Apparently Joshua tried to post this response at Rogers' website in the comment section, but it is still sitting awaiting moderation. So today Joshua posted his response in my comment thread, so I thought I'd go ahead and post them here as a new post to give them greater visibility. Joshua confirms what I wrote about here, that indeed whether the judge rules Caner must pay Autry's legal fees or not, the case is STILL a pro-bono case - despite what Tim Rogers thinks.
Joshua Autry is one of the heroes in this ugly Caner saga. As I learned firsthand back in 2010 to 2012 - and Jonathan Autry has learned - these "Holy Men of God" who decide to go after the little guy who dares to publicly criticize them, is they actually think God is on THEIR side. They can't see their tactics as abusive - because they think their efforts to aggressively pursue and punish a critic is to defend God and do God's will. They think God will give them victory, because, well, they are the "Man of God". Then they realize when it is all over and the dust settles, that God wasn't on their side and they ran into an unexpected buzz saw. Ergun Caner and his lawyer thought they would bully and intimidate Jonathan Autry into submission - and instead, they had their hat handed to them by one Joshua Autry.
Thank you, Joshua Autry, for doing God's work in defending your brother pro-bono from Ergun Caner's frivolous lawsuit. Religious bloggers and defenders of free speech everywhere owe you a debt of gratitude.
" Most of your criticisms of me and my brother are fully addressed in my brief filed with the motion for attorney fees, which involves an in-depth look at Ergun’s true motives (suppressing criticism and removing misstatements from the internet), Ergun’s unreasonable legal posturing, and the reasonableness of my time in the case. It is available here. Reading this would likely correct your incorrect views about my brother.
I write here to address them head-on. First, Jonathan is not suing Ergun Caner. I have filed this motion asking the Court to reimburse my current firm and former law firm for the time that the firms have allowed me, an associate, to work on his case. Almost all of the fees will go to the firm I used to work for to reimburse the firm for allowing me to work on the case instead of requiring me to work on other cases with clients who pay. I am gracious that both firms permitted me to work on the case, and I do believe that they should be rewarded for doing so.
Jonathan will not see a dime of an attorney fee award. Under the Copyright Act, generally speaking, the losing party has to pay the winner’s attorney fees. Although Jonathan had no choice, Ergun chose to file a frivolous lawsuit knowing this risk and continued to assert his nonsense legal positions for almost a year now knowing that he will pay attorney fees when he loses.
Second, my representation is still pro bono because I never charged my brother for my services, nor would I have if my brother lost. My filing of a fee petition against Dr. Caner does not affect this at all. If the court reduces my fees or awards no fees at all, my brother will not receive a bill for even a fraction of an hour. This is a common practice of many Christian legal organizations, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, of which I am a member and have worked with on numerous cases to protect the rights of Christians. If you think this is unethical, then you have a fundamental disagreement with every Christian legal organization that I know.
As far as the amount of time I put in the case, it was necessary due to the multitude of issues presented. Ergun initially filed in Texas (a state without jurisdiction) and refused to transfer to Virginia until after I had to get admitted in Texas by motion, file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and a motion to transfer—all of which had to be researched before written. All of this time was wasted due to Ergun’s unreasonableness.
I also had to address more issues than fair use (what the judge ruled on). For example, I addressed whether Ergun has any rights to videos produced by the military and released under the Freedom of Information Act, whether Ergun waived his rights to the videos, whether Ergun can seek attorney fees at all when he didn’t apply for a copyright until after the videos were removed from the internet, and whether Ergun can seek any relief without proving that Jonathan would ever repost the videos. Because Jonathan could not afford to hire a copyright attorney, he was stuck with me (a civil rights attorney). As a civil rights attorney, I had to research every single one of these issues for the first time.
Finally, Ergun has repeatedly shown and expressed through his counsel that he does not care about protecting his so-called “copyright” for the purpose of generating revenue. For example, the way copyright actions typically go is that a person or business sues to protect their ability to generate profit because, if someone makes the work freely available, it makes it harder to sell. So, if I post an entire season of 24 on YouTube, it would be harder for Fox to sell DVDs to people what they can see online. From the beginning, Ergun has not sought to sell the lectures in question; rather, he sought to remove the lectures from public view because they expose clear false statements. This would be like George Allen suing the person who posted the “macaca” video online without his permission. Not only does such litigation seek to stifle criticism, it seeks to remove works from public view, which is precisely the opposite of the purpose of the Copyright Act."