I'm confused. Patrick said he won that hearing because Skinner's defense was in shambles and had evidence included or something.Your article reads as if Patrick lost the hearing horribly. Is this more dishonest engagement from ole triple chin? Soon that will be quadruple chin based on his latest Youtube fodder for his 13 followers.
I have the full transcript of that August 30, 2022 hearing, and I can assure you Patrick had his ass handed to him by the judge. Unsurprisingly, Patrick thoroughly misrepresents what the judge said, so let me clear that up.
Patrick was attempting to strike the defense of one Peter Skinner in Patrick's ludicrous $17.8 skajillion defamation action against Skinner and (as you can read from that earlier post) made such a total fool of himself that ... oh, read it for yourself (the judge erroneously refers to Skinner as "Mr. Peters"):
RulingTHE COURT: Mr. Peters [sic], I will not need to call on you. We have a saying in business that an individual who represents himself may have someone that is unwise as a client. In this particular case, Mr. Ross represented himself in filing the defamation lawsuit and a claim of person injury in the nature of harassment. He also was met with a defence by Mr. Skinner. Today, Mr. Ross indicates that the defence is inadequate and inappropriate and, perhaps, should be struck. The difficulty with that is that, like beauty, the quality and nature of a defence is often in the eye of the beholder.
We allow in the court system people to represent themselves. Is it wise? No, we do not think so, and many a statement of defence has resulted in a court case going against a defendant because of irregularities and inappropriate comments in a defence document. This is not the forum to determine that.
Note first that the judge makes it clear that he doesn't even need to hear a rebuttal from Skinner. This is typically a bad sign -- when you've made such a pathetic and incomprehensible opening presentation that the judge does not even need to hear from the opposing party. But it gets worse for Patrick as it is the very next paragraph of the ruling that Patrick subsequently misrepresents:
Mr. Skinner has the right to be wrong in his document and face the downstream consequence. In this particular case, Mr. Ross may ultimately win the war, but he loses this little battle. He should plan on taking the case forward based on the quality and nature of the documents that are before him.
Patrick has consistently represented the above as the judge saying that Skinner's defense is wrong. That's not how I read it -- from the full context of the hearing, it's not clear the judge has even read Skinner's defense; he is simply saying that, in the general sense, Skinner has the right to file his own defense, and has the right to submit whatever he wants, whether it makes sense or not. This is not a specific criticism of Skinner's defense; rather, it is an opinion on self-represented litigants and their filings in general, nothing more.
The judge clearly ruled against Patrick, and did so without even needing to hear an argument from Skinner. Patrick -- desperately trying to salvage something to brag about -- dishonestly re-interprets the judge's words.
I'm sure you're shocked.
BONUS TRACK: Let me pat myself on the back by pointing out that I wrote this blog post a full two weeks before that hearing. Did I call it or what?
MORE BONUS: This is the perfect example of Patrick misrepresenting the ruling as a slap against Skinner's defense specifically, when it is simply a general opinion of the judge related to the pleadings of self-represented litigants.
8 comments:
Patrick's latest crusade is bitching about some girls who were talking while he went to see the new "Hunger Games" movie. He posted a video on Youtube on Dec 20, and it's had all of 13 views. Not exactly an influencer, is he?
It's too bad that the judge didn't let Skinner speak briefly, as he likely would have made it explicit that Twatsy does not have a bankruptcy trustee. Twatsy would have been forced to give a very interesting explanation in court about that very pertinent detail.
Is anyone else creeped out by a 40-year-old incel going to a movie written for 15-year-old girls?
It's amazing that all this time Patrick has been bragging about how he "won" that hearing. Now it turns out he got so destroyed that the judge didn't even require Skinner to speak. Patrick just lies about everything, doesn't he? I can see why he's a 40-something who's bankrupt, in debt, homeless and alone. Because he deserves it.
Anon @ 9:10 AM: Ah, you're starting to see how Patrick engages online -- relentlessly dishonestly and misrepresenting anything and everything someone else says or writes. Rule of thumb: If Patrick says it, something about it is dishonest. You will never go wrong with that rule.
I think the little guy has issues with younger girls.
There was a netflix movie a few years ago about some girls coming of age. He insisted this was child porn. He posted a promo picture from the movie and described it in sexual terms. He asked me what I saw, I said it looked like a group of girls having fun, one of them reminded me of one of my nieces.
So, for him, his schtick became I was a pedophile who was attracted to his own niece.
He thinks he is a cunning linguist but he's really just an ignorant asshole.
It's not even that. As I read the Judge's argument it goes something like, "Mr. Ross argues that Mr. Skinner's defence should be struck because it is bad. But it doesn't matter whether it's bad; even if it's bad, he gets his day in court to present it--and then, if it is in fact bad, he will take the consequences of that."
PLG: Ironically, even if the judge *had* been referring to Skinner specifically, the end result is that Patrick's idiotic, vexatious and vacuous motion was kicked to the curb, while Patrick -- to this day -- continues to describe this hearing as some sort of resounding victory.
This is called "delusion."
Post a Comment