I Wanna See the Courthouse Movie! - Part 3

[guest]

Why doesn't the SFWA and Pat just pay Quasi and get it over with?

 

[Harry Powell]

Why doesn't the SFWA and Pat just pay Quasi and get it over with?

Why doesn’t Patrick just change his phone number and make his Twitter private?

Why does a bird fly, faggot?

 

[guest]

Opposing party has not made such a showing in the declaration submitted in opposition to the motion to quash.

Doesn’t what I just put in bold mean that the pro tem did read the declaration but doesn’t find it adequate?

Or just skimmed and assumed the final SFWA motion would accurately recap BDJ's arguments. Same problem with kicking it to a judge later - he may assume the pro tem did his homework thoroughly.

Exactly. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt by stating "didn't read", to mean that he skimmed and saw there was something filed. He could also just be a Tomlinson level student. We'll see which it is tomorrow.

 

[SFWA liaison]

Additionally, "n contrast to discovery directed to the judgment debtor, discovery directed to a third party is limited to an appearance before the court or a referee by the third party to answer questions about property or debt in which the judgment debtor has an interest." C.C.P. sec. 708.120; SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court, 243 Cal. App. 4th 741, 752 (2015).

if this is true how is this surmountable? I assume our gook knows better since he specializes in judgement enforcement

 

[Harry Powell]

Gotta be honest, as much as I like Jelly Jen I simply can’t see Ruben Peña getting into this situation.

 

[guest]

I hope Jerry brings the Josiah tapes. My ribs would never recover if he was allowed to use those in court.

Picking a favorite part from the content provided by St. Josiah is like picking my favorite Norm bit. I’d have to say the fat man wheezing like Bob Kelly after a power walk would be my midget sex story though. ‘Oh that midget must be having so much fun with that prostitute’

 

[Gay Faggot.]

Gotta be honest, as much as I like Jelly Jen I simply can’t see Ruben Peña getting into this situation.

He’s too busy hitting other slopes, knowwhatimean?

 

[guest]

Gotta be honest, as much as I like Jelly Jen I simply can’t see Ruben Peña getting into this situation.

Peña is a little busy right now. let's not bother him with Trivial matters.

 

[guest]

if this is true how is this surmountable? I assume our gook knows better since he specializes in judgement enforcement

Read it yourself. It's not relevant.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://casetext.com/case/scc-acquisitions-inc-v-superior-court-of-orange-cnty[/URL]

In June 2012, Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc. (Barclays) obtained a civil judgment against SCC in the amount of $47,186,985.38 in a New York State court. Barclays filed an application in Orange County Superior Court for entry of judgment on a sister-state judgment. The superior court entered judgment on the application. In November 2012, Barclays assigned the judgment to Western.

This is a separate state. It wasn't domesticated. SFWA Is registered in California and the debt is California.

The precise issue presented was, “hould the creditor be permitted to examine this witness who they designated as to third party entities when he is an attorney and may be called upon to disclose attorney/client privileged materials?”

Not relevant.

SCC objected to many of Western's requests but also produced some 217 pages of documents. SCC objected to requests for production Nos. 14, 21, 22, 23, and 37 and declined to produce any documents in response to them. Those five requests for production read as follows:

They provided documents.

the trial court lacked statutory authority to grant the motion to compel because section 708.030 does not authorize a judgment creditor to compel production of a third party's documents.

This is a motion to compel after a subpeona. Not a quash.

The Trial Court Had Authority to Compel SCC to Produce Documents Relating to Third Parties

That's what the section refers to. It's specifically about a motion to compel and that the lower court used the wrong statues. There's more there but it's specific to this case. Jerry pit in his response the relevant cases requiring broad ability to compel third parties to produce anything that could lead to collection of the debt.

In California, a sanctions order is enforceable in the same way as a "money judgment". Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.)§ 680.230, a sanctions order is a judgment in itself. California’s Enforcement of Judgment Law (EJL) allows judgment creditors to serve subpoenas for records to third parties to trace and locate assets upon which to levy. “A subpoena duces tecum may be served on a party to compel production of documents at trial (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985). In the context of post judgment enforcement proceedings, the use of a subpoena duces tecum to discover and inspect relevant documents is an accepted practice.” (Citations Omitted). Shrewsbury Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (2019), 32 Cal. App. 5th 1213, 1225.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2019/h043166.html[/URL]


keep in mind

Shrewsbury Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (2019)

is 2019, while

SCCAcquisitions, Inc.v. Superior Court(2015)

That is 2015. the SCC case is even cited in the Shrewsbury one

We believe the conditions identified in Olsonare present here. The appellate courts have reached conflicting conclusions regarding the appealability of discovery orders in postjudgment enforcement proceedings. Although it is possible that Shrewsbury may be able to challenge the trial court’s order in an appeal from a later order or judgment that is appealable, it is not clear when or if such an order will be made. It also serves the interest of judicial economy to provide guidance to the parties about the scope of postjudgment third party discovery at this stage of the proceedings, as it is possible that similar issues may recur. Although only an appellant’s opening brief was submitted in this case, the record and Shrewsbury’s opening brief are sufficient for us to review the issue, which will be based entirely on our interpretation of the pertinent statutes. Thus, we will exercise our discretion to treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate. (Fox Johns, supra,219 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1217-1218; Yolanda’s, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 513; SCCAcquisitions, Inc.v. Superior Court(2015)243 Cal.App.4th 741, 749-750.)

 

[Cuphead]

Peña is a little busy right now. let's not bother him with Trivial matters.

View attachment 42723

Always creeps me out when they have these kids who look like they are 16 in porn

 

[Mitch Weaver]

Always creeps me out when they have these kids who look like they are 16 in porn

 

[Harry Powell]

Read it yourself. It's not relevant.

https://casetext.com/case/scc-acquisitions-inc-v-superior-court-of-orange-cnty

This is a separate state. It wasn't domesticated. SFWA Is registered in California and the debt is California.






Not relevant.



They provided documents.






This is a motion to compel after a subpeona. Not a quash.




That's what the section refers to. It's specifically about a motion to compel and that the lower court used the wrong statues. There's more there but it's specific to this case. Jerry pit in his response the relevant cases requiring broad ability to compel third parties to produce anything that could lead to collection of the debt.

Shrewsbury Management, Inc. v. Superior Court

Shrewsbury Management, Inc. v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeals 2019

law.justia.com

keep in mind

is 2019, while


That is 2015. the SCC case is even cited in the Shrewsbury one

Can we get BDQ to just hire you? Fawkin’ good shit brotherman

 

[guest]

Why doesn’t Patrick just change his phone number and make his Twitter private?

Why does a bird fly, faggot?

Clearly you did noT lisTen, he is an imporTanT voice of the people.

 

[guest]

Clearly you did noT lisTen, he is an imporTanT voice of the people.

He’s also fat.

 

[Jenna]

Does this mean I'm going to prison?

 

[guest]

Does this mean I'm going to prison?

[URL unfurl="true"]https://frinkiac.com/video/S08E09/9D11zLLmwE3xbM5HwP1arNLCVcQ=.gif[/URL]

 

[UnPRePared]

Patrick to judge pro tem

 

[guest]

Go

View attachment 42683

You would've thought the judge would be good pals with my man Jerry

Gook on gook on gook violence?

 

[FurBurger]

The thing is Jerry has to prove to the judge they have a good reason for knowing that the SFWA the money to Patrick to fund the lawsuit and I don't think he can use the audio recordings from the Josiah tapes.

I think he can use the Josiah tapes - Josiah's mistaken identity doesn't change what Pat said - but he can also use the Strictly Oinking audio where Fatrick talks about it.

God, I hope Quasi includes that video as evidence in court. It's got Pat claiming that he was "SwaTTed", and then admitting that he wasn't under Wisconsin's anti-swatting law. Throw in Quasi's lawyer explaining that he wasn't swatted in the literal sense, either - no SWAT team was called - and he's gonna look like such a lying cunt. It's like claiming you slept with Christina Ricci... then admitting that Christina Ricci wasn't involved.

Good luck getting any sympathy from the court after that, Pat.

 

[FurBurger]

Why doesn't the SFWA and Pat just pay Quasi and get it over with?

He thinks that the Opie and Anthony forums were set up solely to abuse him (they weren't) and that Quasi's been abusing him somehow (despite the fact that Pat had multiple chances to prove that in court, and could provide no evidence that Quasi had said or done anything untoward).

He's decided, based on those two erroneous and easily disprovable beliefs, that Quasi is one of his "abusers"; and has resolved not to pay his "abuser."

I don't think it's struck him yet that means a life of poverty, divorce and potentially jail for contempt of court, but that's because he's a low-IQ motherfucker.