• 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]

Pat attacking Leslie again, threatening legal action

Brooke Shields

Brooke Shields

Patrick Tomlinson hates me because I am a woman
‎
‎
Forum Clout
68,170
Honey Badger said:
Our very own Tom Hagen responds with the cold hard facts

View attachment 215253View attachment 215254View attachment 215255View attachment 215256
Click to expand...
1722991972561.png
 
quasi101

quasi101

the $83,736.99 fugitive
‎
Forum Clout
78,300
she's likely wrong about being a public figure in wisconsin based on the jury instructions for defamation. She's not considering the that she could be a "limited public figure".

https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/civil/instruction.php?n=2500

Public Figure. “Public figures” are individuals who are not “public officials” but
in whom the public has a justified and important interest for at least some purposes.23 The
court in Denny v. Mertz, 106 Wis.2d 636, 649-50, 318 N.W.2d 141 (1982) adopted the
following test based on Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, to determine whether an
individual is a public figure:
Click to expand...

Analyzing the above cases, we consider the following criteria applicable to

whether a defamation plaintiff may be considered a public controversy. First, there
must be a public controversy. While courts are not well-equipped to make this
determination as pointed out in Gertz, the nature, impact, and interest in the
controversy to which the communication relates has a bearing on whether a
plaintiff is a public figure. Secondly, the court must look at the nature of the
plaintiff’s involvement in the public controversy to see whether he has voluntarily
injected himself into the controversy so as to influence the resolution of the issues
involved. Factors, relevant to this test are whether the plaintiff’s status gives him
access to the media so as to rebut the defamation and whether a plaintiff should
be deemed to have “voluntarily exposed themselves to increased risk of injury
from defamatory falsehood concerning them.” Gertz, 418 U.S. at 344-45.
Click to expand...

An individual can be categorized as a public figure plaintiff either in a “general” sense

or for “limited” specific contexts.24
Click to expand...

A “general purpose public figure” refers to a widely recognized celebrity, a person

whose name is familiar in many households and whose actions and opinions are closely
followed by the public due to their perceived significance or influence.25
Click to expand...

A “limited purpose public figure” refers to a person who, while not broadly famous or

well-known, has become a public figure for a limited purpose due to their involvement in
a particular public controversy.26
Click to expand...

A person can become a public figure with respect to a limited public controversy either
by voluntarily injecting themselves into it, or because their activities “almost inevitably”
thrust them in a central role within that controversy.27 A person can also become an
involuntary public figure unintentionally, either due to bad luck or by being drawn into a
public controversy.
28
Click to expand...

Whether an individual is a limited purpose public figure is a question of law.29
Determining Limited Purpose Public Figure Status: The question of whether a
person is a limited purpose public figure is an issue left solely to the court to decide as a
matter of law, not an issue of fact to be decided by the jury. Lewis v. Coursolle
Broadcasting of Wisconsin, Inc., 127 Wis.2d 105, 110, 377 N.W.2d 166 (1985). The court
of appeals has said, that while the ultimate question of whether a plaintiff is a limited
purpose public figure is a question of law, material factual disputes on this issue can arise.
These factual disputes are not to be left to the jury at trial but should be resolved by the
trial court, after an evidentiary hearing solely on that issue. Bay View Packing Co. v. Taff,
198 Wis.2d 653, 543 N.W.2d 522 (Ct. App. 1995). See also Erdmann v. SF Broad. of Green
Bay, Inc., 229 Wis. 2d at 165, 599 N.W.2d 1
Click to expand...

At least its determined by a judge , which means it could be tossed early on. However she fits that criteria by putting herself in the middle. Depends if her lawyer can argue fatso started it. I'd have to read more about it to see, but these seems like it doesn't matter

Hypothetically, a person may become an
involuntary public figure “without their consent or will, purely through bad luck, or by
being drawn into public controversies.” Bay View Packing, supra, at 682-83.
Click to expand...
 
F

Farmer Brown

‎
Forum Clout
2,330
quasi101 said:
she's likely wrong about being a public figure in wisconsin based on the jury instructions for defamation. She's not considering the that she could be a "limited public figure".

https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/civil/instruction.php?n=2500















At least its determined by a judge , which means it could be tossed early on. However she fits that criteria by putting herself in the middle. Depends if her lawyer can argue fatso started it. I'd have to read more about it to see, but these seems like it doesn't matter
Click to expand...
Seems you need to bone up on civil procedure since the venue might make a big difference. Why wouldn't OR law apply (or WA? Idk)? I certainly have no idea how it works, but if the libel affects her in Oregon and that's where she resides couldn't OR law apply?

On second thought forget about civil procedure, it'd be easier to find if there's an appreciable difference between the states laws. I'll go ahead and guess, "no" and declare the issue of venue moot. Leslie is a limited public figure re: Tomlinson and the twittersphere. Case closed
 
TorquieTwoBeers

TorquieTwoBeers

‎
‎
Forum Clout
27,065
I love that even if Leslie is defaming (or libel-ing, I don't know/care which) Pat, what would the damages be?

There's no vocational damage since he'd have to prove that he's being blackballed in some way by Leslie's posts. If he showed a judge/jury the stupid Tiny Tim book, they would immediately know he's not getting a book deal on it because it sucks, not because he's being adversely affected by Leslie. Or they could just show his abysmal sales numbers for Tor, which would scare away any prospective publisher.

There's no emotional damage because he's constantly a raging dickhead to her on Twitter. Unless he wants to whine and cry like he tried in his initial LOLsuit about undue stress, which again is disproved by his attitude and provoking behavior on Twitter.

So even if he had a case, what money could he possibly receive?
 
RickReternal

RickReternal

I hope people Ouija you tweets after your dead
‎
Forum Clout
45,246
Imagine being so completely without pride as a grown man that you repeatedly threaten a woman for over a year without taking a single step forward to implementing OR shutting the fuck up. I know he does the same with the prisoning on an even more insane scale (more targets, longer timescale) but since Leslie is a real person and a woman, this just seems worse. Rick’s such a failed adult.
 
DominusOdium

DominusOdium

Unreasonably loud, boisterous and intoxicated
‎
‎
Forum Clout
40,863
IGotATreeOnMyHouse85 said:
He’s still going, now he will be suing her soon
View attachment 215398
Time of our choosing? What a faggot.
View attachment 215399
View attachment 215400
44 year old man threatening to sue over people that upset him on twitter.
View attachment 215401
View attachment 215402
Mike is going to prison for…legal explanations?
Click to expand...
"You no longer have control over what happens next"

He tried this line on people from here starting in like 2019. And then spent 5+ years having no control over what happened. He thinks this is a real spooky threat because loss of control and power over others is all the narcissist really fears.
 
SpaceEdge

SpaceEdge

Intern at Sojourner's
‎
‎
Forum Clout
42,411
It's always the same playbook with this idiot "I have the upper hand, you just don't know it and in the future I will show you so be scared and do what I say right now"

That shit won't work on any functioning adult more than one single time, but he just keeps doing it. For years. Probably for over a decade.

They say the definition of obesity is eating the same thing over and over and expecting to lose weight
 
quasi101

quasi101

the $83,736.99 fugitive
‎
Forum Clout
78,300
Farmer Brown said:
Seems you need to bone up on civil procedure since the venue might make a big difference. Why wouldn't OR law apply (or WA? Idk)? I certainly have no idea how it works, but if the libel affects her in Oregon and that's where she resides couldn't OR law apply?

On second thought forget about civil procedure, it'd be easier to find if there's an appreciable difference between the states laws. I'll go ahead and guess, "no" and declare the issue of venue moot. Leslie is a limited public figure re: Tomlinson and the twittersphere. Case closed
Click to expand...

Venue issues, which is what the n-person (:ndbouqx:) judge asked brinto resto when brinton resto lied to a judge and said "there's no reason to think anyone is outside wisconsin" , are pretty complicated and depend on the state's laws. Big companies get arouns SLAPP laws by chosing to sue in states with little or no santi-slapp legislation. Since leslie likely does business in a lot of states she could be sued in several places. She also is now a limited public figure , so that might effect things. I didn't research anything regarding that as not only am I not a public person I spent thousands on a quash to not become public. His case against me was fucked in so many ways...

That's the most hilarious part of the suit against me is that even if he got my identity he'd have had to sue in wisconsin. By that time he would have had to create an entirely new lawsuit and sue me in the state (or country) I live in. He could have spent 150k in sfwa money, appealed, spent more money, some insanse decision reverse the quash, then he would only have gotten my cloudflare information which was maybe an IP address. He thought I used real information for cloudflare lol. Then he'd have to supeona my isp, and depending on the state or country i'm in he'd have fuck all. If, hypothetically he got my information from the isp, he'd then have to contend with a dozen counterlcaims to that he didn't go through the proper process. That being abuse of process or malicious procesuction by brinton lying to the judge. If somehow through all that, likely idnk 300k now in attorney costs and 304 years later he'd have my information. He's then need to file a new lawsuit, which would likely be time barred by statue of limitation anyway.

There's numerous laws for defamation about re-printing or just reposting the same thing wihtout modfying it. Its the time it was posted or said. This was ruled long ago regarding people trying to get around SoLs by suing when a new edition of a book came out or something.

I did a ton of research on the wisconsin venue laws and you need to have a significant presence there, own property regularly vacation there (lmao...) , do business etc. Or if the tort occurred in the state. Meaning you were just driving through and had a car accident, something like that. It's well established in wisconsin decisions that simply using the internet doesn't establish a presence in a state. There were actually cases literally about web forums that decided that internet message boards do not constitute enough for a venue in Wisconsin.


All that is to say the issue of venue is extremely important in the US do to the unique authority of states rights and the vast difference between how states handle free speech.

feed nana.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top