Despite Tory Lanez allegations of harrassment, Court Denies temporary restraining order request!

Added: 2026-06-03

[00:00:03]Yeah.

[00:00:05]Yeah. Yeah.

[00:00:08]Yeah.

[00:00:11]So many lies that you hear from the net.

[00:00:13]They don't get her respect. She reporting the truth, not a check. You want an unbiased opinion straight from the chest. Not a bit of conflict or someone here for a check. Tune in. These are thoughts from a lawyer on a mission who go so hard it's like she works on commission. Trolls in the comments might say she tripping cuz they like the knowledge they don't know they missing.

[00:00:32]Got a couple current events that you like. Want to know about law from the eyes. Tired of all these vlogs running lies because they agendas a disguise.

[00:00:42]Tune in to the intellect cuz I'm sure y'all missing all the facts of the case that she steady is gifted. Someone here for the people man is so uplifting. If you ain't subscribed yet then you just omitting facts.

[00:01:06]Hello everyone. It is Pam Esquire, also known as your law intellect. As you come in, make sure you hit that like button, subscribe to the channel if you have not done so already. As you see from the screen, we are going to discuss none other than Tori Lane.

[00:01:28]Hope you guys are having a fantastic Monday. Good to see you all. AK-126, Miss Andre saying, "Good to see all you all." Val, what up? Good to see you, sis in the chat. I won't be before you all long, but we're going to talk about Tory Lanes and his failed attempt to get a temporary restraining order. For those of you that do not know Tory Lanes, the rapper Tory Lanes, who is currently incarcerated, serving time for um charges that were levied against him from resulting from the Meg the Stallion fiasco. Um he filed he got stabbed while he was in prison. And after the stabbing he filed a federal complaint against various prison employees and officials and whatnot in over there in California. Well, he filed a restrain a temporary exparte temporary restraining order. Exparte means it's one-sided. So it wasn't a motion of which he tried you file it then the other side file. He was trying to get the court to enter in a temporary restraining order just based off of his filings. Well, the court the same day that it was filed, it was actually denied. So, I am going to pull up this actual motion that he filed.

[00:02:54]Um, is this a complaint?

[00:02:59]Hold up.

[00:03:03]Give me one second. Yes, I'm moving pretty fast here. Make sure I don't have that complaint up here cuz Okay.

[00:03:15]Yeah, I just must have misnamed it.

[00:03:19]Okay, let's get right into it. Hit that like button on the way in so people will know that we are on. As you all see, Dayar Peterson uh versus do corrections officers 1 through 50 individually and in their official capacity. Danny Samuel individually in his in his official capacity and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation of Public Entity as the defendants. So this is an exparte application for temporary emergency relief pursuant to federal rules of civil procedures rule 65 and local rule 65. And I guess they attached a proposed temporary restraining order.

[00:04:00]They had a declaration from the council and an order to show cause. So, we're going to get into this real quick cuz I think it was going around that this was filed, but I don't think they know that there was already a decision that was made. At least not based on what I saw. And I'm trying to run through this because I'm finding every reason not to get on this treadmill. But I'm got I'm about to get on this treadmill. So, that's why I'm going to go through this quickly cuz this is an update on this case. comes now plainifar Peterson buy and through his attorneys Crystal Morgan and Ronda Dixon respectfully filing this exparte application for a temporary emergency relief and request for order due to ongoing retaliation intimidation and harassment stemming from the filing of his complaint within this honorable court. So, he's alleging that since he's filed the complaint against all of those individuals and the entity that I named that he's been experiencing ongoing retaliation and intimidation and harassment. This application is based on the accompanying declaration of Crystal Morgan who is the attorney council for plaintiff Peterson which contains a declaration regarding notice, the pleadings and papers on filing this action and any oral argument the honorable court may permit.

[00:05:28]Plainiff Peterson further humbly requests this honorable court allow this application and supporting exhibits to be filed under seal as a in his separation application or in the alternative to redact as necessary to protect sensitive custodial and safety information. Plain seeks only for the narrowest relief necessary to prevent unnecessary disclosure and retaliation.

[00:05:55]So she wanted some of this stuff to be under seal so we couldn't see it.

[00:06:00]So the public I guess couldn't see it.

[00:06:02]All right. So let's get into the background. Pliff Peterson is housed at the California men's colony in San Louis Abyispo located on Highway 1 St. Louis.

[00:06:15]I know I'm saying abyispo whatever that is. California 93409.

[00:06:21]He is in a tier where all of the men being housed attend a DPR, Division of Rehabilitative Programs, self-help mandatory class. The DPR class is supervised by a female correction officer and a correction officer who are also the guards on this unit. It is over sought by a supervising officer due to ongoing threats, intimidation, and harassment reported to plaintiff Peterson's councils of record. They bring forth this motion humbly to request intervention as they fear for plaintiff's life.

[00:07:04]It has been stated by a correction officer that the purpose of the retaliatory conduct is to move plainif Peterson into a more dangerous housing yard as fully described in the attached declaration.

[00:07:19]A correction officer has also referenced plaintiff's near fatal attack last year in a threatening manner. Therefore, there is an immediate and irreparable harm to the plaintiff rising to this emergent application with the reasonable fear for plaintiff safety. So, then they go of the legal standard for a temporary restraining order. They're saying it's appropriate where the moving party shows immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result before the parties can be heard. The request must be supported by specific facts and an affidavit and an affidavit and verified complaint.

[00:08:00]So then they go through the Supreme Court's framework from Winter v. Natural Resources which is the 2008 case requires you to show these are the elements you have to show in order to succeed. the likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of relief, and that the balance of equities tips in your favor, and four, that an injunction is in the public interest.

[00:08:26]As applied in California, the Nice Circuit and Alliance for the Wild Rockies versus cold trail held that it's quote serious questions approach remains viable after winter, but only when it is applied as part of the full fourelement test. The serious question must regard the merits while using a hardship balance that tips in the movement's favor to support the issuance of an injunction. Again, this is provided if the movement also demonstrates a likelihood of irreparable harm and that the adjunction serves the public interest.

[00:09:08]Plaintiff Peterson is asking for relief due to an issue that does meet the serious question approach taken in California as this issue stems from his current litigation. The hardship balance is in Plif Peterson's favor as we are discussing his safety versus a correction officer who can follow policies and regulations in the normal course of business. It is in the public's interest to provide relief in such a situation as there is a great interest regarding any inmate safety.

[00:09:39]And here we are discussing a celebrity musician who has millions of supporters.

[00:09:48]The likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying action also supports plaintiff an alliance with the five elements of retaliation found in Rose v.

[00:09:58]Robinson one engaging in protected conduct i.e E redress of the government for grievances. Two, subjected to adverse action, retaliated and threatened. And three, there is a ca causal connection from the protected conduct and adverse action which for caused a chilling effect. And five, there was a true lack of a legitimate correctional goal. As advert in his complaint, Pliff was attacked while under the custody and care of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations.

[00:10:35]Said incident nearly caused plainif to lose his life and has left him with physical and emotional scars. As this incident was captured on surveillance video, the likelihood of success under the winter test has been met. Plainif is receiving capricious violations write ups for non-infraction activities which do not have a legitimate reason for correction as these alleged violations only began after the filing of the underlying complaint. Such actions have a chilling effect on all people who are incarcerated as it demonstrates to plaintiff and other individuals what will occur if they exercise their first amendment right to redress the government for grievances.

[00:11:21]So here's the argument.

[00:11:24]Plaintiff Peterson seeks precisely this type of emergency relief that rule 65 was designed to provide. This is not a case involving speculative or hypothetical future harm. The retaliation threats and interference with plaintist access to the courts are ongoing, immediate and escalating and they place plaintiff at risk of further injury before the court can hear the matter on full notice. The conduct at issue is an ongoing threat to plaintiff safety. Such a harm cannot be undone by a later judgment or through money damages. Once retaliation occurs, the harm would further be irreparable as plaintiff Peterson is now forced to expose sensitive records which is likely to create further harms by said correctioned officers.

[00:12:12]Importantly, plaintiff has shown that the requested relief is narrowly tailored. He is not requesting any orders upon the underlying complaint as he is merely attempting to protect himself from retaliation that stem from the filing of said action. This is the proper use of injunctive relief. The balance of equities is also tipped for plaintist Peterson as the correction officer will suffer no legitimate prejudice from an order requiring them to avoid retaliation, preserve records and refrain from contact beyond normal security functions. Plainif on the other hand is facing immediate danger if the conduct continues. Public policy favors safety for all persons whether incarcerated or otherwise. It also appears it also supports access to the courts which retaliation chills.

[00:13:04]It has been determined in California courts that filing grievances, complaints or reports of staff staff misconduct constitute protected first amendment activity.

[00:13:17]Um prison officials may not retaliate against an incarcerated person for invoking their rights. That's in Gomez v. burning and the ninth circuit has held that threats, intimidation, warnings or punitive actions constitute adverse actions and that's in broadm cry um hold which held that the mere threat of harm can be an adverse action even if the threat is not carried out. Moreover, it has been established that causation may be shown through direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or temporal proximity. When retaliatory conduct follows closely after protected activity, courts infer retaliatory motive.

[00:14:02]Importantly, the Ninth Circuit does not require a plaintiff to show they were actually chilled from pursuing action within the court as the question is whether the action would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness. Threats in retaliatory punishment are more than sufficient. Finally, even if a penal justification is asserted, it would still be unlawful if the evidence shows that such actions were motivated by retaliatory intent. A temporary restraining order is therefore necessary to prevent irreparable injury and preserve the status quo until the court can conduct a preliminary injunction hearing. So you ask for a temporary restraining order exparte one-sided and if the court were to grant it, there would be a full-blown hearing for a preliminary injunction. So then both sides and then whether it stays in place or becomes an actual injunction to stay in place would be contingent on what happens in the evidence that is presented in the actual injunction hearing. So they're asking under their prayer for relief, he respectfully requests that the court enter a temporary restraining order directing that. So this is what he wanted the order to say if the court would have granted it. A the identified correctional officer has no direct contact with Peterson except as strictly necessary for ordinary functions, but at no time are the correctional officers and Peterson be alone. So he he's scared to be alone with them. B. The correctional officer and institution personnel be ordered not to retaliate against plaintiff for exercising his legal rights as permissible under the laws. Local rules and the first amendments guarantee to redress our government government for grievances.

[00:15:51]And C, the institution preserves all related video, incident reports, laws, electronic mail, memorandum, grievances, and other records. So, I don't understand why it just wasn't a preservation letter that I don't know.

[00:16:06]Okay.

[00:16:08]They know once they receive that they're being sued, they should be preserving everything anyway. And typically, you would give even before you file suit, you almost let them know you're about to file cuz you ask them to preserve all audio, video, whatever they may have.

[00:16:24]That is what happened in the Magro Grahams case with Meg the Stallion of which she got a preservation letter from my understanding and still some text messages and things became missing and because they were destroyed what you can ask if they destroy any of that information you can ask the court for an adverse inference instruction. So the jury will get that instruction which basically says you can infer you may infer they don't have to but you may infer that they they wanted to destroy this information cuz it would have been adverse to them and that's their reason.

[00:17:05]So, it's already a negative against them. And that's what ended up happening in the uh Magro Grahams case. And then the court grant any and all additional rel relief that is just improper to protect plaintiff Peterson and preserve his rights. So, what do you guys think?

[00:17:22]Huh? You guys think that uh Tory Lanes deserve a restraining order? Huh?

[00:17:30]Val said, "Leeprechauns, the like button is at the end of the rainbow."

[00:17:37]I don't know how you come up with this stuff, but we enjoy it though. We really We really So, what do you guys think though? Do you guys He basically said he's scared.

[00:17:53]His heart is is racing.

[00:17:57]What do you guys think?

[00:18:00]He said that he's in there. He's nervous. He already had, you know, got shanked a few times. And Herbert Freeman said, "It's Megan. It's Jay-Z and Rock Nation. It's his first lawyer. It's the California C." No, it's the correction.

[00:18:20]So, what are you saying? You're saying it's everybody but him. Huh? Is that what you're saying? Sexy Iran said, "Tori, you need to chill out. It's time for you to stop, buddy."

[00:18:31]Auntie Eva said, "Thoughts and prayer.

[00:18:33]She's so saved." I love Auntie Eva.

[00:18:35]That's right. You pray for her.

[00:18:39]Val said, "I'm filing a restraining order for the lack of likes."

[00:18:45]Y'all, you guys hear my sister? You better hit those hit that like button so these people know that we even on. Hey Jay. Yeah, I just jumped on real quick.

[00:18:53]I was actually just going to do a a video and upload it, but I wanted to interact with you all. So, let's see what the court said. Okay?

[00:19:03]Told you all already what the court said, but act like I didn't. I want you guys to pretend you don't know the outcome.

[00:19:12]Okay?

[00:19:14]Just act like I didn't. I I didn't tell you nothing. So then on May 27th, which was the same day I think that was filed, it says order denying application for a temporary restraining order.

[00:19:28]Before the court is an exparte application for temporary restraining order filed by plaintiff day Peterson.

[00:19:36]Planet filed a complaint in this action on April 14th, 2026 and filed the instant application on May 27, 2026.

[00:19:46]Plaintiff has been informed that for exparte applications prior to filing the moving shall determine the position of the opposing party and advise the court of that position in the exparte application or in an accompanying declaration. So essentially they're supposed to meet and confer with the other side. Let them know, hey, I'm about to file this um application, this exparte request for a TTRO.

[00:20:16]What say ye? Okay. And then the party seeking relief must also notify them that anyo opposition must be filed no later than 24 hours after service. So once it was served, they also let them know they only have 24 hours to respond because it is an emergency type of a application that they were requesting.

[00:20:39]So you don't get the same amount, the same days to respond or reply as you do in typical motions that you file where you may have 14 days, you may have 7 days, you may have 21 days. The court may do a whole scheduling order and tell you when this has to be filed by June 1st and then by June 30th the other side has to respond. So yeah, apparently they had 24 hours and they were supposed to tell them that according to the court's own standing orders.

[00:21:12]And then it says the court cannot identify any attempts by plaintiff's council to notify the opposing parties or ascertain their position before filing this TTRO application.

[00:21:27]Plaintiff's council aversed only that she spoke with various individuals around April 29, 2026, nearly one month before she filed the instant application.

[00:21:39]This is insufficient.

[00:21:42]Accordingly, the court denies the application.

[00:21:46]So, it sounds like it was some procedural mishaps here. So then there is a footnote that said, "Plaintist council's declaration has been redacted, but plaintiffs council has failed to file an unredacted version of the document in accordance with local rule 79-5.2.2A.

[00:22:06]The court therefore denies plaintiff's application to file under seal." So that was also denied because I guess it wasn't in accordance with the rules. I told you all federal court is very rule specific. You get away with a whole lot of stuff in state court, but federal court, they got the the general federal rules that everybody has to go by. Then they have the local rules, which is your specific district. Then your court has their own procedures that they as long as it none of it conflicts, they can have it. So there's, you see, they quoted the courts, the court's requirements, the local court's requirements, and the federal rules. So you have to know all of those. And that's partly why when you proh hot VJN because you're coming from another state, you have to have local counsel because it is presumed that local council will know a lot of the rules there. But yeah, it's very rule specific and you can lose cases on not knowing the rules and they told us that in law school when we took civil procedures. actually a a class specific to the federal rules of civil procedures that is mandatory when you are in law school.

[00:23:22]Okay.

[00:23:24]All right.

[00:23:26]Jayla Mink 2020 said, "I don't care what happens to Tori. The whole world was telling him to chill."

[00:23:35]Okay.

[00:23:38]I thought they refiled a couple days ago. Maybe they did. If they did, it didn't. Um, this was on the 27th.

[00:23:47]When was the 27th? Less than a week ago.

[00:23:50]If they did, it's not on the docket. The next thing that they have filed on here that I saw, let me look it up.

[00:23:57]Is they were trying to get discovery.

[00:24:02]So, but it does it I mean it wouldn't shock me if they refiled it. I mean because it was based on procedures. It is what it looks like. It doesn't look like the court made any substantive determinations.

[00:24:18]So no, the last thing that was filed on here is a motion for discovery.

[00:24:27]Yeah, a motion for discovery.

[00:24:30]So if they filed something else, then it just it it may not have hit here. I don't know.

[00:24:37]But let me see something.

[00:24:44]Let me see what her declaration says.

[00:24:46]Let's see what that says. It's about as long as the motion.

[00:24:51]Okay.

[00:24:53]So, this is the actual declaration.

[00:24:58]Since, you know, I finished that in 20 minutes, I might as well read the declaration, too.

[00:25:04]Let's see.

[00:25:07]I'm an attorney licensed to practice in the state of California and has all her information. This affidavit is submitted under penalty of perjury pursuant to the law of the state of California.

[00:25:19]Plaintiff Peterson respectfully request that the court permit the filing of this declaration and any sensitive exhibits under seal or in the alternative and redacted form to the extent necessary to protect custodial safety and confidential information. Currently, Pliff Peterson has a pending action before this honorable court. He is being housed, you guys know, at the men's facility.

[00:25:43]Okay. All of that we read. Okay. Since plainif Peterson has filed a civil rights action within the statute of limitation to recover damages related to his near-death encounter at the correctional facility. Correction officer N redacted has engaged in ongoing harassment, intimidation, and retaliatory conduct. In May of 2025 at CCI, Pliff was stabbed approximately 16 times with additional superficial cuts.

[00:26:12]Plane was lifellighted to a local hospital as both of his lungs collapsed.

[00:26:17]While Plainif was recovering, two of his notebooks were taken from him that contain notes between plaintiff and myself along with unreleased music and personal thoughts. Yeah, that's terrible.

[00:26:32]Plaintiff Peterson has reported to me and Miss Rhonda Dixon that correction officer blank began by making remarks as plaintiff would attend classes. This included stating that officer. So all of that's redacted and this is what the court was saying that you should have gave us a unredacted copy I guess to the court. Now officer blank plainif Peterson when petitioner received blank this is more dangerous setting than what petitioner is currently in.

[00:27:06]So, a lot of the actions they're actually redacting.

[00:27:11]The following Tuesday, May 5th of 2026, was a regular weekly inspection on Planet Peterson's housing unit for more than a year. Prior to this time, Plainif was assigned as blank. Therefore, Pliff was responsible for blank. The inspection was being conducted by correction officer blank, who is blank on his tier.

[00:27:31]Bunch of blanks. I knew I shouldn't have downloaded this. When they said redacted, they have redacted the heck out of this.

[00:27:39]Okay.

[00:27:43]As a crew was filming pling for a documentary, another incarcerated individual. So he he's filming for a documentary.

[00:27:57]Not only has his cell been trashed, but moreover pliff has now lost blankety blank blank blank blank blank.

[00:28:06]Honor about April 29th, 2026. I spoke with the litigation coordinator commanding watch officer on duty and left a message for the assistant warden.

[00:28:15]I also submitted this case to the office of embudsman and have emailed them to update as the above incidents occur. So that must be what the court is talking about that that was the only mode of contact that was mentioned in the um in this declaration.

[00:28:33]Planet Peterson filed the necessary 602 forms to question the above infractions along with an excessive force complaint.

[00:28:40]These processes are still ongoing as he has prepared for such complaints. He has found witnesses that heard officer blankety blank. Emergency relief is necessary because the harm is continuous and cannot wait for a regularly noticed hearing.

[00:28:56]Planet Peterson, myself and co-consel had hoped that the retaliation would cease. Notice should be excused because advanced notice to the correctional officer or institution may itself trigger retaliation, intimidation, or further harm to PL. Sound like they're almost saying they didn't give any notice.

[00:29:15]The relief requested by Plan Peterson is narrow to prevent future retaliation and harm and to preserve his rights while ensuring he is not being placed into the more dangerous housing unit for capricious reason. Please help protect Plif Day star Peterson.

[00:29:34]It says we are not questioning some some issue. Pliff has been in the work program and completing classes so that his current parole eligible date is August of 2020. Now you you know you got a couple more years. 26 got like three three more years you might get up out of there. Plif has served a sentence for his base term charge and is now completing enhancement time.

[00:29:56]So he's eligible for parole in 29 according to this. So that was that.

[00:30:04]It was a whole lot of redactions. Any questions? Any questions? He said he's in there being harassed and intimidated.

[00:30:12]He was already stabbed 16 times and he also has superficial cuts. He had to be airlifted and that is the crux of his complaint that he originally filed and now he feels like because he filed it, he is being harassed.

[00:30:31]No, he that's what the that's what I read. That was part of the problem is that the court said they didn't get any unredacted. That was in the footnote.

[00:30:40]Yeah. blankety blank blank blank button.

[00:30:42]Yes, please. Good evening, Miss Lady.

[00:30:45]Good to see you. Thank you so much for You said they blame they blame Jay-Z for everything else. Might as well.

[00:30:56]And G said, "Was it really?" Well, being stabbed 16 times, you know, sounds a little little dangerous teetering on death to me. I guess it depends on where you stabbed at. But yeah, he was airlifted. Both of his lungs collapsed, which mean probably couldn't breathe.

[00:31:14]Suffocation is a terrible way to die. So yeah, he probably definitely felt like Nyla.

[00:31:21]She said, "Who harassed the elf?"

[00:31:25]Blankety blank blank cuz they redacted it.

[00:31:30]They not letting us know.

[00:31:35]So yeah, I thought they filed a new motion on May 29th. I think I answered that. Yeah, I have it pulled up and on May 29th, unless they just ain't let us, you know, be privy to it. But um on May 29th, it does have they asked for discovery. I'll pull that up since you Let me see where that thing is.

[00:32:11]I wonder why it's not letting me.

[00:32:23]Let me go back on here.

[00:32:33]So you all Jar Peterson is having a rough time while he's doing time. He just wants the people to leave him alone so he can do his time, get out in a couple years. Sounds like he got a documentary that might be going on.

[00:32:49]Just wants the people to leave him alone.

[00:32:52]That's what he said. He just want the people to leave him alone.

[00:32:56]U let me do the look at the motion for discovery.

[00:33:05]So on May 29th there was a motion for expedited discovery.

[00:33:15]Um, I'm I'm just going to keep my opinions to myself. Yeah, there's a motion on May 29th for um asking for discovery. I just read it real quick. They're asking for expedited discovery. So typically as you all know we have a conference and when we have the conference then we'll do a whole plan a litigation plan and you'll have discovery like you can say like when I've done 1983s we usually do about 8 n months of discovery state court we usually do about 90 days and it start out with 90 days and then we'll extend it if we need to because we weren't able to fit everybody in doing depositions or whatever we need to do.

[00:34:09]But in federal court, you kind of try to set your plans with your calendar and you confer with the other side to come up with the whole plan on the posture of your case. So, what they're asking is for expedited discovery because I think they they're saying that it's data and stuff like that that they don't want to come up missing.

[00:34:33]But so here's that. So this was May 29th for whoever mentioned the May 29th. So then it basically says that he is asking respectfully submit this motion for expedited discovery requesting this honorable court for an order permitting expedited targeted discovery which is necessary to name all parties and effectuate service or process. Good cause exists because the discovery quest is narrowly tailored, timesensitive, and essential to resolving the case at hand and support thereof. Planet Peterson averages as follows. So, it sounds like they're still trying to figure out who these John Doe's or Jane Doe's are going to be. So, they feel like discovery is necessary so that they could replace the John and Jane Does. The intro for a party to receive expedited discovery good cause must be established. Generally, such a request is warranted to preserve evidence and or name a previously unidentified party.

[00:35:37]Courts in this circuit grant such relief when the discovery sought as specific, limited in scope, and directly tied to the issues requiring judicial intervention. Planiff Peterson's allegations raised within his complaint cannot be resolved without said discovery data, which is exclusively in the control of defendant California Department of Correction and Rehab.

[00:35:57]without expedited discovery planning will not be able to proceed with this claims. I wonder how much of this stuff is actually public record though.

[00:36:06]So good cause exists for expedited discovery. Plan of Peterson is seeking only narrowly tailored categories of necessary information that is related to the incident on May 12th. Um I think that's supposed to be 2025 at the California Correctional Institute. This information is held solely by the Department of Corrections. So, a plaintiff humbly requesting information directly related to the event in question, including reports, logs, and documents generated on May 12th of 25 relating to Planet Peterson's attack and medical care.

[00:36:41]Why wouldn't they do this in initial disclosure? So, when you first file the lawsuit, that's another thing. When you go in, you have initial disclosures where there's just certain documents that you have in your position possession that you have to turn over on both sides that you if you whatever documents you have in your possession that's related to the case you're supposed to turn over. Now, when you go through discovery and as you continue on through, you may have specific targeted questions or requests for admission or requests to produce specific documents or authorizations for medical records that need to be signed or to do depositions, which is under oath, you know, the the with the court reporter on video most of the time.

[00:37:28]But um yeah, it seems like some of this stuff they would have to turn over in their initial disclosures anyway, which is which happens at the beginning of the case unless they plan on filing a motion to dismiss it for some reason, like a 12B motion. And so they're saying it's no need because based on the complaint, it should be dismissed.

[00:37:56]It's going to be interesting how the court even ident. So they want identification information including the names, titles, and badge numbers that were on duty and in proximity to the event in question on May 12th. System data included metadata, timestamps, and electronic logs reflecting staff presence and actions taken in relation to the incident on the identified date. Each request by Planif Peterson is narrowly tailored to directly bring forth his claims against the appropriate defendants for the date that pliff was seriously injured. The single purpose of this instant motion is merely to make such identification of parties. So they're saying they only want the information cuz they want to change the John Doe's and the Jane Doe's to a specific name. But that's it. They said he'll be free in 2029. Well, that's his first bite at the apple.

[00:38:48]She Oracle said free toy. That's what's up. Yes. Spoilation to prevent spoilation of evidence.

[00:38:56]I'm not going to say that people don't do it cuz I've seen things obviously go missing, but I I haven't really had that much of an issue with companies um or like corporations or other public entities and all that. I haven't really had those type of issues. Now people uh they get the deleting the text messages and everything then Snapchat but all of that stuff you can subpoena and get the information for. So you said free Tori to Canada. You know what you said all he had to do is leave that girl alone.

[00:39:33]Tracy said do I need to boycott Hulu or Netflix? Who approved this? I don't know. That's the first I heard of it and shoot. It's so redacted. We might that they might have been trying to say something different. I was just don't know what they were trying to say. Meg wanted him to leave her alone. Did Andre said, "Oh, I will use my second chance to change my ways and cease all these frivolous filings." That's just me.

[00:39:58]#rocknation will crumble. Don't you trigger Jay-Z. You guys had Jay-Z come out with his dreads out. He sick of y'all. He said he needed his scalp to be free when he decided to check everybody that's been talking about him. He been quiet for a long time. He said, "Not today. Today is your day."

[00:40:20]You said, "Normal prison conditions."

[00:40:23]Yeah, prison is a terrible place. He thinks if he complain constantly that will get him released. Nope. He need to do all his time. Hey, YB. Good to see you. Did you hit that like button? Did you already hit the like button? Let me get my free memberships before I get out of here. Hold on.

[00:40:42]Throw it on here.

[00:40:45]Who's going to get the free memberships?

[00:40:49]Let's see if I can find this.

[00:41:05]There we go.

[00:41:10]All right.

[00:41:14]Well, that's it. That's all we have for today. Thank you all so much for joining us. We will add this to our Tory Lane's collection.

[00:41:25]And um that's that.

[00:41:29]I don't even know none of these people that got it.

[00:41:33]Oh man.

[00:41:35]Oh, there's Kiki. Okay, congratulations you all.

[00:41:41]That's it. I don't even know none of these people all in the bushes. Come out the bushes and say thank you for this free gift that you've been blessed with on today.

[00:41:51]Come out the bushes and say hello.

[00:41:57]They said free Tori. Okay. Sh. Okay.

[00:42:02]All right. Free Tori.

[00:42:06]All right, y'all. I'm out of here. You guys have a good night.

[00:42:11]I see half of y'all weren't really interested in Tory Lane, but you know how I have to finish what I started. So, I'm going to keep talking about him till we can't talk about him no more. Till he's free. What they say? Free Tori till it's backwards.

[00:42:27]We going to talk about him till it's backwards. Okay. 2029. Looks like he's eligible for parole cuz he on some type of work program and he's basically serving the enhancement portion of his sentence right now. That's according to the declaration that we read. Something else comes down and they refile it. But honestly, they might as well just ask for a hearing, a regular hearing at this point and brief it. Give people a couple of months to brief it. Well, yeah. But all right, you all have a good night.

[00:42:58]I'll talk to you later. Bye.