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."
Wow..so rational...which sadly means poor Pastor Rogers won't understand a word of it...but good try all the same...
I am confused. Is it Smathers or Autry. Two different people or am I suffering double vision?
Why try to reason with people who believe they walk and talk with an invisible friend, that the sun stood still, that a donkey talked, that a mansion on a street of gold awaits them, that the biblical canon chosen by catholic leaders centuries ago is infallible and is the literal word of the creator, that they will live forever (after they die of course), etc. etc.
Caner sued both Smathers and Jon Autry. The single lawsuit was split into two lawsuits. Caner lost both of them, both thrown out by the judges. Apparently they were both Calvinist (or Muslim) federal judges and didn't recognize Caner as the "Man of God".
Smathers was represented by Kel McClanahan, and Jon Autry was represented by his brother Joshua Autry.
The Caner vs. Autry was a true David and Goliath story.
And David won, once again.
Anyone know what Georgia Baptist Convention is doing with Caner in this issue?
Seems to me that they need to step up to the plate
Sola Deo Gloria
Looks like Rogers posted Josh's response after it was posted here, and not unexpectedly posted his nonsensical, logically-challenged response in which he resorted to personal attack against Josh. Josh was very graceful and restrained in his response, much more so than I believe I would have been.
Rogers is not worthy of engagement. However, I do see some good coming out of doing so. Every time he and Lumpkins post something it does nothing but damage to Caner's PR campaign, at least in the eyes of the sensible, thinking public.
My last comment did not make it through moderation and I am one of the subjects of the blog. So I wrote two more.
"I have all my comments go to moderation for the simple fact that many who support your brother are not godly in their actions or words. I cannot afford to have the type of language being directed toward me being made public on my blog as I have many church members that follow my personal social media and blog."
Then why has my comment been in moderation for 6 days?
"From a non-legal perspective someone is suing Ergun and it is you, your brother’s lawyer."
Do you think the resolution is arguing from a non-legal perspective?
Why do you believe that Ergun should not pay attorney's fees?
While Ergun did not sue for statutory damages, he said he would have if he had the time. Do you think that Ergun was correct in saying that I should pay attorney’s fees and statutory damages?
"The Christian organizations that take on cases inform everyone from the beginning that it is not “pro-Bono” to the public as they will seek reimbursement for their time and filing fees."
Can you cite any of these cases?
"Dr. Caner’s “motive” is only known to him and the Lord."
So you do not know my motives or Caner's motives?
Does that conflict with your statement, "It is about the devious plan of many Calvinists to do what they can to silence one of the most formidable, vocal critics of strict Calvinism among Southern Baptists–Dr. Ergun Caner"?
Here is the second.
You are right, if I told Josh to not seek attorney’s fees he would not. Lawyers act on their clients behalf. However the organization and the people who saved me, deserve to be paid. I tried to settle with Ergun and he asked for my children then ages 6, 5, 4 to promise to not say anything against him for the rest of their lives, even after they all learned to write their names. If they ever did, Ergun would sue them. Do you think that Ergun’s request was reasonable? I owe Josh and his firm a debt that I can never repay. It would be the morally wrong thing to say they should not recoup their expenses when they win. When I was helpless, homeless, and unemployed, they rescued me. Ergun said that he would not charge me attorney’s fees only if my entire family promised to never criticize him publicly again.
Jon - it is pointless to try to reason with Rogers. All you can do is sit back and enjoy the show. He is off his rocker. I just marvel at his logic, and feel sad for anyone who says "Tim Rogers is my pastor". Scary.
Jon: I don't believe for one moment that those who support your brother or you are being Unchristian or mean in their comments. I do believe that they were not published for the same reason yours are not, the evidence is too heavy against what Tim Rogers is saying.
I have corresponded and read Gene Clyatt for example, and I have never seen anything in his writings but straight facts.
I can hardly see how you posting gives more visibility as it did not have any visibility before your post. Rogers has a 6 to 1 following of your blog. That being said he will never post the truth and at least on your small blog those who wish to read the facts can get to view them.
I guess I contribute to the 6/1 advantage that TR has. I often check there to see what stupid thing has appeared since the last time I checked. Lumpkins' blog too. What to do, what to do? (SARCASM ALERT ON PAGE TEXT)
Bennett - not that it matters, but it is backwards. Rogers' blog has 1/10th the traffic of the FBC Jax Watchdog.
Post a Comment