First, I have been clashing legally with Patrick for over a decade now, and in all that time, I have never lost in court. Never. Every single time Patrick walked into a courtroom against me, he walked out a loser. Without exception. But here's why all of this is so interesting, and inevitably depressing.
In every single case, Patrick was supremely confident -- to the point of boasting about it on social media -- that his next argument against me was totally airtight, a slam-dunk, a no-brainer ... I would finally go down to defeat at his self-represented hands. And in every case, he lost. In all of those cases, he openly touted the unquestionable superiority of his arguments, and would regale all and sundry about how he was going to "make [my] big, bad lawyer cry," and other gaseous bloviating and, in every case, he got kicked. But not just kicked.
In most of those confrontations, Patrick got his ass handed to him in every possible way. The Registrar of Bankruptcy who presided over his bankruptcy hearing was so appalled by his history that she described his behaviour as "reprehensible." And in this last action wherein I was allowed to register my default judgment against him for the purpose of collection enforcement, the judge dismissed his 60 pages of irrelevant idiocy as so utterly "baseless and scandalous" that I was awarded enhanced costs of $3,000.
To put it bluntly, Patrick did not just lose all of these actions -- he was totally and spectacularly spanked by the court for submitting utter rubbish. But we're not quite done.
In all this time -- with the exception of a single action for which he retained a lawyer and still lost -- Patrick has insisted on representing himself, which of course is his right, but what is truly stunning is that, in more than a decade of doing that, Patrick does not seem to have learned even the simplest facts about the law. Most of us, if choosing to self-represent, would probably take the time to study up on at least the basics of the relevant law. Not Patrick. There is not an iota of evidence that he knows anything more about the law now than he did over 10 years ago, which is why he dismisses the clear bar against bankrupts launching legal actions as an "administrative loophole," while insisting that his current threatened action against someone has "extraordinary substantive merit." It is truly mind-numbing, but there is a pattern running through all this.
Patrick writes his legal submissions the way he argues online -- in a transparently dishonest manner. More specifically, Patrick is the classic example of someone who argues in "bad faith", that is, someone who explicitly and deliberately misrepresents what you say in order to win an argument. You can always spot these people -- their favourite ploy is to take what you say, then turn around and deliberately misinterpret it by responding with, "So what you're saying is ...", then presenting you with something you are clearly not saying. And while this lets Patrick feel superior online, it does not translate well to legal submissions, where judges have little patience with this kind of nonsense.
That, frankly, is why Patrick keeps getting destroyed in courtroom after courtroom: Rather than actually learn how the law works and work within it, he simply migrates his pompous and patronizing and condescending scorn from Facebook and Twitter, and thinks it will play just as well before a judge. And, strangely enough, it just never works out for him.
In any event, I'm not going to get involved in Patrick's current hysterical shrieking and legal threats against others; I am simply pointing out that he has been spewing the same sort of arrogant bluster for over a decade now and, in all that time, he has yet to come out a winner. Take that for what it's worth.
BONUS TRACK: You're invited to read a couple comments from back here from commenter "RogueNerdOne," who is currently one of Patrick's targets. I will not comment on the legalities underpinning that current slapfest, but note the following, which I have no reason to doubt, regarding Patrick's promise to launch legal action in the face of being an undischarged bankrupt with no trustee:
I should note that the lawyer also said Patrick will 100% need competent legal counsel to even attempt the legal gymnastics he wants to try.When I asked what that would cost just for retainer, he stated he'd ask for $30,000 up front. That's years of hearings with maybe a 10% shot of working.
And given that a recent ruling clears the way for me to register my judgment in Saskatchewan for the purpose of collecting the full amount that Patrick now owes me (well over $100K), I can assure you that if Patrick somehow came up with tens of thousands of dollars ostensibly for a meritless legal action, I would be there to file to seize it.
In any event, if Patrick attempts to initiate any legal action against you, you should reply with a reference to my recent ruling:
which should be enough to kick things to the curb.
6 comments:
SIXTY PAGES??!!??
Sorry, mistake ... 65.
65 pages. OMFG. That must have been high comedy.
Imagine if Twatrick is SO convinced of the "extraordinary substantive merit" of his case, that he decides to pay you the full $120,000 owed, just so he could file this case, perhaps on the presumption that he could recoup $100K+ from RogueNerdOne?
Today is a wonderful day. I started my new role with my current employer, had an OK nap (I work nights now) & grabbed Denny's for lunch. Then I get to this.
Truly a wonderful day. In part, thanks to you, CC.
So, thank you!
I do what I can.
I dunno man, it seems like twatsy has got you exactly where he wants you. Hahahahahahahahah, nah.
Post a Comment