He doesn't though, I've already explained to you that he plans to file defamation per se lolsuits, where you don't have to prove damages. It's a different type of defamation lolsuit from the one where you have to prove damages. Also, he's not just filing defamation lolsuits. People need to stop treating Null's different lolsuits like it's a single lolsuit. Null is talking about filing several different lolsuits that are already at different stages. Null said that the lolsuit against LFJ (in California) is going to be some other kind of
tortious business interference lolsuit, unrelated to the defamation lolsuits:
I have been thinking a lot about Null suing LFJ in California, a State with very strong anti-SLAPP protections. It's almost inevitable that LFJ will go for an anti-SLAPP motion to prevent Null from obtaining his correspondence in discovery. Null can chip away at that, but it took Manson a year of litigation, filing motion after motion to get to a point where he could perform some limited discovery, but in the end he lost and the anti-SLAPP was upheld. I know Null is not a multi-millionaire rockstar like Manson is, so I don't know how much money Null can spend on all those motions. I think he should study the Manson case closely to learn which mistakes Manson's legal team made when they filed the lolsuit. Null would do best to make his strongest, most convincing accusations against LFJ from the get-go. I am personally against RICO accusations being used on the very first motion just to alarm the judge with very little to back them, but perhaps that's what Null has to do to convince the judge in California, who is very likely to be hostile, that his lolsuit isn't about protesting LFJ's right to protest, but rather about the fact that LFJ explicitly and intentionally designed, coordinated, promoted and implemented the #DropKiwiFarms campaigns for the purpose of aiding and abetting cybercrimes against KF. As someone who followed #DropKiwiFarms closely, there is no doubt in my mind that LFJ was using the public aspect of #DKF as a cover for the cybercriminal conspiracy that he aided and abetted against KF with the help of the German hacker Kevin Karhan. There is no doubt that Kevin Karhan involvement and intent against KF was cybercriminal from the very start. Kevin Karhan joined #DKF for the explicitly stated purpose, as admitted by himself in his tweets, of committing (cyber)crimes against KF, its owners and its members.
I can think of several ways that Null can argue that #DKF wasn't a legitimate protest, but rather a protest that was used to cover up cybercrimes:
- There's the 5 year campaign (that predates #DropKiwiFarms) by LFJ himself targeting of Cloudflare - there is literally no reason to deny someone DDoS protection unless you are planning to DDoS them or to have someone DDoS them. LFJ targeted Cloudflare not just to deny KF connectivity, but to deliberately place KF and its user-base in harm's way the moment they restored connectivity.
- There's the GrayHat Academy on Github and the posting there of falsely named DROP lists that were actually used as DDoS lists
- There's the poz.hiv hack (with LFJ literally involving non-consenting third parties in his cybercrimes, attempting to export KF user data to a non-suspecting web server)
- Multiple explicit threats from Keffals, LFJ, Kevin Karhan and others in #DropKiwiFarms to personally target Null and Kiwis off-line, including death threats on social media
- Admissions by #DropKiwiFarms that they were aware of the technical specifics/"fingerprint" of the DDoS attacks against KF, which is a strong indication that #DropKiwiFarms were coordinating with the hackers who carried out those attacks, who had told them what kinds of DDoS attacks they were using against KF
Null needs to make a very strong prima facie case that #DropKiwiFarms was set-up from the get-go to be a cybercriminal conspiracy with the mere superficial appearance of a protest movement. He needs to argue that the cybercrimes that happened against KF during #DropKiwiFarms - the poz.hiv hack, the DDoS attacks - weren't just an unfortunate and unforeseen side-effect of the campaign, but the very criminal intent of the campaign.
Again, I am not a fan of RICO accusations being used as a red light to alarm the judge on the very first motion, but perhaps that's what needs to be done here. I feel that mere "business interference" isn't strong enough to counter an anti-SLAPP. LFJ can too easily respond by saying that the very purpose of protest is to enable the public to interfere with some business conduct that is unethical or in violation of some rules. Null needs to show that LFJ went above and beyond legal protest to commit outright crimes, that crimes were always the goal and that the campaign was provably designed, coordinated and executed with cybercriminal intent.
