Patrick Sean Tomlinson / @stealthygeek / "Torque Wheeler" / @RealAutomanic / Kempesh / Padawan v2.5 - "Conservative" sci-fi author with TDS, armed "drunk with anger management issues" and terminated parental rights, actual tough guy, obese, paid Quasi, paid thousands to be repeatedly unbanned from Twitter

[AirdropShitposts]

Sounds like one of the brothermen overdid it. Bummer. I do hope she realises he can’t afford a defamation suit and that even SFWA wouldn’t be dumb enough to find his legal antics again.

Just as importantly, that he's the one defaming her in this case.

 

[Piggle Rick]

Just as importantly, that he's the one defaming her in this case.

Wait, I must have missed that. I thought it was about her saying he was on a pervert watch list? What did he say about her that was defamation? I can’t see his Twitter.

 

[Maude Snew]

Wait, I must have missed that. I thought it was about her saying he was on a pervert watch list? What did he say about her that was defamation? I can’t see his Twitter.

Rick, Shane, and Ooga have been calling her every name in their playbook for days now, nazi, white supremacist, pedo, the works. She really hit a nerve with them for being a woman and not just rolling over and blindly accepting the story. She even had the nerve to question his flimsy evidence which came down to just one step above just trust me, bro.

 

[Piggle Rick]

Rick, Shane, and Ooga have been calling her every name in their playbook for days now, nazi, white supremacist, pedo, the works. She really hit a nerve with them for being a woman and not just rolling over and blindly accepting the story. She even had the nerve to question his flimsy evidence which came down to just one step above just trust me, bro.

Thanks! Wow. Imagine if she does sue him, and he gets a second lien on his half-hovel. I’m guessing quasi gets paid first though, right? Any legal eagles able to tell me if she has a case and if I’m right about quasi getting his stuff first since he got a judgement first?

 

[HarblMcDavid]

The birth of a patposter really is one of the most beautiful parts of nature.

We even have a picture from the James Webb Space Telescope

 

[AirdropShitposts]

Wait, I must have missed that. I thought it was about her saying he was on a pervert watch list? What did he say about her that was defamation? I can’t see his Twitter.

Thanks! Wow. Imagine if she does sue him, and he gets a second lien on his half-hovel. I’m guessing quasi gets paid first though, right? Any legal eagles able to tell me if she has a case and if I’m right about quasi getting his stuff first since he got a judgement first?

He's pretty much straight out accused her of working with criminals to commit crimes and threatened to spread this lie in their industry. If Rick sued her frivolously she could not only countersue him but if anyone were to win, she'd win. She'd get nothing out of it because he has nothing and it's earmarked for Quasi, but that's the only cost she could possibly face. I don't blame her but frankly she could just call him fat and dare him to sue her about it.

 

[John_Smith]

It was amusing to see all the side show freaks that are part of the Pativerse dogpile Lesley. What a collection. Patso is into comics, no? Did he DM all them with "Avenger's Assemble!" and they rushed to his defense? Freaks that are too freaky even for the most pitiful of carnivals.

 

[Blood Bath & Beyond]

I hadn't been aware of the Glorious Leslie Arc until very recently, but has Leslie yet been informed about that time Fat threatened to murder his ex-wife and children because she left him for The Coke Can aka Mr. Sausage?

You know, the one with the archived court record which will never go away and can't be denied.

 

[Kela de Thaym]

Sounds like one of the brothermen overdid it. Bummer. I do hope she realises he can’t afford a defamation suit and that even SFWA wouldn’t be dumb enough to find his legal antics again.

The Brothermen don't know when to hold 'em and let nature take its course in some cases, unfortunately. But they gave us the True and Honest Tiny Tim story, so it balances itself out. (Unlike Pat, who's sheer girth breaks every balance scale he's put on)

And of course, like clockwork these "male feminist" adjacent types always show their misogyny stripes when a woman -even one on their "side"- doesn't agree lock-step with them. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

 

[John_Smith]

Even if Pigster could afford an attorney he would lose the defamation suit. Let's remember a few things. He could not afford his first suit against the Pests so he had to get funding from the SFWA. He actively sabotaged his own case against them. He admitted that he ignored his lawyer's advice and still engaged with the Pests. He refused to drop Quasi as one of the John Does, thus ensuring that the subpoena would be quashed. Certainly there are other stupid things he did to destroy his case that we don't know about. He would do the same things again. He doesn't learn.

Legal Kiwis, is this accurate? Defamation, slander and libel: must be false, must know it is false (there are qualifications here) must be made maliciously (ie. intended to harm) and must actually cause harm. Patso would have a tough time establishing that Lesley acted with malice, an impossible time really. As to causing harm? Naw. He would have to trot out his book sales to show that her statement hurt sales. He would have to show a loss of followers on his precious twitter. (which is damage according to Patso's pea-brain). Nope, didn't happen. He could not prove harm to his reputation.

Is there even a lawyer desperate enough to take him on as a client? The current lawyer is Nikki's, from her bankruptcy.

Pat's threats are, as always, bluster and bravado, made by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Never forget that Patso actively seeks out the rakes to step on. He is well and truly controlled by the Imp of the Perverse.

 

[Meat Target]

Even if Pigster could afford an attorney he would lose the defamation suit. Let's remember a few things. He could not afford his first suit against the Pests so he had to get funding from the SFWA. He actively sabotaged his own case against them. He admitted that he ignored his lawyer's advice and still engaged with the Pests. He refused to drop Quasi as one of the John Does, thus ensuring that the subpoena would be quashed. Certainly there are other stupid things he did to destroy his case that we don't know about. He would do the same things again. He doesn't learn.

Legal Kiwis, is this accurate? Defamation, slander and libel: must be false, must know it is false (there are qualifications here) must be made maliciously (ie. intended to harm) and must actually cause harm. Patso would have a tough time establishing that Lesley acted with malice, an impossible time really. As to causing harm? Naw. He would have to trot out his book sales to show that her statement hurt sales. He would have to show a loss of followers on his precious twitter. (which is damage according to Patso's pea-brain). Nope, didn't happen. He could not prove harm to his reputation.

Is there even a lawyer desperate enough to take him on as a client? The current lawyer is Nikki's, from her bankruptcy.

Pat's threats are, as always, bluster and bravado, made by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Never forget that Patso actively seeks out the rakes to step on. He is well and truly controlled by the Imp of the Perverse.

Patso, in my layman's opinion, meets the criteria of a libel-proof plaintiff.

 

[John_Smith]

That would be rib-shattering if a judge declared that about Patso. It would be declaring open season on him and the Pests would take full advantage. Sadly, we'll never see it. Patso will never get the funds for another lolsuit. He's a broke-ass man-child. No bank will loan him anything while he has the debt amortization plan. No organization will fund him, not after the SFWA fiasco. No attorney will take the case on contingency. All he can do is oink away in twitter.

 

[HarblMcDavid]

With Pat I think the big problem is the "caused damage" part. Sure, there are things about him circulated which are 100% false, but prove financial damages caused by them? It also doesn't help him that most of the falsehoods are obvious from low earth orbit to a reasonable person (which Pat is not).

Pretty sure "malicious" refers to "actual malice" which isn't quite the same thing as "malicious" as we know it, since actual malice is a legal term for the standard to overcome having public figure status. Broadly, a false statement made with actual malice is just a false statement made knowing the statement was false, or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not. That statement still needs to cause provable damage, outside of any exceptions to proving damages that a finding of per-se defamation would allow.

There are some false statements about him floating around which could be hyper-theoretically be per-se defamation...but you need to convince a judge to entertain the case at all, then a jury that the statements are definitely not mean but obvious jokes, and even if they could find that allegations of making pepperoni in his basement out of black babies is per-se defamation, something tells me the giggling about how stupid and absurd the statement is will overpower any inclination to throw Fatrick a bone on that.

Pat will probably hold himself out as a public figure, which makes him winning any defamation cases MUCH harder, but he's probably too proud and pigheaded to argue he's NOT a public figure. Any potential defense would also argue he is a public figure since that makes their job easier...also he pretty much claims it which makes it an easy argument to snag at least limited public figure status.

I doubt personally he is defamation proof at this point, but it certainly isn't for lack of trying.

 

[Maude Snew]

He's a broke-ass man-child.

Nah, Shane's the one with the broken ass. There's serious butter knife damage there.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

Legal Kiwis, is this accurate? Defamation, slander and libel: must be false, must know it is false (there are qualifications here) must be made maliciously (ie. intended to harm) and must actually cause harm. Patso would have a tough time establishing that Lesley acted with malice, an impossible time really. As to causing harm? Naw. He would have to trot out his book sales to show that her statement hurt sales. He would have to show a loss of followers on his precious twitter. (which is damage according to Patso's pea-brain). Nope, didn't happen. He could not prove harm to his reputation.

He doesn't have damages obviously, but he doesn't even have defamation. Leslie hasn't posted any factual statements about him that weren't true, she couched everything else she said by saying it was what people were telling her including privately in DMs. This isn't defamation especially because Rick has publicly posted many of those messages and never deleted them. She couched her analysis of his mental state as being her own analysis and she's not a psychologist or anything (as Pat pointed out) so she can't make factual assertions on that that would rise anyway.

Patirck on the other hand has defamed her multiple times and threatened to defame her in private in their shared industry if she didn't stop commenting accurately about him. He'd get his shit pushed in harder than he did with the Quasi case except for how far he already got his shit pushed in by that case so he has nothing left to take.

He essentially is defamation proof as we can see when he went after two separate (felonious) podcasts that weren't even really about him. This is a man who in his own case tried to personally introduce in court how he kidnaps Negro children and turns them into pepperoni. Anyone who says anything this guy doesn't like gets almost immediately publicly accused of being part of a vast criminal conspiracy. I don't even know how a person could legitimately defame him in a non-token way doing it deliberately to see what the extent is since he lies about so much, how many times has he denied that his high school records are his?

 

[Laquisha Guntermensch]

Cyborg Fat is my least favorite Fatrick. Curly Bill badgers him with an honest upgrade:

 

[Laquisha Guntermensch]

I don't even know how a person could legitimately defame him

I will hypothetically try to defame Ricky.
Rick has not:
banged more than two women;
driven a car/motorcycle more than 60mph;
witnessed them boys flying in the mud behind his house;
been into things or invited to be a locally sourced Hooligan's hot sauce manufacturer;
completed a novel about Tiny Tim in less than a year.

stlaker child noooo;

 

[TheOtherSideofMakeBelieve]

Defamation, slander and libel: must be false

Yes

must know it is false (there are qualifications here) must be made maliciously (ie. intended to harm) and must actually cause harm.

These get a bit more complicated with public figures and Pat would have an extremely hard time not meeting the bar of limited purpose public figure. He's constantly tweeting about his situation, reaching out to any news site that will give him a minute, and even his local news. I think that generally speaking the rules for being found to be a limited purpose public figure are far, far too broad, nearly as broad as Patrick, but Pat is exactly the kind of person that the rules were intended to hit.

Intent to harm isn't the standard for actual malice, you can intend to cause harm while saying something you believe to be true. It's more of a negligence/recklessness standard. As a layperson, if you hear something that isn't obviously outlandish you don't have any particular responsibility to do further research. As a member of a news organization, though, you might have an established standard of conduct that you typically employ and if they can show that you didn't hit your usual level of research/investigation that could be considered reckless disregard for the truth.

Actually causing harm is the standard for defamation, though certain things would fall under defamation per se which are things considered to be so innately damaging that damages are presumed for the sake of making it to trial, though you still have to prove that damage to get your judgement


One exception to truth as a defense would be tortious interference with a contract in jurisdictions that haven't implemented the third restatement of torts, of which there aren't very many. No relation to this but it's still kind of an interesting facet of the legal system. Basically, if you're aware of a contract and you try to disrupt that contract by reaching out to one of the parties and relay a bunch of information to them in an unprivileged manner, even if that information is true, you can still be held liable for the damages caused to the other party. Texas is the only state I can name off the top of my head where this is true and it's possible that's changed over the last few years. I think the case that caused them to reject the third restatement initially involved two people in a business agreement, a third party filed a bunch of frivolous lawsuits against one of the contracting parties and then contacted the other and said "Look at all these lawsuits where the other guy is being sued, do you really want to do business with someone like that? You should do business with me instead." It was true that the other guy was being sued, but it was obviously bullshit and the courts upheld it as tortious interference under the second restatement, whereas it wouldn't have been under the third since it was true

 

[AnOminous]

I think that generally speaking the rules for being found to be a limited purpose public figure are far, far too broad, nearly as broad as Patrick, but Pat is exactly the kind of person that the rules were intended to hit.

I generally dislike the concept that a defamer can essentially turn you into a limited purpose public figure by just defaming you incessantly until you respond, then arguing that since you participated in the discussion, you're now an LPPF. But Rick has done a lot more than that.

 

[Dieter Laser]

PAT TOMLINSON EATS SMALL BLACK CHILDREN AND I WILL NOT BE SILENCED.