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

[guest]

It honestly doesn't matter if SFWA wins or not. This is all a pressure play against Pat. Beating SFWA would just be the blowjob on top of the hot fudge sundae.

It does matter doesn’t it? My assumption is that the lawyer bothered with that bullshit about the super lawyer and $6,000 because they’d go after Quasi for that if this subpoena gets quashed, the same way he did against Rick. He’s got balls of steel.

 

[IGotATreeOnMyHouse85]

I could be wrong but didn’t someone a while ago point out how this type of information could hurt / get the SFWA in trouble with their tax status? I’m not a tax lawyer but something seems like the SFWA knows they are in deep shit giving 100k of members fees to fund a frivolous lawsuit without consequence.

 

[JoeCumiawearsDIAPERS]

Didn’t read it but I’m assuming Jerry took a look at Pat’s financials, said LOL, and is now shaking down the people who have more than $17K.

Jerry Jen is a real ass dude

 

[Mike Glyer]

Pat doesn't deny he caused this.

Nice "do", stupid. Dago brains = Moor brains.

 

[MonsterSteve]

Yes, child.

 

[BudDickman]

Didn’t read it but I’m assuming Jerry took a look at Pat’s financials, said LOL, and is now shaking down the people who have more than $17K.

Jerry Jen is a real ass dude

Right, seems like of a shakedown to me, against an organization that is overdue to have a spotlight shined on them.

 

[RobertMewler]

Right, seems like of a shakedown to me, against an organization that is overdue to have a spotlight shined on them.

I'm sure Quasi has been nothing but professional this whole time but it would be funny if he mentioned how SFWA harbors literal pedophiles and Jerry said, "Oh, these niggahs GOT TO GO!"

 

[guest]

California has several supreme court cases allowing broad latitude to enforce judgements through third parties if it has the chance to lead to collection of the debt.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://casetext.com/case/yolandas-inc-v-kahl-goveia-commercial-real-estate[/URL]

Yolanda's, Inc. v. Kahl & Goveia Commercial Real Estate, 11 Cal.App.5th 509, 512 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (“Yolanda's referred the matter to the trial court. After briefing and a hearing, the court found that the subpoena issued in the debtor's examination was not limited in scope to [URL='https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-code-of-civil-procedure/part-2-of-civil-actions/title-9-enforcement-of-judgments/division-2-enforcement-of-money-judgments/chapter-6-miscellaneous-creditors-remedies/article-2-examination-proceedings/section-708120-order-directing-third-person-to-appear-to-answer-concerning-property-or-debt']section 708.120[/URL]. The court concluded it has inherent authority to create a proper procedure under [URL='https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-code-of-civil-procedure/part-1-of-courts-of-justice/title-2-judicial-officers/chapter-5-miscellaneous-provisions-respecting-courts-of-justice/section-187-all-means-necessary-to-carry-into-effect-jurisdiction-given-court-or-judicial-officer']section 187[/URL]. The court granted Yolanda's permission to ask questions of KGCRE concerning: "(i) the ultimate disposition of assets transferred by KGCRE to Joseph Goveia and Bruce Kahl; (ii) the interrelationship between KGCRE and other judgment debtors and related parties for purposes of establishing possible alter ego liability; and (iii) any other questions that may assist Judgment Creditors in determining the judgment debtors' true financial condition and the nature and location of judgment debtors' assets and sources of income."”)

Yolanda's, Inc. v. Kahl & Goveia Commercial Real Estate, 11 Cal.App.5th 509, (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (“GILBERT, P.J.Here we conclude, among other things, that the scope of questions asked by a judgment creditor in a third party judgment debtor examination may include the location of assets no longer in the possession of the third party. (Code [URL='https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-code-of-civil-procedure/part-2-of-civil-actions/title-9-enforcement-of-judgments/division-2-enforcement-of-money-judgments/chapter-6-miscellaneous-creditors-remedies/article-2-examination-proceedings/section-708120-order-directing-third-person-to-appear-to-answer-concerning-property-or-debt']Civ. Proc. §§ 708.120[/URL], [URL='https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-code-of-civil-procedure/part-2-of-civil-actions/title-9-enforcement-of-judgments/division-2-enforcement-of-money-judgments/chapter-6-miscellaneous-creditors-remedies/article-2-examination-proceedings/section-708130-witnesses-required-to-appear-and-testify']708.130[/URL], [URL='https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-code-of-civil-procedure/part-1-of-courts-of-justice/title-2-judicial-officers/chapter-5-miscellaneous-provisions-respecting-courts-of-justice/section-187-all-means-necessary-to-carry-into-effect-jurisdiction-given-court-or-judicial-officer']187[/URL].) Appellant wishes to appeal from a post-judgment discovery order arising from such a third party judgment debtor examination. ”)

[URL unfurl="true"]https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-code-of-civil-procedure/part-1-of-courts-of-justice/title-2-judicial-officers/chapter-5-miscellaneous-provisions-respecting-courts-of-justice/section-187-all-means-necessary-to-carry-into-effect-jurisdiction-given-court-or-judicial-officer[/URL]

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 187 (“When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.”)

 

[guest]

A debtor's exam may also be performed on a third party as well.

 

[Mike Glyer]

California has several supreme court cases allowing broad latitude to enforce judgements through third parties is it has the chance to lead to collection of the debt.

https://casetext.com/case/yolandas-inc-v-kahl-goveia-commercial-real-estate

https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-code-of-civil-procedure/part-1-of-courts-of-justice/title-2-judicial-officers/chapter-5-miscellaneous-provisions-respecting-courts-of-justice/section-187-all-means-necessary-to-carry-into-effect-jurisdiction-given-court-or-judicial-officer

I always like to think that this is just the group username that Quasi's lawyers use.

 

[JoeCumiawearsDIAPERS]

Friendly reminder that the legal system in multiple states across multiple judges has not failed Quasi once

 

[JoeCumiawearsDIAPERS]

A debtor's exam may also be performed on a third party as well.

Rock hard

 

[BakersfieldChimp]

A debtor's exam may also be performed on a third party as well.

Keep going, I'm almost there.

 

[Harry Powell]

Oh my God. We get Fat Rick’s debtors exam, but also one for his little pedo club?

 

[guest]

It does matter doesn’t it? My assumption is that the lawyer bothered with that bullshit about the super lawyer and $6,000 because they’d go after Quasi for that if this subpoena gets quashed, the same way he did against Rick. He’s got balls of steel.

Actually now that I think about it, the auto award of attorney fees that Quasi got from his quash was because of all the kinsky stuff and isn’t necessarily true of any subpoena. I wonder if he’s actually at risk of having to pay for it if he doesn’t win this one.

@notalawyer comment?

 

[IGotATreeOnMyHouse85]

With how deranged Pat is I bet he wouldn’t care one bit if he burned every bridge and ruined the SFWA. Why? Because Pat believes he’s “right” and will never accept anything else. He doesn’t care about anyone but himself and twitter.

 

[DanMullen'sRetardedNephew]

Yes, it matters and especially for Quasi. What I'm saying is the big prize is the $40k that Patrick owes him. It's gonna be tough to get that without leverage. Getting SFWA dragged into this directly puts Patrick on SFWA's shitlist.

You don't think the SFWA board is having a crisis meeting right now?

California has several supreme court cases allowing broad latitude to enforce judgements through third parties if it has the chance to lead to collection of the debt.

https://casetext.com/case/yolandas-inc-v-kahl-goveia-commercial-real-estate

https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-code-of-civil-procedure/part-1-of-courts-of-justice/title-2-judicial-officers/chapter-5-miscellaneous-provisions-respecting-courts-of-justice/section-187-all-means-necessary-to-carry-into-effect-jurisdiction-given-court-or-judicial-officer

A debtor's exam may also be performed on a third party as well.

Okay, this is what I was waiting for, the legal reasoning. Causing the sick fucks at the SFWA stress is always good, was just a little worried because I didn't know Quasi's legal chances.

 

[guest]

Actually now that I think about it, the auto award of attorney fees that Quasi got from his quash was because of all the kinsky stuff and isn’t necessarily true of any subpoena. I wonder if he’s actually at risk of having to pay for it if he doesn’t win this one.

@notalawyer comment?

The statute quasi used was compulsory. While the statute claimed by the SFWA is at the judges discretion. Quasi would need to have essentially no reason to issue a subpoena at all. Which is obviously not the case. The quash may have a small chance to succeed, but the sanctions are an extreme longshot.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-1987-2.html[/URL]

(a) Except as specified in subdivision (c), in making an order pursuant to motion made under [URL='https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&originatingContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&pubNum=1000201&refType=SP&originatingDoc=I9be2e9e01a0c11e99e829a5cf7a657e4&cite=CACPS1987']subdivision (c) of Section 1987[/URL] or under [URL='https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&originatingContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&pubNum=1000201&refType=LQ&originatingDoc=I9be2e9e11a0c11e99e829a5cf7a657e4&cite=CACPS1987.1']Section 1987.1[/URL] , the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.
(b)(1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a subpoenaed person or the attorney of a subpoenaed person for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.

(2) This subdivision shall not be construed to alter any obligation to preserve discoverable information.
(c) If a motion is filed under [URL='https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&originatingContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&pubNum=1000201&refType=LQ&originatingDoc=I9be338021a0c11e99e829a5cf7a657e4&cite=CACPS1987.1']Section 1987.1[/URL] for an order to quash or modify a subpoena from a court of this state for personally identifying information, as defined in [URL='https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&originatingContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&pubNum=1000200&refType=SP&originatingDoc=I9be338001a0c11e99e829a5cf7a657e4&cite=CACIS1798.79.8']subdivision (b) of Section 1798.79.8 of the Civil Code[/URL] , for use in an action pending in another state, territory, or district of the United States, or in a foreign nation, and that subpoena has been served on any Internet service provider, or on the provider of any other interactive computer service, as defined in [URL='https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&originatingContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&pubNum=1000546&refType=SP&originatingDoc=I9be338011a0c11e99e829a5cf7a657e4&cite=47USCAS230']Section 230(f)(2) of Title 47 of the United States Code[/URL] , if the moving party prevails, and if the underlying action arises from the moving party's exercise of free speech rights on the Internet and the respondent has failed to make a prima facie showing of a cause of action, the court shall award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees.

Shall award, vs may award.


Take a good look at the wording in section a. "Or opposing the motion" , meaning Quasi can use the very same statute to get attorneys fees from the SFWA.

was made or opposed in bad faith

Who do you think has a better argument? Do you think perhaps the results of the subpeona would show that the quash was made in bad faith?

 

[DanMullen'sRetardedNephew]

View attachment 36394


The statute quasi used was compulsory. While the statute claimed by the SFWA is at the judges discretion. Quasi would need to have essentially no reason to issue a subpoena at all. Which is obviously not the case. The quash may have a small chance to succeed, but the sanctions are an extreme longshot.

California Code, Code of Civil Procedure - CCP § 1987.2 | FindLaw

California Code of Civil Procedure CCP CA CIV PRO Section 1987.2. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Shall award, vs may award.


Take a good look at the wording in section a. "Or opposing the motion" , meaning Quasi can use the very same statute to get attorneys fees from the SFWA.

Beautiful.

 

[NoBacon]

If it’s a loan, it’s crucial information he is entitled to as it pertains to the judgment debtors financials.

If it’s a grant, it means the SFWA are liable to pay taxes on it as taxable expenditure. Taxable expenditures are uses of tax exempt funding that the org has to pay federal taxes on because they fall outside the remit of a charity.