IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

DR. JEROME CORSI, et. al.

Plaintiff(s), 

v.

INFOWARS, LLC et. al.,

Defendant(s)

Case No.: 1:20-CV-00298-LY

DEFENDANT ROGER STONE’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO 

VACATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant, Roger Stone, through counsel, files this response to plaintiffs’ motion to 

vacate Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Austin filed on May 25, 2021. (ECF 

No. 109) (“Motion”).

ARGUMENT

The repetitive and acerbic campaign continues by Plaintiffs against Defendant Roger 

Stone and now, the magistrate judge. Selecting the inappropriate knee jerk response to the report

and recommendation is so natural to plaintiffs one might conclude they prefer attacking the 

integrity of the Court when they simply could follow the rules and they would receive a de novo 

review by the district judge, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73(b). 

The magistrate reviewed and analyzed the pleadings, and issued a report and 

recommendation regarding the motions to dismiss based upon the filings. See (ECF No. 100 at 2; 

ECF No. 108 (R&R)). This Court can review the operative complaint and determine for itself 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 111 Filed 06/03/21 Page 1 of 8
2

whether it survives the motions to dismiss. (See ECF No. 70) (Stone’s motion to dismiss). There 

were no factual findings to be made by the magistrate. Like any motion to dismiss, a judge is 

confined to the four corners of the operative complaint. Blankenship v. Buenger, 653 Fed. Appx. 

330, 337 (5th Cir. 2016); Sinclair v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., 581 Fed. Appx. 369, 371

n. 1 (5th Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs, nonetheless, did not heed the warnings provided under the federal 

rules and this Court’s Order. (ECF No. 108 at 18) (R&R – “warnings”); (ECF No. 88) (Order 

appointing magistrate). Plaintiffs instead resort to scandalous accusations and histrionics. 

This Court previously denied plaintiffs’ motion to have the presiding judge decide the 

outstanding motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 107) (Order denying). But for some extra invective, the 

new motion is the same as the previous motion. (Compare ECF No. 107 with ECF No. 109). A 

magistrate judge and a sitting district judge were attacked in the motion.1 Defendant Stone 

adopts the codefendants responses to the motion and his own response in docket entry 105. We 

leave the options of sanctions to the Court.

The operative complaint filed by plaintiffs is a shotgun pleading. The Court can 

determine that for itself. The district judge in the Southern District of Florida found this 

complaint was a shotgun complaint and plaintiffs did not take the advice and amend. See Wagner 

v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273, 1275 (11th Cir. 2006). The magistrate was 

persuaded by that court’s opinion and considered plaintiffs warned well enough that they should 

not be given grace to amend their complaint again. The magistrate’s process did not make the 

magistrate’s report “cooked.” Motion at 2. 

Plaintiffs, post-ruling, again moves to disqualify the magistrate, but not pursuant to any 

statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 455. Plaintiffs do not claim any extrajudicial source or pervasive bias.

See id. The character attack about the magistrate came only after he reviewed the motions to 

 

1 Klayman is the person who referred the District Judge to the Judicial Counsel. Motion at 7.

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 111 Filed 06/03/21 Page 2 of 8
3

dismiss and the operative complaint, and announced his justification for granting defendants’ 

motion to stay discovery. (ECF No. 101) (Order). And now, after the issuance of the report and 

recommendation, plaintiffs raised their scandalous language. As Judge Jerome Frank pithily put 

it: “Impartiality is not gullibility. Disinterestedness does not mean child-like innocence. If the 

judge did not form judgments of the actors in those court-house dramas called trials, he could 

never render decisions.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551 (1994) (citation omitted). 

Indeed, if viewed in context, the magistrate judge was doing his job. See United States v. 

Pearson, 203 F.3d 1243, 1277 (10th Cir. 2000) (judge’s comments relating to a party’s pleadings 

did not warrant recusal after judge’s comments reviewed in context). The magistrate did review 

the motions to dismiss and recommended granting them. No other comment made evidences any 

bias outside a review of the pleadings.

Lastly, Plaintiffs “wonder” what the motivation or incentive for the magistrate to state 

that sanctions might be appropriate in light of the recommendation to dismiss the lawsuit.

Motion at 3. The pending Rule 11 motions are the motivation. (ECF Nos. 87; 58). The case for 

Stone was clear on the pleadings. (ECF No. 70). Plaintiffs have a fundamental misunderstanding 

of the Lanham Act. It does not apply to ordinary speech; it applies to trademarks, copyrights, 

and commercial speech. (ECF No. 108 at 6-7). The statute of limitations is one year on all 

defamation related claims. (ECF No. 108 at 14-15). The limitations period expired before Stone 

was sued in this Court. Plaintiffs do not allege they were injured in Texas. They also do not 

allege facts of outrageous conduct. (ECF No. 108 at 15-16). The magistrate considered the 

intentional infliction of emotional distress claim as a precluded “gap filler tort.” Id. at 16. Their 

claims of assault do not specify plaintiffs as the victims. Id. Their common law claims should

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 111 Filed 06/03/21 Page 3 of 8
4

therefore be dismissed. No number of affidavits can amend the pleadings; no level of purported 

outrage by plaintiffs makes their lawsuit sufficiently state a claim. 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 111 Filed 06/03/21 Page 4 of 8
5

CONCLUSION

 This Court should deny the motion to vacate the report and recommendation. We remind 

the Court that Stone has filed a motion under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Plaintiffs’ meritless 

and disparaging claims require the Court’s attention in light of their latest successive and 

procedurally infirm filing. 

Respectfully submitted,

BUSCHEL GIBBONS, P.A.

501 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 304

Fort Lauderdale, FL. 33301

Tele: (954) 530-5301

Email: Buschel@BGlaw-pa.com

Attorneys for Roger J. Stone

By: __/s/ _Robert Buschel__________

ROBERT C. BUSCHEL

(admitted W.D. Texas)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above document was filed and served 

upon all parties of record on June 3, 2021 by CM/ECF, the court’s electronic filing system. 

By: __/s/ _Robert Buschel__________

ROBERT C. BUSCHEL

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 111 Filed 06/03/21 Page 5 of 8
6

1:20-cv-00298-LY

Corsi et al v. Infowars, LLC et al

Sanjay Biswas

Sanjay Biswas Attorney at Law PC

11720 Duxbury Drive

Frisco, TX 75035

972-866-5879

800-506-6804 (fax)

sanjaybiswas41@gmail.com

 Assigned: 07/29/2020

 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

representing Jerome Corsi

(Plaintiff)

Larry Klayman

(Plaintiff)

Larry Klayman

Klayman Law Group P.A.

2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW #800

Washington, DC 20006

561-558-536

202-318-8839 (fax)

leklayman@gmail.com

 Assigned: 03/07/2019

 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

representing Jerome Corsi

(Plaintiff)

Larry Klayman

(Plaintiff)

Marc J. Randazza

Randazza Legal Group, PLLC

2764 Lake Sahara Drive, Suite 109

Las Vegas, NV 89117

702-420-2001

702-297-6584 (fax)

mjr@randazza.com

 Assigned: 07/24/2019

 PRO HAC VICE

 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

representing Free Speech Systems, LLC

(Defendant)

cell is 702-757-1001 Infowars, LLC

(Defendant)

Alex E. Jones

(Defendant)

David Jones

(Defendant)

Owen Shroyer

(Defendant)

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 111 Filed 06/03/21 Page 6 of 8
7

Bradley Jordan Reeves

Reeves Law, PLLC

702 Rio Grande St., Suite 306

Austin, TX 78701

512-827-2246

512-318-2484 (fax)

brad@brtx.law

 Assigned: 04/02/2020

 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

representing Free Speech Systems, LLC

(Defendant)

Infowars, LLC

(Defendant)

Alex E. Jones

(Defendant)

Owen Shroyer

(Defendant)

Gregory P. Sapire

Soltero Sapire Murrell PLLC

7320 North MoPac Expy.

Suite 309

Austin, TX 78731-2311

512-431-9518

512-359-7996 (fax)

greg@ssmlawyers.com

 Assigned: 04/02/2020

 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

representing David Jones

(Defendant)

David Scott Wachen

Wachen LLC

11605 Montague Court

Potomac, MD 20854

(240) 292-9121

301-259-3846 (fax)

david@wachenlaw.com

 Assigned: 04/24/2019

 LEAD ATTORNEY

 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

representing David Jones

(Defendant)

Jay Marshall Wolman

Randazza Legal Group, PLLC

100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor

Hartford, CT 06103

(702) 420-2001

(305) 437-7662 (fax)

jmw@randazza.com

 Assigned: 04/04/2019

 LEAD ATTORNEY

 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

representing Free Speech Systems, LLC

(Defendant)

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 111 Filed 06/03/21 Page 7 of 8
8

Infowars, LLC

(Defendant)

Alex E. Jones

(Defendant)

David Jones

(Defendant)

Owen Shroyer

(Defendant)

 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 111 Filed 06/03/21 Page 8 of 8