Take a moment if you will, and go back here and read the two lengthy comments from one Peter "Rogue Nerd One" Skinner, the target of Patrick Ross' recent idiotic million dollar lawsuit, and appreciate just how monstrously large a house Peter is about to drop on Patrick. In particular, appreciate this bit:
"Then we'll be making a motion to force opposition counsel."
If I read that correctly, that means that Peter will be arguing (among other things) that Patrick is simply so dishonest or disingenuous or downright incompetent that he should be required to retain counsel, and not be allowed to represent himself as he has done so badly all these years. Well, in aid of Peter making his argument, I will now regale you with a story I have never published related to Patrick, to demonstrate just how spectacularly incompetent and dishonest he is, and if Peter wants to add this to his affidavit, he has my blessing.
Recall that I got my default judgment against Patrick back in 2010, and published it openly, and I know for a fact that Patrick was aware of this within 24 hours of publication because he admitted that openly:
Ever since then, at every opportunity over the years, Patrick has made two puzzling claims to the Court. At every opportunity. And they are the following.
First, Patrick insists that he has never been served with a copy of what he describes as the "full" or "long form" judgment. He openly concedes that he has seen the three-paragraph endorsement above, but is firm in his position that, all this time, I have nefariously refused to serve him with the long form of the actual judgment, a document which Patrick claims would have laid out the issues and analysis and findings and would have allowed him to mount a proper appeal. So that is Patrick's first claim.
Related to the above is a much more specific claim -- Patrick insists that, when we first dragged his pasty ass into court way back in March of 2012, he made this very claim to the judge, whereupon (according to Patrick) the outraged judge agreed that he had been unfairly treated by this withholding and ordered my then-lawyer to serve him with the judgment, whereupon (again, according to Patrick) we flagrantly disobeyed her court order and still refused to turn it over. That is the more specific of Patrick's claims, and it's worth noting that Patrick has never given up whining about this, repeating those accusations even in his most recent legal submission of this year, 2021:
Let us deal with Patrick's more specific claim first: that in March of 2012 in open court, after he claimed that he had never received the "long form" of the judgment, the judge agreed that he should have been and ordered my counsel to provide it to Patrick, after which we disobeyed that court order and continued to keep it from him.
Well, given that I have the transcript from that hearing (which has also been sent to Peter Skinner who is welcome to use it in any way he sees fit), we can examine Patrick's claim in exquisite detail.
Let's begin on that fateful day of March 6, 2012, when Patrick, having been ordered to appear in court, shows up late and interrupts my counsel's presentation, holds up his hand from the gallery and identifies himself:
That would be Patrick, making a less than optimal first impression by showing up late and blaming it on being given the wrong address, a claim the judge is clearly skeptical of but, whatever, he is told to park it until my counsel is finished. And then it really goes to shit when it is Patrick's turn, at which point ... oh, hell, just read it:
I will be merciful and cut it off there, since one can already see that Patrick is simply trying to snow the judge with various legal expressions, and the judge admits she has no idea what the fuck Patrick is yammering on about. But it gets funnier as Patrick, clearly unaware of what this hearing is about, again insists that he never received a copy of the judgment, then hilariously tries to re-litigate my 2010 action against him:
Oh, dear God.
As you can see, Patrick is literally trying to re-argue the 2010 action, but the judge is having none of it and drags Patrick back to the real world, and the very specific reason he is there. But here's what we've been working up to, related to Patrick's specific claim that he never received the judgment, and that the judge agreed with him and ordered us to provide it, but that we continued to refuse. Let me enlighten you as to what actually happened:
Go back and read that again to make sure you understand what just happened -- the judge has heard Patrick's claim of never having been served with the judgment, and makes it devastatingly clear that she does not believe him:
"... I’m sure Mr. Kraft’s file is replete with affidavits of service that show that you were served."
In fact, the judge did subsequently order that we serve Patrick with the judgment, but only because since Patrick kept claiming he had never seen it, we might as well just send it to him one more time to play it safe. It is thigh-suckingly clear from the above that the judge does not believe anything Patrick is saying, so Patrick's interpretation of what happened back in March of 2012 is rancidly dishonest, as you can all see. But if you think that's bad, it gets so much worse.
Regarding Patrick's relentless insistence that, in all these years, he has never received a copy of the "long form" judgment, he is, in fact, technically correct, but for the following reason:
There is no such thing.
There never has been.
It does not exist.
The endorsement you saw above and which I present to you again:
is all there ever was, and there is a simple reason why there was never a "long form" judgment in this case: It's because Patrick chose not to defend, so we filed to have him found in default, at which point my then-lawyer argued my case in court unopposed, whereupon the judge ruled in my favour and issued that endorsement. There was never a "long form" judgment because, since Patrick chose not to defend, there were no defenses from his side to analyze and make findings for.
Let me state this even more clearly and embarrassingly for Patrick: Not only did he thoroughly misrepresent what happened at that March 2012 hearing, but he has been -- for almost a decade now -- bitching about not having been served with a document that never existed, something he could have learned from a simple phone call years ago. My then-lawyer clarified this earlier this year, writing to me personally:
"The judge delivered his ruling orally from the bench and endorsed the record accordingly. It was not a trial, of course. It was an uncontested motion."
There is no "long form" judgment. There never was -- something Patrick never bothered figuring out for almost 10 years now, and something he could have learned with a single phone call or e-mail. And that is why Patrick should absolutely not be allowed to represent himself anymore. Because he is eye-rollingly, nad-grindingly incompetent and disgustingly dishonest, and Peter Skinner is more than welcome to add this example of Patrick's incompetence and dishonesty to his affidavit.
IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING WHY, if the judge clearly did not believe Patrick's claim of never being served, she still ordered us to re-send the judgment (which you all now realize was just the endorsement), my then-counsel asked about that at the end, which precipitated this exchange:
In short, even though the judge was convinced Patrick had been served multiple times, given that Patrick was denying it in person, she was legally obligated to take his word for it; hence, the end result of, "Oh, just send it again so I can deem service adequate once and for all."
And now you know.
BONUS TRACK: I have, for Peter's benefit, sent him a copy of the entire transcript from that March 6, 2012 hearing. Since it is part of the public record, he is free to post it in its entirety if he wishes.