• Recently, onaforums has taken to opening a substack. You can subscribe to this substack to get email notifications when the site is down, gets a new domain name, or is otherwise running into trouble. We are not accepting donations at this time, so please skip the part where it asks if you would like to contribute. Subscribe at onaforums.substack.com

  • Reminder: Do not call, text, or mention harrassing someone in real life. Do not encourage it. Do not talk about killing or using violence against anyone, or engaging in any criminal behavior. If it is not an obvious joke even when taken out of context, don't post it. Please report violators. If you want your account deleted, send a private message to @BlackTransLivesMatter

    Do not post IRL pranks here without including the source

    DMCA, complaints, and other inquiries:

    [email protected]

Opie and Anthony Reddit Forums

quasi101

quasi101

the $83,736.99 fugitive
‎
Forum Clout
83,208
  • Deleted by N/A
NoBacon said:
Can someone smarter than me clear something up?

Quasi’s lawyer doesn’t have to explain that he has spent years and huge sums of money trying to obtain the judgement incurred because of Patrick’s lawsuit because it just doesn’t matter? As far as this judge is concerned, the original case doesn’t matter, it’s not on the table. It’s just simple he’s refusing to follow court orders let’s do something about it?

As a non lawyer and retard, I’d want my attorney to give an argument to the judge that’s basically “Patrick started this whole thing and my client has spent years and wasted a lot of money trying to reclaim his attorney fees…”

But the facts involve convey this anyway without having to be laid out, basically?
Click to expand...
retards like that cali dmv lawyer babble about stlakers and other shit. Same with Brinton's incoherent complaint. Sometimes it could work in biasing a judge, but from an abductive case the odds of it working vs making things worse are like 10:1. The "throw shit at the wall" approach, is exactly the opposite of what you should do. As we saw with adding quasi as a defendant all that does is allow for more avenues of defense. It also just distracts things.

Remember when Pena basically said, nothing else thanks, your honor. You do that. Divorcing emotion from things is difficult, which is why your lawyer should be doing that for you. It's why all the shit you guys want, durrrr why can't quasi doesn't quasi use the josiah audio. Why would you want to get bogged down in arguing if its even admissible? Should it be? Yeah it's a two-party state, but there's always a counterargument, and an appeal, and a motion for demurrer, or summary judgment, etc.etc. Stick to the best case you have and the best argument you have. That's how the prosecution fucked up with Zimmerman.

If I had to guess, quasi has probably gotten pissed at his lawyers more than once with something like. LOOK AT ALL THIS FUCKING SHIT WE CANT USE ANY OF IT, but then you talk to your attorney, who you pay to advocate for you but to be divorced from the emotion , and understand what i outlined above.
 
Top