2019-01-20 - Cory Machado: "Retraction Demand and Notice of Potential Legal Action" -

Not open for further replies.


he put a baby in my butt
True & Honest Fan
Man even in a place as expensive as Cali, that's a sad fucking house for a lawyer who works on lawsuits.
I would say that it looks like some hellhole Ann Arbor suburban housing farm but those houses are so close together that it can't even be the midwest. I guess it helps if you live and work there so you never have to see how fucking ugly it is


@AnOminous I just noticed this document tries to warn it's privileged communication under California Evidence Code § 1152. The law is actually really badly written and it's impossible to figure out what the fuck it's trying to say. It's some of the worst legalese I've ever seen.

This is my attempt to make it legible. It uses 100 synonyms for every word so I just remove them.

I guess, after de-tarding the law, it's not necessarily trying to tell me I can't post it, rather this isn't an admission of guilt of anything.
Yeah, I chuckled at the "privileged communication" part. I read 1152 as:

(a) Trying to compromise or offer a deal to avoid going to court cannot be interpreted as an admission of liability.

(b) Evidence of attempts to make a settlement out of court is inadmissible, and may not be used in court, except in suits which are for either "breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing", or "subdivision (h) of Section 790.03 of the Insurance Code". In those types of suits, if one party does bring evidence that they tried to make a deal outside of court, then the other party is entitled to bring evidence of any other counteroffer/compromise.

(c) (1) Regardless of items (a) and (b), if one party tries to make partial satisfaction of a claim or demand, without questioning its validity, that may be used as evidence to prove the claim's validity.

(2) Evidence that a debtor promised to pay all or part of his/her debt may be used to prove that the debtor has a duty to pay it. (I suspect this might also be a statute of limitations thing, where agreeing to pay part of an old debt could potentially put you back on the hook legally for the whole debt, even after the statute of limitations had passed.)

I think (c) (1) is the really interesting one, because I read it to mean that if he sends a C&D saying "you're libeling me, take it down and send me dox or I'll sue", and Null puts his tail between his legs and says "ok I'll take it down please just don't sue", that could be used in court as evidence that Null knew that the post was libel. Null played it correctly by disputing the fact that it's libel and refusing to offer any satisfaction of the demand.
Lots of lawyers will send a C&D out pretty cheaply in the hopes that it turns into something more. If your client's case is lame shit, the letter is going to look the same.
Yeah, I would not think that he spent much on this. Threatening to sue costs very little, and even if it's an empty threat there's still a pretty good chance that the average webmaster would just take down the post rather than potentially face a lawsuit. Null, though, calling his bluff just lets us find out whether he's really crazy enough to try to sue.
Last edited:
Not open for further replies.