As another example of the ridiculous exaggeration, embellishment and misrepresentation presented by Patrick Ross in his August 2022 defamation lawsuit against me, here's another snippet from his Affidavit of November of that year, in which Patrick takes me to task for alleged criminal activity for, as he describes it, advertising a "bounty" for him:
As I'm sure you can see, Patrick is deliberately conflating the idea of the legal concept of a bounty in the context of tracking down, say, people who have skipped bail with the idea of simply compensating someone for their time and effort in being helpful. You can see this pretty clearly by examining the first part of the referenced "Exhibit D":
where, hilariously, I say nothing more than that if someone can provide me with verifiable information regarding Patrick's employment, I will donate $100 to their favourite charity; this is what Patrick wants to present to the court as an example of my blatant lawbreaking and criminal activity.
Are you starting to get the idea of how badly this is going to go for Patrick in front of a judge?
P.S. One of the more entertaining aspects of Patrick's filings is how he so desperately tries to impress the Court with his tortured and convoluted verbiage in trying to sound professionally legalistic. Note the second half of his line 29 above, where he refers to issues "such as that which is the subject of this action". Patrick can never use a single phrase when an entire string of incomprehensible blather will do, and he seems to think this will impress a judge.
Patrick's obsession with using 25-cent words frequently makes him sound like an idiot, as in from line 29, the opening, "Mr Day's own actions explicitly made requests ...". Really? My actions made requests? What the fuck does that even mean?
Patrick's writing reminds me of Mark Twain's savage review of the works of over-hyped American author James Fenimore Cooper. The full critique can be found here, but my favourite part of that review (the part that applies so perfectly to Patrick) is this:
You can see that that describes Patrick's prose perfectly -- it's not enough for Patrick to write that I made requests ... no, no, Patrick has to gussy up his spewage and suggest that it was my actions that made requests, a statement that makes no logical sense. This has been Patrick's pattern for years, and it's probably why every judge that's had to listen to him rolls their eyes after only a few minutes.
Consider this snippet from a personal court appearance by Patrick way back in 2012, where Patrick opens his submission to the total confusion of the judge ...
It only gets worse on the next page, as Patrick thinks he can salvage the situation by being even more obscure and incomprehensible:
I think I'll leave it there for now, but there's more coming.

























