• 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]

Project Verifat subject Rick, oinks "it is inadmissible"

G

guest

Guest
TheDarkFezRises said:
Where are all the spelling mistakes? If it turns out covidcumia has been another invented character all along I won't be able to believe anything anymore.

I think he's lying about the calls being inadmissible but I'm not a lawyer. @notalawyer any info?
Click to expand...

If you are not aware, I am not a lawyer. That said It's not clear cut there could be arguments made for both sides. It's probably admissible, but if you see the recent fillings in the quash it wasn't submitted anyway. I'm sure Resto told him its not admissible, but it doesn't really matter since its not entered into any record at this time.

I think the more ridiculous notion is that the judge said there were be no sanctions so thats it. The judge pro tem said he was inclined to approve the quash but recommend no sanctions...and then requested two more times for krinsky to be satisfied (she wasn't).

  1. The judge pro tem makes recommendations which the presiding judge is under no obligation to consider.
  2. The recommendation was made during the hearing before 2 more submissions were made by each side.
  3. If you read the latest filling the sanctions are compulsory, something that a Pro tem judge probably wasn't aware of in the moment and needed to look up afterwards.


34r432w.png
 
Gay Faggot.

Gay Faggot.

When the frying pan hits just right.
‎
‎
Forum Clout
78,057
notalawyer said:
If you are not aware, I am not a lawyer. That said It's not clear cut there could be arguments made for both sides. It's probably admissible, but if you see the recent fillings in the quash it wasn't submitted anyway. I'm sure Resto told him its not admissible, but it doesn't really matter since its not entered into any record at this time.

I think the more ridiculous notion is that the judge said there were be no sanctions so thats it. The judge pro tem said he was inclined to approve the quash but recommend no sanctions...and then requested two more times for krinsky to be satisfied (she wasn't).

  1. The judge pro tem makes recommendations which the presiding judge is under no obligation to consider.
  2. The recommendation was made during the hearing before 2 more submissions were made by each side.
  3. If you read the latest filling the sanctions are compulsory, something that a Pro tem judge probably wasn't aware of in the moment and needed to look up afterwards.


View attachment 6584
Click to expand...
Starting to think this guy is a faaawwkkin lawyer or something.
 
TheDarkFezRises

TheDarkFezRises

Asians with southern accents
‎
‎
Forum Clout
11,731
notalawyer said:
If you are not aware, I am not a lawyer. That said It's not clear cut there could be arguments made for both sides. It's probably admissible, but if you see the recent fillings in the quash it wasn't submitted anyway. I'm sure Resto told him its not admissible, but it doesn't really matter since its not entered into any record at this time.

I think the more ridiculous notion is that the judge said there were be no sanctions so thats it. The judge pro tem said he was inclined to approve the quash but recommend no sanctions...and then requested two more times for krinsky to be satisfied (she wasn't).

  1. The judge pro tem makes recommendations which the presiding judge is under no obligation to consider.
  2. The recommendation was made during the hearing before 2 more submissions were made by each side.
  3. If you read the latest filling the sanctions are compulsory, something that a Pro tem judge probably wasn't aware of in the moment and needed to look up afterwards.


View attachment 6584
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. Also good to have even further confirmation that his stupid stuff about not being forced to pay is another big fat lie.
 
G

guest

Guest
notalawyer said:
If you are not aware, I am not a lawyer. That said It's not clear cut there could be arguments made for both sides. It's probably admissible, but if you see the recent fillings in the quash it wasn't submitted anyway. I'm sure Resto told him its not admissible, but it doesn't really matter since its not entered into any record at this time.

I think the more ridiculous notion is that the judge said there were be no sanctions so thats it. The judge pro tem said he was inclined to approve the quash but recommend no sanctions...and then requested two more times for krinsky to be satisfied (she wasn't).

  1. The judge pro tem makes recommendations which the presiding judge is under no obligation to consider.
  2. The recommendation was made during the hearing before 2 more submissions were made by each side.
  3. If you read the latest filling the sanctions are compulsory, something that a Pro tem judge probably wasn't aware of in the moment and needed to look up afterwards.


View attachment 6584
Click to expand...
Question, can the tape be used as evidence to force him to actually pay quasi before filing an appeal. His own words suggest he'll never pay him and he asked they not be repeated. Enforcing judgements are hard enough, but this tacitly suggests he won't pay under any circumstances and that he'd be appealing just to see quasi spend more money. Can it be used to sanction him from appeal until he satisfies the order to pay costs?
 
NoBacon

NoBacon

An honourable man.
‎
‎
Forum Clout
117,070
You’re a good man Covid Cumia. Keep protesting this mans hatred and threats. I am scared he is going to do me harm if he finds me. He’s repeatedly threatened to end my life and has baselessly accused me of being a criminal for forming a negative opinion on his books. Not so. I am afraid what will happen to me. Thank you for your service
 
G

guest

Guest
covidcumia said:
Question, can the tape be used as evidence to force him to actually pay quasi before filing an appeal. His own words suggest he'll never pay him and he asked they not be repeated. Enforcing judgements are hard enough, but this tacitly suggests he won't pay under any circumstances and that he'd be appealing just to see quasi spend more money. Can it be used to sanction him from appeal until he satisfies the order to pay costs?
Click to expand...

Not really. Unlike in wine law you can't just throw shit and see what sticks...well you can but the fat, bald dmv lawyer saw how well worked out when he started crying about twitter. You need to actually have a cause of action. You can't just submit random audio and say HEY LOOK HE WON'T PAY.

You also don't submit new evidence during an appeal. This is a common misconception. Generally, an appeal is used to determine if procedure wasn't followed properly, or the law wasn't applied correctly etc. Not a time for entering new evidence. However since this would be an appeal on a motion...i'm not actually sure there's edge cases where it could happen.
 
G

guest

Guest
bovinebrain said:
Pat has this all wrong. Those recordings are most certainly admissible in court, but there is a catch. The defendant would have to prove that the voice in the recording is Patrick and not an impersonator. He would also have to prove that the device used to record is capable of making an accurate recording. Finally, he’d have to prove that the recording has not been altered or tampered with in any way.

Lying or presenting yourself under false pretenses does not make evidence inadmissible. How do you think undercover police who pretend to work inside drug rings manage to get all their evidence in court?

Even uniformed police will lie to you through their teeth just to get you to talk and use your words against you in court. “I’ll just write you a ticket if you tell me where the drugs are!” “I’ll only charge you with disorderly conduct you admit to having assaulted him!” These are always lies.
Click to expand...
There are expert witnesses to testify to anything, so both sides would have them, but given his admission to me that they occurred, his burden to say they aren't him is great, the tampering part is also a long shot, phone records could be subpoenaed, to match times. These are clearly authentic, his attempts to silence them would be wasted.
 
G

guest

Guest
notalawyer said:
If you are not aware, I am not a lawyer. That said It's not clear cut there could be arguments made for both sides. It's probably admissible, but if you see the recent fillings in the quash it wasn't submitted anyway. I'm sure Resto told him its not admissible, but it doesn't really matter since its not entered into any record at this time.

I think the more ridiculous notion is that the judge said there were be no sanctions so thats it. The judge pro tem said he was inclined to approve the quash but recommend no sanctions...and then requested two more times for krinsky to be satisfied (she wasn't).

  1. The judge pro tem makes recommendations which the presiding judge is under no obligation to consider.
  2. The recommendation was made during the hearing before 2 more submissions were made by each side.
  3. If you read the latest filling the sanctions are compulsory, something that a Pro tem judge probably wasn't aware of in the moment and needed to look up afterwards.


View attachment 6584
Click to expand...
Did he really say "no sanctions"? Im pretty sure he said without prejudice but nothing about sanctions.
Isnt without prejudice just that plaintiff can appeal and with prejudice is that he cant?
Simon Adebisi, definitely not a lawyer, allegedly Turkish, half-retarded.
 
G

guest

Guest
NoBaconEggCheese_mybb said:
You’re a good man Covid Cumia. Keep protesting this mans hatred and threats. I am scared he is going to do me harm if he finds me. He’s repeatedly threatened to end my life and has baselessly accused me of being a criminal for forming a negative opinion on his books. Not so. I am afraid what will happen to me. Thank you for your service
Click to expand...
Me too, he admitted he'd assault my child for saying "hush child" near him, I'm terrified but I must do this to let the world know hatred can't be tolerated. The strange thing is a few years ago when I was in Milwaukee and he told me to order his books, and I was unaware who he was, and he gave me his number, he said call whenever if I had any "problems". So I did when I discovered his rantings, they are very problematic to me. The guy keeps talking back and occasionally says it's illegal despite him telling me in person to call. Strange pig.
 
G

guest

Guest
Simon Adebisi said:
Did he really say "no sanctions"? Im pretty sure he said without prejudice but nothing about sanctions.
Isnt without prejudice just that plaintiff can appeal and with prejudice is that he cant?
Simon Adebisi, definitely not a lawyer, allegedly Turkish, half-retarded.
Click to expand...
Simon can any of your friends Shcibetta him in jail if he goes? You know as a welcome.
 
G

guest

Guest
notalawyer said:
Not really. Unlike in wine law you can't just throw shit and see what sticks...well you can but the fat, bald dmv lawyer saw how well worked out when he started crying about twitter. You need to actually have a cause of action. You can't just submit random audio and say HEY LOOK HE WON'T PAY.

You also don't submit new evidence during an appeal. This is a common misconception. Generally, an appeal is used to determine if procedure wasn't followed properly, or the law wasn't applied correctly etc. Not a time for entering new evidence. However since this would be an appeal on a motion...i'm not actually sure there's edge cases where it could happen.
Click to expand...
So in the court if the judge rules that Pat has to pay, and he ignores it he can then pay more filing fees and they'll allow it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top