I Wanna See the Courthouse Movie! - Part 3

FurBurger

Don't call me daughter; not fit to...
They could force Pat to turn over his social media accounts?
It's an asset; I don't see why Quasi couldn't get it evaluated and claim it.

I can't see Pig being forced to liquidate his stealthygeek brand, let alone transfer it to Quasi's lawyer. I don't think it's that easy to fuck with debtors.
Is it his brand, though? Is it on the front of his books? Does it appear under his name on his TV appearances? Has he argued on his blog that losing his Twitter "will ultimately have negligible impact on my success as an author, reputation, or future prospects. If anything, it’s made me even more well-know in the circles that matter professionally"?

Sorry, that last question was me being a rhetorical asshole; reading his blog must have rubbed off on me.

That said, remember that he's not just an ordinary debtor: he's someone who's ignored a court order and very publicly pissed that money up against the wall on holidays rather than pay what he was ordered to, and has used his social media accounts to advertise that fact. Taking his socials - when he's admitted that they aren't necessary to his business, and when the companies that run them are located in the same jurisdiction as the court, and are thus easy to get to - seems doable. Plus, by not participaTing in the proceSs Pat doesn't get a say in how or what order he's fucked.

Besides, I think most of Pat's income comes from his medical insurance sales, and that will no doubt have shown up when Quasi subpenissed the IRS. If his writing is just a hobby that turns a buck here or there, and his socials aren't needed for it, then I don't think he's got much of a claim to them.

Finally, it looks like you're new; so you might not know that Pat's Bookscan report got leaked, and his last book only sold something like 250 copies. He's not exactly an author in the classic sense.

EDIT: Pat's sales, assume 10% of the sale price (not RRP) as income, and he had a $10k advance for each of his three Tor books which have to "earn out" first:

Patrick-S-Tomlinson-Sales-Numbers-1 (1).png
 
@FurBurger I fully agree with all the other things you said except being able to commandeer a private debtor's social media. I've just never heard of that happening and it rubs me the wrong way.

I found a case about business social media accounts that may have doubled as personal and Pat would be able to overcome the reasoning that led to their being seized. https://casetext.com/case/in-re-ctli-llc

Don't get me wrong, Jen should certainly make some argument. Just Pat finding out about it will injure my ribs, but I can't see it prevailing.

Pat's lack of participation won't be of import, the judge will argue basics for him. This isn't a business, so any judge can point some of this out:
- Pat has some privacy rights with Twitter DMs and similar, maybe he was sexting trannies;
- As a boomer judge with a limited Facebook presence, evaluating social media accounts as assets seems an NFT-like scam;
- People befriended him on social media on the premise that it's him, so you can't keep his friends;
- You can't have his previous tweets because they're about him;
- You can't have his password, and it looks like he won't cooperate at this stage;
- He uses social media to stay in touch with people, it's a weird, unnecessary hardship to impose;
- He may use social media to get timely news of public interest, taking that away is bad.

If the judge buys the argument that it's something of value, to keep things reasonable Jen would still have to limit his proposal to forcing him to give up only his specific Twitter handle - some arrangement where he changes it while someone else grabs it. But it would also throw off an evaluation based on followers and current reach, so if it's not worth much then why seize it?
 

Udders

Rhetorical and reasonable
@FurBurger I fully agree with all the other things you said except being able to commandeer a private debtor's social media. I've just never heard of that happening and it rubs me the wrong way.

I found a case about business social media accounts that may have doubled as personal and Pat would be able to overcome the reasoning that led to their being seized. https://casetext.com/case/in-re-ctli-llc

Don't get me wrong, Jen should certainly make some argument. Just Pat finding out about it will injure my ribs, but I can't see it prevailing.

Pat's lack of participation won't be of import, the judge will argue basics for him. This isn't a business, so any judge can point some of this out:
- Pat has some privacy rights with Twitter DMs and similar, maybe he was sexting trannies;
- As a boomer judge with a limited Facebook presence, evaluating social media accounts as assets seems an NFT-like scam;
- People befriended him on social media on the premise that it's him, so you can't keep his friends;
- You can't have his previous tweets because they're about him;
- You can't have his password, and it looks like he won't cooperate at this stage;
- He uses social media to stay in touch with people, it's a weird, unnecessary hardship to impose;
- He may use social media to get timely news of public interest, taking that away is bad.

If the judge buys the argument that it's something of value, to keep things reasonable Jen would still have to limit his proposal to forcing him to give up only his specific Twitter handle - some arrangement where he changes it while someone else grabs it. But it would also throw off an evaluation based on followers and current reach, so if it's not worth much then why seize it?
The funniest thing to come out of this would be Pat having to re-establish himself under a new twitter handle but can't find a good one since the impostor childs used them all.
 

FurBurger

Don't call me daughter; not fit to...
@FurBurger I fully agree with all the other things you said except being able to commandeer a private debtor's social media. I've just never heard of that happening and it rubs me the wrong way.
If it was "PatrickSTomlinson", I'd agree with you. I think the fact that it's stealthygeek makes that less certain.

I found a case about business social media accounts that may have doubled as personal and Pat would be able to overcome the reasoning that led to their being seized. https://casetext.com/case/in-re-ctli-llc
TL,DR - but I'm going to mouth off anyway. (I will read it later, promise)

Don't get me wrong, Jen should certainly make some argument. Just Pat finding out about it will injure my ribs, but I can't see it prevailing.

Pat's lack of participation won't be of import, the judge will argue basics for him. This isn't a business, so any judge can point some of this out:
You are asking a lot of judges who - to quote Mr Patrick S. Tomlinson, Esq - don't know shit about the internet. If JJ makes a good argument ("this is a free account on a free social media site, obtained by The Debtor at no cost that by The Debtor's own admission contributes nothing to his income, and that has been used to both harass my client and his customers and flaunt The Debtor's absolute contempt of this court") and there's nobody other than the judge in Pat's corner, I think it'll get over the line.

- Pat has some privacy rights with Twitter DMs and similar, maybe he was sexting trannies; People befriended him on social media on the premise that it's him, so you can't keep his friends; You can't have his previous tweets because they're about him;
Quasi's entrusted his lawyer with his own anonymity; so get that lawyer to delete Pat's friends, inbox and previous tweets and not pass on the contents. Shit, hire Brinton to do it, he needs a gig.

- As a boomer judge with a limited Facebook presence, evaluating social media accounts as assets seems an NFT-like scam;
I.E. they're worthless. Put a $50 valuation on it, maybe hire some social media evaluator to back that up. Let Pat hire his own expert if he disagrees.

Otherwise you've discovered an incredible loophole in bankruptcy law - if the judge doesn't personally know how to evaluate the worth of an asset, the debtor gets to keep it, irrespective of whatever expert opinions have been presented to the court. Is the judge an expert on Dutch Impressionist paintings? Then I guess they're immune to bankruptcy procedures. Cars, yachts, planes, second hand books; bankruptcy proceedings will end up squabbling over the contents of the debtor's fridge, assuming His Honor can remember what a pint of milk costs.

- You can't have his password, and it looks like he won't cooperate at this stage;
Don't need it if his honor tells Twitter to change the password and email address. That would be like subpoenaing Google for Quasi's details, and expecting Quasi to fill out the response.

- He uses social media to stay in touch with people, it's a weird, unnecessary hardship to impose; - He may use social media to get timely news of public interest, taking that away is bad.
He's got Facebook, and Twitter accounts are free; so both of those hardships can be fixed by The Debtor in moments at no cost. Also, just looking at Pat is a weird, unnecessary hardship to impose; so it's not without precedent.

Lastly, surely Pat needs some sort of punishment for contempt of court; and taking away some of his toys would be a good start.
 
Otherwise you've discovered an incredible loophole in bankruptcy law - if the judge doesn't personally know how to evaluate the worth of an asset, the debtor gets to keep it, irrespective of whatever expert opinions have been presented to the court. Is the judge an expert on Dutch Impressionist paintings? Then I guess they're immune to bankruptcy procedures. Cars, yachts, planes, second hand books; bankruptcy proceedings will end up squabbling over the contents of the debtor's fridge, assuming His Honor can remember what a pint of milk costs.
Ryan Gosling's likeness is worth millions, but regardless of how much debt he might rack up and how sternly (hoo hoo) he refuses to pay, a judge won't award you his face.
 

FurBurger

Don't call me daughter; not fit to...
Ryan Gosling's likeness is worth millions, but regardless of how much debt he might rack up and how sternly (hoo hoo) he refuses to pay, a judge won't award you his face.
Nobody's asking for Pat's face, child. And there's plenty of wrestlers who've been denied the use of their wrestling name and persona after Vince put his foot down.
 
Top