I am the law, Child.

[Will Tate]

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 The case in Wisconsin was withdrawn so nothing was "ruled" there either.


View attachment 21525

Appreciate the correction, despite you not being a lawyer.

 

[guest]

Judge Fedd

 

[Stetten's Long Thumbers]

Judge Bread

 

[Chive Turkey]

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.

A judge pro tem who, it must be added, was very dismissive of Pat's claims and permissive of First Amendment protections regarding trolling in general. It's not exactly a glowing endorsement when he muses that "some" of the 60+ examples brought forward could be regarded as defamation.

This is also the same judge who Rick has repeatedly bashed as a geriatric knownothing for criticising the lion's share of his lolsuit, but suddenly an off-hand comment by the same man was a binding decision.

 

[Stent]

failed to produce competent evidence supporting prima facie case of defamation.

Goddamnit, judge! Poop Balls gave a 1 star review and said "Not good." What more do you need?!

 

[guest]

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.

Wrong lawyer child, in porcine law findings of fact are determined without a permissible defense as in common law. If a judge says "yea maybe some posters may have defamed you, but we're here to address if Doe 1 did and you have to meet the minimum standard for us to grant a subpoena and he's further protected as the host rather than publisher on all other posts" it means the same as a jury trial with evidence and direct testimony.I can't help that you didn't attend either pig or wine law school. Hush now.

 

[guest]

A judge pro tem who, it must be added, was very dismissive of Pat's claims and permissive of First Amendment protections regarding trolling in general. It's not exactly a glowing endorsement when he muses that "some" of the 60+ examples brought forward could be regarded as defamation.

This is also the same judge who Rick has repeatedly bashed as a geriatric knownothing for criticising the lion's share of his lolsuit, but suddenly an off-hand comment by the same man was a binding decision.

It's like somebody saying you have a one in million chance and you take that as you have a chance. The judge meant that as "in context" some of this may be defamation, not it's defamation as a matter of law. Then he dismissed the need to continue on that because that was not the issue at hand.

 

[TheRevAlJolson]

Judge Fedd

Judge Bread

Sylvester Calzone