Can someone smarter than me clear something up?
Quasi’s lawyer doesn’t have to explain that he has spent years and huge sums of money trying to obtain the judgement incurred because of Patrick’s lawsuit because it just doesn’t matter? As far as this judge is concerned, the original case doesn’t matter, it’s not on the table. It’s just simple he’s refusing to follow court orders let’s do something about it?
As a non lawyer and retard, I’d want my attorney to give an argument to the judge that’s basically “Patrick started this whole thing and my client has spent years and wasted a lot of money trying to reclaim his attorney fees…”
But the facts involve convey this anyway without having to be laid out, basically?