Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
💼 CareercowAlyssa Mercante / beerandfeminism / kombitchaTEArex / High Heeled Gamer / hayy GIRL hayy / uhLyssa15 - From failed sex worker to failed clickbait journalist. A far-left racist narcissistic abusive smug feminazi. Stalks her targets and their families, DEI & SBI activist, alcoholic junkie, threatens gamers & YouTubers to public fights and then lawsuits.
🔧 Site instability resolved. You can report double-posts and broken attachments. For bigger issues, use the Technical Grievances thread.
🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading. Create account
Mercante v. Tarzia
1:24-cv-08471— District Court, E.D. New York
Docket No.
1:24-cv-08471
Court
District Court, E.D. New York
Filed
10 de Dic, 2024
Nature of Suit
320 Assault Libel & Slander
Cause
28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
Jurisdiction
Diversity
Jury Demand
Plaintiff
Last Filing
21 de Jun, 2026
Parties (2)
Parties
Jeff Tarzia, Alyssa Mercante
Recent Filings
(showing 5 of 201)
#
Date
Description
Filing
—
21 de Jun, 2026
SCHEDULING ORDER: A virtual Settlement Conference regarding Plaintiff's Motion 100 will be held before Magistrate Judge Lara K. Eshkenazi on 6/23/2026 at 2:30pm. The parties will receive a zoom link via email from Chambers prior to the conference. The parties are directed to submit ex parte settlement letters via email to Eshkenazi_Chambers@nyed.uscourts.gov by 6/22/2026. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lara K. Eshkenazi on 6/22/2026. (MED)
104
16 de Jun, 2026
REPLY in Support re 100 MOTION for Sanctions and MOTION for Contempt /to Certify Facts to the District Judge for Contempt, as to Defendant's Counsel Filing Confidential Information on the Public Docket, 102 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by Alyssa Mercante. (Green, Remy) (Entered: 06/17/2026)
REPLY in Support re 99 Memorandum in Opposition, Order on Motion for Leave to File, 96 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court,, filed by Alyssa Mercante. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Reply Declaration of Remy Green, # 2 Exhibit Green Reply Ex. 1 - Email Thread, # 3 Exhibit Green Reply Ex. 2 - Westlaw AI Report, # 4 Exhibit Green Reply Ex. 3 - Westlaw AI Sources Tab, # 5 Exhibit Green Reply Ex. 4 - Westlaw AI Warning to "Never" Use AI Research Without Reading the Cases) (Green, Remy) (Entered: 06/16/2026)
MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 100 MOTION for Sanctions and MOTION for Contempt /to Certify Facts to the District Judge for Contempt, as to Defendant's Counsel Filing Confidential Information on the Public Docket filed by Jeff Tarzia. (Coleman, Ronald) (Entered: 06/15/2026)
ORDER granting 101 Motion for Leave to File. Plaintiff shall file their reply in support of 96 Appeal of Magistrate Decision on or before June 18, 2026. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 6/11/2026. (FSC)
Interestingly, I saw an article today about a Nassau County Supreme Court judge (Rhonda Fischer) who quashed a subpoena for ChatGPT records in a civil suit by a pro se litigant. ChatGPT would have done a better job than Ron Coleman AND JT could have claimed the AI records are "confidential, strategy-laden iterative work product."
Interestingly, I saw an article today about a Nassau County Supreme Court judge (Rhonda Fischer) who quashed a subpoena for ChatGPT records in a civil suit by a pro se litigant. ChatGPT would have done a better job than Ron Coleman AND JT could have claimed the AI records are "confidential, strategy-laden iterative work product."
Do you happen to have a link for me? I'd like to look up the case.
There are multiple options why this might have gotten quashed, and I'd like to see why and if Ron could have made the same argument.
Looks like Smash JT is AI-baiting not only Alyssa Mercante as usual, but her main chihuahua lapdog Airbagged and his loyal autistic Airbagged dickriding sperg (and future lolcow if I can get dirt on that furry asspie) KillerDucky!
Speaking of Dave Rivera, thanks to @DyslexicMoogledropping karma nukes, we get to know a bit about the Rivera family like his fat ugly drunk mother Wendy Glover Rivera / Johnson, his neckbeard stepfather Rick Johnson, his BBC-loving BBC-owned sister Alexandra K. Rivera and her nigglet daughter AJ Rivera, and his birth father David Edgardo Rivera that actually left the family a long time ago, which explains why Dave didn't post a photo of himself with his dad since David went out for smokes and never came back. And what does Dave do all Father's Day long? Going batshit crazy over his Kiwi Farms thread and picking fights with random people pointing out his creepshot pedophilia while he and his dickriders delusionally claims that his Kiwi Farms thread "awesome" and "based".
And AI just for the lulz.
EDIT: I feel sorry for the cat Riot that has to deal with Alyssa Mercante.
Vote for Claire Valdez & Darializa Avila Chevalier, you LARPing chuds!
Settlement Conference - tomorrow June 23rd at 2:30pm EST, over Ron paying for the Accountant who had to fix his leak of opposing counsel's banking info among other things.
Will be held via Zoom, but likely not public.
Do you happen to have a link for me? I'd like to look up the case.
There are multiple options why this might have gotten quashed, and I'd like to see why and if Ron could have made the same argument.
I am not sure the judge got that right. Especially the special treatment and tard-guarding for a pro-se litigant is appalling.
If the AI subscription allows the sharing of the user data with third parties, then the opposing counsel should have access to it by default.
If the AI subscription prohibits sharing with third parties, they should not.
For me it really is that simple, prompts or products of the AI use are shared with third parties, they should no longer be considered confidential.
I am not sure the judge got that right. Especially the special treatment and tard-guarding for a pro-se litigant is appalling.
If the AI subscription allows the sharing of the user data with third parties, then the opposing counsel should have access to it by default.
If the AI subscription prohibits sharing with third parties, they should not.
For me it really is that simple, prompts or products of the AI use are shared with third parties, they should no longer be considered confidential.
Yeah I’m not a huge fan of insulating pro se litigants from ALL the consequences of their actions. I understand the basis of her decision, but it’s not like pro se litigants don’t have other options.
