Everyone gets incensed at what they perceive to be a wrong, an injustice, especially when it related to them.  Some are inclined to act out, to say things they later regret.  The beauty of putting one’s arguments in writing, however, is that we can reflect on every word rather than utter the first one that comes to mind.  For this reason, California lawyer Paul Hupp is, well, unpersuasive.

Hupp received an adverse decision from the 9th Circuit on his personal bankruptcy case.  Kevin Underhill explains:

This case has a long and tortured history, but it looks like it began as a bankruptcy case in which the debtor wanted to discharge (among other things) student loans. The main issue on appeal was whether he had shown “undue hardship,” which in turn requires a showing of “good faith efforts” to pay back the loans and “insurmountable barriers” to doing so.

According to the debtor, his efforts were not just good-faith, but “heroic.” According to the bankruptcy court, though, not so much: “For most of this decade,” the court wrote, instead of working “[Debtor] continued his education in law school and then spent several years pursuing lawsuits in an attempt to eliminate the student loan debt, not pay it.” Debtor appealed and lost.

Emotionally charged.  Hard times.  Frustration.  All likely true.  So Hupp did what any good lawyer would do; he petitioned for rehearing.  Having lost once, he apparently decided to change directions a bit, and be a tad more forceful in his argument:

Second, let Plaintiff make this very clear hear and now at the beginning of this petition — this Court is now on notice that public will no longer tolerate violations of the Constitution, by the Congress or the judges/judiciary that think they can rig the system, violating basic constitutional rights (such as due process of law) and engage in these acts with impunity.

Plaintiff has news for these slime ball, piece of shit, ass clown judges (Bowie, Canby, Thomas and Fletcher-this means you) that think they are going to rig the system and railroad the poor and innocent — such as blocking the discovery process so the poor cannot defend themselves, commit perjury in their orders and a host of other constitutional violations, and do it with impunity — that is simply not going to happen in this case. You cock suckers are now on notice.
 
The facts of this case are going to come out, one way or the other.  Remember that bitches.

An opening designed to catch one’s attention for sure, but effective?  It clearly conveys a seething, threatening, explosive anger, but being angry does not, in itself, change many minds.  It’s not likely that Hupp’s rhetoric was going to be effective. 

Still, he knew enough to include legal argument along with his invective, but he had a curious way of ending each argument.  For example, the crux of his case hinged on whether he met the “undue hardship” test, and he sought to address it in his most lawyerly manner:

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)- Undue Hardship” Test Is Vague, Ambiguous And Overly Board – 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) the “undue hardship” test is unconstitutional because it is vague, ambiguous and overly broad, and cannot be validly or reliably interpreted. That fact has been well documented by Expert Witnesses in this case. And that ambiguity is exactly what has happened in the present case — nothing but vague and ambiguous bullshit catch phrases. These loser judges didn’t even apply the so-called “Nys” application. Hey, no surprise there-this Court has left that ambiguity and vagueness in place on purpose, so they can railroad the innocent. Sorry bitches, this issue will be addressed-one way or the other.

Once again, there’s a certain clarity to Hupp’s argument. And yet, it doesn’t seem to be presented in the most persuasive fashion.  He goes on in the same vein, argument after argument.  Inexplicably, he seems inordinately fond of the word “bitches.”

In case it’s unclear, this is not a winning strategy.  Perhaps it felt good to Hupp to send this petition to the court, though I have to wonder whether, after a little more deliberation, the bloom is off the thorn.  To no one’s surprise, Hupp’s petition was denied.  To everyone’s surprise, it was only denied.  No referral to the United States Attorney for threats, nor even the disciplinary committee for impropriety.

Underhill uses this petition, reluctantly, as a “teachable moment,” that one should be circumspect in threatening civil unrest unless you’ve got the goods to back it up.  Hupp, like Bluto in Animal House, failed to command a following.  That makes one appear a bit silly.  While Kevin reminds us that it’s never a good idea to threaten a federal judge, it appears that Hupp’s threat lack the credibility to do more than raise a chuckle.

As for those who troll the internet to express their anger and frustration at the government by screaming threats and epithets, do you find Hupp’s argument’s compelling?  If not, you may want to reconsider your compulsion to make similar points in the hope of stirring the populace to action.  But at least you’ve shown the good sense to play the fool online rather than in front of the 9th Circuit.