It appears the Plaintiff does not want this case to be dismissed- they have filed a motion arguing against it:

Plaintiff's Response to the Motion to Dismiss:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hfdm5WUOFLCzGHRbIY7EYtjnFm2npiZH/view?usp=sharing

Novel legal theories and misunderstandings abound in this motion, as our counsel has clarified in their Response:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14JaMrZARge4w0B9OSLAWbpxT1CjpZh04/view?usp=sharing

You may peruse these filings and the full docket at your leisure.

For now, I'll share at least my layperson impressions. I can't believe some of what I'm seeing.

First off, they sued us wrong.

(Not bringing ethics into it, I mean just technically.)

Their lawsuit was incompetently filed way back in October, and the court was about to throw the whole thing out in January until the Plaintiff's attorney scrambled to beg for a chance to sue us correctly. The court literally said they would allow it "on this one occasion," and essentially told their attorney to please learn how the law works.

That's just square one.

And it turns out they're not *just* suing us- they're also suing some company I'd never heard of, that- I guess??? Is somehow upstream of our website, maintaining internet infrastructure.

In their response, right out the gate Mr. Baker (The Plaintiff Mr. Harm's lawyer) accuses our attorney of using AI- because... Well, perhaps it seemed like a good thing to throw into an official public filing with no evidence. They're touring federal court for the first time ever, why not have some fun.

One of the major crimes they accuse us of is using the phrase "as a favor to you" in correspondence with the Plaintiff- which in their mind proves we were wantonly and willfully insulting.

They literally put this into a federal court document. And they expect a judge to look at it and take them seriously. I am not kidding.

Further, their justification for suing our company Vivid Publishing AND David as an individual is to claim we don't have a legitimate business. To bolster this claim, it would appear they scrounged through our corporate filings to prove there weren't any-

But found that we do indeed register annually. Well, they claimed Vivid isn't a real company anyways, because evidently in their mind that would help their case if it were true.

Beyond these gems are what appear, at least to my untrained eye, as fundamental misunderstandings of how the law actually works, ranging from which part of the process is appropriate to attach exhibits to, and the difference between a 'factual allegation' and a 'conclusory statement.'

But perhaps they grasp the law adequately, and know what they are doing.

Our attorney found one instance where they slyly omitted the middle of a quote, to try and make it appear that a legal precedent applies to this situation, when it really applies to the relationship between an insurance company and an insured benefactor. Nice try?

The image attached to this post shares a handful of excerpts, but for the full richness of this experience, you can peruse the legal documents linked above.

Essentially, our position asserts their accusations lack the coherence to be capable of any sort of informed consideration, and if they want to actually sue us they have to put together some sort of document that does a good impression of making sense.

When I imagine the caliber of legal advice the Plaintiff has been subjected to, I begin to feel sympathy- until I remember that they're trying to rip $100,000 from our indie creative business and us personally.

It'll be up to the judge to see if this case crashes forward in its current state, or if the Plaintiff and his attorney need a little time to go and think about what they've done.

Please bear in mind, regardless of how disjointed the legal filings from the opposition are, the only reason we are capable of standing up to them is directly thanks to YOU. So, thank you, and please continue to share this and shed more light on the situation!

This campaign is unpublished.

GiveSendGo