• 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. Please report violators.

    DMCA, complaints, and other inquiries:

    [email protected]

Opie and Anthony Reddit Forums

quasi101

the $83,736.99 fugitive
Forum Clout
78,376
  • Deleted by N/A
Stein (RIP) , summarized it all in the ruling. He incorrectly ruled against the sanctions, but in the schulman hearing it was correctly pointed out those are mandatory sanctions. There's no judicial discretion. That actually is an issue that quasi could have appealed were Schulman to follow that incorrect decision. All you need to do is read the summary

The hearing on the above titled Petition was held before me on June 29, 2021 in Department 302/Discovery and was continued for further hearing following issuance of a report and recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge. Required for preparation of said recommendation is second further briefing from
Patrick Tomlinson (hereinafter"Tomlinson") as follows:

Krinsky vs. Doe 6, 159, (2008) Cal. App .4th 1154 ("Krinsky?) established
the evidentiary standard for compelling identification ofan anonymous poster on an internetweb site necessary for overruling a poster's constitutional right of
anonymity. TheKrinsky standard is "When there isa factual and legal basis for believing libel may have occurred, the writer's message will not be protected by
the FirstAmendment." The plaintiff must "establish that its action can withstand amotion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ...
[and] producesufficient evidencesupporting each elementof its cause of action. ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7, (2017) 13 Cal. App. 5th 603 later held "plaintiff seeking compulsory disclosure ofan allegedly libelous speaker's identity must state a legally sufficient cause of action against the defendant and must make a prima-facie showing of the elements ofthat causeo f action."

The Court is unable from Tomlinson's evidentiary submissions to date to
discern Does 1's specific actionable libel language on which he relies. Noted is
Tomlinson's Wisconsin complaint does not set forth libel specifics as to that defendant.

The Court offers Tomlinson a further opportunity to provide the Court
with unambiguous Krinsky evidentiary compliance, H
e is directed on or prior to
August 27, 2021 to serve and file a supplemental pleading, courtesy copy to the
undersigned at [email protected], setting forth the cause-of-action specificity with citations to the Petition's evidentiary record.


 
Top