As just one example, I will use snippets of a transcript from August of 2022, when Patrick tried to strike the defense of one Peter Skinner. Here, on page 4, the judge just wants to understand the basis of the underlying action, whereupon Patrick ... oh, just read it:
As you can see, the poor judge just wants to understand what is happening, while Patrick blathers on incomprehensibly when all the judge wanted to confirm was that Patrick filed an application.
Sadly, not taking a clue from the judges's brevity, Patrick once again launches into a soliloquy immediately thereafter:
Still unclear on how to comport himself in a court of law, Patrick once again responds to a simple question with extended blathering, this time being cut off by the judge who appears to have had quite enough of his meandering irrelevancy:
Shortly thereafter, the judge tells Skinner that he does not even need to hear from him, then proceeds to kick Patrick's application to the curb.
The point here is not that Patrick lost his application (I, in fact, predicted that he would, for exactly the reason the judge provided), but that Patrick -- for all of his online bravado and bluster -- is a stunningly poor and inarticulate participant in legal actions, barely capable of putting sentences together to the point where a judge will simply cut him off. (This is exactly what happened years earlier when I got him in front of a judge in March of 2012 -- it was painful.)
In any event, there will be more on this in a day or two but this should hold you until then.
BONUS TRACK: Given that Patrick loves to, on occasion, dismiss people he doesn't like as "groomers," he might be interested in this latest development, wherein slagging someone as a "groomer" opens one up for (you guessed it) a defamation lawsuit.
Honestly, Patrick just doesn't seem to know when to stop digging, does he?
MORE BONUS: It's worth pointing out yet more of Patrick's utter lack of comprehension of how the law works. Above, you can see where Patrick claims that Peter Skinner accuses Patrick of criminally defrauding his company. A serious claim to be sure, except that there seems ample evidence that Patrick has, over the years, done exactly that to several people ... as long as you understand the claim being made.
There is a difference in Canada between charges of "identify theft" and "identify fraud" and you can read all about it here. If you don't understand what I wrote there, go back and read it again until it sinks in.
YET MORE BONUS: I've written on this before: standard Canadian bankruptcy law is quite clear that, if you are an undischarged bankrupt, you are typically not allowed to initiate any legal actions on your own; rather, you must get the blessing of your trustee. Patrick is quite convinced that he has precedent that allows him to do this; in this, he is sadly mistaken but let's go with that thought.
During the above proceeding, when the issue of Patrick's bankruptcy came up, that was the perfect opportunity for Patrick to disclose to the judge that he did not, in fact, have a trustee, his trustee having discharged himself in February of 2014 due to Patrick's ongoing non-compliance with his legal obligations as a bankrupt.
Note this first exchange, where Patrick gets a massive opening to disclose his lack of trustee, whereupon he quickly changes the subject:
It's clear that the judge is asking Patrick about getting permission from his trustee, the perfect time for Patrick to admit he has none but ... he passes on that chance, deliberately leaving the judge with a misconception as to what is going on.
And on the very next page, the judge once again gives Patrick the golden opportunity to clear up that misconception and, once again, Patrick dodges and weaves:
Now, it's hard to say if one can accuse Patrick of straight-up lying to the judge, but there's no problem with saying that he obviously and deliberately misled the judge by concealing a significant fact.
OK, I think I'm done for today.
4 comments:
If Patrick's case against Peter Skinner heads to trial, then Peter's questioning of Patrick beforehand should include the question:
"Have you ever, for any reason, contacted a third party and represented yourself as me personally or as my company?"
If Patrick ever did this (and it seems that he did) and there is an IP trail to prove it was him, he'd have to admit it since he's under oath. That would be interesting.
"...he waited until approximately the one year anniversary of my mother's passing..."
So he filed his action on some day that WASN'T the anniversary of your mother's passing? The bastard!!
I think you're starting to understand why Patrick gets his ass kicked every time he goes in front of a judge and makes a total fool of himself.
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.
Post a Comment