Along the way, she has about a decade and a half of data analysis work under her belt and currently works as a blog coordinator for a high-end wedding blog and also as a blogger for hire (topics include diverse subjects like ad retargeting but also the nursing job market), and has a shingle out to work on social media presence, with a focus on independent authors as she is also a published science fiction author. Plus, she has been a community manager for a large Q & A website since 2002, which is before that existed as a job title.
She was raised on Long Island so, when she is riled up, the accent gallops back out and she can sound like Fran Drescher with a law degree. She lives in Boston with her husband of over 20 years and more computers than they need.
She can always be bribed with pie.
Latest posts by Janet Gershen-Siegel (see all)
- Indie Writer Woes – Protect Yourselves! - November 17, 2017
- Semantic Shenanigans Episode 12 – Nepotism - October 28, 2017
- Semantic Shenanigans Show #11 – It Goes Up to Eleven - September 30, 2017
Axanar Defense Response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Ex Parte Relief
So the Axanar Defense Response came in quickly (the parties were under a strict deadline!). And as expected, the response drags on but defense had to do it right quick. So as always, we’ll go through it line by line. It’s huge – sorry! Furthermore, this post is the sequel to the plaintiffs’ ex parte application for an order and the David Grossman declaration and exhibits.
Axanar Defense Response
First of all, as always, we start with a good old cover page.
Because this matter has been hashed out and picked over several times, I am going to try to just go with the highlights. And the argument regarding procedural impropriety is nothing new.
So then on this page, defense reiterates the facts of the matter and the circumstances leading up to her filing this particular response.
And this page makes some legal arguments regarding ex parte applications (spoiler alert: plaintiffs received almost everything they requested).
So I realize I am rushing through this but in all seriousness, this ground has already been covered in the prior blog posts.
So then on this page, defense argues the ex parte application is moot.