• 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]

Opie and Anthony Reddit Forums

quasi101

the $83,736.99 fugitive
Forum Clout
78,303
  • Deleted by N/A
Pat did say that it was a surprise to him that he could be held liable for Quasi's legal fees. If Brinton didn't tell him that, I could see that being grounds for them to fire him, since he is potentially exposing the firm to a malpractice claim.

Of course, Pat could just be lying about that for sympathy, or maybe he was told about the legal consequences but didn't listen because he was too busy fantasizing about prison for Quasi.

If you read back through the court documents (there's a lot). You can see the emails from Brinton and quasis lawyers. Even if Brinton wasn't aware at the start, quaso was going to drop the quash if Brinton remove him from the initial wisconsin complaint. At that point no sanctions would have been awarded. If that message never made it back to Rick then, yeah There'd be a case, but presumably Mr "rather be right than happy" denied that. He'd have no recourse there at that point. He could have easily just removed quasi, There'd have been no krinsky involvement and no sanctions.


The entire reason the quash had any chance was because quasi was involved in the complaint. Without that there would have been no sanctions and Rick would have gotten quasis identity. Schulman pointed this out to Stavros in the final hearing.

(Paraphrased from memory)

Stavros - if you send a subpeona to Google or Twitter they are required to have a clerk of records respond.

Schulman - well that's not what I have in front of me. I have a quash response. I can only respond to what is here that's been filed.


Essentially, hey dingus if you wanted to supeona for records you don't include the clerk as a defendant. It would have been like if Jerry had included the sfwa as a defendant in the financial subpeona. Then the sanctions that the sfwa were asking for would have been granted.
 
Top