Today’s Court Hearing - Link & Live Discussion

[JoeCumiawearsDIAPERS]

Jerry has another chance to present his case in front of the actual judge on June 6th

A more fitting date there could not be.

 

[guest]

And we've seen that the very same ruling said that this is not limited to just an examination proceeding. It seems this is a pedantic process issue, which in no way should lead to sanctions. Double especially when the meet and confer was deemed deficient.


I’m curious if Jerry has any specific references to a subpoena where there is no examination process. If not this decision could be used in the future as precedent as this specific circumstance hadn’t been ruled on.


From Jerry’s responses today and the initial response, it seems like Jen essentially laid out the case as this is common practice and then provided a few sources for good measure. Jerry could perhaps have been a bit more clear.

I supposed I’d knock him down from an A to a A- in that regard if we’re being strict.

I found some guy on Reddit who was bored and typed some notes regarding a long conversation overheard due to thin dorm walls. @admin

[URL]https://paste.i2pd.xyz/?9e07a12741e53223#5J9WgqkYYuXn8xQfZnpPYZsBmQvDvqWUpNiWmSM6eSP9[/URL] / quasi

It seems the Judge Pro Tem stated at the very beginning that he's willing to consider the deficient meet and confer sufficient for the purposes of the motion to quash the subpoena, apparently because he doesn't "like wasting anyone's time."

He adds Jen hasn't shown good cause. He proceeds to say he considers the subpoena too oppressive and burdensome for a small-time organization like SFWA, and "that's really the issue here." He goes back to Jen not having shown good cause that SFWA has the information and "that's really the issue [he has] with this."

In the last part he fixates on the SCC Acquisitions case, and maintains "The Court of Appeal says you have no other... You cannot conduct regular discovery as to third parties. Except this particular provision under C.C.P. § 708.120." This is contrary to what you just posted from Shewsbury:

In sum, we determine that the trial court erroneously concluded that a third party subpoena can only be issued in connection with an examination of the third party under section 708.120.

He acknowledges the Shrewsbury case, but finds a convoluted reason why it doesn't apply: "The entire Shrewsbury case, the Court of Appeal's discussion as I remember it has to do with the debt collection procedure. That is what it was discussing. And it's, so, it is talking about [C.C.P.] § 708.130 and also under 708.110. Not the same as a regular subpoena process under discovery act. So, I think it's a very ... That doesn't really help you. It is ... Because your subpoena was not issued under that, the Judgment Collection set of scheme. So, I don't find that to be helping you at all. The enforcement of judgment law. It has a particular set of procedures under which you have to proceed and not under the General Discovery procedures."

I'd have to read up more to understand what he's saying. Perhaps it's the same as your point? He said he was going to review Shrewsbury before issuing the Recommendation so hopefully it will be more positive for Quasi.

 

[guest]

I went back and reviewed both


[URL]https://cite.case.law/cal-app-4th/243/741/[/URL]

and


[URL]https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2019/h043166.html[/URL]





This seems pretty straightforward.


Sections in Article 2 fall under Examination proceedings only.

[URL]https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&division=2.&title=9.&part=2.&chapter=6.&article=2.&goUp=Y[/URL]

View attachment 42900


ooopsie doodles....


But lets look at Jerry's repsonse in more depth, perhaps something a judge pro tem should have done? Who am I to say.



So what does Shrewsbury say?


The states that
1. The third party can pretty much be anyone. Not just a specific financial institution. Jerry said this during the hearing.
2. The specific statute referenced by Lynn is not the only mechanism for a subpoena.

Wait what... that can't be right...

To tie things ups nicely



So that means that there are possibly other means to issue a third party subpoena. What could those be????









Hmm, let us go back and see what Mr. Jen said.




Assuming Jen has reason for claiming (not exactly sure here), "sanctions order is enforceable in the same way as a "money judgment". Then why wouldn't the "(C.C.P.)§ 680.230" apply?

• • [URL='https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=680.230#:~:text=680.230.,(Added%20by%20Stats']https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=680.230#:~:text=680.230.,(Added by Stats[/URL].

And we've seen that the very same ruling said that this is not limited to just an examination proceeding. It seems this is a pedantic process issue, which in no way should lead to sanctions. Double especially when the meet and confer was deemed deficient.


I’m curious if Jerry has any specific references to a subpoena where there is no examination process. If not this decision could be used in the future as precedent as this specific circumstance hadn’t been ruled on.


From Jerry’s responses today and the initial response, it seems like Jen essentially laid out the case as this is common practice and then provided a few sources for good measure. Jerry could perhaps have been a bit more clear.

I supposed I’d knock him down from an A to a A- in that regard if we’re being strict.

I literally have no idea what you're saying or what any of that means but it sounds bad for SFWA, Pat, etc so cool, I ribbed your post.

In fact, I refuse to believe 99% of the users/junkies here have any idea what's going on with this court case/thread in general. You're all fucking posers.

 

[JoeCumiawearsDIAPERS]

I literally have no idea what you're saying or what any of that means but it sounds bad for SFWA, Pat, etc so cool, I ribbed your post.

In fact, I refuse to believe 99% of the users/junkies here have any idea what's going on with this court case/thread in general. You're all fucking posers.

I can’t speak for OP but I am 100% talking out of my ass. That much I can assure you.

 

[Wobelt Mewlel]

I found some guy on Reddit who was bored and typed some notes regarding a long conversation overheard due to thin dorm walls. @admin

https://paste.i2pd.xyz/?9e07a12741e53223#5J9WgqkYYuXn8xQfZnpPYZsBmQvDvqWUpNiWmSM6eSP9 / quasi

It seems the Judge Pro Tem stated at the very beginning that he's willing to consider the deficient meet and confer sufficient for the purposes of the motion to quash the subpoena, apparently because he doesn't "like wasting anyone's time."

He adds Jen hasn't shown good cause. He proceeds to say he considers the subpoena too oppressive and burdensome for a small-time organization like SFWA, and "that's really the issue here." He goes back to Jen not having shown good cause that SFWA has the information and "that's really the issue [he has] with this."

In the last part he fixates on the SCC Acquisitions case, and maintains "The Court of Appeal says you have no other... You cannot conduct regular discovery as to third parties. Except this particular provision under C.C.P. § 708.120." This is contrary to what you just posted from Shewsbury:



He acknowledges the Shrewsbury case, but finds a convoluted reason why it doesn't apply: "The entire Shrewsbury case, the Court of Appeal's discussion as I remember it has to do with the debt collection procedure. That is what it was discussing. And it's, so, it is talking about [C.C.P.] § 708.130 and also under 708.110. Not the same as a regular subpoena process under discovery act. So, I think it's a very ... That doesn't really help you. It is ... Because your subpoena was not issued under that, the Judgment Collection set of scheme. So, I don't find that to be helping you at all. The enforcement of judgment law. It has a particular set of procedures under which you have to proceed and not under the General Discovery procedures."

I'd have to read up more to understand what he's saying. Perhaps it's the same as your point? He said he was going to review Shrewsbury before issuing the Recommendation so hopefully it will be more positive for Quasi.

Here’s the way I see it, you get a green light, so you go. Years later you get a citation for running a red that ruins your whole career, even though those fucking bitches said it was okay. It was green!!

 

[SmellenShoehorn]

I think Judge Futon might be a few ties short of a railroad

 

[guest]

Does someone have the clip of SFWA's lawyer saying to just go after Pat? lol

 

[BudDickman]

I'm relieved that this pro tem judge is a fucking loser who sublets the bottom bunk and has to ask for permission to use the stove, since it is impossible to respect him and a real judge will have no problem disregarding his recommendation.

Stein carried himself like a real judge, was fair and unbiased, and he did a good job boiling everything down to the Krinsky standard, which he gave Stavros Esquire plenty of chances to satisfy. I didn't even know he wasn't a real judge until Schulman showed up.

If I didn't know about the pro tem process I would be so confused and troubled by the idea of some random fag in an 8-person apartment in the Mission District deciding cases.

 

[Harry Powell]

I'm relieved that this pro tem judge is a fucking loser who sublets the bottom bunk and has to ask for permission to use the stove, since it is impossible to respect him and a real judge will have no problem disregarding his recommendation.

Stein carried himself like a real judge, was fair and unbiased, and he did a good job boiling everything down to the Krinsky standard, which he gave Stavros Esquire plenty of chances to satisfy. I didn't even know he wasn't a real judge until Schulman showed up.

If I didn't know about the pro tem process I would be so confused and troubled by the idea of some random fag in an 8-person apartment in the Mission District deciding cases.

Yeah this little Manlet is clearly doing the pro-tem thing to power trip. Hopefully he ODs in an opium den before attaining real power.

 

[BudDickman]

The judge and his roommates after his big day in Zoom court:

 

[MunchausenByProxy]

If worse comes to worse, we know who to call...

 

[wbgreen]

If worse comes to worse, we know who to call...

View attachment 42981

I was shocked to learn the convicted felon and bounty hunter is also a racist.

 

[Pat the Simp]

If worse comes to worse, we know who to call...

View attachment 42981

 

[NoBacon]

I'm relieved that this pro tem judge is a fucking loser who sublets the bottom bunk and has to ask for permission to use the stove, since it is impossible to respect him and a real judge will have no problem disregarding his recommendation.

Stein carried himself like a real judge, was fair and unbiased, and he did a good job boiling everything down to the Krinsky standard, which he gave Stavros Esquire plenty of chances to satisfy. I didn't even know he wasn't a real judge until Schulman showed up.

If I didn't know about the pro tem process I would be so confused and troubled by the idea of some random fag in an 8-person apartment in the Mission District deciding cases.

Judge Jigaboo - complete retard
Judge Mitt Romney - excellent
Judge Me Ruv You Rong time rent boy - complete retard

 

[NoBacon]

@notalawyer

Why can’t JJ simply say he has reason to believe that Patrick has payments to make to SFWA or that they granted him a large sum of money, and that this issue needs to be clarified on record to collect his clients judgement? Both would clearly be relevant information. A flat out denial they didn’t assist him at all is also relevant (we know they can’t do that but nobody else does)

Is it because the judge would need to know why he believes this, and any reason would be inadmissible hearsay? Can’t they just demand Patrick answer if they assisted him, and if he keeps ignoring it then it becomes a criminal thing?

 

[guest]

@notalawyer

Why can’t JJ simply say he has reason to believe that Patrick has payments to make to SFWA or that they granted him a large sum of money, and that this issue needs to be clarified on record to collect his clients judgement? Both would clearly be relevant information. A flat out denial they didn’t assist him at all is also relevant (we know they can’t do that but nobody else does)

Is it because the judge would need to know why he believes this, and any reason would be inadmissible hearsay? Can’t they just demand Patrick answer if they assisted him, and if he keeps ignoring it then it becomes a criminal thing?

IANAL but I've watched a lot of Law & Order. I think Jerry was concerned about the perception that the judge or other lawyer would argue the financial backing was "speculation" or "hearsay" or whatever the proper objection is. Unfortunately, there is no smoking gun that says SFWA backed the case.

And people need to stop saying "He said it on the Josiah tape." First, Patrick didnt say SFWA on tape, he just said "an organization." Second, even if that tape was admissible, Jerry would look like a lunatic entering that into evidence for this sort of procedural case.

SFWA will probably get away with their malfeasance FOR NOW unless there is some actual concrete evidence that ties them to the John Doe case. Jerry may still be able to get this case appealed though because of actual case law and what his request is asking for (simple financial transaction info).

 

[NoBacon]

IANAL but I've watched a lot of Law & Order. I think Jerry was concerned about the perception that the judge or other lawyer would argue the financial backing was "speculation" or "hearsay" or whatever the proper objection is. Unfortunately, there is no smoking gun that says SFWA backed the case.

And people need to stop saying "He said it on the Josiah tape." First, Patrick didnt say SFWA on tape, he just said "an organization." Second, even if that tape was admissible, Jerry would look like a lunatic entering that into evidence for this sort of procedural case.

SFWA will probably get away with their malfeasance FOR NOW unless there is some actual concrete evidence that ties them to the John Doe case. Jerry may still be able to get this case appealed though because of actual case law and what his request is asking for (simple financial transaction info).

I understand but ultimately Patrick spent a lot of money bringing frivolous litigation against Jen’s client. Litigation which resulted in two judgments.

Why does he need a reason at all to ask for info relating to judgment debtors professional organisation which he’s a member of? Why does he need reasons or smoking guns to ask “did you pay for his lawsuit? What money does he owe you? What financial information is there between the two of you?

It seems perfectly reasonable and normal to me. Why does he have to argue it at all?

I know he has to argue it because the SFWA are contesting it to hide their involvement, but I mean legally, why does he have to justify himself at all to a judge?

 

[guest]

It seems perfectly reasonable and normal to me. Why does he have to argue it at all?

I know he has to argue it because the SFWA are contesting it to hide their involvement, but I mean legally, why does he have to justify himself at all to a judge?

Because they're contesting it and, in my opinion, because Jen didn't make a blitz of showing how extraordinarily involved SFWA was for Patrick, above and beyond other members, in curating reviews and helping him with book sales.

ANAL but I've watched a lot of Law & Order. I think Jerry was concerned about the perception that the judge or other lawyer would argue the financial backing was "speculation" or "hearsay" or whatever the proper objection is. Unfortunately, there is no smoking gun that says SFWA backed the case.

The Reddit recap I linked earlier shows that Jen brought up even possible lawsuit money. The judge was fixated on it being too far-out and burdensome. He bought SFWA's story that Quasi's harassing a small organization.

JEN: If I may be heard to address some of your points, your Honor. Thank you very much for your point of view, I do appreciate that. In terms of the organization itself, again, yes, it is not a traditional bank or anything like that that you may have, you know, imagined in this particular case, but as part of the Declaration I believe is one of the last attachments in the Opposition [Paper]. It shows that there is potential that this particular organization, Petitioner, does provide loans and grants and even legal defense fees to particular members, such as in this case. One that other aspects, you know ....

JUDGE: Hold on. But there's a "potential"... I mean, it is potentially possible that you could be a creditor to me but does it mean that a third party is entitled to issue a subpoena to you seeking whatever documents you may have about me? So, again, the good cause has to be proven and be shown in [the] Opposition [Paper]. I, just, there is nothing in the Declaration, I've been-- I went back a few times and I'll be honest I couldn't find anything, so, that's the issue here. And the 10 categories. Ugh. [...]

 

[NoBacon]

Because they're contesting it and, in my opinion, because Jen didn't make a blitz of showing how extraordinarily involved SFWA was for Patrick, above and beyond other members, in curating reviews and helping him with book sales.

The Reddit recap I linked earlier shows that Jen brought up even possible lawsuit money. The judge was fixated on it being too far-out and burdensome. He bought SFWA's story that Quasi's harassing a small organization.

JEN: If I may be heard to address some of your points, your Honor. Thank you very much for your point of view, I do appreciate that. In terms of the organization itself, again, yes, it is not a traditional bank or anything like that that you may have, you know, imagined in this particular case, but as part of the Declaration I believe is one of the last attachments in the Opposition [Paper]. It shows that there is potential that this particular organization, Petitioner, does provide loans and grants and even legal defense fees to particular members, such as in this case. One that other aspects, you know ....

JUDGE: Hold on. But there's a "potential"... I mean, it is potentially possible that you could be a creditor to me but does it mean that a third party is entitled to issue a subpoena to you seeking whatever documents you may have about me? So, again, the good cause has to be proven and be shown in [the] Opposition [Paper]. I, just, there is nothing in the Declaration, I've been-- I went back a few times and I'll be honest I couldn't find anything, so, that's the issue here. And the 10 categories. Ugh. [...]

That’s what I mean, why can’t he simply say “there is important financial information regarding judgment debtor and the SFWA which is important in my capacity to collect judgment for my client”

Or is that basically what he did say in legalese and the SFWA lucked out and got an ignorant retard judge to review it initially?

 

[SFWA liaison]

petition for @notalawyer to submit an amicus brief lol