Sued! (Again) ft. Nick Rekieta - Midnight Mad 2019-01-29

0:00:04
Unknown_06: We got a warning light. We got a warning light. We pull the plug out and we na-na-na.

0:00:47
Unknown_08: We got the power.

0:01:19
Unknown_07: All right

Unknown_03: Today, I don't even know how long this stream will last it probably Won't be that long, but that's just fine Just fine because Unfortunately a lot of what I'd want to cover with this has already been covered with a different stream I've already done this. I've already talked about these fucking people. They're crazy They're crazy motherfuckers chat

0:02:10
Unknown_03: I'm a good boy. I didn't do fucking nothing. Why do I got crazy people signing my fucking name on lawsuits and throwing it about the place? I didn't do nothing.

Unknown_03: Ah, jeez.

Unknown_03: Oh, God, I wish I... I feel like such a dummy. I just remembered that on the last stream I did about these fucking people, both the guy in the thumbnail for the stream and his wife, the woman who's actually suing me repeatedly, left comments on my stream. I wanna... Fuck, it's so good. Let me... Let me pull this up real quick, see if I can find it. I had time to prepare for this.

0:02:53
Unknown_03: And fuck off. I'm a retard.

Unknown_03: Fuck off, Thunderbird. I ain't got time for you today.

Unknown_03: All right, where is this shit? I know I saved a screenshot of it. Aha!

Unknown_03: Not as dumb as I think I am.

0:03:26
Unknown_03: All right, so let's just read through this. This is what she had to say on the last time I streamed on her.

Unknown_03: A little bird came and told me that you were talking slander again about me on this video. I don't concern myself with other men's affairs because I am a married woman, so I won't listen to your videos. I don't even use YouTube. No devout Jew would. So those of you claiming to be Jewish and then using YouTube while calling me a fake Jew are full of hypocrisy. Not that I need to defend myself to you. I don't. You aren't a Sanhedrin, which I guess is... This is a Jew thing outside of my, as a devout Jew myself, outside of my knowledge of Judaism. I don't know what the fuck a Sanhedrin is.

0:04:03
Unknown_03: I'm completely flabbergasted that you persist in your slander as if I somehow care what a man of inferior education who doesn't follow Torah thinks about legal or theological issues. I hold a bachelor's degree and years of legal training. I'll take my opinion over yours any day. I've been a devout Jew for more than a decade. Why do you think Christians think that I would care about what you think I deserve? You are not qualified in the least. spit to be a judge in the house of Israel, your opinions mean nothing to me.

0:04:40
Unknown_03: Now I'm going to get off this YouTube before my eyes get defiled. I won't concern myself with your comments posted afterward, but make sure you look for my appeal in the courthouse. While you were busy making this video calling me a failure, I was busy filing appeals. Oh gee, what's that? I turned real life experiences into learning opportunities while modeling to the world what an educated, dignified conversation looks like. I'd call that a success.

0:05:16
Unknown_03: I think this is probably my favorite comment I've ever fucking gotten on my channel. It is everything I love about crazy people on the internet.

Unknown_03: It's not just her who's fucking crazy, and I can't show you everything that I would love to show you about this guy if you're going in completely cold. So if you're watching this as a VOD, if you're watching this... retrospectively I would ask that you look for the the link in the description I'm going to provide for seeing the original video about these people because I show I go through step by step all their crazy bullshit but for old time sakes and for people watching this live I'm gonna go play two of my favorite videos by her husband let's let's start with this one I've only got two picked out

0:06:17
Unknown_00: Hello everyone, I'm making a video response to Kiwi Farms and I would like for them to remove the thread that they have posted about the stalker with my wife and I's personal information on it and I want to clarify that the emails and letters that were faxed were legal threats and if our personal information is not removed and the untrue statements about me being violent is not removed, then we will pursue personal damages for $150,000. And also, all comments in regards to committing crimes that were posted on the comment threads will be used in court. So I know the stalker was on there running his mouth.

0:07:15
Unknown_00: And, yes, I'm going to screenshot all of it and put it in a file. And if he does not stop his pursuit of stalking us, there will be legal repercussions as well.

Unknown_00: That's all I have. Bye-bye.

Unknown_03: All right, that was my man Marshall Casterson.

Unknown_03: Marshall does not like me too much. And instead of telling you how he doesn't like me,

Unknown_03: let's just show you how much he does not like me this video is for all my enemies out there for all you people out there that have cursed my wife and I and for all you people that wish evil upon us and have slandered us this video is for you anyways

0:08:18
Unknown_00: There's a lot of people out there trash-talking my wife and mocking my faith in Yahuwah.

Unknown_00: And especially you, Joshua Moon.

Unknown_00: I curse you and all your followers and all your people over there that have spoke against my wife and I. I curse all of you in the name of Yahuwah that you die

Unknown_00: And that Yahuwah takes your life.

Unknown_00: And that your insides rot with pestilence.

Unknown_00: May you die.

0:08:55
Unknown_00: For coming against Yahuwah's righteous.

Unknown_00: And for the stalker.

Unknown_00: I curse you in the name of Yahuwah. That Yahuwah take your life. For your evil plots.

Unknown_00: And. For. For.

Unknown_00: your adulterous thoughts for conspiring to kill me and conspiring against my wife.

0:09:28
Unknown_00: May Yahuwah curse you and destroy you and take your life.

Unknown_00: And I have complete confidence in Yahuwah that He will hear my call and give me justice for

Unknown_00: He loves his righteous, and he hears their call, and he protects his sheep.

Unknown_00: And I'm battle-hardened. I've been through a lot of battles in my lifetime.

0:10:04
Unknown_00: And Yahuwah gives me strength to crush all my enemies.

Unknown_00: Then all my enemies fall, and I destroy them.

Unknown_00: Anyways, I hope you all die.

Unknown_00: And in the name of Yahweh, we'll save you.

Unknown_03: I hope you all die. Have a great day. Well, gosh golly. That was Marshall Kasserson. And for those wondering, no, that does not come on his lips. Those are like studs. I think those are piercings. But whenever I see that video, I think of this scene from Osmosis Jones where his zit pops. Oh, God, it makes me nauseous looking at it. His zit pops and it lands on her lip.

0:10:39
Unknown_03: It's real fucking gross, but that's what it reminds me of.

Unknown_03: Okay.

Unknown_03: Decent cartoon villain routine.

Unknown_03: Lip boogers. Alright, so true to form, he was not lying.

0:11:12
Unknown_03: We did get sued one, two, three, four times in different ways.

Unknown_03: It wasn't all just her versus me.

Unknown_03: It was like her versus me, her versus locale LLC, her versus me and three other people, her versus me and Anaya Carlson.

Unknown_03: And just every every combination possible, she attempted to sue me and failed each time thwarted in at least in the the federal district court where she lives. Each time, thwarted by my man, Judge James P. Jones, a district judge appointed by Bill Clinton, so it's not like, he's not like a hyper-conservative, but he is my man, Judge James P. Jones, and every fucking time, I don't know if it's just because he's the only judge for that district or what, but every time she goes to the district court and files her bullshit, it goes to this guy, and this guy...

0:12:18
Unknown_03: to his credit does not admonish her he does not like he he explains his logic and um he's very professional his his responses to her are actually in my opinion a really great way if you're if you're interested in law to to learn some stuff because he explains it like a very patient professor would explain a legal concept to a student. So his responses to her are never malicious. They're very professional and they're very well written.

Unknown_03: But let's look at her complaint real quick. Let's take a look. I'm going to go ahead and get a swig of water because we're going to be reading a lot today. If you were hoping to fall asleep to a video today, I know some of you people are weirdos like that, this is for you.

Unknown_04: Okay. Pop this in.

0:13:16
Unknown_04: Okay.

Unknown_04: So this is her listing.

Unknown_03: I think she's been using her address all this time, but now she's officially switched over to a telephone number.

Unknown_03: Oh. But she switched over to a P.O. Box. Okay. List all defendants. State the full name of the defendant, even if that defendant is a government agency, an organization, a corporation, or an individual.

0:13:49
Unknown_03: Include the address where each defendant may be served. That's me. Still using the wrong address. I've told her a thousand times. If you want to service me, you've got to use my virtual office in Fort Walton Beach, which she refuses. I guess because she thinks that's scarier or something.

Unknown_03: Jurisdiction, basically her saying that I don't live where she does, so she has to sue out of state. And then this is listing me and Zager again. She's listing Zager because she thinks he owns Encyclopedia Germanica, and she's also attempting to sue him. So before, her first attempts for filing litigation was actually all handwritten.

0:14:24
Unknown_03: This is one of the few times I've seen her, maybe the only time I've seen her, file her complaint as a Microsoft Word document. She's not using it right. This is not how you write a legal paper. There's a very specific way you're supposed to write these, and she's opted not to use the standard way.

Unknown_03: All right.

Unknown_03: Invasion of privacy. This is section A. Appropriation. Florida defendant Joshua Moon. Defendant Joshua Connor Moon is the sole owner of a business called Locale LLC. Between March 1st, 2017 and September 22nd, 2017,

0:15:02
Unknown_03: locale LLC was a registered business in the state of Florida locale LLC publishes articles on a website called the kiwifarms.net between March 1st and the date of this pleading kiwifarms.net contains a copyright notice with the symbol locale LLC I guess this is just her saying that but she's okay first of all again I'm not a lawyer

0:15:40
Unknown_03: But she's suing me. She's suing me, a person. She's not suing the company. She's not suing this entity. So... I don't know why... I don't know why she would even be going into this.

Unknown_03: Uh, the computer used by Joshua Connor Moon to publish locale LLC and kiwifarms.net is controlled from the state of Florida, which it is not. I'm currently reading this out of the fucking country. Locale LLC sometimes uses an IP scrambler to hide the IP from which they send emails, which is not true. My emails come from the Netherlands. I don't know why she thinks that, like, that my email server is not in, is scrambled. It's fucking not.

0:16:19
Unknown_03: Um...

Unknown_03: On March 14th, 2017, Lowell Cow LLC published an article, even though it's not a publisher, on kiwifarms.net which includes the legal name and a portrait of the plaintiff. The article also includes links to videos created on YouTube by a New York resident named Andrew Carlson. The video links included the full legal name and portrait of the plaintiff. The article was published in Eastern Standard Time, What?

0:16:55
Unknown_03: What? How the fuck do you know that?

Unknown_03: The article did not bear a timestamp. Since March 14th, 2017, the article is live and accessible 24 hours a day to an international audience on all different time zones, except in countries that censor American websites. In the aforementioned published article, the plaintiff was ridiculed for one, associating with Jewish religion and culture, two, associating and marrying a formerly incarcerated in person three allegedly committing adultery and four having a stalker and five allegedly being married more than two times section three Defendant Moon also used the plaintiff's legal names for articles he published on KiwiFarms.net on April 2nd, July 6th, July 7th, July 13th for an international audience on all different time zones except in countries that censor American websites. There is no timestamp available for any of the articles. After the expiration of his business license, my business is still in good standing. I don't know why people think that it's expired. Joshua Moon published articles on kiwifarms.net using the plaintiff's name on June 22nd, August 24th, December 20th, or December 12th,

0:18:21
Unknown_03: and December 14th for an international audience on all different time zones, except in countries that censor American websites. There is no timestamp available for any of the articles. I feel like I should be reading this like the 12 days of Christmas.

Unknown_03: And then on the 12th day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a website available to international audiences for all different time zones, except in countries that censor American websites. And I just gotta keep fucking saying it repeatedly.

0:19:03
Unknown_03: Section 4.

Unknown_03: At no time before the publication of any of the articles bearing the plaintiff's name and portrait did Locale LLC or Joshua Moon ask permission from the plaintiff to use her name or portrait for his business. On April 2nd, the plaintiff discovered the March 14th article. The plaintiff sent an email letter, as opposed to just an email, on April 2nd to Joshua Moon,

0:19:36
Unknown_03: to cease and desist from publishing content using her legal name and portrait.

Unknown_03: Plaintiff Scott also demanded the removal of all content bearing her legal name and photos.

Unknown_03: To be removed from kiwifarms.net, which is not an appropriate sentence because it has the same verb twice. Defendant Moon responded to the email within minutes using an administrative email from Locale LLC. The email confirmed that, one, he is the person behind the keyboard typing as an administrator of Locale LLC. Two, that his business was in existence. Three, he owned and operated the business, Locale LLC, and its website, kiwifarms.net. Four, he was registered by an agent established in the state of Florida. Five, that he knew the difference between Live Let's Lander and Live Let's Lander.

0:20:10
Unknown_03: six that he operates under a username called null and seven that he refused to remove any article content name or photo on kiwifarms.net to the plaintiff at five or section five at no time since april 2nd 2017 has the plaintiff ever indicated to local llc or joshua moon operator

0:20:57
Unknown_03: operator of kiwifarms.net that it had her permission to use her name likeness or portrait for locale llc section six

Unknown_03: defendant joshua moon has used the articles published on kiwifarms.net about the plaintiff for his own personal gain defendant moon seeks notoriety and monetary gain from locale llc he takes in money and donations for his business locale llc he uses articles to keep his forum relevant to his subscribers and followers on kiwifarms.net and youtube hey shout out to the fucking youtube chat

0:21:38
Unknown_03: um defendant moon has published in writing that his website kiwifarms.net is seen by thousands and received receives millions of hits a day he has thousands of subscribers on youtube well shout out to youtube chat once again thanks be sure to like and subscribe melinda lay scott appreciates it

Unknown_03: On July 7th, and this is Section 7, Defendant Moon also published on KiwiFarms.net a headshot photo of the plaintiff falling on the floor outside of a boxing ring. The picture was clear enough to ascertain that the cropped head on a cartoon body was the plaintiff. The photo was published for an international audience in all localities around the world.

0:22:30
Unknown_03: In all time zones, except where American websites are censored, there is no timestamp available in the photo's publication on kiwifarms.net.

Unknown_03: None of the information in any of the articles on kiwifarms.net referencing Plaintiff Scott is of legitimate concern to the public. None of the information in any of the articles published on kiwifarms.net about Plaintiff Scott is privileged. Plaintiff Scott is not a person holding public office.

Unknown_04: B. Let me get a drink of water.

0:23:12
Unknown_04: Ah, this is a good article. I'm enjoying this.

Unknown_03: I didn't even read this before I started. I just knew it would be fucking funny.

Unknown_03: This is number five, not number four.

Unknown_03: Section B, invasion of privacy, publication of private facts. Defendant Moon. Section 9, in March, wait, is that right? Oh, she got it right, okay. Section 9, in March 14th, article on Kiwi Farms, Defendant Moon published an announcement of the plaintiff's marriage to her legal spouse, in parentheses, husband.

0:23:54
Unknown_03: The articles published leaks to defamatory newspaper articles and information about her spouse's legal problems and incarceration in the state of California.

Unknown_03: The intent of announcing her marriage to her spouse was done with the intent.

Unknown_03: So my intent of doing something was with intent of something else.

Unknown_03: was with the intent to embarrass and shame the plaintiff. It is not of legitimate concern to the public who the plaintiff chooses to marry. When the plaintiff marries is not privileged information.

Unknown_03: Plaintiff Scott finds the international publication of her marital associations as highly objectionable. She has three different notes for this paragraph, so we're going to go down to the footer and read these different footnotes, which is 789. 7. Although Plaintiff Scott did not legally marry her current spouse until two weeks after the publication of the article, Plaintiff Plaintiff Scott was deemed married by religious customs protected by her First Amendment rights, okay? Third party private citizens of the United States had knowledge of this religious custom and this became a source of announcing Plaintiff Scott of her husband as married, okay?

0:24:36
Unknown_03: Eight, a newspaper in California used false allegations made by a third party of its source of information. And this is referring to what he was convicted of. We linked an article where he was convicted of domestic abuse and this newspaper defamed him of what he was convicted of by quoting the person he had fucking beaten.

0:25:19
Unknown_03: Number nine, the plaintiff's spouse was incarcerated under probable cause. The plaintiff's spouse was defamed in the Napa Valley Register in the state of California. He was never convicted by trial, but opted for a plea bargain online. under duress for violation of his eighth right so not only is the kiwi farms guilty of defamation for for making fun of this woman but her husband was incarcerated under a plea deal that he did he took under duress in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, which has absolutely no fucking bearing on this whatsoever. And yes, he admitted guilt, is what she's saying. He admitted guilt, but she's saying that it was under duress. Everything was a lie, the government was out to get him, and the Napa Valley Register is defaming him because he was wrongly convicted, which has absolutely nothing to do with her suing me. This is all her opinion.

0:26:49
Unknown_03: Section 10. The article published by KiwiFarms.net includes details regarding a New York resident who the plaintiff had a...

Unknown_03: had obtained a protective order against on February 19th. Although the protective order was issued by a circuit court in Virginia, the protective order was not intended to be a public document. As of the date of the publication of the article, the protective order and knowledge that the plaintiff was being stalked was private information. Section 11.

0:27:43
Unknown_03: The article published on March 14th by Locale LLC has been published with the intent to publish... She said publish four fucking times in that sentence. Publish private information that others would see as embarrassing and to lower the opinion of the plaintiff in the eyes of others. The publication and inclusion of private details about the plaintiff's legal spouse was added with the intent to embarrass and shame the plaintiff. The article ends with the conclusion that the plaintiff's spouse is an angry guy who was married to this woman. The publication... Wow.

Unknown_03: Guilty, motherfucker. Guilty for life.

0:28:24
Unknown_03: The publication and inclusion of private details about her legal problems with Andrew Carlson, resident of New York, was written with the intent of embarrassing the plaintiff for having a man stalking her. The article ends with the conclusion that to recap, we have an obsessive, terrifying neckbeard.

Unknown_03: who stalks the previous two and documents it all for our viewing pleasure. No timestamp is available on the article published March 14th.

Unknown_03: Section 12. Plaintiff Scott sees the publication, sees the public disclosure of her legal problems with New York resident Andrew Carlson as highly offensive and highly objectionable. Plaintiff Scott also sees the public disclosure of her husband's legal problems with California as highly objectionable.

0:29:06
Unknown_04: Alright, take a sip.

Unknown_04: And yes, it is very, very verbose.

Unknown_03: And this isn't, I'm not, again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure, like, you don't need to keep saying New York resident Andrew Carlson. If you ever see something called henceforth in a legal document, it's usually because you explain who somebody is, and then you say, henceforth, Carlson. And you don't need to keep saying fucking over and over again, New York resident Andrew Carlson. Like you just say it one fucking time you define who he is and then subsequent references to him can be done simply with carlson Um, but carlson isn't even being sued here. So I don't know why why she's involving him Uh defamation

0:29:47
Unknown_03: Section 13, defendant Joshua Moon uses on kiwifarms.net, uses a profile on kiwifarms.net named Null. He has positively identified himself in email as Null. The choice of photo for the user Null is the resemblance of a canine with fangs.

0:30:39
Unknown_03: Oh my fucking god. There is no teeth in that dog's snout.

Unknown_03: objectionably objectively there are no fucking teeth in that dog's mouth he's like he's like got gums he's an old guy okay he's he's old he doesn't have any teeth he needs prune puree to poo correctly give him give him a break he's special

0:31:20
Unknown_03: Oh, God.

Unknown_03: Defendant Joshua Moon, using his own personal profile, null, has published publicly statements. That's not correct English. Has published publicly statements that the plaintiff is one. Oh, God. I'm not going to make it through this. Is one. The dumbest person. probably ever this is in published by null on march 14th on kiwi farms article no time stamp available okay whatever two really fucking stupid uh i don't know what id means she keeps saying id in the footnotes three a moron four writes like she uses crayola magic marker

0:32:17
Unknown_03: Another reference to demean the intelligence of the plaintiff. Five, a slut whore. Statement made by Null on kiwifarms.net, published December 12th.

Unknown_03: And six, had like a dozen husbands by 30.

Unknown_03: Statement made by Null, published December 12th. No timestamp available. There is no timestamp available on kiwifarms.net. Each of these statements in bullets one through six have been made for an international audience and can be accessed 24 hours a day anywhere around the world by any person in any locality except in countries where internet access to American websites is censored. The statements were made with the intent of casting the plaintiff in a negative light and to harm her reputation anywhere in the world the comments could take effect. the intent of his defamation was to lower the opinion of her in the eyes of others no or none of defendant moon's statements regarding plaintiff's intelligence marital relationships or alleged sexual encounters are of legitimate public interest to the public which seems a little bit redundant

0:33:42
Unknown_03: None of the information published about Plaintiff Scott is privileged. All of the defamatory statements by defendant Moon about Plaintiff Scott are highly offensive to her. And for that, we're sorry.

Unknown_04: Section E.

Unknown_03: Paragraph 14.

Unknown_03: Defendant Moon has defamed the plaintiff and invaded the privacy of the plaintiff with willful malice. Defendant Moon acted with the intent to embarrass, humiliate, and vilify the plaintiff. Locale LLC publishes that their mission is to milk for amusement the stories and people they post about. And... emails and online joshua moon has used vulgar language toward the plaintiff he has emailed and published statements from his own user profile labeling the plaintiff as one a moron two banshee three dumb and four the dumbest person possibly ever Defendant Mr. Moon has spoken about the plaintiff online in a derogatory manner to cast the plaintiff in a negative light in front of an international audience in every locality around the world. The publicized and uncensored articles on kiwifarms.net made about the plaintiff are misogynistic and anti-Semitic.

0:35:00
Unknown_03: often posted on the internet, seeking to vilify the plaintiff for having matriarchal elements in her family orientation, as well as for identifying with Jewish culture and religion. By choosing not to delete the content on his pages, Defendant Moon has willfully reinforced and promoted malicious behavior from his users.

Unknown_04: Sip.

0:35:43
Unknown_04: Each lawsuit makes the truth that much more true.

Unknown_03: I thought these weren't even real Jews. What the fuck? No, they're like Appalachian weirdo Hebrew cultists.

Unknown_03: They would never be allowed. I think they tried to go to Israel with that law that you can just go back to Israel whenever you want, but they can't because they're not really Jew.

Unknown_03: We're like halfway through.

Unknown_03: I might skip over Zeiger's if it's boring.

Unknown_03: Invasion of privacy. Defendant Brian Zeiger is a resident in Massachusetts and owned a Wiki website called Encyclopedia Germanica. The website has been established since December 9th and is taking in money in the form of donations and advertising. On July 13th, defendant Brian Zeiger published an article using the plaintiff's picture. The name used to identify the plaintiff is Melinda. The form does not provide a timestamp for the article. The article is available 24 hours a day for an international audience in any time zone. Except where American websites are banned by censorship. She changed it up for Zager. I guess he doesn't have the same description. The article is labeled as an article which is part of a series on Jews.

0:36:54
Unknown_03: At no time since the publication of the article has Plaintiff Scott ever indicated that Encyclopedia Germanica has her permission to use the plaintiff's portrait or name for Encyclopedia Germanica.

Unknown_04: Wait, sorry, I got distracted.

Unknown_03: Because, um... I noticed in the footnotes, it says right here, has published statements from his own user profile 20, and then 20, null profile with the canine photo.

Unknown_03: I was hoping that maybe she put the dog in the document.

Unknown_04: Uh...

0:37:36
Unknown_04: She's saying here that his address matches the Montserrat versus Zager article.

Unknown_03: As of the date of this pleading, Brian Zager lists himself as the owner of Encyclopedia Dramatica on LinkedIn. I mean, he might need to fucking update that shit.

Unknown_03: On December 27th, the plaintiff sent an email to Encyclopedia Dramatica ED. Is she actually going to fucking henceforth something and let me just say ED instead of having to say the same goddamn thing every fucking time?

Unknown_03: Sent an email to Encyclopedia Dramatica ED demanding the removal of the content bearing her name and portrait. On December 28th, plaintiff emailed defendant Zager to remove the content. Defendant Zager denied in an email that he was affiliated with the Encyclopedia Dramatica website.

0:38:11
Unknown_03: It might be a good hint that he's not affiliated with the Encyclopedia Dramatica website because I'm pretty fucking sure he isn't.

Unknown_03: She doesn't listen. It's like with my fucking address. I warned her that I don't live at that address. She continues to try and service us. Section 18, or paragraph 18. Defendant Zager has used the plaintiff's portrait and name for his own personal gain. Encyclopedia Dramatica makes money from advertising and donations.

0:38:44
Unknown_03: uh 19 within the same article defendant zager published false statements about the plaintiff attributing sexual acts to the plaintiff which are untrue defendant zager made the following untrue statements attributing sexual allegations involving the plaintiff One, that the plaintiff committed sexual acts with an unnamed former landlord. Two, that the plaintiff is a former prostitute. And three, she sucked dick for rent. The article claims that the information was received by the plaintiff's stalker.

0:39:21
Unknown_03: The other false statement published in the article according to the plaintiff's stalker is that the plaintiff has four baby daddies. The article also falsely states that the plaintiff has had nine husbands. The statements are highly offensive to Plaintiff Scott.

Unknown_03: Defendant Zager also published within the same article written statements saying that the plaintiff was, one, a horny Jewess, two, with loose morals, and three, incestuous. Oh, geez. It's getting kinky in here. The statements were published with the intent of casting the plaintiff in a negative light. The statements are highly offensive to Plaintiff Scott. The statements are not true because Plaintiff Scott does not subscribe to the same secular and or religious beliefs that spawn these terms. What the fuck?

0:39:59
Unknown_03: Guys, again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this is the dumbest fucking thing that's ever been said in any lawsuit ever.

0:40:31
Unknown_03: Like, I mean, with that logic, if this were something that could hold up in court, all you would need to do is say that your religious beliefs don't hold something to be true because your religious beliefs don't enable it.

Unknown_03: She just said that the terms, yeah, like maybe she's a horny Jewess, but because of her religious beliefs, horny Jewesses don't exist. She doesn't meet the standard for horny Jewess.

Unknown_03: Okay, 21. The plaintiff used the term baby daddy in an attempt to cast shame on the plaintiff for one, having matriarchal elements in her family, two, for not having an abortion, and or three, for not using birth control. All the defendant Zeger's terms listed in paragraphs 19 and 20 used to label the plaintiff were to cast shame on the plaintiff in front of an international audience

0:41:19
Unknown_03: in all localities around the world. The intent was to lower the opinion of her in the eyes of others. And then the footnote, she says, the article reads that an alleged relationship with a cousin. What the fuck?

Unknown_03: The article reads that an alleged relationship with a cousin makes the plaintiff incestuous. Although the marriage between cousins is legal in many states and not prohibited by Judaism. Although the use of the term incestuous in the context of the article is aimed at casting the plaintiff in a negative light in front of a secular international audience.

0:42:00
Unknown_03: Since statistically it is reported that the average American female under the age of 40 has had eight sexual partners, it can be inferred that defender Zager is not remarking on the plaintiff's relationship choices, but rather that she has born children as a result of her relationship with the opposite gender.

Unknown_04: Bit of a stretch.

Unknown_04: Since it is commonly known that it is a cultural custom for people in the United States to use social media and the internet to investigate people for employment, housing, and social reasons, it can be reasonably assumed that a publication about a person carries the intent of harming them within their local community and with anyone else who will believe untrue statements and negative statements.

0:42:57
Unknown_03: The statements published by Brian Zager are highly offensive to Plaintiff Scott.

Unknown_03: Paragraph 22.

Unknown_03: In the article published July 13th, defender Zager claims that he received information about the plaintiff from the plaintiff's stalker. The article labels the plaintiff as an object of his obsession. Zager also published hyperlinks to March 14th article on kiwifarms.net. The intent of the hyperlink in mentioning that the plaintiff has a man stalking her is with the intent to embarrass the plaintiff. Plaintiff Scott sees the disclosure of her legal problems with New York resident Andrew Carlson as highly offensive and highly objectionable. Defamation, paragraph 23. The published article by Encyclopedia Dramatica was discovered by the plaintiff on July 13th, 2018. Within said article, defendant Zager imputed acts of unchastity to the plaintiff, which are untrue. The article falsely accused the plaintiff of formerly being a prostitute and sucking dick for rent. There is no timestamp available on the article.

0:43:36
Unknown_03: The statements were written for an international, oh my fucking God,

Unknown_03: The statement... I can't say it now. I'm broken. I can't say these words. They're like a fucking curse preventing me from speaking.

0:44:11
Unknown_03: The statement were written for an international audience in all localities around the world in all time zones except where American websites are censored.

Unknown_03: Since it is commonly known that it is a cultural custom for people in the United States to use social media and the internet to investigate people for employment, housing, and social reasons, it can be reasonably assumed the publication about the person carries the intent of harming them within their local community and with anyone else who will believe the libel. The libelous statements chosen by Zager are highly offensive to the plaintiff, Scott.

0:44:48
Unknown_03: Jesus. Nothing in that paragraph except maybe the first sentence was unique. The rest is like copy from the other paragraphs.

Unknown_03: Malice.

Unknown_03: Paragraph 24. Defender Zager. Oh my God, I'm dying. Defendant Zager has acted with intentional malice. The subtitle for the picture that includes the plaintiff states the plaintiff is a Jew on her way to Australia.

Unknown_03: the intent is anti-semitic the statements can also be construed as a death threat or a threat of conspiracy to murder the plaintiff because she identifies with the jewish religion and culture encyclopedia germanica is publicly and commonly known as a less than ethical wiki that picks targets and slanders them in writing and as we as we know

0:45:48
Unknown_03: As we know from above, that my email to the plaintiff indicated that I know the difference between slander and libel. And I can't find it. It was way back there. But apparently she didn't fucking listen to me because you cannot slander them with writing.

Unknown_03: The font is not hot enough for me to read it properly.

Unknown_03: That's right. She wasn't slandered. She was slandered.

Unknown_03: Target audience. This is for both of us now.

Unknown_03: Paragraph 25. Defendant Joshua Moon controls and operates his computer from Flo Rida. Defendant Zager operates his computer from Massachusetts. I don't know why Massachusetts got an acronym, but Flo Rida didn't. I guess Massachusetts is too hard to spell, so she just went with M-A.

0:46:31
Unknown_03: The computer exchange software and internet social media that they are using are Google, YouTube, and independent website forums. Each of these software and publishing sites are maintained for an international audience in all localities around the world. The intent of both defendants is to reach as many people as possible.

0:47:12
Unknown_03: With an international approach, the defendants are aiming to bring the largest scope of harm possible to the reputation of their targets. It is commonly known that it is a cultural custom for people in the United States to use social media and the internet to investigate people for employment, housing, and social regions. It can be reasonably assumed that the publication of a person carries the intent of harming them within their local community and with anyone else who will believe the information and statements."

Unknown_03: Paragraph 26.

Unknown_03: As of writing, or as of filing this pleading, the March 14th article published by Defendant Moon has been published for more than 600 days. Because what goes up must not come down. The July 13th article published by defendant Brian Zager has been published for more than 450 days. Plaintiff discovered the March 14th article published by defendant Moon on April 2nd. Plaintiff discovered all other articles on kiwifarms.net within six months of their publication. Plaintiff discovered the July 13th article written by defendant Zager on July 13th.

0:48:00
Unknown_03: Like the same day it went up?

Unknown_03: Is she like an Encyclopedia Dramatica hardcore lurker or something?

0:48:35
Unknown_03: Whatever. Emotional distress due to invasion of privacy and defamation.

Unknown_03: Oh, a year later. Sorry, I haven't been reading the years because they've been all 2017 so far.

Unknown_03: Due to their invasion of the plaintiff's privacy, both defendants have caused the plaintiff substantial emotional distress and grief more than the ordinary everyday upset. Defendant Moon has caused the plaintiff substantial emotional distress since the plaintiff's discovery of the March 14th article and all other subsequent articles on kiwifarms.net. Defendant Zeger has caused the plaintiff substantial emotional distress since the plaintiff's discovery of the July 13th article.

0:49:12
Unknown_03: The plaintiff's, this is 28. The plaintiff's legal name is the name she conducts business with others in her local community on behalf of her minor children. Her legal name is the name she bears on her bachelor's degree diploma and professional trade certificates. The plaintiff's legal name is the name she uses to conduct business in her local community as well as business across the nation. The plaintiff has a copyright with her legal name. The plaintiff is in the patent process and cannot abruptly change her legal name due to the long-standing use of her legal name for business, professional, and social regions. The plaintiff should not bear the burden of changing her name to deter any reputation harm. Is she patenting her fucking name? I don't know.

0:50:01
Unknown_03: Hold up, hold up.

Unknown_04: Hold the fuck up.

Unknown_04: Can we look this up? Use this patent office.

Unknown_03: Can we just like search?

Unknown_03: Is there like just a form we can fill out to search for this?

0:50:44
Unknown_04: U.S. image database quick search.

Unknown_04: Melinda Scott.

Unknown_04: Zero applications.

Unknown_04: Try the advanced search.

Unknown_04: Oh god, what the fuck is this?

Unknown_04: Name?

Unknown_03: Inventor name. Applicant name.

Unknown_04: A-A-N-M

Unknown_04: Melinda Scott, okay Was unpardonable missing boolean operator between expect what the fuck this is like though.

0:51:29
Unknown_03: This is the worst This is like a fucking nightmare How the fuck do I look this up I

Unknown_04: Missing boolean operator between... What the fuck?

Unknown_04: Melinda and Scott. Okay.

Unknown_03: Wow, how the fuck do you know that?

Unknown_03: Missing boolean operator between expressions... What the fuck?

Unknown_03: I guess we're not looking this up then. Holy shit.

0:52:11
Unknown_03: If anybody can find this, go ahead.

Unknown_03: Go ahead and find it and let me know. I'm curious.

Unknown_03: It's an actual and? Hold up, let me try again.

Unknown_03: I'm desperate for this. Melinda and Scott.

Unknown_04: Oh, there's multiple ones.

Unknown_03: Automatic resource sharing, modular floor covering, seaming apparatus and method, flip and go smart litter blocks, splash free sani plunge, illuminator, anti-fouling paints and coating.

0:52:53
Unknown_04: Let me bring this up.

Unknown_04: I'll open all these. I'll look at all of them, motherfucker. Oh, you know what?

Unknown_03: It's anybody...

Unknown_03: LeBlanc, Melinda.

Unknown_03: Nope.

Unknown_03: Melinda, nope. Melinda, nope. Melinda Cameron has a lot of them.

Unknown_03: Nope. Melinda, nope.

Unknown_03: Melinda, nope.

0:53:26
Unknown_03: Cameron, nope. She's a liar.

Unknown_03: She's a fucking liar, chat.

Unknown_03: She's a fucking liar.

Unknown_03: I have looked up every person in the universe.

Unknown_04: Can I just like do this? Nope.

Unknown_04: Yeah.

Unknown_04: Yeah, she's a liar. Well, it says to use quotes. I don't know if I got Discord messages.

0:53:58
Unknown_03: Yeah, no. Okay, if anybody can find it, let me know. But for right now, I'm just assuming that she's a fucking liar.

Unknown_04: Um, okay.

Unknown_03: Paragraph 29. Beginning March 14th, 2017, in the current date, Defendant Moon has caused harm to plaintiff's reputation internationally and locally by defamation of the plaintiff, by appropriation, and by the publication of her private information. The way in which she has harmed the plaintiff has been caused... Has caused... Has... What? !

0:54:46
Unknown_03: The way in which the harm has been caused follows in paragraph 30 through 33. Well, let's read.

Unknown_03: Defendant Moon has caused other internet users to behold the plaintiff under criticism and contempt. Other users on kiwifarms.net have been rallied by Defendant Moon and echoed his defamatory statements by calling the plaintiff, one, dumb fucking bitch, two, crazy, three, stupid, four, dumbass, five, dumb bitch, six, vapid bitch, seven, dumb, eight, right old bitch, nine, loony moron, 10, nuts, and 11, kike.

0:55:20
Unknown_03: They have similarly echoed the statements in the kiwifarms.net published article and falsely accused the plaintiff of having 1. a list of husbands, 2. nine husbands, 3. had husbands who have disposed of her, and her 4. goes through so many men in such a short time, 5. a gigantic whore, 6. is on her ninth husband, 7. that she stalked an alleged ex.

0:56:05
Unknown_03: And eight, that she had sexual acts with a former unnamed landlord.

Unknown_03: Kiwifarms.net publications also circulate from its users false statements that the plaintiff, one, sucked dick for rent, and two, had an incestuous relationship with a cousin, as we've proven to be true by reading her own statements. 31.

Unknown_03: Defendant Moon is also responsible for contributing to the conduct of Defendant Zager, who published and hyperlinked borrowed content from Kiwifarms.net on Encyclopedia Dramatica. On August 24, 2018, it became apparent that the articles online published by Kiwifarms.net were causing more actual harm to the plaintiff's reputation, statements were made by her neighbors demonstrating that the articles written by the defendants brought her under criticism and contempt on august 24 2018 the plaintiff was told by a neighbor that she was a hebrew pagan the same neighbor stated that if she didn't like their treatment of her she could leave because no one wanted her there because she goes around suing everyone

0:56:40
Unknown_03: The only way that the neighbor had knowledge of many of the lawsuits the plaintiff had been involved in was through the efforts of Locale LLC. 33 on august 24th 2018 a neighbor screamed out at the plaintiff's information that she had read on the kiwi farms at around 9 p.m eastern standard time the neighbor shouted with an earshot of about 20 neighbors and the plaintiff the following statement is this her boyfriend who is a pedophile

0:57:28
Unknown_03: The question was derived from a photo on Lowell Cal LLC falsely portraying the plaintiff's legal spouse as a pedophile. The actions of Lowell Cal LLC to publicly disclose private information and to portray the plaintiff in a negative light for her choice to associate with a legal spouse husband caused the plaintiff to be brought under criticism and contempt.

Unknown_03: And the footnotes for the prior paragraph. The statements that follow are a collective sum of all statements published on kiwifarms.net between March 14th and the current date. And using the pronoun there, the neighbor was referring to the number of apartments that hangs out together on a regular basis. And then owned and published by defendant Joshua Moon. Let me pull this up, what she's referring to. Actually, I know what she's referring to.

0:58:24
Unknown_03: I did not expect to see that in this though.

Unknown_04: If I can't find it within a second, I'll have to fuck off.

Unknown_04: Where is it? I've seen it.

Unknown_03: I know exactly what she's referring to.

0:59:04
Unknown_03: Oh, man.

Unknown_03: It's going to be buried on, like... I'm going to go to the fifth page. It's not there by the fifth page. I'm going to have to fuck off. But somebody... In parody of what Vordrak does to people, somebody took a picture of Marshall Kasterson and wrote with a green Sharpie marker on his forehead in Photoshop the word pedophile.

Unknown_03: and that's been passed around i've seen it before i don't know where the fuck it's at though it doesn't show up on google so i don't know how the fuck they're finding it oh well uh section p paragraph 34 the full scope of damage is causing but caused by the egregious nature Of all the instances of casting the plaintiff in a negative light, publicizing private information and each act of defamation by Encyclopedia Germanica can be intrinsically understood and assumed.

0:59:53
Unknown_03: The full scope of damages caused by the egregious nature of publication of private information and each act of defamation by defendant Joshua Moon can be intrinsically understood and assumed. And I don't think it can.

Unknown_03: She's talking about scope, but this is what you're getting money for. This is what you're asking money for, and then you're saying it can be intrinsically understood and assumed.

Unknown_03: I don't think that's how it works. I might have to ask Nick about this. Is Nick around? Is Nick watching this? I don't think Nick is watching this. Nick, if you're in the chat, let me know, because I don't know what the fuck she's saying.

1:00:38
Unknown_03: I'm pretty sure she's got it completely wrong.

Unknown_03: Okay, request for relief. She is requesting, one, injunctive relief ordering both defendants to remove all online content.

Unknown_03: Which uses the plaintiff's legal name, photos, portraits, and likeness. Two, $75,000 in damages for defamation by Joshua Moon. $25,000 for appropriation by Joshua Moon damages to plaintiff. Four, $125,000 in damages for the publication of private facts by Joshua Moon.

1:01:14
Unknown_04: Wait, is he actually here? Where the fuck is he?

Unknown_04: Oh, you are here. Oh, you motherfucker.

Unknown_03: Here, Nick, I'll send you a message.

Unknown_03: Let me read this. Let me finish. I'm at the very end. Once I'm done reading this, I'll talk to you about it. $75,500 in damages for inflicting substantial emotional distress on the plaintiff, defendant Moon. $100,000 in damages for defamation, defendant Zeger. $125,000 in damages for portraying the plaintiff in a false light, defendant Zager. $50,000 in damages for publication of private information, defendant Zager. $25,000 in damages for inflicting substantial emotional distress, defendant Zager.

1:02:28
Unknown_03: Signed, this 28th day of December, 2018. All right, let's see what Nick said.

Unknown_04: I messaged him on the Discord.

Unknown_03: If he wants to talk, I'll talk to him, because I'm very curious about that specifically. And I'll use this as an opportunity to explain something.

1:03:01
Unknown_04: Okay, he said, wait a second. I'll play some music, some fitting music.

1:03:35
Unknown_03: I don't know, it's not dead air, I have to rest my voice, I feel like I'm dying. Alright, he said he's got me on mute because he's with his kids, but somebody pinged him to watch.

Unknown_03: So we'll see. I really just have one question about the... Alright, he says give me 10 minutes.

1:04:21
Unknown_03: Alright, he says give me 10 minutes, so I'm going to go ahead and shut this off.

Unknown_03: As much as I love it.

Unknown_03: Since we have a couple minutes to burn, let's go ahead and read the court order.

Unknown_03: Again, this was signed the 20th day of December 2018. This is my man, James P. Jones, from the United States District Court on January 24th. Less than one month

Unknown_03: And it's thrown out.

1:04:56
Unknown_03: This is the most efficient man in law. This motherfucker burns through some frivolous litigation like it's a goddamn... Like it's Operation Clausewitz and he's just burning books.

Unknown_03: I'm going to go ahead and read this. It's very short but informative. And then I'll ask Nick my one question.

Unknown_03: Again, I think his opinions are excellent. And he explains things in a way anybody can understand. So this is pro se litigant Melinda Scott has submitted an application to file a civil action without prepaying fees or cost. In her proposed action based on diversity jurisdiction, meaning the plaintiffs are in different states, Scott brings claim of invasion of privacy and defamation against Joshua Moon, who operates an internet forum, and Brian Zager, who owns a wiki, in quotes.

1:05:30
Unknown_03: A wiki is a website that users can collaboratively modify, he adds in the footnotes. While I will permit the filing of the action without prepayment of fees and costs, I will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1950 E2 B2.

1:06:06
Unknown_03: Very, very... See, that's important. Usually when you say something should happen by order of law, you usually throw in a law, right?

Unknown_03: And she didn't. Not one law is cited in this entire document. She does not once in this entire document say he has broken this law and has committed a tort against me. And I'm pretty sure going into this, the judge will point that out. So let's continue. Oh, right there. Because Scott's allegations fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted for the reasons below.

1:06:43
Unknown_03: Meaning, if you don't say what law somebody's broken, you can't sue them for it.

Unknown_03: Failure to state a claim, that is the most fundamental foundational thing that you could possibly fuck up. If you don't say what law or what tort has been committed against you, you cannot seek damages. And he has said this again and again to her. If you don't fucking say what your claim is, what law has been broken and how you are seeking relief based on that law, you can't fucking do it. And he even notes, this is Scott's second complaints arising from statements and images on these websites. I dismissed the first for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Scott v. Carlson. So he's quoting the exact same fucking case from last year.

1:07:55
Unknown_03: uh second page section one scott's complaint alleges the following facts joshua moon owns locale llc henceforth locale a corporation that runs kiwi farms and internet forum scott asserts that between march 2017 and december 2018 locale and moon published on kiwi farms articles and video containing her name and photos of her

1:08:29
Unknown_03: Neither Moon nor Locale asked for permission to use her name or photo.

Unknown_03: And Moon refused Scott's request that he remove them from Kiwi Farms. Scott also alleges that on March 14th, Moon published on Kiwi Farms an article containing private facts about her upcoming marriage, her spouse's prior legal problems and incarceration, and a protective order that she attained against a New York resident. Although, she also alleges that Moon operates Kiwi Farms under the name Null. And using this name, he published statements that Scott is the dumbest person possibly ever, really fucking stupid, a moron, a slut whore, in that she writes like she uses Crayola magic marker and has had like a dozen husbands by 30. I think the judge...

1:09:15
Unknown_03: might be trying to tell her something that she needs to take notice of considering this is the fifth time she's tried to sue me and hasn't even made it to to any fucking stage beyond trying to get it into the court uh

Unknown_03: Scott asserts that Moon uses the articles about her on Kiwi Farms to attract subscribers and followers to the forum, and he earns money from the forum's operation. Brian Zeiger owns Encyclopedia Germanica, a website that its users can collaboratively modify. Scott alleges that on July 13th, 2017, Zeiger published on Encyclopedia Germanica an article containing her name and photo. Zager did not have Scott's permission to use her name and photo, and when she requested that he remove them from Encyclopedia Dramatica, he denied being affiliated with the website. Scott asserts that Zager used her name and photo for personal gain because Encyclopedia Dramatica makes money from advertising and donations. In the same article, Zager has also published false statements that Scott had committed sexual acts with a former landlord, performed sexual acts for rent, has four baby daddies and is a former prostitute and a horny jewess with loose morals and incestuous

1:10:31
Unknown_03: Scott states that both Moon and Zager's publications have caused substantial emotional distress. She alleges that they have harmed her reputation, and in support, she states that other users on Kiwi Farms have echoed the statements Moon allegedly published. Scott also states that her neighbors have criticized her because of the information on Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Germanica, calling her a Hebrew pagan and her spouse a pedophile. Scott's complaint asserts appropriation of name and likeness, publication of private facts, and defamation against Moon. It also asserts claims of appropriation of name and likeness, false light publication, publication of private facts, and defamation against Zeger. Scott seeks an injunction ordering the removal of the content described above and monetary damages.

1:11:13
Unknown_03: federal pleading standards require that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. In evaluating the complaint, the court accepts as true all well-plaid facts and construes those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Unknown_03: However, threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice. A document filed pro se is liberally construed, but the court is not required to recognize obscure or extravagant claims defying the most concerted efforts to unravel them. scott's allegations against both moon and zager require consideration of the federal communications decency act with cda the cda bars under bars actions under any state or local law that is inconsistent with section 230 which prohibits holding providers of interactive computer services responsible as the publishers or speakers of any information that was created or developed by other information service other information content providers

1:11:53
Unknown_03: Thus, the CDA establishes a general rule that providers of interactive computer services are only liable for the speech that is properly attributed to them. They may not be held liable for merely enabling information created or developed by others to be posted online. Both Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Germanica are interactive computer services.

1:12:46
Unknown_03: moon and zager as their owners are providers of interactive computer services thus moon and zager can only be held liable for the speech on kiwi farms and encyclopedia germanica that is attributed to them almost all of scott's allegations against moon and zager failed to state the fact sufficient to attribute the content at issue to them although scott asserts that moon and zager publish the statements this merely recites an element of the cause of action without further factual support

1:13:26
Unknown_03: uh except for her allegations of defamation against moon scott does not provide any evidence making it plausible that moon and zager created the content and issues themselves and they cannot and thus they cannot be held liable for it accordingly i find that scott's allegations of appropriation of name and likeness and publication of private facts against moon and appropriation of name and likeness false light publication publication of private facts and defamation against zager failed to state claim upon which relief may be granted However, I find that Scott's assertion that Moon published on Kiwi Farms allegedly defamatory statements contains additional factional support sufficient to attribute the content at issue to them at this stage.

Unknown_03: That would mean that Judge James P. Jones recognizes

Unknown_03: This dangerous canine as my hallmark, my calling card. He can attribute them.

1:14:24
Unknown_03: He can attribute them to me because he recognizes.

Unknown_03: Scott alleges Moon posts content on Kiwi Farms under the username Null, and Moon has confirmed that his username is Null. She alleges that Null posted the allegedly defamatory statements on Kiwi Farms. I find these allegations make it plausible that Moon created these statements himself, and thus Moon may be held liable for them. Accordingly, I turn to whether Scott's complaint states a claim with respect to Moon's allegedly defamatory statements. To be actionable as defamation, a statement must be one...

1:15:00
Unknown_03: of fact rather than opinion. Likewise, statements of rhetorical hyperbole are not actionable as defamation. Loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language is rhetorical hyperbole.

Unknown_03: Um, determining whether a statement is one of fact or of opinion or rhetorical hyperbole is a question of law and thus is made by the court rather than a jury. Moon's allegedly defamatory statements that Scott is the dumbest person possibly ever, really fucking stupid, a moron, a slut whore that she writes like she uses Crayola magic marker and she has had a dozen husbands by 30, are rhetorical hyperbole rather than assertions of fact. All of these statements are loose, hyperbolic, and based in opinion. Thus, though they may be insulting and offensive, they are not actionable as defamation. Accordingly, Scott's allegations of defamation against Moon fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the foregoing reasons, I will be allowing the filing of the action without prepaying of fees and costs, but I will dismiss the complaint. A separate order will be entered forthwith.

1:15:39
Unknown_03: Dated January 24th, 2019, United States Judge James P. Jones. All right, I do have a question for Nick, so I'm going to call him up now.

1:16:19
Unknown_04: Hopefully.

Unknown_04: Hey.

Unknown_03: Can you hear me just fine?

Unknown_01: Yeah, I got you.

Unknown_03: All right. Did you listen to any of this by any chance?

Unknown_01: Very, very little. I was sitting up with my kid.

Unknown_01: Well, one of them. feeding feeding my baby and so i couldn't have the the volume on because of your offensive language oh jesus i'm sorry i tried to i i i didn't say anything offensive it was it was the document it was the document it wasn't pg-13 yeah exactly what what is the court coming to these days but uh no i just caught the last bit of the order here

1:17:13
Unknown_03: Oh yeah, I've mentioned this before when I started this, but every time she files something in the district court, it ends up in James P. Jones' lap, basically. I don't know if that's usual for one district to only have one judge that handles cases, but all of her stuff so far has ended up with him, and I love his opinions because everything is well-sourced. And they're sort of like – they're almost like a leap in between not knowing anything and knowing just a little bit about the court and how things work. He's very articulate and informational, I think, is the word. Sure, sure. So I went through it, and basically her complaint was twofold. She was suing me, and she was suing Brian Zager, who she alleges to be the owner of Encyclopedia Germanica. I don't know if you're familiar with that, but he's not the owner of Encyclopedia Germanica anymore.

1:17:59
Unknown_01: No, I mean, I don't know specifically, but I've heard that he's not the owner.

Unknown_03: And he, uh, he was basically ousted. He was never like the technical proprietor. He never really controlled it, but he was like the head of it for a while.

Unknown_01: Sure.

Unknown_03: So, um, is she even too quiet? Just, just a second.

1:18:36
Unknown_01: The chat's saying I'm way too quiet. Is this a little bit?

Unknown_03: You're perfect now. I see it on the dashboard.

Unknown_03: Gotcha. So her complaint was, A, she even mentions in her complaint that they contacted him and he said he doesn't have anything to do with Encyclopedia Dramatica. Not to be dissuaded, because she's the dumbest person possibly ever. um she she continued on and i've told her that i don't live at that address that she attempts to service so but she doesn't change it because she she knows she's got it right in her head same as with zager zager not only owns encyclopedia dramatica still he's personally responsible for everything that goes on ed he writes and she she says he writes it himself he published it So just dumb. Everything she says is dumb. But the really big thing, and I pointed this out as well.

1:19:20
Unknown_03: is you go through her complaint and not once, ever, ever, at any stage in this complaint, which is 15 pages long, does she ever cite case law and does she ever cite an actual law, be it in Virginia or federally? And that's consistently been her problem no matter where she files her complaints. The judge immediately comes back and says, you haven't stated the claim. You have nothing to sue this person with. You're just complaining. You have to state a claim. And he personally has sent back like three different lawsuits of hers in the district court for not stating a claim. And she just does not get it.

1:19:55
Unknown_01: Yeah, and that's the problem with people acting pro se, right? Unless you know what you're doing, if you're filing pro se, you really run the risk of having your case dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Unknown_01: Because it has to be worded a specific way. You have to link a fact to a cause of action. You can't just say, well, they did this, and that caused me harm because of this. What they did was defamation. You have to show how it's defamation. And the last time she did this, I read through it, and I remember saying on stream, she's failed to state a claim.

1:20:26
Unknown_03: And the very first paragraph of the judge's order was you failed to state a claim. I was very smug about that. I was happy with myself. It felt like I passed some kind of legal test, like an introduction test. But the other thing that I was curious about, because I didn't actually know what she was referencing with this. It's probably a technicality. I don't know if it's a standard thing in legal templates that she copied over verbatim without really understanding it. But I'll just read it real quick, and I want you to tell me what this means.

1:21:03
Unknown_03: It is section P. I don't think she... She didn't do her paper right. It's not the right template, but it's legible, so the court, because it's pro se, the court will allow it.

Unknown_00: Right.

Unknown_03: So section P, paragraph 34 says,

Unknown_03: Full scope of harm of invasion of privacy and defamation both defendants. The full scope of damage caused by the egregious nature of all instances of casting the plaintiff in a negative light, publicizing private information, and each act of defamation by Encyclopedia Dramatica can be intrinsically understood and assumed. In paragraph 35, the full scope of damages caused by the egregious nature of publication of private information on each act of defamation by defendant Joshua Moon can be intrinsically understood and assumed. What is this section about?

1:21:51
Unknown_01: Okay, mind you, it's written by someone who clearly has no idea what they're doing, or copy and pasted, I should say, by someone who has no idea what they're doing. But I think what they're going for is per se damages on defamation.

Unknown_01: So you get per se damages when you accuse someone of a crime so that you don't have to prove the damages if you're accused. For example, if you call someone a pedophile and say they molested a bunch of children and they didn't do it, the amount of damage that happens to them isn't necessarily calculable just from an economic loss. So the court would then assume, they would understand that that would cause damage and the damage would be assumed without having to prove it. So she's looking for per se damages on defamation. Or I guess invasion of privacy also.

1:22:40
Unknown_01: But that's that's not how it works. I mean, you have to it's it's very specifically limited to actual accusation of actual crimes and statement of facts is what it says. Well, yeah, statement of fact as well. But like this, this is an element of defamation. So this would be or not an element like an accessory to defamation. So once you prove defamation, you then go for per se damages because then you don't have to prove that you like lost a job or lost income. They just give you a big pile of money.

1:23:15
Unknown_03: Well, how do they determine how much big pile of money you get for for a per se defamation claim?

Unknown_01: They just kind of make it up.

Unknown_01: Well, for example, there's a per se damages case out here in Minnesota because there was a cop in a small town and he had married someone who was considerably younger than him. Although she was legal age when he married her, they started calling him Mike the pedophile or whatever. And so they called him Mike the pedo, Mike the pedophile. all around town.

1:23:54
Unknown_01: And then someone who didn't know him and didn't know the story came into town and basically started calling him a pedophile outside of the context of the community. And so then he sued for defamation. And the judge basically ruled that he wasn't a pedophile. He never molested any children. However, that started to damage his reputation. And because pedophilia specifically was such a massive charge, he was entitled to monetary relief, even though he didn't I think at the time he might have been retired or something like that, but he couldn't prove any economic damages, but his reputation was just massacred from it.

1:24:39
Unknown_01: Was that like a state case or was it like a district case? No, that's a state of Minnesota case.

Unknown_03: Because I'm thinking federally what would happen is they would say, well, the claim didn't originate with him, so he can't be held liable for it.

Unknown_01: No, not necessarily. If you if you repeat something that in reckless disregard for the truth, you can still be considered you can still be liable for the defamation.

1:25:18
Unknown_00: Really? It's possible.

Unknown_01: Yeah. But it's I mean, it's it's much harder to prove. But you have to like. take a lie that you know is a lie and repeat it, or that you could easily have... And I mean, it has to be really easy to verify that it's not true. But yeah, if it's in reckless disregard for the truth, or if it's a knowing republication of a lie, you can be held for defamation, even in federal court. Huh, I did not know that. It's a tough one, though. I mean, because...

1:25:49
Unknown_01: You're you're it's almost like you're applying the same level of scrutiny that you would get for a public figure to a private person on the republication.

Unknown_09: Yeah.

Unknown_01: But if it's if it's obviously a lie or like, for example, what they're going to try and what they're trying to tag Alex Jones with on the defamation cases for the Sandy Hook kids by if if he were to maintain that these were crisis actors, for example. the court would consider that an obvious lie because it's conspiracy. Now, Alex Jones gets a little bit of leeway as a news source, but if someone else were to start hammering on these families or whatever who is not a news source, they could possibly be held liable for defamation by republishing them. But we all know that they are crisis actors. I was about to say, whether or not it's true, the court would determine that to be an obvious lie.

1:26:25
Unknown_03: Hmm.

Unknown_03: So.

Unknown_03: Actually, she did mention that she wasn't a public figure at some point as trying to indicate that people don't have the right to talk about her. Actually, you know, there's one thing I want to reiterate because I found it so funny that I think you'll actually enjoy it.

1:27:07
Unknown_03: Okay. Sure.

Unknown_03: Footnote 9. Where did she cite 9 at?

Unknown_03: Okay, I'm just going to read this paragraph, and then I'm going to read the footnote for you. And I think you'll get a laugh out of it. So, section B, paragraph 9. In March 14th, article in Kiwi Farms... Or in the March 14th article in Kiwi Farms, Defendant Moon published an announcement of the plaintiff's marriage to her legal spouse... Parentheses husband. The article published links to defamatory newspaper articles and information about her spouse's legal problems and incarceration in the state of California. The intent of announcing her marriage to her spouse was done with the intent to embarrass and shame the plaintiff. It is not of legitimate concern to the public who the plaintiff chooses to marry. Who the plaintiff marries is not privileged information. Plaintiff Scott finds the international publication of her marital association as highly objectionable. And there are three footnotes cited in that paragraph. Footnote 7 says, "...although Plaintiff Scott did not legally marry her current spouse until two weeks after the publication of the article, Plaintiff Scott was deemed married by religious customs protected by her First Amendment rights." Third-party private citizens of the United States had knowledge of this religious custom, and this became the source of announcing Plaintiff Scott and her husband as married.

1:28:31
Unknown_03: Footnote 8 says... In the California. In the California. And then footnote 9 says...

Unknown_03: The plaintiff's spouse was incarcerated under probable cause. The plaintiff's spouse was defamed in the Napa Valley Register in the state of California. He was never convicted by trial, but opted for a plea bargain under duress for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Not in violation, but for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.

1:29:14
Unknown_03: So I want you, like when you do defamation law, from what I've seen, it has to be very clear cut, like that example that you used. You can't say that publishing arrest records for somebody is defamation because the complainant in that criminal trial lied and somebody's rights were theoretically violated. Like that's too messy. You can't try to make that defamation. Yeah.

1:29:49
Unknown_01: And certainly, citing a newspaper article is, unless it's been obviously retracted, there's no way. There's no way. It's a defamatory newspaper article.

Unknown_01: I mean, I guess it's possible for a defamatory newspaper article to exist and then be republished. But I mean, the lengths that you'd have to go and the liability would probably...

Unknown_01: shift back to the newspaper article because you'd have no way to know it was defamatory anyway. What a mess.

Unknown_01: When I read that, I couldn't believe it because I'm just like, this is like the longest shot ever made in any kind of defamation lawsuit in the US. Well, what's really interesting to me is in that footnote, she basically said she undermined her own claim.

1:30:33
Unknown_01: Because you said she wasn't, or you said she was married, right? Or the article said she was married, but she wasn't actually married. So she could have, I mean, in theory, that would have been a false statement of fact that was provable, right? Because she wasn't married, but then she said she was married under religious custom. So she undermined her own claim.

Unknown_03: Yeah.

Unknown_03: Okay, this is the other one that you really have to read or you have to hear.

1:31:11
Unknown_03: So this is by Defendant Zeiger. So this is the ED article about him. I can't take credit for this one.

Unknown_03: But in paragraph 20, Defendant Zeiger also published within the same article written statements saying the plaintiff was one, a horny Jewess, two, with loose morals, and three, incestuous. These statements were published with the intent of casting the plaintiff in a negative light. Now, incestuous has a footnote, and let's read that footnote, footnote 30. The article reads that an alleged relationship with a cousin makes the plaintiff incestuous, although marriage between cousins is legal in many states and not prohibited by Judaism. Although the use of the term incestuous in the context of the article is aimed at casting the plaintiff in a negative light in front of a secular audience.

1:31:51
Unknown_03: Do you think that one holds up any water? Is that a good claim?

Unknown_03: No.

Unknown_03: Actually, I'll give you another very similar story. There's a furry in Canada, in Niagara Falls, Canada, who's very angry with me right now because people on the website are calling him a pedophile. He's 25. His boyfriend is a female-to-male transsexual also living with him in Niagara Falls, and and she's 16. But in Canada, it's legal. So he's saying I'm defaming him by having comments on my website calling him a pedophile for dating someone eight or nine years younger than him, even though it's technically legal in Canada.

1:32:30
Unknown_03: Does that statement hold any water?

Unknown_01: Wait, so what statement did you make?

Unknown_01: Or is he saying that you made?

Unknown_01: That he's a pedophile for dating someone nine years younger than him, even though 16 is technically legal in Canada.

Unknown_01: Oh, sure. Probably not.

1:33:02
Unknown_01: Because one, if it was in the US, it would be pedophilia. Two, you're using pedophilia colloquially to just, you know, you're not actually accusing him of assaulting a minor necessarily. You know what I'm saying?

Unknown_01: If I call him a child groomer, is that the same?

Unknown_03: Is that an actionable statement?

Unknown_01: This is starting to sound like legal advice.

Unknown_03: No, no, no. I'm asking hypotheticals based in the realm of pretend.

1:33:37
Unknown_01: If you called him...

Unknown_01: I don't know. That one's really interesting because grooming has a specific definition too. Yes, it does.

Unknown_03: Have you gone over that? The context of the word grooming and calling somebody a groomer?

Unknown_01: No, but maybe there needs to be a video on it at some point.

Unknown_03: Yeah, you know what I'm referring to, right?

Unknown_03: No, actually, I don't. You never saw the High Gem stream by Sargon?

Unknown_01: Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That I know what you're talking about. I thought you meant the Canadian. No, well, I'm referring to the Sargon one now. I'm going to get my streams crossed. Okay, sorry. Don't cross the streams. Yeah, no, I did see that, and that one's very interesting. That has a specific context, especially from somebody in the UK, in the midst of the Asian grooming gang scandal.

1:34:08
Unknown_03: Everybody knows what the fuck a groomer is. Come the fuck on, Sargon.

Unknown_01: oh you can't you can't have any expectation that sargon has any grip on current political climate oh god that's a fucking burn where did that come from oh i don't know i don't know sargon's just fine oh sorry you can't see me raise my eyebrows at the mic

1:35:01
Unknown_01: No, he's... So anyway, no, that one's actually... Yeah, I think that was a bad play by Sargon, especially because he's in the UK, and what you say in the UK is very dangerous.

Unknown_01: Yeah, the...

Unknown_03: I'm trying to read the footnotes. All the comedy values in the fucking footnotes.

Unknown_03: She refers to my... Have you ever seen my avatar on the forum? The retarded dog that I use? It's my picture. Yeah. She refers to it as a vicious canine with fangs bared. I love that.

Unknown_01: It's a good thing she's not a Muslim, though, right? Because then your avatar would be extra offensive.

1:35:43
Unknown_01: Yeah, they don't like dogs. Throwing an unclean animal at her, just absolutely disgusting.

Unknown_03: Here, I want to read this to you. I'm going to put this up on the screen. You can tell me.

Unknown_03: if you think there is any subconscious message being written. This is by the judge. This is not by her. She also alleges that Moon operates the Kiwi Farms under the username Null, and using his name, he published statements that Scott is, quote, the dumbest person possibly ever, really fucking stupid, a moron, a slut whore, and that she writes like she's using Crayola magic marker, quote, and that she has had like a dozen husbands by age 30. Do you think that maybe he's... Like, is it necessary for him to repeat those things verbatim in his statement?

1:36:28
Unknown_01: I think... If I had to guess, I talked about this in, I think it was one of the Maddox streams a long time ago. Like judges and lawyers deal with so much mundane and boring stuff that you know they love it when the internet comes to their house, right? Like a judge has an opportunity to write a slut whore.

1:37:05
Unknown_03: He does it twice. These statements appear twice in this very short, like five or eight page opinion. He repeats these statements verbatim twice.

Unknown_03: Yeah, and page seven he says again moons allegedly defamatory statements that Scott is the dumbest person possibly ever really fucking stupid a moron a slut whore that she writes like she uses Crayola magic marker and that she has had like a dozen husbands by 30 our Rhetorical hyperbole rather than insertion of fact he wrote it twice That's fantastic

1:37:41
Unknown_01: Oh, so you have joined the illustrious ranks of Donald Trump. Did you know that? Have I?

Unknown_01: Yeah, because that's why Stormy Daniels' complaint against Trump was dismissed. All of his statements against her were considered rhetorical hyperbole.

Unknown_01: Which is like an addendum to defamation law that was created because they're kind of facts, right? Like they're kind of factual, but they're so ridiculous that people aren't supposed to believe them. That's the whole point. And it's because you're engaging in this public sort of – semi protected or well protected, but, you know, a little extra protected speech being a publisher. Well, I mean, you can accuse somebody of like if you say the words you literally raped every person on Earth, like that's not like that's a statement of fact, but technically it's so preposterous that nobody nobody could take it seriously.

1:38:18
Unknown_01: Exactly. There must be some other meaning because the amount of time alone that it would take to recharge is

Unknown_01: It would take several lifetimes to effectively rape the extant population. You gotta just line them up in one thrust at a time. Exactly. That's how it goes.

1:38:55
Unknown_01: We haven't thought this through. I think judges and lawyers love when they get an opportunity to drop something a little bit spicier than normal. They know it's going to be published in an opinion or they know that it's going to be published and left out there for someone else to find.

Unknown_01: That's always magic to me. And I love when the internet's language comes to the court. Yes, it's very funny. How funny is that?

1:39:32
Unknown_03: I'm going to send you these, and I have a request if you get time. Yeah, what's up? I would like you to read through the judge's order in full and tell me if it is normal for a judge to be so thorough with his opinion. Because it almost feels like he's either trying to educate her or... Or he's trying to educate me. It feels very special. I think a normal judge would just write that it's all bullshit in one or two pages and throw it out. But I don't know. He's consistently done this where his opinions have been very professional and well cited and well sourced as well.

1:40:03
Unknown_01: Well, I'll definitely give it a look for sure.

Unknown_03: I'm just curious.

Unknown_01: How many...

Unknown_01: How many times has this lady sued you?

Unknown_03: I am very quickly reaching a Guinness World Record for most cases won with the case being thrown out sua sponte, I think. I'm pretty sure I'm up there now. Not many people get sued five times.

1:40:36
Unknown_01: You'd think she'd get better at it or quit.

Unknown_03: She has. Her original complaints were written in fucking pen. She's only just started using a word processor.

Unknown_01: Okay, so here's a question. Have you considered moving the court to have her labeled a vexatious litigant?

Unknown_01: yes and i'm almost wondering if i ever get if i ever see a court opinion and the judge just writes if any of the defendants were to motion for you to be labeled as a vexatious litigant hint hint it might be accepted intent like then i'll do it but otherwise i'm like i could it would be writing like a practice i could practice and try to submit it and see if it works

1:41:29
Unknown_01: Yeah. Oh, a vexatious litigant because someone in the chat asked is someone who keeps attempting to sue improperly and their suits are like it's perfect for someone like this or for someone like Russell Greer, whose suits are routinely dismissed.

Unknown_01: The the suits are lack merit every single time.

Unknown_01: So what they're doing is potentially costing someone time and money and stress by they're trying to abuse them through the legal system. So when you get rule ordered as a vexatious litigant, what you have to do then is anytime you submit a document to the court, you have to actually you have an extra burden to prove that your lawsuit has merit before you're even allowed to serve the other party.

1:42:14
Unknown_03: And you usually like I think in Utah, I think Utah is where Greer is in, right?

Unknown_01: Yeah, Utah is where Greer is right now. Although he's suing... Yeah, he's suing out of state.

Unknown_03: I looked up specifically because he was threatening to sue me. And he decided not to.

Unknown_03: And I'm really pissed off.

Unknown_01: Did I tell you about what I had prepared for Greer?

Unknown_03: no do you remember do you know how he went after that one uh attorney's like daughter and made fun of her or something on instagram or facebook scortus scortus i emailed scortus and i said this guy is threatening to sue me if he did would you represent me pro bono and he said it would be my pleasure so i kept hinting i kept hinting career sue me scortus Sue me, Greer. Sue me. Just do it. And he never did it. And I was so ready. I would have fucking shown up in Utah with a suit and everything.

1:43:03
Unknown_03: That would have been fun. But no.

Unknown_01: I talked to Skortis a couple times in a couple emails. He seems like a pretty funny guy. I want to get him on the show, but I don't think he'll do it. No.

Unknown_01: Speaking of, would you be interested? I love doing this in public.

Unknown_01: Would you be interested in joining me for a Greer stream sometime? Sure. Yeah.

1:43:37
Unknown_03: No, I was thinking of doing a stream on him, but he, I mean his, his book that Sriracha and I read.

Unknown_01: Oh, you know, we've been, no, no.

Unknown_01: Oh yeah. We've, we've done eight chapters now of why I sued Taylor Swift.

Unknown_01: We, we just kind of read through it and, uh, do commentary and make fun of, uh, each paragraph. We alternate paragraphs reading through. Okay. Yeah. How long are the chapters? I'll do it. Uh, varying lengths, like very inconsistent lengths. Um, six was really long, I think, or five or six was really long. We're on the next one is nine, but, um, yeah, we usually do them on like Wednesday.

1:44:14
Unknown_01: a wednesday and then we will do them the you know streams last like two to three hours depending on how long the chapter is but they're a blast yeah are they how crazy is it i imagine it's fucking insane oh you haven't read his book no oh my god it's the it's it's absolutely nuts

Unknown_01: It's embarrassingly funny.

1:44:48
Unknown_03: Greer is one of those, I call them normie cows. They're people who are famous primarily outside of the forum. They usually have entire Facebook groups dedicated to making fun of them. Greer is a normie cow. He's a proper normie cow. His people have always been doing their own thing. I haven't needed to look after them too much. No, I've not read the book.

Unknown_01: Oh, yeah. No, it's the true story. The true story of why he sued Taylor Swift and exactly how it went. And I'm not joking.

1:45:22
Unknown_01: His friend who's a lawyer named Ken, who's like a very accomplished lawyer who definitely kind of encouraged...

Unknown_01: Russell to sue Taylor Swift because that definitely would have happened from a real lawyer.

Unknown_01: His car was firebombed by a Mexican because that was inferred to be hired by Taylor Swift as a hit job. Like, how dare you? I'm not even kidding. This is the funniest book.

1:45:55
Unknown_01: Oh, but, but Josh, it's not a date. The whole thing was not about a date. He was definitely not trying to get into Taylor Swift's pants. He definitely doesn't talk about several dreams that he had where he's rescuing her from towers and holding her in his arms and all that stuff. Dude, it's, it's the, this book is so good. Uh, yeah. And Sriracha and I had been reading through it. So, uh, Not to shamelessly plug my channel, guys, but if nothing else, I do have a playlist with all of the Russell Greer chapters on it. So you can listen to them at your leisure if you're not aware of the book and you're a fan of the Greer. That's funny.

1:46:29
Unknown_03: Yeah, I'll do it.

Unknown_01: I'll have to. It'll be funny putting me in. I'll be like, what the fuck is he talking about with this?

Unknown_03: And there'll be some references.

Unknown_01: Oh, dude.

Unknown_01: it's uh yeah and he he does not like you oh and it's all the kiwi farms people doing it too uh just just so you guys are aware you guys are all following or we're all following russell around in 2015 and ruining his life and it's amazing how many people are in youtube are in in the book that's what yeah

1:47:03
Unknown_03: funny does he have a picture of my dog in any of the in in the book uh no i don't think so he doesn't you have the dog when'd you have the dog avatar i've had it for a long ass fucking time i can't i can't trade off trade off of it yet um well here's i've seen the dog i have his filings he's put the dog in some of them okay uh here's what i've got to say though don't pre-read it

Unknown_01: Like, I'll DM you and Sriracha and we'll get set up on the time for the next stream and stuff. But don't, like, I have not pre-read anything. I go into everything blind and it's the most rewarding thing. Sriracha's read the book, like, 50 times so she she's the expert on what's coming but uh yeah no it's it's just good the writing is so bad oh it's great that's funny no i like i wouldn't tell i went into these court orders blind because i knew they'd be funny because she's just she's just fucking insane and i don't i don't understand why why she doesn't adapt at all

1:48:13
Unknown_03: Oh, I was going to mention with the vexatious thing.

Unknown_01: Well, because she's really effing stupid, right? Yes, that's what they say on the internet.

Unknown_03: I don't know if it's true or not, but that's what's claimed at least.

Unknown_03: But in Utah, I looked it up because of him threatening to sue me. I looked up the requirements for vexatious litigation. And it's something like you have to file five different failed lawsuits in five years.

Unknown_03: And he's done that, but he's not done it all within the state of Utah. So I was thinking, if he went after me, the first thing I would do is try to get him branded as a vexatious litigant and make the case that even though they weren't all in the state of Utah,

1:48:49
Unknown_03: the intent of the vexatious litigation declaration would not be just within the state of Utah. Because theoretically, if they were allowed to abuse the system, he could sue anybody he wants in any state he wants ad infinitum and never run into problems with vexatious litigation that way. So that was my gambit. I had it all in my head and ready to go.

Unknown_01: I think he'd have a real hard time suing you in Utah, though.

1:49:27
Unknown_01: jurisdiction wise, like, I don't know how their long arm statute would get you because even, even if you, even if he could show somehow that you had defamed him, like you would have to target that activity towards Utah, not just merely publish it publicly for the world to see. So it'd be, I think it'd be really hard for him to pull that off.

Unknown_03: And the other thing is he sent a DMCA complaint about a Google Drive link. And I'm like, bro, if the fucking stolen content's on Google, that's who you send the DMCA to.

Unknown_03: Not to me. I don't care. Right.

Unknown_03: Change your job, Josh. Hey, now that's ableist. That's ableist, Nick.

1:50:14
Unknown_01: Oh, I've been ableist ever since I covered Damore. Apparently calling people an idiot is ableist, according to Google employees.

Unknown_03: What? Did you call Damore an idiot?

Unknown_01: No, no, no. I covered Damore's case and all of the mentally deficient people who don't ever work at Google. They just spend all day on Twitter and Google+. Why can't I get that job? I'll do that.

1:50:46
Unknown_01: These people are seriously getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I can't tell that they do any work. because of how much they tweet about intersectionality or whatever. No, but so I called some of the people idiots in the documents because they were publishing the fact that they were blacklisting employees from the internal forums like that. Yeah, on their on their internal stuff. So once I once I did that, they all they got mad and they put my bar registration and stuff up on their internal forums and they were they're calling me an ableist monster. Do you think they have like a special folder for complaints about you in the Minnesota State Bar?

1:51:22
Unknown_03: They have to at this point. How many people have tried to get you disbarred from law because you made fun of them on the Internet?

Unknown_01: Only one that I actually know of, so I don't know if anyone else has tried. Landau's the only one to complain about you?

Unknown_01: Yeah, I mean, he did a full complaint. It was, I think, 22 pages. Yeah.

Unknown_01: I got it. They dismissed it without even looking into it because they're like, this is ridiculous. It's just a guy sharing his opinions online. There's nothing we can do about it. There's no attorney-client relationship that he's violating.

1:51:58
Unknown_01: Does that get you disbarred?

Unknown_01: Pretty much. We all have free speech.

Unknown_01: You could, in theory, get disciplined.

Unknown_01: There is a really weird...

Unknown_01: ethics rule about I say it's really weird only in the context of I've met lawyers who probably would fail at this, but there's an ethics rule about being able to represent all people.

1:52:36
Unknown_01: You know, you have to be equally you can't discriminate. I was going to ask about that because the woman who is the current leader of the Westboro Baptist Church is an accredited member of the bar.

Unknown_03: in in her state uh right yeah it's it's it's a hard one to balance you have to actually prove that the person would turn away someone um and the the like how how i deal with that is

Unknown_01: First of all, I can't think of anyone I wouldn't represent. Like off the top of my head, there isn't. But if there was someone that I would just be very uncomfortable representing, I'd flat out tell them. I'd say, look, I'll represent you, but you might want someone else. You think it would be the other way around, though?

1:53:08
Unknown_03: You think it would be like Shirley Phelps Roper would just say, I'll let them know. I'll turn them away if I don't think I can represent them fairly. As opposed to being required to represent somebody you don't think you can represent. You think the punishment would be for representing someone? Like if there were famous lawyers who were members of the Klan, you think the agreement would be, okay, I'm not going to take on any black clients. But it seems like it's the other way around. It's like you have to take on black clients. And it's like, why the fuck would you want me to?

1:53:47
Unknown_01: Yeah, it's it's a good question. It also that's why it's it's really hard to tag someone with it, because, you know, if a lawyer discloses like this comes up a lot with extremely conservative Christian lawyers and in homosexuality or transgenderism. Right. Like that, that what they should what they should.

Unknown_01: the recommendation to do is to let them know. So these are my personal beliefs. You know, I can represent you, but are you sure you want me to represent you? Um, you sure you don't want, you know, someone who either aligns with your ideology, who would understand it better, stuff like that. Um, but yeah, you're not really allowed to turn someone down. So I, I,

1:54:20
Unknown_01: I don't know. No one's ever come after me for that. Of course, I haven't ever turned anyone down for representation based on anything like that. I let people fire me all the time.

Unknown_01: Look, if you want to hire me, great. If you don't... This is a true story.

1:54:55
Unknown_03: When she first started doing this, I'm like, I should probably read up on it because it's cheaper to buy a textbook than it is to buy a lawyer. So I went to...

Unknown_03: I went to Yale. I went to the Yale website for law. And I pulled up for like Legal 101. I pulled up their syllabi. And I found the textbooks they recommended for Yale. And I found older versions of that that were on sale for cheap. And I just bought it off Amazon for like $20.

1:55:33
Unknown_03: And I just went through it on my own. And I saw a recommendation by somebody who was a law professor at a different university for a different book. And I read through that book. I'm like, oh, this is great. This is actually really legible and to the point. And it's something you can actually pick apart. and i emailed her i'm like i'm looking for the legal process i want to know what steps happen in what order and i want to know uh you know any deviations from that based on circumstance and i wrote her a very nice email and i said uh thank you very much joshua moon she replied and

1:56:11
Unknown_03: joshua moon from kiwi farms and i'm and i'm like yes as an aside do you think i could pass the bar exam being the owner of kiwi farms and she did not reply to that i never got my answer i never got my book recommendation the bitch oh rude i wanted do you want one Yeah. For like the, the process of the steps. I ended up getting the, uh, the, the, the civil procedure book, the, uh, the handbook that the, the, the courts put out for the rules of civil procedure.

Unknown_01: That's not super helpful.

Unknown_03: No, it's not.

Unknown_01: You've got, uh, pretrial litigation by, uh, Roger Haydock is, is one. And then I think trial, which I think is also by Haydock, uh,

1:57:03
Unknown_01: Those two, that's, that's actually, that was my civil procedure professor, um, and he, yeah, he's, he's been the special master for the, uh, the Bayer aspirin case, um, where they, you know, a whole bunch of people took Bayer. Oh, the serial killer that poisoned aspirin.

Unknown_03: Is that it? No, no, no, no, no.

Unknown_01: This was, uh, this is a case against Bayer itself. a massive case, like tons of people got sick and died from one of their, one of their products. And, uh, but because a lot of them were old and on several different medications for different things, it couldn't be a class action. So it's been going for like 20 years and trials, uh, because they can't do it all at once. But anyway, so if you want, uh, he's, he's very good. He's kind of witty. So his, his writing isn't terribly dry and, um, it's the, they're very good. They're very good resources, uh, I'll send you pictures of them. I have them. I just have to find what box they're in. Sounds good.

1:57:52
Unknown_03: And somebody asked, I wonder if any law schools use legal suits against Kiwi Farms as an example in their curriculum. There is a guy called Neger Psycholog. It's just his name. And he uses... Sure it is. No, it's literally just his name on the form. I didn't give him that name. And it's not anything racist. It just means black psychology in Dutch, apparently.

1:58:24
Unknown_03: But he routinely, he must have Google alerts or something for kiwifarms.net on Google Scholar. Because anytime an official article cites us, he'll post it on the forum.

Unknown_03: And we turn up in some crazy fucking places.

Unknown_03: We turned up in a college thesis on the use of cryptocurrency miners in mainstream websites. We were the largest website that adopted it in a Monero miner on our site. And somebody wrote on this in our failure in doing so. And that's now in a university paper. It's really crazy. And I'm glad he does it because it's funny to see how we impact academia now, apparently. It's funny.

1:58:59
Unknown_01: The internet's spilling over. It can't be contained. Poisoning everything.

Unknown_01: Isn't it the best though? Like when, uh, when we're legitimately like, that's, that's one thing I love about the stupid lawsuit is that, um, I don't think there's anywhere, any other legal document than the lawsuit, which has the word cuck so many times. Like where, where else can you find this, uh, this stuff? It's, it's only when the internet boils over into reality.

1:59:40
Unknown_01: That we get it. And I love it.

Unknown_03: Did I ever tell you about my intent to talk to Maddox?

Unknown_03: No. Did you hear about mine? Yeah, I heard. Yeah, so you tried to, you sent a super chat in to him while he was, I was there. You sent the super chat in. He's like, it's that fucking blackface lawyer trying to get me on his show. It's not happening.

2:00:15
Unknown_01: No, what was your attempt?

Unknown_03: I happen to have a friend who met Maddox in person at Comic-Con. And Maddox openly showed him court documents and was very forthcoming about his situation with the legal suit. And he told Landau specifically he did not want any reference to the word cuck in the document.

Unknown_03: Landau did not listen. And so his discussion with Narrator was that what he envisioned the lawsuit being about was just the facts of the billboard and a bunch of other shit that he could demonstrably prove were done to jeopardize his relations with his advertising companies, which I think would be an actual complaint, right? If somebody's fucking with your advertisers, that's a complaint. I think he...

2:01:08
Unknown_01: I think he had he structured the complaint properly, he could have at least made a plot. I don't know if he would have won. I don't think he would have won still. He would have moved past like the initial like proceedings though, right?

Unknown_01: Yeah, probably. And if he had brought it in California. against maybe just dax instead yeah yeah dax and um asterios because asterios did stuff as well i think that like i wrote an email when i first read it i'm like you guys should probably lay off maddox just a little bit because and i like this i wouldn't be like this is coming from from me i'm a cyber bully

2:01:51
Unknown_03: I think I would lay off just a little bit. Cause he's, he's clearly desperate now. Um, but you know, when I, when I heard it, it made it seem like really the mind behind fucking Maddox server was, was land out. And I can kind of believe that. Cause I, Oh yeah.

Unknown_01: Yeah. Well, that's what, uh, when I started covering it, I was dumping on Maddox a lot. And then as I started to realize that,

Unknown_01: I thought Maddox wrote the initial complaint and Landau just filed it because I couldn't think any attorney would be that bad.

2:02:25
Unknown_01: But then as it kept going, it's like, no, Landau's writing this stuff. landau's doing all this and and then i started telling i started dropping in several videos i'm like maddox you need to talk to a different attorney yeah you have to this guy is like early on to the case i remember that because that was because that's how you started you started just reading these papers and like i think the forum watched it everybody on the site knew of it at least the people who are interested in edox

Unknown_03: And I remember you saying that.

Unknown_03: And like now I told narrator because narrator had to talk with him on his podcast. And I said, when you talk to him, tell him I will give him a fair shake. And he said he would. But he's still he's now he's being sued now. So he doesn't want to talk about it while there's still things going on.

2:03:02
Unknown_01: Oh, Maddox?

Unknown_03: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I mean, that's fair. But, oh, man, I would love it. Because I don't have anything against him. I'm not going to try to trick him. I'm not going to bring fucking Dax on and have Dick Masterson, you know, eviscerate him. Like, I'm not doing that. I literally just want to talk to him and ask questions. And I really hope I get it.

2:03:37
Unknown_01: Me too.

Unknown_01: Me too, because what I've tried to communicate to him is, is like, I still like Maddox. I mean, I can't listen to his show cause I think he's no, I, I like, I like the idea of Maddox, right? Like that. What was that movie with Barbra Streisand? Um, but, uh, I, I like who Maddox was and I want him to just let go of whatever like this thing is. And I actually, uh, didn't want him to get screwed over by Landau. Like I, I,

2:04:10
Unknown_01: I wish he would have withdrawn the lawsuit a long time ago and just said, you know what? Like mistake. Uh, I shouldn't have hired this guy. I, I, I legitimately thought I had a good cause of action. Um, but now this is just, this is way too far and this is stupid. And, uh, and, and I think he and, and Dick could have hashed it out. Well,

Unknown_01: Yeah, probably. Maybe. I don't know. Well, Asterios isn't actually, like, it's not at a countersuit yet. It's still just a sanctions motion.

2:04:41
Unknown_01: Really? I thought he got an offer to settle with his half of the best podcast in the universe.

Unknown_01: yeah he did um but uh and that's to settle the settlement or the the sanctions hearing or the sanctions motion um was just you could take it it's valued at 45 000 because uh i don't know i don't know what forensic accountant decided that but uh but yeah the

2:05:19
Unknown_01: it's he hasn't actually countersued him um for i think he's talking about like a malicious prosecution or something like that but uh he's he's still in the sanctions for lying under oath and um in his complaint that's that's what the current thing is for unless hysteria has secretly filed a lawsuit that i don't know about which is possible

Unknown_03: Yeah, I don't know. I read him when I was in the third grade. I remember my friends went over to the computers in the corner of the room and were like, you got to check this site. And we pulled it up like it was a secret. It was a hardcore website. You got to read this. This guy... and i remember reading his fan mail and he docks that fucker that made fun of him and his company got so many fucking emails as a reply that he begged him to take down the the information and he's like as i am a merciful god i will censor your email address from this page like it's it's been a long way from that shit it's things have changed

2:06:25
Unknown_03: Back when, uh, back when doxing wasn't, wasn't the literally murder and you could do shit like that without people crying foul.

Unknown_04: I think your mic cut off.

Unknown_01: The glory days of the internet are gone. Yes.

Unknown_01: But, but at the same time, you know, you've got, uh, now, now the, like the counter argument would of course be that doxing leads to swatting because people can't control themselves. Like they don't they don't know where the line is anymore. My counter argument to that is you do not need somebody's address and information to swap them. No, no, no. And I agree fully. I agree fully. I'm commenting on a another bit of drama that's that's been unfolding between Andy Worsky and Miles Strong.

2:07:04
Unknown_01: yeah yeah well it's a when monday matt went after keemstar monday matt got swatted and he said i think it's keemstar and then keemstar had the fbi at his door and it's like monday matt didn't need to dox him to the fucking fbi they know where he's at you know what i mean right yeah absolutely

2:07:35
Unknown_01: But that we're talking, that's big YouTube people.

Unknown_01: When you start, if you start doxing some other people, then again, And not the farms, because the farms, of course, has a non-engagement policy, which I think is adhered to really well. It is. People don't like it when you fuck with locales.

Unknown_03: Even if it is funny, the knee-jerk reaction from everybody is that it's not okay. I'll give things a pass if they're funny, but in general, no, people frown upon it.

2:08:08
Unknown_01: Right, because if we abuse our toys, they get taken away.

Unknown_01: That's the whole problem. And that's what so many people don't, don't realize anymore. Uh, like, and, and of course the voracious, like the SJW crowd and there are other communities on the internet, but, um, where they, they can't just laugh. Right. Or they can't just shame in private. They have to go take it farther. They have to take it and try and ruin someone's life or reputation.

Unknown_03: When did that start, by the way? When did we start saying, if somebody hosts a website that I don't like, I have to go after their job? Has that always been that way? I don't think so.

2:08:46
Unknown_01: I think I'm going to peg it, and this is based on nothing at all other than just me thinking about it, 2012.

Unknown_01: I think 2012 is where it really started to ramp up. I know it's been in the past decade, but I think 2012 is where things started. And maybe like, I'm not gonna tie it to this, but maybe it had coincided a little bit to Obama's reelection. and the idea of this progressivism being something.

2:09:19
Unknown_01: But yeah, it's just, it seems like about then things started to really, really pick up on this and justice, social justice, as opposed to actual justice, took on this new hideous power. And I really, really hate it because you can't trust anything, right? Because if something has ever been taken out of context, about you you know that you have to be cautious about anything you you read or see about someone else because you're like wait is that right is that true because i know what happened to me uh so did that happen to them too and it's like why can't we just why can't we just enjoy our ourselves like what happened

Unknown_03: What gets me is how much of a pushover American companies are. American companies are just the worst. I don't know... I don't know if you followed... Did you listen to what I said to Dick about Stream.me?

2:10:07
Unknown_03: I don't think it's not Tuesday yet.

Unknown_01: No, I haven't listened.

Unknown_03: Basically, Vortie went after him. He found out that he had kids and was going to go after them as well. And the guy said, I can't because of this. And it's like, yeah, I understand that. But it feels like the moment people start growing their spine again, and I'm not trying to fault that one person in particular, but it feels like the moment people start growing a spine again and they're like saying, fuck it, go after, go after my boss, call up an elementary school. I'll just tell them what a faggot you are. And the moment like people start adopting that kind of mindset is the moment things are going to fix themselves because it takes, it's, it's a gradual process that people are afraid of other people reacting. Then they're, they're going to capitulate. And it just, yeah.

2:10:48
Unknown_01: And what, what blows my mind is these companies reacting to the,

Unknown_01: uh statistically a tiny amount of people right like uh even the these major companies reacting to twitter movements and it's like look i i get that there's a thousand retweets on twitter but you're you know universal studios right like your your audience your audience is hundreds of millions of people and you're reacting to to 10 000 retweets who cares Like, who cares? And half the retweets are probably favorable statistically, too. So these companies reacting to this stuff are like a McDonald's. Like, oh, we got to fire this person because a bunch of people who don't live in this state tweeted about it. Like, honestly, who...

2:11:46
Unknown_01: What are we doing?

Unknown_03: What got me was Jim did a video on this back in 2015 when he tried to keep a hand in politics briefly. He did a stream about... There was footage captured of a guy ooking at a black woman in Alabama or something. And they found... Ooking. Ooking. It was like, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. Oh. Ooh, ooh, ooh. And it was like making fun of her. Not advisable. Not advisable. Not advisable. They found the company he worked at, and it was a waste management company. It wasn't WM, but it was a small local garbage collection company.

2:12:21
Unknown_03: And they demanded an apology from them. And they gave an apology. They fired the guy. And they're like, well, how did this even happen? We need a thorough audit of every single person who works in this company. And every racist person needs to be uprooted from their job. And it's like, in this world that we live in right now, if you are not somebody, if you get caught being a wrong thinker, you are not fit to collect garbage.

2:12:54
Unknown_03: You deserve to be utterly destitute and hopeless and unemployable to collect fucking garbage. And there's another country that has something exactly like that. Do you know what country that is?

Unknown_03: uh china that's right they have sesame score if you wrong think too loudly and you hurt your sesame score you can't go you can't even leave the fucking state you can't leave whatever province you're in in china uh without permission so the moment your moment your sesame score drops sufficiently You can't leave your area. You can't get a job. You can't get the job you want. People are going to avoid you because they can look up your Sesame score and see that the state doesn't like you. And if you're friends with somebody who has low Sesame score, that affects your Sesame score. So the only way you can deal with that is to get rid of them. And it's maliciously intelligently designed to make somebody who ever were to say anything

2:13:49
Unknown_03: contrary to Xi Jinping's political line, make them not only unemployable but like a social leper that you can't even associate with in some private context. And that's where we're heading. That's exactly what this shit is. It is the same fucking thing.

2:14:24
Unknown_01: The worst part is we're doing it on our own. We don't have a dictator doing it in the US. I don't even believe that.

Unknown_03: I think that there are government organizations convincing people to act like this to have a de facto credit system like Sesame.

Unknown_01: Well, that could be. That's my Alex Jones conspiracy. How about this? How about this? Are you ready for this conspiracy? Mm-hmm.

2:14:55
Unknown_01: Okay. So you, we've been talking about the lawsuit and we know that, uh, a serious work for Weber Shanwick, massive PR firm. And are you familiar with Weber Shanwick's program fireball?

Unknown_03: No.

Unknown_01: Okay. This was brought up in the lawsuit by Landau because he was, he was too stupid to realize what he was talking about. So he used it wrong. Fireball is a, is a social media damage control. program for Weber, uh, for Weber Shanwick clients. Now Landau thought it was an anti-bullying policy that Weber Shanwick was failing to enforce on a stereos, but that's not what it is. Weber Shanwick has the fireball program for when, um, when let's say they represent Hellman's mayonnaise, when, uh, uh, uh, black employee at Hellman's mayonnaise covers their face in mayonnaise and, and puts on an orange wig and walks around like Trump or something. in whiteface, in horrific racist whiteface. Yes, yes. And that goes viral. Fireball, they'd hire the Fireball team, and they would kick into action doing basically counter-propaganda for Hellman's Mayonnaise. And they would try and counter this stuff.

2:15:32
Unknown_01: Now, what's really interesting is if we want some crossover between communities on Kiwi Farms, the Comixgate community... There are a couple very antagonistic people amongst the anti-Comicsgate crowd that don't seem to have a job and do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about Comicsgate and about specific creators in Comicsgate on Twitter.

2:16:35
Unknown_01: And if you, of course, follow the thread, you'll know who some of these people are by name, but I won't name them. That's fine. It doesn't matter. There's some strong suspicion that that Fireball is, or Weber Shanwick, is representing either Marvel or Disney, and that some of those Twitter people might be full-time employees or contractors or whatever for the Fireball program. And the tie to this is one of the people on the board of Weber Shanwick is a guy named Kwanzaa, who's a comic book creator, Blackest Kwanzaa, I think is his name, uh, of his, of his comics. And he, uh, famously, um, DMCA, uh, your boy, Zach, if you remember you were on the stream with me, I think we talked about, no, no, no. That was Steven Birch. You were on the stream with me like the next day. Um, but yeah, uh, Zach got DMCA by Kwanzaa right after, uh, he got hired and on a partial position by, by Mark Wade. Um, so there's this weird incestuous sort of relationship, but, Uh, so to, to counter your government might be doing this, uh, it might also just be private companies enacting these programs with no regard for the fallout that they can create. But if a, if a massive PR company with tens of billions of dollars like Weber Shanwick is running, um, you know, counter screening on Twitter and validating these and inflating the, the influence of these small accounts, like the amount of damage that that can do. Cause I mean, if you, if you pay attention to some of these people on Twitter who criticize comics gate, they have the ear of the CEO of Marvel.

2:17:54
Unknown_01: Like he follows and retweets them and they're nobody. They're not even comics creators. They're not even recognized critics or anything. And they get this massive amount of influence. And so there's some, I think there's some interesting possible credibility there. Well, Sesame is technically... Sesame is the Chinese equivalent of the three credit bureaus.

2:18:33
Unknown_03: It's technically a private organization. I would argue that there is no distinction between a private company and the government in certain situations. Especially Netflix. Every person who's on the board of directors of Netflix is a former Obama exec.

Unknown_03: No. That can't be true. When Obama left office, almost everybody in his White House was hired by Netflix.

2:19:16
Unknown_01: It's almost like Netflix is a lobbying firm to the public, right? Yeah. Because that's how it used to be.

Unknown_03: You get DC and you get Netflix and they pump out absolute fucking garbage that nobody asked for, but that has a very consistent message regarding socio-political stuff, regarding race and gender. Almost like, remember... I don't know. I'm going to throw this up on the screen real quick. Give me a second to pull this up. It'll have a bit of a delay, but I want to see if you'll remember this.

Unknown_03: And I want you to tell me when you see it if you remember who produced this.

2:19:54
Unknown_02: So, you guys, seriously, this next thing I feel is very special. This is a cool little segment.

Unknown_02: You know this woman from Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. Please give it up for Richard Bloom. Do you remember this, Nick?

Unknown_02: I do remember.

Unknown_01: I do remember. Do you remember who produced this?

Unknown_03: Uh, no. It says right down here, very, very cool of you, GeoIsCool9999. Segment from Bill Nye's Netflix original show, Bill Nye Saves the World. How interesting that Netflix made this.

2:20:30
Unknown_01: Hmm. Oh, yeah, yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. When you were saying, I thought you were asking me to name it. No, no, not the producer.

Unknown_03: No, no, no.

Unknown_01: Okay. Netflix. No, that was on Netflix, and it was an unmitigated disaster of a show. Mm-hmm. Oh, God. Why couldn't they find people who look like women?

Unknown_03: Because that's sexist.

Unknown_03: Oh, God. See, men are women and women are men and everybody's the same, but we're also different and adversity is our strength. Don't you get it?

2:21:04
Unknown_01: No.

Unknown_01: I never will because if my wife looked like me, I would hate every second of my life.

Unknown_01: I don't want to be the same.

Unknown_01: I like sleek lines, you know?

Unknown_03: Yeah, no, and it's everything, everything. You know what? I was preparing for this stream, and usually what I do is I get a song by two different groups, because they're going to content ID it, and they're going to try to monetize it. But if it's two different groups... That own the song, they cancel out and nobody gets to monetize the video. And that's how I prefer it. I don't want fucking ads on my shit. So I picked out a song that I definitely wanted to play at the end of this video. And then I had to try to find another song that would deadlock it. And I couldn't because it was the first song I wanted to play for sure was UMG. And every other song I fucking found was UMG. So it's one. They own a lot. It's just one company that owns like 90% of the music that I think of. When I think of music that I want to play for my streams, UMG owns it. I can't deadlock UMG against UMG.

2:22:14
Unknown_03: When I moved to fucking Russia, on the way to the airport in Atlanta, Georgia, I was listening to a song. I can't even remember the name of it. I land in fucking Russia. I get out of the airport. There's a bar near my terminal where I got off. Same fucking song. Exact same song. The last song I heard in America and the first song I hear in Russia is the exact same fucking song. And I'm just like, I hate this. I hate this. It's garbage and it's like brainwashing. They're trying to claw into your skull and make you watch and listen to this garbage that you have no interest in because it narrates some point they want you to believe.

2:22:48
Unknown_01: Yeah, well, I mean, that's the that's where we are. I mean, I've been I've been a conservative, at least economic fiscal conservative for a long time, very pro business. But like the the older I get and the more we progress down this road, the more I see it's like we're just we're just

2:23:23
Unknown_01: giving up everything because of my private business, right? Like we're allowing a corporatocracy. And it's weird because I don't want to be on the side that says you can't have... I definitely like private business, but what we're allowing private businesses to do is crazy. And the reason we're allowing them to do it is because it doesn't bother anyone in legal power, right?

Unknown_01: Of course they want... They want the ability

Unknown_01: have branding and messaging just pumped out. That's why corporate news is so successful or so propped up is that these guys, no matter what side of the aisle they're on, they want to be able to go on CNN at a whim. They don't want to have to try and find the most popular YouTube news shows.

2:23:58
Unknown_01: You don't have to ask permission from Tucker Carlson.

Unknown_01: Or PewDiePie. Could you imagine that? Because PewDiePie wouldn't have to let someone on.

Unknown_01: Or you go to the Young Turks, but only if you're a Democrat. Or you have to go on Ben Shapiro if you're a Republican.

Unknown_01: With the networks, these guys can get on a show. Republican or Democrat can get on a show. And you can get asked the questions that you want to answer. Exactly. Exactly.

2:24:41
Unknown_01: It's a mess.

Unknown_03: Yeah, and it reminds me of another anecdote.

Unknown_03: I like to say that there's no distinction between a sufficiently large business and government. It's basically the exact same thing. When I lived in the Philippines briefly, this is why I'm a huge proponent of net neutrality. I think net neutrality is very important. Everybody did until that fucking retard in the FCC that Trump appointed. Said, no, we don't need net neutrality. Suddenly, every Trump voter in the entire world said, Trump says net neutrality is bad and we must believe Trump. And really, it was just this fucking idiot, Pajit I, or whatever.

2:25:15
Unknown_03: But in the Philippines, there's a very good reason why net neutrality... It's demonstrated in...

Unknown_03: In the Philippines, there's basically one company that controls both cellular plans and home plans for internet in the country. And...

2:25:49
Unknown_03: I had a full plan. I paid $60 a month for high speed internet. And if I try to connect to Google, if I try to go to YouTube, my connection would slow to a crawl. It would take 60 seconds to open the Google homepage. If I used a proxy to the United States to hide where I was connecting to,

Unknown_03: It loaded just fine.

Unknown_03: Now, interestingly, on the sell plans that this company provided, they had the five peso plan for five Filipino pesos, which is like an infinitesimal amount of fucking money. It's nothing for five pesos. You get access to like 10 websites. one of them is facebook coincidentally philippines has no websites the government doesn't really have any websites you can't do anything online very few companies have a way to order something online

2:26:26
Unknown_03: But if you have a Facebook account, you can usually find the businesses on Facebook and you can get stuff done through Messenger on Facebook. Like if you find a restaurant, you can just message them on Messenger and say, bring it to my door and I'll pay you at the door. And that's how they'll handle that.

Unknown_00: Instead of having a website, a diversity of websites that you can do stuff, you business transact through Facebook Messenger.

2:27:06
Unknown_03: Because nobody in the country has internet. They have Facebook and that's it. And that should terrify people. This idea that you can't even connect to the websites that you want to unless you have a business package that's hundreds of dollars a month. Like that's coming, baby. That's coming. It's coming real soon. Because right now, the big fight is to make sure that everybody stays on Twitter and Facebook and all these dying social media organizations. And if Gab were to ever actually get successful, if there were an alternative to Twitch and an alternative to YouTube, an alternative to Twitter, an alternative to Facebook that wasn't censored, The very next thing that would happen with the blessing of Donald Trump and Paget Eye is that you would have packaged internet with different websites for different payment levels. And people would be forced to use Facebook and forced to use Twitter. And nobody should want that. And I don't know why people advocate for it. But they say, but there will be a diversity of options. If somebody censored these websites on their ISP, we just switch to a different ISP. Well, why can't you switch to a different ISP right now? If you're not happy with Time Warner, what do you do? Do you go on dial-up? No, you're stuck with Time Warner. Having net neutrality be repealed did not affect your plurality of ISP options. It just stifled them. And I don't know why people hate it because it's coming. And it's another example of how big companies are going to try to rope you in to a select number of platforms that are beneficial to them.

2:28:30
Unknown_01: Yeah, the problem that I had with net neutrality is that I don't think it was actually creating net neutrality.

Unknown_01: I don't have a conceptual problem with net neutrality, but I don't like the way they were going about it. It should have been a bill.

2:29:02
Unknown_03: It shouldn't have been some FCC regulation. I think the FCC should be torn apart with a claw hammer.

Unknown_01: But the problem is I also don't know if I trust the – they're not even boomers, man. They're what? The geriatrics in Congress to figure out. the internet through a bill. Like, let's give it to a bunch of... No, I don't trust kids either. I don't trust anybody.

Unknown_01: Josh, why don't you craft the bill?

Unknown_03: Well, somebody in chat is even like, he's regurgitating this line. Ajit hates packages as a concept. Ajit wants regulation to be lower so startups don't go bankrupt trying to be in competition. Hey, motherfucker, I run my own ISP. I have servers you can go rent right now. Adding some kind of rule to it where you can only connect to certain websites is a detriment to my customers. It's something that would require extra effort to do and which would have no benefit to me as a small business startup unless Facebook was compensating me for the time and effort to implement it. So no, that notion is preposterous. Even if somebody was using my VPNs to stream off Netflix or something, Netflix offers these boxes. If you run an ISP for a domestic region, they will sell you for like $1,000 a server

2:30:14
Unknown_03: that has something like four petabytes of space and routinely once a day will swap out storage with the most watched shows and movies on Netflix. So instead of having to communicate every single request for Netflix data to Netflix, you can pay $1,000 and have four petabytes of the most accessed Netflix stuff right at your ISP level so you don't have to pay the bandwidth upwards. It's already figured out. We don't need more help.

2:30:52
Unknown_01: Well, but I don't, I mean, the internet's just a series of pipes, and so I don't know what you're talking about.

Unknown_03: Petabytes, not petabytes.

Unknown_03: I don't want petabytes of anything anywhere.

Unknown_03: Petabytes.

Unknown_01: That's horrifying. Well, man, I got to get back to I got to get back to the family. We have a we have a snow day today, which is just lovely. And by lovely, well, I'm kind of.

Unknown_01: It's fun for the kids. That's what matters.

Unknown_01: Yeah, except it's too cold. It's too cold here. And next week or this week supposed to get worse. We're supposed to get like where I am. Actual temps, negative 20s and wind chills in the negative 50s Fahrenheit.

2:31:28
Unknown_03: Yeah. That's cold. That's really cold.

Unknown_01: It's so cold. It's so cold. You know, negative 40 is where Fahrenheit and Celsius crossover. So it's beyond that. It's a mess. Uh, yeah, I, I'm not looking forward to it, but, uh, I got to run and go help out with the kids and stuff. And, um, all right. Well, thank you very much for coming on and talking to me about this crazy person and their crazy stuff. Yeah, thanks for having me. I subscribe to this channel because you have a new one every week.

2:32:01
Unknown_03: I made a website for you. I would recommend bookmarking themadattheinternet.com. In case I go completely dark, I'll keep a list of my links and stuff so people can look at it.

Unknown_01: Will do, buddy. And I'll DM you about the Greer reading. Yeah, yeah, let me know.

Unknown_03: I've been practicing my reading voice, so I should be fine.

Unknown_01: Oh, good, good.

2:32:36
Unknown_01: I've been practicing my Greer voice.

Unknown_03: Are you putting one of those plastic things they use in pizzas to keep the lid from collapsing in to prop your mouth open so you can slur things effectively?

Unknown_01: It's worse. I'll send you a screenshot.

Unknown_03: Oh, that's right. You have like a plastic mouth thing that Dennis used. I've seen it. It's like on your shelf or something. I've seen it in the background.

Unknown_01: Yeah, it's on my, well, it's sitting on a bottle of the $20 million mead in honor of the lawsuit. But yeah, it's good stuff. Fun times. All right, man. I'll talk to you later. I got to go. Yep.

2:33:13
Unknown_03: Take it easy.

Unknown_03: Peace.

Unknown_03: Well, that was fun. That made this little stream into something special.

Unknown_03: I think that's it. Do you guys have any questions before I play my outro song to deadlock the copyright for my intro song?

Unknown_03: Oh, do you have any hope for the future of the internet? What paths forward are there? I still think the internet's going to fragment. I think other countries are going to try to implement censorship. But I can't tell you with any kind of objectivism what I think is going to happen. I can tell you what I personally try to make happen.

2:33:43
Unknown_03: With the Kiwi Farms, I try to keep... And people who don't like the site are going to criticize me for saying this, which is fine. But my aspiration with the site is to try and show enough people in their late teens, early 20s, who are just now coming to that age...

2:34:22
Unknown_03: what the internet was like when I was a young teenager, how it felt for me. Because I think that demographic of people is going to want a better internet.

Unknown_03: And I think they're going to cause problems for the current status quo. They're not going to want to be censored.

Unknown_03: And I try to give little taste of what things used to be like so that they never ever settle for the washed down, watered down corporate product that is Twitter's speech and Facebook's speech.

2:35:02
Unknown_03: I hope that young people coming of age in this year hate this shit. And I hope that by the time I'm dead, shot dead by a crazy person who hates my website, that there will be enough people inspired by the site to prop up 100,000 Huey Farms that are just as Wild West and cause significant stability issues for the propaganda apparatus that currently exists.

Unknown_03: That's my aspiration. I don't know if I'm ever going to do it. I don't know if it's going to work. Probably isn't going to work. But that's my goal. That's my audacious attempt at stimulating social changes.

2:35:41
Unknown_03: And with that, my friends.

Unknown_03: I think it's time to call it quits. I can't believe it lasted this long. I'm a fucking idiot, and I forgot to record this stream locally, so I'm going to have to wait for this stream to process, download the stream, and then re-upload it to the Kiwi Farms proper.

Unknown_03: So this will be on the main archival channel as soon as that's done, which will take quite a while because the stream is so long. um make sure you subscribe to this channel if you haven't done so already because i'm trying to get uh super chats back on this because i like money and i will be playing the what remains of edith finch at some point in the future on this channel to try and uh fluff it out a bit but for now take it easy my friends

2:36:18
Unknown_09: Singing When we're winning We'll be singing I get no doubt

2:38:11
Unknown_05: He sings the songs that remind him of the good times

2:39:02
Unknown_08: I get no doubt. We'll be right back.