• 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]

I Wanna See the Courthouse Movie! - Part 3

G

guest

Guest
What is exhibit 9?
That's a police report from Adam Rakunas's law firm. Rakdaddy works as a paralegal there and a few rascals must've communicated with them.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.weierlaw.com/staff-member/adam-rakunas/[/URL]

Screenshot_20220516-173614_Chrome.jpg
 
G
  • Deleted by N/A
Show…
G

guest

Guest
I'm not a lawyer but it looks to me like Alpha Chad Jen is putting the screws to SFWA. I noticed the words "written affirmation" a lot and the SFWA lawyer keeps trying to move the goalposts. Jen told him that they just want a written affirmation that a diligent search was done for the information requested and their shyster lawyer is trying to pull the bait-and-switch or something with the "How about we affirm that we found his last 4 of his credit card?" instead.

I hope Thomas Apostle is underground because he has proof the SFWA are involved in this lawsuit and he's waiting til they fuck themselves in court to unload it. I miss his daily reminders to Rick but if we get Apostlegate 6 it will be worth it.
 
G

guest

Guest
That's a police report from Adam Rakunas's law firm. Rakdaddy works as a paralegal there and a few rascals must've communicated with them.
So they're advocating to the court that them being harassed is a reason they shouldn't answer the questions surrounding the subpoena. The SFWA defense strategy is unknown Does harassed them so therefore they get to thumb their noses at Quasi's attempt to collect from Pat. Yep sounds pretty winnable lol.
 

Harry Powell

not a fan of comedy, I’m a fan of cruelty
Forum Clout
93,692

Jenna

very demure very cutesy very mindful very modest
Forum Clout
64,044

011.jpg


Found the lady that went to the police over the Rakunas texts.
 

Harry Powell

not a fan of comedy, I’m a fan of cruelty
Forum Clout
93,692

View attachment 42226

Found the lady that went to the police over the Rakunas texts.
Wow. A hybrid of Boomia’s son and Norma Buster.
 

Udders

Deeply interwoven in the pest community
Forum Clout
48,078

View attachment 42226

Found the lady that went to the police over the Rakunas texts.
I don't know for sure but my 'dar for this has been raised acutely over the past few years, (((Tohlen))). She's sure ugly enough.

And lol @ texts to Rakfgt and Paul being submitted as evidence in a case between JD1 and the SFWA over Fatsos finances.
 
G

guest

Guest
BDJ request:
1. A diligent search was made by SFWA as to the information requested pursuant to the subpoena;
2. That all the financial and asset information sought of judgment debtor (Tomolison) that is responsive to the subpoena has been produced (Ex: AMEX info/documents); and
3. That SFWA does not have copies of any checks or payments issued by Tomlinson, or payments made to Tomlinson within the requested time frame set forth by the subpoena of January 1, 2020 to March 11, 2022 (other than the AMEX information produced)
Sohn modification:
* SFWA conducted a reasonable and diligent search for any financial and/or asset information for Patrick Tomlinson in the categories of records identified in the subpoena;
* SFWA produced Patrick Tomlinson’s AMEX credit card information, which is the only financial and/or asset information for Patrick Tomlinson it found in connection with its search; and
* SFWA does not have copies of any checks or payments issued by Patrick Tomlinson, or payments made to Patrick Tomlinson within the time frame of January 1, 2020 to March 11, 2022.
BDJ accepted this form, but when Sohn took it to SFWA for approval they balked at providing a declaration. They were less secure about "reasonable" doing the heavy lifting. ("In connection with its search" hinges on Sohn's "reasonable" search rather than BDJ's "all [...] information [...] responsive to the subpoena.")

BDJ noted his client wondered why the declaration that records were diligently searched is difficult to produce without a protective order. (Sohn now absurdly claims any SFWA officer signing it might face harassment. All SFWA officers are listed on their website AFAIK.)

It seems Sohn expected to exploit the proposed declaration's "reasonable" technicality by skipping categories of documents he doesn't like. After all, Sohn argues in the latest Reply that "The Subpoena is overbroad on its face. It seeks records containing information that go well beyond Mr. Tomlinson’s finances and assets." Sohn goes on to characterize what they supposedly diligently searched as "uncalled for [...] sensitive [...] not relevant [...] say nothing [...] would not reveal [...] egregious [...] improper fishing expedition [...] How is this demand “tailored” [...] no justifiable grounds."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top