Octopi
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2022
Boy, I sure would have enjoyed this thread if anything had been fucking archived.
The Predator Catcher Community - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
- Thread starter JamusActimus
- Start date
-
🔧 At about Midnight EST I am going to completely fuck up the site trying to fix something.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2019
Jake Lights was the guy teasing the outsider video of someone skateboarding a predator during CC Unit's livestream.
Here is his production. (archive downscaled to 720 from 1080p to fit under the 200mb upload limit)
PS I have zero ability to edit video on my laptop, and uploading a three hour video in the size limit to upload would make the video downgrade to a gray blob ... so when I recommend a particularly spicy livestream, I *NEED* someone else to archive it, as the only alternative is for me to simply never add the comment - and this thread simply wouldn't exist because no one ever knew about anyone beating up a predator. Thanks in advance. It was clunky and an investment of time to get this video uploaded, maybe I'll just never contribute to the thread anymore - everyone would be happier, eh?
I'm not contributing to this thread so that it is an awesome and immaculate record of predators to be admired through antiquity by every newfag to come along. I'm adding to it because it seems very dead sometimes, and I see a lot of interesting videos. People who are watching the thread can appreciate its development and growth. My only comment to bullshitters saying "archive everything" is if any single one of you took your own advice it would never be an issue, eh?
Here is his production. (archive downscaled to 720 from 1080p to fit under the 200mb upload limit)
PS I have zero ability to edit video on my laptop, and uploading a three hour video in the size limit to upload would make the video downgrade to a gray blob ... so when I recommend a particularly spicy livestream, I *NEED* someone else to archive it, as the only alternative is for me to simply never add the comment - and this thread simply wouldn't exist because no one ever knew about anyone beating up a predator. Thanks in advance. It was clunky and an investment of time to get this video uploaded, maybe I'll just never contribute to the thread anymore - everyone would be happier, eh?
I'm not contributing to this thread so that it is an awesome and immaculate record of predators to be admired through antiquity by every newfag to come along. I'm adding to it because it seems very dead sometimes, and I see a lot of interesting videos. People who are watching the thread can appreciate its development and growth. My only comment to bullshitters saying "archive everything" is if any single one of you took your own advice it would never be an issue, eh?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2019
I was just browsing reddit to glean any pearls not covered here, and it looks like a Motion To Strike was granted in Codys defamation case three months ago.
PHOTO OF KAPISH HALDIA:
Case Number: 22STCV13705 Hearing Date: September 27, 2022 Dept: 39
NOTICE
The Court posts this tentative on Sunday, September 25, 2022, in advance of the hearing on Tuesday, September 27, 2022. Plaintiff objects to the Court’s consideration of the electronic chat between Plaintiff and Defendant because a copy of the actual chat is not attached to Defendant’s declaration. The Court intends to proceed with the hearing on September 27, 2022, but if this issue is dispositive and Plaintiff does not waive the objection, the Court intends to continue the hearing, order Defendant to lodge a copy of the electronic chat, and afford Plaintiff an opportunity to respond. The Court orders the parties to appear either remotely or in-person on September 27, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Kapish Haldia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Cody Mattingly (“Defendant”) asserting the following causes of action:
1. Defamation per se
2. False light
3. Negligence
4. Civil harassment
5. Intentional infliction of emotional distress
6. Negligent infliction of emotional distress
7. Declaratory and injunctive relief
Now, Defendant moves to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly known as the Anti-SLAPP statute. Defendant moves for dismissal of the first, second, third, fifth, and sixth causes of action and seeks attorney’s fees. Plaintiff opposes the motion, which is granted.
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff signed up for an online dating website that required all members to be over the age of 18 years old. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) On or about February 26, 2022, Plaintiff started communicating with an individual on the online dating website. (Complaint, ¶ 13.) Plaintiff confirmed a date with the individual. (Complaint, ¶ 18.) Later that same date, “an individual showed up on the Plaintiff’s property and started flashing a light in his face and recording him without consent. Plaintiff had never met that individual and did not know him.” (Complaint, ¶ 19.) The video of the encounter was posted on four websites: (1) The Instagram account: @peoplevpreds; (2) The YouTube account: People v. Preds; and (3) The Instagram account: @netpredators; and (4) The website: www.netpredators.com. (Complaint, ¶ 20.) Defendant posted Plaintiff’s photograph on a Twitter account and stated: “Venice, California; Kapish, a vice president at Highview Capitol, invited a 15 year old boy over.” (Complaint, ¶ 24.) Defendant also falsely referred to Plaintiff as a “pedophile.” (Complaint, ¶ 25.) Plaintiff’s personal information was listed on the website, including his telephone number, email, and address, and he started receiving threats. (Complaint, ¶¶ 21-23, 29.) Plaintiff’s relatives’ telephone numbers and personal information also were published. (Complaint, ¶ 23.) They, too, received messages stating that “their son is a pedophile.” (Complaint, ¶ 30.) Plaintiff’s employer received multiple telephone calls advocating for the termination of his employment. (Complaint, ¶ 31.) Defendant also filed multiple false police reports concerning this incident. (Complaint, ¶ 32.)
LEGAL STANDARD
In ruling on a defendant’s special motion to strike, or anti-SLAPP motion to strike, the trial court uses a two-step process. First, the defendant must show that the act or acts of which the plaintiff complains were taken in furtherance of the defendant’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitutions in connection with a public issue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) The defendant has the burden of making a prima facie showing that a cause of action arises from an act in furtherance of his or her constitutional rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. (Equilon Enterprises, LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 67.) If the defendant carries that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(3).)
EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
The Court rules as follows on Plaintiff’s objections:
Objection #1 – Overruled.
Objection #2 – Sustained as to Defendant’s use of the term “pedophile.” Overruled in all other respects.
Objection #3 – The Court has no tentative ruling on this objection.
Objection #4 – Overruled.
Objection #5 – Overruled.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s claims are based on videos that Defendant posted on various websites. (Complaint, ¶ 20.) Claims based on “any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest” are subject to a special motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(3).) “The Internet is a classic public forum . . . .” (Chaker v. Mateo (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1146.) Defendant’s statements relate to an issue of public interest. “[P]reventing child sexual abuse and protecting children from sexual predators are issues of widespread public interest.” (Cross v. Cooper (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 357, 375; see also Mendoza v. ADP Screening & Selection Services, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1644, 1653.) The instant case is distinguishable from Abuemeria v. Stephens, in which the District Court of Appeal for the Second District held that “video recording of an unseemly private [confrontation], no matter how wide its distribution, is far removed from a citizen's constitutional right of petition or free speech involving a public issue.” (Abuemeria v. Stephens (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1294.) That case involved “an unseemly private brawl” without “any evidence to establish . . . that this dispute was anything other than a private controversy.” (Id., p. 1298.) The instant case involved identifying a potential sexual predator and warning the public, which is a matter of public interest. The Court need not reach Defendant’s argument that, in the alternative, the videos were posted “in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subds. (e)(1)-(2).)
Defendant has shifted the burden to Plaintiff to establish a probability of success on the merits. Plaintiff fails to do so. Plaintiff does not dispute that he communicated with Defendant. (See Declaration of Kapish Haldia, ¶¶ 8-10.) To the contrary, Plaintiff admits as follows: (1) On or about February 26, 2022, he had an internet conversation with Defendant on an internet dating site; (2) Defendant’s profile stated that he was over the age of 18 years old; (3) Plaintiff communicated with him; and (4) Plaintiff arranged a meeting with him that same date. (Id., ¶¶ 8-10, 16.) However, Plaintiff does not dispute the contents of the chat, which is detailed in Defendant’s motion and authenticated by Defendant’s declaration. (See Memorandum of Points & Authorities, pp. 6-16; Declaration of Cody Mattingly, ¶ 8.) Specifically, Plaintiff does not deny or explain the following parts of the chat, which started on the website and then continued via text message:
Defendant at 4:34 a.m. “Do you mind if I’m not 18 tho”
Plaintiff at 4:34 a.m. “ha are you gonna get me in trouble”
Defendant at 4:34 a.m. “LOL I don’t want no trouble”
Plaintiff at 4:35 a.m. “ha well, come hang if ya want”
Defendant at 4:35 a.m. “hahah wat we gona do”
Plaintiff at 4:36 a.m. “hang out, having a drink, maybe have some fun if you’re down ha”
Defendant at 4:36 a.m. “I mean yeah I’m down to try new things I’m down for whatever lol”
Plaintiff at 4:37 a.m. “Kap here btw”
Defendant at 4:37 a.m. “I’m trey”
Plaintiff at 4:37 a.m. “Come hang Trey”
. . .
Defendant at 4:39 a.m. “What kind of fun”
Plaintiff at 4:39 a.m. “haha come find out Why ruin the surprise”
Defendant at 4:40 a.m. “Yeah I don’t like surprises Being 15 sux lol”
Plaintiff at 4:40 a.m. “haha we should make an agenda”
Defendant at 4:40 a.m. “Im nalmost 16 tho Yeah it would make me more comfortable”
Plaintiff at 4:41 a.m. “ha well how about we do what you want pick your adventure”
Defendant at 4:42 a.m. “Are you a bottom Can you send me a pix” [Defendant sent a photograph of what looked like a teenage boy]
Plaintiff at 4:44 a.m. [Plaintiff sent four photos, two of which showed his genitals]
. . .
Defendant at 4:47 a.m. “Yeah I mean I just want to be safe and kind of talk a little bit about it 1st But like I said I’m down to do whatever I think I want to top I’m 15 and curious haha”
Plaintiff at 4:48 a.m. “well we don’t have to do anything besides just hang, and we can have whatever adventure we want”
Defendant at 4:48 a.m. “What do you like though”
Plaintiff at 4:48 a.m. “have you topped before? Sounds fun ha”
Defendant at 4:48 a.m. “Um I got scared the last time But if you’re down like I said I’ll do anything”
Plaintiff at 4:49 a.m. “ha you can decide in the moment but I’m pretty down to have you do that What else are you into”
Defendant at 4:50 a.m. “I asked you what do you like Omg lol”
Plaintiff at 4:51 a.m. “ha”
Defendant at 4:51 a.m. “? I just want to be safe do you have condoms”
Plaintiff at 4:51 a.m. “lmk if you make up your mind yup”
. . .
Defendant at 4:54 a.m. “Okay are you gonna suck me or what
Plaintiff at 4:54 a.m. “do you want me? Ha I’m v down”
(See Memorandum of Points & Authorities, pp. 7-12; Declaration of Cody Mattingly, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s failure to explain this evidence precludes him from establishing a probability of success on the merits.
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s remaining evidence, but it does not establish any probability of success on the merits. Plaintiff relies on the declaration of Joseph Cipollini, who states that he found no evidence of the alleged chat between Plaintiff and Defendant. (Declaration of Joseph Cipollini, ¶¶ 14, 20.) This evidence might be dispositive if Plaintiff was alleging a case of mistaken identity, i.e., he was not the one who chatted with Defendant that night. But Plaintiff admits that there was an electronic chat between him and Defendant. (See Declaration of Kapish Haldia, ¶¶ 8-10.) Therefore, Cipollini’s failure to locate evidence of the chat on Plaintiff’s computer and iPhone is not dispositive. The Court also considered the declaration of Spencer Bashforth, who states that he was with Plaintiff that evening, and “[t]here were no minors at our house and we weren’t expecting any minors to be there.” (Declaration of Spencer Bashforth, ¶ 7.) This evidence does not contradict the contents of the chat, in which Plaintiff admits that “[his] friends just called it a night” and “[he] can’t sleep.” (See Memorandum of Points & Authorities, p. 7; Declaration of Cody Mattingly, ¶ 8.) The Court has considered Plaintiff’s remaining evidence, but none explains this chat.
In sum, Plaintiff has not denied or explained the contents of the internet chat. The chat establishes that Plaintiff sent photographs of his genitals to another user after that user identified himself as being 15 years old. The chat also establishes that Plaintiff planned a sexual encounter with another user after that user identified himself as being 15 years old. Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated any probability of success on the merits.
Defendant is entitled to his fees and costs, but he did not provide any related information. Therefore, the Court cannot rule on this issue at this time.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
1. The Court grants Defendant’s special motion to dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The first, second, third, fifth, and sixth causes of action are dismissed with prejudice.
2. Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees is denied without prejudice.
3. Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
Case Number: 22STCV13705 Hearing Date: September 27, 2022 Dept: 39
Kapish Haldia v. Cody Mattingly
Case No. 22STCV13705
Special Motion to Strike
Case No. 22STCV13705
Special Motion to Strike
NOTICE
The Court posts this tentative on Sunday, September 25, 2022, in advance of the hearing on Tuesday, September 27, 2022. Plaintiff objects to the Court’s consideration of the electronic chat between Plaintiff and Defendant because a copy of the actual chat is not attached to Defendant’s declaration. The Court intends to proceed with the hearing on September 27, 2022, but if this issue is dispositive and Plaintiff does not waive the objection, the Court intends to continue the hearing, order Defendant to lodge a copy of the electronic chat, and afford Plaintiff an opportunity to respond. The Court orders the parties to appear either remotely or in-person on September 27, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Kapish Haldia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Cody Mattingly (“Defendant”) asserting the following causes of action:
1. Defamation per se
2. False light
3. Negligence
4. Civil harassment
5. Intentional infliction of emotional distress
6. Negligent infliction of emotional distress
7. Declaratory and injunctive relief
Now, Defendant moves to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly known as the Anti-SLAPP statute. Defendant moves for dismissal of the first, second, third, fifth, and sixth causes of action and seeks attorney’s fees. Plaintiff opposes the motion, which is granted.
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff signed up for an online dating website that required all members to be over the age of 18 years old. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) On or about February 26, 2022, Plaintiff started communicating with an individual on the online dating website. (Complaint, ¶ 13.) Plaintiff confirmed a date with the individual. (Complaint, ¶ 18.) Later that same date, “an individual showed up on the Plaintiff’s property and started flashing a light in his face and recording him without consent. Plaintiff had never met that individual and did not know him.” (Complaint, ¶ 19.) The video of the encounter was posted on four websites: (1) The Instagram account: @peoplevpreds; (2) The YouTube account: People v. Preds; and (3) The Instagram account: @netpredators; and (4) The website: www.netpredators.com. (Complaint, ¶ 20.) Defendant posted Plaintiff’s photograph on a Twitter account and stated: “Venice, California; Kapish, a vice president at Highview Capitol, invited a 15 year old boy over.” (Complaint, ¶ 24.) Defendant also falsely referred to Plaintiff as a “pedophile.” (Complaint, ¶ 25.) Plaintiff’s personal information was listed on the website, including his telephone number, email, and address, and he started receiving threats. (Complaint, ¶¶ 21-23, 29.) Plaintiff’s relatives’ telephone numbers and personal information also were published. (Complaint, ¶ 23.) They, too, received messages stating that “their son is a pedophile.” (Complaint, ¶ 30.) Plaintiff’s employer received multiple telephone calls advocating for the termination of his employment. (Complaint, ¶ 31.) Defendant also filed multiple false police reports concerning this incident. (Complaint, ¶ 32.)
LEGAL STANDARD
In ruling on a defendant’s special motion to strike, or anti-SLAPP motion to strike, the trial court uses a two-step process. First, the defendant must show that the act or acts of which the plaintiff complains were taken in furtherance of the defendant’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitutions in connection with a public issue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) The defendant has the burden of making a prima facie showing that a cause of action arises from an act in furtherance of his or her constitutional rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. (Equilon Enterprises, LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 67.) If the defendant carries that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(3).)
EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
The Court rules as follows on Plaintiff’s objections:
Objection #1 – Overruled.
Objection #2 – Sustained as to Defendant’s use of the term “pedophile.” Overruled in all other respects.
Objection #3 – The Court has no tentative ruling on this objection.
Objection #4 – Overruled.
Objection #5 – Overruled.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s claims are based on videos that Defendant posted on various websites. (Complaint, ¶ 20.) Claims based on “any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest” are subject to a special motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(3).) “The Internet is a classic public forum . . . .” (Chaker v. Mateo (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1146.) Defendant’s statements relate to an issue of public interest. “[P]reventing child sexual abuse and protecting children from sexual predators are issues of widespread public interest.” (Cross v. Cooper (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 357, 375; see also Mendoza v. ADP Screening & Selection Services, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1644, 1653.) The instant case is distinguishable from Abuemeria v. Stephens, in which the District Court of Appeal for the Second District held that “video recording of an unseemly private [confrontation], no matter how wide its distribution, is far removed from a citizen's constitutional right of petition or free speech involving a public issue.” (Abuemeria v. Stephens (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1294.) That case involved “an unseemly private brawl” without “any evidence to establish . . . that this dispute was anything other than a private controversy.” (Id., p. 1298.) The instant case involved identifying a potential sexual predator and warning the public, which is a matter of public interest. The Court need not reach Defendant’s argument that, in the alternative, the videos were posted “in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subds. (e)(1)-(2).)
Defendant has shifted the burden to Plaintiff to establish a probability of success on the merits. Plaintiff fails to do so. Plaintiff does not dispute that he communicated with Defendant. (See Declaration of Kapish Haldia, ¶¶ 8-10.) To the contrary, Plaintiff admits as follows: (1) On or about February 26, 2022, he had an internet conversation with Defendant on an internet dating site; (2) Defendant’s profile stated that he was over the age of 18 years old; (3) Plaintiff communicated with him; and (4) Plaintiff arranged a meeting with him that same date. (Id., ¶¶ 8-10, 16.) However, Plaintiff does not dispute the contents of the chat, which is detailed in Defendant’s motion and authenticated by Defendant’s declaration. (See Memorandum of Points & Authorities, pp. 6-16; Declaration of Cody Mattingly, ¶ 8.) Specifically, Plaintiff does not deny or explain the following parts of the chat, which started on the website and then continued via text message:
Defendant at 4:34 a.m. “Do you mind if I’m not 18 tho”
Plaintiff at 4:34 a.m. “ha are you gonna get me in trouble”
Defendant at 4:34 a.m. “LOL I don’t want no trouble”
Plaintiff at 4:35 a.m. “ha well, come hang if ya want”
Defendant at 4:35 a.m. “hahah wat we gona do”
Plaintiff at 4:36 a.m. “hang out, having a drink, maybe have some fun if you’re down ha”
Defendant at 4:36 a.m. “I mean yeah I’m down to try new things I’m down for whatever lol”
Plaintiff at 4:37 a.m. “Kap here btw”
Defendant at 4:37 a.m. “I’m trey”
Plaintiff at 4:37 a.m. “Come hang Trey”
. . .
Defendant at 4:39 a.m. “What kind of fun”
Plaintiff at 4:39 a.m. “haha come find out Why ruin the surprise”
Defendant at 4:40 a.m. “Yeah I don’t like surprises Being 15 sux lol”
Plaintiff at 4:40 a.m. “haha we should make an agenda”
Defendant at 4:40 a.m. “Im nalmost 16 tho Yeah it would make me more comfortable”
Plaintiff at 4:41 a.m. “ha well how about we do what you want pick your adventure”
Defendant at 4:42 a.m. “Are you a bottom Can you send me a pix” [Defendant sent a photograph of what looked like a teenage boy]
Plaintiff at 4:44 a.m. [Plaintiff sent four photos, two of which showed his genitals]
. . .
Defendant at 4:47 a.m. “Yeah I mean I just want to be safe and kind of talk a little bit about it 1st But like I said I’m down to do whatever I think I want to top I’m 15 and curious haha”
Plaintiff at 4:48 a.m. “well we don’t have to do anything besides just hang, and we can have whatever adventure we want”
Defendant at 4:48 a.m. “What do you like though”
Plaintiff at 4:48 a.m. “have you topped before? Sounds fun ha”
Defendant at 4:48 a.m. “Um I got scared the last time But if you’re down like I said I’ll do anything”
Plaintiff at 4:49 a.m. “ha you can decide in the moment but I’m pretty down to have you do that What else are you into”
Defendant at 4:50 a.m. “I asked you what do you like Omg lol”
Plaintiff at 4:51 a.m. “ha”
Defendant at 4:51 a.m. “? I just want to be safe do you have condoms”
Plaintiff at 4:51 a.m. “lmk if you make up your mind yup”
. . .
Defendant at 4:54 a.m. “Okay are you gonna suck me or what
Plaintiff at 4:54 a.m. “do you want me? Ha I’m v down”
(See Memorandum of Points & Authorities, pp. 7-12; Declaration of Cody Mattingly, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s failure to explain this evidence precludes him from establishing a probability of success on the merits.
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s remaining evidence, but it does not establish any probability of success on the merits. Plaintiff relies on the declaration of Joseph Cipollini, who states that he found no evidence of the alleged chat between Plaintiff and Defendant. (Declaration of Joseph Cipollini, ¶¶ 14, 20.) This evidence might be dispositive if Plaintiff was alleging a case of mistaken identity, i.e., he was not the one who chatted with Defendant that night. But Plaintiff admits that there was an electronic chat between him and Defendant. (See Declaration of Kapish Haldia, ¶¶ 8-10.) Therefore, Cipollini’s failure to locate evidence of the chat on Plaintiff’s computer and iPhone is not dispositive. The Court also considered the declaration of Spencer Bashforth, who states that he was with Plaintiff that evening, and “[t]here were no minors at our house and we weren’t expecting any minors to be there.” (Declaration of Spencer Bashforth, ¶ 7.) This evidence does not contradict the contents of the chat, in which Plaintiff admits that “[his] friends just called it a night” and “[he] can’t sleep.” (See Memorandum of Points & Authorities, p. 7; Declaration of Cody Mattingly, ¶ 8.) The Court has considered Plaintiff’s remaining evidence, but none explains this chat.
In sum, Plaintiff has not denied or explained the contents of the internet chat. The chat establishes that Plaintiff sent photographs of his genitals to another user after that user identified himself as being 15 years old. The chat also establishes that Plaintiff planned a sexual encounter with another user after that user identified himself as being 15 years old. Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated any probability of success on the merits.
Defendant is entitled to his fees and costs, but he did not provide any related information. Therefore, the Court cannot rule on this issue at this time.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
1. The Court grants Defendant’s special motion to dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The first, second, third, fifth, and sixth causes of action are dismissed with prejudice.
2. Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees is denied without prejudice.
3. Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
Mr. Webs livestream catch tonight was fun. He was showing the hotel he was outside of before confronting the predator ... but the predator comes outside and confronts him in the parking lot because of all the people phoning in to warn him!
And the predator is 4'9". On probation, and acting crazy - but also "knows the law". Mr. Web says just stay subscribed to one of his channels (MrWeb2.0) and you may be able to tune in to the next one!
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2019
I got a notification for another video being released by TRUBLUTV on youtube a moment ago - and the next minute the video was gone. Now I get a 404 when trying to view the youtube channel. Hope you all enjoyed the free preview, if it is kaput.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2022
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2019
Musa (AKA LC Predator Catcher) had an interesting catch today (#480). Dave doxes his own name, phone number, and age - while sitting in his own car politely while the police are called and patiently waited for. Apparently Dave showed the chat messages to a cop earlier that day, who told the predator "thats probably musa harris"... but the predator STILL came to get caught, because he is one of those virtuous predofiles. 
[archive of LC Catch #480, Dave. Downscaled from 720p to 360p to fit file size limits]
And if you were watching Mr. Webs livestream last night, it was exciting how everything seemed totally calm until the predofile realized the cops have been called and he starts running away and it turns into a foot chase for a couple miles through the streets of New Jersey. Another fun catch.
[archive of LC Catch #480, Dave. Downscaled from 720p to 360p to fit file size limits]
And if you were watching Mr. Webs livestream last night, it was exciting how everything seemed totally calm until the predofile realized the cops have been called and he starts running away and it turns into a foot chase for a couple miles through the streets of New Jersey. Another fun catch.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2019
So I've been watching PvP over on odysee and I notice lately that most of the preds he catches lately are ending up in cuffs. Like a lot. Since its California I doubt any of this goes to court but I can be wrong. Are the police finally doing their jobs?
did the PC community finally win?
did the PC community finally win?
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2021
Think he found counties willing to make arrests and some officers who want to actually do something. Ultinately it depends on the DA for that district. They're probably sick of getting 10+ calls per instance from him, the pred, and bystanders. It's easier to just make the arrest
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2021
Looks like the mass exodus from YouTube has begun. Since PVP got banned from YouTube many other catcher channels have gotten demonitized and banned. Predator poachers and CPP have moved to locals and odysee in the past week. The smaller channels have also followed suit.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2021
I know I'm late but is D.A.P still around?? (Dad's against Predators) they were a bunch of wiggers but definitely had the best confrontations with the wigger ape rage, seems their channel(s) got tapped long ago and that lame ass podcast grift failed so they gave up??? Had some absolute gold mines of videos on there, with all walks of autism because they would go around the US.
- Joined
- May 5, 2020
They still do videos but put the more sentive parts behind a paywall.
Recently one of the catcher got shot in a Target (lol).
And Vice made a small documentary about them,.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2021
CPP has been de-monetized but seems to be working within the ever changing YouTube rules to keep posting content there, because that’s where the audience is, it has an app with notifications, and so on.
I still think Tomny is one of the good ones although has a *lot* of detractors.
Todays upload: 50 year old man dressing up as a 13 y/o girl tries to get an actual 13 year old girl to come to his apartment. But it’s not an actual 13 year old girl.
- Joined
- May 5, 2020
White John, a rapper, fights a pedo during a sting.
Round 1
Round 2
Full vid (sorry for the n’wah reacting)
Round 1
Round 2
Full vid (sorry for the n’wah reacting)
KingCoomer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2021
Honestly he was winning in that first video it’s just that he thought the fight was done at one point and the guy still went for the under arm choke.
This is why I work out and train Batman tier martial arts, you won’t catch me getting me getting embarsssed by getting my ass handed to me by a pedo of all things. I would much rather lose a fight to a MtF AGP.
- Joined
- May 5, 2020
Nah lol.
He sucker punched him at the start of both rounds.
He got dropped and taken down.
At the end of both clips he's trying and failling to do a real technique.
He tries a garbage guillotine and a desperate reverse head and arm choke
KingCoomer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2021
The pedo is the other dude. Unless I'm missing him also doing a guillotine in the video.
- Joined
- May 5, 2020
Oh
The pedo is the young brown guy.
The rapper is the disgusting fat blob with a beard.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2021
Does anyone knows which group was this?
www.theguardian.com
Canada police arrest ‘pedophile hunting’ group over child abuse images
Canada police arrest ‘pedophile hunting’ group over child abuse images
Quebec authorities announced six people were in custody for criminal harassment, intimidation and forcible confinement
- Joined
- May 5, 2020
It's a group called predbuster.
It's 5 Quebecois hillbillies working in a construction company.
They also catch pedos together and humiliate them.
Their tiktok is gone
article about them
Phénomène des chasseurs de pédophiles : les instigateurs du mouvement arrêtés
Gatineau, le 30 mars 2023. – Aujourd'hui, le Service de police de la Ville de Gatineau (SPVG) a procédé à l'arrestation de cinq individus qui auraient pris part à une « chasse » aux présumés pédophiles sur le territoire de Gatineau au courant des derniers mois. Les cinq individus font face à...
www.gatineau.ca
Phénomène des chasseurs de pédophiles : les instigateurs du mouvement…
archived 2 Apr 2023 18:00:46 UTC
Mics tiktoks
summary
catch
alledged pedo being smug
Wow this is so retarded
Does it work the other way around? Like if you send cp but say it's a midget then it's not child pornography? So IA made cp is cp?
The logic here seems lacking.
Usually they can get busted because the pred sends cp and they then save it as proof.
They were doign this pred catching stuff since january and apparently a pedo called the police because he was suicidal or something
Intervention sur la rue Main : le SPVG tient à rectifier les faits
Gatineau, le 27 janvier 2023. – À la suite d'une intervention sur la rue Main hier en fin d'après-midi et de la couverture médiatique qui s'en est suivie, le Service de police de la Ville de Gatineau (SPVG) tient à rectifier les faits. Ce faisant, les policiers du SPVG tiennent également à faire...
www.gatineau.ca
While the police's actions are dubious, I feel like karma is at play.
There's 0 excuse for sending fake underage nudes. Pedos are driven by demonic energy, they will succumb to their urges and meet a kid after a 30 minutes conversation. There's no need to entice them. At this point, they are chasing the pred not the other way around.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 5, 2020
Double post and bump because this is ultra retarded.
People often say.
Well I got something even better. Why not catch the wrong people on purpose as a prank?
People often say.
Well I got something even better. Why not catch the wrong people on purpose as a prank?