court stamp, the copy is
somewhat lacking, with parts cut off; the pdf was made from a second- or
third-generation copy, but the original copy from the court also has edges cut
off a bit.)
Second (and third) set of documents
The second 2013 pdf (a
manageable 455 KB) includes a “Statement
of Material Facts” supporting my MSJ—in New Jersey at least, MSJs require
both this (simply listing facts) and a brief (giving argument). This document
may seem to you to read drily, but actually (in accordance with my own
situation, which involved referring to a large set of relevant facts) it interleaves
pretty neatly with my brief.
Next on the second 2013 pdf is
Bauer’s own “Statement of Material Facts in Dispute,” which her attorney
provided with their own “opposition” to my motion. Their opposition also (as
filed with the court) included Bauer’s personal certification (viewable here, not part of the 2013 pdf at hand), and Bauer’s attorney’s brief
(argument), which is provided in a third 2013 pdf, referred to in the next paragraph. (I think Bauer’s “Statement of
Material Facts” and certification provide about all you need to know in terms
of how little ground she and her attorney had to argue on.) [Note, updated 4/25/13: I provide a link
to a pdf of Bauer’s attorney’s brief supporting her opposition, on which see next paragraph.]
Court rules also allow the
moving party to file an answer to such an opposition. This I did, and... [Update 4/25/13: Here is a link to a pdf of my answer (this is the third 2013 pdf). This same pdf--watch out, ~7 MB file--also has Bauer's attorney's opposition brief after my answer; total file is 27 pages. So, you read his opposition brief, along with her "Statement of Material Facts" and her personal certification; then, you read my answer (earlier in the 7 MB file) in response to their opposition. Be aware: At a local Staples, I dealt with a new guy regarding whom I had some complex but friendly dealings to get the scan done right--low-res, for one thing; and for some reason, the pages came out in the pdf upside-down; even when I pointed this out, and he ended up doing three feedings into the scanner, still it ended up upside-down.... The guy was new (first week), and I don't want his head, but--here's what you can do. If you save this file to your computer (assuming you have a high-speed hookup or don't mind waiting 10 minutes for a download if you have dial-up), and it's then a pdf, you apparently can rotate the file in your Adobe reader. I was able to do this at home, even with relatively old software. Or you can print out the doc. Or you can turn your monitor or viewer upside-down. Or you can stand on your head to read the doc (but don't do this immediately after lunch). Sorry for the inconvenience.]
Also included in my second newly-made 2013 pdf is a copy of an online court record (with date at the bottom
12/31/2008) showing that my motion for Bauer’s covering my costs was granted (a motion I filed after my second MSJ
was granted); and a copy of another online record (dated 11/9/2010) that shows
that Bauer’s suit against the remaining defendants was dismissed in November
2010 “for fail[ure] to follow court rules.” Though the record says this motion
was sought with prejudice (meaning
her suit could not be re-filed), the status was changed to “without prejudice”
by December 2010, and this status was reaffirmed following a motion made in
early 2011 by one of the codefendants, as the motion was denied by the court in
(I believe) March 2011. Thus, in essence, the case remained dismissed, was
still dismissed *without prejudice*, which technically meant it could have been re-filed.
Important to remember: This is not to indicate the culpability of
what codefendants were remaining in the case when it was dismissed in November
2010. Further, any factual representations in my 2008 moving papers concerning
a defendant, which were dignified by the court when my motions were granted by
the court, do not necessarily indicate the culpability of the defendant regarding
any of Bauer’s original lawsuit allegations. It is important to realize my
dismissal was won on a set of facts and argument that were tied closely, as I
felt was appropriate and practically necessary, to a factual nexus that could
easily be proven with hard evidence.
Order in which to read the documents
Though I don’t have pdfs of all
interesting parts of my first MSJ, you can start with what happened to my first MSJ,
which was filed in April 2008 and denied in May 2008. Here is my answer
to Bauer’s opposition to my first MSJ (watch out! Big 22 MB file!), and here is a sequence of court orders
first granting my motion, then vacating the granting (following Bauer’s
attorney’s contacting the court because the judge had granted my motion “on the
papers” on the erroneous assumption the “return date” [hearing date] had already
passed).
Keep in mind that the judge didn’t deny my first MSJ on any explicit
substantive point in Bauer’s opposition, and in fact the judge's order denying my
first MSJ indicates that Bauer’s opposition was merely “received” and not “filed” (this reflects, indirectly, whether the judge found the opposition acceptable in some
formal aspect). Further, my second MSJ in large part, at least with its initial
brief and statement of facts, repeated the points of the first MSJ, with more
subtlety and legal buttressing. (My answer to Bauer’s opposition to this second
MSJ went further than did my MSJ brief to address certain legal questions than
either the first or second MSJ did.)
Now you can read my second MSJ. (1) Some of the cover sheets (including
indicating “settlement attempts”) are in the first 2013 pdf,
and (2) the “Statement of Material
Facts” is in the second 2013 pdf. This would refer to a host
of exhibits I supplied, which are not included in any pdf, partly due to their
volume. Then (3) you read the brief,
which is in the first 2013 pdf. This supplies argument that relates somewhat
point-for-point to the statement of material facts.
(4) Bauer’s attempt to get my second MSJ denied is shown in her
attorney’s statement of facts in dispute (in the second 2013 pdf); (5) her certification is offered in a 2011 pdf. (6) Her brief is in the third 2013 pdf.
(7) My answer to her opposition is in the third 2013 pdf.
(7) My answer to her opposition is in the third 2013 pdf.
(8) The judge’s decision is shown in the first several pages of
this attorney-produced pdf.
(9) The judge’s order granting my MSJ is in the first 2013 pdf; the
second 2013 pdf has (10) an order
showing that my costs were covered (which usually indicates a lawsuit against the
party who wins the coverage of costs was frivolous). The second 2013 pdf also
shows—quite a different matter from what my second MSJ had anything to do with,
and more than two years after my second MSJ was granted—that (11) Bauer’s suit was dismissed against
remaining codefendants.
My answer to Bauer’s opposition to my second
MSJ, along with Bauer’s attorney’s brief that was part of her opposition. My
answer to her opposition—which I am proud of, but which is obviously a legal
layman’s attempt—actually touches on more legal-type considerations than does
my brief enclosed with the second MSJ. Ironically, in the judge’s granting of
my motion, I get the impression the judge, Bette Uhrmacher, relied mainly on my
second MSJ’s brief—I was surprised she didn’t include a nod to any of the
points in my later answer to Bauer’s opposition. Judge Uhrmacher’s decision
seems almost to follow point for point my second MSJ’s brief.
If you’re tired of hearing about
this case, I’m a little tired of rolling out this argument almost five years
after it was made in a court of law, where the judge granted my motion, with
the dismissal of me from the suit being with
prejudice.
End note.
