I Wanna See the Courthouse Movie! - Part 3

Kim_Jong_Poon_

🚨🏃🏾‍♂️... 👮‍♂️🚨
You honor, I've had a look at a Microsoft Encarta 95 CD and I believe it supports my legal argument.
Screenshot_20220513-201918_Chrome.jpg
 
someone upload the PDF pls

pretty amazing that, entirely thanks to them, Jerry now gets to bring up in court the SFWA-pedophilia connection which would otherwise be completely off the table: "Judge it's is indeed a controversial organization with many detractors becase [...explains....] and it's preposterous to think that the harsh criticism and mockery they face because of it means they're entitled to avoid complying with an otherwise appropriate subpoena" that sounds WAY worse than just arguing the narrow-tayloredness of the request lol

and re: harassment he could point out that Fatty used the Courts of the USA to try to harass Quasi into giving up his First Ammendment right to anonymity due to economic bullying to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. Time for the pig to face consequences for his actions.
 

JerkStoreJ

IT IS SO ORDERED
someone upload the PDF pls

pretty amazing that, entirely thanks to them, Jerry now gets to bring up in court the SFWA-pedophilia connection which would otherwise be completely off the table: "Judge it's is indeed a controversial organization with many detractors becase [...explains....] and it's preposterous to think that the harsh criticism and mockery they face because of it means they're entitled to avoid complying with an otherwise appropriate subpoena" that sounds WAY worse than just arguing the narrow-tayloredness of the request lol

and re: harassment he could point out that Fatty used the Courts of the USA to try to harass Quasi into giving up his First Ammendment right to anonymity due to economic bullying to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. Time for the pig to face consequences for his actions.
You’re not wrong but the right way to respond to that shit is to completely dismiss it as irrelevant to these proceedings
 

FurBurger

"This message is from a debt collector..."
Here is the promo video, AS SEEN ON COURT TV

Transcript:
In the Criminal Justice system, sexually based offences are considered especially heinous.
To silence those who speak out against them the SFWA and its supporters engage in proxy litigation.


What an excellent, excellent move to include that video about proxy litigation in an unrelated legal matter!

Why not include credible accusations about an organisation covering up paedophilia, in a court motion trying to cover up their unusual financial relationship with one of their members?

Who the fuck is writing their legal strategy, Joe Cumia?


If anyone's having trouble reading the document, use this link and it's the top entry:
 

FurBurger

"This message is from a debt collector..."
I'm no lawyer, but what a shitty pleading:
By way of example, Petitioner’s demand for Mr. Tomlinson’s membership application is
uncalled for. Membership applications are not financial statements. Further, they contain
sensitive personal information such as addresses and phone numbers that are not relevant for
Petitioner.
The SFWA are arguing that a professional debt collector has no reason to know the Debtor's phone numbers or address.

Further, that debtor is currently doing his best to hide from the court proceedings; which makes it look like the SFWA are trying to help him evade justice by not handing over his details. Putting that in the same pleading as a video accusing the SFWA of supporting paedophiles, and helping them evade justice by funding their legal defence is a bold move.


Even more egregious is Petitioner’s demand for “all non-privileged
correspondence (including e-mails)” between Mr. Tomlinson and SFWA. This is an improper
fishing expedition. How is this demand “tailored” to seek information relating to Mr. Tomlinson’s
finances or assets?
Pat's made public statements on the Strictly Stalking podcast about his lolsuit being funded by a "professional organisation he's a member of", and the SFWA is the only organisation he's a known member of. Mr Jen has filed the SFWA guidelines for grants and legal aid, which suggest either that's income for The Debtor over the course of the lolsuit, or a debt he'll have to pay back; both of which count towards The Debtor's financial position.

Additionally, the Subpoena seeks “all non-privileged documents” relating to Mr. Tomlinson in connection with the legal proceedings in Wisconsin and California. There is no justifiable grounds to request this information if the objective is to learn about Mr. Tomlinson’s finances or assets.
Again, whether the Debtor got a loan, or a gift, or nothing at all from the SFWA is a simple question they've spent $9k trying not to answer.

There is no conceivable justification to request “all non-privileged correspondence (including
e-mails)” exchanged between Mr. Tomlinson and SFWA, for example.
What if the SFWA didn't spend their charity money to help The Debtor, but instead started a separate legal fund like they did with one of their other members in SpaceEdge's pedo video?

During a phone conversation on April 25, 2022, Petitioner’s counsel acknowledged that what he was “really” looking for was information relating to Mr. Tomlinson’s sources of income and finances.
Why would you put this in here? Of course that's what he's looking for. Are the SFWA now vouching for Jerry Jen's honest intentions?

Weirdly, he brings up claims of potential harassment here, but not in the earlier motion he claimed to have spent ten hours researching. Patrick's lolsuit featured plenty of claims of harassment; did you not notice them during the ten hours you spent going through it?

The big thing that's missing in here, though, is a request for more money. They claimed to spent $7k on the first motion, but offered Quasi a $1k discount (I guess) because they're besties; this time they're writing another motion for free, and just asking for payment for the first motion at the $6k discounted rate. That seems fishy to me.
 
This is the first one I don’t see BDQuas winning. Some of the Sobn evidence cited here is absurd but do think a judge will agree the justifications and the information requested is a bit broad. Hope I’m wrong because I want all the pedo enabler info.

May also just be a tactic tho to have the SFWA to concede his income statements after BDJen agrees to drop the other requests.
 

FatAbbot

Hey Hey Hey!
This is the first one I don’t see BDQuas winning. Some of the Sobn evidence cited here is absurd but do think a judge will agree the justifications and the information requested is a bit broad. Hope I’m wrong because I want all the pedo enabler info.

May also just be a tactic tho to have the SFWA to concede his income statements after BDJen agrees to drop the other requests.
Disagree. The judge isn't going to take into account a bunch of things that aren't related to the quash. He's going to ask for legitimate reasons and the SFWA hasn't named any.
 
Disagree. The judge isn't going to take into account a bunch of things that aren't related to the quash. He's going to ask for legitimate reasons and the SFWA hasn't named any.
Problem though is the SFWA is not named in the judgement and while we all know they paid for the lawsuit, at this time, there is no demonstrable proof of it.

Which is why I don’t see a judge even saying that the SFWA needs to defend itself and only needs to provide what’s required as a non-profit.

Again, not 100%, but I have a hunch this is primarily a bunch of of broad net accusations and legal letters going back and forth with the end goal by Jen being behind the scenes the SFWA gives up his income statement to make the other stuff go away.
 
Problem though is the SFWA is not named in the judgement and while we all know they paid for the lawsuit, at this time, there is no demonstrable proof of it.

Which is why I don’t see a judge even saying that the SFWA needs to defend itself and only needs to provide what’s required as a non-profit.

Again, not 100%, but I have a hunch this is primarily a bunch of of broad net accusations and legal letters going back and forth with the end goal by Jen being behind the scenes the SFWA gives up his income statement to make the other stuff go away.
No, you are retarded and wrong.

I have no legal experience but I just didn't appreciate you raining on my picnic here, pal.
 
Problem though is the SFWA is not named in the judgement and while we all know they paid for the lawsuit, at this time, there is no demonstrable proof of it.

Which is why I don’t see a judge even saying that the SFWA needs to defend itself and only needs to provide what’s required as a non-profit.

Again, not 100%, but I have a hunch this is primarily a bunch of of broad net accusations and legal letters going back and forth with the end goal by Jen being behind the scenes the SFWA gives up his income statement to make the other stuff go away.
This is what Jerry Jen specializes in. While I agree that this is not a lock, his expertise is evident in his filings by citing case law and running spellcheck while this one is full of grammatical errors and “evidence” from Apostlegate.

If there’s a chance, this is the best shot Quasi has. I’m not even sure a victory for the SFWA could be considered a victory for Patrick - he’d still be on the hook, one way or another AFAIK.
 
This is what Jerry Jen specializes in. While I agree that this is not a lock, his expertise is evident in his filings by citing case law and running spellcheck while this one is full of grammatical errors and “evidence” from Apostlegate.

If there’s a chance, this is the best shot Quasi has. I’m not even sure a victory for the SFWA could be considered a victory for Patrick - he’d still be on the hook, one way or another AFAIK.
To be fair, even though Jen makes better arguments, there are more grammar errors in his filing than there are in this one. Minor typos where it is obvious that he changed improved the wording and left behind a malformed sentence. I blame his paralegal, who is supposed to catch stuff like this and is probably the same person who wrote "Milwaukee, California" instead of "Milwaukee, Wisconsin".
 

FurBurger

"This message is from a debt collector..."
Problem though is the SFWA is not named in the judgement and while we all know they paid for the lawsuit, at this time, there is no demonstrable proof of it.

Which is why I don’t see a judge even saying that the SFWA needs to defend itself and only needs to provide what’s required as a non-profit.
What's required - even as a non-profit - is any evidence they have of a financial relationship with Pat, and any records they have of his finances. In the first case, that includes if they loaned or paid him money. If they paid ("granted") him money, that's income Jerry needs to know about when he asks the court to for permission to brutally fist Pat for Quasi's money. If they loaned him the money, then the court needs to take that into account before granting Jerry permission to brutally fist Pat for Quasi's money, so that he stops at the elbow. If the SFWA don't spit that info out, then they risk failing their membership in two ways. First, they'll be fucking over the majority of their membership if Pat's brutal fisting leaves him unable to repay the SFWA - they're out $120k+ of their member's hard earned money. That's just bad stewardship of a charity. Second, they'll be fucking over Pat specifically, as that debt won't be taken into account by the court, and Jerry will be able to go all-out... when he brutally fists Pat for Quasi's money.

Pat also had to provide evidence of his book sales before joining the SFWA; that's relevant info to someone chasing a debt.

I'm not a lawyer, but other than (maybe) obscuring the name of whichever officers signed off on loaning charity money to a pants-shitting retard, I don't think they have a strong case.
 
Top