Webworm Is Being Taken To Court (Again)

Hi,

I wondered when this was going to happen to me in the United States, and I guess this week I got my answer. It came in the form of a letter in my letterbox:

Webworm is being taken to court.

It appears James Sved – the subject of last week's newsletter "Strictly Need To Know: Webworm looks into the mysterious James Sved" is taking me to court.

I found out in a very American way. The letter I had received was from an attorney in California – but they have nothing to do with the case that's been filed. The letter looked personal, but in tiny writing at the top was this: "Attention: This is an advertisement".

I guess this firm spends its time scanning for new cases (using assistants? Claude? unpaid interns?), before cross referencing named defendants, finding out their address, and sending a letter to offer their services. Fishing, essentially.

"We are seasoned in this type of proceeding and have all of the experience needed to get you the best results possible if this lawsuit pertains to you."

I did some digging, and it turns out the case does pertain to me. It's legit.

Sved has filed a lawsuit of some kind in California, and it largely appears to be seeking a restraining order against me. This is unusual, just in that I've never been near James Sved (or his partner Anna Wilding who is running for US Congress).

Now I'm not in Sved's brain, but I imagine he's doing this to:

a) intimidate me
b) make it difficult for me to cover Anna Wilding's run for Congress, by making it illegal for me to attend any of her campaign events in person (assuming Sved will be there in support).

I'm also aware that the people I tend to write about are often playing a long game. In this case, as far as my situation here in the USA, violating a restraining order is grounds for deportation.

Maybe Sved isn't taking me to court for any of these reasons. I'm just gaming it out. But I think back to David D'Amato suing us back in 2016 as Tickled was about to come out, and Michael Organ trying to get a restraining order against me leading up to the release of Mister Organ in Aotearoa.

It's what these types of people tend to do.

I will study up over the weekend (any LA lawyer Worms are welcome to get in touch: davidfarrier@protonmail.com), but I've been informed that under Californian law, "'harassment" is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.

Luckily for me (and journalism), as messed up as the United States is, "course of conduct" can't include constitutionally protected activities.

I haven't been served in person yet, so I guess that is coming up next. I imagine Sved has already been granted a temporary restraining order by default though – so I will need to engage a lawyer in this case. It's just an annoying use of time and money. But it's part of the gig, right?

The whole idea of journalism is to hold power to account, and shine light into the darkness. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. All that cheesy stuff. Over the years of doing this stuff, you see patterns begin to emerge, and it's kind of amazing to see how people use the law to try and shut down journalism. To turn the lights out.

So here we go again, I guess? I will keep you updated. And to those of you who choose to pay for Webworm – thanks. This is a very practical example of how you keep this place afloat.

Thank you.

David.

PS: I feel like these people need to read "20 Years of The Streisand Effect", right?

The Saga So Far:

Part 1: The Beginning
Part 2: Wilding vs The World
Part 3: Wilding v Wikipedia
Part 4: The Mysterious Matt Obolensky
Part 5: The End of the Saga?
Part 6: 25 Years of Making Shit Up
Part 7: The Kiwi Running for US Congress
Part 8: "Strictly Need To Know"
Part 9: The piece you just read, I guess?