Will Caffinated Kitti Be Doxxed By The Janet Braun/Lauren The Mortician Lawsuit? 

The real world doesn't give a shit about being "doxxed." Find yourself in court? Give up your bullshit Internet name.

Considering that they already swatted the poor woman once...

And so she has to f’ing move again? Grrrrr!

yeah, while it might seem like the nut jobs are doing a 'solid' by referring to her as KC, it's still their fault if her name is released because they're the ones who brought about the law suit

Disagree, there’s no special privilege for women, if you live a public life, even when protecting your identity, you always run the risk of your identity leaking, there are no special protections against this just because of your gender, would we be having this debate if KC was male! Probably not…

Incidentally, she might also cite that wellness check as one of the problems with losing anonymity ...

How does this differ from someone famous using their stage name in court. If it's the name they can be identified by and not a way to actually be 'anonymous'.

That sucks. Sorry you have to deal with this. Best wishes. ✌🏻

@@valoriel4464 Well, in this particular profession, potential employers will presumably understand how this works and be able to understand those search results.

In this type of scenario i would say a verdict of liable would be when real names of the defendant must be used. Otherwise anyone could use the courts to get the personal info of anyone they like or despise.

The courts don't care about someone's infantile wishes.

​@@EricDMMiller cringe

@@EricDMMiller Say you've never been stalked without saying you've never been stalked.

@@evilgraysonmore like ‘say you are a jerk at all times without saying it’

@@evilgrayson it’s why I’m not a creator posting loads of videos hiding behind a fake name, there’s ways around the situation KK/KC has put herself in.

No, disagree, she chose to be a creator, chose to have a public persona, chose to put her anonymity potentially at risk by doing so. One of the reasons that I have chosen to not be a creator and putting myself out there as a creator.

@@cube252002 That's wonderful for you that you chose not to become a creator. Insisting everyone meet and fit your exact circumstance or criteria is neither helpful nor really adding to the discussion. Caffinated Kitty is not you, therefore she does not have to meet your exact specific standard. Her anonymity should be allowed to be protected.

@@duckiekraft6893 I didn’t insist on anything, I’m responsible for what I say, not what you imagine I say to justify the construction of your straw man. She knew what she was getting into by being a creator or influencer, the consequences are on her, but like so many, she wants the benefits of her choices without the expectations or accountability. I think what is happening to her really sucks, but the “chance” of her real name coming out is not an important issue.

@@cube252002 1. If you are going to claim someone is using a straw man argument, please actually understand what a straw man argument is. You attempted to use yourself as an example when you do not have similar circumstances (admitted BY YOU), therefore, your own argument is null and void. 2. What you are doing is the definition of victim shaming. She became a creator, therefore whatever happens with her protected identity is just part of the process. Um, no. That's NOT how that works, in Canada or America. Have a good day. You're going to believe whatever you want, however misguided. I am quite done with you.

@@duckiekraft6893 I know what a straw man fallacy is, didn’t stop you trying, sure I used myself, I’m also not some amazing magical outlier, I’m just an average joe, she made her choices, so yes, she has to live with them, it’s called personal accountability, something some demographics fear irrationally…

Heh, very, very tired.

Feel better soon!

🙏🏼💙 Hope you escape soon, and heal fast from whatever has you there!

Thanks! Should be out today (5/25) hopefully no more bad chemo side effects🤞👍

@@GiraffeGal1 🫂♥️

Hoping the best for you!

We’ve already got the in rem cases. I don’t think it will ever beat classics like “United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls”, “United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness”, or “South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats”.

​@@kanrakucheeseA Lowering The Bar reader, I presume?

The fact that these two “names” are even in a RU-vid title is laughable.

@@kanrakucheese God, these cases made me start laughing at work...

@@kanrakucheese These was that case Ingenuity 13 LLC v. John Doe where the judge made liberal use of Star Trek references,including "the court went to battlestations"

I can halfway agree but it’s unsustainable by our desire for open court as well as subpoenas for applicable witnesses on either side.

That's idiotic and there's no way it would be workable.

Civil court is about liable vs not liable, not innocent vs guilty. If all civil cases were private unless they were found liable, a LOT of predators would get protected (think Diddy settling his civil case with Cassie).

Isn’t this a Canadian lawsuit? Not disagreeing with you

@@basicallyno1722no it’s in the US.

No, what she said was that Bunny lied. Never fired her, still using Janet. That may be what you meant but it’s unclear😂.

This is my thought, it adds the fear of probable doxxing to the usual anxiety that a threat of lawsuit provides. Particularly when the doxxing will occur prior to and regardless of the future ruling.

I could see a revision to the Anti-Slapp lawsuits slowly happening so that if that happens, moneys are awarded to move, change names, etc, along with stiff penalties going up for each time you use the courts to dox someone, eventually including felony charges being brought for harassment.

​@@user-gl5dq2dg1jyoutube trolls don't have that kind of money though. You could try getting all those expenses back, but...

@@user-gl5dq2dg1j The problem is that it would indeed be slow to happen and not universal, since anti-slap is even not nation-wide. Many people would be harmed.

@@jediping Sadly true. I'm not sure what the best way for tort reform to happen would be, but something needs to happen.

But then he wouldn't be able to give us this glorious content.

Their lawyer is doing great, I am glad they have the lawyer they do.

@@RunkleOfTheBaileycould the court force filing under seal? I know ultimately it would eventually be disclosed but it provides a small measure of delay and protection allowing her to manage the timeline on which her identity becomes public.

It seems counterintuitive to blame them for what the court orders. Whatever our opinions about the quality of this particular lawsuit may be, it would be silly to say that no one should bring a lawsuit against KC because they shouldn't dox her. The court's decision here is on the court.

@@PrismaticCrafter I have problems with saying that someone who does something dumb carries moral fault for the consequences if they did the dumb thing in good faith. To be blunt (and uncontravertial, around here), I don't think Janet is a good lawyer. I can believe that she thinks this is a good lawsuit, or that bringing it is ethically permissible and in her client's interests. I can believe that her client has been lead to believe it's a sound suit. I could nitpick by pointing out that they cannot be "directly" responsible for what someone else _choses_ to do (and it is a choice, because the case law on this issue isn't on-point), and I feel obligated to (hence this sentence), but the above seems the bigger issue.

This wasn't Janet, this is the judge. The only part Janet plays in this is she brought the suit.

@@mhfuzzball Yeah, I commented before watching, but let’s be real, it’s not going to be long before she’s back on her bs.

@@mhfuzzballEXCEPT it wasn’t. You didn’t watch very carefully. No judge has decided on this particular case yet. The case he is citing is another case entirely.

It'd be the court doing it at that point, not the lawyers, unless we want to reach the conclusion that KC should be treated as immune to lawsuits from her online activities.

@terryandtravis5504 That would still necessitate the reveal of her name. A court order is required for a legal name change, and an individual is required to list their legal name at the time of the name change in order for it to be valid. So, this won't work here.

How is it Janet/Lauren/Benji's fault, not the court's? Are we to say that no one should ever sue KC for her activities online, because such a suit would dox her? Unless we accept that, I don't see how blaming the plaintiffs is justifiable. (edit - grammer)

@@delta3244 bc without the lawsuit, she wouldn't be doxxed. Who brought the suit? I didn't say I agree or didn't. It's just how I see this being taken online. And she absolutely can be sued. As can anyone else. But her name doesn't have to be in it. If every single lawsuit- regardless of merit- unmasks people who use pseudonyms on purpose for protection, you are going to run into people bringing lawsuit solely for doxxing. That's a problem.

@@Katalina_K The thing is, if the courts say so, her name _does_ have to be in it. If putting her name in a lawsuit is something to be avoided, and the courts require you to do so in order to file a lawsuit, then I don't see how to avoid concluding that suing her is to be avoided in general. As you've agreed, that is a bad conclusion. It is one we must avoid. We avoid it by making one of [putting KC's name in a lawsuit is bad] or [putting KC's name in a lawsuit is necessary] false. In an ideal world, the first must be false. The courts are the only ones who have any control over the second. If they make the second true, then they're the ones who force us to live in the non-ideal world where the first is false. For that reason, I put the blame for KC getting doxxed on them in that situation. Furthermore, that decision forces me to discard the assertion that naming KC in a lawsuit is bad - because keeping it leads to an absurd, worse conclusion - which means I cannot find fault in naming her in a lawsuit anymore.

A countersuit maybe?

I'm fairly certain that the people blaming the Plaintiffs in this case are blaming them preceisly because it is THEIR actions that brought about this bogus case in the first place. This is exactly "their doing." Janet and LTM have been weaponizing the legal system from day one, and this is simply another method of that weaponization. I think it's fair to assume, given the swatting incident, that this was exactly Janet's play from the beginning, Janet and LTM want these people to hurt. They want to bring them harm. This is just one way to do it. This is also an obviously transparent attempt by Janet and LTM to maintain some sort of 'harmless' image. One that purports to 'protect.' It won't work; and that is because the actions of Janet and LTM have shown from the beginning, by filing this insane and vile lawsuit, that they are interested in punishing anyone who dared go against them.

She didn't have a choice. She's not the one sueing, KC is the defendant. She HAS to respond.

@@Katalina_K I think I guess my question is now ... Could this be a soft move to get her to settle?

@@LynzeGenX I don't think Lauren etc. Has ever wanted to settle. They want the trial. I suppose it could be; but even if they move to mediation, her name will still have to be used unless the court decides against it. Any legal filing going forward will need to have it. I think they're too far in the process unless Lauren etc. Drops it

​@@LynzeGenXIt isn't a "move" at all. It's the court itself stepping in to mess with proceedings, because they're bound by law.

​@@delta3244 I meant to infer that could it be to bring it to the forefront that caffeinated kitty will be outed unless she does what the other side has wanted her to do

Not saying they'd consider gender specifically, just the nature of threats received/etc.

Surely you're aware that not all situation are like your own, yes? I'm a survivor of sa and dv too, but that doesn't give us extra privilege to decide for others how they respond to their own situations. Most people can have compassion for others that way. I'm sorry you're so caught up in yourself that you refuse to accept people having different experiences and thresholds than you. Hell, I'm happy to have literally survived and I very much like being alive, but I am also acutely aware of certain possible future events that I have already discussed with loved ones not to save my life after if such things were to happen. The consequences of what my life would consist of at that point 100% would be worse than death. And the people I've discussed the details with agree with my conclusions on that too. For my circumstances, there are things worse than death that could happen. I could easily see someone else having something similar in their life. And that's just one way things could be that bad. There are more experiences out there than just my own, so it's more than possible other situations exist where people live their lives with this risk over their head as well.

@@RunkleOfTheBailey thanks for the reply, and I do understand, my point is why are we dismissive of possible threats against men while tripping over ourselves to avoid those that might threaten a woman or women? Let’s either apply the principles equally, protect everyone, or not apply them at all and society be damned. And there is nothing worse than death.

@@clockside yes, everyone has different experiences, I also know my particular situation is much more common experience for large numbers of men, far more common than society wants to or is willing to admit, I don’t get to decode for anyone but myself but you seem to have confused “decide” and “advocate”, possibly purposely because of my perceived gender? I can have compassion and empathy for everyone, but I’m finding that I’m having more compassion for the men who are ignored, marginalized and dismissed by virtue of their gender. We both know the implication was that gRape is worse than death, and I wholeheartedly disagree, and I doubt you or anyone else will change my mind on that, for EITHER gender. That attitude is not unlike the quote from Hillary Clinton “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” Excuse me?!?! Um no, just no. Talk about being dismissive of the struggle of men, the ones actually experiencing those acts, actually loosing their lives in the overwhelming vast majority of cases. This attitude has permeated into western society that no matter the suffering experienced by men, women somehow always are the victims, while men are essentially ignored, or they are recognized as mere window dressing to the more important topic of how women are suffering. If the argument is “we need to do something to protect this person’s identity in court filings because they are female!” Then we have failed at actually taking equality to heart! If we argue it’s because they are vulnerable regardless of gender, fine, let that argument be tested.

@@cube252002 I had a feeling you'd respond this way... For the record, I hate when women and people of other genders turn their victimhood into a weapon they bludgeon others with too, so it has nothing to do with your gender. Gender is completely irrelevant when it comes to using your past to be an a-hole towards others. I didn't confuse anything either. You've decided that anyone who thinks there are fates worse than death has an invalid opinion. Calling your crusade "advocacy" doesn't change that you've decided what is and is not valid for others to believe. It doesn't surprise me that you twist everything into being an attack against you and men though. Your refusal to be anything other than angry at the world and anyone who doesn't immediately agree with your perspective is boring, cliche, and incredibly typical of people who think being a victim gives them special status. As for "worse than death", go ahead and insist on viewing the world through your limited and heartless perspective. Just because you refuse to believe that there are situations where the things described in R threats could indeed be worse than death were they to be acted upon doesn't change that such things do exist and in shocking frequency. And I'm not going to waste any more breath on someone who talks the way you do. As you pointed out, nothing I say will ever be of interest to you as I'm not participating in your "men are the true victims in this world" frenzy and have no desire to join such a narrow worldview either.

"Any content about people and situations I'm not aware of is bad content" Is it possible to be any more self-centred?

@@user-mv5zt8qd9l Does this involve Canadian firearms law in any way? Somehow, I doubt it..