Event JSON
{
"id": "585233088418e1f6b145043bedb476e8c58da5e71c0e4847ee9438e1b916b50d",
"pubkey": "b81aec0fc1bd6a95dfc56df7b42760004d3da570a949491723dce2b5dde5ab2c",
"created_at": 1701438470,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"e7f76f0d1fdf887c12cbf5eaf15dd3bb0b88f806051739f63200aae91a8a734e",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"9eefd04d32ab5da8de12d7b83201578ea095a676acf3a692ec1b0b202ae4e16f",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"dc51cd1c61e6a2f1f9e4e4190606d1fe1ed0eaefaf56790dce3a1b369f95563b",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://mastodon.social/users/hewittlaw/statuses/111505471558155075",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:npub1ulmk7rglm7y8cykt7h40zhwnhv9c37qxq5tnna3jqz4wjx52wd8q2whweg After D presented the Judge asked for P's response and P said they'd agree to carve out the PI but want to extend the asset freeze until they had a chance to respond in writing (despite the D motions being filed weeks ago and scheduled to be heard today). The Judge just said no he was denying the PI to the appearing defendants.",
"sig": "bc68115dae118c3048766d1b2d2d975f28fd41e6a8b6602ad7db51cdbb6ad22f5feb81ca2b1b56f493416331b212c5852a85f04aa20fa6b8d2fd855073848e9c"
}
