[Found] Crossing the Rubicon

[greasyArchivist]

Dammit, literally the one time Null calls on Californians, and the only attorneys I know do business, family, and entertainment law. I don't know a single tech or free speech lawyer. Consider me a useless Californian

Ask them in a general way: "I have an acquaintance who may be in a lawsuit sometime in the future. The case includes Internet censorship, a former Wyoming and current West Virginia LLC, and will be against California-based tech companies and a Canadian. The Canadian in this situation is known to harass anyone they can in any way they can and has an accused history of violence. Who would you hire?"

Take any names they can give, and maybe ask those recommendations too about who they may hire.

 

[LiquidKid]

Ask them in a general way: "I have an acquaintance who may be in a lawsuit sometime in the future. The case includes Internet censorship, a former Wyoming and current West Virginia LLC, and will be against California-based tech companies and a Canadian. The Canadian in this situation is known to harass anyone they can in any way they can and has an accused history of violence. Who would you hire?"

Take any names they can give, and maybe ask those recommendations too about who they may hire.

I mean, I could, but then I’d just be referring a total stranger. At that point wouldn’t it be little different than googling someone and giving null the first results?

The one benefit I have is that I live in one of the conservative areas of California, not LA, so lawyers here might actually take the side of the farms. But I can’t personally know for sure if it’s a referred friend of a friend/family member

 

[greasyArchivist]

I mean, I could, but then I’d just be referring a total stranger. At that point wouldn’t it be little different than googling someone and giving null the first results?

The one benefit I have is that I live in one of the conservative areas of California, not LA, so lawyers here might actually take the side of the farms. But I can’t personally know for sure if it’s a referred friend of a friend/family member

No, because Google provides random information. By asking them, you would be collecting informed opinions from those around you, which is far more valuable when networking is the goal. They don’t need to be someone you know personally either; they need to be someone that your lawyer friends would think is capable. Their taking the case is basically pointless if they can’t handle the proceedings; see the royal fuckup that was Ty Beard vs. a strip mall lawyer.

 

[cherrysour]

Alex Kozinski (retired Ninth Circuit judge), maybe? He's very pro-free-speech. You also might ask Eugene Volokh (professor at UCLA Law, also pro-free-speech) for recommendations.

 

[LiquidKid]

No, because Google provides random information. By asking them, you would be collecting informed opinions from those around you, which is far more valuable when networking is the goal. They don’t need to be someone you know personally either; they need to be someone that your lawyer friends would think is capable. Their taking the case is basically pointless if they can’t handle the proceedings; see the royal fuckup that was Ty Beard vs. a strip mall lawyer.

Fair enough. I shall see if I can get any leads

 

[Some Dumb Faggot]

tbh i'm banking on LFJ breaking down once proceedings turn to discovery. A lot of the points will be about accusations against her, and null would be able to get testimonies from everyone affected by LFJ, potentially putting it into the public record.

I think if this case gains enough momentum behind it LFJ will probably backdown and settle out of court. The way that Washington Post was written seemed like a way for him to declare victory and move on since he had to be demoralized at this point, a full year of what is likely thousands of hours wastes just to have the site to be still be up and for Null to still have thousands of people supporting him.

He has to be somewhat aware that even just having a public trial under his name would make him and his company look bad and put it under scrutiny by the general public. In general LFJ has way more to lose than Null does.

 

[Procrastinhater]

I'm going to chime in with the other posters who have noted that tortious interference is a slam dunk if you're going after Dong Gone, and First Amendment claims are irrelevant (though CA's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate on political ideology , which may enhance your case).
The criteria for willfully malicious tortious interference are all met:

(noted here: https://www.bonalaw.com/what-are-the-elements-for-a-tortious-interference-claim-under-ca.html )

If this is something else, then God Speed taking on titans.

Dongs self admitted actions seem definitely to satisfy the requirements for Intentional Interference with a contract and probably Intentionally causing economic damage.
This smug brick faced piece of shit just couldn't keep his gloating dicklicker shut, he's admitted to going out of his way on multiple occasions to intentionally damage contracts and business all because he can't stand people archiving his rape admission and laughing at his grotesque tranny self.
He has no claim to be "ending harrassment" when there is no harrassment, no body forces him to come here and read his thread, this is entirely a power tripping AGP fetishist that has never heard the word NO trying to control people's speech.

I'm also wondering if an individual True and Honest user would be able to sue him after this admission for deliberately trying to prevent that user from accessing services they theoretically paid for, if that would also count as interfering in a business contract between two third parties.
I don't think you could but IANAL, and seeing blockhead would require doxing yourself, still if it's possible it's food for thought.

On the main point though, by my understanding his admission makes him clearly guilty of multiple counts of TI.

 

[dustbuster]

would require doxing yourself

Not sure if this extends beyond real estate, but you can sue anonymously in california I think in some cases.

 

[Procrastinhater]

Has it finally begun?
View attachment 5338564
View attachment 5338567

ON THE WHISTLE!
THE DEATH KORPS OF SNEED WILL ADVANCE TO THE FRONT!
READY YOU SHITPOSTERS!
CHAAAAARGE!!!

 

[Meat Target]

View attachment 5340452
ON THE WHISTLE!
THE DEATH KORPS OF SNEED WILL ADVANCE TO THE FRONT!
READY YOU SHITPOSTERS!
CHAAAAARGE!!!

Have no fear! The Ooperator protects!

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

It's still necessary to actually prove the wrongful conduct. The third restatement agrees with the requirement that
For 3) there's the argument that it's for the troons etc. and thus not the sole purpose, so the strongest case would be with 2), with the most likely issue being false statements amounting to defamation.

I only cited to the Second Restatement because that's usually the most relevant to precedential case law and any statutes in force. But, yes, I briefly saw in the reporter section of the Restatement that there may be nuances to California state courts' application of the tort, which is why I added the caveat that you need an actual lawyer involved who practices commercial litigation in the jurisdiction. But even then, getting past a motion to dismiss is a big deal. I think there's enough to do that, but, again, attorney consultation is necessary.

As to truth as a defense, it becomes a little dicey. For instance:

this court held that a trier of fact could reasonably find that defendant's conduct was substantially certain to interfere with plaintiff's interests and infer culpable intent from this fact. The court said that, regarding the defense of justification, defendant could not be held liable for conveying to plaintiff's editor truthful information, but it could be held liable on a finding that defendant defamed plaintiff by conveying a false account of the conversation. Savage v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co., 21 Cal.App.4th 434, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 305, 315, cert. denied 513 U.S. 820, 115 S.Ct. 80, 130 L.Ed.2d 34 (1994)

There are some more cited California cases saying similar. However, it seems that there's a distinction in California law on the basis of whether the contract is at-will or not. See Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., 470 P.3d 571 (Cal. 2020). Different jurisdictions apply the tort differently, and I was basing my understanding off of non-commie states. Here's some case law from West Virginia:

To establish prima facie proof of tortious interference, a plaintiff must show:
(1) existence of a contractual or business relationship or expectancy;
(2) an intentional act of interference by a party outside that relationship or expectancy;
(3) proof that the interference caused the harm sustained; and
(4) damages.

If a plaintiff makes a prima facie case, a defendant may prove justification or privilege, affirmative defenses. Defendants are not liable for interference that is negligent rather than intentional, or if they show defenses of legitimate competition between plaintiff and themselves, their financial interest in the induced party's business, their responsibility for another's welfare, their intention to influence another's business policies in which they have an interest, their giving of honest, truthful requested advice, or other factors that show the interference was proper.

Ballengee v. CBS Broad., Inc., 331 F. Supp. 3d 533 (S.D.W. Va. 201, aff'd, 968 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 2020).

Not that everything is rosy, since "truthful information is an absolute bar to a claim of tortious interference ‘whether or not the information is requested.’ " Tiernan v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 506 S.E.2d 578, 593 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 772, cmt. b).

So I guess it's complicated.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I think if this case gains enough momentum behind it LFJ will probably backdown and settle out of court. The way that Washington Post was written seemed like a way for him to declare victory and move on since he had to be demoralized at this point, a full year of what is likely thousands of hours wastes just to have the site to be still be up and for Null to still have thousands of people supporting him.

He has to be somewhat aware that even just having a public trial under his name would make him and his company look bad and put it under scrutiny by the general public. In general LFJ has way more to lose than Null does.

I dunno, the ego on Dong Long Gone would suggest viewing anything other than defeating Null in a court of law is no different than a crushing defeat, because it would mean he was wrong and the Farms were right. To say nothing about the potential backlash several tech companies would face from it being discovered that all it took was some assclown annoying C-level suits constantly to keep getting the farms offlined despite the farms itself never doing anything illegal.

 

[lolwatagain]

I'd like to point out that if we keep throwing out names that the defendant may proactively "girl talk" them into rejecting Null. Though that might backfire if they smell something stinky and choose to look deeper into it.

I'd say that's accurate for most attorney names, but it is definitely not accurate for Volokh. The man will stick to his principles no matter what, even if there's outrage. The man is incredibly based, just read his blog.

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/04/14/ucla-law-dean-apologizes-for-my-having-accurately-quoted-the-word-nigger-in-discussing-a-case/

 

[Stan]

Have you considered Michael Cernovich??

 

[xn--mck1c]

I brought up the Third Restatement to support my point that taking responsibility for the campaign alone isn't enough to prove tortuous interference, and some actual wrongdoing has to also be involved, likely revolving around the wording used throughout the campaign.

As an example if the emails largely amount to "KF allows users to say mean things to trans folx" then I can't see it being much different than convincing others to cancel a subscription service because the provider has poor customer service.

However, if there were made up claims of illegality, or allegations that can be proven to be untruthful then, there's more to work with, since that would be more akin to lying about unethical manufacturing processes or safety issues.

Not that everything is rosy, since "truthful information is an absolute bar to a claim of tortious interference ‘whether or not the information is requested.’ " Tiernan v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 506 S.E.2d 578, 593 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 772, cmt. b).

Not just that, and in addition to the "actual malice" bar I mentioned previously, there's the "substantial truth" bar from

Because the statements on which Wesbrook bases his claims against Ulrich and Belongia were each true or substantially true, we agree with the district court that no reasonable jury could find tortious interference on this record.
(Wesbrook v. Ulrich)

So there's also the question of how much leeway is there before there's enough untruthfulness to be wrongful.

The admission makes a good point to kick off the case, but the path from there isn't exactly straightforward.

 

[illhavetwo]

They started out that way, but they've been branching out quite a bit lately.

That's right. FIRE is trying to be what ACLU used to be and have recently changed their name from "Foundation for Individual Rights in Education" to "Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression". And everyone knows that autists posting on the internet is the same as neo nazis marching in Skokie.

 

[Load Bearing Drywall]

Haven't seen him mentioned yet, but @Null you absolutely NEED TO contact Nicholas J Nugent at University of Tennessee.

Professor Nugent specializes in technology law, including internet governance, intellectual property, and telecommunications. Prior to his time in academia, he served as Senior Corporate Counsel to Amazon, where he supported Amazon Web Services, Amazon’s cloud computing service, and worked with European regulators on net neutrality, cybersecurity, and telecom policy. He previously worked as an attorney for Microsoft, supporting Microsoft’s Azure cloud computing service. He has also held business roles in the technology sector, both as a lead negotiator for Microsoft and as a product manager for Amazon.

This is the guy who will know the people who are willing and able to fight Big Tech.

His paper The Five Internet Rights is essential reading for all of us interested in lawfare.

Spoiler: Text of the abstract

Abstract: Since the dawn of the commercial internet, content moderation has operated under an implicit social contract that website operators could accept or reject users and content as they saw fit, but users in turn could self-publish their views on their own websites if no one else would have them. However, as online service providers and activists have become ever more innovative and aggressive in their efforts to deplatform controversial speakers, content moderation has progressively moved down into the core infrastructure of the internet, targeting critical resources, such as networks, domain names, and IP addresses, on which all websites depend. These innovations point to a world in which it may soon be possible for private gatekeepers to exclude unpopular users, groups, or viewpoints from the internet altogether, a phenomenon I call viewpoint foreclosure.

For more than three decades, internet scholars have searched, in vain, for a unifying theory of interventionism—a set of principles to guide when the law should intervene in the private moderation of lawful online content and what that intervention should look like. These efforts have failed precisely because they have focused on the wrong gatekeepers, scrutinizing the actions of social media companies, search engines, and other third-party websites—entities that directly publish, block, or link to user-generated content—while ignoring the core resources and providers that make internet speech possible in the first place.

This Article is the first to articulate a workable theory of interventionism by focusing on the far more fundamental question of whether users should have any right to express themselves on the now fully privatized internet. By articulating a new theory premised on viewpoint access—the right to express one’s views on the internet itself (rather than on any individual website)—I argue that the law need take account of only five basic non-discrimination rights to protect online expression from private interference—namely, the rights of connectivity, addressability, nameability, routability, and accessibility.

Looking to property theory, internet architecture,
and economic concepts around market entry barriers, it becomes clear that as long as these five fundamental internet rights are respected, users are never truly prevented from competing in the online marketplace of ideas, no matter the actions of any would-be deplatformer.

 

[ComStar]

The big jew lawyers of Stern & Stern are ready to go!

 

[JULAY]

Have you considered Michael Cernovich??

Mags, I know you have a love/hate relationship with us, but if you're going to try to troll, please up your game.

 

[AnOminous]

Even then, there might be additional difficulty proving defamation should the Kiwi Farms be considered as a public figure, since the level of proof is raised to the reckless disregard of truth instead of it merely being wrong.

Tbh I'd be really careful about bringing a case like this in state court at all, considering California's super-SLAPP law, probably the most punitive in the country.

Ninth Circuit precedent seems to be leaning toward not enforcing the state anti-SLAPP in cases under diversity jurisdiction in federal court, but again, that's something to ask qualified counsel who actually litigates shit like this in California federal court.

I'd just personally be terrified to bring a case like this in California state court and seriously leery of it even in federal. Someone should not merely have experience in TI law but Erie Doctrine too.

I only cited to the Second Restatement because that's usually the most relevant to precedential case law and any statutes in force. But, yes, I briefly saw in the reporter section of the Restatement that there may be nuances to California state courts' application of the tort, which is why I added the caveat that you need an actual lawyer involved who practices commercial litigation in the jurisdiction.

Adoption of the Restatement (3d) has been fairly sluggish with at least a few state Supreme Courts (including Texas) declining to adopt it. I don't think California has, yet, and have no idea how they're leaning on it, although you'd probably be talking about a trip to the California Supreme Court if the issue came up, which would essentially be a catastrophe.