Less
LightNews LightNews
banner
isitless.bsky.social
Less
@isitless.bsky.social
30 followers 42 following 0 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Less
alyssamerc.bsky.social
For easier access, sharing as screenshots with alt-text here.
Dear Ron: This is an attempt — perhaps in vain — to propose a settlement. As set out below, this is a take it or leave it offer. The details are below, but we start with what we now know. So, let’s start there. We now have meaningful direct message and ChatGPT productions. Given your prior practice, 1 we presume you have not reviewed those productions and further that you have not communicated with your client about the current state of the case and his understanding and expectations as to what is to come. 2 This puts us, as Plaintiff’s counsel, in the unusual and uncomfortable position of knowing more about your client’s state of mind with regards to this litigation than you do. A quick summary: Your client does not appear to be having a good time. And the ChatGPT logs paint a portrait of a man completely unspooling, in the throes of something like AI-induced psychosis. In his February 19, 2026 ChatGPT session “Court Order Violation” 3 (attached hereto as Exhibit 01, beginning on page 8), he asks ChatGPT what would happen if “my lawyer quits” and he “stop[s] replying” to the Court and us, id. at 11, and further states that “I feel like I’m being held against my will,” id. at 13. On his March 13 livestream, he said that he had no faith in the legal system, and on March 12 he described the process of litigating the jurisdictional defense that he.. Page 2 of 21 asserted and the production of the jurisdictional discovery that he elected 4 as “a massive waste of time and money and court resources.” 5 Given the facts now available to us from the limited review we have conducted to date, we do not foresee his mood improving any time soon. Below, we go over how the productions to date have made us very confident on the ultimate merits. Indeed, let me be clear that, given what we’ve learned, we will re-file in California if we happen to lose on jurisdiction; we have made that decision already. But we are also plenty comfortable on jurisdiction — although for obvious reasons, that is almost beside the point, since we can and will refile if we lost on that issue. So, here’s where we are: We want to make clear to your client he holds the keys to free himself from “being held against [his] will.” Ex. 1 at 13. We are offering him a way out that we think is reasonable, as costs continue to escalate — in part because at a certain point our fees (recoverable under the harassment law we are suing over) will exceed your client’s total assets. If your client apologizes, agrees never to talk about Ms. Mercante again, and pays us a sum equivalent to what he’s paid you to date, he can be done here. If not, on we go I. The Discovery We Have Reviewed to Date Confirms No Merits Defense Exists. As I say above, we understand and expect that you have not yet reviewed the discovery you provided to us on March 5, 2026, and March 9, 2026. We would therefore anticipate that the facts discussed below will be a surprise to you.6 Given that, we will walk through them with rather more care and explanation than we would include in a circumstance where all parties were equally aware of the facts. As a reminder, our review is preliminary and incomplete, 7 and the below is not the entirety of the evidence we have found or will find in the future. Rather, think of this as a sort of “Greatest Hits.” Obviously, the deep cuts will often be more interesting and could even be the real gold. But this gives a good idea of what is there. As we understand from your motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22), the primary defenses to our claims are to: (1) deny the existence of actual malice and (2) deny the existence of bias for harassment. (This is not pejorative — given the nature of those claims, those are the typical defenses, and for most clients, make sense). But given the nature of the discovery that we have reviewed, we are extremely confident that we could prove those two elements of our causes of action by any standard. We look forward to what else we may discover after we have a chance to conduct a full review. 4 We’ll come back to that. 5 See https://x.com/SmashJT/status/2032242995253428705. 6 Hopefully this will be a learning experience for you vis-à-vis the importance of independently investigating your client’s claims prior to filing them in court above your signature. 7 When I say that, I mean that the detailed, document-by-document review is incomplete; we have indexed, done an initial sorting, reviewed the categories of things we have, etc. Much of this evidence comes from the ChatGPT logs that you produced, 20 of which (out of a total of 2,215) are provided as exhibits to this letter. When you produced this discovery, you did so by producing the raw .JSON files. Making them human readable has been enlightening to say the least. Your client has continually fed not only legal questions about this case (including communications with you) and the legal filings to ChatGPT, but has also outsourced nearly his entire “creative” process to that LLM. As a result, we have extraordinary visibility into his intent, state of mind, and general thought process during the relevant period. And in the interest of making things simple: That view of his full state of mind is not good for him. A. Actual Malice 1. In an extreme example, your client publicly used ChatGPT to lie dramatically. Perhaps the most damning, in his September 2, 2025, conversation “Digital Stripping and Prostitution,” your client gave ChatGPT the prompt “Could ‘digital stripping’ be considered a form of prostitution?” Exhibit 12 at 1. When the chatbot responded “Digital stripping isn’t usually classified as prostitution in law or in common usage, but it is often considered part of the wider umbrella of sex work,” id. at 2, your client began to “coach” it to give him the answer he wanted. At first, he merely prompted it to eliminate nuance: When that did not provide him the response he wanted, he prompted it to be more speculative:
March 29, 2026 at 5:57 PM
Reposted by Less
muellershewrote.com
This aged well.
muellershewrote.com Allison Gill @muellershewrote.com · Nov 20
Once you realize that Trump isn’t nominating cabinet members to RUN agencies but DESTROY them, it makes more sense.
January 28, 2025 at 4:42 AM
Reposted by Less
joycewhitevance.bsky.social
We need to pay attention to this now before it’s too late.
January 28, 2025 at 12:43 AM