I don't think that Pat will be getting bailed out again though. If (when) this blows up in his fat bitch titted face he's gonna get stuck with having to deal with it himself.
They're both plaintiffs, so if there's an award of costs and/or fees the City can collect the entirety of the debt from either of them, even if they subsequently divorce, and the debt would probably be against the couple anyway even if only one got sanctioned.
Sometimes if the misconduct is by both counsel and the plaintiffs, the attorney and the plaintiffs are all jointly and severally liable.
Can one of our law experts summarize what did the last 2 days actually mean for Pat? I saw so many different takes from our Russian and North Korean cells on both forums, I'm a bit lost.
We can guess, but in actuality, all it really means is the defendants filed a timely answer to the amended complaint, something they would have had to do even if they are negotiating settlement behind the scenes.
So they haven't yet settled, and the case is moving forward.
I also don't really know the nature of the evidence and it seems much of it may be sealed. As for what we do know, the one interaction we've seen on a different video than the bodycam footage shows Pat looking and acting like a belligerent fruitcake and taking a swing at a cop.
The only other thing I think might tip it over into 1983 territory is when the cop threatened to kick down his door and apparently executed some sort of search, but I'm not at all sure he was exceeding his authority, and this is based solely on Piggy's own version of events.
I strongly suspect he was also being belligerent then, giving rise to a reasonable belief that the danger in the swatting call was legitimate.
I do not see Pat faring well before a jury. Even on his "best" behavior he's a complete and utter repulsive asshole.
Scared of the 7th Circuit, maybe. NGL, it's a bad set of facts to take up on appeal.
They must know some things we don't know (Torswats...maybe), or just banking on Fatrick being an absolute tool in court.
I think they may want to avoid a precedent on whether a fact pattern like Piggy is claiming is "clearly established law," because leaving that undecided and maybe addressing it in a less egregious swatting case would be better.
Also it could be they would prefer to take it to trial and develop the record and (given the way Piggy operates), be in the much better position of going up to the Seventh as the prevailing party based on actual factual findings.
I also assume they can raise the sovereign immunity issue on appeal even if they appear to have declined to raise it now, or that they can and will raise it on summary judgment at some point and possibly, if discovery turns out well for them, with a better set of actual undisputed facts.
I look forward to seeing but still suspect a settlement may arise at some point.
