I Wanna See the Courthouse Movie! - Part 3

[guest]

This is like asking how a guy batting .000 would do against a hall of fame pitcher in his prime. Could he get a hit? It's possible. It's it more likely he'll strike out on 3 straight pitches without even making contact? Definitely.

What I'm saying is Patrick S. Tomlinson is overweight/obese by any medical standard.

Yeah this isn’t Rick though, this time it’s Quasi vs SFWA. They have a super lawyer, unlike Rick’s wine lawyer and tax lawyer.

 

[guest]

I’m a simple man and all I know is Adam Rakunas is in official court documents as partaking in oral sex with infants. Without a denial.

Makes me think why doesn’t this guy deny it? I would. I would absolutely deny it. It’s in court documents. Official court documents. No denial.

Imagine being accused to sucking baby dicks and not even denying it. Kinda makes you wonder.

 

[BakersfieldChimp]

Yeah this isn’t Rick though, this time it’s Quasi vs SFWA. They have a super lawyer, unlike Rick’s wine lawyer and tax lawyer.

Good point, I get my (alleged) pedophiles mixed up at times.

 

[guest]

I’m a simple man and all I know is Adam Rakunas is in official court documents as partaking in oral sex with infants. Without a denial.

Makes me think why doesn’t this guy deny it? I would. I would absolutely deny it. It’s in court documents. Official court documents. No denial.

SUBPOENA.

 

[FurBurger]

Yeah this isn’t Rick though, this time it’s Quasi vs SFWA. They have a super lawyer, unlike Rick’s wine lawyer and tax lawyer.

Do we know when this super lawyer will join the case, as there's discussion further up this thread of their current one arguing that spending and income have no affect on a person's finances. If you go a bit further we talk about his earlier pleading suggesting that SFWA didn't have to obey a legally enforceable subpoena because they didn't want to.

He's currently arguing that a charity whose officers are forced to publicly declare how many hours they work and what income they make shouldn't have to admit who signed off on a massive gift/loan to one of their friends that's 4-5 times the size of the average US income; or even admit that somebody did it at all. He's thrown that in with the claim that the SFWA don't record membership dues, even though it constitutes so much of their income.

Speaking of which, since they don't keep membership payment records, it might be worth one of us joining the SFWA and passing around the receipt. That way all of us can submit a copy with our name on it, and "claim back our dues" from the IRS.

The idea of these pricks enabling thousands in tax fraud due to their laziness and apathy tickles my ribs.

EDIT: Apparently I fucked up, and "super lawyer" is how the SFWA lawyer refers to himself.

 

[Harry Powell]

Do we know when this super lawyer will join the case, as there's discussion further up this thread of their current one arguing that spending and income have no affect on a person's finances. If you go a bit further we talk about his earlier pleading suggesting that SFWA didn't have to obey a legally enforceable subpoena because they didn't want to.

He's currently arguing that a charity whose officers are forced to publicly declare how many hours they work and what income they make shouldn't have to admit who signed off on a massive gift/loan to one of their friends that's 4-5 times the size of the average US income; or even admit that somebody did it at all. He's thrown that in with the claim that the SFWA don't record membership dues, even though it constitutes so much of their income.

Speaking of which, since they don't keep membership payment records, it might be worth one of us joining the SFWA and passing around the receipt. That way all of us can submit a copy with our name on it, and "claim back our dues" from the IRS.

The idea of these pricks enabling thousands in tax fraud due to their laziness and apathy tickles my ribs.

He was being facetious with the Super Lawyer thing.

Chink Ambulance-Chaser David Sohn calls himself a Super Lawyer in one of the initial legal documents and also has it slathered all over his website.

 

[guest]

Do we know yet if Thursday will be online?

Can't answer your question, but it's the last case on this list:

[URL]https://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/civil/law-motion[/URL] There's Zoom and telephone instructions for Depts 301 (9:00 am) and 302 (9:30 am) where "the public can view and/or listen."

I don't understand the scheduling at al.

 

[BudDickman]

Should the following picture be entered into evidence?

 

[guest]

Can't answer your question, but it's the last case on this list:

[URL]https://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/civil/law-motion[/URL] There's Zoom and telephone instructions for Depts 301 (9:00 am) and 302 (9:30 am) where "the public can view and/or listen."

I don't understand the scheduling at al.

They tell people to show up at the same time (when court opens). We could be first or we could be last, you never know. Have those legal recording devices ready to go by 9am PT/12pm ET.

Hopefully Paul Weimer, Antwan Kumiya, and William Tetley blocked off their calendars for tomorrow.

 

[JoeCumiawearsDIAPERS]

Yeah this isn’t Rick though, this time it’s Quasi vs SFWA. They have a super lawyer, unlike Rick’s wine lawyer and tax lawyer.

Is there anything Patrick stands to gain or lose from this verdict?

 

[Harry Powell]

They tell people to show up at the same time (when court opens). We could be first or we could be last, you never know. Have those legal recording devices ready to go by 9am PT/12pm ET.

Hopefully Paul Weimer, Antwan Kumiya, and William Tetley blocked off their calendars for tomorrow.

I’m concerned there may be a mob presence from the Jersey family there as well.

 

[guest]

Is there anything Patrick stands to gain or lose from this verdict?

Yes, a positive verdict for Jerry/Quasi means more pressure on SFWA to give up details on their financial relationship with Patrick. That's the simple version of it. There's of course many more layers.

 

[FurBurger]

Is there anything Patrick stands to gain or lose from this verdict?

The SFWA don't want to admit they gave/loaned Pat a shit ton of money for a non-charity purpose (personal defamation suit) and they don't want to admit publicly who signed off on it in case that person gets harassed (by the IRS, presumably).

This hearing is to decide how much information the SFWA have to give Quasi's pipe-hittin' Asian debt collector, and includes whatever money they gave him, as well as his sworn-under-oath book sales records which he had to give to the SFWA to get in. If he's lied on the book sales he could lose his Florida insurance sales licence, which I believe provides most of his income.

 

[SmellenShoehorn]

The idea of these pricks enabling thousands in tax fraud due to their laziness and apathy tickles my ribs.

The idea of a fat man-baby narcissist taking down a disgusting organization of pedophile-defenders because he insulted Norm Macdonald and couldn't keep his folded fish mouth shut for four years tickles mine.

 

[BudDickman]

What kind of outcome can we expect tomorrow? It seems likely that a judge might say "they don't have to provide some of this information", but a quash seems like an all-or-nothing deal since it carries sanctions.

 

[Cuphead]

What kind of outcome can we expect tomorrow? It seems likely that a judge might say "they don't have to provide some of this information", but a quash seems like an all-or-nothing deal since it carries sanctions.

Even if it gets quashed. Patrick is still on the hook for the money

 

[JoeCumiawearsDIAPERS]

The SFWA don't want to admit they gave/loaned Pat a shit ton of money for a non-charity purpose (personal defamation suit) and they don't want to admit publicly who signed off on it in case that person gets harassed (by the IRS, presumably).

This hearing is to decide how much information the SFWA have to give Quasi's pipe-hittin' Asian debt collector, and includes whatever money they gave him, as well as his sworn-under-oath book sales records which he had to give to the SFWA to get in. If he's lied on the book sales he could lose his Florida insurance sales licence, which I believe provides most of his income.

Thanks - it makes more sense now. It will be interesting to see an audit trail, especially since Patrick is the plaintiff.

I wonder how the transactions were handled - Did Resto and Stavros invoice SFWA directly? Did they invoice Pat, who then sent it to SFWA? Did they just hand Patrick cash (god forbid) and he paid Resto and Stavros? Each scenario probably has it's own set of taxable events that must be accounted for.

Whatever the handoffs were, there's no doubt they were handled FATLY.

 

[Libby Son Of Loin]

They tell people to show up at the same time (when court opens). We could be first or we could be last, you never know. Have those legal recording devices ready to go by 9am PT/12pm ET.

Hopefully Paul Weimer, Antwan Kumiya, and William Tetley blocked off their calendars for tomorrow.

As long as Will Tate mutes his device!

 

[FranksWirecutters]

Thanks - it makes more sense now. It will be interesting to see an audit trail, especially since Patrick is the plaintiff.

I wonder how the transactions were handled - Did Resto and Stavros invoice SFWA directly? Did they invoice Pat, who then sent it to SFWA? Did they just hand Patrick cash (god forbid) and he paid Resto and Stavros? Each scenario probably has it's own set of taxable events that must be accounted for.

Whatever the handoffs were, there's no doubt they were handled FATLY.

How great would it be to see that they gave it to him directly and it was 200k instead of what he paid Brinton? He had living expenses after all.

 

[archive_bot]

Non-Party Science Fiction And Fantasy Writers Of America, Inc.'S Notice Of Motion And Motion To Quash Petitioner John Doe 1'S Deposition Subpoena For Production Of Business Records
TENTATIVE RULING:
Discovery Calendar for Thursday, May 19, 2022, Line 1,

(part 1 of 2 for tentative ruling)

OTHER/Non-Party SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY WRITERS Of America, Inc.'s Motion To Quash Petitioner John Doe 1's Deposition Subpoena For Production Of Business Records

Pro Tem Judge William Lynn, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge.

The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling:

Parties to Appear. Moving party's meet and confer appears to be deficient under the circumstances, however, opposing party's subpoena seeks records that are lack relevance and overbroad, and opposing party, Petitioner John Doe 1, has not supplied "evidence demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the materials sought to be produced and the issues involved in the case." Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. App. 4th 216 (1997). "To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact." Digital Music News, LLC v. Superior Court, 226 Cal. App. 4th 216, 224 (2014). Opposing party has not made such a showing in the declaration submitted in opposition to the motion to quash. 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). Moving party's notice of motion as to the request for sanctions is not code compliant as it did not identify Petitioner John Doe 1's counsel by name, and Petitioner John Doe 1 has more than one (1) counsel. Therefore, the Court is inclined to grant the motion to quash and order monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,000 against Petitioner John Doe 1.

For the 9:00 a.m. Discovery calendar, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link (DISCOVERY, DEPARTMENT 301 DAILY AT 9:00 A.M.), or dial the corresponding number and use the meeting ID, and password for Department 301.

(tentative ruling continued, see next entry) =(302/JPT)

(Part 2 Of 2 For Tentative Ruling) Other/Non-Party Science Fiction And Fantasy Writers Of America, Inc.'S Motion To Quash Petitioner John Doe 1'S Deposition Subpoena For Production Of Business Records TENTATIVE RULING: Discovery Calendar for Thursday, May 19, 2022, Line 1, (Part 2 Of 2 For Tentative Ruling) Other/Non-Party Science Fiction And Fantasy Writers Of America, Inc.'S Motion To Quash Petitioner John Doe 1'S Deposition Subpoena For Production Of Business Records (Tentative ruling continued from previous entry.) Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If parties have arranged for a court reporter to appear, please include the following in your email: the reporter's full contact information [name, CSR number, personal work email, and phone number]. If the reporter is not a California Certified Shorthand Reporter, the transcript cannot be certified for use in California courts. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must e-mail it to the Judge Pro Tem. =(302/JPT)

CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE ROOM 302