In a recent comment, regular reader "MgS" writes of the almost wholly nonsensical filings of undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross:
"That’s kind of the problem with a statement of claim - a claimant can put all sorts of nonsense in it, and it comes down to the court process to winnow out what’s actually relevant to the claim of libel. (And self-represented litigants are far more likely to insert huge amounts of irrelevant material into those statements)."
While I agree with most of that, I will take minor issue with the idea that, when one files total rubbish, it is the court's job to "winnow out what's actually relevant."
When a filing originates with an actual lawyer or someone who knows the law, that filing is typically concise, focused and to the point, as it's been written by someone who wants to be taken seriously and who has taken the time to understand what the Court needs to know related to the matter at hand. As MgS suggests, self-represented litigants are more likely to submit rambling rubbish that is more like a grievance fest than a meaningful filing.
But in the latter situation, is it really the Court's job to "winnow" through all that nonsense to figure out if there is a point? That's a good question, especially with Patrick, whose submissions and Affidavits are so vacuous and irrelevant that they have been pointedly slapped down by the respective judges. In 2018, a judge made it clear that Patrick's filing weirdly tried to claim "cruel and unusual punishment" related to his bankruptcy Conditional Discharge Order:
A later submission of Patrick's was such rubbish that the judge wrote ... well, read it for yourself:
So the question is, when a judge is faced with the sort of sophomoric twaddle as that produced by Patrick, at what point is the judge within her rights to throw up her hands and say, "I'm sorry, it's not my job to parse this dreck to see if there's a point buried somewhere herein"?
Thoughts?
8 comments:
That’s the problem with self-representing in such matters, isn’t it? Most of us without the years of training that a lawyer has tend to throw in all sorts of secondary stuff thinking it makes our arguments more robust.
It unquestionably puts the courts in the position of having to sift through it and at least weigh whether any of it makes a coherent point or not. As you have pointed out many times, the courts provide considerable latitude for self-represented litigants in their filings and arguments.
I suspect in reviewing Patrick’s filings in the example provided, the judge found themselves digging out their “red pen” and marking it up before coming to the conclusion that most of it was irrelevant for one reason or another. (I shudder to think what his legal argument briefings would look like …)
It remains an open question just how seriously Patrick expects to be taken. It may be he actually believes he's mounting powerful legal arguments here. It may also be that he's simply inventing impediments and pumping smoke to keep the ball in the air for as long as possible, Trump-style, without any real expectation of success.
Anon @ 10:01 AM: Perhaps, but Patrick's lawsuit in no way diminishes my judgment against him or impedes my ability to collect what he owes me. It is an entirely independent action that does not affect his debt to me in any way.
Bear with me here (and I think it's been speculated here before), but Patrick might think that rather than deal with his super-dooper-ultra-serious lawsuit, you'll offer to forget your judgement against against him so he'll go away.
Of course, this theory relies on Patrick actually thinking he's competent when it comes to lawyer-stuff, but he does seem to have an extremely inflated opinion of his abilities, despite his experiences to the contrary.
Augray: In fact, that is *exactly* what Patrick tried some time ago -- he offered to drop his lawsuit if I agreed to waive my entire judgment against him (including all interest and associated fines and penalties) in exchange for the princely sum of one dollar.
He was told to go pound sand.
Patrick "Twatsy" Ross is clearly a frightened little boy in wayyyyyy over his head, both financially and legally. This lawsuit he is currently stalling is clearly an act of vexatious desperation, that even Twatsy can figure out is going to backfire. As has been the case over the last 15 years, when someone stupid (Twatsy) tries to compete with someone smart (CC), the results are consistently lopsided in favor of the latter.
You might consider what does the judge in this case do on a typical day? There must be a list of cases in the system and somehow judges get assigned to them. Do the judges have any say in which ones they get?
Would this case be considered like a punishment, like getting traffic court as opposed to a high profile major crime case? For civil courts would you rather spend the day with routine construction quality and payment disputes, car warranty disputes, and property liens? Or would you sign up for the self represented cases? The unfiltered outrageous claims and attempts to bully with bulk and allusions to other irrelevant points of law would be the most entertaining. Do judges get paid by the hour, so wading through all the bull actually gets paid more?
As a judge, which cases will you have the funniest conversations about with the other judges on breaks and lunch? I would take this kind every time!
Augray: In fact, that is *exactly* what Patrick tried some time ago -- he offered to drop his lawsuit if I agreed to waive my entire judgment against him (including all interest and associated fines and penalties) in exchange for the princely sum of one dollar.
He was told to go pound sand.
Perhaps Patty Boy took your advice too seriously when you told him to "pound sand", and that's why he decided to go all the way to Northern Alberta to go pound tar sands. Oh sorry, "oil" sands. Apparently conservatives get offended when they're referred to by their rightful name of tar sands, even though that's what they've been called for decades...but I digress.
Post a Comment