- Joined
- Aug 5, 2017
The Farms always wins. We side with the lulz.
2021-04-07 - Patrick Sean Tomlinson subpoenas Cloudflare
- Thread starter Null
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
Patrick's lawyers did not look happy about being in the same conference call as Robert Barnes. Was fun to see him in action though. He uses the exact same set up for court appearance as he does for livestreams which makes sense but is still fun to see.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2018
HE has the same flaw he has in livestreams. he is much to nice to degenerates... this was just a little bit better than his debate with that mexican catboy lover.
Boomer cant understand how times have changed and how uncool it is to stay silent in the face of degeneracy...
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2021
There aren't always winners in lawsuits, but this one will be a decisive victory for onaforums. Patrick will not only lose but be forced to pay the legal fees for everyone he dragged into this. He will undoubtedly lose his house, motorcycle, Mustang, and any other possessions he has before going bankrupt.
Keep in mind this is all happening because Patrick is a self-obsessed narcissist who cannot fathom allowing someone else to get the last word or take the last shot. Every time someone slights him, even if it's an anonymous troll, he needs to fire back. The "onaforums" people have trolled plenty of other people in the past. A few have tried fighting back at first, but everyone eventually realized that it's pointless to try to fight back, and left it alone. The O and A people have ALWAYS left their trolling victims alone after they stopped responding. It really is true what they say - "Don't feed the trolls".
:gold:
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 20, 2021
Maybe some of his costs can be covered by legal insurance, provided he has one.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Insurance generally doesn't pay for willful acts like filing a frivolous lawsuit to harass people.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
As an aside in the Era of Twitter and woke mobs this is definitely something you need to have. I attached defamation and libel insurance to my home policy. Last thing I need is some spaz Karen accusing my of being a waycist on tik tok to get me fired for petty reasons.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2019
seriously? This is a thing now? Defamation and libel insurance? How the fuck do you cash in on that?
I thought Pet Insurance was sketchy...
My father argued that Dental Insurance was a scam. Thank god he died not knowing about this.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
You add it to your home owners insurance though depending on the insurance it only protects if you did something in your home. Look up umbrella policies for home insurance.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2019
weird. how does your policy even define this?
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
It actually makes perverse sense. When you take out a mortgage, your ability to pay it back is tied to your ability to work. Thanks to social media, you can now be effortlessly defamed and fired, jeopardizing your ability to pay back the loan in much the same way a fire could.
I did not know about this either tbh. I simply applied for home owners insurance and the agent asked if I wanted to add defamation and libel to policy. It took all of three seconds for it to click in my brain why she would ask that. "This is because of Twitter isn't it". I said. She did not even laugh. Just said "yes, that and other internet platforms"
Basically from my reading of the terms, if a third party says something publicly about me that leads directly to me losing my primary income source, the insurer is obligated to hire a lawyer on my behalf (but of their choosing) in order to prosecute a lawsuit. It does require me to actually not have done the evil thing of course, which gives them a ton of wiggle room and essentially means if I lose the lawsuit they don't have to pay shit. So it's probably one of those I have to pay upfront and they reimburse later deals.
Still better then the alternative.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2019
imo sounds like they're just fronting you the cash for actual defamation cases, not insuring you against twitter political fallout. like if someone tweets your boss "mindlessobserver posts on a hate site" and you want compensation, I expect the insurer will fixate on the question of if you posted here, not if kf is a hate site.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2019
Life Hack:
Save yourself hundreds of dollars per year- remove yourself from all social media.
You'll thank me later.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2019
It's for news outlets and journalists. When a sue happy nigger comes in with an SLAPP they pay the lawyer's fees.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
News outlets and journalists can't get coverage through an umbrella policy in a homeowner's policy. They need specialized insurance for news work, which if you're some tabloid is going to be expensive. A large media outlet, especially one that mainly defames people, is a lot more likely to have experienced, aggressive in-house counsel already.
The homeowner's policies can be pretty limited in scope, sometimes even requiring it be something you literally did while physically in your home. They could also require it be something you did in the scope of your business, rather than just any random thing you said. They also exclude almost any willful acts, so if the case is to an actual malice standard and you lose, they probably won't pay out. They could, for example, decide up front you committed a willful act and refuse to pay.
They also vary in what they give you. For instance, they can provide a lawyer, but then limit the scope of representation. Or they can pay for you to hire your own lawyer, but similarly, pull the economic plug if it's getting too expensive, essentially coercing you to settle. This could nearly force you into a settlement where you have to sacrifice your rights permanently.
Another kind of policy is indemnification, where rather than pay up front, they only pay you after expenses have been incurred, and they could choose after the fact to challenge whether the policy covers you, after you have already paid out of pocket for a probably expensive legal fight.
So then, after you already went through an expensive legal fight, win or lose, now you have to sue the insurance carrier, too. Some carriers, who I won't name but their name starts with "All" and ends with "State," are notorious for this.
These policies are not going to be much use if you're sued by Disney or Microsoft or a Hollywood celebrity with unlimited money, or if you're acting as some kind of citizen journalist in general who might be attacked by powerful interests.
On their good side, adding one of these to an umbrella policy on a homeowner's policy is usually really cheap with nominal policy limits of $1 million or even more, and they'd probably do a reasonably good job deflecting random nut harassment suits, although if it were for Kiwi Farms type shit, where you actively go out and poke the nut, they might refuse to pay out.
They also vary in what they give you. For instance, they can provide a lawyer, but then limit the scope of representation. Or they can pay for you to hire your own lawyer, but similarly, pull the economic plug if it's getting too expensive, essentially coercing you to settle. This could nearly force you into a settlement where you have to sacrifice your rights permanently.
Another kind of policy is indemnification, where rather than pay up front, they only pay you after expenses have been incurred, and they could choose after the fact to challenge whether the policy covers you, after you have already paid out of pocket for a probably expensive legal fight.
So then, after you already went through an expensive legal fight, win or lose, now you have to sue the insurance carrier, too. Some carriers, who I won't name but their name starts with "All" and ends with "State," are notorious for this.
These policies are not going to be much use if you're sued by Disney or Microsoft or a Hollywood celebrity with unlimited money, or if you're acting as some kind of citizen journalist in general who might be attacked by powerful interests.
On their good side, adding one of these to an umbrella policy on a homeowner's policy is usually really cheap with nominal policy limits of $1 million or even more, and they'd probably do a reasonably good job deflecting random nut harassment suits, although if it were for Kiwi Farms type shit, where you actively go out and poke the nut, they might refuse to pay out.
tl;dr these policies are probably worth it in some cases but you really need to know exactly what you're getting
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
Update on my end: I think the representatives have reached an agreement and the forum's interest in this is going to be resolved. I was mostly concerned with making sure that aggressive parties weren't getting anything for free. There wasn't any material dispute, I was concerned why I was getting hit with subpoenas out of nowhere about shit I wasn't party in.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2021
Did you provide them with @Caverlock 's info?
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
If they intend to subpoena for that they've not stated. I really wish you people would assume in good faith I'd tell people about an incoming subpoena at this point in time.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2017
How could they know that you don't roll over for every slapdick who shits out an angry email? You don't have a history calling people, including foreign governments, who threaten frivolous legal action against you niggers or have hired attorneys to litigate on your behalf and the forum's. It is entirely within your character to do everything you can to help a fat retard who is trying to abuse the court system in order to dox the person who threw salami on his porch.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2021
Aight jw. FYI he has had Encyclopedia Dramatica's info for months now and has still not subpoenaed Aediot for Nigel Igger (guy who wrote most of his ED article)'s info. He has also had the info of the guy who owned patrickstomlinson.net and not served him. So you might not get anything.
Some have speculated that this whole lolsuit came as a result of rich in-laws and is just a game of chicken whereby he hopes we all get scared and stop making fun of him, when in reality he's just gonna run out of money. Either way sorry you had to spend money on lawyers. Will throw some donos your way once the lolsuit is officially dead.
- Status