WhY DoEsN'T qUaSi pOsT NoW tHaT ThE QuAsH Is fInIsHeD

[RobertMewler]

Who specifically in the SFWA would be charged if they are found to have misused legal fees?

I'd imagine they'd be ordered to dissolve rather than anyone actually go to jail for it. Buh-bye, SFWA!

 

[SmellenShoehorn]

I'd imagine they'd be ordered to dissolve rather than anyone actually go to jail for it. Buh-bye, SFWA!

They'll just rebrand as NAMBLA

 

[Slackjawed Cow]

This should be interesting what comes of this.

 

[guest]

This should be interesting what comes of this.

View attachment 36501

View attachment 36502

View attachment 36499

"Draining $150,000 from writing organizations for people calling me fat is fun."

 

[JoeBrotheChildSpitGuzzler]

They'll just rebrand as NAMBLA

NAMBLA would then sue them for bringing their group into disrepute. They are least PRETEND they don't support pedophiles

 

[IGotATreeOnMyHouse85]

Even if he burns every bridge and is blacklisted from SF conventions he will still claim he’s right. He’s his own worst enemy.

 

[Patrick O'Neal]

This should be interesting what comes of this.

View attachment 36501

View attachment 36502

View attachment 36499

I don't know...

Why would Pat admit that he signed an NDA with SFWA not to announce they are funding his lawsuit to then announce that they are funding his lawsuit.

He's too smart for that.

 

[FurBurger]

So does this mean it would be in Patrick's best interest to rat out the SFWA for providing him the funds? That seems to be the only way of taking some of the financial burden off of himself.

No, I don't think that would achieve anything.

Who specifically in the SFWA would be charged if they are found to have misused legal fees?

Whoever had the delegation to approve the money being transferred to Pat's lawyer.

They have staff who have the power to spend SFWA's money, and they have procedures to guide that spending.

If they've spent the money without following the procedures, or without it being in-line with the charity's stated goals, they can face criminal charges.

I would give anything to be sat in on the frantic Zoom conferences they're having to discuss this.

 

[Brooke Shields]

 

[IGotATreeOnMyHouse85]

No, I don't think that would achieve anything.


Whoever had the delegation to approve the money being transferred to Pat's lawyer.

They have staff who have the power to spend SFWA's money, and they have procedures to guide that spending.

If they've spent the money without following the procedures, or without it being in-line with the charity's stated goals, they can face criminal charges.

I would give anything to be sat in on the frantic Zoom conferences they're having to discuss this.

That’s what I hope happens, it brings to light them going against procedure and decided to fund a ridiculous lawsuit with other peoples money. I remember a while ago someone pointing out how this kind of thing could get SFWA in serious trouble with their tax / charity status. Also suspicious that Pat wasn’t a member until he got them to fund this lawsuit, wonder why he stopped being a member? I bet he wanted to be in charge or at least board member because he thinks he’s very important and knows everything and quit in protest.

 

[Dani's Thick Legsters]

I don't know...

Why would Pat admit that he signed an NDA with SFWA not to announce they are funding his lawsuit to then announce that they are funding his lawsuit.

He's too smart for that.

He doesn't understand what an NDA actual entails.

Also that tweet was for the VICE article, funny enough a week later the Josiah tapes started dropping. Fat fucking retard

 

[Slackjawed Cow]

He doesn't understand what an NDA actual entails.

Also that tweet was for the VICE article, funny enough a week later the Josiah tapes started dropping. Fat fucking retard

Im guessing he might have signed one for the SFWA too. There is no way he wouldnt have bragged about his funding if he didnt sign one.

 

[NoBacon]

About 200,000 dollars spent in total - and rising, because a fat man doesn’t like being called fat on the internet. God bless the United States of America.

 

[guest]

Mary 3 names has her own wikipedia page. When discovery is made, reminder to self (or anyone else who remembers) to put them as sources into a "Controversy" section lol. It wont get deleted with legit sources.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Robinette_Kowal[/URL]

 

[NoBacon]

Mary 3 names has her own wikipedia page. When discovery is made, reminder to self (or anyone else who remembers) to put them as sources into a "Controversy" section lol. It wont get deleted with legit sources.

Mary Robinette Kowal - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The disgusting freaks that run SFWA are totally incompetent. It’s insane they get to fund a charity with ~2 million in assets.

These idiots couldn’t predict what’s going to happen to their bread when they put it in a toaster, let alone a complex lawsuit against 60 anonymous forum users. Why the fuck did they squander all that money for? It’s not tax exempt to gift money to a fat man for his personal vendettas.

 

[Imager]

SFWA suing Patrick for some sort of breach of contract could be a very real possibility. They definitely had him sign at least an NDA if not other documents. Unless they're idiots and just write $100k checks to people.

Maybe I should contact them. I'd flip on all you mutherhuckers here for $25k.

 

[NoBacon]

Maybe I should contact them. I'd flip on all you mutherhuckers here for $25k.

please don’t tell them my name, my name being Daniel Ross, and my email being [email protected]

 

[IGotATreeOnMyHouse85]

The disgusting freaks that run SFWA are totally incompetent. It’s insane they get to fund a charity with ~2 million in assets.

These idiots couldn’t predict what’s going to happen to their bread when they put it in a toaster, let alone a complex lawsuit against 60 anonymous forum users. Why the fuck did they squander all that money for? It’s not tax exempt to gift money to a fat man for his personal vendettas.

I can’t remember the exact quote but I know the CA judge said something along the lines of “I don’t like bad reviews but it’s not against the law to do it” which shows you how stupid the SFWA is. They spent 100 grand for a judge to say that, that was the whole point of the lawsuit, Pat cried to SFWA about people leaving bad reviews of his book and Mary 3 names felt his lawsuit would benefit their members so she approved the funding. No surprise she had to “step down” once the suit fell apart. She really approved spending 100k of other peoples money trying to fight the first amendment.

 

[Harry Powell]

I can’t remember the exact quote but I know the CA judge said something along the lines of “I don’t like bad reviews but it’s not against the law to do it” which shows you how stupid the SFWA is. They spent 100 grand for a judge to say that, that was the whole point of the lawsuit, Pat cried to SFWA about people leaving bad reviews of his book and Mary 3 names felt his lawsuit would benefit their members so she approved the funding. No surprise she had to “step down” once the suit fell apart. She really approved spending 100k of other peoples money trying to fight the first amendment.

But don’t you know that many of the bad reviewers lean right-wing - or even say the n-word?!?! Some even don’t approve of the tranny agenda or pedos!

 

[Dani's Thick Legsters]

I can’t remember the exact quote but I know the CA judge said something along the lines of “I don’t like bad reviews but it’s not against the law to do it” which shows you how stupid the SFWA is. They spent 100 grand for a judge to say that, that was the whole point of the lawsuit, Pat cried to SFWA about people leaving bad reviews of his book and Mary 3 names felt his lawsuit would benefit their members so she approved the funding. No surprise she had to “step down” once the suit fell apart. She really approved spending 100k of other peoples money trying to fight the first amendment.

"That's not defamation, that's teaching people how to troll"

Based