-
- Mr. Tomlinson's feud started after members of the now-defunct Reddit site r/opieandanthony got his Twitter account suspended, causing him to threaten some bored trolls who never heard of him with a libel lawsuit. The trolls responded predictably.
- Mr. Tomlinson has been instructed many times by friends, family, police, and attorneys to stop engaging with his trolls, and that continuing to provoke them will cause him to be trolled even more. Mr. Tomlinson wilfully ignores this advice
- He would eventually file a defamation suit against 60 anonymous people which was dismissed with Mr. Tomlinson being ordered to pay $34,762.25 for opposing parties' attorney fees.
- He ended up paying $83,736.99 due to his unsuccessful attempts to dodge the court-ordered judgement, for which he faced jail time and contempt charges.
- He also filed 2 frivolous restraining orders against people who had engaged in First Amendment-protected behavior (one for texting him and another for attending his contempt of court hearing), both of which were dismissed.
- Early on in the lawsuit, Mr. Tomlinson vandalized his own motorcycle and submitted a false police report blaming the people he was suing.
- He accidentally sent surveillance video of the alleged vandal (himself) to a troll.
- Mr. Tomlinson has never shown this video footage during any of his media tours, and desperately tries to scrub it from the internet.
- Mr. Tomlinson claims that the surveillance video was initiated by his "motion-activated" camera, which only collects "30 seconds at a time", despite the video being 32 seconds long and beginning several seconds before the "vandal" enters into the frame.
- On 13 April 2023, the individual responsible for calling the fake emergencies (SWATs) to Mr. Tomlinson's house, a SWAT-for-hire dealer named "Torswats", revealed that Mr. Tomlinson ordered the SWATs to his own house because he wanted to get in the news and sue the MPD for money.
- Torswats would repeat these allegations in private chats which were not intended for public view.
- Mr. Tomlinson has gone on multiple news tours since the SWATtings started in order to promote his victimhood brand, utilizing the services of Lenora Claire.
- He also recently sued the MPD for money.
-
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]
So Brinton filed the response in the Cali case and....
- Thread starter Cuphead
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Patrick is fucking fat
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.
G
guest
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
G
guest
Guest
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.
Does this faggot not remember Judge Stein asking for specific CALIFORNIA cases?
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."
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."
Mr. Mayr…it appears your retarded client is trying to raise his hand.
"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.
Tubbard didn't expect to win these lawsuits. He and his benefactors thought they could scare the pests off the internet.
G
guest
Guest
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.
It was literally the same as if he stood up in court and butted in. It was incredible.
G
guest
Guest
This fat fucking zilch can't enter a Zoom call without embarassing himself.
G
guest
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.
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.