Tim Rogers Says Judge Norman K. Moon Should Have Recused Himself from Caner's Lawsuit - Gives No Evidence for Such a Claim

I knew it would not take long for one of Caner's defenders - that is to say Peter Lumpkins and Tim Rogers - to call into question Judge Norman K. Moon's impartiality in the Ergun Caner lawsuit. We can now add to the list of those who have it in for Ergun Caner: Calvinists, bloggers, Muslims - and now impartial federal judges.

Yesterday Tim Rogers - pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Indian Trail, NC -  posted a blog article in which he made some of the most ridiculous assertions concerning Ergun Caner's lawsuits, one of them being that the judge who threw out Caner's lawsuit was not impartial. In the comment section of the blog, Tim Rogers writes:

"Also, the judge should have recused himself because he has a history with LU and seemingly has some issues with them.... Just do the background research on the judge. No, no one issued Motion to Recuse. I never said that. I simply placed information out there that any paralegal can research and find." Tim Rogers here and here.

Really, Tim? Why didn't you mention the judge's name? His name is the Honorable Norman K. Moon. What "background research" should we do? Why didn't Ergun Caner or his lawyer do this background research and ask for the judge to recuse himself? Did Ergun Caner email you to give you some secret information that points to Judge Moon not being capable of impartiality in this case?

I took Tim up on his challenge and did a Google search of "Judge Norman K Moon Liberty University" and found that 3 1/2 years ago Judge Moon did dismiss a lawsuit brought by Liberty University challenging the constitutionality of the new health care law. Is that the "issue", Tim? Do you care to let us know, Tim? I'm sure Judge Moon would love to read from one of Caner's ardent supporters why he should have recused himself, as he prepares to make his decision on Jon Autry's request to collect legal fees and costs from Ergun Caner.

By the way, I know something about judge recusals. Judges are quick to recuse themselves when they find even the slightest fact in the case that might call into question their ability to fairly judge the case. In my lawsuit - the one that Rogers references in his blog post - the judge who was assigned the case offered to recuse himself when he discovered the close connection and involvement of his close friend and judges' chamber-mate Judge A.C. Soud had to the facts of my case. The judge was almost apologetic about not recusing himself earlier, but he had no idea about Judge Soud's involvement in the case until he read some of the case documents and testimony generated during discovery. When we were in the judge's chambers for a hearing on the case and he explained his close personal relationship with Judge Soud, my jaw hit the floor and I took the judge up on his offer to recuse himself. I found it very strange that A.C. Soud himself didn't brief his friend about his connection to the case much earlier - but that is another story.

So I find it absolutely hilarious that Caner sycophant Tim Rogers would call into question the Judge Moon's impartiality, especially considering that TWO judges threw out Caner's copyright lawsuits. But this is what Rogers and Lumpkins do - they are willing to smear honorable men to defend the indefensible. Perhaps Tim is looking into a coordinated conspiracy between Judge Moon and Judge Terry Means, the federal judge who tossed Caner's similar lawsuit against Jason Smathers.

But thank you, Judge Moon, for your detailed and fair and just decision, especially those words below:

"Plaintiff’s counsel made astounding claims during the hearing that discovery would affect the fair use analysis by showing that Defendant was not 'qualified' to direct 'appropriate criticism' at Plaintiff, unlike 'people that are qualified to render those opinions i[n] the market place and exchange of ideas in academia and elsewhere', and therefore Defendant could not assert the fair use defense.
.....
The First Amendment’s protections, advanced by the fair use defense, have never applied to some bizarre oligarchy of ‘qualified’ speakers. Excluding speakers who criticize public figures from protection due to the speaker’s social status, level of education or other nebulous ‘qualifying’ factors would nullify the broad protections the First Amendment is meant to provide and stifle the open discourse that stands against tyranny, intolerance and oppression. Plaintiff himself has extolled the virtues of these protections and warned against the dangers of censorship and 'misinformation'...Conveniently, when criticism is directed at him, Plaintiff comes before this Court and argues that it should restrict First Amendment fair use protection to some amorphous group of 'qualified' speakers."