- Forum Clout
- 15,095
Judging by his latest picture, he's going to really have to squeeze himself into it.
-
Reminder: Do not call, text, or mention harrassing someone in real life. Do not encourage it. Do not talk about killing or using violence against anyone, or engaging in any criminal behavior. If it is not an obvious joke even when taken out of context, don't post it. Please report violators. If you want your account deleted, or have other on-site inquiries, send a private message to @BlackTransLivesMatter or @BlackQueerLivesMatter.
Do not post IRL pranks here without including the source
For DMCA, complaints, and other inquiries:
[email protected]
Robinson et al v. City of Milwaukee et al
- Thread starter Cumtown Fags
- Start date
- Forum Clout
- 82,372
Is Fat appearing tomorrow or is it just another filing?
- Forum Clout
- 48,443
It's not required, but he should..
Although I'm not 100% sure whether the Judge is deciding on the matters tomorrow, or that is the start of the motions and will deliberate for a while and we get an update in about a week or so with his decision(s).
update with some clarification:
it's the deadline for parties to file motions to dismiss and other motions that would end the case.
So basically the second thing I said, deadline has passed and judge will start looking through to see what merits being dismissed. Not much will actually happen tomorrow and there will be an update at some point as to what has been dismissed and what if anything is going to trial.
Last edited:
- Forum Clout
- 523
"Plaintiff, state your full name for the record, please." - Uh, P-patri- "That's not what it says here!" - W-wha- "It clearly says FAT FAGGOT WITH BITCH TITS! THIS IS A COURT OF LAW, NOT YOUR COMEDY STAGE! SIR, DON'T DO THIS!"
- Forum Clout
- 130,635
This Patpost stinks. Do better
- Forum Clout
- 74,121
- Forum Clout
- 31,531
- Forum Clout
- 28,274
- Forum Clout
- 3,075
Dispositive motions are filed without a hearing. Because they've already completed discovery (or most of it), the PD and individual officers will file a motion for summary judgment as opposed to a motion to dismiss or motion for judgment on the pleadings. Pat's side will have 7 (I think - I'm not entirely sure on the deadlines in federal court) days to respond, and the PD will have 3 or 5 days from the response to file a reply. After all of that there will be a hearing, but there won't be any evidence or testimony. Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no material facts in dispute (I don't think there are here - nobody is arguing the SWATs didn't happen or that the PD didn't carry them out) and, even drawing all inferences in favor of Pat, he's not entitled to recovery as a matter of law. So, while Pat will likely attend, he won't be involved in the hearing.
My guess is that qualified immunity will be the focus of the PDs argument, and unless Pat's team has uncovered solid evidence removing that immunity, it's a very strong argument. The judge is more likely to rule against Pat now on that basis than he was before because he's given Pat an opportunity to engage in discovery and make his case. If there's nothing there now, there won't be at trial and the case can be dismissed.
I wouldn't be surprised if Pat's side filed for summary judgment as well as it is often used as a strategy (not a very good one) to make a judge more cautious when there are competing motions vs just one.
Lastly, it's extremely unlikely that Pat will be subject to an award of the PD's attorney fees. For better or worse, the US legal system only allows for fee shifting when provided for by contract (obviously not the case here) or statute (as in the Quasi matter). Exceptions are rare and require a level of egregiousness or bad faith that isn't present here. I would love to be wrong on this.