Suing Pat means you'd get fuck all out of him.
Or does it? IANAL but if you file and win for something like defamation or another civil tort do you have a stronger ability to acquire your fees/damages? Vs. Quasi who was awarded fees because he was dragged to court and successfully defended himself. What I'm getting at is if someone with the grounds to sue for defamation and have pat as a defendant lose can we finally crack open the pepperoni, so to speak, and finally see how he's making money (insurance, airbnb, Niki, other side job) to fuel his copious amounts of beer gulping and tweeting.
Theoretically, a judgement against him [for defamation &
tortious interference] would - depending on the laws of WI - subject him to seizure of various assets and a levy against income. If WI follows the doctrine of "tenancy by the entireties", it's unlikely you'd be able to immediately seize jointly-owned assets [the half-hovel, for instance] but the two of them wouldn't be able to sell it without satisfying part of the judgement. And judgements accrue interest as you saw with Quasi. The last thing anyone wants, aside from a public record of a criminal conviction or their L in a legal matter in which
they were the Plaintiff, is a lien on their property.
What Leslie and Mike are discussing is Dan potentially seeking a restraining order against Fatboy for what appears to be a blatant attempt to economically harass Dan based on false allegations of criminal acts. That may or may not be equivalent to
tortious interference w/a defamation component. Dan, it could be argued, is both an involuntary/limited-purpose public figure who would have to prove actual malice, though given the fact that Fatboy is very clearly attempting to harm his employment via a false allegation of criminal acts, that might not be a huge hurdle.
In a sane & righteous world, Dan has a case; this is
neither a sane nor righteous world, so we'll have to see what happens.
EDIT: It's "tortious", not tortuous; thank you
@AnOminous.