I submitted a Motion to Dismiss on jurisdiction. Since I am a citizen and resident of Canada I objected to being sued by a Canadian corporation in an American court. Especially when they were claiming I had violated a Canadian law. Being tried in an American court over a Canadian law was to me somewhat bizarre. Failing a Dismissal I asked for a motion to Strike from the application anything and everything that did not apply to posting videos on Youtube.

I was granted permission to participate in the hearing by way of telephone. The judge and lawyer were in a San Francisco court and I was listening and answering questions over the phone from my home in Canada after work. It was very interesting. We did the same thing for the ADR conference choosing which legal avenue to pursue before I figured out how to file my motion.

I was going to pull a Bobby Sands and exercise my right to refuse to participate over jurisdiction and let my written submission stand. However, after I was invited to participate in the oral hearing through a telephone appearance I looked up Judge Walker’s bio. I was amazed and humbled by his resume. He is the highest profile judge I have ever heard of not to mention appeared before.

I really wanted to hear him speak. When I saw his pictures, read his bio and heard him speak in the hearing I was impressed. I met a judge in Canada similar once. He was very competent and because of his competence he wasn’t insecure and didn’t have small man syndrome and treat me like an idiot. I thought to myself, what if this really was a fair judge? Not a left leaning or labour biased judge but a fair judge. What if justice was real for him and the big corporations didn’t have him in their back pocket so to speak.

When we started the hearing he let the plaintiff speak first then he began expressing some of my concerns I had mentioned in my submission and a few other concerns he had on his own. He raised the issue of convenience and said what if this simply is an inconvenient forum and thereby the improper venue? It sounded like he was going to grant my motion to dismiss and asked why not sue me in Canada where both the plaintiff and I are located. Mr. Lopez waffled a bit and claimed that if he acquired a Canadian order it would not be enforceable in the United States where Youtube is located.

I recognized his concern but pointed out that Youtube would no doubt enforce a Canadian Order since they had already acted on a broad verbal and written request that included taking video clips off the Internet they had no possible copyright claim on. The judge seemed to agree with that point and stated Canada and America both agree to enforce each others orders on copyright.

He asked Mr. Lopez what makes him think I have agreed to jurisdiction. Mr. Lopez then cites that computer generated counter notification I signed when the videos were first taken off Youtube which he originally claimed was defective. Now all of a sudden it suited his purposes to be valid.

Judge Walker then asked me the million dollar question: Do you agree to jurisdiction? All I had to do is say no and walk away. It would be over. Yet this inner feeling of hope swelled up within me and I trusted that this would be a fair judge. I expressed my concerns about proceeding without a motion to strike. I wanted the wish list in the original application taken off the table and I wanted only the issue of Youtube videos on the table. Judge Walker asked Mr. Lopez if he understood my concern.

Mr. Lopez almost laughingly said he knows why I don’t want the other stuff on the table. Their application was very serious and very far reaching. I was given the opportunity to make a submission and I cited Mr. Lopez’s opposition brief. In one breath he said he opposed my motion to strike then he had clearly stated in the brief "TELUS’ complaint covers only videos posted on Youtube." After citing that I then said Since Mr. Lopez has agreed TELUS’ complaint covers only videos posted on Youtube perhaps we can walk away with a consent order on my motion to Strike.

The judge asked me clearly if I accepted jurisdiction and I said that although I agree to jurisdiction for videos on Youtube I am leery of proceeding without written clarification of what the dispute is. I.E. my motion to Strike.

Judge Walker then said you already have it in writing. (from what I just quoted in Mr. Lopez' opposition brief) Yes, I said but I have two papers before me which say two different things. One application has a far reaching wish list. The opposition brief is more recent so perhaps their position has changed. Judge Walker then clearly said that the complaint is just about videos on Youtube since Mr. Lopez has put that in writing. I said hearing that from a judge comforts me. I have a great deal of anxiety over simply accepting the word of the other party’s lawyer. If the judge tells me that then I am somewhat comforted and that concern is then resolved.

He then clearly asks me again do I accept jurisdiction to which I clearly respond yes I do. I accent jurisdiction for the Youtube dispute. I could hear Mr. Lopez’s jaw hit the floor. All I had to do was say no and walk away.

I did state that "the First Amendment guarantees free speech and the constitution guarantees equal protection of the law. That means a rich man and a poor man are supposed to have equal protection of the law but that is not what we see happening. The Constitution states: 'No state shall deny to any person within it's jurisdiction equal protection of the law.' If I fall under the jurisdiction of this court then the constitution guarantees me equal protection of the law. I should not have to have a corporate lawyer just to enforce my First Amendment right."