I am the law, Child.

[IGotATreeOnMyHouse85]

Pat is having a typical day yelling at “stalkers” on twitter and coming off like quite a loon. Here’s a highlight:

Pat decided who is guilty and even though he doesn’t have any law experience he says all the “stalkers” are guilty of crimes yet police and courts said otherwise.
Also Pat thinks the judge said bad reviews were defamation and against the law and deserve prison

 

[Meownaw]

If a pig squeals in a black forest doesn't anyone hear him?

 

[Will Tate]

The judge decided the exact opposite, you lying pig. We all saw the video where he said "book reviews are not defamation." Jesus tap-dancing Christ, who are you trying to convince, others or yourself?
Oh, never mind, that's right, you're just being a lying, disingenuous piece of shit in the hopes no third parties will look into what you say and determine you're completely full of shit.
Fuck, I hate him. And he's just so, so fat.

 

[Clint Ruin]

Except in one or two instances, where the review clearly referenced things that weren't actually in the book, it is literally impossible to prove that a review is fake. There is literally no hard evidence to prove a fake review is fake, you cannot prove in either civil or criminal court that they didn't read the book.

 

[Mitch Weaver]

Fat crybully let’s not forget he just wanted to dox us to sic his tranny faggot crew on us. He knows legally he can’t do Jack shit but he can try & get us fired from Panera.

 

[Mr-Wrinkle-Paws]

Isn't it spelled eyewitness?

 

[captainjapan]

Wait, the Panera thing was a bit? I've been working here for 29 months........

 

[guest]

The judge decided the exact opposite, you lying pig. We all saw the video where he said "book reviews are not defamation." Jesus tap-dancing Christ, who are you trying to convince, others or yourself?
Oh, never mind, that's right, you're just being a lying, disingenuous piece of shit in the hopes no third parties will look into what you say and determine you're completely full of shit.
Fuck, I hate him. And he's just so, so fat.

It is difficult to tell if he is lying, stupid or both in most situations. The judge ruled on one thing. A motion to quash a subpoena. That's it. The ruling took section 230 into account and of course Krinsky, as that applies specifically to California. As a corollary to the quash was 1987.2(c) which are the mandatory sanctions.

The only place that this applies to defamation was showing that the petitioner himself commited defamation. Not that there was no defamation, not anything else. I realize since one subpeona ended up costing 150,000 it seems like there was more to it. There wasn't. The judge ruled that there was not a prima facie showing of defamation by the petitioner.

It doesn't maTTer what the pro tem said. It doesn't matter if his dead dog told him to rule a certain way. It doesn't matter what Schulman said during the hearing unless it was in his ruling.

The ruling is one page. By Schulman. That's it. Stein has no authority. Nothing else matters related to this. The case in Wisconsin was withdrawn so nothing was "ruled" there either.

 

[guest]

If a pig squeals in a black forest doesn't anyone hear him?

Mmmm black forest ham

 

[IGotATreeOnMyHouse85]

Eye witnesses? You mean him on camera vandalizing his own property? He’s gone so crazy he believes he’s seen crimes committed that he did

 

[guest]

Wait, the Panera thing was a bit? I've been working here for 29 months........

I hear you will make shift manager soon!

 

[UnPRePared]

 

[Pringle Can Lothario]

Why is that Fatrick shit on Judge Stein as a drooling moron, pro tem, et al, but then takes his word on defamation as gold?

 

[captainjapan]

I hear you will make shift manager soon!

I've gained 50 pounds, I eat 4 Chipotle Chicken & Bacon Flatbread Pizzas a day

 

[guest]

I literally will not be happy until we bully this dude into suicide.

 

[captain_kamala]

I literally will not be happy until we bully this dude into suicide.

i feel the same way. i know it's not a popular sentiment around here but come on.

 

[guest]

i feel the same way. i know it's not a popular sentiment around here but come on.

Yeah how people say she was asking for it when a girl dresses up like a whore? Well I don't subscribe to that theory. I don't believe there's such a thing as a woman asking to be raped.

HOWEVER, with that being said... I ABSOLUTELY subscribe to the theory that when it comes to bullying there are people fucking BEGGING for it. Especially on the internet. And we have to give them what they want.

 

[MonsterSteve]

Wait, what Judge decided he was defamed?

 

[AntSucks]

It is difficult to tell if he is lying, stupid or both in most situations.

It's always both. His mind is like a tightrope walker, always on shakey ground. Sometimes he's gotta lean one way, sometimes the other. Every muscle is working on moving that one foot just one step ahead. He can never look at the ground, but he can also never look ahead.

 

[guest]

Wait, what Judge decided he was defamed?

A judge pro tem, who is an attorney acting in a judicial capacity with no authority, stated, extemporaneously, that "some of this probably rises to the level of defamation". This is an official ruling according to a fat man who also claimed that the same unofficial pro tem had already "ruled twice" that Quasi was not getting any money.