Sorry, what did somebody link?
"Separately the court should deny Plaintiff's request..."
So, my attorneys filed this.
"...for fees because she failed to meet and confer prior to seeing the requested relief. Outrageously, Plaintiff's counsel provided the undersigned with a different draft of this Motion than the one she ultimately filed. Nowhere in the draft motion that Plaintiff's counsel provided, nor anywhere in the meet and confer correspondence did Plaintiff's counsel ever mention that Plaintiff would be seeking attorney's fees and costs. Bonnell would have objected to the Motion had it included a demand that he pay Plaintiff's legal fees and costs in connection therewith. For Plaintiff to sandbag Bonnell by seeking fees and costs without ever raising the issue as required by Local Rule 7.1(a)(2), smacks of bad faith and provides an alternative basis to deny the fee request."
Oh, because they asked us if we'd be okay with—the first request was, can we take down, or, can we issue a court order? Did I cover—I don't remember how much of this I covered on stream, fuck. I'm talking offline too much now, so I'm mixing up my offline and online conversations. They basically wanted to say hey, can we do a court order, umm, demanding Kiwi Farms takes down, you know, like the video that's the subject of this complaint. And then our response was, well sure, but like if we're gonna take down videos, can we just like take down all of them? And, um—and their response was—no. We're not requesting anything else getting taken down unless you want to pay the attorneys' fees for us. For whatever arbitrary bullshit amount.
And it's like, what the fuck? Are you crazy? So I'm like, well, then in that case, no, we're not gonna consent to that. Why—like, why are you even issuing a court order to somebody who's not even a party to the case? And also—first of all, I don't even know if you can do that. That's really weird. The idea that a court order can come out compelling a party to do something that's not even a party to the case. That is, is—I don't even know if you can do that, actually, number one.
But then number two—well, three, there's three things. That's one. Two is, why—they asked if we consented to the videos being removed. And then, they said that they were gonna file that requesting that. But then in the filing, they said that we should pay the money for it to be removed, basically paying the attorneys fees for the investigation that they did to find them. Which, I don't know what the fuck that even means. But they never told us that they were requesting that, so why are you filing motions with the court that you didn't even put in front of us first? Why are we even having these meetings if you're just gonna fucking file random shit, uh, to the courthouse?
But then three, why are you even trying to do this with a court order? Umm, a court order, to my understanding, maybe you can get different types of court orders, but at least I believe the one that they drafted, I mean we can look at it. A court order just says, can you take a thing down. That's it. And then, what? Somebody could repost it right after?
What you really want, I think, is an injunction. You want to take a party to court. And then you want to get an injunction from that court, which enjoins the, um, opposing party from hosting a particular type of content. And an injunction will last you forever. Well, however long that, whatever the jurisdiction bullshit is. So I don't know why you're trying to do a court order to temporarily take down a couple videos that can just be reposted by somebody else. It's so—it's so stupid. But whatever, this—everything about this case is stupid, but that's okay.
"Is it still 30 days (unintelligible) where you can discuss more about the case?"
Umm, I have a, umm—we have a hearing tomorrow, thankfully. Thank God. And I'll have a better idea of—or I'll have more to say, I guess, after that hearing.
"What's the logic behind you not going after an injunction yourself?"
Umm, I mean that would have been what I'd done, if I would have filed that case against, umm, Kiwi Farms and the original leaker guy. But, I'd like—I don't even know—I don't know where my brain is for even pursuing that route of litigation now, because I've wasted so much fucking money on this. Umm, and—and at the end of the day, I don't think an injunction would help me that much, because people can just post my shit in other places. So at this point, it's like, fuck me, I guess?
I do think it's exceptionally disgusting and evil that plaintiff didn't even ask for links of other people being taken down. Umm, despite the fact that this disgusting person keeps naming other people in the court documents over and over again. Umm, some of whom have explicitly stated publicly over and over again, that they don't want to be named in these documents. The fact that she keeps naming these other people, and then when they want to file a court order to get stuff taken down, they don't even request the other people's stuff taken—is exceptional to me. But, I mean, it is what it is.
Oh, but—so—but I can't get an injunction because Kiwi Farms is a part of this case—because they're not a named party on this case. Kiwi Farms has no, umm, relationship to my current court case at all. Uhh, plaintiff's council is confused, I guess, about how litigation works, or doesn't know that you need to actually name parties to issue injunctions or orders against them. And I—I don't know if they—yeah, I'm not entirely sure if we're just playing Phoenix Rice—uhh, Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney or what?
"Does the judge talk or give opinion during the hearing tomorrow?"
Umm, he might. I don't know. The fact that he wants a hearing, I mean, I think is good. Umm, cuz he obviously wants to hear some arguments on both sides of this, so.
"Is the result of the hearing tomorrow going to be public? Like will it be on CourtListener?"
I would imagine so, that the transcript will be published there, probably.