[Found] Crossing the Rubicon

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Status
Not open for further replies.
AnOminous said:
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.
Click to expand...
The California SLAPP statute is terrifying because the alternative is worse
 
Some Dumb Faggot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Most judges are too boomerish to understand how the Internet works, and those who aren't probably don't have the time to investigate the minutae.

I'm still not a lawyer, but I have given this some more thought.

If I were instructing my lawyer, I'd respectfully request that they are laser focused on the TI claim. This is something that is clear for any judge worth their salt to understand, and there are a whole ton of precedents upon which to refer.

Furthermore, I agree with those who suggest that it's important to stick to the facts of the TI claim and to leave any speculation on LFJ's motives out of it, as that will just muddy the waters.

Of course Null's counsel will need to prepare for LFJ's counsel to claim harassment as his defense for engaging in TI, but engaging in TI is the wrong way to go about addressing alleged harassment (and any judge worth their pinch of salt would know this and rule accordingly). This is where Null's counsel clearly demonstrates that KF is a 100% US legal website, operated in the USA by a company registered in WV, and is about as close as this case gets wrt free speech and the First Amendment.

Whilst it'd be nice to go after LFJ for defamation as well, defamation can be hard to prove. At least it tends to be harder to prove than TI.

I've written an entire effortpost and I'm still not a lawyer, so it's possible Null's properly qualified legal advice may contradict my suggestions. If that's the case, I'd go with that instead.
George Lucas said:
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’.
Click to expand...
Given how the Troon Squad basically runs the tech industry these days, I suspect it would be very difficult for Null to convince any of these 'girl talk' recipients to come forward, lest it lead to the complete ruin of their business.

There may be one or two of Null's current providers whose client base is highly unlikely to abandon them if they testify against LFJ. However if any of these providers also provide services to known hate groups or other unsavory content, the Defense will go into full character assassination mode.

Whilst that sounds scary, all Null's counsel needs is proof of Cloudflare providing services to monkey torture website, terrorist groups, CSAM merchants and the like. This could be especially useful if a Cloudflare representative is called up by LFJ's counsel as a witness.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: InteracialBowelSyndrome, Jaimas, Meat Target and 22 others
Civil and criminal suits are different, right? I’m not an attorney so I’m sure I can get lots of words. But isn’t it harder to prove damages than to prove some jogger punched a random old lady?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: George Lucas
I'm pretty sure my previous post was lost in the outage. I know of a lawyer in Californa by the name of Jon Emerson Rietveld. He mostly does family law, but he has taken on all sorts of cases. He runs a youtube channel so I don't know if that's deal breaker. He is very pro free speech though. Couldn't hurt to contact him.

 
  • Like
Reactions: InteracialBowelSyndrome, doodoocaca, LurkerJerker and 3 others
spinal gas chamber said:
Civil and criminal suits are different, right? I’m not an attorney so I’m sure I can get lots of words. But isn’t it harder to prove damages than to prove some jogger punched a random old lady?
Click to expand...
For one, criminal cases require a unanimous verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, no other reasonable explanation exists except for the defendant's guilt.

Civil requires a unanimous (but sometimes just a majority) juror verdict with a preponderance of the evidence standard, that is 50%+a little bit more in favor of one party over the other.

EDIT: To add, that's because of the relationship between the two parties. In a criminal case, it's a single citizen versus the virtually unlimited resources of an entire state, with the possibility that the private citizen loses his rights and gets locked up in a cage for months to years. This is why the state has such a high burden to clear.

In a civil case, it's two private citizens against each other, with the state acting as a referee, with the only real punishment being a loss of money.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: King Possum, George Lucas, Exterminatus and 9 others
Kinoplex Robert said:
Does this mean Josh is going forward with his idea of Total Retard War Bonds as a method of fundraising for the legal shit?

That's a piece of merch I wouldn't mind owning. Especially if he ends up winning.
Click to expand...
Imagine if the case goes all the way to the Supreme Court! Your kiwi bond certificates value would go to the moon!
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Feline Supremacist, Pedophobe, Essay2414778 and 5 others
Flamin Park said:
The site is absolutely chugging again

Is there a point where Null just waives the rule and says 'go nuts'?
Click to expand...
The amount of resources being applied at this point go way beyond rando trannies spending their benefit checks every first of the month. The Washington Post very helpfully highlighted the fact that there is in fact a criminal conspiracy doing actionable crimes that aren't just civilly reachable, but hold potentially serious prison time if the Government actually gave a shit, backed by big names in the Silicon Valley tech sector. Of course, The WaPo was circumspect enough to just hint at it. Liz Fong Jones was dumb enough to just admit it outright.

The simple truth is there is no getting around such determined effort at breaking the internet, backed by so much money and institutional support in the form of the "Voice of Amazon" the Washington Post. You have to force the Government to get involved, and civil lawsuits are the only method of compelling government force absent the government itself deciding to step in.

They won't make it easy though, and believe me the California Courts and the Federal Courts will be looking for any mistake, any technicality, to justify tossing Nulls lawsuit. There is no such thing as a meritorious case, and there is no justice to be found in the US Courts. Not unless you are willing to pay, and make the consequences of the courts ruling in favor of you less deleterious then ruling against you.

That is the transcendent knowledge. The scales of justice don't weigh innocence and guilt. They weigh cause and effect.

Which is a round about way of saying that there is no way Null will tell anyone to "go nuts" because if he did there is no chance his case will ever be heard and he will probably be found dead in a whore house in belgrade from a fentanyl overdose. Unremarked and unlamented. Which is not operative here, because what makes the KiwiFarms unique and thus a "fascinating" legal test case is how scrupulously legal it is. Its Jannies are above reproach, swift and merciless on CP and Terroristic threats. The forum administration responds promptly to the lawful demands of the US Courts. It even engages with those same courts through its attorneys.

This is something 8chan never did, and I wonder if watching that shit heap go down in flames helped inform Nulls official behavior. The simple truth though is the Kiwifarms is above reproach. "legally speaking" . Its name is mud in the press and on social media, but the courts don't care about that. They want a LEGAL reason for shutting down a case involving the Farms, and the only legal cases they have are actions in the 10th and 4th circuits that were escalated to the full Appellate level. Which the Kiwifarms won, and another district case in the Seventh Circuit where the Kiwi Farms successfully squashes a subpoena demanding user data be turned over. In the case of the 10th circuit, it even involved oral arguments before the full panel of justices. Admittedly over Copyright issues rather then what is operative here. But that is not the point. When it comes time to paint the forum as some sort of lawless entity all Nulls lawyers have to do is direct the judges attention to the fact that the Farms has already been before a court above them. And won. Not in a procedural "we don't care" sort of way. But in a way where the Forums lawyer physically boarded a plane, flew to Denver, and was recorded defending "Kiwi Farms" before the 10th circuit court of appeals in oral arguments. Which will give any district judge pause on simply throwing shit out on whim.

The only precedents the Federal Courts have involving this forum are victory after victory for it. Which means there is a chance, however small, of ultimate victory. But that will require staying the course and not falling into the trap laid by morons like you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Winner
Reactions: Bunny Wigglesworth, Hongourable Madisha, Smar Mijou and 48 others
Somehow I missed this but Timothy Sandefur is an expert in free speech, constitutional law, is a libertarian, etc. I don’t know if he’s still practicing, although his wife is. He works with other lawyers and I know he’s done a lot of pro bono. He’s been on radio shows, written books, and has a Twitter so you can get a feel for him before you contact him.

 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: squirt reynolds, Ogre Magi, Accidental Protege and 6 others
mindlessobserver said:
Its Jannies are above reproach
Click to expand...
I know there's users who have been banned, but I don't know the details of what gets you banned. Permanently or otherwise. It's kind of obscure.

Similarly there's the pink triangle for "Disruptive Guests", but I never understood why there wasn't also a mark for users who have been permanently banned or who currently under a temporary ban. I'm fairly certain the XenForo software came with that system, so I don't know why KF doesn't have it.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: Smar Mijou and Autistic Joe
lolcowsdrama said:
I know there's users who have been banned, but I don't know the details of what gets you banned. Permanently or otherwise. It's kind of obscure.
Click to expand...
Not really. The rules are posted at the top of every subforum. But in general the things that I have seen that tend to catch a ban are gay ops planning, inducement to crimes, severely off topic sperging, CP, posting of torture videos (animal or otherwise) or blatant glow posting.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Autistic Joe, Poonocchio, Irrational Exuberance and 3 others
Pee Cola said:
Of course Null's counsel will need to prepare for LFJ's counsel to claim harassment as his defense for engaging in TI, but engaging in TI is the wrong way to go about addressing alleged harassment (and any judge worth their pinch of salt would know this and rule accordingly). This is where Null's counsel clearly demonstrates that KF is a 100% US legal website, operated in the USA by a company registered in WV, and is about as close as this case gets wrt free speech and the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
If it comes to it, I will show up as a witness. I will attest to, and can back up with receipts of times I was involved, LFJ's willingness to lie about fucking everything, psychotic freakouts, and general degenerate pedophilic behavior. All of the most awful things said about Elliot on this forum are statements of fact, not opinion., yet this is an opinion forum. There's a nice little karnugh map - Everything true is legal to say, everything opinion is legal to say, and that LFJ is a psychotic pedophile is both true and opinion. Therefore, legal, and LFJ's bullshit is tortious interference and he's a vexatious litigant.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Autistic Joe, HIVidaBoheme and make_it_so
RepeatedMeme said:
All of the most awful things said about Elliot on this forum are statements of fact, not opinion., yet this is an opinion forum. There's a nice little karnugh map - Everything true is legal to say, everything opinion is legal to say, and that LFJ is a psychotic pedophile is both true and opinion. Therefore, legal, and LFJ's bullshit is tortious interference and he's a vexatious litigant.
Click to expand...
"Vexatious litigant" is a category which can only be applied to those who bring suits, not respond to them.

There's no such thing as a vexatious or frivolous defendant, as instituting such a category would deprive affected parties of their right to face their accusers. (It would be a de facto attainder, IOW)

TBF, you could be referring to previous litigation engaged in by Elliott of which I am unaware (or just shitposting).
 
  • Like
Reactions: InteracialBowelSyndrome and Richard Cheese
Null said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why on Earth would you ever think posting this here was the best thing to do?
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
Reactions: Sprocket, Lemmingwiser, Figger Nucker and 8 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back