SFWA Quash Theories

[FurBurger]

Authors Guild - The Authors Guild

The Authors Guild supports working authors, advocates for authors’ rights, and provides a community for our members

www.authorsguild.org

Edit: There's more than one organisation out there. Just sayin'

Do you have any evidence that Pat's a member?

 

[Libby Son Of Loin]

I, for a long time, thought it was funded by Mama Robin. Between Ricks admissions, and Mr. Apostles adamance that it’s SFWA, I believe him. Mama Robin uses her retard kids for profit, not loss. She, herself, is not a retard. Nikki, yes. Rick, yes, just not as retarded as Nik. She would have looked at that lawsuit and turned it down immediately. Nothing for her to benefit from, and the last thing she’d need is losing and risking the government looking into her shit. I’m positive the suit was SFWA bud, and I’ve been pushing Mama Robin shit probably the longest.

Also, she would have actual lawyers at her disposal. They would never have put this in the hands of Twink Law.

 

[Libby Son Of Loin]

What was the old account name, and were you named as a John Doe?

 

[guest]

Hey, dummies, Jen will file a response in a week or two that will lay out the justifications.

The quash Quasi filed and the quash the SFWA filed are similar in only one way. They are requesting third party information from a business. Everything else is different and include very important distinctions. First, and most importantly, Krinsky applied to anonymous authors of content. If you recall, Patrick S. Tomlinson is not anonymous. Secondly, the sanctions for Quasi apply to foreign subpoenas. The subpoena from Jen is a California judgement for a California business. The subpoena from Resto was for a case in another jurisdiction. Cloudflare could have basically told Resto to pound sand (pardon the language), but they didn't. States don't like it when you try to circumvent their privacy laws while filing in a weaker state to issue a foreign subpoena.

Lastly, Patrick is a Judgement Debtor. Quasi is entitled to information leading to the collection of debt. There's no constitutional protection for *checks notes* not paying court ordered judgements. All of the exhibits submitted by Resto did not show any evidence that quasi committed defamation. All Jerry needs is to show evidence that * checks notes again* Patrick Tomlinson has a judgement debt against him in California. I don't think Mr. Jen will need three tries to prove that.

 

[BakersfieldChimp]

Hey, dummies, Jen will file a response in a week or two that will lay out the justifications.

The quash Quasi filed and the quash the SFWA filed are similar in only one way. They are requesting third party information from a business. Everything else is different and include very important distinctions. First, and mostly importantly, Krinsky applied to anonymous authors of content. If you recall, Patrick S. Tomlinson is not anonymous. Secondly, the sanctions for Quasi apply to foreign subpoenas. The subpoena from Jen is a California judgement for a California business. The subpoena from Resto was for a case in another jurisdiction. Cloudflare could have basically told Resto to pound sand (pardon the language), but they didn't. States don't like it when you try to circumvent their privacy laws while filing in a weaker state to issue a foreign subpoena.

Lastly, Patrick is a Judgement Debtor. Quasi is entitled to information leading to the collection of debt. There's no constitutional protection for *checks notes* not paying court ordered judgements. All of the exhibits submitted by Resto did not show any evidence that quasi committed defamation. All Jerry needs is to show evidence that * checks notes again* Patrick Tomlinson has a judgement debt against him in California. I don't think Mr. Jen will need three tries to prove that.

Thank you for the info. You routinely get my cock chubbed up.

 

[guest]

Hey, dummies, Jen will file a response in a week or two that will lay out the justifications.

The quash Quasi filed and the quash the SFWA filed are similar in only one way. They are requesting third party information from a business. Everything else is different and include very important distinctions. First, and most importantly, Krinsky applied to anonymous authors of content. If you recall, Patrick S. Tomlinson is not anonymous. Secondly, the sanctions for Quasi apply to foreign subpoenas. The subpoena from Jen is a California judgement for a California business. The subpoena from Resto was for a case in another jurisdiction. Cloudflare could have basically told Resto to pound sand (pardon the language), but they didn't. States don't like it when you try to circumvent their privacy laws while filing in a weaker state to issue a foreign subpoena.

Lastly, Patrick is a Judgement Debtor. Quasi is entitled to information leading to the collection of debt. There's no constitutional protection for *checks notes* not paying court ordered judgements. All of the exhibits submitted by Resto did not show any evidence that quasi committed defamation. All Jerry needs is to show evidence that * checks notes again* Patrick Tomlinson has a judgement debt against him in California. I don't think Mr. Jen will need three tries to prove that.

Nice use of "checks notes"