In his latest post he mentions Taylor's "acts of omissions" which made my head spin. In law you either have acts (something you did) or omissions (something you didn't do). I'm not sure whether he meant to say "acts and omissions" which is a pretty commonly accepted descriptor in, for example, a negligence claim, or suggest that somehow Taylor acted in not doing things, which makes no sense.
He is honestly the reason for the phrase "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." He knows about the existence of legal jargon but has no idea how to effectively deploy it.
Minor powerlevel that I come across litigants in person all the time and they're all mad as a box of frogs. One thing that they all share in common, however, is that they never let things go. If they lose in the lower courts they appeal it to the high court, if they lose in the high court they take it to the court of appeal, and so on. When Judge Smackdown round 2 happens Rusty will find another court or another appeal venue to take it to. I double 100% guarantee you. Instead of taking the hint, insane litigants only fight harder every time they are knocked down.