Is this a troll? Why, I do believe it is! (EC v DA)

Updated (twice) (thrice) (four times) below

So our lady of the trolls, one TiNut that many of my gentle readers remember for the utter absurdity of her…its…her tweets, was listed first in the list of witnesses that DA and JL handed the court.

After a last salvo of stupidity on February 3rd, wherein TiNut defiantly stated that it/her/they will not be a witness for the defense, the account has been silent–on Twitter, that is, because apparently the scouts for EC erm…publisher protection managed to whine, in writing, to Judge Adams.

Courtney Milan is graciously hosting the letter here, and I’m hoping she’ll post more about what it means.¹

Personally, I wonder how that “we will not be a witness for the defense” would hold up were a subpoena issued. I cannot imagine a federal judge being all, “oh, you don’t want to show up? that’s fine, we can do without you in the stand, no need to bestir yourself, darling.”

But then, I do not claim to be a lawyer or a law student.

~ * ~

Ms Milan has answered some tweets on the topic, starting here. Also, here’s the letter from the judge to both parties’ counsel.

~ * ~

Edited to add: by the way, the quotient of ridiculous was upped exponentially by this filing.

~ * ~

And TiNut’s is back and feeling smug and triumphant.

I wonder if anyone has explained that just because the judge filed the letter doesn’t mean Marc Randazza is going to give up calling her…it…her as witness.

Also, it would seem from the said letter (what little sense can be made of it) that TiNut assumes (heh) that Judge Adams will grant her immunity from subpoenas because she…it…she is clearly against DA and JL. Who else finds it fantastically funny for self-proclaimed lawyers and law students to not have heard of hostile witnesses?

~ * ~

The ever awesome Ms Milan has indeed posted some more–behold, The nut takes a bow! #notchilled