[Found] Crossing the Rubicon

[P. Barnes’ THOT 2.0]

I just came in here to say that I’m hopeful-I generally tend to operate on naive optimism with the idea that justice will out. I mean, LFJ admitted to his retardation out of nowhere, I can’t imagine how he’ll not do the same on a larger scale when the stakes are higher-his ego will ensure it.

Also, I’ll throw in a couple of hundred if there’s some sort of crowd funding. I also promise to carry the slobbermutt around in a locket, periodically looking wistfully at it during the proceedings like a lonely war bride

 

[Your Starter for 10]

Josh, I'm begging you, don't file a lolsuit, make sure it is a lawsuit. Your filing needs to be <10 pages, preferably under 5 pages. All of the elements of the tort need to be fucking spelled out so a retard can understand them ON THE FIRST PAGE. If your lawyer can't do this, find another one. Your judge is going to be retarded, 100%, and you and counsel need to take that into account. Even assuming your judge isn't 100% pozzed and ideologically opposed to you and everything you stand for, look like a professional in filings, and let your opponents look like schizophrenic assholes. Everything autistic and bulky can be filed as a supplement (at best), or in an appendix (at worst).

Speaking of judges, fucking research (or have your lawyer research) your judge AND ADJUST YOUR FILILNGS ACCORDINGLY. They'll have a history of rulings, and you need to play to things that have succeeded, and downplay things that have not WITH THIS PARTICULAR JUDGE. Legal arguments, even if they're corrects, are secondary to this - there's so much court history, especially in California, that you can find a legal argument to support just about anything. The key is to find ones that your judge has endorsed before. Also, adopt the style, tone and rhythm of filings that have been recently successful. Obviously on the off-chance that a jury ever actually gets involved, this moves down to secondary importance (except in filings relatng to matters of law, obviously).

Also, no gay ass tactics of waiting until the last minute to file or other retarded bullshit - the supposed benefits are FAR outweighed by the possible detriments. A fucking day or two is meaningless to either side as far as doing legal work, but can be LETHAL to the case as far as the bureaucracy of court scheduling is concerned. Learn from the mistakes of others.

Also also, if there are people you can trust here, it never hurts to get a few extra eyeballs on filings before they are submitted. I mean obviously you don't want anything leaked, but catching shit like copy/paste errors and blatantly incorrect grammar/names/business/references can go a long way.

And finally, do your future shit on the East coast so I can help.

 

[StMaryPiper]

This is a doomed idea. Going into lawsuit mode in shithole California is just asking to get ass fucked with multiple cases at once win or lose. Your honestly better off taking a overall internet censorship case to the Supreme Court

 

[WhiteNight]

Even assuming your judge isn't 100% pozzed and ideologically opposed to you and everything you stand for

There is a large risk of this. If you've been watching the news, you'll have seen this happen again and again. The legal system has been failing as a stabilizing force against madness and tyranny.

 

[Kosher Salt]

It's not a First Amendment issue—has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

The conflict that arises between what is free speech and what is defamation has a lot to do with the first amendment.

tortious interference is a slam dunk if you're going after Dong Gone, and First Amendment claims are irrelevant

There's no such thing as a slam dunk. You include all of your plausible claims, even the weaker ones.

Whether they stop or intensify over this, it'll be proof that LFJ is responsible.

Unfortunately it would not be "proof" that you could bring into any court. I don't think it even meets the civil standard of preponderance of evidence.

If we assume someone else is responsible for the DDoS attacks, they could see lawfare as a reason to either increase or decrease attacks. Increase, because they're getting away with it and Josh is suing somebody else, or simply because they see resort to lawfare as a display of weakness. Or it could decrease, if they fear being sued themselves.

Mods will have to very careful with random fedposts in Elliot´s thread, i think locking it will be a smart move

Full disagree with locking any threads. That gives them exactly what they want. And it's not like they couldn't just fedpost in literally any other thread anyway.

Temporarily shutting down registrations would make more sense, if it's necessary. Maybe also combined with only allowing accounts of a certain age to post in certain threads.

 

[Null]

This is a doomed idea. Going into lawsuit mode in shithole California is just asking to get ass fucked with multiple cases at once win or lose. Your honestly better off taking a overall internet censorship case to the Supreme Court

I cannot promise us anything but a glorious death

 

[Kosher Salt]

I'm curious, could they(Null) use discovery to get records from the Department of State or maybe the State of Ohio to prove that Byuu is either alive or dead?

Public records are already public. If they're not already online, there's the Freedom Of Information Act. If you think you can prove anything, knock yourself out.

 

[Some Dumb Faggot]

I cannot promise us anything but a glorious death

I'm no Lawyer or anything, but people are right that you should avoid any and all politics and instead focus on how LFJ's actions hurt you from a business standpoint and what you should be awarded for it, a Judge won't care about how the greater internet is damaged by his actions. A big factor will be getting recorded calls he had with people and the kinds of emails he sent out and how he threatened/harassed people. You might need to use a subpoena for to get those things.

The entirety of the case the Judge will likely have no idea or care what Kiwifarms is and will just be looking at if the law was broken in a provable way.

 

[Takayuki Yagami]

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

You could always still them up, give a broad overview, and see if they know anyone. You’re likely to have better results than you think, if only because attorneys really like to network.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

I cannot promise us anything but a glorious death

 

[George Lucas]

I cannot promise us anything but a glorious death

Do you have any witnesses who can testify on your behalf, or even someone who can join you in the lawsuit as a plaintiff? Perhaps someone that LFJ tried and failed to have a ‘girl talk’ with? That could go a long way to legitimizing the case from the judge’s perspective beyond ‘two retards fighting about the principles of the Internet’.

 

[Throwing Romans]

I think I posted this before the downtime, but Glen Allen is worth talking to. He doesn't practice in California, but free (and unpopular - he's closely associated with white nationalists) speech is his thing - and he seems pretty BASED as well. He probably knows someone in CA that would represent you well.

 

[BulletSpongeRTR]

Therefore Kiwis, hear the rallying cry
and engrave it in your young heart
Ready to sneed
Signal given
Life will be won.

Grün ist unser Fallschirm!

 

[Celestial Peace]

There's only one lawyer that can help.
View attachment 5338279

HOLD IT!

 

[make_it_so]

I cannot promise us anything but a glorious death

 

[repentance]

The biggest thing I can tell you is when it comes to civil litigation, whoever has the largest coffers will be able to win. The reason is that more money means you can afford more lawyers who can make the opposition's life a living hell (get them tangled up in court proceedings until the other side just gives up or runs out of money).

LFJ lives in Canada and Australia. There's no way he's not going to sink money into challenging jurisdiction.

 

[Ewan McGregor]

and he seems pretty BASED as well

"Baltimore fires city lawyer with neo-Nazi ties​

Glen Allen says he had 'pretty awful experiences with black people'​

My sides in orbit just from reading this

 

[nya002]

Since you have been given random opinions that try to do professional lawyer work without the license and the profession, here is one more -

you don't mention the actual matter of the suit. Are you trying to achieve damages? Are you trying to compel a provider to give you service?

Finding a lawyer is easy. A specialised good one or a firm is expensive. There are lawyers who, say, work for things like sovereign investment funds from countries with a shaky human rights record - everyone is constitutionally entitled to have a lawyer represent him, however shady and vile.

There is also the possibility that the very good expensive lawyer will be honest and tell you "you will lose the case" - even when you think you will win it and it seems obvious to you as a client.

Were the law as easy to navigate as it might seem, lawyers wouldn't need to study a few years and go through an internship to get that license number.

If you want an extremely good lawyer that "heroically" i.e. for free writes the lawsuit, spends money trying to prove you are right, pays experts out of his pocket, etc. it is unlikely you will find one.

Now, since it seems that your lawsuit might tangentially involve someone who works at googhel and used googhel hardware to harass you, that might cause some lawyery ears to prick up.

At the end, it comes down to proof of breaking the law or a contract, not who is morally right.

Given unlimited funds, look for big firms that have been working with clients whose reputation is not unsullied.

Sorry if the advice is not helpful, but the nature of the suit seems a little vague and the budget makes a big difference.

Make sure you get the venue right too, because perhaps the suit is not to be brought in California. A real licensed lawyer will tell you.

 

[Null]

Since you have been given random opinions that try to do professional lawyer work without the license and the profession, here is one more -

I don't know if you actually tried to read the first post or the notice but did you happen to see that my wording is "I am looking for REFERRALS" and not "I am looking for LEGAL ADVICE FROM RANDOM FUCKING PEOPLE"?

I did actually say explicitly what I was looking for: a California attorney experienced in civil matters with an understanding of technology and hopefully a passion for first amendment issues.

 

[AnOminous]

I did actually say explicitly what I was looking for: a California attorney experienced in civil matters with an understanding of technology and hopefully a passion for first amendment issues.

I'd be concerned with more specific things, like California's SLAPP statute, litigation in federal court, and an understanding of how Erie Doctrine in the Ninth Circuit impacts the potential application of SLAPP in federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction.

Just saying California's SLAPP statute is terrifying.