While I may write more about the weird and meritless defamation action against me from Lloydminster's favourite financial fugitive and debtor, I will give you a single example of its quality (or lack thereof).
In a Dec 2022 Affidavit, Patrick devotes almost a full third of that affidavit describing to the court my allegedly threatening behaviour. This sounds impressive ... until one reads that section and notices it refers entirely to the actions of other people I have never even met. I could mock that content further, but it's worth simply jumping to the end to read this opening to the very last paragraph of that Affidavit:
"In the interest of fairness it is worth noting that [CC] engaged in no threats of physical violence himself."
Go back and read that again to truly appreciate the worthlessness of that part of the Affidavit. After introducing that lengthy section with the subtitle, "THE ROLE OF [CC] IN THREATENING BEHAVIOUR," at the very end, Patrick openly concedes that none of that had anything to do with me.
Thanks for stopping by.
P.S. It is worth noting that Patrick has already admitted that the rationale for his lawsuit against me is simply to try to get even with how much he owes me from my successful 2010 defamation judgment against him; after he filed it, he explicitly offered to drop it if I withdrew my judgment against him. What is so strange about that offer is that, given that Patrick is asking for $4,000,000, winning that would more than make up for what he owes me, so if Patrick truly thought his lawsuit had any merit, why would he offer to make that kind of settlement?
All of this will end up in front of a judge in due course.
13 comments:
So Patrick titled a large part of his affidavit after your supposedly "threatening" behaviour, and then at the end admitted that you didn't do any? That is not going to play well with the judge.
Did Patrick at least allege a conspiracy? If he did, you wouldn't necessarily have to engage in threats yourself to be liable.
But given that uttering threats of bodily harm is a criminal offence, and so is conspiracy to commit an indictable/summary offence, why didn't Pat go to the police?
10:1 says that Patrick never pursues this far enough to get it into discovery, much less into court.
His tacit admission that this is basically a way to “cancel out the existing judgment against him” is also an admission that the alleged damages are likely fabricated well beyond what may have actually happened. Having this lawsuit hanging about then becomes a means for him to justify to himself that his actions in the past were perfectly justified, and not about actual harm done to his reputation.
MgS: Easily Patrick's biggest screwup is asking for $4 million. And that amount is now part of the filed record so he can't take it back. I will have far more to say at this month's Happy Interestversary.
I think the large ask is to force you to justify the amount of your award. Did you show financial statements substantiating losses due to the libel? I know that it doesn't work that way, but ridiculing his claim as being "too many dollars" may open that door. Aside from legal fees and disbursements you likely have little if any financial losses, he would argue, and he would likely argue your readership has increased with discussing this fiasco.
As I understand it, such awards are based on recent cases and are intended to deter the libel from recurring. He will attempt to write new law to the effect that the amount should be appropriate to sting the libeler, like losing the price of your car, but not bankrupt them and put them in the poorhouse.
Sounds like he is employing the fart strategy. If you are in a negotiation, you make sure your main negotiator smells bad, stinks the place up so everyone just wants it done and get out of there.
Anon @ 5:32 PM: I have no idea what any of that means.
You ridicule his 4 million, so he will try to ridicule your 100k (or thereabouts). Can you demonstrate any lost money, contracts, jobs, income or any costs other than legal fees? Why are your hurt feelings worth 100k? Is that any less ridiculous than his hurt feelings being worth 4 million? If not, exactly why not?
Is my point any clearer? Was your 100k the going rate in case law, enough to spank the libeler but not put them in the poor house? If so then such an arbitrary amount should be based on the libeler's financial situation. Or did you present evidence that your billings decreased by 100k compared to what the trajectory was following before the libel?
I think he wants to re-litigate the 100k and how it was arrived at, and just be such a nuisance that you give up.
Anon @ 9:14 AM: If you weren't so lazy, you could answer most of your questions by reading the three-paragraph endorsement.
I am lazy because I am not trying to get money out of somebody. I looked and found the "three-paragraph endorsement" on the first page of older posts. I presume your costs $10k would be based on legal bills submitted or generally accepted amounts for similar cases.
The $75000 is "assessed" in the endorsement. Assessed by the judge it says. Based on what? I see no indication you submitted financial statements substantiating your actual losses. Only that there was an "impact" on you, without stating what that impact was. Doctors reports of your distress?
So my question remains unanswered. Assessed or guessed. If the judge just pulls a number out of a hat, why is that number the right number? If you had documentation to back it up, that would be different. Perhaps you have letters from your business clients wondering about the material from the libel, which would indicate potential financial loss.
Anyway, I think his 4 million is an attempt to re-litigate the award to you.
As I was saying, lazy.
Fortunately, Anon, CC documented, presented and won his case and the specified settlement on its own merits. Patrick's claim will also be assessed on its own merits, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the prior judgment. I'm a bit confused about why you think the court would judge that relevant.
If anyone wants to appreciate why the persistent anonymous commenter above is being such an annoying pain in the ass, it's because he (she?) is being too damned lazy to read and understand the most fundamental aspect of defamation law -- if you are found to be defamed, damages are ***presumed***. Period. End of story. No further discussion. If the judge agrees that you have been defamed, you are automatically entitled to damages, which is exactly what the endorsement is saying.
I did not submit any proof of financial damage because I didn't have to; I was defamed, therefore I was entitled to damages, which the judge ruled was $75,000. I could have gone for *additional* money if I had submitted proof of financial damage, but I chose not to in order to keep my ask below $100,000 so that this could be filed under the Simplified Rules.
The judge found that I had suffered damage. He did not find that I had suffered *financial* damage; the endorsement refers to *reputational* damage, for which one is still entitled to monetary compensation. It's depressing that someone is so keen on arguing this issue from a position of such stunning ignorance, but I fully expect to see the goalposts suddenly being moved.
Is it moving the goalposts to ask whether you asked for 75k and the judge ruled 75k, or if the 75k came from somewhere else?
If I missed someplace where you said you asked for 75k, my apologies.
I am just observing this ongoing story, I wasn't planning to be given homework to bone up on defamation law. I would had I ever been sued or sued someone else. I know enough to know what kinds of insults are actionable and which are not. I was a little surprised at the list but I keep it in mind and err on the side of caution.
Post a Comment