United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Daniel E. Hall, a/k/a Sensa Verogna, )

Plaintiff, Appellant, ) Case No. 23-1555
v. )
) APPELLANT’S MOTION
Twitter, Inc., ) FOR LEAVE TO FILE
Defendant, Appellee ) SURRESPONSE
____________________________________

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURRESPONSE

Plaintiff-Appellant Daniel E. “Hall” respectfully requests leave to

file a surresponse to counter Defendant-Appellee “Twitter’s” “Reply”

(Dkt. 00118086385), to Hall’s “Response” (Dkt. 00118084588), to

Twitter’s “Motion” for an Order Imposing Filing Restrictions on Hall or

to allow Twitter to Lodge Rolling Objections to Any Future Submissions

by Hall (Dkt. 00118083204), as Hall does not want any failure to respond

to be deemed an acquiescence to Twitter’s misrepresentations that Hall;

(1) is attempting to “re-shape the record mostly with additional material

containing unverified information that was not available to the district

court”; (2) is relitigating his prior submissions; and (3) “demonstrates a

“propensity to repeatedly file” the same submissions “even in the face of

adverse judgment”, and new legal theories (1) that Hall’s cited cases are

Page 1 of 6
inapt to waived arguments in this situation, (2) the “level of abuse”

standard is not the applicable standard.

Hall’s appeal is based upon the grounds that the District Court has

patently misunderstood Hall's claims. . . or has made an error not of

reasoning but apprehension, errors that are plain and indisputable,

which amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law, as the

Order(s) are against the law, against the weight of the credible evidence,

or tantamount to a miscarriage of justice, and on grounds as stated

throughout, resulting in manifest errors of law and fact. [Appellant’s

Brief, P. 1] See also [D. 141, 142, 143].

Hall does not seek to re-shape the record as the District Court did

have all the material facts of Johnstone’s illegal policy before it, but

ignored them in making its orders.

Hall does not seek to relitigate his prior submissions, but only to

demonstrate that Twitter failed to dispute the material facts of

Johnstone’s illegal policy time and time again therefore waiving those

objections, and that these arguments are not baseless, frivolous,

vexatious or unmeritorious under Rule 201, as Twitter claims.

Page 2 of 6
 Certainly there has been an “adverse judgment”, but Hall filed his

motions to reconsider and now this appeal which hardly demonstrates a

“propensity to repeatedly file” the same submissions “even in the face of

adverse judgment.”

Hall’s Judicial Notice I (Dkt. 00118041810), seeks to include in the

record adjudicative facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute”

(which Twitter does not oppose) and with undisputed material facts of

Johnstone’s illegal pro hac vice policy under Rule 201. Hall’s Judicial

Notice II (Dkt. 0011804537), seeks to include in the record undisputed

statements which were included in [D. 6.1] under Rule 201. Hall’s

Judicial Notice III (Dkt. 00118070078), seeks to include supervening

undisputed non-hearsay public statements of admission by Elon Musk,

the owner of Twitter and under Rule 201.

Hall only reiterates these judicial notices motions to demonstrate

that they are not the same submissions “even in the face of [some]

adverse judgment”, and that these arguments are not baseless, frivolous,

vexatious or unmeritorious under Rule 201, as Twitter claims.

Hall claims that the Court has patently misunderstood his claims.

. . or has made an error not of reasoning but apprehension, errors that

Page 3 of 6
are plain and indisputable, which amounts to a complete disregard of the

controlling law, as the Order(s) are against the law, against the weight

of the credible evidence, or tantamount to a miscarriage of justice, and on

grounds as stated throughout, resulting in manifest errors of law and

fact. In effect, Johnstone’s illegal policy which benefitted Twitter, fell on

deaf ears in the District Court and was further undisputed by Twitter.

A Hearing on the 201 motions could go a long way and wrap this

case up in fifteen minutes. The panel could ask Twitter attorneys

whether previous Twitter attorneys from Perkins Coie practiced law

before the District Court 66 times although they lacked the prerequisites

of the bar. Then ask if those 66 submissions form a pattern, and if

Twitter’s [D. 3] Motion to Dismiss follows this same pattern. Then ask if

these now 68 submissions [D. 122] would create a bias of the court in

favor of Twitter, and whether the bias created would create an

unconstitutional tribunal. The answers would have to be yes on all these

questions as the material facts contained within the already Judicially

Noticed [D. 122] documents confirms all these claims. Last question,

what has Twitter done to dispute these material facts of Johnstone’s

illegal policy and favors to Twitter.

Page 4 of 6
 The inevitable truth is that Twitter’s [D.3] Motion to Dismiss is part

of a pattern to deceive the Court in practicing before the bar 68 times

without the prerequisites to do so which cannot be accepted by the Court,

which leaves Twitter without a response to Hall’s Complaint leaving

Twitter in default, to which it has no legitimate excuse and therefore,

default judgment for 250 million dollars should be awarded to Hall.

CONCLUSION

For all these reasons, Hall request that he be able to file a surresponse

to counter Twitter’s Reply or to order a 201 hearing.

Respectfully,
/s/ Daniel E. Hall
Plaintiff, Appellant
Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMIT

This document complies with Fed. R. App. P. 27(d)(2)(A) because
this document contains no more than 5,200 words.

Page 5 of 6
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on December 19, 2023, I served the foregoing Motion upon
the Defendant, through its attorney of record to Demetrio F. Aspiras,
counsel of record via the Court’s electronic filing system.

/s/ Daniel E. Hall

Page 6 of 6