• 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.

    Do not post IRL pranks here without including the source

I Wanna See the Courthouse Movie! Updated Schedules, Links to Casefiles

FurBurger

FurBurger

What would you do for a Klondike bar?
‎
KelseyBeefers said:
I haven't kept up with this.

Is Patrick still being stupid fighting with you guys?
Click to expand...
Yes, but he's stopped saying anyone's going to prison.
KelseyBeefers said:
And is someone going to get in trouble over his online harassment yet?
Click to expand...
No.

He filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin, that relied on him being able to name people and serve them with a lawsuit. To get those names, he sued in California - but his lawyer made a rookie mistake with the filing, and sent an accountant with a law degree to argue the case in court (who then fucked up on his own more than once). The judge quashed the case, and awarded Quasi (the guy who originally ran O&A Forums) ~$24k in legal fees that Fatrick has to pay.

Also SpaceEdge and some other scamps convinced Patrick that they were journalists covering his case, and spent nine months both feeding him bullshit and recording him talking about the lawsuit. That's all in the Apostlegate post(s) pinned in this forum. Also Patrick spent $100k+ of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers association's money on the case, which we believe he has to pay back. Either he does, and it bankrupts him; or he doesn't, and the IRS starts questioning how they can be a charity if they're just handing a third of their cash to a lolpig.
 
G

guest

Guest
FurBurger said:
Also SpaceEdge and some other scamps convinced Patrick that they were journalists covering his case, and spent nine months both feeding him bullshit and recording him talking about the lawsuit. That's all in the Apostlegate post(s) pinned in this forum. Also Patrick spent $100k+ of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers association's money on the case, which we believe he has to pay back. Either he does, and it bankrupts him; or he doesn't, and the IRS starts questioning how they can be a charity if they're just handing a third of their cash to a lolpig.
Click to expand...

One thing that wasn't mentioned is that the scamps convinced Resto and Rick to "hack" into the forum so there's a possibility they could actually face criminal charges themselves. I think at least one piece of evidence they submitted might have come from fraudulently accessing the forums.
 
42069

42069

Didn’t abandon daughter
‎
‎
TurdFerguson said:
One thing that wasn't mentioned is that the scamps convinced Resto and Rick to "hack" into the forum so there's a possibility they could actually face criminal charges themselves. I think at least one piece of evidence they submitted might have come from fraudulently accessing the forums.
Click to expand...
That’s why I thought Carol was crazy to leave Pat getting in legal trouble is still there
 
BudDickman

BudDickman

‎
‎
Isn't the hacking stuff sort of like entrapment. I know that entrapment only applies to law enforcement, but I think even if a civilian entices someone to commit a crime, that can be a mitigating factor.

Either way, Pat would have the right to face his accuser, so whoever is submitting evidence that he hacked into the website and whoever is pressing charges would probably have to be unmasked, assuming that there is any jurisdiction that is willing to pursue this.
 
LockedHDD__Pot

LockedHDD__Pot

‎
‎
BudDickman said:
Isn't the hacking stuff sort of like entrapment. I know that entrapment only applies to law enforcement, but I think even if a civilian entices someone to commit a crime, that can be a mitigating factor.

Either way, Pat would have the right to face his accuser, so whoever is submitting evidence that he hacked into the website and whoever is pressing charges would probably have to be unmasked, assuming that there is any jurisdiction that is willing to pursue this.
Click to expand...
the evidence would lack foundation if the 'hacker' couldn't verify the veracity of the evidence in court.
 
DiarrheaDick

DiarrheaDick

She's takin' a shit right into a glass!
‎
‎
BudDickman said:
Isn't the hacking stuff sort of like entrapment. I know that entrapment only applies to law enforcement, but I think even if a civilian entices someone to commit a crime, that can be a mitigating factor.

Either way, Pat would have the right to face his accuser, so whoever is submitting evidence that he hacked into the website and whoever is pressing charges would probably have to be unmasked, assuming that there is any jurisdiction that is willing to pursue this.
Click to expand...
Was it even a hack, or did they just sign up for an account when the forums were not accessible without an account? I always thought the issue was they were trying to say a public facing website was making fun of a midwestern rube, when it was actually private at the time it was accessed, thus he was going out of his way to view what he was calling harassing content when he could've just not gone to the site and sign up in the first place.

Are you guys really implying he hired someone to mess with the forum's base code?
 
G

Guest

Guest
DiarrheaDick said:
Was it even a hack, or did they just sign up for an account when the forums were not accessible without an account? I always thought the issue was they were trying to say a public facing website was making fun of a midwestern rube, when it was actually private at the time it was accessed, thus he was going out of his way to view what he was calling harassing content when he could've just not gone to the site and sign up in the first place.

Are you guys really implying he hired someone to mess with the forum's base code?
Click to expand...
Some black hats, even
 
Oogie Farts 1488

Oogie Farts 1488

🏠420 Friendly + Nigger Farts Welcome💨
‎
‎
DiarrheaDick said:
Was it even a hack, or did they just sign up for an account when the forums were not accessible without an account? I always thought the issue was they were trying to say a public facing website was making fun of a midwestern rube, when it was actually private at the time it was accessed, thus he was going out of his way to view what he was calling harassing content when he could've just not gone to the site and sign up in the first place.

Are you guys really implying he hired someone to mess with the forum's base code?
Click to expand...
my understanding is that someone discovered an exploit in the forums software and gave patrick a login to the forum that was acquired using that exploit. He then used it to access the hidden forums and screenshot posts.
 
FurBurger

FurBurger

What would you do for a Klondike bar?
‎
BudDickman said:
Isn't the hacking stuff sort of like entrapment. I know that entrapment only applies to law enforcement, but I think even if a civilian entices someone to commit a crime, that can be a mitigating factor.
Click to expand...
Nobody "enticed" him, they just sent him a how-to. Anyhow, read it for yourself.
BudDickman said:
Either way, Pat would have the right to face his accuser, so whoever is submitting evidence that he hacked into the website and whoever is pressing charges would probably have to be unmasked, assuming that there is any jurisdiction that is willing to pursue this.
Click to expand...
Which would be Quasi. If Pat succeeds in unmasking Quasi (as he's been attempting), Quasi reports Pat to the police and hands over the sworn declaration made by either Pat or his lawyer that contains evidence taken from the Secret Forum, which Pat was never authorised to access. Pat then faces charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers are just fucking thrilled about:
The CFAA prohibits intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization, but fails to define what “without authorization” means. With harsh penalty schemes and malleable provisions, it has become a tool ripe for abuse and use against nearly every aspect of computer activity.
Click to expand...

Quasi might be able to testify anonymously, but there's a risk to him in doing that. That said, he's filed sworn statements with his lawyer, the text of which (without his signature) were accepted by the civil court in California - he might be able to do the same in criminal court.

EDIT: That would be an interesting legal point. The Sixth Amendment provides the right to confront your accuser face-to-face, but to do so would violate Quasi's First Amendment right to anonymous speech which the California Superior Court already upheld. The courts do allow exceptions to that face-to-face right - for example, child abuse victims being able to testify via one-way CCTV - I wonder how far that would go?
 
Last edited:
G

guest

Guest
FurBurger said:
Nobody "enticed" him, they just sent him a how-to. [URL='https://apostlegate.net/2021/09/30/chapter-3/']Anyhow, read it for yourself.[/URL]

Which would be Quasi. If Pat succeeds in unmasking Quasi (as he's been attempting), Quasi reports Pat to the police and hands over the sworn declaration made by either Pat or his lawyer that contains evidence taken from the Secret Forum, which Pat was never authorised to access. Pat then faces charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers are [URL='https://www.nacdl.org/Landing/ComputerFraudandAbuseAct']just fucking thrilled about:[/URL]


Quasi might be able to testify anonymously, but there's a risk to him in doing that. That said, he's filed sworn statements with his lawyer, the text of which (without his signature) were accepted by the civil court in California - he might be able to do the same in criminal court.

EDIT: That would be an interesting legal point. [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness']The Sixth Amendment provides the right to confront your accuser face-to-face,[/URL] but to do so would violate Quasi's First Amendment right to anonymous speech which the California Superior Court already upheld. The courts do allow exceptions to that face-to-face right - for example, child abuse victims being able to testify via one-way CCTV - I wonder how far that would go?
Click to expand...
I want to see Ruben Peña yakked out of his mind in court again.
 
G

Guest

Guest
John Doe 1 said:
Alright, it's starting to get a little quiet here. When are we going to see some bowel movements with respect to the judgement in California? Anyone know where we would see that?
Click to expand...

11 days to appeal to judge whats-his-nuts. No timeline yet on the Google subpenis. That one is gonna be a dud anyways. Honestly, the lolsuit hit it's big plot twist. We're just kinda going through motions at this point. No different than the old days with the Cumia spergouts, waiting for months for the next thing they'd geek out about. When it comes to these cows, you have to gorge yourself on those big meals because you never know when you're gonna eat next.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top