I cant imagine him ever letting the idiots win, but I also cant imagine the SFWA allowing any further loans.
Pests, what say you?
Pests, what say you?
DMCA, complaints, and other inquiries:
This place really does need a warning at the start telling Patrick he's been trespassed from the place, and if he comes here again charges will be pressed.Ask him yourself he’s usually here. Illegally and fatly.
a dead fishThis place really does need a warning at the start telling Patrick he's been trespassed from the place, and if he comes here again charges will be pressed.
Quasi ought to send him something official, via his lawyer.
You’re seriously overestimating him. He’s a fucking sociopath with a victim complex. He’d just claim it was some kind of threat and behave all entitled about it. Attempt to explain to him what he’s doing is an actual crime and he would just stomp his feet insisting that everyone follow his demands. He’s fat like that.This place really does need a warning at the start telling Patrick he's been trespassed from the place, and if he comes here again charges will be pressed.
Quasi ought to send him something official, via his lawyer.
You’re seriously overestimating him. He’s a fucking sociopath with a victim complex. He’d just claim it was some kind of threat and behave all entitled about it. Attempt to explain to him what he’s doing is an actual crime and he would just stomp his feet insisting that everyone follow his demands. He’s fat like that.
That's my recollection, too. Mayr had two chances to submit written arguments to the judge pro tempore, plus a chance to verbally argue in front of him; he failed those three and then got the chance to argue it in front of Judge Shulman (who told him that he was "making [his] opponent's case for him"). He's got fuck-all chance of arguing that both judges made the same mistake in applying Krinsky to his case.@notalawyer explained it better and can correct my nonsense if I'm way off but I believe that the appeals process wouldn't really give them much of an opportunity to submit new evidence, just appeal the judgment using the merits of their original evidence.
This means they already would have submitted indisputable proof that Quasi posted defamatory statements and the judge applied the wrong precedents or interpretation. Introducing new evidence may be possible but probably requires a ground breaking finding that's critical to the case to be admissable in an appeal situation.
Can’t our Mola Ram just move on that now? He’s got ApostleGate to back up his claims about Pat and his Lionel Hutz lawyer admitting to that breach. Then again Quasi is still 27K in the hole at the moment.I don't think it would change his behaviour, but it would be another thing for Quasi to slap him around with, if he tries to go to court again.
Something tells me Canyon Boykin won't be appearing in court, so I doubt much of that is admissible. Quasi could report Brinton/Fatrick's hacking as a crime, but I don't know whether the cops could effectively keep him anonymous (probably not, as I think Fats has the legal right to question his accuser in court). It's a nice headshot if he does get unmasked, though.Can’t our Mola Ram just move on that now? He’s got ApostleGate to back up his claims about Pat and his Lionel Hutz lawyer admitting to that breach. Then again Quasi is still 27K in the hole at the moment.
This forum is dedicated exclusively to parody, comedy, and satirical content. None of the statements, opinions, or depictions shared on this platform should be considered or treated as factual information under any circumstances. All content is intended for entertainment purposes only and should be regarded as fictional, exaggerated, or purely the result of personal opinions and creative expression.
Please be aware that this forum may feature discussions and content related to taboo, controversial, or potentially offensive subjects. The purpose of this content is not to incite harm but to engage in satire and explore the boundaries of humor. If you are sensitive to such subjects or are easily offended, we kindly advise that you leave the forum.
Any similarities to real people, events, or situations are either coincidental or based on real-life inspirations but used within the context of fair use satire. By accepting this disclaimer, you acknowledge and understand that the content found within this forum is strictly meant for parody, satire, and entertainment. You agree not to hold the forum, its administrators, moderators, or users responsible for any content that may be perceived as offensive or inappropriate. You enter and participate in this forum at your own risk, with full awareness that everything on this platform is purely comedic, satirical, or opinion-based, and should never be taken as factual information.
If any information or discussion on this platform triggers distressing emotions or thoughts, please leave immediately and consider seeking assistance.
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (USA): Phone: 1-800-273-TALK (1-800-273-8255) Website: https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/