Original source — Post later deleted; archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20250121011243/https://pxie412.substack.com/p/i-will-be-suing-steven-kenneth-bonnell
Summary
Jane Doe (Pxie)‘s original public announcement of her intention to sue Steven K. Bonnell II, published January 20, 2025 and later deleted from her Substack. This is the first public statement from the plaintiff herself, describing the leak’s personal impact, her rationale for going public, the statutes she intends to invoke, and the GiveSendGo fundraiser for legal costs. It contains Pxie’s own narrative of discovering the leak on November 29, 2024, her characterization of Bonnell’s conduct, and screenshots she describes as an evidence log (Bonnell apologizing, downplaying her pain, and offering to pay a utility bill).
Key Points
- Pxie states she learned about the leak on November 29, 2024 — the same day the KiwiFarms drop occurred.
- She describes herself as 19 years old at the time of the 2020 encounter (“over 5 years ago”), sexually inexperienced, and as having had “multiple long conversations with [Destiny] regarding consent and boundaries” before the encounter.
- She identifies herself as “at least the third person he has done this to.”
- She describes Bonnell’s alleged actions: “sent pornographic content of me to a random 19 year old e-girl discord kitten whom he had never met before, and then she published it to the whole world.” She adds: “I think it is just as likely that he used her as a proxy to widely distribute this material, while claiming deniability.”
- Key legal statement: “For the past month I have been speaking to lawyers about my situation and what to do, and have decided this is the best course of action.” This confirms a December 2024–January 2025 period of legal consultation but does not state any attorney declined the case.
- Statutes cited: 15 U.S.C. § 6851 (federal intimate image protection) and “Publication of Private Facts in Florida.”
- GiveSendGo fundraiser launched (givesendgo.com/suedestiny); over $27,000 raised in initial wave.
- She expresses fear of being outspent by Bonnell and wonders whether his talk of suing others is “an indirect flaunt/warning over his capability of out spending me.”
- Makes a political argument: warns the Democratic Party against platforming Bonnell given his behavior; names Marianne Williamson and Martin O’Malley as figures who had appeared with him.
- Evidence log references: screenshots of Bonnell’s apology message, his minimization of her concerns, and his offer to pay a bill.
Newsletter Angles
- Pxie’s framing sets the public terms of the case before any court filings: she explicitly opens the question of whether Bonnell used Rose as a “proxy” for distribution, anticipating the catfishing defense. This is a more sophisticated framing than later press coverage acknowledged.
- The political register — calling on the Democratic Party to reject Bonnell, framing the lawsuit as protecting women in politics — positions the case as a movement moment, not just personal grievance. Whether or not that framing held through litigation is worth examining.
- The fundraiser dynamic: $27,000+ raised quickly illustrates how civil litigation against creators becomes a funding mechanism and audience-building exercise simultaneously. Litigation as content, monetized.
- The contrast between “I was told there is no realistic way the court will grant me anonymity” (she ultimately filed under pseudonym) and the actual pseudonym-at-trial dispute (ECF 231) is worth tracking.
Entities Mentioned
- Jane Doe (Pxie) — author; plaintiff; describing the leak’s personal impact and her legal strategy
- Steven K. Bonnell II — defendant; quoted indirectly through described evidence log
Concepts Mentioned
- Streamer Civil Litigation — plaintiff’s own articulation of the litigation-as-movement framing
- Reachability Routing — Pxie explicitly contemplates the proxy theory (“he used her as a proxy to widely distribute this material, while claiming deniability”)
Quotes
“Steven Kenneth Bonnell II, sent pornographic content of me to a random 19 year old e-girl discord kitten whom he had never met before, and then she published it to the whole world. Rest assured, despite never having met her, he at least spoke to her plenty of times on the phone.”
“I think it is just as likely that he used her as a proxy to widely distribute this material, while claiming deniability.”
“For the past month I have been speaking to lawyers about my situation and what to do, and have decided this is the best course of action.”
“Whoever the next ‘Joe Rogan of the Left’ is, it cannot be someone that crosses sexual boundaries, violates consent, and puts women’s well being and safety at risk.”
Notes
- Post was deleted from Pxie’s Substack after publication; only preserved via Wayback Machine archive (January 21, 2025 snapshot).
- This is Pxie’s own unmediated public statement — not counsel’s filing. The legal citations and factual framing may not reflect what counsel ultimately argued in court.
- The claim about “speaking to lawyers… for the past month” does not say those lawyers declined the case, contrary to claims made on Destiny’s stream. It only confirms she consulted lawyers before deciding to file.
- The evidence log screenshots described in the post are not reproduced in the raw file; only described.