Steven Greer wins legal move against Tucker Carlson

This post has been read 1370 times!

October 14, 2020- by Steven E. Greer

My lawsuit against Tucker Carlson, Fox, News Corp, et al, Greer v. Carlson 20-CV-5484, is proceeding very quickly. The judges are taking this seriously.

Today, I won a crucial motion allowing me to start jurisdictional discovery. That is a rarely used tool that happens long before normal full discovery takes place.

In a nutshell, Carlson argued that I lacked subject matter jurisdiction because I could not use the diversity qualification for subject matter. He claimed that he lived in Florida, like me. I doubted it and asked to do proper discovery.

This is interesting because Tucker Carlson sold his home in DC to evade protestors. He then began filming his show from a house in Maine. Now, he claims he lives in Florida.

Here is the judge’s opinion.

The next shoe to drop will be the opinion on whether or not I can get a default judgment against Tucker Carlson’s head writer, Blake Neff, who failed to bother to respond to the complaint. I got a certificate of default judgment on him. Then, he suddenly appeared and tried to get the default vacated. Stay tuned.

Update September 8, 2022- I appealed the magistrate decision from June of 2021 that dismissed key causes of action. I did not want to be left with just a pure defamation case. My main beef was with Tucker Carlson for stealing my ideas.

There was a slim chance that the judge would overrule her magistrate. I knew that. I wanted this to be able to go to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. As expected, the judge did not agree with my appeal of the magistrate report. So, it looks like I am heading back to the 2d. Cir.

This is what I found important from the ruling. No judge in this case has ever questioned the underlying merits. No one doubts that Tucker Carlson stole my ideas. They dismissed the case based on a legal technicality. I highly suspect the court does not want to set a hugely important precedent in copyright law based on a pro se litigant.

Regarding that “copyright preemption” matter, the judge ignored my argument, which means they know I am right. I intentionally did not use copyright law for my causes of action but the court claims I should have (i.e., the preemption). Well, in 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that it would be impossible for me to use copyright law because I did not register my content. So, it is circular logic for this lower court to say I should have used copyright law when the SCOTUS ruled I am not allowed.

I will take this to the Supreme Court, again, if I have to.