PUBLIC MATERIALS

Document & media library.

image

Comment attachment by janedoe1

Screenshot_2026-10-16_151042.png

OCR: ready · Transcript: not_applicable · SHA-256 a532a0b825d42514…

pdf

Comment attachment by Anonymous

Screenshot_20261016_124209_Chrome.jpg

OCR: ready · Transcript: not_applicable · SHA-256 9a09e23d9038ff7a…

image

Comment attachment by Anonymous

Screenshot_20261016_123219_Chrome.jpg

OCR: ready · Transcript: not_applicable · SHA-256 1a921dc401ab7050…

pdf

ORDER - SEALING

NYSCEF document #70 | Filed: 2026-10-16 | Filed by: Court User Filed: Received: | Docket status: Processed Confirmation Notice | Source: NYSCEF, New York County Supreme Court

OCR: ready · Transcript: not_applicable · SHA-256 c0ea36ce3ebaf753…

pdf

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - DECLINED/WITHDRAWN (Motion #002)

NYSCEF document #69 | Filed: 2026-10-16 | Filed by: Court User Filed: Received: | Docket status: Processed Confirmation Notice | Source: NYSCEF, New York County Supreme Court

OCR: ready · Transcript: not_applicable · SHA-256 d2e1262b3525b444…

pdf

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - DECLINED/WITHDRAWN (Motion #002)

NYSCEF document #69 | Filed: 2026-10-16 | Filed by: Court User Filed: Received: | Current docket status: Processed Confirmation Notice | Court: New York County Supreme Court

OCR: ready · Transcript: not_applicable · SHA-256 e8e3f77bf73bce60…

image

Comment attachment by janedoe1

Screenshot_20261016_113245_Chrome.jpg

OCR: ready · Transcript: not_applicable · SHA-256 3c81668354dbcb85…

video

y9NOdjTuOnk663_q

Whackadoodles screaming for Lucy Craig

OCR: not_applicable · Transcript: ready · SHA-256 8344790640870523…

image

Comment attachment by janedoe1

letters_to_jane_doe.jpg

OCR: ready · Transcript: not_applicable · SHA-256 68aaad2dfe951ba3…

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.

Anonymous2026-10-22 15:56 UTC #4312

I don't know about all the sexual proclivities, but she is really pretty!

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-11-01 04:03 UTC #4663

If you like butch or masculine women, bro.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-11-01 04:34 UTC #4673

In some of the oictures she looks awesome, but i think her real gift is makeuo, and i suspect its getting harder to make her look feminine becaise she is bulking up. People have long speculated she might be trans, and recent pictures seem to suggest she is transitioning

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 3

Anonymous2026-11-01 04:55 UTC #4676

Not all histrionics are like her, but she comes off as really histrionic. Allegedly exaggerating an 8 person gang bang with drugs as rape? Reopening the case for money and further exaggerating, supposedly lying in a sworn statement to do so? Mentioning her orientation in the report? Making a video about her condition and also mentioning it multiple times? Using empowering slogans like "our body our choice asf"?

I can't trust her as far as I can throw her, and she's a big girl who likes to show off. I can't throw her.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-22 17:08 UTC #4317

I think she is a makeup genius, shes okay then looks hot when made up. Maybe make up now that hotel admin is out the window?

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-22 18:50 UTC #4320

"I thought about becoming a cosmetologist, but I don't think I could handle weightlessness." --Lucy Craig

Anonymous2026-10-22 02:51 UTC #4291

This case is a mess. The reason is due to the alcohol and drug intoxication of both the accused and the accuser at the time of the occurrence. I do not believe any prosecutor would be successful in bringing criminal charges because there is so much evidence in the way of texts soon after the night of debauchery indicating there was no crime of rape.

If I am wrong, and criminal charges are brought, there is also the very real possibility of the accuser herself being charged as well. The accuser orally stimulated one of the fraternity members who had passed out, and in doing so - she committed the same crime she is accusing the 7 fraternity members of (having non-consensual sex with a person who is incapacitated due to drugs/alcohol). So, I see this going nowhere except for the very good possibility that Jane Doe/Lucy C. may be offered an out of court settlement by Cornell, and she would likely have to also sign a non-disclosure agreement preventing her from publicly disclosing any details.

The Cornell Campus Police Dept employs an experienced female investigator who - in her previous law enforcement career with a different agency - investigated "sex crimes" for 20 years. That female investigator conducted 50 interviews and prepared a 99 page report of her findings. If there was a case to be made, there would have been arrests and indictments when it was reported 3 weeks after the incident. The intoxication and drug impairment of all involved (accuser and accused) make this case nearly impossible to prosecute due to credibility issues. The District Attorney or Attorney General would also have to entertain any criminal complaint made by the passed-out fraternity member who was too impaired to give his consent to the accuser's actions when she started blowing him. That would completely neutralize "Jane Doe" and she would withdraw her participation in legal action.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-22 17:10 UTC #4318

I want it to go to court so they can point out all they did for hrr, but i dont think i trust a jury at this point

Anonymous2026-10-17 21:29 UTC #3977

Black, white, mixed, arab, asian! This girl fucked the rainbow in one evening! Not the playing together Martin Luther King had in mind, but still a win for diversity

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-22 11:29 UTC #4299

BREAKING: Skittles hires Lucy Craig as new Taste The Rainbow ambassador...

Anonymous2026-10-13 01:16 UTC #2996

Y’all practically handing her a defamation case.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-15 20:18 UTC #3616

How is it "defamatory" to report that slut Lucy Craig snorted K off a guy's cock? Truth Is An Absolute Defense Against Libel

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-13 02:56 UTC #3032

She's the one who gave her testimony and was told there were no crimes committed.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-17 17:03 UTC #3874

Research Fawning.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 3

Anonymous2026-10-25 20:10 UTC #4426

Oh, you’re one of the dumb ones. Fawning happens mostly in established relationships with a power differential, not in one night stands. If she wants to live a hoe life, that’s ok. Her body, her choice, but can be calling promiscuity rape once you get called out.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 3

Anonymous2026-10-18 00:21 UTC #4010

Hi I was a victim and I would placate and fawn, this is not what that looks like. They were the ones uncomfortable and she was the one trying to make it seem normal. We have no evidence that they were so manipulative and coercive that she had to make sure they were happy, the thing that changes her tune is her being uninvited to the party, to which she lashed out and changed her story entirely. She wasn't afraid of them or not being believed like most victims, she confidently said they would be charged. She also wanted to pass out so that she could charge them, even tho every time she said no they would stop and they told her she could relax.

Fawning is not a catch all to explain unusual "trauma" responses. You're not being helpful.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 3

Anonymous2026-10-17 21:53 UTC #3983

GTFO with yer bullshit psychobabble.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 3

G @GenXWildflower2026-10-17 20:54 UTC #3975

This is me

Anonymous2026-10-12 07:41 UTC #2767

What's worse? A woman who doesn't go to the police out of fear, so instead goes to social media? Or a woman who went to the police, the police said they considered all she said was true, but they confirmed no crime was committed, then she tries to rally the court of public opinion only to be sided against by everyone but basic tiktok brained hypocrites who don't care about the man accusing her, who based on her own testimony was more out of it than she was?

Btw not saying everyone is ready to go to the police, I'm saying if you don't go to the police but do try reputation degradation and the victim card on social media I question ur motives.

Anonymous2026-10-11 21:16 UTC #2635

As a woman, I have known 3 women who have claimed they have been raped 10+ times….I can attest that all 3 women I’m mentioning are MID at best. This is a common trend amongst girls who feel low value to themselves due to not being pretty enough. I’ve never spoken about this to anybody but my husband…it’s a very weird psychological phenomenon low ranking women have going on…stay safe out there guys and stay away from ugly girls!!

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

G @GenXWildflower2026-10-17 20:57 UTC #3976

You're either an incel guy or a suuuper UGGLY chick.

↳ Reply to @GenXWildflower · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-17 21:45 UTC #3980

Grandma

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-16 17:52 UTC #3749

No one believes you’re a woman

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-13 05:05 UTC #3062

I've known a lot of men and women who lied, mostly women, then again I know a lot who were telling the truth. Luckily most liars aren't dumb enough to go to the police, they just try and get sympathy out of it.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-13 07:32 UTC #3091

Guys, expect more women to escalate lies in future, this is exactly the kind of thing the tik tok generation lives for. I think you need to give a girl a psyche examination before she can have a threesome

Anonymous2026-10-10 10:40 UTC #1788

Looks like a butch male and Chucky the doll. ewwwwww

Anonymous2026-10-10 05:46 UTC #1727

That’s why I’m a virgin at 23. In Huzz we don’t trust.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-17 17:01 UTC #3873

Not everyone is given the choice of deciding when they lose their virginity. Many of us have it stolen from us at a young age when we weren't even thinking about being ready.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-31 10:07 UTC #4644

You know this is self-deprecating humor about a guy who has never found not a single person to ever have sex with him, right?

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-31 10:07 UTC #4643

You know this is self-deprecating humor about a guy who has never found not a single person to ever have sex with him, right?

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-18 04:03 UTC #4020

Not me! #IamLucyCraig

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

@janedoe12026-10-17 17:23 UTC #3879

I am genuinely sorry this happened. We live in a cruel world, and there is no excuse for the suffering that victims of sexual violence endure.

But I also believe that, as a society, we have a responsibility to be thoughtful about whom we elevate as champions of important causes. When we uncritically embrace a particular individual or case as representative of an entire movement, we risk undermining the very principles we claim to defend. Sexual violence is something society should overwhelmingly and unequivocally condemn. That principle should never be in dispute.

The problem arises when a particular case, involving allegations that deserve scrutiny and a complainant whose credibility is being questioned, is elevated into a moral crusade. Her attorneys have placed her at the center of a much larger public conversation, portraying her as a symbol of victimhood while seemingly demanding that the public accept her account without meaningful examination. They appear to want the moral certainty of the broader cause to substitute for the evidentiary scrutiny required in this particular case.

That is not how justice works, nor should it be how public discourse operates.

We must be intellectually honest enough to distinguish criticism of one particular accusation from criticism of victims generally. Those are two entirely different things. And, judging by many of the comments on this site, a substantial number of participants understand that distinction perfectly well.

In my view, the attorneys in this matter for Lucy Craig have deliberately attached their client's case to a universally accepted moral principle: rape is wrong. They have used that principle to build public sympathy while attempting to characterize scrutiny of the specific allegations as an attack on victims of sexual violence everywhere. It is an effective public-relations strategy, but it is not a substitute for evidence, credibility, or the truth.

You can hate this website. You can disagree with its contributors, criticize its tone, or reject its conclusions. That is your right.

But understand something fundamental: Questioning an allegation is not defending rape. Challenging someone's credibility is not attacking every victim. Demanding evidence is not denying that sexual violence exists.

Nobody here is arguing that rape is acceptable. What we are saying is that every accusation deserves to be evaluated on its own facts, without being insulated from scrutiny by the moral importance of the broader cause.

We can condemn rape absolutely while refusing to accept every accusation uncritically. Those positions are not contradictory. They are essential to a society that values both justice for victims and fairness for the accused.

And sometimes, the most responsible thing we can say is simply:

"We have questions about this particular case, and we are entitled to ask them."

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 3

Anonymous2026-10-17 17:41 UTC #3883

All of this is true, and extremely well-written.

I fully understand what you're saying regarding who we chose as champions for a cause, especially one this important and controversial in many ways. However, to me, I think of it simply as a way to raise broader awareness for rape and sexual assault victims of any sex without assigning a specific person to it.

I definitely agree the questions are worth asking in this case.

To me though she only agreed to the 3some and when that was shut down the men kept it going with drugs and coercion and she didn't know how to make it stop, especially if she was "gone" as they described her as being. Also, a huge issue you failed to mention was when those texts were sent out with offers of sex along with photos 📸? Yeah, that's 100% sex trafficking. And that cannot be forgiven or explained away.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 4

Anonymous2026-10-19 12:18 UTC #4093

Nobody described her as gone, that was a fake screenshot. It has never been verified it just started being spread around randomly bc Lucy supporters have so little on their side they have to make up evidence.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 4

Anonymous2026-10-17 17:43 UTC #3884

choose*

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-10 18:16 UTC #2110

Blessss

D @DarkRose2026-10-08 06:37 UTC #40

I do not support rape, SA, or victim-blaming in any way. I am personally a victim of sexual violence myself—I refused and was forced through threats and violence, with heavy intoxication also involved. I'm not saying this to play the victim, but to make my position clear.

That said, when a woman accuses a man and the man turns around and accuses the woman, automatically taking the woman's side does not help victims or destigmatize coming forward. Both are potential victims, and demonizing one as the attacker without examining the evidence is dangerous. If Male 1's allegations are true and he could not consent, then you have done a horribly evil thing.

Everything I present here is alleged.

I think you have to be an idiot to engage in sexual activity with someone who is intoxicated because consent gets muddled, and even if it isn't legally rape, it's ethically questionable at best. But if the police report is accurate, both men she explicitly consented to have a threesome with may have been much more intoxicated than she was. If your argument is that intoxication = non-consent = rape, then there's an obvious double standard, because you might have an easier time arguing that she's the rapist.

Police report: https://lucycraig.blog/media/95

There are also alleged text messages where, seemingly without coercion and of her own volition, she says she liked what happened that night and that none of the sexual activity was illegal. It's true that victims can placate their abusers, but aside from that night, I can't find alleged evidence of these men abusing her.

She later told Male 2: “everyone needs to grow up cause sexuality and sex and s--- is changing and stuff like this is going to become more common, I'm also really open minded tho, I luv you king.”

Her tone changes later, when her reputation is tarnished and she can't attend a party with her alleged rapists. She says, “I knew this was going to happen. The woman will always get the short end of the stick. Y'all aren't my friends. Y'all are covering your asses,” and, “Let's be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual.”

I understand manipulation happens and trauma can put people into denial, but the timing and the contradiction between “everything was legal” and “90% wasn't consensual” are staggering.

She also records a phone call. I haven't seen anything suggesting Male 1 knew he was being recorded, so she may have been trying to trap him by changing her tone. During the call, he says, “You did tell me you were sober, by the way,” and “You did, you said you hadn't been anywhere,” which she denies.

She herself describes the two men as heaving or passing out, yet when she says she wasn't sober, she treats that as rape. What does that make her? I'm not saying intoxication can't constitute rape, it can and it should, but it's still a complication that should be considered on a case-by-case analysis, especially with multiple people who have different levels of intoxication involved.

Scott Kretzschmar, who didn't do drugs or participate in the sex acts (though she accused him of snorting K off her body), said, “she didn't seem inebriated at all,” and said she told him she was good.

Scott Norris, an independent witness who saw the “free pussy” message and was initially concerned, said, “She was conversational with people, and that alleviated whatever concerns I had from the text before.”

Without context, the message sounds like she's being pimped out, but she had explicitly agreed to a threesome. Obviously, agreeing to something doesn't mean agreeing to everything. Consent can be retracted before or during an act. But the context that what was happening in that room was unselective debauchery makes the “free pussy” message less rapey.

[https://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/News-articles/District-Attorney-statement-regarding-Jane-Doe-v.-Cornell-University-et-al](https://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/News-articles/District-Attorney-statement-regarding-Jane-Doe-v.-Cornell-University-et-al)

This contains her statement and a legal analysis, as well as what I can find of her testimony in the police report. She has supposedly changed parts of her account, but I don't have the details.

The DA's analysis is important because it says prosecutors and investigators assumed her allegations were true for purposes of review and still determined that the alleged facts did not constitute a crime. It specifically states that her credibility “was never in question.”

Her statement described agreeing to the threesome because of her attraction to Male 1 and said she was “pretty ok with having this threesome.”

She said the sexual conduct stopped when Male 1 became sleepy and was no longer fully erect. She told Male 2 they needed to stop to make sure Male 1 was okay, and Male 2 stopped.

While Male 1 slept, Male 2 began dry heaving. She took care of him while waking Male 1 to check on him.

Male 1 later woke up and asked about making it a foursome. She said “Hell No” because she understood that would mean participating in anal sex.

She also stated that around 5:45am, she said she was tired and needed to turn in, and “both guys stopped the threesome with [her] as far as [she] can remember.”

The DA's legal analysis states that under New York Penal Law 130.05, sexual assault requires proof that the sexual act occurred without consent, which can involve forcible compulsion, mental incapacitation, physical helplessness, or certain circumstances where the victim clearly expressed non-consent. I recommend you look at the DA's statement for yourself, because it goes into detail as to how her case doesn't qualify.

So, to conclude: based on the evidence we have, I think Male 1 has a better claim to victimhood than Jane Doe, although perhaps they're all victims in some way—not necessarily of rape, but certainly of demoralizing decisions and activities.

Later regret may indicate coercion, but it does not establish lack of consent at the time. Consent can be withdrawn before or during an act, but not after unless it was never given.

If you say it was definitely rape because she became too intoxicated to consent, you need to apply that same standard to Male 1. Otherwise, you're proving my point: it's not about protecting victims; it's about a bandwagon.

You are not a good person for shaming another potential victim because he was a man. That's bad karma, and I hope it never comes for you.

↳ Reply to @DarkRose · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-17 17:23 UTC #3878

He got up and propositioned her! She didn't go to him while he was passed out or clearly too wasted to consent and force herself on him!!

They also state she's "gone" at one point and continue to allegedly assault her!!

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-19 12:11 UTC #4090

"shes gone" isn't a real screenshot unlike some of the other ones circulating in this case. Do your research.

"She didn't go to him while he was passed out or clearly too wasted to consent and force herself on him!! " Nobody did this to her either, but that doesn't matter. If you're saying she was too intoxicated to consent, surely someone passing out is also too out of it.

↳ Reply to @DarkRose · Level 1

D @DarkRose2026-10-10 05:34 UTC edited #1722

Ppl be posting the GC messages like I didn't already talk about it in the post.

Edit: looks like the photos (saying shes gone and what not) are not confirmed to be real and are likely AI generated.

↳ Reply to @DarkRose · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-09 16:48 UTC #1480

No one is sharing him because he is a man. He was the one advertising free pussy and posting pictures of her. Hard to feel sympathy for a man that tries to get a crown of 50 boys to assault a woman.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-17 17:47 UTC #3888

Over 50 MEN. Well, "men" anyway. 😆

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 3

Anonymous2026-10-19 12:13 UTC #4091

Yeah 50 guys totally all read the message at the exact same time at 1 during a party. 2 men allegedly did check, and they said she was okay. Except one is now accused, so maybe he shouldn't have checked after all.

Feminists played themselves with that one. You're never happy.

↳ Reply to @DarkRose · Level 1

D @DarkRose2026-10-09 02:36 UTC #1314

"Otherwise, you're proving my point: it's not about protecting victims; it's about a bandwagon." According to her Male 1 and 2 were more intoxicated, but you don't give them the benefit of the doubt, only her. What happened to us is not comparable to what she's claiming happened to her.

↳ Reply to @DarkRose · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-17 17:51 UTC #3889

Again, she was not forcing herself on them. Them being wasted and progressing the interactions while seeing she was wasted would be assault.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 3

Anonymous2026-10-19 12:15 UTC #4092

Did you make that up just now? If you are too wasted to consent it doesn't matter if you are reciprocating. This is borderline rape apologia, just to talk Lucy out of the mess she found herself in. Good job.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 4

Anonymous2026-10-19 12:21 UTC #4094

How many times did she come? we have a right to know!

↳ Reply to @DarkRose · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-09 02:15 UTC #1304

I meant to attach this photo - where he’s inviting a bunch of men to take advantage of her (aka rape her) while she’s high as balls on ketamine (it’s a horse tranquilizer). It’s astounding to me that people find it implausible that men giving a woman a substance they’ve never tried would be used as a tool to subdue someone so they can be violated. There used to be pick up artists in the 90s who made informational content for men on how to get laid that would encourage men do this to increase their number of lays. It’s absolutely repulsive. All of this. And the morally bankrupt society that has over sexualized women to a point where they think causal sex is “empowering” and “normal” when in reality, it puts us at such massive risk. I participated in hookup culture and random men I met online did assault me. I found God now, and everyday I thank Him for not letting any of my attackers kill me. First time: 16 years old, a 36 year old man pushed me into his bedroom and started to make out with me while I was on Xanax. I was at a drug dealers house. When I came to, thankfully he didn’t try to restrain me and I got away (there were other people in the house). Then in college, a man forced my face onto his private area after I explicitly told him I didn’t want to have sex. And he tried to hold me down until I started screaming at him and crying. My mistake for going to his house on the first date. I was so incredibly lonely. I had to drive myself drunk because I was so terrified and needed to get out immediately. God saved me for a reason. I won’t let him down again. And I realize now, why the older generations of women were so against this casual sex culture. They were right.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-13 07:31 UTC #3090

He was just her marketing agent

↳ Reply to @DarkRose · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-09 02:06 UTC #1302

So you don’t think this constitutes evidence of a crime, or a pattern of repeated abuse? NY law doesn’t consider voluntary intoxication, but at the very least the encouragement to a group chat of 50+ men to get “free pussy” and just “whip it out” without obtaining consent of the other participants makes her claims entirely plausible. Her processing of traumatic events after being assaulted by people in her community that she knew (a condition that occurs in 80% of cases) was entirely understandable and likely inadmissible as evidence in court. It should be.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

D @DarkRose2026-10-16 01:02 UTC #3653

I went down a rabbit hole and wasn't able to verify these are real no matter what I looked for. They appear AI generated.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-12 07:44 UTC #2768

I wouldn't personally. Remember girls gone wild? A lot of them were high or drunk but knew the pics were being taken and were all for it. Sorry if I don't think a chick doing a threesome and then letting 7 more do ketamine off her body and talking about her body her choice and "I'm open times are changing" wasn't consenting to these pics.

She was the one not invited to the party bc she can't handle herself btw.

↳ Reply to @DarkRose · Level 1

@janedoe12026-10-09 00:46 UTC #1284

Do you have a tl/dc version?

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-15 21:20 UTC #3620

you mean, tl/dr?

Document & media library.

Comment attachment by janedoe1

AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE New York State Governor Kathleen M. Hochul

AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Attorney General Letitia James

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE-SIGNED (Motion #1) *Corrected*

RJI -RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

EXHIBIT(S) - 8. New Articles

EXHIBIT(S) - 7. AG James's Release Statement

EXHIBIT(S) - 6. AG James's X Statement

EXHIBIT(S) - 5. Executive Order No. 64

EXHIBIT(S) - 4. Governor Hochul October 1, 2026 Statement

EXHIBIT(S) - 3. CNN Article

EXHIBIT(S) - 2. News Articles

EXHIBIT(S) - 1. Civil Summons and Complaint

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ( PROPOSED )

AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED OSC/EXPARTE APP

PETITION

Comment attachment by Anonymous

Comment attachment by Anonymous

ORDER - SEALING

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - DECLINED/WITHDRAWN (Motion #002)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - DECLINED/WITHDRAWN (Motion #002)

Comment attachment by janedoe1

y9NOdjTuOnk663_q

Comment attachment by janedoe1

Comments & replies

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE-SIGNED (Motion #1) Corrected