Today’s Court Hearing - Link & Live Discussion

[JoeCumiawearsDIAPERS]

Could Jerry be making SFWA swallow a poison pill here? Let them win this procedural issue, but then get them dragged into a bigger issue after Patrick's finances get revealed?

I doubt it. He was hired to provide expertise and act in the best interests of his client - unless there’s a great reason to purposely tank, it seems that it would be a waste of Quasi’s time and money, plus there’d be an official loss on the record.

I think the simplest answer is probably the right one - the pro tem wasn’t fully prepared/knowledgeable on the case law or the filings and got extra defensive because he was already annoyed by the pests.

 

[Stent]

 

[Kim_Jong_Poon_]

I doubt it. He was hired to provide expertise and act in the best interests of his client - unless there’s a great reason to purposely tank, it seems that it would be a waste of Quasi’s time and money, plus there’d be an official loss on the record.

I think the simplest answer is probably the right one - the pro tem wasn’t fully prepared/knowledgeable on the case law or the filings and got extra defensive because he was already annoyed by the pests.

The way it went down, I'm leaning towards bias. No matter what points Jen made, pro tem was very dismissive. He called it a fishing expedition during the hearing and said that having SFWA provide a record of transaction between Pat and their Org was oppressive.

The Non Lawyer here provided better analysis earlier in the thread, but it was evident that pro tem kept moving the goal posts

 

[guest]

I doubt it. He was hired to provide expertise and act in the best interests of his client - unless there’s a great reason to purposely tank, it seems that it would be a waste of Quasi’s time and money, plus there’d be an official loss on the record.

I think the simplest answer is probably the right one - the pro tem wasn’t fully prepared/knowledgeable on the case law or the filings and got extra defensive because he was already annoyed by the pests.

I'm not saying he's intentionally tanking. I'm just saying maybe there's a Plan B if this fails. SFWA is showing their cards that they have something to hide. Make the piggy squeal and find out what it is.

 

[JoeCumiawearsDIAPERS]

I'm not saying he's intentionally tanking. I'm just saying maybe there's a Plan B if this fails. SFWA is showing their cards that they have something to hide. Make the piggy squeal and find out what it is.

Sorry, I misunderstood your OP. I definitely think there’s a viable Plan B. There’s a reason lawsuits take years to resolve.

 

[Cuphead]

The way it went down, I'm leaning towards bias. No matter what points Jen made, pro tem was very dismissive. He called it a fishing expedition during the hearing and said that having SFWA provide a record of transaction between Pat and their Org was oppressive.

The Non Lawyer here provided better analysis earlier in the thread, but it was evident that pro tem kept moving the goal posts

Say what you will about Judge Ashley, but at least he could admit he had bias and knew how to confront it

 

[guest]

that is a fair point to make here. i think jerry dropped the ball a bit so far, but we'll see if he can cook something up before the next hearing.

I went back and reviewed both

C.C.P. sec. 708.120; SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court, 243 Cal. App. 4th 741, 752 (2015)

[URL]https://cite.case.law/cal-app-4th/243/741/[/URL]

and

Shrewsbury Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (2019), 32 Cal. App. 5th 1213, 1225

[URL]https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2019/h043166.html[/URL]

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).

This seems pretty straightforward.


Sections in Article 2 fall under Examination proceedings only.

[URL]https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&division=2.&title=9.&part=2.&chapter=6.&article=2.&goUp=Y[/URL]

ooopsie doodles....


But lets look at Jerry's repsonse in more depth, perhaps something a judge pro tem should have done? Who am I to say.

In California, a sanctions order is enforceable in the same way as a "money judgment". Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.)§ 680.230, a sanctions order is a judgment in itself. California’s Enforcement of Judgment Law (EJL) allows judgment creditors to serve subpoenas for records to third parties to trace and locate assets upon which to levy. “A subpoena duces tecum may be served on a party to compel production of documents at trial (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985). In the context of post judgment enforcement proceedings, the use of a subpoena duces tecum to discover and inspect relevant documents is an accepted practice.” (Citations Omitted). Shrewsbury Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (2019), 32 Cal. App. 5th 1213, 1225.

So what does Shrewsbury say?

As a result, we disagree with the conclusion reached by the trial court in this case. In its order denying Shrewsbury’s motion, it appears that the trial court believed that the only third party witnesses that may be subpoenaed “in an examination proceeding under this article” (§ 708.130, subd. (a)) are those that satisfy the requirements set forth in section 708.120, subdivision (a) (a “third person [that] has possession or control of property in which the judgment debtor has an interest or is indebted to the judgment debtor in an amount exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250)”), and that section 708.120 is the only mechanism by which a third party may be required to testify. This interpretation is contrary to the plain language of section 708.130, subdivision (a). This construction of sections 708.120 and 708.130 would also render section 708.130 superfluous. Moreover, this construction would prevent a judgment creditor from obtaining relevant information about a judgment debtor’s property and business affairs from a third party who may not satisfy the requirements of section 708.120, subdivision (a), such as the debtor’s accountant, bookkeeper, and others who do not possess or control the debtor’s property or owe the debtor money.

The states that
1. The third party can pretty much be anyone. Not just a specific financial institution. Jerry said this during the hearing.
2. The specific statute referenced by Lynn is not the only mechanism for a subpoena.

Wait what... that can't be right...

To tie things ups nicely

In sum, we determine that the trial court erroneously concluded that a third party subpoena can only be issued in connection with an examination of the third party under section 708.120.

So that means that there are possibly other means to issue a third party subpoena. What could those be????

“The policy of the law favors the enforcement of judgments. [Citation.] There is no policy favoring the concealment of the judgment debtor’s assets from the judgment creditor.” (Yolanda’s, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 515.)

We observe that after the trial court issued its order in this case, the Second Appellate District, Division Six, in Yolanda’s determined that “nothing in section 708.120 states that it is the only procedure available for examining a third party. In fact, section 708.130 expressly provides otherwise.” (Yolanda’s, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 515.)

However, to the extent that Finance Holding’s language suggests that the scope of inquiry with respect to a third party is always limited by that delineated in section 708.120, because section 708.120 is a purportedly more specific statute that controls over section 708.130, we respectfully disagree. (See Finance Holding, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 683.) The principle that a specific statute controls over a more general statute is applicable only when the two statutes cannot be reconciled. (Medical Board v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1004-1005.)

Hmm, let us go back and see what Mr. Jen said.

In California, a sanctions order is enforceable in the same way as a "money judgment". Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.)§ 680.230, a sanctions order is a judgment in itself. California’s Enforcement of Judgment Law (EJL) allows judgment creditors to serve subpoenas for records to third parties to trace and locate assets upon which to levy. “A subpoena duces tecum may be served on a party to compel production of documents at trial (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985). In the context of post judgment enforcement proceedings, the use of a subpoena duces tecum to discover and inspect relevant documents is an accepted practice.” (Citations Omitted). Shrewsbury Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (2019), 32 Cal. App. 5th 1213, 1225.

Assuming Jen has reason for claiming (not exactly sure here), "sanctions order is enforceable in the same way as a "money judgment". Then why wouldn't the "(C.C.P.)§ 680.230" apply?

• • [URL]https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=680.230#:~:text=680.230.,(Added%20by%20Stats[/URL].

[HEADING=3]680.230. [/HEADING]
“Judgment” means a judgment, order, or decree entered in a court of this state.

In the context of post judgment enforcement proceedings, the use of a subpoena duces tecum to discover and inspect relevant documents is an accepted practice.

And we've seen that the very same ruling said that this is not limited to just an examination proceeding. It seems this is a pedantic process issue, which in no way should lead to sanctions. Double especially when the meet and confer was deemed deficient.


I’m curious if Jerry has any specific references to a subpoena where there is no examination process. If not this decision could be used in the future as precedent as this specific circumstance hadn’t been ruled on.


From Jerry’s responses today and the initial response, it seems like Jen essentially laid out the case as this is common practice and then provided a few sources for good measure. Jerry could perhaps have been a bit more clear.

I supposed I’d knock him down from an A to a A- in that regard if we’re being strict.

 

[Juschippinyababe]

I am late to the party, whaaaaaa happen?

 

[Cuphead]

I am late to the party, whaaaaaa happen?

Anthony got fired.

 

[Harry Powell]

I went back and reviewed both


https://cite.case.law/cal-app-4th/243/741/

and


https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2019/h043166.html





This seems pretty straightforward.


Sections in Article 2 fall under Examination proceedings only.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...title=9.&part=2.&chapter=6.&article=2.&goUp=Y

View attachment 42900


ooopsie doodles....


But lets look at Jerry's repsonse in more depth, perhaps something a judge pro tem should have done? Who am I to say.



So what does Shrewsbury say?


The states that
1. The third party can pretty much be anyone. Not just a specific financial institution. Jerry said this during the hearing.
2. The specific statute referenced by Lynn is not the only mechanism for a subpoena.

Wait what... that can't be right...

To tie things ups nicely



So that means that there are possibly other means to issue a third party subpoena. What could those be????









Hmm, let us go back and see what Mr. Jen said.




Assuming Jen has reason for claiming (not exactly sure here), "sanctions order is enforceable in the same way as a "money judgment". Then why wouldn't the "(C.C.P.)§ 680.230" apply?

• • https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=680.230#:~:text=680.230.,(Added by Stats.

And we've seen that the very same ruling said that this is not limited to just an examination proceeding. It seems this is a pedantic process issue, which in no way should lead to sanctions. Double especially when the meet and confer was deemed deficient.


I’m curious if Jerry has any specific references to a subpoena where there is no examination process. If not this decision could be used in the future as precedent as this specific circumstance hadn’t been ruled on.


From Jerry’s responses today and the initial response, it seems like Jen essentially laid out the case as this is common practice and then provided a few sources for good measure. Jerry could perhaps have been a bit more clear.

I supposed I’d knock him down from an A to a A- in that regard if we’re being strict.

Fawk bro, you are smart. Giving me a lot of hope ovah here

 

[Punished Dan Mullen]

Why the fuck were you folks fucking with the stream

 

[Stent]

I am late to the party, whaaaaaa happen?

 

[guest]

I am late to the party, whaaaaaa happen?

Wellllll it all started with Opie’s Nighttime Attitude…..

 

[guest]

I went back and reviewed both


[URL]https://cite.case.law/cal-app-4th/243/741/[/URL]

and


[URL]https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2019/h043166.html[/URL]





This seems pretty straightforward.


Sections in Article 2 fall under Examination proceedings only.

[URL]https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&division=2.&title=9.&part=2.&chapter=6.&article=2.&goUp=Y[/URL]

View attachment 42900


ooopsie doodles....


But lets look at Jerry's repsonse in more depth, perhaps something a judge pro tem should have done? Who am I to say.



So what does Shrewsbury say?


The states that
1. The third party can pretty much be anyone. Not just a specific financial institution. Jerry said this during the hearing.
2. The specific statute referenced by Lynn is not the only mechanism for a subpoena.

Wait what... that can't be right...

To tie things ups nicely



So that means that there are possibly other means to issue a third party subpoena. What could those be????









Hmm, let us go back and see what Mr. Jen said.




Assuming Jen has reason for claiming (not exactly sure here), "sanctions order is enforceable in the same way as a "money judgment". Then why wouldn't the "(C.C.P.)§ 680.230" apply?

• • [URL='https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=680.230#:~:text=680.230.,(Added%20by%20Stats']https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=680.230#:~:text=680.230.,(Added by Stats[/URL].

And we've seen that the very same ruling said that this is not limited to just an examination proceeding. It seems this is a pedantic process issue, which in no way should lead to sanctions. Double especially when the meet and confer was deemed deficient.


I’m curious if Jerry has any specific references to a subpoena where there is no examination process. If not this decision could be used in the future as precedent as this specific circumstance hadn’t been ruled on.


From Jerry’s responses today and the initial response, it seems like Jen essentially laid out the case as this is common practice and then provided a few sources for good measure. Jerry could perhaps have been a bit more clear.

I supposed I’d knock him down from an A to a A- in that regard if we’re being strict.

Hmm, yes. I concur.

 

[Alexis de Torqueville]

Wellllll it all started with Opie’s Nighttime Attitude…..

Totally demented but cannot be prevented

 

[BudDickman]

I'm confused by the all-or-nothing nature of the quash being denied or upheld. It seems like a reasonable compromise is to give Jen everything that he's asking for, but redact names of SFWA officers and other sensitive information in the emails.

Perhaps a judge can view the text of the emails with the lawyers behind closed doors and decide what should be redacted or sequestered, because it is not relevant. Then I guess it would be up to the SFWA lawyer to convince the judge that communications about them funding the lawsuit that resulted in the judgment debt are somehow not relevant to Quasi's collection efforts.

But instead the way this seems to work is "quash is denied, Quasi gets everything" or "quash is upheld, Quasi doesn't get shit".

 

[Punished Dan Mullen]

I'm confused by the all-or-nothing nature of the quash being denied or upheld. It seems like a reasonable compromise is to give Jen everything that he's asking for, but redact names of SFWA officers and other sensitive information in the emails.

Perhaps a judge can view the text of the emails with the lawyers behind closed doors and decide what should be redacted or sequestered, because it is not relevant. Then I guess it would be up to the SFWA lawyer to convince the judge that communications about them funding the lawsuit that resulted in the judgment debt are somehow not relevant to Quasi's collection efforts.

But instead the way this seems to work is "quash is denied, Quasi gets everything" or "quash is upheld, Quasi doesn't get shit".

sounds like judge Hovel is a chinese tomlinson that knew everything, gay ass nigger

 

[Torque’sHeadBump]

Lishen foilksch no two ways about it, they're hiding some dark ugly shit.

All bits aside, these are some sick fucks. Patrick wants to be a Tranny or is "into things" with them...not very far fetched at all.

This judge looked very gay, but legally he is in the right to put the burden on Quasi to show good legal proof. This was just a nice test, SWFA is fucked but they clearly have better taste in picking lawyers than Fatrick. You wanna fight? You got one

Those Alex Jones compilations are great

 

[JoeCumiawearsDIAPERS]

Any idea when the next hearing is going to be? What are the next steps here?

 

[Cuphead]

Any idea when the next hearing is going to be? What are the next steps here?

Jerry has another chance to present his case in front of the actual judge on June 6th