So Brinton filed the response in the Cali case and....

[Cuphead]

No evidence linking Quasi to fake book reviews was submitted.

Nice lawyer, stupid.

 

[Harry Powell]

How do we get access to it, I wanna see what they came up with

 

[Cuphead]

How do we get access to it, I wanna see what they came up with

Documents are uploaded to the Cali case here: https://webapps.sftc.org/captcha/ca....sftc.org/ci/CaseInfo.dll?CaseNum=CPF21517455

The link to the book reviews just goes to the Amazon page and not a specific review and the it's just some posts from the old forum with someone calling Patrick a pedo.

 

[AntSucks]

He basically changes the argument back to say "I don't need proof Quasi left a fake review because of these reasons" which might not go down well with the judge who specifically asked for proof.

What's weird is that he also argues that there's no other way to identify the John Does except through Quasi and therefore Quasi is "shielding them". That doesn't sound like it would go down well with a judge either. At best Quasi has a real dynamic IP which isn't enough to identify someone.

 

[Cuphead]

What's weird is that he also argues that there's no other way to identify the John Does except through Quasi and therefore Quasi is "shielding them". That doesn't sound like it would go down well with a judge either. At best Quasi has a real dynamic IP which isn't enough to identify someone.

That arguement is such bullshit too considering only some of the John Does are from the forums. They already have the IP addresses from the funeral home and Nigel Igger's info so isn't that technically perjury?

Not a lawyer.

 

[Oogie Farts 1488]

Patrick is fucking fat

 

[Will Tate]

Is calling someone a pedophile still actionable if said person has a convicted pedophile on his Facebook friends list who made sure to leave positive reviews for that person's books and was friends with another one on Twitter and counter-protested an anti-pedophilia protest and is or at least was a member of an organization with a long history of supporting and defending pedophiles and always starts fights on Twitter with people who don't think children being exposed to the sexual kinks of adults is a good thing? If so, well, golly-gee, I want to publicly apologize right now, there's clearly no way any reasonable person could ever come to that conclusion.

 

[guest]

Should be an easy win for Quashi. Mr Pena will hammer home the fact that:

• There is nothing whatsoever tying Quasi to the fake reviews
• Not all negative reviews are fake reviews
• He has no responsibility to remove accusations of pedophilia from his site
• Quasi had already cooperated with Bresto in terms of turning over information relative to the case, making it unnecessary to pull away his anonymity.

I know it's gonna be the same judge. Is Pat going to have the same terrible beaner lawyer?

 

[DanMullen'sRetardedNephew]

It's very out of character for Brinton to be so incompetent, are you sure about this?

Can't wait for Pena to jackhammer the winetwink at the next hearing.

edit: Will add this in this thread too. Apparently Resto is such a dunce, he's trying to use New Jersey cases.

 

[guest]

Is calling someone a pedophile still actionable if said person has a convicted pedophile on his Facebook friends list who made sure to leave positive reviews for that person's books and was friends with another one on Twitter and counter-protested an anti-pedophilia protest and is or at least was a member of an organization with a long history of supporting and defending pedophiles and always starts fights on Twitter with people who don't think children being exposed to the sexual kinks of adults is a good thing? If so, well, golly-gee, I want to publicly apologize right now, there's clearly no way any reasonable person could ever come to that conclusion.

Nothing in there is actionable for a lot of reasons, but it doesn't matter at this point because it is literally not even at stage one of the lawsuit. Its like stage -4 still. Right now they are trying to enforce their first subpeona, so they need to have a prima facie showing that its defamatory. It is such an early stage you don't have to prove anything. At least they wouldn't have if they hadn't named the owner of the site as a defendant.

If you look at the response it states that there in this stage you can't introduce evidence to negate the claims for krinsky to hold. This would have been fine, but they got greedy and named the Petitioner as john Doe1 making him a now a defendant so it becomes a free speech issue. Had they not done that krinsky probably wouldn't even apply at all.

 

[Pringle Can Lothario]

Does this faggot not remember Judge Stein asking for specific CALIFORNIA cases?

 

[RobertMewler]

Stein asked for EVIDENCE tying Doe #1 (Quashi) to a defamatory book review (within the guidelines of Krinsky). Mayr failed to provide that evidence. He's yet again hammering away at the conspiracy angle.

Reminder of what was said in the latest hearing:

Mayr: "Even if the petitioner hasn't published anything he still has the information, he's the only one who has the information of the other parties. And, so, if the motion is quashed, there's no way for us, as the plaintiff, to get to that information of the other Does. It could turn out that Doe #1 didn't do anything and the deposition would solve that issue. But we can't depose somebody we just don't know who it is."

Stein: "Well, but that's my point -- is that he has a - if he resists, saying, 'I'll tell anybody what I've done, I'm proud of what I've done', he is resisting that based on his Constitutional right to privacy. And so, that, and having imposed his Constitutional right to privacy, there has to be a showing of defamation. And the reference to the book reviews, the information and the instruction that he's given to other posters, which you are terming a conspiracy for defamation - of the other posters, to me, doesn't come within Krinsky. It's one step further out. Krinsky requires more than that, and especially when you're dealing with a Constitutional right. It's not a balancing of equities."

 

[Pringle Can Lothario]

Mr. Mayr…it appears your retarded client is trying to raise his hand.

 

[Matt from Tinder]

"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win." - L Ron Hubbard

Tubbard didn't expect to win these lawsuits. He and his benefactors thought they could scare the pests off the internet.

 

[guest]

Mr. Mayr…it appears your retarded client is trying to raise his hand.

I don'T know the correcT proTocol.

How in the fuck were they not on a separate online meeting or even on the fucking phone to each other? He interrupted the case to ask the judge how he could speak to his own lawyer.

 

[Harry Powell]

It was literally the same as if he stood up in court and butted in. It was incredible.

 

[cardwell]

 

[guest]

[MEDIA=streamable]6jvhw2[/MEDIA]

This fat fucking zilch can't enter a Zoom call without embarassing himself.

 

[guest]

Your honor, my client would like the entire court to take a 90 minute recess so he can heat up some chicken nuggets and take a shit in his tiny bathroom.

 

[Will Tate]

Just Kool-Aid Mans his way into the proceedings because he's a raging idiot and gets slapped down like the bitch he is immediately. Dim-witted crybaby. Fat, too.