This is explained pretty well here, with the money quote:
With a few very specific exceptions, Patrick has no power to initiate any legal actions; the power to do that is vested with his Trustee, and since Patrick is an undischarged bankrupt without a trustee, he has a pretty steep hill to climb.
Bottom line: Patrick is free to bloviate all he wants, but he essentially has no recourse to sue anyone, so you can all relax.
12 comments:
If I were a lawyer, the case around this on Mr. Ross' behalf would be really quite interesting to advocate for.
You have an extreme corner case of law here where:
a) The plaintiff is suing for personal damages to reputation (the validity of such to be established elsewhere)
b) The plaintiff is an undischarged bankrupt with no Bankruptcy Trustee assigned
c) There is a long history of the plaintiff being non-compliant with court orders
Yet, there is an interesting principle of the right to have access to justice under the law that the courts would have to consider. Being a bankrupt may well limit Mr. Ross' right to sue directly, but should it go so far as to exclude it in a situation where the Trustee has been released by the courts?
This is incredibly niche stuff, and no doubt our bankruptcy laws simply aren't written to cover the situation that Mr. Ross has ended up creating. But if one is a bit of geek about the esoteric aspects of interpreting law in arguably unique situations, it could actually be quite interesting to argue such a case.
But who on earth would want to take on Patrick as a client?
MgS: You make a number of points I'd already thought of, I was just trying to be concise. First, I would add a few more points to your list:
d) The plaintiff has a long history of refusing to pay fines or cost awards.
e) The plaintiff has a long history of frivolous and meritless actions.
f) The plaintiff, while an undischarged bankrupt, is no longer protected by bankruptcy and currently now owes well over $100,000.
It may very well be that one *could* argue that he has a right to file this kind of action, but I suspect it could just as easily be argued that he needs to put up some surety given his current debt load; given Patrick's history, it would be unfair for someone to have to defend such an action already *knowing* that there will be nothing to cover costs in the end.
You are correct in your last point -- the current laws simply weren't designed to address the monstrous and spectacular clusterfuck that Patrick has created for himself.
MgS: One more thought. It is entirely possible that, theoretically, Patrick's intended action might have some merit, but it should still be viewed through the lens of what a hypothetical trustee *would* do in such a situation.
If Patrick had been honouring his obligations all these years, and making the prescribed payments, and apparently had enough cash in hand to finance such an action, a hypothetical trustee might say, "OK, as long as this doesn't interfere with your obligations under the bankruptcy regime and you can keep making payments, you can go ahead with this action."
But that is *not* what's been happening. Not only is Patrick years behind on his payments, but he has been kicked out of bankruptcy and my original judgment is back on the table -- I would think the proper reaction from a trustee would be, "I don't care if someone defamed you; you are massively delinquent in your financial obligations and I will absolutely not sign off on this idiotic action when your money should be going to your creditors!"
I think it's safe to say that Patrick's own contemptible behaviour all these years has thoroughly screwed him in terms of demanding the right to file even more actions that cost even more money, when he's already deeply in debt as it is.
Who thinks Mr. Ross is simply not aware of his current position in legal limbo and the consequences of this for his threats of legal action?
And who thinks Mr. Ross is aware of all of this but simply doesn't care?
Personally, with regards to the courts, I'd say they'd be hesitant to allow him to do anything unless there was someway they could establish he has the ability to pay the costs of someone who he took to court and lost against.
The courts would probably be very open to dismissing a lawsuit brought by someone in Ross's position if there were any grounds for pronouncing it "frivolous."
All valid points - I was more enjoying the intellectual idea of the arguments one could put before the courts.
Mr. Ross' actions are themselves enough to make most judges to question the merits of both the defamation action and the adjacent legal question of whether he should be able to file it.
One possible outcome might be a ruling that he already has access to justice, but it exists in the context of his relationship with a Trustee.
[Hypothetical Judge]: "But you have no Trustee, you say? Well, then it is incumbent on you to get one". <*sound of gavel striking*>
In the meantime, we might as well make some popcorn and enjoy the show. Mr. Ross flailing about is endlessly amusing.
MgS: One more thought based on that article linked to above, where one reads:
"The basic premise is this – the plaintiff is barred from pursuing the claim while that plaintiff remains an undischarged bankrupt. Only the Trustee in bankruptcy can continue the claim."
Note the word "continue" ... it would seem to make sense that someone in Patrick's tragic and self-inflicted situation might be allowed to *initiate* an action, but would be barred from "continuing" any further with it until his current bankruptcy status was resolved. So maybe he could file to get in under the deadline for defamation (or whatever stupidity he's suing for), but he would be barred from proceeding any further until he extricated himself from his current dumpster fire, which could take quite some time.
That would solve all sorts of problems -- there would no waste of legal fees on a lawyer when all that money should be going to his creditors. Just a thought.
In any event, I don't think any of Patrick's intended targets has a great deal to worry about. And if he somehow came up with a bagful of cash to pursue these actions, I'd be right there demanding to know where it all came from.
Spoke to a lawyer today who tells me that Patrick has to inform the court regarding his bankruptcy status and lack of a trustee from being kicked out of bankruptcy. Should he not do this, a simple motion to dismiss will suffice. He may get a hearing to prove that he should be allowed to file the suit, but without a trustee, he wouldn't be able to participate further, which again, a simple motion to dismiss will take care of. Should he not inform the court at the start however could wind him in even more legal hot water. Also calling me a defendant without filing an action is 10000000% libel. Problem is, he'll never get out from your debt let alone another judgement.
He has to prove before he'll be allowed to file that he can prove the damages he's asking for, and that his reputation was harmed to the ridiculous dollar figure he's suing for. He didn't lose any employment from my allegations, and he's thankfully tweeted I'm some sort of mafia don that can get people who can go fight him for me. Mental illness can also play down this. Technically he has zero net worth. How can a man with nothing prove a dollar figure in damages? His feels got hurt. People are very aware of his past transgressions when it come to libel and harassment of others.
If he does all that and manages to convince a judge to let him file, he'll first have to put up surety. With his record in court, failure to make any real effort to pay damages, I'll make him put up $50,000 with his history of frivolous appeals with fantasy as his argument.
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.
If he does anything, I'm to sit back and spend as little as possible to defend because it's likely Patrick never gets by his initial hearing. We know that Patrick doesn't engage honestly with people online, so he might try to back door this without telling the court simply for bravado.
Those free consultations are fucking amazeballs. Just to make sure, I've requested three more :)
Twatrick is using the term "extraordinary substantive merit" to describe his case.
CC, you know this person as well as anyone: Is he insane? A sociopath? Profoundly stupid? Enjoys acting macho?
How could one man be so deluded? Or deep down, does he know he's writing more fantasy novels, using his own pathetic life?
@Metal Slime:
Sounds like he's been hanging out with too many "Sovereign Citizen" types in GP. I'm no lawyer, but I can't find anything in law references that strings those 3 words together in that way.
I suppose one way to look at it is "Sh!t is a substance and it has a texture, but what that has to do with the price of tea in China this week eludes me".
I've heard back on the two extra free consultations. All three tell me to do as little as possible if Patrick files; stick to dismissal motions.
He has to convince a court he should be able to file against me. At that hearing, I can attend and give evidence. During that hearing he has to prove he suffered damages, actual damages, not what he's asking for. He has to prove the case has some substance to it and not just conjecture. Since this fool has been telling everyone and their dog I sent proxies to fight him, I'm be raising mental health questions.
Then he has to argue why he shouldn't have to put up surety knowing his history of failing to pay any damages or costs while filing insane motions people have to defend against.
Then he's going to have to fight another motion making him retain counsel. I'm not going through what Robert has. No way I'm dealing with him for a decade.
Should he get through all that, then he has to also answer for his own libel over the last 4 months, and I'll get to crack open his finances. All of which he'll object to, because he knows the law better than the law.
I'm not going to make this easy for him. Far from it. In fact, I retained counsel today in the event he really tries something.
Oh, and he's somewhat confused as what official service means. He hasn't served me with a proper c&d, stating I saw it online and that's good enough. It's not. He hasn't sought to obtain an order for alternate service and couldn't. He's never had issue with documents before to me.
All three lawyers said the same thing, except their retainers to accept Patrick as a client varied from $20K to $30K. It'll take 2 years for him to be able to file.
Rest easy folks. Patrick ain't shit, and the courts will know it.
Post a Comment