CrunkLord420/JacobAppelbaumLeavesTor
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/Enegnei/JacobAppelbaumLeavesTor synced 2026-05-26 05:38:26 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Fixed punctuation, moved commitment

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Enegnei
2019-08-24 04:14:48 +02:00
committed by GitHub
parent c95c5334c8
commit 65a6dc8af9
1 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
JacobAppelbaumLeavesTor.md
+3 -3
View File
@@ -1551,9 +1551,9 @@ In arguing that the allegations against Appelbaum constituted a public controver
They also argue that by "expressing doubt and uncertainty" about the allegations, Todd was "weighing in on the side of the accused, Appelbaum." Referring to Appelbaum as '[the](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/accused) [accused](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the%20accused)' implies that he has been charged with a crime or is being judged as a [defendant](https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/the+accused) in a court of law, when he has not been (see '[*Appelbaum Denounces Allegations*](https://github.com/Enegnei/JacobAppelbaumLeavesTor/blob/master/JacobAppelbaumLeavesTor.md#appelbaum-denounces-allegations)').
A second declaration from '[Jane Doe](https://web.archive.org/web/20190806234203/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.31.1.pdf)' was filed, with [redactions](https://web.archive.org/web/20190808113553/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.30.0.pdf) that [both parties had agreed to](https://web.archive.org/web/20190808115825/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.30.5.pdf). On August 6th, [a joint motion](https://web.archive.org/web/20190806234558/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.33.0.pdf) was made to commence with a hearing for the anti-SLAPP motion and the [initial case management conference](https://web.archive.org/web/20190815203957/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.38.0.pdf) on August 22nd, which was [accepted](https://web.archive.org/web/20190814202306/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.35.0.pdf). On August 20th, Todd filed a proposed order for [changing the case name](https://web.archive.org/web/20190821010140/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.41.0.pdf) to "[Peter Todd v. Isis Agora Lovecruft](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14868600/todd-v-lovecruft/)," since Lovecruft had [recently changed their legal name and gender](https://archive.is/3uFWw). Judge Ryu [accepted](https://web.archive.org/web/20190823183655/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.44.0.pdf) the motion the next day, just before [the](https://web.archive.org/web/20190822111944/https:/twitter.com/isislovecruft/status/1164346144941432834?lang=en) [hearing](https://web.archive.org/web/20190823172251/https:/twitter.com/akareilly/status/1164535975109976064?lang=en).
| Precommitment hash: `a65f36da4849a9ef722cfa169e98acba3649036e927c758c8f1b075aaefa2d23` [August 7th 2019] |
|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:|
On August 22nd, after [the hearing](https://web.archive.org/web/20190824020143/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.46.0.pdf), "the court indicated that it would consider Defendant’s legal challenges... but that their factual challenges would need to be raised in a summary judgment motion after the parties had the opportunity to conduct discovery," based on the precedent of *Planned Parenthood v. Center for Medical Progress*. It was requested that "each side must submit an opening brief" on the merits and standards of the case by September 12th, and submit replies by September 19th."
A second declaration from '[Jane Doe](https://web.archive.org/web/20190806234203/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.31.1.pdf)' was filed, with [redactions](https://web.archive.org/web/20190808113553/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.30.0.pdf) that [both parties had agreed to](https://web.archive.org/web/20190808115825/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.30.5.pdf). On August 6th, [a joint motion](https://web.archive.org/web/20190806234558/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.33.0.pdf) was made to commence with a hearing for the anti-SLAPP motion and the [initial case management conference](https://web.archive.org/web/20190815203957/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.38.0.pdf) on August 22nd, which was [accepted](https://web.archive.org/web/20190814202306/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.35.0.pdf). On August 20th, Todd filed a proposed order for [changing the case name](https://web.archive.org/web/20190821010140/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.41.0.pdf) to "[Peter Todd v. Isis Agora Lovecruft](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14868600/todd-v-lovecruft/)," since Lovecruft had [recently changed their legal name and gender](https://archive.is/3uFWw). Judge Ryu [accepted](https://web.archive.org/web/20190823183655/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.44.0.pdf) the motion the next day, just before [the](https://web.archive.org/web/20190822111944/https:/twitter.com/isislovecruft/status/1164346144941432834?lang=en) [hearing](https://web.archive.org/web/20190823172251/https:/twitter.com/akareilly/status/1164535975109976064?lang=en).
On August 22nd, after [the hearing](https://web.archive.org/web/20190824020143/https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.340308/gov.uscourts.cand.340308.46.0.pdf), "the court indicated that it would consider Defendant’s legal challenges... but that their factual challenges would need to be raised in a summary judgment motion after the parties had the opportunity to conduct discovery," based on the precedent of *Planned Parenthood v. Center for Medical Progress*. It was requested that "each side must submit an opening brief" on the merits and standards of the case by September 12th, and submit replies by September 19th.