- Forum Clout
- 48,740
If they were charging his card annually they'd have record of payment from Pat
Last edited:
-
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]
I Wanna See the Courthouse Movie! - Part 3
- Thread starter law_bot
- Start date
- Forum Clout
- 27,120
I think you're right and they're being cagey. They don't have "copies" of any checks or payments. They're not saying they don't have any records. He probably didn't write a check (debatable that he even has a bank account), so they don't have a "copy" of a cashed check. If he paid by cash or credit card, they would have a record of it but might not have a "copy" of a receipt.
They're trying to protect their records for any number of reasons.
G
guest
Guest
He's rubbing off on the SFWA, now they're fabricating Tomlinson Technicalities as well.
Edit: There's no way a judge lets them do this, right? If BDJ gets them in court and they try and pull that "you specified 'copies' of records and we have no copies" I'm guessing any judge gets pissed about that kind of bullshit.
- Forum Clout
- 48,740
It literally says that they don't have any copies of payments either to or from Pat. How would they explain to the IRS if they got audited and couldn't show receipts of union due payments?
G
guest
Guest
It's not even in question.
Page 2:
They're only giving the last 4 digits of the AMEX card implying Big Dick Jerry should go figure out the rest somehow and subpoena Pig's bank. The rationale is anything else they have doesn't directly show Rick's "finances and assets," which is what BDJ is ostensibly after. They're not stating it very clearly and trying to play the judge. Hopefully BDJ is prepared to expose their Technicality Tomlinson-style logic.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Forum Clout
- 27,120
Like I said, I think they're being very literal about the word "copy". They wouldn't need to explain anything to the IRS, because they have "records" of payments as well as their bank statements. If a member, like Pat, pays in cash, they make an entry in their records that Pat paid and is current on his dues. But do they have a "copy" of that payment? Not necessarily, unless they generated a receipt and kept a copy of it.
Do I think this is a good tactic for them to use? No. But with subpoenas and lawsuits, sometimes people try everything, because A) it might work and B) if it doesn't, you've stalled and cost the other party money.
- Forum Clout
- 1,756
She’s allegedly looking for a new baby daddy, so yes. She’ll be there
G
guest
Guest
You can reference Wikipedia in a legal document? Twitter also hosts far-right views and conspiracies and hate speech. So what.
- Forum Clout
- 41,880
Guilt by assocation is not exactly one of the cornerstones of our legal system, but what do I know, I'm not a Super Lawyer.
- Forum Clout
- 29,323
Whatever happened to that Scientologist Writers of the Future thing Pig was involved with? I think someone once figured out the current status of that, but I don't remember. Please be patient, I have special needs.
- Forum Clout
- 22,495
It's probably not a topic the SFWA want to bring up in court, either.
G
guest
Guest
What the literal fuck
G
guest
Guest
Oh but sweetie, we already knew that. I don't think SFWA's lawyer can Technicality Tomlinson his way out of this one.
- Forum Clout
- 41,880
Assets - Debts = Equity
- Forum Clout
- 28,293
Well that's my bitchute channel, should I leave it up or what?
G
guest
Guest
So they have invoices where Rick owes them money?
- Forum Clout
- 98,839
They might be referring to membership dues invoices. If so, it's a strange way to 'bill' someone.
G
guest
Guest
Maybe add in a Bernell Trammell redpill in the description.
G
guest
Guest
Can someone give me a simple yes or no for a law retard: is patrick completely fucked?
Same question for sfwa
Same question for sfwa
G
guest
Guest
I think Patrick's only hope is to roll over on the sfwa and basically say that this was their lolsuit and they were the ones who paid for it entirely and it was just his name on it, and he didn't understand what he was doing and didn't know that he could be liable, etc etc. Basically what wives of ponzi schemers say when the feds come for them after their husbands get them to open businesses in their name. This probably wouldn't work but it would be really funny.
SFWA is probably fucked if the IRS takes a serious look into them. Because of their political affiliations I would say it's not so likely, but possible.