He’s going to court without a lawyer, which is always always always a bad idea (I wish that weren’t the case but it is a fact);
He’s tried to claim he doesn’t own or operate the business in question;
His defenses are spaghetti thrown at the wall:
His defenses include fair use, invalid copyrights, a lack of standing, fraudulent inducement, an arbitration clause, failure to state a claim, and unjust enrichment.
Many of these (in fact, all but the arbitration clause; that’s probably from their TOS but won’t save him) are SovCit arguments and simply do not apply. They’re going to be dismantled in seconds in court, and I know that with at best a slightly-better-than-layperson understanding of the law. This guy is going to get thoroughly Bowser’d.
Pro se parties often get a more relaxed interpretation of their arguments because they can’t be expected to know everything about the law unlike an attorney. If there’s a chance that any of those arguments has merit then the judge will allow it.
Based on what?
Many of these (in fact, all but the arbitration clause; that’s probably from their TOS but won’t save him) are SovCit arguments and simply do not apply. They’re going to be dismantled in seconds in court, and I know that with at best a slightly-better-than-layperson understanding of the law. This guy is going to get thoroughly Bowser’d.
Pro se parties often get a more relaxed interpretation of their arguments because they can’t be expected to know everything about the law unlike an attorney. If there’s a chance that any of those arguments has merit then the judge will allow it.