As a few people have observed, one of the favourite tactics of undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross is that, regardless of the focus of whatever motion is in front of him, Patrick consistently tries to re-litigate my 2010 judgment against him, and is just as consistently pasted by the Court for doing so. Herein, I reproduce the majority of the ruling that dismissed as abandoned (after 3.5 years of no action) Patrick's appeal of the 2014 Conditional Discharge Order against him, where you can see Patrick doing what he always does:
- making excuses of being depressed while providing no supporting evidence,
- trying to re-open the case years after the deadline to do so has passed, and
- claiming "harassment" even as the judge points out he can see no evidence of same
The end result of that hearing was that I won that motion, and Patrick's moldering, three-and-a-half-year-old appeal was unceremoniously fed through a woodchipper, but I thought it was worth you seeing the utter lack of merit of Patrick's filings, and how Patrick likes to make dramatic claims in his Affidavits but is completely unable to back them up in front of a judge.
Same as it ever was.
P.S. Note how even the judge seems put off by Patrick's obsession with trying to use two-dollar words by putting Patrick's adjective of "deleterious" inside quotes.
Note also how Patrick loves to brag about how skilled he is at The Law, only to -- when push comes to shove -- plead with the Court about how he didn't understand the simple concept of who to serve with the perfected appeal and hopes the Court takes pity on him.
P.P.S. When I (eventually) file to have Patrick's current lawsuit dismissed as abandoned, you can count on my putting the above before the Court as the perfect example of how Patrick uses the legal system purely for the purpose of harassment. I'm pretty sure any judge will be more than a little interested in Patrick's history of filing actions, only to stuff them in a drawer and leave them there for years without acting on them.
4 comments:
In paragraph 15, the judge reproduces paragraph 40 from Patrick, which makes it as clear as possible that that appeal was filed for the purpose of pressuring you to negotiate with Patrick, probably to accept a reduced payment in lieu of judgment. Patrick is, literally, asking the court to open up the deadline for suing for defamation so that you could be "compelled to reach an agreement" with Patrick. I can't imagine anything that is more obviously an appeal that was filed for no proper purpose, but was filed for the purpose of harassing you. I'm betting the judge picked up on that right away.
Describing that bit of blackmail as trying to save the court's time is just a bonus.
First Anonymous: I saw that part and I actually started laughing at how inappropriate it was.
For people who don't know, an appeal is restricted to trying to identify errors in fact or errors in law in the original ruling; you can't raise new issues, and you CERTAINLY can't use an appeal to beg the appeals court for indulgence to waive the normal deadlines for filing and admit you want that so you can hassle the other party to the point where they accept a reduced judgment. Even a first-law student would know that you just can't ask for that.
The judge clearly caught that since he called it out directly. I'm starting to see why Patrick loses and loses and loses.
Is there a collection of all of these rulings somewhere? They sound like they would be entertaining reading, in a dumpster-fire, train-wreck kind of way.
In Twatsy's defense about depression evidence,
Over the last decade, how can one have the life circumstances and prospects of one Patrick Jonathon Alexander "Twatsy" Ross and not be depressed???
We're imagining his next sob story of depression in court will go something like this:
Twatsy: WAAA WAAAA WA WAAAAA WAAAAAAA
Judge: "Mr. Ross, we normally require signed evidence from licensed mental health professionals to officially accept diagnoses of clinical depression. However, having read the details about your life situation, as well as observing your appearance in court today, I will unequivocally accept that clinical depression is an inevitable characteristic of your rather...unprecedented life, Mr. Ross. Having said that, Ken's inheritance is going straight to Mr. Day. Pay up, Eeyore. I'll suggest you pick up a trial pack of generic Prozac from the Rexall across the street to cope."
Post a Comment