Plaintiff Reply to Docket 48 Court Order. Appears To Give Defendants Power To Alter Amount Sued For!
0(THIS VIDEO CONTAINS AUDIO COMMENTARY THROUGOUT. YOU MAY NEED TO ADJUST YOUR VOLUME.)
Why is the judge stalling? If the assigned judge truly believed the Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim succeeded, my lawsuit would have been dismissed on that basis. Instead, the judge files a court order for Subject Matter Jurisdiction Briefs to be filed by all parties. If the judge truly believed I failed in proving Subject Matter Jurisdiction, my lawsuit would have been dismissed on that basis. NOW THE JUDGE FILES A COURT ORDER REQUIRING ALL PARTIES TO FILE STATEMENTS PROVING ACTUAL LOST AD REVENUE AMOUNTS THAT PUTS CONTROL IN THE HANDS OF THE DEFENDANTS TO DICTATE ANY AMOUNT THE DEFENDANTS SO CHOOSE THAT CAN POTENTIALLY ALTER THE DIRECTION OF MY LAWSUIT.
I honestly believe the assigned judge created this court order to give the Defendants the opportunity to dictate any amount in actual lost ad revenue share(s) allegedly lost by the Plaintiff in order for the judge to pre-determine and change the amount I, the Pro se Plaintiff, am suing the Defendants for in order to make a final ruling to dismiss my lawsuit without prejudice to have my lawsuit moved from Federal Court to State Court.
THIS IS ANOTHER DISPLAY OF DISGUSTING PERCEIVABLE BIAS BY THE ASSIGNED JUDGE DUE TO THE JUDGE KNOWING VERY WELL THAT I CANNOT PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION AND SUBMIT AN HONEST AMOUNT AND KNOWS I WILL HAVE TO SOLELY RELY ON THE DEFENDANTS INFORMATION WHICH I REJECT IMMEDIATELY DUE TO SUING THE DEFENDANTS. I BELIEVE THE DEFENDANTS WILL ABSOULUTELY NOT SUBMIT HONEST INFORMATION BECAUSE IT WILL NOT BE BENEFICIAL TO THE DEFENDANTS WHEN IT APPEARS TO BE THE GOAL OF THE DEFENDANTS AND ASSIGNED JUDGE TO HAVE MY LAWSUIT DISMISSED ON ANY GROUNDS WHATSOEVER AND CURRENTLY IT SEEMS THE JUDGE IS REACHING FAR AND WIDE FOR AN EXCUSE TO REMOVE MY LAWSUIT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS FROM FEDERAL COURT.
THIS IS WHY I HAVE FULL INTENTIONS ON FILING AN APPEAL FOR ANY FINAL JUDGMENTS TO DISMISS HANDED DOWN BY JP STADTMUELLER.
NOW you can fully understand why I prepared my appeal papers shortly after filing my lawsuit against the Defendants. No matter how sound and truthful my presented arguments are, the assigned judge refuses to accept anything I have to say or submit to the Clerk of Court and accepts anything filed and stated by the Defendants!
FEEL FREE TO LEAVE A COMMENT.
[Video Time Stamps]
0:00 Page 1 of 2 of Reply to Docket #48 Court Order.
1:05 Page 1 of 2 of Reply to Docket #48 Court Order. "This court order appears to be a ploy..."
1:46 Page 1 of 2 of Reply to Docket #48 Court Order. Comparing the assigned judge's statements between Dockets #31 and #48
2:29 Page 1 of 2 of Reply to Docket #48 Court Order. Reaffirming my stance on Punitive Damages being awarded under Wisconsin law.
3:02 Page 2 of 2 of Reply to Docket #48 Court Order. Plaintiff's reaffirmation and stance on all filings and briefs submitted in opposition to the Defendants and assigned judge.
4:04 Page 2 of 2 of Reply to Docket #48 Court Order. Three current issues the assigned judge keeps piling on, stagnating the progress of the Plaintiff's lawsuit ultimately stalling before rendering a decision that may or may not lead to an appeal filed by the Plaintiff.
4:37 Page 2 of 2 of Reply to Docket #48 Court Order. Motions filed by the Plaintiff that went unanswered by the assigned judge.
5:15 Page 2 of 2 of Reply to Docket #48 Court Order. Plaintiff's reaffirmation and strong stance on filing an appeal if Plaintiff is denied
demand for a jury trial and lawsuit is dismissed.
6:13 Page 2 of 2 of Reply to Docket #48 Court Order. Plaintiff's 3rd Amended Complaint rejected. "A Parent Company cannot be held liable for its subsidiaries actions." Upon my own research, I agreed with the Defendants regarding only this issue and filed a 3rd Amended Complaint removing Alphabet Inc. but was forced to re-add Alphabet Inc. as a Defendant due to the Court's rejection. NOW if the Defendants actually file a motion to dismiss Alphabet Inc. as a Defendant, how is the assigned judge going to explain that I removed Alphabet Inc., priorly, based on the Defendants Proposed Statement of Facts for Alphabet Inc., if the judge decides to remove Alphabet Incorporated based on the Defendants motion?
6:41 Attachment 1 of 1. Proof 3rd Amended Complaint via Court Order Docket #48. There is an error stating rejection of 2nd Amended Complaint but it appears someone wasn't paying attention while typing up the decision.
6:45 Proof of judge's intention for ordering Actual Lost Ad Revenue Statements to be filed by all parties that will or may lead to Plaintiff's lawsuit being dismissed from Federal Court in an attempt to have the lawsuit moved to and decided by State Court. (DEFINITE CAUSE FOR AN APPEAL!)
6:50 My personal opinion on the True Intentions for the Docket #48 Court Order. (Closed Captions Provided)
9:25 Thanks for Watching, Listening and Reading! (Outgoing Message)