The Civic Node

Doe v Bonnell ECF132 — Motion to Dismiss (Abby/Subpoena History)

4 min read

Original source

Summary

Bonnell’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, filed September 19, 2025. The motion argues that the sole federal hook — a CARDII claim under 15 U.S.C. § 6851 — fails because Bonnell’s only transmission of the video to “Rose” occurred in April 2022, nearly six months before CARDII’s October 1, 2022 effective date. Plaintiff’s new allegation that Bonnell also transmitted the video to a witness named “Abbymc” after March 2023 is controverted by Bonnell’s communication logs; the motion further argues that Abbymc has evaded service of a valid subpoena on advice of Plaintiff’s own counsel.

Key Points

  • CARDII (15 U.S.C. § 6851) effective date is October 1, 2022; Bonnell asserts his sole transmission to “Rose” occurred April 9, 2022 — before the statute took effect.
  • Leaked Discord screenshots show the transmission date in European day/month/year format (“10/04/22”) because the leaker, SoloTinyLeaks, was located in Europe; Bonnell’s own logs confirm the date as April 9, 2022 at 8:36 p.m. EST.
  • Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint introduced a new allegation: Bonnell transmitted the video to “Abbymc” sometime after March 2023 via Google Drive. Bonnell disputes this with his preserved communication logs showing no such file was sent.
  • Two Google Drive links Bonnell sent to Abbymc on November 3, 2023 are documented to depict another woman (“Peach”), not Plaintiff; Peach confirmed this in her own communications.
  • Abbymc’s declaration (ECF 49-2) and text message exhibit (ECF 86-1) — “I have videos of him f*cking cheiry and pxie like lmfao he just sent me another one haven’t opened it” — are characterized as inadmissible hearsay.
  • Abbymc has been aware of Bonnell’s subpoena but publicly evaded service; during a September 8, 2025 livestream with “DariusIRL,” Abbymc stated her attorneys advised her to evade service and “keep submitting evidence.”
  • Plaintiff’s counsel (Garcia Perez / Peters) also represents Abbymc, refused to accept service on her behalf, and refused to provide her contact information.
  • Plaintiff’s “continuous ongoing disclosure” theory — that a Google Drive or Discord link constitutes ongoing publication — is rejected by citing Wray v. Greenburg and Greenburg v. Wray (D. Ariz.).
  • If the federal CARDII claim is dismissed, the motion asks the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims (Counts II–IV, Florida law).

Newsletter Angles

  • The Abbymc subpoena evasion saga illustrates how third-party witnesses in content-creator lawsuits can orbit a case for months without ever being subjected to cross-examination — the process itself becomes a weapon.
  • The CARDII effective-date question is a real jurisdictional cliff: if the only provable transmission predates the statute, the entire federal case collapses regardless of how bad the underlying conduct was, illustrating the gap between moral culpability and legal remedy.
  • The “continuous disclosure” argument is a creative attempt to expand a privacy statute’s reach through its own definition of “disclose” — worth tracking as CARDII case law develops.

Entities Mentioned

Concepts Mentioned

  • Reachability Routing — the forensic argument about Discord CDN links and whether attachments remain “publicly accessible” after transmission
  • Catfishing as Legal Gap — the Rose catfish is peripheral here but the Abbymc obstruction raises a related gap: can a declarant shield themselves from cross-examination indefinitely?

Quotes

“I am currently being subpoenaed … [by] Destiny.” — Abbymc, DariusIRL livestream, September 8, 2025

“Because they send copies of it first … [t]heir lawyers send my lawyers the information.” — Abbymc, same livestream

“Avoid it and avoid [Bonnell] … [a]void everything and keep submitting evidence.” — Abbymc describing her attorneys’ advice, same livestream

Notes

  • Filed in response to the Court’s September 2, 2025 Order granting Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint, which Magistrate Judge Torres explicitly invited Bonnell to challenge by new 12(b)(1) motion.
  • The motion mounts a factual (not facial) 12(b)(1) attack, meaning no presumptive truthfulness attaches to Plaintiff’s allegations and the Court may weigh evidence directly.
  • Plaintiff had previously filed the Abbymc declaration a day late (May 3, 2025) after reply papers were due May 2, 2025.
  • Plaintiff’s own attorneys also represent Abbymc — the dual representation is central to the obstruction argument.
  • ECF 132 is sub judice at the time of ECF 210 (MSJ, filed January 30, 2026).

Graph View

Backlinks