IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION

BRENNAN M. GILMORE, CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-00017-NCM-JCH

Plaintiff

v.

ALEXANDER JONES, et al., OPPOSITION TO SANDY HOOK

AMICI’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
Defendants FILE AMICI BRIEF (DKT. 83) BY
MR. STRANAHAN, MR. HOFT, MR.
CREIGHTON, MR. WILBURN, MS.
HICKFORD AND WORDS-N-IDEAS,
LLC

NOW COME Defendants James Hoft, Lee Stranahan, R. Scott Creighton, Derrick

Wilburn, Michele Hickford and Words-N-Ideas, LLC (hereinafter the “Undersigned Defendants”)

by their counsel Aaron J. Walker, Esq., in the above-styled case for the sole purpose of filing this

Opposition to Sandy Hook Amici’s Motion for Leave to File Amici Brief (Dkt. 83), without

waiving any rights of jurisdiction, notice, process, joinder, or venue. They state the following:

1. The Undersigned Defendants join the Free Speech Defendants’ Opposition to

Motion to File Amicus Brief (Dkt. 84) without reservation but wish to add the following

observations:

2. The Free Speech Defendants correctly note that “the proposed amicus brief consists

almost entirely of extra-record materials irrelevant to the legal issues presented by the Defendants’

motions to dismiss.” Id. at 2. If anything, the Free Speech Defendants are understating the issue.

The proposed amicus brief begins by saying that the proposed amici “have no independent

knowledge of the underlying facts. Similarly, the Amici take no position on matters of Virginia

Case 3:18-cv-00017-NKM-JCH Document 85 Filed 06/26/18 Page 1 of 3 Pageid#: 1402

 law, and they have no input regarding the procedural matters in InfoWars’ Motion or any

deficiencies it may have.” Motion of the Parents of the Sandy Hook Victims to File an Amici

Curiae Brief in Support of Brennan M. Gilmore,” (Dkt. 83) (the “proposed amicus”) 2.

3. Rather, the amici’s goal seems ostensibly is to rebut the following claim:

InfoWars’ Motion [to Dismiss] argues that statements such as “Are they trying to
get a coup? I think clearly they are,” should be seen as “ordinary hyperbolic
political invective, not a literal accusation that someone is plotting a putsch.” (Doc.
16, at 16.)

4. But in their attempted rebuttal, these amici do not offer any legal analysis. Instead,

they seem to want this Court to believe certain facts to be true. However, they do not present any

admissible evidence that this Court can consider, and, naturally, such evidence has no bearing on

whether this case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

5. It is an old adage among lawyers that “if the law is on your side, argue the law; if

you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have neither, pound the table.” These proposed amici do

not cite any law. They do not offer any facts or cite any in the Amended Complaint. Therefore, it

seems self-evident that they are simply pounding the table.

6. The Undersigned Defendants recognize that the proposed amici have suffered a

devastating personal loss. A parent should never have to bury his or her children, and one suspects

that only those who have had to do so can imagine the pain the amici feel. However, their real pain

does not entitle them to file an amicus in a case where they have nothing useful to offer this Court.

Accordingly, this Court should deny leave to file the proposed amicus.

7. No proposed order will be filed, because the Free Speech Defendants’ proposed

order (Dkt. 84-5) is adequate.

Case 3:18-cv-00017-NKM-JCH Document 85 Filed 06/26/18 Page 2 of 3 Pageid#: 1403

 Tuesday, June 26, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

s/ Aaron J. Walker
Aaron J. Walker, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants Hoft, Stranahan, Creighton,
Wilburn, Hickford and WNI
Va. Bar# 48882
7537 Remington Road
Manassas, Virginia 20109
(703) 216-0455
AaronJW72@gmail.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia on Wednesday, June 26, 2018.
All participants in the case will be served automatically.

s/ Aaron J. Walker

Case 3:18-cv-00017-NKM-JCH Document 85 Filed 06/26/18 Page 3 of 3 Pageid#: 1404