Unban @joleenlunzer! @x she didn't impersonate anyone. It was a mass flagging

LIVE AT 2PM WITH CYBERCHICK! WHEN YOUTUBERS GO WILD! MACHADO v. CYBERCHICK??? youtube.com/live/corqNuRLXms… via @YouTube

Some thoughts on the last two legal cases I've covered: What The Hales v Preston and Clayton Echard v. Laura Owens. Both bad lawyers who entered the cases late after several YouTube channels had covered the issues in depth and had already come to a conclusion on who was right. These lawyers, David Gingras and Bruce Matzkin, demanded that all the coverage stop immediately or change to favor their clients who were demonstrably lying about many things. Both lawyers have tried to paint the YouTubers as opportunists and grifters who aren't deeply convicted of their positions but instead primarily interested in money. We've all heard this before: think Johnny Depp. They've both threatened lawsuits to stop free speech. They both have engaged in online behavior that can only be described as unprofessional and unbecoming of an officer of the court. Both of them have accused the media coverage of being a "conspiracy" against their clients. One has gone so far as to claim RICO and claim he can have YouTubers arrested for ridiculing his clients and his behavior which is by all standards abominable. From motions to compel lunch, commenting endlessly on active litigation, threatening bar complaints against opposing counsel as a legal strategy, berating legal assistants, coercing journalists, lying about privilege, threatening media with homelessness, ruminating about the deaths of critics, to threatening judges...these cases have it all. Both lawyers have run other creators off these stories with their threats leaving just a few who are now being targeted with a coordinated PR campaign to destroy them through false copyright strikes, doxing, lawfare, and false and defamatory attacks through third party useful idiot channels who were promised subscribers, fame, and money. One lawyer has gone so far as to sue a creator @TheDUIGuyPlus for a bogus copyright claim over thumbnails that if successful will have a detrimental effect on all YouTubers. If you are a legal creator on YouTube, and you have not jumped into this discussion, why not? Maybe you don't know about these epic battles or maybe you thought it's too much trouble. What is stopping you from showing these LOLyers the line they should not have crossed? Are you concerned about frivolous litigation? Your inaction will do nothing to stop it. Further, your silence only emboldens this behavior and one day soon it will be directed at you. These two have already taken ideas from each other and it's spilling into other cases as @LawTubeSean has reported recently (RICO is never the answer). Their goal is to silence independent creators who are making content outside of the mainstream narrative. Is that acceptable to you? DM me if you'd like to get caught up. Happy to share or be interviewed about the growing threat to independent creators covering legal cases. Make no mistake, if they are successful in the intimidation game this is going to come for you someday. @TheFollowingPro @IanRunkle @thelegalvices @legalbytesmedia @LawSelfDefense @barnes_law @LumberLaw @thevivafrei @DaniAhnDirect @shizzywhiznut @NatetheLawyer @RonColeman @ThatUmbrella @LawyerYouKnow @BruceRiversCLR @aburkhartlaw @colonelkurtz99 @TheMGLaw @TheExpertTweets @MemeCopium