Sunday, June 04, 2023

Chronicles of Twatrick: Back in the Lloyd again?

For someone on the run from me, the Collections Department of the Saskatchewan Sheriffs and the federal Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, undischarged bankrupt and man who owes me over $100,000 Patrick Ross is not hiding his tracks well, leaving a trail of cheeseburger wrappers that could be followed by a blind, retarded cocker spaniel or David Menzies:

In other words, you may resume your regular surveillance of Casa Ross in Lloydminster, and keep me apprised of any vehicles that seem to be taking up space on a regular basis.

Thank you kindly.

P.S. There is increasing evidence that Patrick does not have regular employment, given his recent sightings in Saskatoon, Lloydminster, Grande Prairie and Edmonton -- it's hard to imagine holding down a job and doing that much travelling at the same time. This is why it's so important to keep a watch for him, both in real life and on social media, so I can stay on top of his wanderings for the sake of collection enforcement.

There are more developments coming, and I will let you know.

Friday, June 02, 2023

Chronicles of Twatrick: Definitely on the run.

I was recently informed by the Collections Department of the Courts and Community Justice Division of the Government of Saskatchewan (whew!) that Lloydminster's Patrick "Hyper Mullet Nexus Quintuple Threat Spandex Tights Street Fighting Man" Ross has closed the bank account he once had with Synergy Credit Union so there was nothing to seize at their last attempt at collection, implying that Patrick is having to go through the inconvenience of cancelling various financial accounts in order to protect them from collections enforcement.

As I understand it, this is not going to look good once he is tracked down, since closing accounts like that represents an unmistakable effort to conceal assets, and the courts really, really, really dislike that sort of behaviour, but I have confirmation from the appropriate authorities that Patrick did exactly that.

The noose is tightening, and when Patrick is inevitably brought to heel, there will be a very unpleasant reckoning for him and for anyone who has been assisting him.

Friday, May 26, 2023

Chronicles of Twatrick: In honour of the geographically challenged.

Uh ...

The election is in Alberta. Patrick lives in Saskatchewan.

P.S. Does this mean Patrick is back in Alberta? Enquiring (and collection-oriented) minds want to know.

P.P.S. Apparently, Patrick is in fact threatening to initiate a vexatious legal action against someone, despite the fact that his status as an undischarged bankrupt without a trustee and several years in arrears with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy forbids that. I will have more on this in a day or two. Stay tuned ...

Tuesday, May 23, 2023

Chronicles of Twatrick: On the move again?

An anonymous tipster sends me the following pic from Patrick's Facebook page, suggesting Lord Baron Loadenhosen is back in Grande Prairie. This might very well be misdirection but, just in case, if people keep an eye out for Patrick out and about in GP, keep me up to date on his travels.

Thank you kindly.

Monday, May 22, 2023

Chronicles of Twatrick: Oh, look ... he's lying again.

Anonymous tipster brings to my attention this recent horseshit from Lloydminster's Patrick "You should take my financial advice" Ross, wherein Patrick claims that he is currently suing two different people for defamation:

I'm fairly sure he's referring to me as one of those two defendants, so let me assure one and all ... Patrick is lying. He is not suing me, and I will deal with this nonsense expeditiously since, unlike Patrick, I have meaningful employment.

Patrick started this nonsense back in about August of 2022, when he filed with the court in Alberta a nonsensical Statement of Claim for (among other things) defamation and harassment, wherein he listed three entirely independent defendants and used a single Statement of Claim to describe his petty grievances against all three people in one document. Despite being listed as one of the defendants, I was never served with this meritless claim.

Shortly thereafter, Patrick -- apparently finally realizing that that SoC was garbage -- filed to amend it to remove one of the other defendants. And yet ... and yet ... he failed to serve me properly and legally with that version, either. In short, if Patrick is referring to me in the above, he is (unsurprisingly) lying -- it's been almost a year since Patrick submitted that original application to the Court and, in all that time, I have yet to be served with it.

By the way, Patrick has a much bigger problem on his hands trying to sue me, but I'll explain all that later.

OK, IT'S LATER: And I will explain why Patrick is going to have a hard time legally serving anyone, not just me.

First, unless Patrick applies for and is granted substituted service on someone, he is required by law to serve anyone he wants to sue personally; that is, typically by using a process server who will then draw up and file an Affidavit of Service, attesting to the fact that someone was served properly and legally. That's not the problem -- Patrick can certainly do that.

The problem is that Patrick prefers to represent himself in all of this, which means that in order to properly serve someone, he must supply a valid address for service, so that the person he is suing can respond in kind. If he doesn't do that, the service is not valid. And that's where Patrick has a problem, since he refuses to disclose where he can be located in order for proper service to be effected.

In fact, recently, Patrick (quite stupidly) bragged about how he was in such fear for his well-being that he was going underground:

and now you can see how Patrick has pretty much boned himself up the ass. In order to properly serve someone while representing himself, Patrick must disclose where he can be served in return. But, as you can read above, he refuses to disclose where he can be reached, which means the service has no weight. And if Patrick claims that his legal address for service is his parents' Lloydminster address, it can be shown quite trivially that Patrick has a long history of claiming that as his address, only to refuse to sign for registered mail that shows up there, so that's not going to work for him.

Really, Patrick considers himself to have a dizzying intellect but, as it stands now, he's an undischarged bankrupt with no trustee who is no longer protected by bankruptcy's stay of proceedings, who owes me over $100,000 (increasing by 5% per annum plus associated costs), and who is currently on the run from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and the Saskatchewan sheriffs. So ... this isn't working out all that well for him after all.

I'm sure you're shocked.

Saturday, May 20, 2023

Chronicles of Twatrick: Happy interestversary, and Patrick suing other people?

My bad ... I had completely overlooked May 19, which was yet another monthly interestversary for Lloydminster's Patrick "Mega Ultra Nexus Dragon" Ross in terms of it being exactly 21 months since a Saskatchewan judge told him how much he owed me and cranking up the annual interest rate on that amount from 2% to 5%:

And, sure, I've managed to claw back a few thousand dollars from Patrick over the years, but it doesn't come close to the additional interest he now owes me. But all that aside, there is a more interesting development.

Via an anonymous tipster, I was told that boy lawyer Patrick Ross is now threatening to sue even more people than he's threatening to sue now. I didn't get any further details but, if this is true and you are one of the people in Patrick's gravy-slathered sights, I'm going to help you out and explain how you can protect yourself. All of what follows is based on a publicly-available transcript involving Patrick Ross and Peter Skinner from back in August of 2022, and I will reproduce the salient bits verbatim so you know I am not misrepresenting anything.

The backstory to this is that Patrick -- for whatever reason -- decided to sue Peter Skinner some time back, and filed a Statement of Claim with the then Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta. Peter responded with a Statement of Defence that included (among other things) the observation that, as an undischarged bankrupt, Patrick has no legal standing to initiate any legal actions without the permission of his trustee. It is with that understanding that I reproduce this exchange between the judge and Patrick, where the judge brings up Patrick's status as an undischarged bankrupt and how it typically relates to a legal action:

(Side note: There is an obvious transcription error in the above in that line 25 should clearly read, "Okay. So then you had to get permission from your trustee ...". I think that's fairly obvious as the text in the transcript makes no sense otherwise. In any event, onward.)

Note first that the judge is making a trivial observation; that under normal circumstances, an undischarged bankrupt has no standing to file a legal action, and should get the permission of his or her trustee. This is in no way controversial; it's the way things normally work. However, note well how Patrick tries very hard to mislead the court.

First, Patrick (correctly) admits that he is an undischarged bankrupt; however, it's what Patrick leaves out that is so crucial. Based on the exchange above, the judge could be forgiven for assuming that Patrick's is a typical bankruptcy, with a conditional discharge order and a monthly payment that Patrick is making and so on; that is, a bankruptcy that is proceeding smoothly towards an inevitable discharge.

Nowhere in the above does Patrick volunteer that he is years behind on his obligatory reporting to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, and years behind on his payments, and that I have successfully filed to have him removed from the protection of bankruptcy and currently have a collections order against him in the province of Saskatchewan. No, all Patrick discloses is that he is "as yet undischarged," clearly trying to give the impression that there's nothing out of the ordinary here. But it gets so much worse.

When, on line 25, the judge (quite appropriately) asks Patrick whether he ran all this by his trustee, this might have been a good time for Patrick to disclose that he does not have a trustee. In fact, Patrick's trustee discharged himself in February of 2014 due to Patrick's contemptuous non-compliance with his obligations under the bankruptcy regime, and right then would have been perhaps a good time for Patrick to admit that. Instead, and stunningly, Patrick replies simply, "No, I didn't ...", then desperately tries to change the subject.

I'm fairly sure that the judge would have been gobsmacked to learn that, rather than this being a typical bankruptcy, Patrick has been without a trustee for almost a decade but, as you can read for yourself, Patrick volunteers none of that and soldiers on. I won't say that this is an outright lie, but I submit that it's more than fair to suggest that Patrick deliberately misled the Court in that exchange. But, once again, it gets worse in this exchange on the very next page as the judge, still unaware of the situation, continues to assume that Patrick has a trustee:

Yet again, that would have been a good time for Patrick to perhaps 'fess up to his lack of a trustee (and a number of other things), and yet again, Patrick continues to mislead the court. So what is the point of all this?

The point is, if Patrick is actually trying to sue others for whatever reason, and you're one of his intended targets, you need to be aware of all of the above and you need to bring all of it to the attention of the Court and not let Patrick so obviously mislead by omission. Now, Patrick is convinced that he found legal precedent that allows him to sue others with or without a trustee. Well, maybe he did, and maybe he didn't, but given his current situation, if he wants to make that argument to a judge, that judge really needs to know all of this, and if Patrick is currently vowing to slap you with some sort of legal action, well, drop me a note and I will make sure you are up to date with everything you need to crush him in court.

Oh, and what I think is the most important thing here? If you examine that most recent snippet, it clearly represents a judge telling Patrick in plain and simple English how things normally work for an undischarged bankrupt, so if Patrick insists on continuing to pull shit like this, what the above shows is that Patrick was told in no uncertain terms that he should work through his trustee, and that he is refusing to follow the advice of the court. And judges, really, really, really hate people who do that.

In any event, happy interestversary! See you next month.

BONUS TRACK: Anonymous commenter asks whether Patrick really has legal precedent such that he can sue people without a trustee. Well, yes and no, so let me explain.

As you can read in that first snippet above, the judge openly concedes, "There are always bankruptcy exceptions," and he's right -- there is a small and very restricted set of circumstances under which an undischarged bankrupt can unilaterally launch a legal action independent of his trustee, but Patrick fails to appreciate why those exceptions don't even remotely apply to him.

The whole point of bankruptcy is that, once you file, you effectively hand over the management of all of your assets to your trustee, whose job it is to protect the interests of both the bankrupt and, more importantly, the creditors. More specifically, it is the responsibility of the trustee to ride herd on the bankrupt, and ensure that conditional discharge payments are made so that the creditors will receive the money owed them. And as long as the bankrupt is following the rules, and making the payments such that the creditors are being paid, then the court is sometimes willing to give the bankrupt some leeway in terms of how to choose to spend their remaining money. And now you see Patrick's problem.

Patrick wants to argue that he is entitled to that leeway, despite the fact that he is years behind on his obligations and payments, to the point where I have had to start collection proceedings against him. Put more simply, given how much Patrick owes me right now, along with his contemptuous mockery of his own bankruptcy, there is zero chance that a judge would look at this case and approve of any of Patrick's frivolous legal harassment.

Quite simply, all of Patrick's alleged precedents assume an undischarged bankrupt in good standing, who is fulfilling his responsibilities as a bankrupt and can therefore be given a little latitude to spend his money as he wishes. That this doesn't describe Patrick is something I should not have to explain, but if Patrick wants to try this crap with anyone, as I said, drop me a note and I will make sure you have everything you need to annihilate that little shit in court, and get costs.

I trust I've clarified the situation.

Friday, May 19, 2023

Chronicles of Twatrick: Nothing new.

I'm still open to anyone feeding me new info on the meatspace co-ordinates of Lloydminster's Patrick "Nexus Dragon Cosplay MMA Street Fighting Man" Ross; in the meantime, Patrick seems to think Rachel Notley stays up at night wondering if she has his approval:

So ... there's that.

BONUS TRACK: Here's Patrick, pondering the concept of trust and admitting that Danielle Smith's recent ethical violations only makes him more of an admirer:

You can't make this shit up. You just can't.