He. Belongs. In. JAIL

[RickReternal]

@pay_quasi12356 is doing the Lord’s work on X today.

 

[Cyberatorquer]

Fatrick provides the best references, stlaker. I'm sorry you're so stupid, I can't help you.

 

[SFWA liaison]

Reminder Eric Hildeman condoned doxing that man and accusing him (only online, not before authorities) of horrible crimes.

 

[Antwan Kumiya]

That reply reminds me of the same self awareness as “It’s a penlight stlaker.” You’re missing the point you retard.

 

[lowend73]

the last time I checked on Pat was back in the olden days.

glad to see he is still his pretentious self.

I saw some jail talk, is he a Domestic Abuser like you know who?

 

[Antwan Kumiya]

the last time I checked on Pat was back in the olden days.

glad to see he is still his pretentious self.

I saw some jail talk, is he a Domestic Abuser like you know who?

He’s got a contempt of court charge on the horizon for not paying the 50k he owes our fearless chad fuhrer quasi for the lolsuit

 

[Opesterino]

the last time I checked on Pat was back in the olden days.

glad to see he is still his pretentious self.

I saw some jail talk, is he a Domestic Abuser like you know who?

well he did threaten to kill his ex wife while she was still pregnant with his only child. dunno if you would count that as domestic abuse or not.. let's just say - it has been verified that is he into things.

 

[guest]

well he did threaten to kill his ex wife while she was still pregnant with his only child. dunno if you would count that as domestic abuse or not.. let's just say - it has been verified that is he into things.

I believe he threatened to wait until Annabelle was born, eat her in a single bite and then jump up and down on Ade until she was a smear on the hospital bed.

 

[HalfHouseFatty]

I'm no law scholar obviously, not like Rick, but the main difference of no contest would be for civil issues right? WHen you plead guilty you're saying you did the thing. So if Rona (who does not exist) child, or Adrienne wanted to use that in a civil proceeding they can use him pleading guilty to win their case. No contest means you're not objecting ("contesting") the criminal charges. In the eys of the criminal court a no contest means you did the thing. But in civil Rona couldn't use that. I'm guessing this equivocation on guilt in civil vs criminal is the technicality tomlinson point?

I'm not in court often (judge child), so I'm not familiar with no contest. This may be all wrong.

He plead no contest to threatening to kill his wife/baby and then didn't he not know what no contest meant at his traffic court hearing?

 

[RickReternal]

He plead no contest to threatening to kill his wife/baby and then didn't he not know what no contest meant at his traffic court hearing?

He said he plead no contest to the disorderly behavior charge because it was cheaper/easier than hiring a lawyer and no one told him it was an admission. It’s not clear he put those pieces together when the judge explained it during the traffic court hearing years later. It took his X friends painting him a picture using the Portage docs that Dan got a hold of.

 

[DominusOdium]

He's gonna Bawl in Cell Block 99

 

[Safka's Enticer]

The Bitch Tits of Fagmar

 

[BonnieMcFarlaneMe2]

I'm no law scholar obviously, not like Rick, but the main difference of no contest would be for civil issues right? WHen you plead guilty you're saying you did the thing. So if Rona (who does not exist) child, or Adrienne wanted to use that in a civil proceeding they can use him pleading guilty to win their case. No contest means you're not objecting ("contesting") the criminal charges. In the eys of the criminal court a no contest means you did the thing. But in civil Rona couldn't use that. I'm guessing this equivocation on guilt in civil vs criminal is the technicality tomlinson point?

I'm not in court often (judge child), so I'm not familiar with no contest. This may be all wrong.

Did you recently go to law school or something?
Edit: fun fact about a not guilty verdict is that it technically means “not proven” instead of “innocent.”

 

[FurBurger]

Edit: fun fact about a not guilty verdict is that it technically means “not proven” instead of “innocent.”

In Scotland a criminal trial can have three outcomes: Guilty, Not guilty, and Not Proven - for when you know the little shit did it, but just can't make the charges stick.

 

[Stent]

I wish Boomia was here to concisely explain jurisprudence.

 

[JoeBrotheChildSpitGuzzler]

I wish Boomia was here to concisely explain jurisprudence.

I wish I could hear Boomia try to PRONOUNCE Jurisprudence..

 

[EraGodless]

I'm goona get all gay and philosophical to showcase how dumb he is. Also I'm bored. Knowing nothing about actual law you can just reason this out from phil-102 classes.

I don't think admission quite captures it well. More like a tactic admission maybe. If you fight the charges then you're saying "I'm innocent". If you admit guilt, you're saying "I'm guilty". But there's a third option which is essentially the "agnostic" position as an analogy. You're not claiming innocence or guilt. Thats an ontological claim where it must be one or the other. But you're answering a different question. You're saying I won't contest the charges but I'm not answering the question of guilty or innocent. I'm just saying what I'm going to do, not contest the charges. In the eyes of the criminal law, answering the question "will you contest the charges" is analytically true by definition to the court. They've just defined the answer to that question to be "no means you are guilty" whereas " yes "means you must be claiming innocence" as you must claim to be innocent to contest a charge.


I basically take this as a logical extension of the 5th amendment. Whereby you are allowed to not incriminate yourself, but since you are required by procedural law to answer the question "are you contesting the charges", you don't have to incriminate yourself. As an analogy, its similiar to the way jury nullification works. By law you can't be punished as a juror for the so as a deductive argument

• a juror can't be punished for their verdict either way
• a juror can't be forced to disclose their reasoning for a verdict
• conclusion - a juror can ignore the law and vote how they want without punishment. - i.e jury nullification

Much like how a juror can vote based on their conscience without having to explain or justify their reasoning, a defendant can opt for a "no contest" plea without having to explicitly admit their guilt or innocence.


gay ^^^

No contest just means you accept the judgement, but don't admit guilt. It's still a conviction.

I wish Boomia was here to concisely explain jurisprudence.