In Justin's side lawsuit, where it sure looks like he's trying to silence his critics by suing Tenkar of Tenkar's Tavern, a pre-motion to dismiss was lodged by Tenkar's lawyer.
Justin's lawyer, one Bernard V. Kleinman did not respond well to this and in fact replied with a quick letter requesting time to respond, then a nine page letter which can be summarized as such.
- "My client is definitely the guy in the right, they can't claim he did bad things or anything in my complaint was wrong!"
- "It's really mean and unfair for them to want to dismiss my complaint with first asking if it's okay!"
- "They didn't explain everything and provide a ton of evidence in their three page letter!"
- "I think they should have to follow the same rules as if they were requesting a generic extension."
- "I am like, really, really upset and am comparing them to these authorities with the
- "Because of this, I think they should have to pay my fees!"

This was, definitely, definitely - a bad idea - as highlighted by the same day response from the court that can be summed up as:
- The court has no problem with the pre-motion, since it makes perfect sense on its own merits and is clearly an acceptable response
- The court will accept a maximum three page response, as per the court rules
- The court is not interested in being told what the court rules should be
- The court has granted a three day extension (1 Dec 2022) for Justin's lawyer to try again at making a response to the pre-motion
And it is not hard to see why the did this - in his nine page diatribe that took a week to write, Bernard repeated agrees that they had the right to file a motion while objecting to the fact they filed a Rule 12 Motion.

Essentially his whole argument is that if they wanted to dismiss, they were not allowed to ask for extra time (remember - this is a defendant who's responding to the initial complaint which included... many, many YouTube urls - so a regular person might think that it'll take a while to work out what's going on).
The case that he seems to cite in support of this, Mohsen v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc which seems to be a a case where the plaintiff was dismissed, and he then tried to argue that he should be allowed to get a second try even though the limitation period had passed. Unsurprisingly the court held they would not allow him infinite chances extending past all limitations of law and sanity.
So, because that case exists (and has pretty much no other connection to this) he argues that there should be the (presumably unprecedented) decision that they can have the motion... but the case should go ahead despite the motion to dismiss...

...even though the literal purpose of a Rule 12 Motion is to spare the court the drama of going through a case that cannot succeed.
In a motion to dismiss, the defendant argues that, even if everything you allege in your complaint is true, there are legal defects that require the court to dismiss your complaint (for example, the allegations in your complaint do not state a constitutional violation).
I held off on posting all of this, because I was expecting it'd result in some sort of public reaction on the NuTSR pages... since well, there's really only one response a regular person would make... after this... and well the whole incident when his lawyer filed an action in the wrong court... and advised him to make a submission that incriminated him...

Makes you wonder what attorney-client conversation going on at Justin's end is like. Because it's hard to read an order advising your own lawyer to please go read the court rules he told you he's going to cite, and not suspect that you're in a bad situation.
But someone... it seems like Justin might manage it.
