- Forum Clout
- 43,595
-
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.
DMCA, complaints, and other inquiries:
[email protected]
An actual lawyer shits on Pat v1
- Thread starter RickReternal
- Start date
- Forum Clout
- 21,057
A real taking Pat to the cleaners. Nice
- Forum Clout
- 12,327
I may be drinking but he didn’t retweet that right? That’s an imposter child
Edit: drank too much. Go ahead call me niggerrr
- Forum Clout
- 261,553
I love seeing randos putting pat in his place and all pat can do is make himself look like the fool. Then he runs and hides for the night. Trying to self sooth with Star Wars shows.
- Forum Clout
- 35,708
Get him an account
Pig roasted, butchered and quartered.
Pig roasted, butchered and quartered.
- Forum Clout
- 115,000
Patrick has experience with REAL lawyers, like Resto the wine lawyer and niggy the DUI lawyer. And he knows how to pick which lawyers are best to fight his cases, which is why he hired both to fight online defamation suits.
- Forum Clout
- 261,553
Its great that pat hires legal council and then is difficult and doesnt take their advice while thinking he can do it on his own. It must make it so much easier to take him to the cleaners on billable hours without feeling guilty.
- Forum Clout
- 115,000
So I was interested in if this actually covers defamation since Pat is such an expert. Let's look at Wisconsin law:
942.01 Defamation.
(1) Whoever with intent to defame communicates any defamatory matter to a 3rd person without the consent of the person defamed is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
Now this sounds like what the troll was doing, until you read the next section.
(2) Defamatory matter is anything which exposes the other to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace in society or injury in the other's business or occupation.
Again, what the troll was doing, until you read the next section.
(3) This section does not apply if the defamatory matter was true and was communicated with good motives and for justifiable ends or if the communication was otherwise privileged.
Alright so this completely smashes the case, and we can now go back to the beginning of the statute.
It would first have to be established that the troll did this with the intent to defame and communicated any defamatory statements. However, defamation is null if the statements are true. Which they are. You cannot get more true than linking a police report of his actions, photos he took himself, tweets that are verifiably true, and a newspaper report. While the second clause may apply, the exposure to ridicule and contempt, once again it is made null by all the evidence presented being true. The only other "loophole" could be "and was communicated with good motives and for justifiable ends." In which case, the motives are good, alerting anyone to Patricks deviant behavior while criticizing lawlessness elsewhere.
He's a fucking tard, and he knows that, of course.
942.01 Defamation.
(1) Whoever with intent to defame communicates any defamatory matter to a 3rd person without the consent of the person defamed is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
Now this sounds like what the troll was doing, until you read the next section.
(2) Defamatory matter is anything which exposes the other to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace in society or injury in the other's business or occupation.
Again, what the troll was doing, until you read the next section.
(3) This section does not apply if the defamatory matter was true and was communicated with good motives and for justifiable ends or if the communication was otherwise privileged.
Alright so this completely smashes the case, and we can now go back to the beginning of the statute.
It would first have to be established that the troll did this with the intent to defame and communicated any defamatory statements. However, defamation is null if the statements are true. Which they are. You cannot get more true than linking a police report of his actions, photos he took himself, tweets that are verifiably true, and a newspaper report. While the second clause may apply, the exposure to ridicule and contempt, once again it is made null by all the evidence presented being true. The only other "loophole" could be "and was communicated with good motives and for justifiable ends." In which case, the motives are good, alerting anyone to Patricks deviant behavior while criticizing lawlessness elsewhere.
He's a fucking tard, and he knows that, of course.
- Forum Clout
- 42,034
Defamation cases are notoriously difficult to prove and win, especially if you're a Public Figure. They're also very, very expensive. His reputation and career are already in the shitter by his own doing because he's obsessed with starting fights, making, enemies, and burning bridges on social media every day and night. As usual, his own words and behavior will lose any defamation case he attempts, not that he can afford it. He could try In Forma Pauperis, but we've seen his pro se motion. It would be laughed out of court and he'd be saddled with another judgment for attorney's fees and court costs for the defendant.
- Forum Clout
- 47,391
Retards like pat always think they are the ones who decide what's justifiable and not a judge. It's amazing the cooes that stupid people have to pretend they are smart
- Forum Clout
- 115,000
And just like we saw, when a judge inevitably rules against them instead of accepting their case has no merit they blame everybody and everything. "Resto didnt inform me of my right to appeal, he was stupid and stepped on landmines. The judge was old and didnt understand my case, and if he did he was corrupt." and finally... "Actually the law is entirely corrupt and needs to be changed." Meanwhile he doesnt realize if Pat were to mold defamation laws in his exact broad interpretation we could probably all sue him and win.
- Forum Clout
- 95,082
civilians are ON FIRE lately
- Forum Clout
- 7,401
Oh please I hope he gets the opportunity to do a book report on the pro se filing from Pig vs Self.
- Forum Clout
- 35,971
You might've gone to law school, child, but I sold insurance over the phone which means I have been party to the signing of many more legal documents than you've ever dreamed of. Sit down, before you embarrass yourself further, bobble head.