{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"Cease_and_Desist_Thomas_Giuffra","alternateName":"Cease_and_Desist_Thomas_Giuffra.pdf","caption":"Cease_and_Desist_Thomas_Giuffra","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/354/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-15T16:36:42+00:00","description":"Cease_and_Desist_Thomas_Giuffra","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"354","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/354/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/354/index.md"},"name":"Cease_and_Desist_Thomas_Giuffra","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nSFC-Part45-Clerk@nycourts.gov \nThomas P. Giuffra, Esq.\u200b\nEthan J. Cohen, Esq.\u200b\nRheingold Giuffra Ruffo Plotkin & Hellman LLP\u200b\n551 Fifth Avenue, 29th Floor\u200b\nNew York, NY 10176 \nRE: FORMAL NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST \u2014 Attempts to Identify, Intimidate, Harass, \nor Interfere with the Anonymous Publishers of LucyCraig.blog \nReference: Jane Doe v. Cornell University, Inc., et al.\u200b\nSupreme Court of the State of New York, New York County\u200b\nIndex No. 161704/2026\u200b\nNYSCEF Document No. 66, filed October 14, 2026 \nDear Mr. Giuffra and Mr. Cohen: \nWe write on behalf of the anonymous administrators and publishers of https://lucycraig.blog, \nan independently operated online publication dedicated to public discourse, documentary \nresearch, commentary, criticism, and discussion concerning the highly publicized litigation \ninvolving your client. \nConsider this both an introduction and a formal notice that any effort to intimidate, harass, \nimproperly identify, expose, or otherwise interfere with the constitutionally protected activities of \nthis publication and its anonymous administrators must cease and desist. \nWe have reviewed your October 14, 2026 correspondence to Justice Phaedra F. Perry-Bond, \nfiled as NYSCEF Document No. 66. Frankly, we find portions of your letter remarkable\u2014not \nbecause of the legal principles you articulate, many of which we agree with, but because of the \napparent disconnect between your professed devotion to the First Amendment and your \ncharacterization of those who exercise that same constitutional protection to challenge your \npreferred narrative. \n1. WHO WE ARE \u2014 AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHO WE ARE NOT \nLucyCraig.blog is an independent, anonymously administered publication providing a platform \nfor examination and discussion of matters of substantial public concern. \nThe publication hosts commentary, publicly accessible legal documents, research materials, \nmedia, and an open discussion forum in which participants may express opposing \ninterpretations of the available evidence. \nFor the avoidance of doubt:\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n\u25cf\u200b We have no affiliation, contractual relationship, agency relationship, or \ncoordination with any plaintiff or defendant in the underlying litigation. \n\u25cf\u200b We have no relationship with any attorney, law firm, judge, judicial officer, \nprosecutor, or investigator participating in the proceedings. \n\u25cf\u200b We have no institutional, professional, or operational connection to Cornell \nUniversity, Ithaca, or New York City, or to the underlying jurisdiction. \n\u25cf\u200b We are not acting at the direction of any litigant, defense attorney, public-relations \nrepresentative, or supposed litigation surrogate. \n\u25cf\u200b We have no obligation to endorse your client's allegations, accept your characterization \nof disputed evidence, or surrender our anonymity to satisfy your curiosity. \nWe are independent speakers and publishers. Our interests are the free exchange of ideas, \ntransparency, public accountability, and the ability of ordinary individuals to examine competing \narguments without having their conclusions dictated by attorneys, media executives, or \nself-appointed arbiters of acceptable opinion. \nYour litigation does not transform independent commentators into agents of the defendants \nsimply because their opinions differ from yours. \nNor does the publicity surrounding your case confer upon you authority over journalists, \npublishers, or members of the public who choose to participate anonymously. \n2. YOUR OWN OCTOBER 14 PLEADING UNDERMINES ANY ATTEMPT TO SILENCE \nINDEPENDENT SPEAKERS \nIn your October 14 correspondence, at page 7, you invoke Ash v. Board of Managers of the 155 \nCondominium, 44 A.D.3d 324 (1st Dep't 2007), and explain that prior restraints on speech carry \na heavy presumption against constitutional validity. \nYou further argue at page 6 that vague prohibitions may impermissibly chill protected speech \nand that any permissible restriction must be narrowly tailored. \nWe agree. \nIndeed, you have supplied an excellent explanation of why a civil lawsuit should not become an \ninstrument for suppressing public commentary. \nThe difficulty, Mr. Giuffra, is that the First Amendment does not belong exclusively to \nattorneys with television appearances, sympathetic journalists, or speakers who agree \nwith your client's version of events. \nIt belongs equally to those whose opinions you dislike. \nYour pleading further insists, at page 11, that restrictions must not improperly advantage one \nside of a public debate by preventing the other from responding.\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nAgain, we agree. \nBut this principle is not a one-way street. If your client and her representatives are entitled to \nadvocate their interpretation of disputed evidence publicly, then independent publishers are \nequally entitled to examine that interpretation, challenge its factual premises, criticize your \nlitigation strategy, and publish lawful commentary reflecting competing perspectives. \nYou cannot credibly invoke constitutional principles to protect your own media appearances \nwhile treating independent, oppositional commentary as inherently illegitimate. \n3. CALLING OPPOSING SPEAKERS \"BIGOTS\" IS UNPROFESSIONAL AND POTENTIALLY \nRAISES ETHICAL CONCERNS \nOn page 4 of your October 14 correspondence, you state: \n\"As new limited details about the case were released, bigots online rushed to the defense of the \nalleged perpetrators and attacked Jane Doe and other survivors of sexual assault.\" \nThat is an extraordinary generalization to place before a court. \nThe term bigots is not a substitute for evidence, nor is it an acceptable blanket characterization \nof individuals who dispute allegations, question witness credibility, review court records, or \ndisagree with a litigant's public-relations strategy. \nThere is an enormous legal and moral distinction between threatening an individual and \ncriticizing that individual's claims. \nThere \nis \nlikewise a difference between harassment and constitutionally protected \ncriticism\u2014even criticism that is sarcastic, vulgar, unflattering, or offensive. \nYou know this distinction. Your own pleading depends upon it. \nYet your chosen rhetoric risks collapsing these categories into a convenient narrative in which \nyour client's supporters are principled advocates and her critics are presumed malicious. \nSuch rhetoric is unbecoming of an experienced attorney making representations to a court. \nNew York Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4(a) prohibits lawyers, in representing clients, from \nusing means having no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or harm third persons, or \nmethods of obtaining evidence that violate their legal rights. \nWe do not suggest that an isolated use of the word bigots automatically establishes an ethical \nviolation. However, inflammatory characterizations combined with any improper attempt to \nintimidate, expose, or retaliate against unrelated speakers could raise substantially more \nserious professional-responsibility questions.\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nWe expect attorneys appearing before the New York Supreme Court to distinguish legitimate \npublic criticism from actual misconduct rather than casually conflating the two. \nDisagreement is not bigotry. Criticism is not harassment. Anonymous publication is not \nevidence of wrongdoing. \nAnd the mere fact that independent speakers refuse to repeat your preferred narrative does not \nmake them participants in some imaginary conspiracy. \n4. THE RIGHT TO ANONYMOUS PUBLICATION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED \nWe draw your attention to McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), and \nTalley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960). \nThese decisions recognize the longstanding constitutional protection afforded to anonymous \nexpression. \nAs the Supreme Court explained in McIntyre, anonymity protects unpopular speakers from \nretaliation and preserves their ability to participate in public debate without compulsory personal \nidentification. \nThat protection is particularly important where the subject involves controversial litigation, \npowerful institutions, public figures, or substantial public hostility. \nThe administrators of LucyCraig.blog have chosen to publish anonymously. That \ndecision is deliberate, lawful, and not subject to negotiation with opposing counsel in \nlitigation to which we are strangers. \nWe do not need your permission to publish. \nWe do not need your approval to criticize your arguments. \nAnd we certainly do not owe you our names, residential addresses, employment information, \npersonal associations, or other identifying information merely because we operate a publication \nthat refuses to accept your client's allegations as established fact. \nThe First Amendment does not create absolute immunity from lawful investigation or properly \nauthorized judicial process. But neither does it permit anonymity to be disregarded simply \nbecause a lawyer dislikes the content of a publication. \nAny legitimate effort to compel identifying information would require an appropriate legal basis \nand procedures that respect the constitutional interests involved. \n5. FORMAL DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST \nAccordingly, we formally demand that you, your firm, your agents, and any persons acting at \nyour direction:\n\n--- Page 5 ---\n1.\u200b Cease and desist from any improper effort to identify, expose, dox, intimidate, \nharass, or retaliate against the anonymous administrators, contributors, or \noperators of LucyCraig.blog. \n2.\u200b Refrain from encouraging or facilitating third parties to discover or disclose nonpublic \npersonal identifying information concerning those individuals for purposes of intimidation, \nretaliation, or suppression of lawful speech. \n3.\u200b Refrain from making unsupported representations to courts, media outlets, or other third \nparties suggesting that this independent publication is controlled, funded, coordinated, or \ndirected by any defendant or attorney in the underlying litigation. \n4.\u200b Refrain from employing threats of litigation, professional consequences, reputational \nretaliation, or other coercive tactics for the purpose of deterring constitutionally protected \ncommentary. \n5.\u200b Preserve any existing communications, instructions, or records concerning efforts to \nidentify or investigate the publication's anonymous administrators, to the extent \npreservation is required by applicable law or reasonably anticipated litigation. \n6.\u200b Direct any legitimate legal objections concerning specific published material through \nappropriate, lawful channels rather than attempting to intimidate anonymous speakers or \nbypass applicable procedural safeguards. \nThese demands are directed toward improper conduct and are not intended to obstruct \nlegitimate legal representation, lawful investigation, good-faith reporting, or properly authorized \njudicial proceedings. \nWe also request written confirmation that neither your firm nor persons acting at its direction are \nundertaking efforts to expose the identities of our administrators for retaliatory or \nspeech-suppressive purposes. \n6. WE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED INTO SILENCE \nYour October 14 letter repeatedly complains that your client and her representatives should not \nbe deprived of the ability to respond to criticism. \nOn this narrow issue, we are in complete agreement. \nYour client has every right to present her allegations. \nYou have every right to advocate on her behalf within the boundaries of applicable law and \nprofessional obligations. \nThe defendants have every right to deny those allegations and defend themselves. \nAnd the public has every right to examine the evidence, question the attorneys, \nscrutinize the proceedings, ridicule weak arguments, and reach conclusions you may \nfind deeply objectionable. \nWhat you do not possess is a veto over public opinion.\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nNor does the seriousness of the allegations suspend the constitutional protections afforded to \nindividuals who disagree with you. \nWe condemn genuine threats, unlawful harassment, and intimidation regardless of the target. \nNothing in this correspondence defends such conduct. \nBut we refuse to accept the increasingly fashionable proposition that disagreement with an \naccuser constitutes an attack upon every survivor of sexual assault. \nThat proposition is intellectually dishonest, legally unsustainable, and fundamentally hostile to \nthe adversarial process you have spent decades practicing. \nIndeed, your own description of the right to respond to criticism should make this point painfully \nobvious. \n7. FINAL NOTICE \nWe encourage you to reread your October 14 submission, particularly pages 6 through 11. \nYour arguments concerning prior restraints, viewpoint diversity, overbreadth, and the chilling \neffect of speech restrictions are compelling. \nWe suggest you apply those principles consistently. \nLucyCraig.blog will continue publishing, hosting lawful public discussion, examining publicly \navailable records, and allowing competing perspectives to be heard. \nOur administrators will remain anonymous unless they independently decide otherwise or \ndisclosure is lawfully compelled through appropriate procedures. \nWe will not be bullied into disclosure, intimidated into editorial compliance, or pressured into \nabandoning a lawful publication simply because its existence complicates your litigation \nnarrative. \nShould credible evidence emerge of improper attempts to intimidate, retaliate against, or \nunlawfully identify our administrators, we reserve all available rights and remedies, including \nseeking appropriate judicial relief or making a substantiated complaint to the relevant \nprofessional disciplinary authorities. \nWe make no claim that your firm has already committed such misconduct. This letter puts you \non notice of our position and our expectation that the rights of independent third-party publishers \nwill be respected. \nMr. Giuffra, you have eloquently defended your right to speak. We expect you to \ndemonstrate an equally robust respect for ours.\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nThe Constitution is not a litigation accessory to be worn when convenient and discarded when \nthe opposition speaks. \nWe trust that message requires no further explanation. \nSincerely, \nThe Anonymous Administrators\u200b\nLucyCraig.blog\u200b\nIndependent Publication and Public Discussion Forum\u200b\nhttps://lucycraig.blog \nAll rights expressly reserved. No waiver of anonymity, privacy, constitutional protections, or \nother rights is intended by this correspondence.","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nSFC-Part45-Clerk@nycourts.gov \nThomas P. Giuffra, Esq.\u200b\nEthan J. Cohen, Esq.\u200b\nRheingold Giuffra Ruffo Plotkin & Hellman LLP\u200b\n551 Fifth Avenue, 29th Floor\u200b\nNew York, NY 10176 \nRE: FORMAL NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST \u2014 Attempts to Identify, Intimidate, Harass, \nor Interfere with the Anonymous Publishers of LucyCraig.blog \nReference: Jane Doe v. Cornell University, Inc., et al.\u200b\nSupreme Court of the State of New York, New York County\u200b\nIndex No. 161704/2026\u200b\nNYSCEF Document No. 66, filed October 14, 2026 \nDear Mr. Giuffra and Mr. Cohen: \nWe write on behalf of the anonymous administrators and publishers of https://lucycraig.blog, \nan independently operated online publication dedicated to public discourse, documentary \nresearch, commentary, criticism, and discussion concerning the highly publicized litigation \ninvolving your client. \nConsider this both an introduction and a formal notice that any effort to intimidate, harass, \nimproperly identify, expose, or otherwise interfere with the constitutionally protected activities of \nthis publication and its anonymous administrators must cease and desist. \nWe have reviewed your October 14, 2026 correspondence to Justice Phaedra F. Perry-Bond, \nfiled as NYSCEF Document No. 66. Frankly, we find portions of your letter remarkable\u2014not \nbecause of the legal principles you articulate, many of which we agree with, but because of the \napparent disconnect between your professed devotion to the First Amendment and your \ncharacterization of those who exercise that same constitutional protection to challenge your \npreferred narrative. \n1. WHO WE ARE \u2014 AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHO WE ARE NOT \nLucyCraig.blog is an independent, anonymously administered publication providing a platform \nfor examination and discussion of matters of substantial public concern. \nThe publication hosts commentary, publicly accessible legal documents, research materials, \nmedia, and an open discussion forum in which participants may express opposing \ninterpretations of the available evidence. \nFor the avoidance of doubt:\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n\u25cf\u200b We have no affiliation, contractual relationship, agency relationship, or \ncoordination with any plaintiff or defendant in the underlying litigation. \n\u25cf\u200b We have no relationship with any attorney, law firm, judge, judicial officer, \nprosecutor, or investigator participating in the proceedings. \n\u25cf\u200b We have no institutional, professional, or operational connection to Cornell \nUniversity, Ithaca, or New York City, or to the underlying jurisdiction. \n\u25cf\u200b We are not acting at the direction of any litigant, defense attorney, public-relations \nrepresentative, or supposed litigation surrogate. \n\u25cf\u200b We have no obligation to endorse your client's allegations, accept your characterization \nof disputed evidence, or surrender our anonymity to satisfy your curiosity. \nWe are independent speakers and publishers. Our interests are the free exchange of ideas, \ntransparency, public accountability, and the ability of ordinary individuals to examine competing \narguments without having their conclusions dictated by attorneys, media executives, or \nself-appointed arbiters of acceptable opinion. \nYour litigation does not transform independent commentators into agents of the defendants \nsimply because their opinions differ from yours. \nNor does the publicity surrounding your case confer upon you authority over journalists, \npublishers, or members of the public who choose to participate anonymously. \n2. YOUR OWN OCTOBER 14 PLEADING UNDERMINES ANY ATTEMPT TO SILENCE \nINDEPENDENT SPEAKERS \nIn your October 14 correspondence, at page 7, you invoke Ash v. Board of Managers of the 155 \nCondominium, 44 A.D.3d 324 (1st Dep't 2007), and explain that prior restraints on speech carry \na heavy presumption against constitutional validity. \nYou further argue at page 6 that vague prohibitions may impermissibly chill protected speech \nand that any permissible restriction must be narrowly tailored. \nWe agree. \nIndeed, you have supplied an excellent explanation of why a civil lawsuit should not become an \ninstrument for suppressing public commentary. \nThe difficulty, Mr. Giuffra, is that the First Amendment does not belong exclusively to \nattorneys with television appearances, sympathetic journalists, or speakers who agree \nwith your client's version of events. \nIt belongs equally to those whose opinions you dislike. \nYour pleading further insists, at page 11, that restrictions must not improperly advantage one \nside of a public debate by preventing the other from responding.\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nAgain, we agree. \nBut this principle is not a one-way street. If your client and her representatives are entitled to \nadvocate their interpretation of disputed evidence publicly, then independent publishers are \nequally entitled to examine that interpretation, challenge its factual premises, criticize your \nlitigation strategy, and publish lawful commentary reflecting competing perspectives. \nYou cannot credibly invoke constitutional principles to protect your own media appearances \nwhile treating independent, oppositional commentary as inherently illegitimate. \n3. CALLING OPPOSING SPEAKERS \"BIGOTS\" IS UNPROFESSIONAL AND POTENTIALLY \nRAISES ETHICAL CONCERNS \nOn page 4 of your October 14 correspondence, you state: \n\"As new limited details about the case were released, bigots online rushed to the defense of the \nalleged perpetrators and attacked Jane Doe and other survivors of sexual assault.\" \nThat is an extraordinary generalization to place before a court. \nThe term bigots is not a substitute for evidence, nor is it an acceptable blanket characterization \nof individuals who dispute allegations, question witness credibility, review court records, or \ndisagree with a litigant's public-relations strategy. \nThere is an enormous legal and moral distinction between threatening an individual and \ncriticizing that individual's claims. \nThere \nis \nlikewise a difference between harassment and constitutionally protected \ncriticism\u2014even criticism that is sarcastic, vulgar, unflattering, or offensive. \nYou know this distinction. Your own pleading depends upon it. \nYet your chosen rhetoric risks collapsing these categories into a convenient narrative in which \nyour client's supporters are principled advocates and her critics are presumed malicious. \nSuch rhetoric is unbecoming of an experienced attorney making representations to a court. \nNew York Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4(a) prohibits lawyers, in representing clients, from \nusing means having no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or harm third persons, or \nmethods of obtaining evidence that violate their legal rights. \nWe do not suggest that an isolated use of the word bigots automatically establishes an ethical \nviolation. However, inflammatory characterizations combined with any improper attempt to \nintimidate, expose, or retaliate against unrelated speakers could raise substantially more \nserious professional-responsibility questions.\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nWe expect attorneys appearing before the New York Supreme Court to distinguish legitimate \npublic criticism from actual misconduct rather than casually conflating the two. \nDisagreement is not bigotry. Criticism is not harassment. Anonymous publication is not \nevidence of wrongdoing. \nAnd the mere fact that independent speakers refuse to repeat your preferred narrative does not \nmake them participants in some imaginary conspiracy. \n4. THE RIGHT TO ANONYMOUS PUBLICATION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED \nWe draw your attention to McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), and \nTalley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960). \nThese decisions recognize the longstanding constitutional protection afforded to anonymous \nexpression. \nAs the Supreme Court explained in McIntyre, anonymity protects unpopular speakers from \nretaliation and preserves their ability to participate in public debate without compulsory personal \nidentification. \nThat protection is particularly important where the subject involves controversial litigation, \npowerful institutions, public figures, or substantial public hostility. \nThe administrators of LucyCraig.blog have chosen to publish anonymously. That \ndecision is deliberate, lawful, and not subject to negotiation with opposing counsel in \nlitigation to which we are strangers. \nWe do not need your permission to publish. \nWe do not need your approval to criticize your arguments. \nAnd we certainly do not owe you our names, residential addresses, employment information, \npersonal associations, or other identifying information merely because we operate a publication \nthat refuses to accept your client's allegations as established fact. \nThe First Amendment does not create absolute immunity from lawful investigation or properly \nauthorized judicial process. But neither does it permit anonymity to be disregarded simply \nbecause a lawyer dislikes the content of a publication. \nAny legitimate effort to compel identifying information would require an appropriate legal basis \nand procedures that respect the constitutional interests involved. \n5. FORMAL DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST \nAccordingly, we formally demand that you, your firm, your agents, and any persons acting at \nyour direction:\n\n--- Page 5 ---\n1.\u200b Cease and desist from any improper effort to identify, expose, dox, intimidate, \nharass, or retaliate against the anonymous administrators, contributors, or \noperators of LucyCraig.blog. \n2.\u200b Refrain from encouraging or facilitating third parties to discover or disclose nonpublic \npersonal identifying information concerning those individuals for purposes of intimidation, \nretaliation, or suppression of lawful speech. \n3.\u200b Refrain from making unsupported representations to courts, media outlets, or other third \nparties suggesting that this independent publication is controlled, funded, coordinated, or \ndirected by any defendant or attorney in the underlying litigation. \n4.\u200b Refrain from employing threats of litigation, professional consequences, reputational \nretaliation, or other coercive tactics for the purpose of deterring constitutionally protected \ncommentary. \n5.\u200b Preserve any existing communications, instructions, or records concerning efforts to \nidentify or investigate the publication's anonymous administrators, to the extent \npreservation is required by applicable law or reasonably anticipated litigation. \n6.\u200b Direct any legitimate legal objections concerning specific published material through \nappropriate, lawful channels rather than attempting to intimidate anonymous speakers or \nbypass applicable procedural safeguards. \nThese demands are directed toward improper conduct and are not intended to obstruct \nlegitimate legal representation, lawful investigation, good-faith reporting, or properly authorized \njudicial proceedings. \nWe also request written confirmation that neither your firm nor persons acting at its direction are \nundertaking efforts to expose the identities of our administrators for retaliatory or \nspeech-suppressive purposes. \n6. WE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED INTO SILENCE \nYour October 14 letter repeatedly complains that your client and her representatives should not \nbe deprived of the ability to respond to criticism. \nOn this narrow issue, we are in complete agreement. \nYour client has every right to present her allegations. \nYou have every right to advocate on her behalf within the boundaries of applicable law and \nprofessional obligations. \nThe defendants have every right to deny those allegations and defend themselves. \nAnd the public has every right to examine the evidence, question the attorneys, \nscrutinize the proceedings, ridicule weak arguments, and reach conclusions you may \nfind deeply objectionable. \nWhat you do not possess is a veto over public opinion.\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nNor does the seriousness of the allegations suspend the constitutional protections afforded to \nindividuals who disagree with you. \nWe condemn genuine threats, unlawful harassment, and intimidation regardless of the target. \nNothing in this correspondence defends such conduct. \nBut we refuse to accept the increasingly fashionable proposition that disagreement with an \naccuser constitutes an attack upon every survivor of sexual assault. \nThat proposition is intellectually dishonest, legally unsustainable, and fundamentally hostile to \nthe adversarial process you have spent decades practicing. \nIndeed, your own description of the right to respond to criticism should make this point painfully \nobvious. \n7. FINAL NOTICE \nWe encourage you to reread your October 14 submission, particularly pages 6 through 11. \nYour arguments concerning prior restraints, viewpoint diversity, overbreadth, and the chilling \neffect of speech restrictions are compelling. \nWe suggest you apply those principles consistently. \nLucyCraig.blog will continue publishing, hosting lawful public discussion, examining publicly \navailable records, and allowing competing perspectives to be heard. \nOur administrators will remain anonymous unless they independently decide otherwise or \ndisclosure is lawfully compelled through appropriate procedures. \nWe will not be bullied into disclosure, intimidated into editorial compliance, or pressured into \nabandoning a lawful publication simply because its existence complicates your litigation \nnarrative. \nShould credible evidence emerge of improper attempts to intimidate, retaliate against, or \nunlawfully identify our administrators, we reserve all available rights and remedies, including \nseeking appropriate judicial relief or making a substantiated complaint to the relevant \nprofessional disciplinary authorities. \nWe make no claim that your firm has already committed such misconduct. This letter puts you \non notice of our position and our expectation that the rights of independent third-party publishers \nwill be respected. \nMr. Giuffra, you have eloquently defended your right to speak. We expect you to \ndemonstrate an equally robust respect for ours.\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nThe Constitution is not a litigation accessory to be worn when convenient and discarded when \nthe opposition speaks. \nWe trust that message requires no further explanation. \nSincerely, \nThe Anonymous Administrators\u200b\nLucyCraig.blog\u200b\nIndependent Publication and Public Discussion Forum\u200b\nhttps://lucycraig.blog \nAll rights expressly reserved. No waiver of anonymity, privacy, constitutional protections, or \nother rights is intended by this correspondence.","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/354/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/354"}