Friday, January 06, 2012

Of rocks, and the slimy things hiding underneath -- the Patrick Ross saga.


Back here, Rev. Paperboy asks:


What sort of fun and games are going to ensue (no pun intended) when the proper rock is lifted and Patsy scuttles out into the daylight?


I am not a lawyer and I would prefer not to speculate so I'll recap and let others with the appropriate legal beagle expertise weigh in. What follows are the simple facts.

On, November 23, 2010, defendant and U of Alberta student Patrick Ross, having weirdly chosen to not defend himself against a properly-served Statement of Claim, was found guilty in an Ontario court not merely of defamation, but of "clearly malicious" defamation:



(This default judgment was apparently "unrecorded" "unreported" which is why it doesn't appear in the normal legal databases or online, but you're welcome to view a confirmation of the judgment here if you refuse to take my word for it.)

(Aside: Thanks to commenter Holly Stick for pointing out the typo above, and for the link to an explanation.)

As one can read, in addition to the whopping $85,000 (and accumulating) penalty levied against him, Patrick Ross was ordered to, within 15 days, remove all posts that "in any way" referred to me from his blog, the appropriately-named "Nexus of Assholery." Even though Patrick Ross was clearly aware of the judgment within hours of its posting that day, he did nothing.

After months of being elusive, Patrick Ross was finally located and personally served with a copy of the judgment on April 29, 2011:



which meant that, as I understand it, the 15-day deadline for Patrick Ross to take action finally started. But that's not all.

As you can see from that affidavit, malicious defamer Patrick Ross was simultaneously served with a Financial Statement of Debtor form, which requires him to list in agonizing detail his financial assets and liabilities. Conveniently, that form also has a hard, legal 15-day deadline to be filled and returned, implying of course that Patrick Ross had until mid-May of last year to both a) cleanse his blog of all posts referring to me in any way, and b) return an accurate and complete Statement of Debtor form to my lawyer in Alberta.

As of today, Jan 6, 2012 (some eight months later), malicious defamer Patrick Ross has done absolutely nothing in the way of fulfilling his legal obligations (even after proper and legal service). He has paid me nothing, and never removed a single one of the 200+ blog posts that were covered under the order of the judgment. (After being more than patient, I approached Blogger Support with a copy of the judgment and worked with them to remove all infringing posts. Those posts are now gone, no thanks to Patrick Ross.)

In addition, malicious defamer Patrick Ross has never filled in and returned the legally-required Financial Statement of Debtor form to my Alberta lawyer, despite having promised by e-mail to do so.

In short, despite having been personally and properly served in April of last year with both the judgment itself and the Statement of Debtor form (both of which had clearly-marked, 15-day legal deadlines), malicious defamer Patrick Ross has done nothing and, to this day, remains in hiding and refuses to reply to phone calls and e-mails from my lawyer. (At this point, I would normally make a joke about "Law and Order" conservatives always lecturing us about "accountability" and "personal responsibility" but I suspect that would just be cruel.)

Given the situation as I have described it, armchair lawyers are now free to speculate.

P.S. To answer a couple earlier questions, no, I am not returning to blogging. The only purpose of these recent posts is to try to bring the Patrick Ross issue to a close. Once he's located and dragged before a judge, I will finish things off with a report on how it went, and there will be single malt scotch for everyone, and that will be it.

And if you want to know how it ends, feel free to help locate Patrick Ross and turn him in so that it ends just a little bit sooner. :-)

P.P.S. Given how much effort Patrick Ross put into defaming and libeling me online and sullying my reputation, it would seem that turnabout is slowly becoming fair play.

P.P.P.S. I leave as an exercise for the reader to identify the pants-crapping irony here.

15 comments:

Sparky said...

"To answer a couple earlier questions, no, I am not returning to blogging. "

(in the best Dana Whittaker voice)--"well that blows"

Following you on Twittter is almost as good, but we don't get the epic expositions... :)

Sparky said...

Also, speaking of irony (and if you don't want to give Patty traffic, don't click on the link)--

There is Something Deeply, Deeply Wrong With These People

Once again for those that are so hard of learning--specks and planks people...

CC said...

I have no problem linking to Patrick Ross' online ravings that expose the depressingly typical blustering hypocrisy of Canada's Wingnut Right.

While they constantly yammer on about the Left's alleged lack of civility and decorum, it's safe to say that the Canadian Wingnut-o-sphere has been spectacularly silent on this case. Rather than take issue with month after month of blatantly malicious defamation, they would rather screech endlessly about something rude I wrote years ago. This would be, I'm guessing, their idea of "balance."

Along those lines, I think it would be awesome if someone started a blog that concentrated primarily on mocking the ridiculous hypocrisy and stupidity of Canada's wankers, particularly Stephen Taylor's Blogging Tories.

On second thought, nah ... no one would read it.

Holly Stick said...

That should be "unreported" not "unrecorded". That just means it has not yet been published in a series of law reports because the editors did not consider it significant or precedent-setting. Maybe that kind of libel case is depressingly common, I dunno.

This guy discusses it some:

http://www.slaw.ca/2009/06/24/proliferation-of-the-citation-of-unreported-judgments-in-judicial-decisions/

CC said...

OK, I fixed that. I am curious about the fact that the Levant/Vigna defamation case, which resulted in damages of only $25,000, was reported, while this case with its noticeably higher damages, wasn't.

It's possible that it being a default judgment played a part in that. In any event, wingnuts who search for it online in the normal places, don't find it, then publicly suggest that it must not have happened, are welcome to their delusions.

Sparky said...

Wingnuts had a tendancy of blatantly ignoring reality as a normative function. However, the reality of 85k (+ interest) will come crashing down around their heads.

I'd hope they would learn from it, but I really don't think so.

CC said...

Predictably, there are depressingly stupid reactions from the Canadian Bonehead-o-sphere.

The first is, "I don't get it, it was just guys talking smack, everybody does it, how does that justify that kind of judgment?"

And there's, "Wow, is CC ever a hypocrite, he insulted people all the time, and now he runs whining to the courts to protect him. What a baby!"

These attitudes are from people who are, unsurprisingly, jaw-droppingly ignorant about every aspect of defamation law.

In any event, they're free to fume and sputter about the unfairness of it all, while I slowly but methodically work to collect my judgment.

Noni Mausa said...

Is this the sort of situation that, if reported to Canada Border Services, would prevent Ross crossing the border, at least outward-bound? I imagine you have thought of this already, but if not...

CC said...

I am not a lawyer so I am not going to speculate. Others with a more extensive legal background are welcome to speculate what sort of offenses would suddenly make it very difficult to enter the United States.

Holly Stick said...

I think the Vigna-Levant case had lower damages because Levant had apologized (no time to check that). So just think, if Patrick had been capable of apologizing, his damages might have been much lower too!

Sparky said...

her's something that I'd love the answer to--if CC was never outed, could he file a lawsuit claiming defamation? Defamation has to be directed at a specific and known individual and to win, you have to prove damages to the reputation of that person. Anonymous people, by the very fact that they're anon, can't have real reputations to destroy.

So, by Patty, (and Dickie and whatever cesspool cretins were involved) outing cc in the first place, didn't he seal his own fate?

Talk about those chickens coming home to roost! Patrick hisself bit hisself in hisself's own ass. Fantastically done, Patty!

Carry on then

CC said...

It's an interesting question but, in this case, not really relevant since my entire lawsuit against Patrick involved how he libeled me after the outing, when he explicitly and continuously defamed me by name.

It's still a good question whether one can defame a fictional online persona, but it doesn't apply here.

In any event, one can still give Patrick Ross credit for being astonishingly stupid and self-destructive.

And the story's not over yet. Stay tuned.

liberal supporter said...

Defaming a fictional online persona is quite different. You would have to be making money at it, and being financially harmed by the defamation. You would do better going after copyright infringement, it would seem the laws today have a lot more teeth for persona piracy.

In this case, outing allowed the serial defamer to use a person's real name, with little apparent reason than to poison search results. I suspect that is why it was ruled malicious. We can make fun of KKKate and her silly points of view, even by mocking her name by adding the extra K's, implying she supports the KKK, but claiming she is a criminal or has some grievous disease would be actionable, just as this case was.

It's the difference between smirking and calling someone Taliban John, and saying "John supports the Taliban". One is an insult, the other is defamation.

Sparky said...

I just appreciate the timeline

CC starts a blog to try and bring the hypocrisy of 'those on the right' to light, and to mock and make fun of...

Certain righty wingnuts get their panties in a bunch for having CC point out their shenanigans and stomp and wail at the 'tut-tut language!!!'

this continues for a bit until the threats of outing arise from these wingnuts--Patrick being on that particular bandwagon.

Now, AFAIK, (AIANAL), up until the outage, lawsuits could not be filed from cc to any of these apparantly deranged individuals. Even when NAMBLA Dick was on his particular bent, no lawsuit could be filed because in order to defame, it has to be directed at a known person--that person has to prove damages to his person. An anonymous entity on the internets can't show personal damages.

So life went on as usual--cc mocked the idiocy of the BT's and others, and they gnashed and wailed at the city walls.

Until the outage.

The outage, mind you, directly caused by these very same idiots who were always berated by CC. And Patrick was one of the loudest of the bunch--proclaiming to all who would listen to the ravings of an apparent lunatic, that this would be the end of CC and that the Canadian Blogophere is much better now. See, in Patrick's mind, the outage was a good thing.

How did that turn out for him?

Now CC is a known quantity. You'd think that these 'law & order' types would understand the simple concept that you can't go around directly attributing malicious and slanderous statements at a person.

And, after years of CC showing that he's smarter than the average bear when it comes to these sorts of things, you'd think they'd at least be wary.

But no. Patrick went full bore--damn those torpedos!!!

He posts some defamatory material directed at the now known CC. Not one, but multiple times. CC keeps track of these instances--amasses a pile of 'em--and proceeds with the litigation. That timeline is well explained in cc's posts. In the end, the court system rules that defamation had occurred. There's no wiggle room here. Whether or not there was a defendant in the room (and again, that's Patrick's problem, not anyone elses), the court still had to make a ruling on the merits of cc's case. The court could have ruled that the litany of screen shots and blog exceprts that CC presented were not defamatory and thrown out the case. That would have also been a default judgement. This did not happen.

The bitch of it is, had cc still been anon, none of this could have occurred. If I was Patrick, I'd sue the guy who outed cc in the first place! Oh wait! Apparently Patrick was part of that gang of thugs.

Good on ya Patrick! How's cc's outage working out for you?

Rev.Paperboy said...

CC - at what point can the court order his assets seized and any wages etc forfeit?