John Doe

Swiftly, decisively.

So Megacorp filed a lawsuit against 10 unnamed John and Jane Does and asked the courts to subpoena the records of a couple of websites that had been created by anonymous citizen journalists tracking all the ins and outs of the story.

The suit wasn't against the websites or the journalists directly, just a means to uncover their anonymous sources, with all the attendant First Amendment questions about journalists' ability to protect the identities of their sources.

Just enough time had passed since the two independent stores' grand reopenings that the internet, starved for stories for a couple of agonizing days, did not consider Megacorp's response swift enough.

They didn't think suing John and Jane Doe sounded very decisive, but they found the attempt to attack the journalists who'd been providing them regular updates on the story to be anything but boring.

Three quick strikes, another out for Megacorp.

No one could say what inning the game had stretched into, but Megacorp kept losing, one after another, to the point that even some of its harshest critics were calling for a change of leadership, not just for the sake of corporate accountability, but as a kind of invocation of a mercy rule.

Among Benjamin's many character flaws, perhaps the most egregious was his willingness to trust in the good nature of others.

213.

The injuries that Plaintiff Jane Does 1-6 and the class members suffered include injuries directly and proximately suffered as a result of sex offenses committed by Epstein and the other co-conspirators and criminalized under Article 130 of the New York Penal Laws.

The offenses include sexual intercourse without consent and oral sexual conduct without consent, forbidden by New York Penal Law, Section 130.20.

The offenses included forcible touching of sexual or other intimate parts without consent, forbidden by New York Penal Law, Section 130.20, 130.35, 130.50, 130.52, and 130.66. 214.

That's the dog.

It's John and Jane Doe and their dog Fido.

All right.

I was feeding our dog Fido when I heard what sounded like James talking to someone in the backyard.

Scolo v. Nunes, 847 NYS 2D, 899 Supreme Court, 2007 Affidavit, at 60 AD, 3D, 840, New York Appeals Court, 2009.

The defendants focus on this last element, whether they provided knowing and substantial assistance to those who battered the Jane Does.

Knowledge for these purposes is actual knowledge.

Lerner v.

Shea v. Cornell University, 192.

AD 2D 857, 858, 596, NYS 2D 502, 503, 1993.

As explained above, the complaints are devoid of facts which support the allegation that the acts of J.P. Morgan and D.B. were specifically and intentionally directed at causing harm to the Jane Does.

Thus, the defendant's motions to dismiss plaintiff's claims for aiding and abetting battery are granted.

Obviously, the people who are alleged to have done the abuse Mel Phillips, Pat Patterson and sexual harassment from Terry Garvin, Those people are all dead.

So but there are still these John Doe plaintiffs who could all be deposed.

I would think that they would be deposed.

And you would think that Vincent Linda would be deposed as well.

And we have, on record, Nick Koniski telling us that he tried to voice his concerns about what was going on.

Like, there are enough instances that it would be very hard for Vince McMahon to state, I had no knowledge of this at all, and A key part of that is Mel Phillips being fired in 1988 and then being brought back and what they can ultimately get out of Vince and Linda McMahon, because they are trying to prove that they were negligent here in their overseeing of of these contractors that were working for the company.

And let's review to why – so we had – we originally had eight John Doe plaintiffs.

Only seven of them stayed on the case after the motion to dismiss process because they dropped the plaintiff whose