WhY DoEsN'T qUaSi pOsT NoW tHaT ThE QuAsH Is fInIsHeD

Shane Gillis

Stand-up comedian, Philly
any comment on the likelihood of the pedos getting attorney's fees awareded? shit I found on google:
May 10, 2017 — In a recent case, a district court awarded a nonparty's law firm only $1100 of the more than $145,000 in attorneys' fees requested.
Ninth Circuit Shifts “Significant Expense” of Compliance with Third Party Subpoenas to Party Seeking Discovery

and the ability to tack costs onto Pat is very limited, like if he refuses to answer or doesn't show up to an examination you can tack the cost of THAT but not everything

hoping the Alt Right and Putin are just funding Quasi for fun and don't care
 
any comment on the likelihood of the pedos getting attorney's fees awareded? shit I found on google:



and the ability to tack costs onto Pat is very limited, like if he refuses to answer or doesn't show up to an examination you can tack the cost of THAT but not everything

hoping the Alt Right and Putin are just funding Quasi for fun and don't care

Not likely. The statute they claimed is at the courts discretion and it requires that were was no reason for the subpoena, and that the person sending it didn't believe they had a reason to send it. Even if it turns out there wasn't a good reason, if at the time Quasi thought there was, then it wouldn't apply.
 

covidcumia

The Dutch are FAGS!!!
Not likely. The statute they claimed is at the courts discretion and it requires that were was no reason for the subpoena, and that the person sending it didn't believe they had a reason to send it. Even if it turns out there wasn't a good reason, if at the time Quasi thought there was, then it wouldn't apply.
For what reason demonstrably would a not for profit want to hide this info in the first place? Quasi was respecting a right to anonymity what is the idea that SFWA wouldn't just cooperate? It makes no sense unless they have something to hide.
 

Lamont & Tonelli

Brevity is... wit.
I like slope and zipperhead.
Clint Eastwood GIFs - Find & Share on GIPHY
 
For what reason demonstrably would a not for profit want to hide this info in the first place? Quasi was respecting a right to anonymity what is the idea that SFWA wouldn't just cooperate? It makes no sense unless they have something to hide.

They don't have one. They almost tried to make an argument. Jerry will give a response and then SFWA will get a reply to the response. Presumably, that response will have a bit more teeth, but who knows.

Reading more into the response just shows how little effort was put into the quash. they hardly cite any case law, and when they do it doesn't apply. The response looks like someone who googled "common objections to a third party subpoena".

including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.

That doesn't apply to collection of a judgement debt.

Moreover, a party seeking discovery from a non-party (like SFWA) bears the burden of providing specific facts that show good cause for the requested information. See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 224 (vacating trial court order which compelled nonparty to produced documents responsive to a deposition subpoena).

The case cited does not involve collection of a debt. The facts are he is a judgement debtor.

As discussed in more detail herein, the Subpoena at issue here presents the same sort of discovery abuse contemplated by the Court of Appeal in Calcor Space Facility

Not in any way, no. Please show how it relates to a judgement debt.


There are no legitimate reasons for Petitioner to have issued the Subpoena on SFWA. For starters, the Wisconsin Action brought by Patrick S. Tomlinson against Petitioner and other John Does was dismissed back on January 19, 2022. Ex. 4 (Court Docket). Additionally, Petitioner does not have an affirmative lawsuit against Mr. Tomlinson pending. For these reasons, there is no reason for Petitioner to issue a records subpoena much less engage in any discovery here.

Doesn't apply at all here. Again, they must have taken a previous quash and used that as an outline. He's a debtor in California, thats the reason.

To an outside observer, the Subpoena would appear to suggest there is litigation between Mr. Tomlinson and SFWA. There is not. Petitioner has not asserted any claims against Mr. Tomlinson or SFWA that is even peripherally related to Mr. Tomlinson’s participation as a member of SFWA. For this reason, there are no legitimate reasons for Petitioner to obtain the records sought in the Subpoena.

This doesn't make any sense. To the outside observer, Jerry specifically tailored the subpoena to financial information. Nothing in the subpoena implied that, you misread it because you spent 5 minutes doing a find and replace in Word.


By way of example, what relevance does Mr. Tomlinson’s application to become a member of SFWA have for Petitioner?
It involves his book sales which are relevant to assets and Financials.

What relevance does any payments made by Mr. Tomlinson to SFWA have for Petitioner?

Ok, he's fucking with us now. What relevance do financial payments have to gathering FINANCIAL INFORMATION??? What could possibly be the connection there?

This begs the question how will this information be used and by who? Because Petitioner’s identity continues to be hidden from SFWA and the public, this raises serious concerns about the potential for abuse of the information requested in the Subpoena. It would be a violation of due process for a non-party like SFWA to be compelled to disclose sensitive and confidential information about its members and inner workings to some unknown person – if indeed Petitioner is even a real person.

They try to claim anonymity is an issue. No case law is cited, nor any statutes, not even from another state. Additionally, Jerry Jen filed all the proper paperwork to establish the ownership of the debt to his law firm. This is beyond lazy.

Needless to say, all of the categories of records sought in Petitioner’s Subpoena are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The first two points could be established. The third cannot. The irony is, they just asserted the first two points, which are the only ones they can argue.
 
While going back and reading the documents, I noticed something I hadn't seen brought up yet.

Axley Brynson LLP is the firm Nicole Way's works for. So she wasn't necessarily doing it as a friend of the family, their law firm was involved in that nonsense.



saaqwwe.png
 

AntSucks

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
Maybe this is a stupid question, I am a Panera Bread employee after all...... But what would stop someone from just deleting some of the emails before they turn them over, or would they just identify their email addresses and get them directly from the mail server?

That would turn it into a criminal matter. They'd all happily tank the organization before going to jail for contempt of court.
 

FurBurger

Cars aren't built like they used to be. They're b
Maybe this is a stupid question, I am a Panera Bread employee after all...... But what would stop someone from just deleting some of the emails before they turn them over, or would they just identify their email addresses and get them directly from the mail server?
They email Pat, Pat replies.

To cover that up they need to delete their original email, and Pat's reply (which will have traces of the original email). They need to do that on their server and email client, on Pat's server and client, and any and all backups Quasi's team have access to, and any systems that email might have left a record on. Did you book a meeting to discuss it; uh-oh. Did your antispam system keep a record of processing it; uh-oh. Did you text someone about it and forgot to delete the text; uh-oh. Did you send an out-of-office email when it arrived; uh-oh. Did you refer to the earlier email in a later email; uh-oh. Is it on paper file somewhere; uh-oh. Did you authorise sending money somewhere on the basis of an email that now doesn't exist; uh-oh. Then they need to all tell exactly the same story if questioned under oath, over and over again. If they fuck up and get caught, that's a felony. If you're in a profession - a lawyer, or accountant, or fat insurance salesman - you are out of that profession for a period of years, maybe forever. Better hope Walmart are looking for greeters, as a lot of places won't overlook a recent felony - and neither do spouses.

Fucking banks get tripped up by shit like this.

And remember, the autists on here will go through every single record that gets posted, looking for inconsistencies. What facts are in this email; where did those facts come from? etc.
 
G

guest

Guest
Isn't the weakest link here just Rick with his big mouth? He was legally assessed to be a "pants shitting retard" in record time by an actual super lawyer. David Sohn spent "over 7 hours" and must have learned a few things about Rick's tact, self-control and blast radius. Also hard to miss that he's enormously fat.
 
They email Pat, Pat replies.

To cover that up they need to delete their original email, and Pat's reply (which will have traces of the original email). They need to do that on their server and email client, on Pat's server and client, and any and all backups Quasi's team have access to, and any systems that email might have left a record on. Did you book a meeting to discuss it; uh-oh. Did your antispam system keep a record of processing it; uh-oh. Did you text someone about it and forgot to delete the text; uh-oh. Did you send an out-of-office email when it arrived; uh-oh. Did you refer to the earlier email in a later email; uh-oh. Is it on paper file somewhere; uh-oh. Did you authorise sending money somewhere on the basis of an email that now doesn't exist; uh-oh. Then they need to all tell exactly the same story if questioned under oath, over and over again. If they fuck up and get caught, that's a felony. If you're in a profession - a lawyer, or accountant, or fat insurance salesman - you are out of that profession for a period of years, maybe forever. Better hope Walmart are looking for greeters, as a lot of places won't overlook a recent felony - and neither do spouses.

Fucking banks get tripped up by shit like this.

And remember, the autists on here will go through every single record that gets posted, looking for inconsistencies. What facts are in this email; where did those facts come from? etc.
I know someone who was charged with fraud for changing a bunch of terms on those scam energy contracts after they were signed. As soon as he found out he was under investigation, he told his office manager to delete all of the contracts to get rid of the evidence. I’m not sure the manager even knew they were under investigation yet.

Long story short, the guy who committed the fraud did literally 0 time (he hired the best criminal defense attorney in our state), while the office manager was charged with obstruction of justice and went to prison for 2 or 3 years.

That was a criminal case but the point is that trying to cover shit up will buttfuck you in the end. Whether that’s getting charged with a federal offense or completely eroding your credibility with a judge and having it influence their ruling.
 
Top