I Wanna See the Courthouse Movie! - Part 3

JoeBrotheChildSpitGuzzler

Sane Sociopath
โ€Ž
far right individuals and conspiracy theorists
lol
i hope the judge tells him to go fuck himself
so you won't be going to this weeks Klan meeting?

It's always funny how Patrick and the SFWA try to drag in a bunch of stuff unrelated to what the actual hearing is about and think it will somehow convince the judge to side with them. Something tells me the hearing next week is going to be a laugh riot!
This is Joe Cumia Tier Retardation
 
Last edited:

Kim_Jong_Poon_

๐Ÿšจ๐Ÿƒ๐Ÿพโ€โ™‚๏ธ... ๐Ÿ‘ฎโ€โ™‚๏ธ๐Ÿšจ
โ€Ž
I'm fawkin stuck on this part of the motion. How is Pat a member of the SFWA if he's not paying annual dues??? That exemption is suppose to only be for PoC's. There also seems to be a little gamesmanship with the wording stating they've never paid Pat during this time frame without acknowledging either way if they made payments on his behalf

Screenshot_20220514-140330_DuckDuckGo.jpg
 
Last edited:

admin

Administrator
โ€Ž
I'm fawkin stuck on this part of the motion. How his Pat a member of the SFWA if he's not paying annual dues??? That exemption is suppose to only be for PoC's. There also seems to be a little gamesmanship with the wording stating they've never paid Pat during this time frame without acknowledging either way if they made payments on his behalf

View attachment 41574

Seems like they are claiming they don't keep financial records. I'm no cpa but that seems bad to me.
 
Last edited:

JoeBrotheChildSpitGuzzler

Sane Sociopath
โ€Ž
Which is why I donโ€™t see a judge even saying that the SFWA needs to defend itself and

I'm fawkin stuck on this part of the motion. How is Pat a member of the SFWA if he's not paying annual dues??? That exemption is suppose to only be for PoC's. There also seems to be a little gamesmanship with the wording stating they've never paid Pat during this time frame without acknowledging either way if they made payments on his behalf

View attachment 41574
They reference having the last 4 of his credit card, so he probably made his payments that way.
 

TonyTwoBeers

โ€Ž
I'm fawkin stuck on this part of the motion. How is Pat a member of the SFWA if he's not paying annual dues??? That exemption is suppose to only be for PoC's. There also seems to be a little gamesmanship with the wording stating they've never paid Pat during this time frame without acknowledging either way if they made payments on his behalf

View attachment 41574
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.
 

TurdFerguson

It's a funny name.
โ€Ž
They don't have "copies" of any checks or payments.
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.
 

Kim_Jong_Poon_

๐Ÿšจ๐Ÿƒ๐Ÿพโ€โ™‚๏ธ... ๐Ÿ‘ฎโ€โ™‚๏ธ๐Ÿšจ
โ€Ž
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)
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?
 

Timber

โ€Ž
I think you're right and they're being cagey.
It's not even in question.
Page 2:
Invoices only disclose amounts owed by Mr. Tomlinson. They say nothing about his finances or assets. Moreover, records of payments made by Mr. Tomlinson would not reveal his finances or assets.
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:

TonyTwoBeers

โ€Ž
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?
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.
 
Top