I wanna see the debtor's movie!

[Guest]

I checked a while back and Wisconsin banned bounty hunters. You can, however, hire the Sheriff to go pick up a target for you.

I wonder if we could crowdsource that via Jerry Jen's office?

(I just did some further reading, and there are no bail bondsman in Wisconsin, either. If Pat gets bail he either pays the full amount up front, or he stays in jail).

Wait we can for real pay the sheriff to go arrest him? I will do that immediately. Not kidding, unless it’s like $3k.

 

[FurBurger]

Wait we can for real pay the sheriff to go arrest him? I will do that immediately. Not kidding, unless it’s like $3k.

I looked into it from the perspective of getting Pat hauled off to stand trial in California, back before Quasi domesticated the debt in Wisconsin.

So, yeah - they can bounty hunt for you. I don't know how we get Pat in their sights, but it might be worth exploring....

 

[DiarrheaDick]

Why would there be a bond? Wouldn’t the judge be sentencing him for contempt on the spot?

I never said he'd have to worry about bond, I was implying Wisconsin is so loose with everything he has nothing to
worry about. He'll be scolded and given another 60 days to get his shit together.

 

[Prison Enjoyer]

No fawkin way this tub of shit shows. He's saying the exact same shit as he was before April 19th; "There is no debtor's exam today or any other day, I will never take an exam, and one will neVeR occur, criminal buttstalker."

 

[BakersfieldChimp]

No fawkin way this tub of shit shows. He's saying the exact same shit as he was before April 19th; "There is no debtor's exam today or any other day, I will never take an exam, and one will neVeR occur, criminal buttstalker."
View attachment 142260
View attachment 142265
View attachment 142264

I think he's trying a Technicality Tomlinson here. There's no contempt hearing because Patrick doesn't believe he's in contempt. He's only going to court on the 24th to tell his side of the story, the only side of the story there is, child.

Patrick will not enjoy the 24th at all. We. Will.

 

[cardwell]

 

[Prison Enjoyer]

Idea for @admin: The 08/24 Contempt Hearing Megathread should be titled "i-wanna-see-the-inmate-movie!" and be pinned to replace this one. The beginning of the jail era is whole new territory we're entering.

Patrick has confirmed he'll be showing up. He's indicated he will sperg at the judge. There is now little-to-no chance of the hypothetical bench warrant for the contempt/failure-to-appear and there being a period when Patrick is free, but as a wanted man.

He will be arrested in the courtroom.

 

[ChimpanZ]

Assumin

I never said he'd have to worry about bond, I was implying Wisconsin is so loose with everything he has nothing to
worry about. He'll be scolded and given another 60 days to get his shit together.

Assuming he even shows up in the first place. Also I don’t think this judge is one to freely let F/NS show such disrespect to his court

 

[guest]

I don't know if this was mentioned before so I'll just add this. Did niki close her old business and reopen a new one because she was possibly spending money on her and pat for personal things? If it was an LLC and she used the money for personal use then debtors would be able to go after the business itself because it would erase the line between business money and personal money. Does closing the old one and opening the new one create a new barrier to that money? Or could it be argued that it is a continuation of the old business in some fashion? If that was the case what would be the time limit to be able to go after those funds?

 

[FurBurger]

No fawkin way this tub of shit shows.

He will be arrested in the courtroom.

Those comments are three hours apart, and mutually exclusive.

Like I told you before, not even Pat knows what he's doing on the 24th. It could be that he shows up full of booze beans and tries to re-litigate the case; or he faces the hearing stone cold sober and hidden under the fart blanket.

 

[WifeStoreWill]

I don't know if this was mentioned before so I'll just add this. Did niki close her old business and reopen a new one because she was possibly spending money on her and pat for personal things? If it was an LLC and she used the money for personal use then debtors would be able to go after the business itself because it would erase the line between business money and personal money. Does closing the old one and opening the new one create a new barrier to that money? Or could it be argued that it is a continuation of the old business in some fashion? If that was the case what would be the time limit to be able to go after those funds?

Does it even matter? She owes Quasi $50k and that business is an asset that he should be able to go after. It’s not a liability issue, he isn’t suing PBG.

 

[bantadant]

Those comments are three hours apart, and mutually exclusive.

Like I told you before, not even Pat knows what he's doing on the 24th. It could be that he shows up full of booze beans and tries to re-litigate the case; or he faces the hearing stone cold sober and hidden under the fart blanket.

The interview made it seem like he thinks he's gonna show up and correcT the record, which would probably be the most hilarious outcome

 

[guest]

Does it even matter? She owes Quasi $50k and that business is an asset that he should be able to go after. It’s not a liability issue, he isn’t suing PBG.

Yeah, a business is a separate entity from a person. A person can be sued and their business can be safe. Their business can be sued and their personal finances can be safe. If someone was stupid enough to buy personal things with their business money then it would erase the line between a businesses finances and their personal finances.

 

[guest]

It's called piercing the veil. It's done, but rarely.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil[/URL]

Ah maybe it is not a cost effective measure to getting money back unless all other options were tried. I don't know, that Quasi guy probably has good lawyers who know things.

 

[WifeStoreWill]

Yeah, a business is a separate entity from a person. A person can be sued and their business can be safe. Their business can be sued and their personal finances can be safe. If someone was stupid enough to buy personal things with their business money then it would erase the line between a businesses finances and their personal finances.

I understand that but this is different. Liability doesn’t flow between the business and the person and that’s fine. The business is an asset they own just like the house, car, etc. There’s no reason that Quasi as a creditor can’t go after that asset just like any other.

 

[WifeStoreWill]

You guys always say shit like this as if there aren't nuanced laws and statutes specific to each state and even counties.

Then wonder why quasi did hire a thug to repo the rustang. Or why he's "doing nothing" for months , so that means he's given up.


There exceptions upon statutes upon exception upon case law about what you have to do, what's allowed , what process has to be followed. How they can respond. What circumstances apply.


So no its not just any other asset and every single asset has its own categorization anyway.

Yes I get that and I wasn’t implying that Quasi was doing anything wrong or that this was simple or easy. My point was that the people saying that PBG is untouchable are probably wrong and I think Quasi would have an avenue to seize it if he wanted to and thought it would be worth the effort.

I’ve been team Quasi since day 1 and always thought he was handling this great.

 

[porquedealer]

I understand that but this is different. Liability doesn’t flow between the business and the person and that’s fine. The business is an asset they own just like the house, car, etc. There’s no reason that Quasi as a creditor can’t go after that asset just like any other.

Quasi is in deep, deep shit, child