Chronicles of Twatrick: Nothing to do now but wait.

There probably won't be a lot more Patrick Ross-related posts until Patrick files his promised refiling of his recently-dismissed lawsuit. The instant he files it, I will post it on Google Drive.

Until then. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: The beauty of Rule 3.68.

As I have mentioned before, undischarged bankrupt and financial fugitive Patrick Ross has already made it clear that he will be refiling his Rule 4.33-dismissed 2022 lawsuit against me, citing alleged legislation that allows him to describe his claims against me as "ongoing" and "continuous" and therefore not subject to dismissal. And while Patrick is apparently going to count on some weirdly pedantic analysis of Alberta limitations law, he overlooks the fact that I have a much simpler way of feeding his upcoming refiling through a meat grinder.

In addition to pointing out that Patrick is now statute-barred from refiling his dismissed rubbish, Alberta has a much more all-encompassing rule -- Rule 3.68 -- whose purpose is to weed out lawsuits that the Court considers sufficiently worthless and an abuse of process.

I asked Google how Rule 3.68 could be applied to a Rule 4.33-dismissed lawsuit and, rather than get into the limitations period, I got this delightful and more wide-sweeping explanation:

 

 

Note how, rather than get into 2-year limitation periods, Rule 3.68 takes a step back and describes the possibility of dismissing any action that the court considers ill-founded, frivolous, improper and/or an abuse of the court's process. Or, simply put, worthless rubbish that is not worth the court's time.

The beauty of Rule 3.68 is that, rather than get into the nitpickery of limitation periods, it allows one to do nothing more than say, "This refiling is a pile of horseshit and represents nothing more than the Plaintiff, having had his action kicked to the curb before for being too lazy to move it along, wanting a second chance to waste everyone's time and money." And I'm pretty sure I can make a persuasive argument along these lines.

Stay tuned.

P.S. To be clear about what this is all about, of course I will respond to Patrick's imminent filing by pointing out that his lawsuit was already Rule 4.33-dismissed. However, by bringing Rule 3.68 into the mix, I can dump all over the rest of Patrick's upcoming lawsuit, pointing out Patrick's various lies, distortions, misrepresentations and the like, in order to submit that Patrick's refiling is an abuse of the legal process.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Refiling his now-time barred claims.

It's interesting to reword questions to Google to see how differently it answers, so I asked Google whether Patrick could refile any of his now-time barred claims from his now-dismissed lawsuit, and it had the following answer:

 

 

Let's unpack this, shall we?

Patrick's 2022 lawsuit against me is now dead, having been permanently dismissed. There is no hope of bringing it back, so we can stop wasting any brain cells on it. But what of the many individual claims that constituted that lawsuit? That is a different story.

As I have already explained, Patrick is free to start a new lawsuit as long as all of the claims within it have not been barred by the standard 2-year limitation period; that is, they must contain accusations of events that happened within the last two years. But everything in Patrick's dismissed lawsuit are already over four years old, so there is little chance he is going to be able to migrate anything forward into a new action. All of it -- every dishonest accusation in it -- is now beyond the two-year limitation period.

That means that if Patrick wants to start a new lawsuit, he basically has to start from scratch with new and more recent claims, all of them having taken place within the last two years. And that means nothing from his old lawsuit.

Patrick seems convinced that he's found some sort of loophole around this but, as I've discussed previously, he's been that confident before, and it has always ended badly for him. So we'll just have to wait and see what Patrick's found and misunderstood.

Chronicles of Twatrick: You keep using those words "ongoing" and "continuous" ...

Just to follow up on yesterday's post where I pointed out how Patrick invariably misreads the law, he very unwisely put in a letter to my lawyer his assurance that, upon losing my recent Rule 4.33 Application, he would refile the same ignorant swill based on his (mis)understanding that he could defeat Alberta's 2-year limitation period by magically claiming that, in Canada, defamation can be considered ongoing and continuous and thus not subject to limitation periods:

 

 

 

First, appreciate Patrick's mind-boggling stupidity in admitting, in writing, that "more than four years have passed." It is difficult to comprehend the level of dumbth of someone who is preparing to argue limitation periods, then proceeds to open with a written admission that he is well beyond it.

However, once again, I convinced Google to weigh in and asked about the wisdom of claiming "ongoing" and "continuous" defamation in the context of a Rule 4.33 dismissal and, once again, Google came through:

 

 

I particularly recommend the last point, which points out that the courts have little patience with "artful pleading" as a way to get around the fact that one's claims are wildly out of time.

Finally, as I said before, Patrick is free to file a new action if he thinks he's identified the basis for a claim within two years of his filing date, but if he thinks he can just grab everything from four or more years ago and drag it forward, he is most likely going to be disappointed. 

AFTERSNARK: Note well that, for Patrick to file another lawsuit, he cannot just claim defamation or harassment within the last two years, but also that those claims are "entirely new and distinct." That is, they cannot be simple repetitions that were already dismissed by my Rule 4.33 Application.

I mention this since I suspect this is what Patrick is going to try; that is, to claim that, for whatever reason, his clearly old and out-of-date claims can somehow be brought forward as part of his new lawsuit. It seems clear that he can't do that, but I'm predicting that that is exactly what he is going to do. I also predict that he will do it on his own because his current lawyer will refuse to sign his name to such nonsense.

BY THE WAY, you just know that Patrick is going to brag that he knows how to get around the 2-year limitation period. I will remind you that Patrick was equally confident that he was going to defeat my Rule 4.33 Application. Patrick has a long history of promising victory, then getting punished by the Court. I don't see this being any different.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Misreading the law yet again.

In Patrick's letter of July 18 to my lawyer, Patrick insists that Alberta's standard 2-year limitation period magically does not apply to him because he sees my alleged defamation (or intimidation or harassment or whatever) as "continuous" and "ongoing": 

 

 

As I have suggested before, Patrick has a talent for perusing the law, hopelessly misunderstanding what he reads, and pontificating wildly incorrectly and inaccurately so, as I've done before, I asked Google specifically whether a Rule 4.33 dismissal can be overruled and a dismissed lawsuit refiled by claiming "ongoing" damage or injury based on earlier claims. Uh, no:

 

 

Note well that Patrick is perfectly free to file a new lawsuit if he can identify "New Distinct Events or Causes" that occurred within the applicable 2-year limitation period (in this case, since late August of 2024), and that's perfectly reasonable and I have no problem with that. But it seems clear that the Court will have little patience with Patrick pointing at stuff that is more than four years old and insisting that it's still fair game.

P.S. It is amusing that, in that very paragraph at the top, Patrick openly concedes that he was suing me for stuff that happened over four years ago. When the time comes, I will definitely be placing that admission before the Court to establish that Patrick accepts that his claims are now out of time.

Sometimes, Patrick is his own worst enemy. 

BONUS TRACK: "Google, could refiling a 4.33-dismissed lawsuit be considered abuse of process?"

 

 

I draw your attention to the second point above, where Patrick's many, many years of arrogance and contempt of court orders would be used against him.

Sometimes, Patrick is his own worst enemy. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: The OSB has no interest in Patrick.

Recent commenter wonders why I don't send a record of Patrick's latest antics to Canada's federal Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB), and the answer is ... they don't give the slightest shit about Patrick or what he is up to. Let me explain.

The OSB is the federal agency that handles the top-level infrastructure of bankruptcies across the country, but it does not concern itself with riding herd on individual bankrupts; that job is left to the bankrupt's trustee, through which one files for bankruptcy in the first place.

To file for personal bankruptcy in Canada, you must locate a licensed insolvency trustee, you pay them a registration fee, they get you into bankruptcy and, after that, they are responsible for seeing that you fulfill your obligations under the bankruptcy regime until your discharge. So it's the trustee that supervises a bankrupt, not the OSB in general. And how is it that Patrick has screwed this up so thoroughly?

Almost immediately after filing for bankruptcy in December of 2012, Patrick failed to honour his responsibilities as a bankrupt, to the point where his trustee discharged itself from his file in disgust, leaving Patrick in the very unusual position of being an undischarged bankrupt without a trustee, a true rarity.

And that is where Patrick remains to this day -- personally bankrupt and not even having a trustee to supervise him. And based on a conversation I had a while back with an official from the OSB, they have no interest in pursuing Patrick since, from their perspective, if Patrick wants to remain a bankrupt for the rest of his life, that is entirely his choice and the OSB is fine with leaving him there.

Said OSB official did admit that it is highly unusual for someone to be so monumentally unconcerned about being a bankrupt so as to remain that way for 14 years and for the foreseeable future, but if someone has such a spectacularly vacuous and meaningless life that being bankrupt doesn't really matter that much to them, that is entirely their decision.

And that is where Patrick Ross finds himself today -- 45 years old, does not own a home, does not run his own business, most likely cannot rent his own apartment, and working as a total transient in the oil patch as a "swamper" and, on top of all that, owing me over $125,000 (and climbing), with every indication that he is going to remain that way for years to come.

Patrick used to brag that he was totally the baddest d00d on the Intertoobz and that you did not want to mess with him. What he is today is a homeless, bankrupt, massively indebted, morbidly obese 45-year-old financial fugitive, perpetually wondering when he will make that first mistake that will allow me to seize whatever assets he has. And one more thing.

Based on Patrick's Conditional Discharge Order (CDO) from his bankruptcy hearing, and how little he's paid off from that CDO, for Patrick to get out of bankruptcy, he would have to pay off the outstanding amount, which I estimate to be around $25,000 (plus an approximate $2,000 trustee registration fee). But even if Patrick came up with that and escaped from bankruptcy, that would affect in no way what he owes me since, a few years back, I successfully filed to have Patrick's stay of protection against me lifted. What that means is that what Patrick owes me is not linked to his bankruptcy; rather, it is just a regular debt unaffected by Patrick's bankruptcy status.

In other words, for Patrick to get his life back to normal, he would want to get out of bankruptcy ($27,000) and pay me what he owes me (call it $125,000). That's over $150,000, which is kind of embarrassing for the baddest d00d on the Intertoobz. But this is now Patrick's life, and I don't see it changing any time soon. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Exceptions to Alberta's 2-year limitation period.

Undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross has gloated publicly that he is not bound by Alberta's 2-year limitation period for suing people as he has found an exception that has oddly eluded every other human being on the planet.

Google is happy to describe every exception available to someone looking to defeat Alberta's 2-year limitation period:

 

While none of those appear to apply here, anyone who attended last week's Rule 4.33 hearing might remember Patrick's lawyer hysterically arguing that Patrick was in such crippling fear of me and so debilitatingly paralyzed by terror that he should be considered "disabled." The judge effectively told Patrick's lawyer to fuck off and stop being such a yammering asshole.

In any event, it doesn't look like Patrick can count on any of the above. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: The clarity of the limitation period.

In case anyone needs to know the exact Alberta legislation that prevents Patrick from refiling his now-dead 2022 lawsuit, one can consult Section 3(1) of the Alberta Consolidated Statutes:

 

I don't think this can be any clearer -- if more than two years have gone by since you learned (or should have learned) of a possible claim and did nothing about it, the defendant is "entitled to immunity from liability in respect of the claim." I don't see any ambiguity there, and since Patrick listed all of those claims in his lawsuit back in August of 2022, that means nothing in his now-dead lawsuit can be used as the basis for a new claim.

Nothing. 

Having said that, however, I predict that Patrick will once again dig through the statutes, totally misread all the important stuff, and insist that he has found a loophole that everyone else has mysteriously overlooked. 

Let's watch. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Patrick's immediate refiling problems.

While I wait for official service of Patrick's refiling of his now-dismissed 2022 lawsuit, it's worth summarizing the issues he will have to deal with before we even get into dealing with the (lack of) merit of this new action, much of it stemming from Patrick's many years of refusing to pay my original judgment, refusing to pay numerous cost awards, and refusing to obey court orders for well over a decade.

Let's start with the obvious fact that Patrick is trying to simply refile an action that was already tossed because Patrick was too arrogant and lazy to move it along, and I already showed that the Court is not impressed with that kind of behaviour:

 

 

Next, appreciate that the complaints in Patrick's dismissed lawsuit are now all at least four years old and out of time based on Alberta's limitations period. 

Patrick's next problem is whether he is even entitled to file lawsuits, being an undischarged bankrupt without a trustee who is years in arrears with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy in terms of payments and reporting, and whose bankruptcy trustee discharged himself way back in February of 2014 due to Patrick's arrogant refusal to honour his legal obligations as a bankrupt.

Next, there is the fact that Patrick currently owes me over $125,000, and has made it clear that he has no intention of ever paying that; I'm fairly sure the Court will find that that factors into whether he should be allowed to file even more actions against me without clearing off his debt to me.

Finally(?), I can assure you that, when Patrick files that new action, I will file to require Patrick to put up significant security for costs so that, if I win, I will not have to chase him to collect my costs award. And given Patrick's long history of refusing to pay costs awards, I suspect I will have little trouble convincing the Court that Patrick needs to hand over a pile of money before any of this gets started.

So note well all of the roadblocks in Patrick's way -- it's not clear which issue I would choose to raise with the Court first, given that there are so many of them to choose from. And I suspect I haven't even listed them all. 

BONUS TRACK: Once again, I asked Google about the reality of refiling a lawsuit that was previously dismissed via Rule 4.33 and, while Google AI is not an official source of legislation, this summary is fairly savage about how difficult it is to do what Patrick is going to try:

 

 

And remember, that doesn't even take into account Patrick's history of refusing to pay court-ordered costs, and his massive debt to me.

TO SUMMARIZE, there are a number of grounds on which I can ask the Court to throw out Patrick's refiling of his now-dismissed lawsuit, only one of which has to succeed. The obvious order to argue these points would be:

1. It is nothing more than a refiling of his now-dead lawsuit, and we all know what the Court thinks of those (see above).
2. He is an undischarged bankrupt without a trustee and years in arrears with his obligations under bankruptcy, which should immediately disqualify him from filing anything.
3. He has a history of refusing to pay court-ordered costs and my judgment.
4. He currently owes me over $125,000 and has been found by more than one judge to be totally uninterested in paying off this debt.
5. In the alternative, if none of the above is persuasive, I can easily make the argument that, given Patrick's refusal to pay costs awards, he must put up significant security for costs before this refiling can continue.

I believe I can put all of the above in a single filing, and the Court is free to pick whichever argument they think is the most persuasive. Again, only one of those arguments has to convince the Court.

Chronicles of Twatrick: New incoming perjury?

As a lead-in, read the previous post, which represents my opinion that Patrick committed perjury in his Affidavit related to my recent Rule 4.33 Application.

 

 

And given that Patrick has already announced in writing that he will be refiling that same lawsuit, this raises an obvious question.

Now that I've identified potential perjury on Patrick's part, will his new Affidavit suddenly no longer contain those claims? It will be truly fascinating if Patrick's redone Affidavit has quietly had his possible perjury deleted from it.

I guess we just have to wait and see.

P.S. As I mentioned earlier, I have already fired off an e-mail to the Alberta Crown Prosecutor, asking for the details on how to ask that office to file perjury charges against Patrick. 

NEW DEVELOPMENT: I just got off the phone with the Grande Prairie detachment of the RCMP, where I have opened a file regarding wanting to have Patrick Ross charged with perjury.

Also, I uploaded said Affidavit to Google Drive, where it should be publicly viewable here. I don't imagine the average reader will be able to immediately identify obvious lies by Patrick, that's something I'm pretty sure I would have to do, but if something jumps out at you, leave a comment.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Yes, it's perjury.

As a followup to my previous post where I identified two absolutely blatant lies from the recent affidavit of Patrick Ross, I asked Google whether lying on a sworn affidavit in a civil case constituted perjury, and Google AI left no doubt:

 

 

Let's consider the details of the above.

First, if you make a false statement in a sworn civil affidavit, it still requires two properties to rise to the level of perjury:

1. You made the false statement knowingly, and
2. You made the false statement intending to mislead the Court.

I think we can all agree that the above perfectly represents the two claims of Patrick's in the previous blog post. Regarding his first claim, Patrick absolutely knew that:

1. He had done nothing to "actively" try to overturn my default judgment of 2010, and
2. He knew there was no possibility of doing that, anyway, given the passage of time.

In short, Patrick knowingly lied, and he did it with the intent of misleading the Court. The same can be said of his claim that I "instructed" people to track Patrick from his father's funeral -- I have searched my entire blog archives for the word "funeral" and I have found nothing that even remotely corresponds to my instructing anyone to do that, so that is another blatant lie. So far, then, we seem to have established that Patrick committed perjury.

Moving on to the next point from Google AI, such perjury is "a serious indictable crime, even if the civil case is not affected by the lie." So one cannot excuse perjury by saying simply, "Hey, it made no difference in the outcome of the case." Yes, I won my Rule 4.33 Application, but Patrick apparently still committed perjury.

As for the penalties, well, up to 14 years in prison. So maybe it's time to collect all of Patrick's lies from his recent affidavit, and ask the Court to find that he committed perjury. As you can see, I've already found two obvious lies and I've barely started looking through all 57 pages of it.

Stay tuned. 

P.S. You are invited to read the actual legislation regarding perjury here. 

BONUS TRACK: In Canada, private citizens such as myself cannot file charges of perjury; that must be done either through the police or the Crown Prosecutor, so I just now sent off an e-mail to the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service asking to chat with someone about having Patrick charged with perjury.

Again, if you don't think Patrick committed perjury, I recommend reading the legislation carefully.

ANOTHER LIE: It took me under a minute to identify another of Patrick's lies; here, he accuses me of directly contacting his former employer, Fluidpro:

 

 

I did no such thing; rather, I reproduce the opening of one of my 2025 blog posts:

 

which makes it absolutely clear that someone else (a commenter on my blog) checked in at Fluidpro, not me, and I was simply reporting on what they learned. I'm guessing that I will find lie after lie in Patrick's affidavit given time.

ONE MORE EXAMPLE: I wasn't sure what to do with this one as it is so weird, but this has all the signs of another lie from Patrick. Patrick has on occasion insisted that simply asking others to help me locate Patrick so I can collect what he owes me is tantamount to hiring unlicensed debt collectors and unlicensed skip tracers, in violation of Alberta law. Here is how Patrick described it in his affidavit:

 

 

Patrick's claim is, of course, obvious nonsense, but what's fascinating is that he opens that paragraph by insisting that he was "advised by counsel" that his position was valid.

I find it difficult to believe that Patrick's lawyer would have advised him that way; any sane lawyer would know that I have every right to ask people for assistance in locating Patrick, so it may be that Patrick's lawyer gets dragged into this to testify as to whether he actually advised Patrick as above. 

P.S. Make sure you understand that my objection to paragraph 24 is not Patrick's utterly insane legal interpretation, but his claim that he was "advised by counsel" that his position was legally defensible. So a question for you legal eagles out there: Is there some special significance in a filing if you claim that you were advised by counsel on some issue? Must you have actually been advised by counsel, or can you just use that qualifier whenever you want to sound important? 

ADDENDUM: For what it's worth, when I asked Google about this last bit, here's what it had to say:

 

 

So, yes, for Patrick to have used that qualifier, it must be true that his counsel actually gave him that advice which, honestly, is difficult to believe because it's such nonsense.

HOLY CRAP, I JUST NOTICED THIS ...  

 

 

So if this is to be believed, Patrick insists that even before the hearing on August 20, he had instructed his lawyer to begin the paperwork to set aside my 2010 default judgment (despite the utter impossibility of that). I think Patrick's lawyer is going to get dragged into this, and will have to clarify what he did and did not tell Patrick, and what Patrick told him. 

EVEN MORE ... regarding Patrick's contention that he is actively working to set aside my 2010 default judgment, Patrick knows full well that that is legally impossible as he was told so in 2021 by a Saskatchewan judge when I filed to register my original judgment in that province. Here's paragraph 16 of that 2021 ruling:

 

 

Note well the clear and unambiguous finding of the judge: "The Judgment is final, ...". Patrick received this ruling so he has known for five years that there is no legal avenue for him to set aside that judgment; thus, his claim that he is actively working to set it aside is knowingly false and was made to mislead the Court.