Chronicles of Twatrick: Brimming over with wrongability.

Now that Patrick is refiling his recently-disemboweled for long delay lawsuit, one of the first issues that will come to the fore is whether, as an undischarged bankrupt, he even has the legal right to be suing people. Patrick has, on numerous occasions, insisted that he has researched the law and that he is indeed entitled to do that, but it's enlightening to look at Patrick's long history of (over)confidence in his legal acumen and how all of that turned out for him.

So let's examine the history of Patrick's public confidence in his legal positions, and their end results, shall we?

• Before 2010, Patrick bragged as to how he could defame me publicly, and I could not sue him for it. He was wrong. 
• After I sued Patrick in 2010 for defamation, he gloated as to how I could not possibly win that action. He was wrong.
• After I filed motions against Patrick in Alberta in 2011 and 2012, he insisted that he did not have to obey court orders to (among other things) file a Financial Statement of Debtor. He was wrong, and was found in contempt of court.
• After Patrick filed for personal bankruptcy, he was confident that he did not have to honour his legal obligations as a new bankrupt. He was wrong, to the point where his trustee discharged himself from Patrick's file due to Patrick's arrogant non-compliance.
• At Patrick's 2014 bankruptcy hearing, Patrick was confident that he would get an absolute discharge. He was wrong.
• When Patrick filed a worthless appeal of his bankruptcy Conditional Discharge Order (CDO), and I filed to have it tossed as abandoned after more than three years, Patrick was sure he would win that motion. He was wrong.
• When I filed to have Patrick removed from the protection of bankruptcy, Patrick bragged as to how he would win that motion. He was wrong.
• When I filed to have my judgment registered in Saskatchewan in order to effect collection proceedings against Patrick, Patrick insisted that he would defeat that filing. He was wrong.
• Most recently, Patrick openly bragged to my lawyer in writing that he would defeat my Rule 4.33 Application. And we all know how that turned out.

The lesson here is that Patrick loves to do his own legal research, then pontificate publicly about how he's sure he has a rock-solid case, only for it to implode whenever he gets to court. Which brings us to Patrick's spectacular confidence in his position that, even as an undischarged bankrupt, he can once again sue me. But let's think about that for a minute.

Patrick claims to have found case law that supports his position, but I'm willing to bet that that case law refers to undischarged bankrupts that are in what I will call "good standing"; that is, bankrupts who, while still undischarged, are honouring their legal and financial obligations, and are up to date in their reporting to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB), and are making their court-mandated payments and so on. That is, bankrupts who are following the rules.

This most emphatically does not describe Patrick, and when I raise this issue in response to his new lawsuit, I will point out that, rather than Patrick being a bankrupt in good standing, he is in fact an undischarged bankrupt whose trustee discharged himself from Patrick's file over 12 years ago due to Patrick's refusal to follow the rules; that Patrick is years behind in his mandatory reporting to the OSB; that Patrick was so delinquent in his obligations that I successfully had him removed from the protection of bankruptcy; and that due to his removal, he now owes me over $125,000.

I'm thinking that Patrick's alleged case law doesn't cover Patrick's unique circumstances of being so arrogantly contemptuous of his responsibilities as a bankrupt, and all of that will be placed before the Court to see if Patrick turns out to be any better at predicting success this time. 

BONUS TRACK: It's worth pointing out that, despite Patrick's public confidence in his position, when it comes to making that same argument before a judge, Patrick becomes mysteriously unforthcoming about his circumstances, as I once documented here.

Note well how Patrick twice had the opportunity to reveal to the judge that he did not have a trustee, but deflected both times. That transcript will absolutely be placed before the next Court at the earliest opportunity, and Patrick can explain why he was being so evasive about it.

TO SUM UP: While Patrick has publicly bragged that he has every right to refile his now-dismissed lawsuit against me and he is supremely confident that he will win that refiling, here are the numerous hurdles he will have to clear with the Court:

• He is not only an undischarged bankrupt, but he has no trustee and he is years in arrears related to his reporting obligations and payments.
• Due to his being removed from the protection of bankruptcy with respect to me, he owes me over $125,000.
• He has refused to pay both my original judgment and all court-ordered cost awards for over 15 years.
• He has clearly misled at least one judge as to his status as an undischarged bankrupt.
• He is refiling a matter that was already dismissed due to long delay.
• Rather than being frightened of me, Patrick has on countless occasions publicly stated how much fun he is having with filing frivolous actions, and I have dozens of screenshots to corroborate that.

I can assure my readers, all of the above is going to be placed before the Court. And if I can get corroboration that people have filed police reports against Patrick for harassment, I will absolutely add all of that as well.

DOUBLE BONUS: It's worth mentioning one more problem Patrick is going to have when he refiles his lawsuit. I posted a larger screenshot of this on an earlier post so I'll focus on just the final part, especially the final point:

 

Note the "judicial skepticism" part, wherein the Court is going to wonder why Patrick deserves another kick at the can when he spent well over three years doing nothing. And here's why this is important.

Anyone who attended the recent hearing heard another Rule 4.33 hearing, where the parties argued over what qualified as a "significant advancement," and whether that advancement was sufficient to defeat a Rule 4.33 Application. Put another way, almost all Rule 4.33 Applications start with the premise that something was done in the last three years; the dispute is over whether it was enough.

That is not what happened in my case, where it was conceded almost immediately that Patrick had done nothing for well over three years. Nothing. And the Court will reasonably wonder why Patrick is entitled to another try after clearly not advancing his own action in even the smallest way.

Rest assured, this is one of the arguments I am prepared to place before the Court -- that Patrick had gone to the trouble of filing a meritless lawsuit, then simply walked away from it. I'm guessing the Court is going to have some harsh words for Patrick on that topic.