If you haven't figured it out yet, Patrick talks big on his Twitter account, but his blustering, bad faith arguments don't translate to the courtroom, something you would think he'd understand after almost a decade and a half of doing this. As a prime example, I will repeat a couple of snippets from the transcript of a March 6, 2012 hearing in Calgary, for which Patrick prepared by bragging online about how much he was looking forward to it and he was going to have such fun and he was going to tear my lawyer a new orifice, etc, etc.
(Side note: this hearing was to hold Patrick accountable for having refused to complete, notarize and turn over a Financial Statement of Debtor and nothing more than that; it had nothing to do with whinging, complaining or trying to re-litigate my judgment which had been registered in Alberta for over a year. Keep that in mind as you read about Patrick's behaviour, which should have concentrated on precisely and only that issue before the Court.)
As you can see from Patrick's first couple of minutes, things did not start out well when he had to apologize for being late and then proceeded to confuse the hell out of the judge:
Note how Patrick, when it's important that he put his best foot forward to make a good impression, simply confounds the judge with bafflegab and irrelevancies to the point where the poor judge simply admits she has no idea what Patrick is yapping on about. And does this inspire Patrick to rein it in and focus on the issue at hand? Good Lord, no, as he continues:
The issue before the Court is that Patrick has not handed over a notarized Statement of Debtor pursuant to my judgment against him; instead, Patrick decides to re-litigate the case and promptly drags in the Charter of Rights, and the concept of freedom of expression and freedom of conscience and God only knows where else he would have gone if the judge had not finally had enough and cut him off and reminded him of why he was there.
None of this is to embarrass poor Patrick; rather, it is to demonstrate how Patrick can spin a good yarn over on his Twitter account and sound all lawyery and well-read, but that never, ever, ever translates to the courtroom, where he invariably makes a fool of himself as you can read above. So if you are ever tempted to think, "Hey, that Patrick guy seems to have a point," well, no, he doesn't. But any time he wants to move this lawsuit along and schedule a two-hour hearing where he will be required to answer questions under oath in the company of an official court reporter, he knows where to find me.
BONUS TRACK: If you haven't figured it out by now, Patrick loves to toss in as much legal verbiage and fancy words as he can as he thinks it impresses the Court. Note in that first snippet how he first expresses his "misgivings" about the "pursuit" of this "particular matter" particularly in the "post-judgment." One could have said simply, "I have some issues with this case I'd like to address," but no, not Patrick, if he can announce his "misgivings" about the "pursuit" in the "post-judgment," etc, etc.
And when the judge admits she has no clue what the fuck Patrick is whinging on about, he proceeds to expand on the concept of the "post-judgment", explaining that it means "post the issue of the judgment" as if this somehow clarifies everything. And, dear God, Patrick's verbal diarrhea from the second snippet, where he thinks it's useful to refer to "the specific matters at hand in this particular case" ... one can almost hear the judge's eyes rolling back in her head.
And if you think the above is painful, you should read some of Patrick's fiction.
No comments:
Post a Comment