“Add to the recipe for disaster one further ingredient – a self-represented litigant. One who manages to try the patience of the Judge to a degree that is beyond description. Frequent interruptions of others who are speaking, including myself. Huffs and puffs from the counsel table while others are testifying. Sighs. Shaking of the head in disgust or disagreement. Verbal outbursts, while seated, from the counsel table while others are testifying. A ringing cellular telephone in the Courtroom, more than once. Documents that cannot be found. Special (and unreasonable) requests for things like immediate recordings or transcripts of entire day’s proceedings and the ability to stay inside the sealed Courtroom after hours to work. Crying. Complaining about having no legal representative. Complaining about having too many boxes of documents. Complaining about not having enough time to prepare. Engaging in frequent lengthy diatribes with the Court. Asking witnesses irrelevant questions. Asking witnesses the same question over and over and over again. Asking convoluted, incomprehensible, compound, disjointed and extremely lengthy questions in cross-examination, after receiving much assistance from the Court to try to avoid that. Getting bogged-down in the tiniest of details from eons ago, despite repeated warnings from the Court to focus on the key issues at trial. Giving evidence from the counsel table. Editorializing during cross-examination of opposing witnesses. Failing or refusing to comply with repeated suggestions by the Court as to what issues to focus on in cross-examination. Failing or refusing to comply with clear and repeated warnings from the Court, to the point where costs were ordered, twice, to sanction verbal outbursts. An opening statement that needed to be rescued by this Court in order to have any relevance at all. Evidence-in-chief from the witness box that required constant reminders by this Court to stay on focus and to talk about facts that are relevant to the issues to be decided. Evidence in cross-examination that was long-winded, repetitive, and often delivered with a snarky and sharp tone, despite a concerted effort by counsel for the opposing party to be polite and straightforward. Direct examinations that meandered and were chock-full of improper questions. Being late for Court. Flagrantly disobeying rulings of the Court by, for example, continuing to speak about something in the witness box that the Court had just ruled was improper and shall not be discussed. And, finally, despite this Court spending more than one hour discussing the purpose of a closing address and answering numerous questions on that topic, and after having the ensuing weekend to prepare the closing argument, delivering one that was largely irrelevant and improper.”