Community contribution

This version of the document could have only come from Plaintiff Lucy Craig's lawyer. There were no other attorneys of record at the time the case was filed, these documents were filing receipts, prior to acceptance by the clerk, and were emailed to the filer for proof of filing. The Plaintiff's attorney, dumb ass that he is, rushed and filed a poorly redacted affirmation. Ironically the one asking for Lucile Craig to proceed as Jane Doe. After filing he got the receipt verification copy (red notation) and he immediately sent a copy to all his pals in the media, swearing them to privacy, and giving them the immediate scoop on the case in hopes of manipulating the public and controlling the narrative, and gaining public sympathy. Then, moments later, as usually happens, the clerk reviewed the documents submitted, informed him that the filing redactions were poor quality, and so he re-submitted the affirmation with a more robust redaction on the signature line (still not covering the full signature). This was the copy that was approved and made public on the docket. Everyone was talking about the public, on the docket, version, but this blog received the "unofficial" receipt version (which would have only been sent to the filer). He wanted the attention, he wanted the positive, he censored critics, he made demands of platforms, yet he was leaking material all along. This means that Lucy Craig's lawyer is now busted for leaking material to the press. Either he leaked it to the press and one of them leaked it to to this blog, or he himself leaked the poorly redacted version to this blog. Which one is more likely?