Explaining that the failure that resulted in the loans going bad was due to a mistake made jointly by both parties and thus not equitably allocatable entirely to one of them. Patrick is as much a victim here as those who loaned him money -- assuming he eventually makes some kind of reasonable settlement for a portion of the principle.
You are making no sense. Are you living in the vicinity of a strong reality distortion field of some kind?
1) you ask me for money,
2) i ask you if you're a reputable, honest member of the society, with a steady income,
3) you say yes,
4) i lend you the money, we sign a contract agreeing on the interest rate and date of return,
5) you gamble 1/3rd of it, waste 1/3rd on hookers and snort the last 1/3rd
6) you fail to return the principal
7) you fail to pay the interest
In the JoelKatz world, that means we're both equally guilty. And it's a "common mistake", whatever that means.
Here's how the above sequence of events looks like in the real, grownup world:
4) i lend you the money, we sign a contract agreeing on the interest rate and date of return,
6) you fail to return the principal
7) you fail to pay the interest
THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a "common mistake" in contracts. Contracts are an if-then thing. IF i give you X, THEN you return X+Y. IF you fail to return X+Y, THEN you default. That's all there is to it.