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’ OBJECTIONS TO 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE ANDREW W. AUSTIN

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

Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Austin filed on June 8, 2021. (ECF No. 115) 

(“Objections”).

ARGUMENT

In spite of Plaintiffs’ previously filed, self-styled and self-authorized motion to vacate the 

report and recommendations, (ECF No. [109]), Plaintiffs filed a successive filing -- objections to 

the report and recommendations. The Court may consider docket entry 109 as the objections and 

could strike the successive “objections.” ECF No. [115]. Regardless, there is nothing 

substantively different between the motion to vacate and the objections to the report and 

recommendations. 

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

recommendations regarding the motions to dismiss based upon the filings. See (ECF No. 100 at 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 117 Filed 06/15/21 Page 1 of 7
2

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

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). Indeed, Plaintiffs did not file their highlighted affidavits with the operative 

complaint. Plaintiffs, nonetheless, continue argue that filing of affidavits could overcome 

deficient pleadings. Objections at 3. The operative complaint filed by plaintiffs is a shotgun 

pleading. See ECF No. [70 at 17] (citing Wagner v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273, 

1275 (11th Cir. 2006)). Plaintiffs never correct the pleading in any way. Plaintiffs were given 

two warnings that their complaint is deficient. ECF No. [108 at 7 n. 2] (R&R). Instead, plaintiffs 

elected to attack a district judge, and then the magistrate judge who agreed with the district 

judge’s assessment plaintiffs’ complaint is a “shotgun” complaint. See ECF No. [109] (Motion to 

vacate).

This district court made a remark at a status conference, in which Stone was not yet a 

defendant, that the court likes trying cases. Objections at 2. Plaintiffs cling to this as if that 

avoids the requirement of a proper and sufficient complaint stating a claim under Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). It does not. See ECF No. [70 at 4, 9] (motion to dismiss 

discussion of law). Affidavits, swearing to allegations in the complaint, also do not avoid 

insufficient pleadings and does not avoid the absolute defense of the statute of limitations or 

insufficiently pleading causes of action. See R&R at 14-16; ECF No. [70 at 11-16]. Plaintiffs 

claim Florida law should be applied because some defendants requested an anti-SLAPP statute 

be enforced. Stone did not move for application of Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute. Likewise, Stone 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 117 Filed 06/15/21 Page 2 of 7
3

did not suggest that Florida law or a statute of limitations from Florida should apply in Texas 

against Stone.

Again, plaintiffs fundamentally misunderstand the Lanham Act. They think that because 

they are “media personalities” they are in competition with Stone and the other defendants for 

purposes of the Lanham Act. See Objections at 14, 18-21. Plaintiff ignores their own cited 

authority. Objections at 20. The Lanham Act prescribes liability for “commercial advertising or 

promotion.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). A radio talk show does not qualify as “commercial 

advertising or promotion.” R&R at 6-7 (citing Farah v. Esquire Magazine, 736 F.3d 528, 541 

(D.C. Cir. 2013) (“The mere fact that the parties may compete in the marketplace of ideas is not 

sufficient to invoke the Lanham Act.”) (Klayman & Corsi case). Indeed, plaintiffs already know 

this because they have attempted to sue others under the same theory and failed. Plaintiffs never 

attempt to distinguish Farah from this case. Thus, for the reasons set forth in Stone’s motion for 

sanctions, Rule 11 should apply in the event this Court adopts the magistrate’s report and 

recommendations. See ECF No. [84].

CONCLUSION

 This Court should overrule Plaintiffs’ objections to the report and recommendations or 

strike it or deny it as moot, since it is a successive 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)

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 117 Filed 06/15/21 Page 3 of 7
4

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 15, 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 117 Filed 06/15/21 Page 4 of 7
5

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 117 Filed 06/15/21 Page 5 of 7
6

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 117 Filed 06/15/21 Page 6 of 7
7

Infowars, LLC

(Defendant)

Alex E. Jones

(Defendant)

David Jones

(Defendant)

Owen Shroyer

(Defendant)

 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 117 Filed 06/15/21 Page 7 of 7