Didl Drip worships a man who told Didl to fuck his sister. Didl has no argument.
Null said on MATI that Hardin is going to send out Notices to Retain Information to the people he plans to sue: "We will send the demand letters in, like, the upcoming week or so".
To give you an idea of what such a letter does:
Federal law requires the early preservation of potentially relevant evidence. In Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig. it was found that āa litigate is under a duty to preserve evidence which it knows or reasonably should know is relevant to the action.ā In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig. 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Six years later, in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, the Court bluntly defined the timing when preservation attached as āfrom the moment that litigation is reasonably anticipated.ā Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 881 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1136 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Once litigation is anticipated, a party āmust suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a ālitigation holdā to ensure the preservation of relevant documents.ā Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 2020 FRD 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). In practice, attorneys should consider the receipt of demand letters, summons, complaints, subpoenas, employee accidents, and discrimination allegations as a non-exhaustive list of examples of when one should reasonably anticipate litigation and undertake affirmative actions to ensure preservation.
In California, the law slightly differs from its federal cousin. The California Civil Discovery Act of 1986 (āCDAā) governs civil discovery within the Golden State. While the CDA is where one would expect the prohibition of the intentional destruction of evidence, surprisingly, the CDA does not explicitly bar the deliberate destruction of relevant evidence before a lawsuit has been filed or before a discovery request. See, e.g., Dodge, Warren & Peters Ins. Services, Inc. v. Riley, 105 Cal. App. 4th 1414, 1419 (2003).
...
Given the judicial power to order preservation, give an adverse jury instruction, suspension, disbarment, or the possibility of removal to federal court where there is a more defined standard, attorneys litigating in California should follow the federal standards to determine when preservation attaches. By doing so, an attorney will likely meet their California duties of preservation and be well prepared if the matter is removed to federal court.
Preservation Obligations: Preserving Potentially Relevant Evidence in California Litigation - California Lawyers Association
As businesses become more reliant on technology, when found litigating in California, businesses will find that a larger share of potentially relevant evidence is digital or electronically stored information (āESIā).calawyers.org
#DropKiwiFarms started 2 years ago and LFJ has already deleted his Twitter account, so what documents are they hoping to retain now that they've already announced their intents to sue him? Caraballo and LFJ and everyone three degrees separated from them have likely already DFEd everything related to #DropKiwiFarms. I specifically remember Bardfinn - a TRA from Reddit who was also involved with #DropKiwiFarms - specifically mentioning, when he deleted his Twitter account in response to Elon Musk acquiring Twitter - that he went through all of his DM threads and DFE because he feared his DMs being leaked. Ellen Murray openly tweeted about him and Keffals going into a secret Signal channel whenever there was a DDoS attack against KF. LFJ himself DFEd his Twitter account in response to Elon Musk, but most of those tweets are still up on KFs, spread over several threads. What exactly does Null hope to preserve at this point? These lolsuits are 2 years too late.
A Retention of Documents letter is bullshit anyway, IMO, because like I said, all or most of the defendants in these cases will end up filing anti-SLAPP motions - the TRAs definitely will - and then Null then can spend a year fighting against it and end up still losing like Marilyn Manson did when he failed to fight the anti-SLAPPs in his case. But I think I can see what Hardin is doing here. Hardin is leading Null to believe that he will totally get rid of the anti-SLAPPs, and that he totally will be able to perform discovery, so he's putting the defendants on notice that he intends to do so.
Null should go into the Marilyn Manson vs. Evan Rachel Wood thread on KF, and look at all the legal documents I posted there when I was still on KF. I wasn't able to post about Manson losing his defamation case due to the anti-SLAPP motions being upheld, because I was already banned by then. But I linked to a Google Drive full of folders with all the legal documents, including the ones in response to the anti-SLAPP motions. If Null takes the time to read the earlier documents in that case, he will see that Manson specifically complained about the fact that Illma Gored (ERW's lesbian girlfriend at the time) accused him of being a pedophile in a tweet she later deleted. You can see how this case is comparable to the one Null wants to file: Manson complained about being called a pedo in a tweet, Null is complaining about being accused of having CP on KF. Even that accusation - literally accusing Manson of being a pedophile on the basis of purely hearsay accusations by others - even that accusation amounted to protected speech, according to the CA court that upheld the anti-SLAPPs! LFJ and his company Honeycomb are in California BTW, which is Null's forum of choice according to his MATI statements.
If it's protected speech for Illma Gore to accuse Marilyn Manson of being a pedophile in a tweet, how does Hardin intend to go about getting the anti-SLAPPs out of the way when the TRAs inevitably invoke it?
Former reverend's teaching license has been revoked
