{"id":68524,"date":"2016-10-21T08:01:06","date_gmt":"2016-10-21T12:01:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=68524"},"modified":"2016-12-09T21:22:34","modified_gmt":"2016-12-10T02:22:34","slug":"the-ongoing-legal-battles-with-dan-bernath","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=68524","title":{"rendered":"The ongoing legal battles with Dan Bernath"},"content":{"rendered":"

Obviously we haven\u2019t written about this much lately, for two good reasons.\u00a0\u00a0 1) The dude revels in the attention and 2) he takes comments that you all make, and then tries to sue you guys, and\/or hold us responsible for comments under some sort of asinine conspiracy theory\/RICO Act or Gang Statute.\u00a0 So let this serve as your warning, if you comment with something stupid, he\u2019s likely to add you to the lawsuits, and you really don\u2019t want that.<\/p>\n

And just how many cases are we talking about? The following Bernath-filed lawsuits or complaints all deal with the same or overlapping parties or fact allegations:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. A pending case filed by the Plaintiff, Daniel A. Bernath, in the US District Court, Middle District of Florida, on June 16, 2015 (Daniel A. Bernath v. Mark Cameron Seavey, Case No. 2:15-CV-00358-FtM-99CM);<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n
    1. A pending case filed by the Plaintiff, Daniel A. Bernath, in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Lee County, Florida, on December 28,2015 (Daniel A. Bernath v. YouTube LLC, et al.. Case No. 15-CA- 3259). The case was involuntarily dismissed by the court with leave to amend, which the Plaintiff subsequently abused. A motion for dismissal with prejudice is pending before the court;<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
        \n
      1. A pending case filed by the Plaintiff, Daniel A. Bernath, in the US District Court, Middle District of Florida, on January 25,2016 (Bernath v. YouTube LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00040-JES-CM);<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
          \n
        1. A pending case filed by the Plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 16,2016 (Bernath v. Extreme Seal Experience LLC, et al.. Case No. 2:16-cv-185);<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
            \n
          1. A pending case filed by the Plaintiff in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt Division) on April 14, 2016 (Bernath v. YouTube LLC, et al., Case No. 8:16-mc-00302);<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
              \n
            1. A case filed by the Plaintiff, Daniel A. Bernath, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on June 6, 2016 (Bernath v. Extreme Seal Experience LLC, et al., Case No. JKB-19-1992). The case was involuntarily dismissed by the Court on August 26, 2016;<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                \n
              1. A case filed by the Plaintiff, Daniel A. Bernath, in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Lee County, Florida, on June 20, 2014 (Bernath v. Hoey, et al., Case No. 14-CA-1838). The case was voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff on October 2, 2014;<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                  \n
                1. A case filed by Dan R. Hyatt against the Plaintiff, Daniel A. Bernath, in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, wherein the Plaintiff filed a cross-claim against The American Legion and Mark Cameron Seavey, as well as other defendants, on July 14, 2014 (Hyatt v. Bernath, Case No. 1401-00633). The case was involuntarily dismissed by the court on October 6, 2014;<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                    \n
                  1. A case filed by the Plaintiff, Daniel A. Bernath, in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Lee County, Florida, on November 13, 2015 (Bernath v. Donald Shipley, Case No. 15-DR-032430). The case was involuntarily dismissed by the Court on January 26, 2016;<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                      \n
                    1. A case filed by the Plaintiff, Daniel A. Bernath, in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Lee County, Florida, on November 13, 2015 (Bernath v. Diane Blazer Shipley, Case No. 15-DR-032431). The case was involuntarily dismissed by the Court on January 26, 2016;<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                        \n
                      1. A case filed by the Plaintiff, Daniel A. Bernath, in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Lee County, Florida, on March 2,2016 (Bernath v. Donald Shipley, Case No. 16-DR-030409). The case was involuntarily dismissed by the court on March 2, 2016;<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                          \n
                        1. A pending complaint filed by the Plaintiff, Daniel A. Bernath, to The Florida Bar on or around July 22, 2016, against Mark C. Seavey for unlicensed practice of law;<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                            \n
                          1. A pending complaint filed by the Plaintiff, Daniel A. Bernath, to the Judicial Qualifications Commission of the State of Florida on or about July 15,2016, against Circuit Court Judge Elizabeth V. Krier (Docket No. 16-288 Krier).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                            Mind you this list doesn\u2019t even include the plethora of attempted restraining orders that haven\u2019t worked, attempts to have law enforcement do stuff to us, complaints against me to the Indiana Bar, his alleged Bar complaints against my attorneys, and just his general nuisance making.\u00a0 (Like whoever *cough* has made random repeated complaints to child protective services that I was strapping my then 4 month child to the dog.)\u00a0 Oh, let\u2019s not forget his disbarment.<\/p>\n

                            Now, bear in mind that all told his success rate is exactly 0.00 percent.\u00a0 He has not succeeded on even one motion.\u00a0 But that was never his goal, as he made clear in an email sent on June 28th<\/sup>:<\/p>\n

                             <\/p>\n

                            On Tue, 6\/28\/16, Daniel Bernath <[Redacted]> wrote:<\/p>\n

                            Subject: RE: American Legion threats of murder***Criminal complaint against American Legion defendants, Mark Seavey, Jonn LIlyea, Don Shiplety, etc. American Legion attempted murders continue: Meet Confer\/stop trying to kill me\/ postpone hearings till Plaintiff hi
                            \nTo: “‘Jonn Lilyea'” <[Redacted]>,[Redacted, but it was Wittgenfeld]
                            \nCc: “I. M. M. I. eXpose’ American Legion Vigilantes Unmasked” <immiexpose@americanlegion.is>
                            \nDate: Tuesday, June 28, 2016, 1:13 PM<\/p>\n

                             <\/p>\n

                            It is not about winning motions (Shipley faces trial in 4 states).\u00a0 It is about stopping you. (by the way, the Court of Appeal will overturn the set aside of Shipley’s stating that he will ignore the lawsuit as a litigation tactic…Shipley has that appeal to lose in the future)<\/p>\n

                            Whats our score card?<\/p>\n

                            TSO shuts the fuck up for fear he will have his additional words shoved up his ass\u2026..the courts are just another tool.\u00a0 Free for us.\u00a0 Expensive for you with the additional risk that you’ll lose everything. 0 for 40. Nah.\u00a0 You lost.\u00a0 We won.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

                             <\/p>\n

                            Now, I don\u2019t want to make this blog posting 8,000 words long, but I did want to defend myself in a public forum on some of the fabricated claims these guys are making about me on their various websites. At one point we were tracking about 7 websites, but they keep getting shut down.\u00a0\u00a0 They still post to some Web Apps page, and they have thisainthell.is but that\u2019s basically it. DO NOT GO TO<\/strong> thisainthell.is or at least not without recognizing that it is literally full on gay porn. Literally. They seem to have a fascination with it. But you don\u2019t want to go there, there\u2019s nothing particularly relevant about their ramblings.<\/p>\n

                            They are claiming in court documents and emails that they don\u2019t run those sites.\u00a0 Luckily for us, they didn\u2019t know what they were doing when they set it up, so we have all the proof we will need it is them.\u00a0 Not going to lay on more than that so they can close the loophole, but trust me, their setting up websites was done with the expertise we\u2019ve come to expect from them.<\/p>\n

                            But I did want to answer some of the allegations Bernath is making about me.\u00a0 I was just going to let the legal system do it for me, but it\u2019s taking damn near forever, as it does, so I am going to pick some gems out of his latest filing, and just tell the truth, so you can see the nonsense I need to deal with.<\/p>\n

                            BERNATHIAN concoction:<\/strong><\/p>\n

                            Defendants have admitted that they tormented six veterans to suicide\u2026.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

                            But, my Legion is comprised of some highly trained killers who miss the excitement of combat and look for the thrill by tormenting victims to death like Ike Densmore and Jerome Andronsky and me. Obviously mentally ill Veteran Andronsky killed himself with a shotgun in his mother\u2019s home on a military base after the Legion\u2019s mercilessly tormenting him. <\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

                            The number alternates, often in the same filing between three veterans who Bernath claims we\u2019ve forced to suicide, and six.\u00a0 The only ones ever mentioned by name are Densmore and Androsky.\u00a0 Now, the problem for Bernath here is that he\u2019s filing this in a copyright, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional of distress case against the American Legion and me, personally.\u00a0 I don\u2019t believe I\u2019ve ever written about Densmore.\u00a0 I could be wrong, I might have left a comment or something, but I can\u2019t even find that.\u00a0 As far as I know, I had never even heard of the guy until after<\/strong> he killed himself.\u00a0 And he killed himself only after a TV station did an entire story about his lies.\u00a0 I do know it had nothing to do with me, and certainly nothing to do with the Legion.\u00a0 Plus, again, it has absolutely nothing to do with a copyright infringement or the other issues in our litigation.<\/p>\n

                            Androsky (Bernath uses \u201cAndronsky\u201d for some reason), as far as we can tell, didn\u2019t even commit suicide.\u00a0 According to what we\u2019ve been told he passed away from acute heart failure, not a shotgun blast.\u00a0 He fought a lifetime of addiction to drugs which ended up killing him, not our blog.<\/p>\n

                            But even assuming you count those two.\u00a0 Who is the other one (or four)?\u00a0 Where did numbers come from?\u00a0 We\u2019ll probably never know, because this has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.\u00a0 One thing I do know, Bernath can\u2019t point to anything I\u2019ve ever written where I admitted to \u201ctorment[ing] six veterans to suicide.\u201d \u00a0The only time I discuss suicide is when it was a person in my unit, and that\u2019s something I deal with on a personal level.\u00a0 It\u2019s certainly not something I would joke about or take credit for.<\/p>\n

                             <\/p>\n

                            BERNATHIAN concoction:<\/strong><\/p>\n

                            Mark Seavey has been found guilty of being a sexual predator by Maryland judge Patricia Mitchell on 03\/20\/2015\u2026.<\/em><\/strong> As Mark Seavey is a convicted sexual predator, of course his employment would be closely scrutinized.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

                            In fact, no, not even close.\u00a0 This is a reference to the restraining order that Karen Williams got against me.\u00a0 As the judge in that case made ABUNDANTLY clear even in agreeing to the restraining order, I never went near Ms. Williams, never spoke to her, never called her, and the only email sent to her was one where I \u201creplied to all\u201d on an email from her husband wherein he was threatening me.\u00a0 In short, I couldn\u2019t be a sexual predator, as I\u2019d never met, seen, talked to, or to my knowledge, been within 50 miles of her.<\/p>\n

                            But let\u2019s back up anyway.\u00a0 A restraining order hearing is a civil hearing, not a criminal one.\u00a0 Any first year law student knows that.\u00a0 And people are not found \u201cguilty\u201d in a civil hearing.\u00a0 The restraining order was granted for third-party comments that made Ms. Williams *fear* something might happen.\u00a0 Not only did I not write them, I didn\u2019t even know about most of them.<\/p>\n

                            We immediately appealed because federal law says that interactive website companies and blogs are immune from comments made by third parties.\u00a0\u00a0 That appeal would have been heard in late July of last year, but Ms. Williams failed to appear and the entire restraining order was VACATED.\u00a0 Which means all this nonsense isn\u2019t true in any way, shape or form.<\/p>\n

                            BERNATHIAN concoction:<\/strong><\/p>\n

                            Mark Seavey, using the American Legion website and using the facilities of the nat\u2019l headquarters of American Legion, <\/em><\/strong>https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=32505<\/em><\/strong><\/a> posted child pornography and Mark Seavey put such evidence of his crimes into this Court\u2019s file as evidence.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

                            If you go to the link he puts in there, and I\u2019m going to assume you are rational, you will discover two things: 1) it is not child pornography, and 2) they were WWII recruiting posters, made by the US Government.\u00a0 On top of that, Bernath adds this graphic (deleted).<\/p>\n

                            \"B1\"<\/a><\/p>\n

                            He has pictures in there that aren\u2019t in that post, and he\u2019s inserted a computer disc with my name and \u201cchild porn collection.\u201d\u00a0 Now, where did that picture originate?\u00a0 From his own website, the now defunct \u201cA Special Day Guide.\u201d\u00a0 Again, none of this has anything to do with copyright infringement or our cases, he\u2019s just trying to make me look bad.<\/p>\n

                            Which brings me to his other allegation of child porn.\u00a0 At one point a commenter got very upset with Bernath and said something dumb.\u00a0 I don\u2019t really fault him for it, because Bernath is a master of poking the bear.\u00a0 This commenter allegedly said something about Bernath\u2019s adult daughter, and something he would do on her picture.\u00a0 Bernath uses this against me all the time.\u00a0 There are of course problems with that theory as well, not the least of which being 1) I never saw the comment itself, it was deleted and replaced with an apology before I was even aware of it, and 2) Bernath\u2019s daughter isn\u2019t even close to being a minor.<\/p>\n

                             <\/p>\n

                            BERNATHIAN concoction:<\/strong><\/p>\n

                            Defendant Mark Seavey has stated in his publications on the internet that (1) he masturbated with minor Australians, (2) that he was \u201cchronic\u201d in his masturbations when he was in the war zone, purportedly protecting our country and (3) that as a sergeant he permitted his men to masturbate in all 26 guard towers, rather than do his duty as their supervisor to make them watch for the enemy to protect the sleeping troops instead of looking at pornographic magazines. This is what Mark Seavey wrote-not me. <\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

                            In fact, not one of those things is true.\u00a0 His source on this is Media Matters, so some back story may help elucidate a bit.\u00a0 When I returned from Afghanistan I was in a closed (not public) forum with other veterans and veteran supporters who were conservatives.\u00a0 We talked about a lot of things.\u00a0 The proverbial locker room talk (I know this is a bad time to use that reference) if you will.\u00a0 Anyway, at one point there was some fight between two administrators and one made the forum public, and everyone got angry, and then it got deleted entirely.\u00a0 Somewhere in that week, Media Matters grabbed some things I had purportedly said, because I had been in the news for the Murtha thing.\u00a0 The problem is that some of the stuff they grabbed was not even me.\u00a0 So at the time I wrote to them and said I would own up to what I said, but some of the stuff is inaccurate.\u00a0 To their credit, they did correct some of it, and they moved the whole thing to a different page.\u00a0 I wrote again letting them know it was still wrong but never heard back.\u00a0 But being attacked by Media Matters sounded fine with me.<\/p>\n

                            But to the actual allegations from Bernath.\u00a0 Again, he has misquotes from a third party, which makes it hearsay anyway, which is why I\u2019ll never get to defend this stuff in court.<\/p>\n

                            As for Aussies, I have no idea what the hell he is talking about.\u00a0 I did work with some SAS guys at one point (we were co-located for something.)\u00a0 At the time the big thing in Australia was a play called \u201cPuppetry of the Penis.\u201d\u00a0 If you haven\u2019t met SAS guys, they are AWESOME, and a bit out there.\u00a0 But, and I cannot stress this enough, I never masturbated with anyone, not Australian or anyone else, and why would there be minors in a war zone?\u00a0 That doesn\u2019t even make sense.<\/p>\n

                            The second thing about \u201cchronic\u201d is I actually have no memory of saying it.\u00a0 I am purported to say \u201cwe were chronic over there.\u201d\u00a0 That actually sounds viable, as any Joe deployed would tell you.\u00a0 But by \u201cwe\u201d I meant the US Military in general, not me specifically.\u00a0 And why would it have bearing on anything anyway?<\/p>\n

                            The third thing, about permitting my men to masturbate in towers is beyond idiotic, as is the thing about doing it in all 26.\u00a0 I know one guy who did accomplish that feat, and he wasn\u2019t in my squad, and I had no authority over him.\u00a0 And I didn\u2019t know he\u2019d done it until he announced it at the end.\u00a0 No one took pornographic magazines into the towers that I am aware of, they weren\u2019t even allowed in theater (although they were there), and we did full inspections before going out on shift.<\/p>\n

                            Besides which, I was only a sergeant of the guard on towers for like 6 weeks.\u00a0 And during that time there were no major attacks on the base, and certainly none that came about as a result of the troops not being adequately attentive.<\/p>\n

                            None of this has ANY bearing on a copyright claim or our cases, but it is him trying to somehow embarrass me.\u00a0 Well, epic fail.<\/p>\n

                             <\/p>\n

                            Two other things that actually come from other documents, and then I\u2019ll start to wrap this up:<\/p>\n

                            BERNATHIAN concoction:<\/strong> (From a filing on 10\/11\/16)<\/p>\n

                            \"B2\"<\/a><\/p>\n

                            No, no, he is not a licensed lawyer anymore. He has been disbarred from California, was denied entry in the Oregon bar, and as a disbarred attorney he is no longer allowed to represent claimants before the VA.<\/p>\n

                            Here is the VA Accreditation of Bernath, LINK HERE<\/a>.<\/p>\n

                            HOWEVER, from the Federal Register<\/a>:<\/p>\n

                            Finally, we amended the regulation to clarify that an agent or attorney must notify VA within 30 days of any change in status in any jurisdiction in which he or she is admitted to practice. This is necessary because\u00a038 U.S.C. 5904(a)(4) prohibits VA from recognizing an agent or attorney who has been suspended or disbarred and VA may not otherwise become aware of the suspension or disbarment until many months after the fact.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

                            Further,<\/p>\n

                            The plain language of section 5904(a)(4) prohibits VA from recognizing an individual as an agent or attorney if such individual has been suspended or disbarred by any court, bar, or Federal or State agency to which the individual was previously admitted to practice and has not been subsequently reinstated. The statute contemplates a situation in which an attorney has not been reinstated after suspension or disbarment because he or she has been deemed ineligible for reinstatement by the admitting authority.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

                            Dan Bernath was officially disbarred on 8\/28\/16<\/a> and per 38 U.S.C 5904 (a)(4) he was directed to notify the Department of Veterans Affairs of this status change within 30 days. It has now been 50 days.<\/p>\n

                            [ON EDIT: \u00a0It looks like he was supposed to notify them even earlier. \u00a0He was declared “Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA” on 9\/28\/15, which means it has now been 388 days since he was suspended, meaning he’s 358 days past due on notifying them.]<\/p>\n

                            The VA helpfully states that:<\/p>\n

                            Complaints regarding unlawful activities, misconduct, or incompetent representation by a VA-accredited individual may be emailed to ogcaccreditationmailbox@va.gov<\/a>, faxed to (202) 273-0197, or mailed to the following address:\u00a0 Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of the General Counsel (022D), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420.\u00a0 Complaints may also include information regarding an accredited individual\u2019s suspension or disbarment by any court, bar, or Federal or State agency to which such individual was previously admitted to practice.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

                            Now look, I could go on fact checking his nonsense for a long time here, and I\u2019m just not going to do it. I literally have 3 ring binders FULL of stuff on him. In fact, we screen shot every single thing that he, Wittgenfeld and Cryer comment on, change or add to any of their websites. Dating all the way back. I\u2019ve got so much evidence it would take a cement truck to transport it to the court room. But I did want to touch on two last things.\u00a0\u00a0 The first is how he always brags about what a great attorney he is. He\u2019s somehow convinced Wittgenfeld that he\u2019s winning all these motions, the court is seeing it his way, and the pot of gold is right around the corner.\u00a0\u00a0 Well, just to show how great an attorney Bernath is, I want to include one footnote from our recent filing, that shows just what a legal genius he is. Warning, this is dry legal stuff, but it shows how many times he\u2019s violated the rules of procedure, and how many times the court told him to stop doing that:<\/p>\n

                            See in the First Lawsuit: this Court\u2019s Order (Doc. 19) at pp. 1-2: \u201cFor Mr. Bernath\u2019s benefit, although he is proceeding pro se in this matter, he still must comply with the Middle District of Florida Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Loren v. Sasser<\/em>, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002) (noting that despite certain leniency afforded pro se parties, they must follow procedures).\u201d; see this Court\u2019s Order (Doc. 30) at p. 1: \u201cA portion of Plaintiff\u2019s Opposition and the Supplement in its entirety subsequently were ordered stricken by the Court for failure to comply with the Local Rules. Doc. 19.\u201d . . . \u201cFN 1 The genesis of Plaintiff\u2019s opposition is that Mr. Mason has been subject to undisclosed disciplinary action. Mr. Mason\u2019s Reply assures the Court that such allegations are false, and that he is not now, nor has been, subject to discipline. Doc. 27.\u201d; see this Court\u2019s Order (Doc. 33) at pp. 1-2: \u201cPlaintiff neither sought nor was permitted leave to file a surreply. Plaintiff previously was cautioned that, although he is proceeding pro se, he still must comply with applicable federal and local rules.1 <\/sup>Doc. 19 at 2. \u2026 Plaintiff\u2019s surreply therefore will be stricken for failure to comply with the Local Rules. Plaintiff previously has had filings stricken by the Court for failure to comply with the Local Rules. See Doc. 19. Plaintiff therefore is cautioned that continued failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in the imposition of sanctions.\u201d \u2026 \u201cFN 1 In the Declaration of Daniel A. Bernath in Opposition to John Mason Appearing Pro Hav [sic] Vice, Plaintiff states, \u201cI am a member of the California Bar, having been admitted nearly 31 years ago. I am also a member of the US District Court Bars for the Central and Northern District and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.\u201d Doc. 14 at 4. Plaintiff therefore should not be a stranger to courts\u2019 expectations that parties follow federal and local rules.\u201d; see this Court\u2019s Order (Doc. 40) at pp. 1-2: \u201cPlaintiff repeatedly has been cautioned that, although proceeding pro se, he still is required to conform to federal and local rules. See, e.g., Doc. 19 at 2; Doc. 33 at 1-2. This now will be the third filing of Plaintiff\u2019s that the Court has stricken for violation of the Local Rules. See also Docs. 19, 33. In the Order striking Plaintiff\u2019s reply, filed without leave of Court, Plaintiff was \u201ccautioned that continued failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in the imposition of sanctions.\u201d Doc. 33 at 2. Despite the cautionary language, Plaintiff again has failed to comply with the Local Rules. The motion therefore will be stricken. Plaintiff again is cautioned that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court\u2019s Local Rules will result in the imposition of sanctions, up to and including the Court recommending that this matter be dismissed for repeated failure to comply with Court orders.<\/strong>\u201d; see this Court\u2019s Order (Doc. 58) at page 3, footnote 3: \u201cPlaintiff is reminded that he initiated this lawsuit and has a duty to comply with the court orders and local rules . . . (\u201cA district court has authority under [Fed. R. Civ. P] 41(b) to [as a sanction of last resort] dismiss actions for failure to comply with local rules.\u201d); and, see this Court\u2019s Order (Doc. 66) at p. 1, FN 1: \u201cOn November 23, 2015, without leave of court and in contravention to M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(c), Plaintiff filed a second response in opposition. Doc. 57. Plaintiff repeatedly has been cautioned by this Court that, although proceeding pro se, he still is required to conform to local rules. See, e.g., Doc. 40 at 1 -2; Doc. 33 at 1 -2, Doc. 19 at 2. The Court, therefore, will not consider Plaintiff\u2019s second opposition (Doc. 57)\u201d; and, see this Court\u2019s Order (Doc. 84) at p. 2: \u201cthis is Plaintiff\u2019s last warning for non-compliance with the federal and local rules; future non-compliant filings may be stricken without further warning.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

                            And the last thing I want to add is a full listing of all the things that Bernath is specifically claiming against me, but elsewhere he makes almost all of these claims against everyone else involved in the various cases, including the Legion. This list isn\u2019t even exhaustive, it is just from one filing. From assassination attempts to IED coconuts to my being a hitman for MS13, the guy just specializes in coming up with Ludlumesque conspiracy theories: \u00a0[Editor’s note, I’ve slightly edited our actual document here so that you get bullets, because the formatting the other way, while accurate for filings, makes it hella hard to read in a blog post.]<\/p>\n

                            \n