Lucy Craig is Jane Doe - 100% Verified logo Lucy Craig is Jane Doe - 100% Verified
THE RECORD · THE ARGUMENT · THE RESPONSE

Who Is
Jane Doe
Really?

Evidence. Due process. Competing narratives. The record deserves scrutiny.

Open the evidence libraryRead the argumentJoin the discussion
✍ Sign the petition
WHY THIS EXISTS

Controversial cases still require evidence, process, and room for dissent.

This site is built to present opposition, documentary material, competing interpretations, and public discussion without treating allegations as adjudicated facts. Court records, attributed reporting, editorial argument, and reader comments are labeled as different kinds of material.

REPORTING CREDIT

Reporting that helped frame the public questions

The links below are credited to Richard Luthmann / NY News Press. Linking or discussing them does not convert their assertions into findings of fact.

Richard Luthmann — Cornell Seven: Evidence Before Election Theater Psy-Op ↗Richard Luthmann — BREAKING: Cornell Seven Accuser Unmasked ↗NY News Press — Cornell Seven Accuser Unmasked ↗NY News Press — Cornell Seven Evidence ↗
LATEST

Articles & analysis

Rice Purity Quiz

Take the Rice Purity Quiz As If You Were Lucy Craig

We’ve recreated the 100-question Rice Purity Test, allowing you to explore it through the lens of the publicly available records, police reports, court...

2026-11-10Analysis

Rice Purity, Mom Lore, and Lucy Craig

One of the most revealing messages in the Cornell Seven controversy is also one of the most casually written. Understanding two pieces of Gen Z slang helps...

2026-11-08ARTICLE

Reproduction of Key Text Messages

Read the text exchanges reproduced here.

2026-11-08ARTICLE

The 20-Year Loophole?

Two recent court decisions, an expired ordinary filing deadline, questionable reliance on criminal statutes, and a conspicuously missing fifth cause of...

2026-11-05Legal Commentary

Lucy Craig Wants Another 60 Days. The Court Should Say No.

Nearly two years after the alleged events, Lucile H. Craig's attorneys want to delay Diego Sarabia's motion to dismiss—while defending a complaint that...

2026-11-05Opinion

BREAKING: Jacqueline Kelly, the Cornell Graduate Who Must Now Prove She Can Investigate Cornell

Letitia James has hired an outside lawyer to lead the Cornell 7 investigation. Her selection raises a rather inconvenient question: when does independence...

2026-11-04
PUBLIC RECORD

Documents should be inspectable, searchable, and quotable in context.

Every public Library item gets a dedicated page. PDFs are rendered responsively, OCR is searchable, video/audio transcripts are timestamped, and clicking a transcript segment jumps the media to that point.

Browse library

New docket entries · last 24 hours

Loading recent docket filings…

DISCUSSION

Topics controlled by the administrators; comments controlled by their authors.

A Place For Memes
This discussion forums is for all your Lucy Craig, Cornell 7, memes. We want to have the definitive collection of meme art about Lucy Craig.

Big Tish James
Should Big Tish James be involved in the investigation and prosecution of the Cornell 7?

Can a woman consent to sex if she is voluntarily intoxicated?
Lucy Craig engaged in voluntary consumption of alcohol and illegal substances. Is she capable of consent? And if not, are the men, who were also drinking and consuming illegal substances, according to public reporting, capable of consent? Can they claim that they were raped by Lucy Craig?

Did Lucy Craig Rape Those Drunken Boys?
Her texts say she was not drunk. The bar says she was not drunk. The boys were drunk. Did Lucy Craig (AKA "JANE DOE") rape those boys? Leave a comment with your opinion.

Discuss: Should Lucy Craig Sue Thomas Guiffra?
Thomas Guiffra's famefag attention seeking, publicity stunts have backfired. It is now known that he was leaking records related to the case (the poorly redacted afformation in support of proceeding as Jame Doe was only in possession of the person who filed it). He named a U.S. Active Service Marine, lied about a swat event, filed a fake DMCA in bad faith to this blog, named an incorrect person as a defendant, misrepresents New York's dram shop liability laws against Moonies, and named an entity that doesn't actually exists on paper. His hope was, similar to the Comb's cases, to throw shit against the wall, leak favorable documents, cancel anyone who speaks against his client, and sway the public sympathy. That backfired, with help from LucyCraog.blog. As her case becomes a comedy of errors, we ask you, should Lucile H. Craig sue Thomas Guiffra and his firm for malpractice?

Freedom of Speech
We do not care about your feelings, we do care about freedom of speech. Share and post any legal speech you want. Send us your images, videos, text messages, voice recordings or any other related material for immediate publication without censorship.

THE LATEST DISCUSSION

Latest comments

Loading latest comments…

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

Comments & replies

No account is required. Comment anonymously, or sign in with a pseudonymous account if you want to manage your comments later. Comments are user speech, not editorial findings.

Posting anonymously — no login required.
Optional: sign in or create a pseudonymous username to edit/delete your comments later.
@janedoe1 #4520
HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CORNELL CASE? SEND US AN ANONYMOUS TIP.
 
A New York Court Can Control Its Docket. It Cannot Automatically Silence the Public, Independent Journalists, or Every Witness in Ithaca.
 
The Cornell University litigation has raised serious questions about transparency, pseudonymity, the rights of defendants, and the public's ability to independently examine allegations that have already attracted national attention.
 
On October 23, 2026, New York Supreme Court Justice Phaedra Perry-Bond granted the plaintiff permission to continue litigating under the pseudonym Jane Doe.
 
That order has legal significance. But understanding what it actually says, whom it binds, and what it leaves undecided is equally important.
 
A pseudonymity order is not a universal gag order. A court filing is not a finding of fact. And allegations are not convictions.
 
LucyCraig.blog is inviting individuals with firsthand knowledge, relevant documents, or verifiable information concerning the Cornell litigation to submit anonymous tips for independent review.
 
SUBMIT YOUR TIP PRIVATELY:
 
 
THE PRECEDENT THE COURT DID NOT DISCUSS
 
Start with Doe v. Kidd, 19 Misc. 3d 782 (Sup. Ct., New York County 2008).
 
In that case, a woman brought a civil lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct by professional basketball player Jason Kidd. She sought to proceed anonymously, invoking New York Civil Rights Law § 50-b.
 
The court examined the statute's legislative history, purpose, and application.
 
It emphasized the statute's connection to protecting individuals whose cooperation is important to criminal sexual-offense proceedings.
 
Prosecutors had declined to bring criminal charges against Kidd, and no prosecution was contemplated.
 
The court rejected the plaintiff's reliance on § 50-b and, after independently balancing her privacy interests against the presumption of open judicial proceedings, denied her request to proceed anonymously.
 
That decision deserves attention in the Cornell litigation.
 
Judge Perry-Bond's October 23 order acknowledges that no defendant had yet been charged under the relevant Penal Law provisions. Rather than deciding whether § 50-b applied, the court expressly set that question aside and granted pseudonymity through a separate balancing analysis.
 
Yet Doe v. Kidd, a published decision from the same trial court addressing a closely related statutory question, receives no discussion.
 
If the court believed Kidd was distinguishable, it could have explained why. If the court believed Kidd was unpersuasive, it could have said so.
 
Instead, the statutory question remains unresolved in this order.
 
To be precise, Doe v. Kidd does not establish that every plaintiff must lose anonymity whenever prosecutors have declined to file charges. Courts also possess independent discretion to permit pseudonymous civil litigation.
 
But that distinction makes the unanswered statutory question worth examining, not ignoring.
 
ANOTHER IMPORTANT DECISION: BROWN V. NYPD
 
In Matter of Brown v. New York City Police Department, 264 A.D.2d 558 (1st Dept. 1999), the Appellate Division considered the application of Civil Rights Law § 50-b to records requested under New York's Freedom of Information Law.
 
Sex-offense charges against the petitioner had been dismissed, and the complainant had testified that he had not raped her.
 
The court rejected application of § 50-b under those particular circumstances.
 
Crucially, the court did not hold that the absence of a conviction automatically eliminates statutory protection.
 
It examined the actual record, including the dismissal of the charges and the complainant's testimony, before concluding that the agency's asserted statutory exemption did not apply.
 
The lesson is simple: statutory protections require legal analysis. They cannot be established or defeated merely through labels.
 
Nor should a statutory restriction governing disclosure by public officers automatically be confused with the constitutional rules governing independent reporting.
 
Those are different questions, governed by different legal principles.
 
WHAT DOES JUDGE PERRY-BOND'S ORDER ACTUALLY RESTRICT?
 
The October 23 order expressly prohibits public disclosure of the plaintiff's identity by:
 
  • The parties to the litigation.
  • Their attorneys and agents.
  • The New York County Clerk's office.
 
It also requires that documents filed in the litigation use the Jane Doe pseudonym and omit or redact specified sensitive personal information.
 
Importantly, the order allows defendants and their agents to privately disclose identifying information to relevant third parties for legitimate discovery and investigation, conditioned upon those recipients agreeing to maintain confidentiality.
 
Those conditions matter.
 
A third party who accepts protected information under such an agreement with a party occupies a different position from an independent member of the public who has not participated in the litigation or undertaken a confidentiality obligation.
 
The order does not, on its face, impose a blanket prohibition on every independent journalist, Cornell student or faculty, Ithaca resident, district attorney, police officer, fraternity or sorority member or member of the public discussing the case.
 
This does not mean independent speakers are exempt from otherwise applicable laws against harassment, threats, unlawful disclosure, or misuse of confidential information.
 
The relevant questions concern a person's relationship to the actual court proceedings, the terms of the order, and applicable law.
 
The judge may control the filings and conduct of people subject to the court's authority. That is not equivalent to controlling every independent conversation or person beyond the litigation.
 
SECTION 50-B REMAINS AN UNRESOLVED QUESTION
 
Civil Rights Law § 50-b restricts the public disclosure of identifying records concerning victims of qualifying sex offenses by public officers and employees.
 
Whether a plaintiff may proceed anonymously in civil litigation is also a judicial question, but one that can be resolved through a separate balancing of privacy interests, public access, and potential prejudice.
 
Judge Perry-Bond relied on that separate authority, including N.S. v. Frankenhoff, 215 A.D.3d 592 (1st Dept. 2023). Essentially giving 50-b no value in the civil case.
 
Consequently, the October 23 order neither conclusively establishes nor conclusively rejects § 50-b's application to every relevant record. Until a decision on 50-b is definitive, it is discretionary for the record custodian, you can safely release, or provide any record in this matter, subject to not being a party or agent of the parties or the clerk of the New York County Supreme Court.
 
A case-specific pseudonymity order should not be mistaken for a nationwide prohibition on independent investigation.
 
WE ARE ASKING FOR FACTS, DOCUMENTS, AND FIRSTHAND ACCOUNTS
 
The Cornell case involves serious allegations, disputed accounts, substantial reputational consequences, and questions about the procedures used to investigate and litigate the claims.
 
Those questions warrant careful investigation.
 
LucyCraig.blog welcomes information relevant to:
 
  • The events, chronology, and locations described in the civil complaint and available investigative records.
  • Firsthand witness accounts that corroborate, clarify, or contradict material allegations.
  • Communications, contemporaneous records, photographs, or other evidence lawfully available to the person submitting them.
  • Inaccuracies in public filings or statements, including information concerning individuals incorrectly identified or associated with the events.
  • Previously unexamined information about Cornell University's handling of the allegations.
  • Procedural irregularities, potentially relevant omissions, or inconsistencies in publicly available records.
 
We are interested in evidence, including evidence that challenges our previous reporting.
 
We are not asking anyone to harass participants, obtain confidential records unlawfully, or submit residential addresses or other unrelated sensitive identifying information.
 
The goal is to establish what can be verified, not to replace one unproven narrative with another.
 
YOU DO NOT NEED TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF
 
Our anonymous-tip portal allows submissions without creating an account or supplying a name or email address.
 
You may provide a written account or attach supporting materials.
 
Submissions are directed to a private administrator inbox and are not automatically published. The tips system does not save IP addresses or account identities in its own request log or tips database.
 
An anonymous submission is a lead, not proof. Material intended for publication should be independently assessed and corroborated where possible.
 
SILENCE IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
 
The public has a legitimate interest in how serious allegations are investigated, how judicial discretion is exercised, how institutions respond, and how reputations are affected before liability has been established.
 
That interest includes the rights and safety of the plaintiff, defendants, witnesses, and uninvolved third parties.
 
Judicial protection of a litigant's privacy and independent scrutiny of a lawsuit are not inherently incompatible.
 
The court can enforce its order against those properly bound by it. Independent journalists can continue lawful investigation. Witnesses can provide information through appropriate channels. And the public can continue to ask difficult questions.
 
A court order does not transform disputed allegations into proven facts. Nor does it make legitimate questions disappear.
 
If you have relevant firsthand information about the Cornell litigation, we want to hear from you.
 
SEND AN ANONYMOUS TIP
 
 
No account required. Supporting documents accepted. Submissions reviewed privately.
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.
Anonymous #4511
Thomas Giuffra said this on Oct. 3 to BBC. Adding for the library.
c993357d696b4eda4b0978f4fb195fe8.mp4
@janedoe1 #4509
One night, two paths.
 
Choose Lucy's adventure.
 
Starting at Lot 10 drinking.
 
This chose your own adventure is for educational purposes only. Do you make smarter decisions than Ivy League socialite Lucy H. Craig?
 
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.
Comment attachment by janedoe1
Anonymous #4483
Fucking hilarious.
QUOTED COMMENTAnonymous2026-10-27 01:23
To: [email protected] Re: Takedown Request Dear Cocksuckers, Snort some ket off Lucy's firecrotch! Hope that helps. XOXO
View original comment
Anonymous #4476
This guy is a scumbag lawyer.
QUOTED COMMENT@ChiappettaLegal2026-10-26 23:49
Personal injury lawyer here. If any of the 7 boys still needs counsel, I regularly help rapist and sex offenders beat their cases, sue their accusers, and come out the winner. The law doesn't give a shit if these men are innocent, I do not give a shit if they raped this dum…
Expand quoted comment
Personal injury lawyer here. If any of the 7 boys still needs counsel, I regularly help rapist and sex offenders beat their cases, sue their accusers, and come out the winner. The law doesn't give a shit if these men are innocent, I do not give a shit if they raped this dumb whore. A case like this, they can easily win a few million dollars by suing Cornell, the girl and her father and her attorneys (for their public comments). Give me a call, ChiappettaLegal.
Avatar for ChiappettaLegal
View original comment

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous #4484
I hope he is right though, I hope they sue back all that Lucy wins against Cornell so she basically ends up where she started - a disgraced slut. They mustn't give in to pressure to "be the bigger man" or "turn the other cheek". they have been fucked over and need to fight back.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous #4487
I did a bit of googling. I wonder if they could use then-student Adam Lack's LOLsuit against his accuser (Sara Klein) and Brown University:
 
https://archive2.news.brown.edu/1987-2007/1997-98/97-063.html
 
Spoiler Alert: Brown U settled with Lack. Terms unknown (?)

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 3

Anonymous #4488
I read it! Sounds like the same idea, just before "citizen journalists" took over.
How funny would it be if Cornell had to pay Lucy AND the 7?
 
 
 
News Archive
 
Brown University News Bureau
The Brown University News Bureau
1997-1998 index
 
Distributed December 31, 1997
Contact: Mark Nickel
Lack v. Klein and Brown University
 
All parties in Lack case agree to settlement ending legal proceedings
 
Adam Lack, Sara Klein and Brown University have agreed to settle a law suit in U.S. District Court arising from a University disciplinary hearing in May 1996.
 
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Adam Lack and Sara Klein, parties to a Brown University disciplinary matter and a subsequent law suit involving the University, have resolved their differences and agreed to discontinue legal proceedings. Their settlement ends a disagreement that dates to early in 1996.
 
"Brown University recognizes that Mr. Lack, Ms. Klein and the University have suffered as a consequence of this case which, unfortunately, has become a subject of widespread public discussion," said Provost and Acting President James Pomerantz. "The University is pleased that Mr. Lack and Ms. Klein have put the matter behind them and will continue their work toward college degrees and very promising futures."
 
The case arose from an incident in early February 1996, when Lack and Klein met and spent the night together. The matter came before the University Disciplinary Council, which found Lack in violation of Brown's sexual misconduct code. Lack appealed to Provost Pomerantz, who overturned the UDC's finding of "sexual misconduct" but found Lack to be in violation of the "flagrant disrespect" provision of the disciplinary code.
 
By then, however, Lack's name and photograph had been published in an independent student newspaper, and reports and commentary soon appeared in a national publication. Ultimately, the story was broadcast by ABC's news magazine, 20/20. Lack sued in U.S. District Court, charging Klein with libel and charging Brown with breach of contract and reverse gender discrimination.
 
Brown University regrets that its disciplinary system was unable to resolve the dispute between the parties satisfactorily. According to Provost Pomerantz, Mr. Lack has been removed from probation and is a student in good standing.
 
Victor A. Kovner, Ms. Klein's attorney, said, "Sara and her family are pleased that this dispute has been resolved. Sara does, however, regret having engaged in excessive drinking on the night of February 3, 1996, and in retrospect she understands that, at the time she met Mr. Lack, he may not have perceived her as impaired."
 
David Casey, attorney for Mr. Lack, said, "Adam is very pleased that this matter has been resolved constructively."
 
The University supports the resolution of this matter and will honor the parties' request that there be no further public comment.
 
######
97-063

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 4

Anonymous #4492
Looks like that Sara Klein bitch tried to "revoke consent." I guess it was a big case at the time -- John Stossel of 20/20 reported on it:
 
"Summary: When Yes Means No” was a segment by John Stossel that aired on ABC's 20/20 on March 28, 1997.
 
"The report focused on a high-profile campus sexual assault case at Brown University involving students Adam Lack and Sara Klein. Klein alleged that she had been raped while she was too intoxicated to give consent or remember the event, while Lack maintained that the encounter was entirely consensual. After Brown's disciplinary council initially suspended Lack, the decision was reduced on appeal to probation for "flagrant disrespect," and Lack subsequently sued the university and Klein (a case later settled in late 1997."
 
I'd love to find that episode!

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 5

Anonymous #4493
Just from that line I highlighted, it sounds like what we've been saying about Lucy too, she didn't understand the full definition of rape or the idea of consent! Based on the whole backlash, I think women generally don't understand it either! This just makes me think that rape statistics (reported + estimates of unreported) might be inflated AND if women understood the consent and voluntary intoxication things properly, they may realise they are more accountable than they think and act more responsibly to avoid those grey areas. [I'm talking overall, averages, edge cases, etc, first person to say I'm blaming the victim gets my foot in their cunt, and no court would convict me, because you are really asking for it]. Lucy's case might actually lead to better education of men and women! THAT would be a silver lining, and might be a way for feminists to save face (except the extreme ones). I just think that door has closed for Lucy because she could have fallen back on that in 2024/2025 but now she is probably an expert on the concept and is being carefully coached by her ambulance chaser on how to respond to questions on these topics

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 6

Anonymous #4495
I couldn't find it, but this is how AI reconstructs it from references - sounds VERY familiar - every time there is a case like this, anti-sexual assault is strengthened, but the narrative about this being abused is lost:
 
Stossel’s 1997 20/20 segment became nationally significant because it reframed the Brown case as a story about campus political correctness, shaping public debate on sexual consent and university discipline far beyond Brown.
How the segment framed the case
The broadcast, titled “When Yes Means No,” aired March 28, 1997
insidepolitics.org
. It portrayed Brown University as a campus dominated by “authoritarian” feminist politics, with Stossel asserting on air that “there is something of an authoritarian atmosphere surrounding women’s issues on this campus”
The Brown Daily Herald
+1
.
Key elements included:
An extensive interview with Adam Lack, who maintained the encounter was consensual
1
.
Footage of a campus rally where Stossel confronted students with provocative questions about rape definitions, leading to a shouting match
2
.
A narrative suggesting Brown’s disciplinary system was driven by political correctness rather than evidence.
 
 
2 Sources
Why it became nationally significant
1. It turned a complex case into a national symbol.
The Brown Daily Herald notes that the Lack–Klein case already had “incredible staying power” because it occurred during a moment when “political correctness” was a point of ridicule in U.S. culture
The Brown Daily Herald
. Stossel’s segment amplified this framing, presenting Brown as a “PC-netherworld filled with angry activists out to frame the innocent”
The Brown Daily Herald
.
2. It shaped public perceptions of campus sexual‑misconduct debates.
The segment suggested that campus feminists were intolerant, authoritarian, and unwilling to consider alternative views on consent
The Brown Daily Herald
+1
. This portrayal influenced national conversations about:
What counts as consent when alcohol is involved
Whether campus disciplinary systems are fair to accused students
The role of activism in shaping university policy
3. It became a case study in media ethics.
FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) later used the segment as a prominent example of selective editing, provocation, and distortion in Stossel’s reporting
FAIR
. Their critique documented:
Omitted footage of Stossel mocking students and using obscenities at the rally
1
Leading questions designed to produce confrontational reactions
A narrative that downplayed the uncertainty of the case (“he said, she can’t remember”) in favor of ideological messaging
 
1 Source
Impact on Brown University
The segment intensified campus polarization. According to the Brown Daily Herald:
It captured a moment when Brown was “drenched in gender politics of the ugliest kind”
1
.
It galvanized faculty and students to engage more deeply in debates about sexual assault, consent, and disciplinary reform
1
.
It contributed to the formation and visibility of activist groups such as the Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CASA)
1
.
 
1 Source
Broader cultural significance
The segment became part of a larger 1990s media pattern:
National outlets spotlighting campus sexual‑misconduct cases
Framing them as battles over feminism, political correctness, and free speech
Using individual cases to comment on generational and cultural shifts in attitudes toward sex and consent
Stossel’s report is still cited in discussions of:
Media sensationalism in sexual‑assault coverage
The evolution of campus disciplinary systems
The politics of consent in the pre–#MeToo era

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 7

Anonymous #4498
Sounds like dumbass libs went apeshit over Stossel's bucking the same BS narrative that we're fighting now....
@ChiappettaLegal #4474
Personal injury lawyer here.
 
If any of the 7 boys still needs counsel, I regularly help rapist and sex offenders beat their cases, sue their accusers, and come out the winner.
 
The law doesn't give a shit if these men are innocent, I do not give a shit if they raped this dumb whore. A case like this, they can easily win a few million dollars by suing Cornell, the girl and her father and her attorneys (for their public comments).
 
Give me a call, ChiappettaLegal.
Nick Chiappetta
Avatar for ChiappettaLegal

↳ Reply to @ChiappettaLegal · Level 1

Anonymous #4489
You mean you help "alleged rapists and alleged sex offenders", right?

↳ Reply to @ChiappettaLegal · Level 1

J @janedoe2 #4477
I heard he is a dog fucker. Nick the dog fucker.
Comment attachment by janedoe2

↳ Reply to @janedoe2 · Level 2

@janedoe1 #4478
Tootles.
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.

↳ Reply to @ChiappettaLegal · Level 1

@janedoe1 #4475
Great, the fucking ambulance chasers have arrived.
 
This is your ONE and ONLY self promotional comment.
 
Any more will be removed as spam.
 
Commentary = fine, and unlimited.
 
Self promotion = one time only, if it is somewhat on topic (I guess this drible is technically on topic).
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.
Anonymous #4471
The Columbia Open Discourse Alliance: “a non-partisan coalition for free speech and open discourse,” condemns free speech. How ironic.
Comment attachment by Anonymous
@janedoe1 #4466
A DDoS attack is happening. We are only seeing a noticable slow down in loading pages. We have a fix, and were waiting for this moment so that we can refine our DDoS protections. After this one, we will be fine. We had no way to refining the fix until this moment came when we could use a real "attack" to do so.
During an inorganic spike in traffic our anonymous comment account login becomes inoperative and we start slowing traffic to ensure that the site loads eventually, regardless of how hard the traffic spikes.
This real world "attack" will be the last that we will even notice. We needed this to fine tune our Lucy Server.
Full functionality will return in a few moments.
Apologies in advance.
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 1

@janedoe1 #4467
Finished. Now everything should be faster than it was before the attack.
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.
@janedoe1 #4452
In response to our FOIA, our invoice, and our patent refusal to remove our article, DeleteMe has sent us another removal demand.
 
Once again, we will not be removing any articles, comments, or content as it relates to the dumb and retarded civil rights violating Judge Phaedra F. Perry-Bond.
Every instance moving forward will result in more articles, content, and comments about this judge, and redistribution on other sites.
 
DeleteMe is a toothless tiger and a pyramid scheme. The employee of DeleteMe who sent the latest request uses the email address [email protected].
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.
QUOTED COMMENT@janedoe12026-10-25 19:11
We sent the following FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT demand to the judge to investigate potential state sanctioned censorship, or privately paid censorship that carries over into state censorship (in violation of the first amendment). We will get to the bottom of the DeleteMe dema…
Expand quoted comment
We sent the following FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT demand to the judge to investigate potential state sanctioned censorship, or privately paid censorship that carries over into state censorship (in violation of the first amendment). We will get to the bottom of the DeleteMe demand and we will not delete anything, in fact we will expand, investigate more, and open inqury based on the potential civil rights violations.
Comment attachment by janedoe1PDF
View original comment

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 1

Anonymous #4479
Re: Takedown Request
 
Dear Cocksuckers,
Snort some ket off Lucy's firecrotch!
Hope that helps.
XOXO

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous #4502
"firecrotch" lmao
Anonymous #4431
So brave. Tompkins County (Ithaca -home to Cornell) public commenters.
 
(Fun fact, I cannot tell if this is a man, woman, or robot -so I cannot assume gender).
9pm-M5KGXwkr9JT3.mp4

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous #4503
(S)He could be a mentally disabled person

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous #4439
Wow! Genius! What an incredible speaker, so authoritative on the subject - [pronoun] has clearly read all the headlines! Rousing! That's the word! When [pronoun] screams "writing essays", I got shivers... not shivers exactly...like my skin crawled... shivers? Anyway... All Feminists deserve to hear this clip! Over and over!

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous #4432
"Jane"
tXynGS7N_UnyP380.mp4

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous #4441
She identifies as Jane Doe? I wonder how many trains that fugly cunt ran in college...

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 3

Anonymous #4443
You are the victim here! You gave her a chance to say something meaningful, and she betrayed you by being a dumb cunt! You think she wasn't on some feminazi snapchat group, just waiting to gangbang you in the brain?

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous #4440
OMF! I think when society gives people like this a soapbox, the rest of society will naturally vote for Donald Trump out of sheer revulsion. I think Feminists are to blame for Donald Trump!

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous #4436
Stop that DEI shit plz
@janedoe1 edited #4428
We are now hard translating every page (in progress) into 12 languages, so that we can insert the LucyCraig.blog site into search engines around the world, in their native languages. The various hardcoded language translations will be automatic after the initial build.
 
Each language will act as a standalone site, native to that language, not just a onscreen translation. Comments on an any language version will appear on other languages, with the option for the viewer to translate to their native language, and vice versa.
 
When we begin getting non-English speakers commenting, every comment now has a translation button as well to translate from every language to every language (original langauge written always displaying first). Let's welcome our non-English friends when they begin to arrive and introduce them to our favorite lying Train Hoe.
 
Also, every article is getting an audio mp3 attached (it will become visible on the language button when articles are on the screen -for now, audio is just english, later we will expand to other languages) for the visually impaired to be able to listen to our audio. Fun fact, the NY Times requires you to have a paid subscription to access their text to audio feature (even on their non-paywall articles), forcing visually impaired individuals to pay to hear an article they cannot otherwise read.
 
These updates should be processed in a few hours, then we will start the worldwide SEO burns and submissions (we have already accounted for the language and newly created mp3 audios of articles pages in our sitemap, so its an easy process after processing).
 
What other features should we add to our blog? Time to make LucyCraig.blog a worldwide sensation, and rhe best fucking site on the internet. Drop your suggestions below.
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.
Comment attachment by janedoe1
Comment attachment by janedoe1

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 1

Anonymous #4501
NYT shoulld be ashamed for paywalling the accessibility of free articles for the disabled!

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 1

Anonymous #4430
All aboard! 🚂
@janedoe1 #4425
We sent the following FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT demand to the judge to investigate potential state sanctioned censorship, or privately paid censorship that carries over into state censorship (in violation of the first amendment).
 
We will get to the bottom of the DeleteMe demand and we will not delete anything, in fact we will expand, investigate more, and open inqury based on the potential civil rights violations.
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.
PDF previewComment attachment by janedoe1
Anonymous #4417
Lucy Craig is the Cornell whore Jane Doe.
Anonymous #4404
Why does this website, which claims to be about free speech
Censor and delete posts?

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous #4413
Your opinion is just so powerful, it could instantly reform this website of reprobates. We are terrified by the power of your insights - is humanity ready? (lemme guess, we are all rapists, we should die, and you think thats a very funny thing to say?)

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

@janedoe1 edited #4406
I see your comment. What was censored? If you are one of the 5 previous comments we have hidden, it was spam, redundant self-promotion, or full on doxxing (be it plaintiff or defendants)... we have explained every comment we have hidden. We are very transparent. We did discover a bug (after your comments and we started looking for an explanation that might explain your frustration.) That bug is explained below one of your orher comments below. We will fix it..
Anyways, I see your comment, so, enjoy.
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.
@janedoe1 #4403
Here is why the admins are so confident. Why our site has not been able to be cancelled.
 
LucyCraig.blog operates on the parallel, independently managed infrastructure of "MultiPress.io" (https://multipress.io/), a global network of privately operated servers spanning ~20 speech favorable countries.
 
This infrastructure was not built overnight. For more than five years, our administrators and infrastructure partners have been developing an alternative to the centralized internet, one designed around jurisdictional independence, local legal compliance, operational resilience, and freedom from the censorship policies of major technology corporations.
 
We did not simply rent a foreign server and call ourselves independent.
 
We built an entirely separate publishing infrastructure, from email systems and domain management to physical hardware, distributed hosting facilities, and independent operators across ~20 nations.
 
And we did it for one fundamental reason: Freedom of expression should not depend on the approval of Silicon Valley, American corporations, or governments with no jurisdiction over the infrastructure hosting that expression.
 
Jurisdiction Is Not an Afterthought. It Is the Foundation.
 
Every country has different laws governing expression, publication, privacy, pornography, defamation, political commentary, and other categories of speech.
 
What is lawful in one country may be prohibited in another.
 
For example, Brazil maintains significant legal restrictions on certain forms of racist expression, while other categories of adult content may be lawful under applicable regulations. Other countries take substantially different approaches to both subjects.
 
We spent years studying these differences.
 
Our research extends beyond written statutes. We examine constitutional protections, judicial precedents, practical enforcement patterns (some countries are just too poor or undereducated to enforce cyber crimes and law enforcement in those countries are more willing to reduce charges and accept higher fines instead of court procedures and complex litigation), international legal assistance agreements, extradition frameworks, investigative cooperation, and both formal and informal aspects of local regulatory practice.
 
We do not attempt to force every publication into the same legal environment. We identify an appropriate legal environment for each publication.
 
Before onboarding a platform, we evaluate its intended content, operating model, jurisdictional exposure, and legal requirements.
 
We then select a primary hosting jurisdiction and a geographically separate backup jurisdiction with compatible legal conditions.
 
For LucyCraig.blog, we selected two jurisdictions in which we expect United States civil and speech related criminal claims concerning protected expression to face significant legal and procedural barriers to enforcement.
 
This is not accidental. It is the result of deliberate infrastructure planning and jurisdictional analysis learned over years of platforming free speech.
 
Twenty Countries. Independent Operations. No Single Point of Failure.
 
Our infrastructure is expensive to build and maintain.
 
Unlike companies that simply resell capacity from Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, or Microsoft Azure, our network relies on physical hardware and facilities distributed internationally.
 
We establish and maintain micro data centers, lease facilities, deploy equipment, secure network connectivity, and arrange local operational support.
 
Each location operates independently, subject to its own applicable laws, regulations, and operational requirements.
 
Each location also has a designated redundancy partner in another jurisdiction offering comparable legal and operational characteristics.
 
If a primary location experiences an outage, whether caused by an earthquake, telecommunications failure, power interruption, hardware incident, or government intervention, its partner is designed to maintain continuity of service.
 
Yes, we have even planned for the possibility of police raids.
 
Thankfully, we have never experienced one.
 
The objective is straightforward: no individual infrastructure provider, country, or corporate intermediary should represent an unnecessary single point of failure for an otherwise lawful publication.
 
We Respect Local Laws. We Do Not Export Everyone Else's Censorship Rules.
 
Our policy is simple.
 
We comply with the applicable laws of the jurisdictions in which we operate. We take those obligations seriously.
 
If a particular category of expression is unlawful in Brazil, we will not place that publication on Brazilian infrastructure.
 
Instead, where appropriate and lawful, we evaluate jurisdictions whose laws permit that category of expression.
 
If material is lawful in the chosen hosting jurisdiction, the fact that another government dislikes, condemns, or would prohibit the same expression does not automatically determine our editorial or hosting decisions. (YOU HEAR THAT JUDGE WHACKADOODLE?)
 
We recognize that cross-border legal obligations can be complex. Foreign court orders, international cooperation agreements, and the legal responsibilities of individual publishers require case-specific analysis. We have studied everything from the Hague Convention to extradiction treaties, to INTERPOL Constitution (especially Art. 3) and Rules.
 
A foreign government's objections should not automatically become the censorship policy of an independently operated platform in another country. Be it police, criminal, civil or other government dislikes.
 
That distinction is central to our infrastructure philosophy.
 
Localized Self-Hosting: Taking Independence Even Further
 
We also offer another deployment model: locally operated, privately hosted publishing infrastructure.
 
Through our international workforce and partners, we can establish small, dedicated servers in private residences or independently controlled premises.
 
Sometimes the equipment is installed in a dedicated workspace.
 
Sometimes it sits in a spare bedroom, home office, closet, or another suitable location.
 
The scale of the installation is less important than the legal and operational independence of its operator.
 
Our localized publishing model uses two distinct operational layers.
 
Layer One: Content Management
 
The publication owner or content contributor accesses a separate management dashboard where material, revisions, and publishing requests are submitted.
 
This administrative environment is separated from the physical publishing infrastructure.
 
Layer Two: Local Publication
 
A locally based operator receives the approved publishing instructions and performs the actual publication through the locally controlled infrastructure.
 
Under this model, the local operator does not need to know the identity of the underlying content contributor or client. The operator works through a controlled publishing workflow rather than communicating directly with the contributor.
 
The locally based operator retains responsibility for complying with the laws governing the actual publishing operation.
 
This arrangement provides technical separation, limits unnecessary disclosure of contributor information, and distributes operational responsibilities across distinct systems and people.
 
It means that the physical publishing operation is not automatically subject to the same jurisdiction, legal process, or corporate pressure as the person who originally submitted the content.
 
International extradition and legal assistance rules also distinguish between different kinds of offenses, and speech-related cases may encounter substantial barriers involving dual criminality, constitutional protections, and treaty limitations. Those protections vary by country and offense rather than amounting to a universal exemption.
 
That is precisely why careful jurisdictional analysis matters.
 
We Are Not Dependent on Big Tech's Permission
 
Modern internet publishing has become dangerously centralized.
 
A handful of corporations control an extraordinary proportion of the world's hosting, content delivery, domain services, communications infrastructure, and online distribution.
 
A publication can theoretically enjoy constitutional protection for its speech while simultaneously finding itself unable to obtain hosting, payment processing, email delivery, or other essential services because a private intermediary dislikes its content. (Like us here at LucyCraig.blog)
 
And governments can exert pressure through regulatory threats, public campaigns, litigation, and informal channels that never produce a formal censorship order.
 
Our response was not to complain about this structure.
 
We spent five years building an alternative to it.
 
We operate our own infrastructure, manage independent technical systems, distribute operational responsibilities geographically, and select jurisdictions based on the actual legal characteristics of the publication being hosted.
 
These arrangements are complex, costly, and operationally demanding.
 
But meaningful publishing independence requires more than a slogan on a homepage.
 
It requires infrastructure that can actually sustain that independence.
 
LucyCraig.blog Is Just One Publication
 
LucyCraig.blog is something of a personal project for our administrators.
 
It allows us to demonstrate what independent publishing looks like when a platform is not built around dependence on major American hosting corporations or their content moderation policies. Without fears of constant subpoenas, deplatforming, and other legal headaches that a publisher should not endure.
 
But LucyCraig.blog represents only a small part of our work.
 
More than 50 major free-expression platforms already operate on our parallel infrastructure, with installations distributed across ~20 countries.
 
Each publication is individually assessed.
 
Each hosting environment is selected according to its legal and operational requirements.
 
Each location functions under applicable local law, with independently planned redundancy and continuity arrangements.
 
We do not promise that every form of expression is legal everywhere. It is not.
 
We do not promise that foreign infrastructure makes someone immune from legal liability. It does not.
 
What we provide is something far more substantial: an international publishing infrastructure designed to preserve lawful expression, respect jurisdictional differences, reduce reliance on centralized technology companies, and resist censorship demands that have no applicable legal authority.
 
We have been building and operating this infrastructure for more than five years.
 
We have invested in physical hardware, international relationships, legal research, independent operators, and genuine geographic redundancy.
 
We did not build MultiPress to ask permission to publish.
 
We built it so that lawful independent publishers would not have to depend on the permission of a handful of powerful technology companies.
 
Twentyish countries. Independent infrastructure. Local legal compliance. Global publishing resilience.
 
"MultiPress.io" (https://multipress.io/). The infrastructure behind independent expression and free speech of LucyCraig.
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 1

Anonymous #4414
This is important stuff! Can we ask what other sites youve done?

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

@janedoe1 edited #4415
No. We respect their independence. Unless they choose to associate, we will not disclose them.
LucyCraig.blog is the first time the admins have actually created a publishing site, we are typically just the technology behind many other free speech related sites that have been deplatformed, threatened, or just feared that big brother was eventually going to come for them.
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 1

Anonymous #4409
You shdn't have taken up that website name & address (2nd line, last line). Now they'll be sued by you-know-who for supporting this site :(

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous #4419
If she doesn't like it, Lucy Craig can go snort ket off 7 more cocks.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

@janedoe1 edited #4410
We own the whole infrastructure, as explained. There is no way a civil suit or US criminal charges will touch them, any of their clients, or LucyCraig.blog.
 
The local laws control, not the US laws. We created and own the infrastructure, not big tech.
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 1

Anonymous #4405
But you choose to cancel other opinions on this website.
The hypocrisy is ripe.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

@janedoe1 #4408
We did discover a bug. Apologies for that. We have deleted 5 comments for various legitimate reasons, and have been very transparent about that. The bug we found is that when a parent comment has replies, and the parent comment is removed, the replies become invisible (not removed, not deleted, not technically hidden). The replies on a comment we removed (one of the 5) had no parent to attach to and thus disappeared.
When you see on other platforms "the original post has been removed" but still see the replies, this is the same concept, except our replies did not attach because we had no placeholder indicating the original commebt was removed.
We are building this platform, in real time, and will make errors. We will find a way to restore the replies on hidden or removed parent comments, so that your speech lives.
Our apologies.
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.
Anonymous #4400
So the ginger girl who willingly did several gangbangs is Lucy Craig. She's a whore and instead of taking responsibility for her actions she is trying to claim to be a victim. Stupid typical dumb feminist whore.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous #4420
Yes. We've only documented one gangbang for Lucy Craig, but a whore like that has surely made skanky behavior a habit...
Comment attachment by Anonymous

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous #4411
Not several. 1 major GB covering many minor 3SUM s

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous #4412
A gangbang is more than the sum of its threesomes

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 3

@janedoe1 #4416
Mathing
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.
Anonymous #4390
Have you noticed, there are no more pro-Lucy posts here! Admins, can you run some stats on pro/anti/neutral comments and how these have shifted over time?

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous #4402
Thats because the "free speech website" censors posts.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous #4401
Thats because the moderators censor posts
Anonymous #4381
bruh
@janedoe1 #4375
The creator of this blog website will dox themselves if this comment reaches 150 trains by Nov. 15th, 2026.
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 1

Anonymous #4389
You just want the google add revenue! Honestly, you deserve some cash for this, maybe think about how that could work, if you had a second company in between this and google ads.... Also, You need some sort of virtual phone number you can put here and record the hate from her supporters!

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

@janedoe1 edited #4398
No advertisement ever. The admins all have well paying, work from home, jobs.
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, majority opinion, 485 U.S. at 55.

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 3

Anonymous #4399
Very impressive, but you do deserve some sort of recognition, maybe write your memoire in 30 years

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 1

Anonymous #4376
Dilemmas, dilemmas... 🤔
Anonymous #4372
Defendant harassed in real life by Jane Doe whackadoodle supporters.
 
This clip is old, but is not yet in the library.
jJ2z8h4yJeOzfJNf.mp4

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous #4697
Ever noticed how a lot of feminists have that deep manly voice? They hate men cuz they wanna be men lol. It doesn't help that she's acting holier than thou and telling him off. Imagine her nagging at you everyday. She sounds like someone's divorced wife and this is college. NPCs think their opinion matters. Stupid self important tiktok brain.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous #4699
Thats the real key, she will rip guys lives to shreds just because she was slut shamed and didnt like it. Its like shooting someone because their dog shat on your lawn. She is a fucking animal with zero human decency

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 3

Anonymous #4700
What did she think? Not to say guys who do this aren't gross but she was acting like the conqueror, not someone who was being acted upon. It's like she does think like a dude, the muscles, the unkept social media presence, even when she does do self care she seems to fail. It's ppl like me who get called pick me just for not being a feminist, but it's like she really thought she was one of the guys and when she found out there was stigma, even from them for being the college bicycle, she freaked out not caring who she hurt along the way. Which is those men and actual victims in general...

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 4

Anonymous #4701
I agree, she is all. Our body our choice and sexuality is evolving, but then she spends days crying because she gets shamed. A woman in a gangbang needs to be submissive and probably enjoy humiliation, or of course they will regret it. In her statement she says she felt used and isolated, but thats what haooens when you do performative sex with strangers, they are not makibg love to you, they are fucking, and so is she. At one point she seems to forget who she fucked, because a guy walks in to break things uo and she feels confused by that because she thought he fucked her.honestly, when i read that it sounds like she was irritated with him - how can you tell me to stop when you already had your fun?

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous #4382
Bitch is angry la

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous #4386
Bitch is putting on a show. O dont know which guy it was, bit probably someone who snorted ket off her tits, so that cunt attacked him over something that was very minor (and consenting per Lucys slut statement)