Używasz przestarzałej przeglądarki. Może ona nieprawidłowo wyświetlać tę lub inne strony. Powinieneś zaktualizować przeglądarkę lub użyć alternatywnej przeglądarki.
JOHN DOE (Chirayu Rana) v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., AND LORNA HAJDINI (New York County New York, index number 155620/2026) - The case where a 6 foot Indian Greer wants us to believe he was raped by an Albanian woman to the point he cried, gave us the line "I bet your little Asian, fish head, wife doesn’t have these cannons!", certified gem suit
When I last checked yesterday, the new things were basically read receipts from all parties and notices from the pro hac vice lawyers that they were part of the suit. All of that was overshadowed by the unsealing of all those exhibits. So of course after I stop checking is when they start putting out stuff that matters/is interesting. Here is filing 82-89
82 is JPMC's response to Danny wanting the fuck out of the mess he made. Take note that JPMC has fully dropped the John Doe bullshit and power word the jeet.
83 is a proposed order from JPMC allowing Danny to fuck off and requiring Rana to keep the court informed of his new council and not to destroy any documents.
84 is a snippet of the transcript from the May 26 hearing in which they embarrass Danny by pointing out that anonymity is impossible after Rana talked to news outlets using his real name and his council basically did the same.
85 is Lorna's response to Danny wanting the fuck out of the mess he made. Unlike JPMC, they still refer to him as John Doe
Spill the tea, bitch.
86 is Lorna's lawyers asserting that the following exhibits are true and honest.
87 is an email exchange between Danny and everybody saying he wants the fuck out sent the very morning of the May 26 hearing.
88 is an email exchange between Danny and everybody saying he wants the fuck out sent the very morning of the May 26 hearing.
89 is a proposed order from Lorna granting Danny to fuck off but only if he exposes any and all lies and attach his name to all of this bullshit.
I'll be honest, I'm disappointed that they're willing to let Danny walk, albeit with some caveats. To ponder this I've put on my thinkin cap, the BIGGEST thinkin cap, and came up with this hypothesis: They are letting Danny fuck off only if he names the jeet and admits that all of this is bullshit. That implodes the case immediately and ends it so Lorna and JPMC can begin their counter suit for I think the most clear cut defamation I've ever seen. If that craven, shit fuck Danny has to walk to make it happen, so be it. It's not like the stench of this case is gonna wash off of him either way.
And we got so many new filings
90 Rana the Raped getting a new lawyer
His name is JON L. NORINSBERG. He is a confirmed SUPAH LAWYAH and he still refers to Rana as John Doe.
The archive of The Independent I provided has a video of a white woman being abusive on a plane. It has nothing to do with the case the article is about. Fuck you, Independent.
So that's the level of lawyer Chirayu's parents daycare money can buy.
91 is the same exact thing as 90 except the office name has changed and the email address at the bottom is goes to a different domain.
That's because Jon is part of a different law firm with most of the same people in it?
That's the level of lawyer Chirayu's parents daycare money can buy.
92 is currently unavailable, I assume because it's still pending. The description reads "Plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Discontinue Action Without Prejudice"
Norinsberg is trying to get Rana out of this while still preserving his ability to sue them later for being raped. Holy shit. That is his very first motion right out of the gate. EXCEPT IT GETS BETTER!
93 is their reasoning and evidence of why Rana should be able to leave and take his rape ball home.
Did I blow it up big enough for ya? Does the yellow pop out enough for ya? This slimy, shit eater wants to take this to the fucking federal level. In case you think that Jon walked into this shit storm and is trying to hit the reset button with a complaint that's not 100% bullshit, don't worry! You can believe Jon that it's not his intention.
He's also totes not trying to erase his name from this bullshit and will file with his real name, for sure, if only the court makes this little mess just go away.
94 is Jon's proposed order to the court
95 is Rana's answer to Lorna's counter claims. tl;dr Everything that she said about his bullshit being bullshit is bullshit.
96 is Danny handing over the reigns to Jon
97-100 are all notices of appearance from lawyers at Jon's two firms.
Founder/Senior Managing Partner BENNITTA LISA JOSEPH
Kassandra and Monica are the only ones who are not at Norinsberg Law. All of their notices of appearance give the office name of JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC. Make of what you will with all of this.
Norinsberg is trying to get Rana out of this while still preserving his ability to sue them later for being raped. Holy shit. That is his very first motion right out of the gate. EXCEPT IT GETS BETTER!
Fuck no. Don't let him go. Normally, the plaintiff asking to drop the case is an easy ask for the defense. But this is a deep lore of the American legal system.
The Defense has the right to demand a case continue, and the plaintiff too bring their claims before the court for adjudication. This is one of those circumstances where the Defense has every right to demand the plaintiff prosecute their case against them. No take backs.
Let this is be a warning for aspiring lawyers. Don't be so quick to put your name and signature at the end of a complaint. The defense has every right to force you to prosecute and put your name at the end of every single filing. And also refuse to let you leave and instead make you go down with the ship. At a minimum make sure your client is aware of this fact if you decide to take a "questionable" case. Even if you are ultimately able to get out, the client absolutely will not be allowed to. The defendants have rights, and once you make a complaint, the defense has the right to demand the court rule on their position against you and refuse to let you avoid it.
That position is also ironclad. If the defense does not want a case to end, the plaintiff cannot end it unless they admit to being literal faggots in sworn testimony before the judge.
Fuck no. Don't let him go. Normally, the plaintiff asking to drop the case is an easy ask for the defense. But this is a deep lore of the American legal system.
The Defense has the right to demand a case continue, and the plaintiff too bring their claims before the court for adjudication. This is one of those circumstances where the Defense has every right to demand the plaintiff prosecute their case against them. No take backs.
Let this is be a warning for aspiring lawyers. Don't be so quick to put your name and signature at the end of a complaint. The defense has every right to force you to prosecute and put your name at the end of every single filing. And also refuse to let you leave and instead make you go down with the ship. At a minimum make sure your client is aware of this fact if you decide to take a "questionable" case. Even if you are ultimately able to get out, the client absolutely will not be allowed to. The defendants have rights, and once you make a complaint, the defense has the right to demand the court rule on their position against you and refuse to let you avoid it.
That position is also ironclad. If the defense does not want a case to end, the plaintiff cannot end it unless they admit to being literal faggots in sworn testimony before the judge.
That's not how it works in my jurisdiction. Out here, the plaintiff can dismiss all or part of a case by filing/serving notice at least 5 days before the date set for trial on all parties not in default, without prejudice* if no counterclaim has been served on them.
*You only get one shot at this, if you've previously dismissed an action against the same defendants that included the same cause as a one in the instant case, then the dismissal will be with prejudice.
92 has finally processed or whatever.
It's just over a page of Berg saying "when we meet back on June 23, we gone axe you to let us da fuk go but don't shut da door on us now!"
I can easily see a 20 million dollar judgement from this, just in actual damages. Punitive damages could be piled on. Rana is facing a life destroying debt.
Some new stuff. Rana is still trying to withdraw his case, and both JP Morgan and Hadjini are refusing saying he needs to proceed with the case he started. So the new lawyer for Rana, Norinsberg, has had to fire off two big memorandums of law basically arguing why the Defendants won't be prejudiced by the lawsuit ending. Which is just...what an odd thing to see. A Plaintiff explaining to a judge why the defense should let him stop suing them.
He also refiled the complaint with all the John Does removed.
Hey guys, not trying to poo-touch or anything, but I live very near 60 Centre Street (and 40 Foley Square, where Lolcow v. Fong-Jones is being heard). Not in Manhattan itself, but close enough for less than an hour on public transportation.
I don't know if either or both are open to the public, but if I went as an interested citizen exercising my rights to see the free and open justice being administered, would anyone be interested in my observations? I'm an old retired lady and do not look like a wild-eyed Kiwi Farmer ready to string up some trannies, and I know around where I live, old folks have been coming to the courthouses for years to watch the goings-on, just for entertainment, bring a bagged lunch, etc.
There aren't any in-person events scheduled in either case at the moment, but I think I can sign up to be notified. This would be more entertaining for me than another appointment with my cardiologist, so should I get my Sunday-go-to-meeting outfit ready, and my good dentures, or nah?
I don't know if either or both are open to the public, but if I went as an interested citizen exercising my rights to see the free and open justice being administered, would anyone be interested in my observations?
I think it would be interesting for this case. The appearance of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant is a key part of the whole sordid accusation. Also, the behavior of the Plaintiff's lawyers may be more desperate or comical than comes through in the rulings or transcripts.
For the Lolcow vs LFJ, I don't think it would be as high entertainment value. If anything happens in person, it would be Hardin and KUSK lawyers, and we can get the gist of that from transcripts.
Yah, it seems to me that most, if not all, the action there is going to be via documents submitted to the court, and even if there needs to be a court appearance, it'll just be attorneys. No chances for Null (or Hardin) groupies to get a glimpse of their idol. And Elliot isn't flying in from Australia.
84 is a snippet of the transcript from the May 26 hearing in which they embarrass Danny by pointing out that anonymity is impossible after Rana talked to news outlets using his real name and his council basically did the same.
85 is Lorna's response to Danny wanting the fuck out of the mess he made. Unlike JPMC, they still refer to him as John Doe
88 is an email exchange between Danny and everybody saying he wants the fuck out sent the very morning of the May 26 hearing.
89 is a proposed order from Lorna granting Danny to fuck off but only if he exposes any and all lies and attach his name to all of this bullshit.
I'll be honest, I'm disappointed that they're willing to let Danny walk, albeit with some caveats. To ponder this I've put on my thinkin cap, the BIGGEST thinkin cap, and came up with this hypothesis: They are letting Danny fuck off only if he names the jeet and admits that all of this is bullshit. That implodes the case immediately and ends it so Lorna and JPMC can begin their counter suit for I think the most clear cut defamation I've ever seen. If that craven, shit fuck Danny has to walk to make it happen, so be it. It's not like the stench of this case is gonna wash off of him either way.
