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.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The lies of Patrick Ross.

In the next few days, I plan on uploading to Google Drive the full Application and Affidavit of Patrick Ross related to my recent Rule 4.33 Application, and inviting any and all to peruse their contents and identify the blatant lies within, as I plan on having an entire section in my own inevitable filing devoted exclusively to Patrick's rancid dishonesty.

As a single example, consider paragraph 7 from Patrick's recent application, where Patrick assures the Court he is "actively" working on overturning my 2010 default judgment:

 

 

First, there is not a shred of evidence that Patrick has been trying to do this -- I have received not a single filing related to that (and I will challenge him to provide the related filings). More to the point, I have on occasion explained that, anywhere in Canada, if you are found in default and a ruling is made against you, your only hope in overturning that default judgment is that (among other requirements) you must do that in an extremely timely manner, and you need to have a seriously compelling excuse for why you never dealt with the matter earlier.

It goes without saying that, now that it is 16 years after the fact, there is zero chance that Patrick could overturn that default judgment, so his claim that he was "actively" trying to do that is a painfully obvious lie.

I thought it would be useful to effectively crowdsource the identification of Patrick's lies so, unless there is a good reason, I'll be uploading both his Application and Affidavit to Google Drive and making them universally readable.

Stay tuned. 

BONUS TRACK: It's worth noting that Patrick's insistence that my 2010 lawsuit and his 2022 lawsuit are "inextricably linked" is utter nonsense and, when discovery rolls around, I am going to ask him to explain what he meant by that. And I will require him to hand over evidence that he was "actively trying" to set aside my 2010 judgment as late as this year.

ANOTHER LIE: Here's an interesting snippet from Patrick's recent Affidaviit:

 

 

I do not, at any time, recall instructing my followers to track Patrick Ross from his father's funeral, and if anyone wants to search this entire blog to locate such a post, I would love to see it. (It's worth noting that Patrick does not provide an exhibit to corroborate this claim.)

Chronicles of Twatrick: Brimming over with wrongability.

Now that Patrick is refiling his recently-disemboweled for long delay lawsuit, one of the first issues that will come to the fore is whether, as an undischarged bankrupt, he even has the legal right to be suing people. Patrick has, on numerous occasions, insisted that he has researched the law and that he is indeed entitled to do that, but it's enlightening to look at Patrick's long history of (over)confidence in his legal acumen and how all of that turned out for him.

So let's examine the history of Patrick's public confidence in his legal positions, and their end results, shall we?

• Before 2010, Patrick bragged as to how he could defame me publicly, and I could not sue him for it. He was wrong. 
• After I sued Patrick in 2010 for defamation, he gloated as to how I could not possibly win that action. He was wrong.
• After I filed motions against Patrick in Alberta in 2011 and 2012, he insisted that he did not have to obey court orders to (among other things) file a Financial Statement of Debtor. He was wrong, and was found in contempt of court.
• After Patrick filed for personal bankruptcy, he was confident that he did not have to honour his legal obligations as a new bankrupt. He was wrong, to the point where his trustee discharged himself from Patrick's file due to Patrick's arrogant non-compliance.
• At Patrick's 2014 bankruptcy hearing, Patrick was confident that he would get an absolute discharge. He was wrong.
• When Patrick filed a worthless appeal of his bankruptcy Conditional Discharge Order (CDO), and I filed to have it tossed as abandoned after more than three years, Patrick was sure he would win that motion. He was wrong.
• When I filed to have Patrick removed from the protection of bankruptcy, Patrick bragged as to how he would win that motion. He was wrong.
• When I filed to have my judgment registered in Saskatchewan in order to effect collection proceedings against Patrick, Patrick insisted that he would defeat that filing. He was wrong.
• Most recently, Patrick openly bragged to my lawyer in writing that he would defeat my Rule 4.33 Application. And we all know how that turned out.

The lesson here is that Patrick loves to do his own legal research, then pontificate publicly about how he's sure he has a rock-solid case, only for it to implode whenever he gets to court. Which brings us to Patrick's spectacular confidence in his position that, even as an undischarged bankrupt, he can once again sue me. But let's think about that for a minute.

Patrick claims to have found case law that supports his position, but I'm willing to bet that that case law refers to undischarged bankrupts that are in what I will call "good standing"; that is, bankrupts who, while still undischarged, are honouring their legal and financial obligations, and are up to date in their reporting to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB), and are making their court-mandated payments and so on. That is, bankrupts who are following the rules.

This most emphatically does not describe Patrick, and when I raise this issue in response to his new lawsuit, I will point out that, rather than Patrick being a bankrupt in good standing, he is in fact an undischarged bankrupt whose trustee discharged himself from Patrick's file over 12 years ago due to Patrick's refusal to follow the rules; that Patrick is years behind in his mandatory reporting to the OSB; that Patrick was so delinquent in his obligations that I successfully had him removed from the protection of bankruptcy; and that due to his removal, he now owes me over $125,000.

I'm thinking that Patrick's alleged case law doesn't cover Patrick's unique circumstances of being so arrogantly contemptuous of his responsibilities as a bankrupt, and all of that will be placed before the Court to see if Patrick turns out to be any better at predicting success this time. 

BONUS TRACK: It's worth pointing out that, despite Patrick's public confidence in his position, when it comes to making that same argument before a judge, Patrick becomes mysteriously unforthcoming about his circumstances, as I once documented here.

Note well how Patrick twice had the opportunity to reveal to the judge that he did not have a trustee, but deflected both times. That transcript will absolutely be placed before the next Court at the earliest opportunity, and Patrick can explain why he was being so evasive about it.

TO SUM UP: While Patrick has publicly bragged that he has every right to refile his now-dismissed lawsuit against me and he is supremely confident that he will win that refiling, here are the numerous hurdles he will have to clear with the Court:

• He is not only an undischarged bankrupt, but he has no trustee and he is years in arrears related to his reporting obligations and payments.
• Due to his being removed from the protection of bankruptcy with respect to me, he owes me over $125,000.
• He has refused to pay both my original judgment and all court-ordered cost awards for over 15 years.
• He has clearly misled at least one judge as to his status as an undischarged bankrupt.
• He is refiling a matter that was already dismissed due to long delay.
• Rather than being frightened of me, Patrick has on countless occasions publicly stated how much fun he is having with filing frivolous actions, and I have dozens of screenshots to corroborate that.

I can assure my readers, all of the above is going to be placed before the Court. And if I can get corroboration that people have filed police reports against Patrick for harassment, I will absolutely add all of that as well.

DOUBLE BONUS: It's worth mentioning one more problem Patrick is going to have when he refiles his lawsuit. I posted a larger screenshot of this on an earlier post so I'll focus on just the final part, especially the final point:

 

Note the "judicial skepticism" part, wherein the Court is going to wonder why Patrick deserves another kick at the can when he spent well over three years doing nothing. And here's why this is important.

Anyone who attended the recent hearing heard another Rule 4.33 hearing, where the parties argued over what qualified as a "significant advancement," and whether that advancement was sufficient to defeat a Rule 4.33 Application. Put another way, almost all Rule 4.33 Applications start with the premise that something was done in the last three years; the dispute is over whether it was enough.

That is not what happened in my case, where it was conceded almost immediately that Patrick had done nothing for well over three years. Nothing. And the Court will reasonably wonder why Patrick is entitled to another try after clearly not advancing his own action in even the smallest way.

Rest assured, this is one of the arguments I am prepared to place before the Court -- that Patrick had gone to the trouble of filing a meritless lawsuit, then simply walked away from it. I'm guessing the Court is going to have some harsh words for Patrick on that topic. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: The smoking guns.

I asked, and one of my loyal followers came through in a big way. In the previous blog post, I described how perpetual legal loser and apparent creepy online stalker Patrick Ross -- in his recent Affidavit -- insisted that he lived in mortal dread of me, being paralyzed with fear and on and on and dishonestly on ...

 

 

That claim is utter rubbish and, in preparing to deal with it ever coming up again, I asked others to track down and collect examples of Patrick, over the last few years, quite obviously enjoying himself and cackling gleefully over his now-annihilated lawsuit. And, man, did some of you deliver, with one steely-eyed volunteer sending me a collection of dozens of tweets of Patrick blar-har-har'ing and clearly having a splendid time.

Here is just the tiniest screenshot of a massive submission of Patrick's output:

 

There is so much more and, as you can see, Patrick's crippling fear of me is obvious from his frequent use of "laugh until you cry" emojis when tweeting about me. I honestly had no idea that there was that much, and my subsequent Affidavit will need an entire chapter solely for all of this.

I love my followers.

BONUS TRACK: This tweet of Patrick's is especially interesting:

 

 

considering that Patrick never advanced his lawsuit to the point where discovery even happened. In short, Patrick is blatantly lying about how far along his lawsuit was. 

EXTRA CRUNCHY GOODNESS: Here's a tweet that does double duty, from back in 2024. First, again with the laughing emojis showing Patrick having a knee-slapping enjoyable time with all of this but, worse for Patrick, he reproduces my suggestion from that long ago that I plan on filing to dismiss his lawsuit:

 

 

It will be amusing for Patrick to yet again insist that he is pants-pissingly terrified of me, even as he posts tweet after tweet for the last few years mocking me and obviously having a fun time doing it. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Lawsuit 2.0.

As I mentioned earlier, Patrick Ross has already informed my lawyer that, now that his previous ridiculous lawsuit was dismissed for unconscionably long delay, he will be refiling the same action, including all of the same claims that are now at least four years old, so I am preparing for that, and here's something for which my loyal readers can offer some assistance.

One of Patrick's most childish strategies is to whinge on and on and pathetically on about how he has been subjected to years of harassment and intimidation, and how he lives in constant fear and is paralyzed by terror and ... well, here's the relevant snippet from his recent Affidavit:

 

 

This is, of course, utter bullshit but, sadly, there are judges that are so eye-rollingly gullible as to fall for this rubbish, so my plan this time around is to put the lie to Patrick's sniveling crybaby act by establishing, with overwhelming evidence, that rather than having been traumatized by my trying to collect from him over the years, Patrick has been quite enjoying himself and bragging about what a good time he's been having.So where do I start?

Recall first the July 18 letter Patrick sent to my lawyer, reproduced in its entirety toward the bottom of this recent blog post. Even an intellectually-deficient judge should be able to see that that letter is not the work of a terrified victim, but is rather the product of an arrogant, condescending, offensive asshat who is clearly having fun. And we're just getting started.

Here's Patrick from July 3 of this year (before he was served with my Application), obviously chuckling over his own brand of infantile humour, referring to me and throwing in a few "laugh-until-you-cry" emojis -- hardly what you would expect from someone who insists that I paralyze him with fear:

 

There are, of course, more tweets like that after the filing of my Application, making it painfully clear that Patrick is not really that afraid of me, but sees all of this as a source of constant amusement.

Then, for good measure, here's a personal email that Patrick sent me inappropriately (as I was represented by counsel at the time), once again being childishly snarky and insulting, again with some knee-slapping emojis to let me know that Patrick is really quite enjoying himself:

 

 

I think you can see where I'm going with this -- the next time Patrick tries this "I life in fear for my life" bullshit, I will already have a collection of Patrick's output making it clear to even the dimmest of judges that he treats all of this as entertainment. And this is where you, my loyal readers, come in.

I want to build a serious portfolio of Patrick's works where he is so obviously gleeful over the fun he's been having with that dismissed lawsuit, so the comments section is open to leave links or screenshots to everything that falls into that category. The goal is to have an extensive part of my next Affidavit contain just Patrick giggling childishly over how much he was enjoying all of this and was never all that scared of me.

So there's your homework assignment. Have at it, while I work on it at the same time. 

P.S. If you don't want to leave a comment, email to "canadiancynic@yahoo.ca". 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Apparently, Patrick will be refiling his dismissed lawsuit.

I have already published the relevant parts of Patrick's letter of July 18, where Patrick makes it clear that upon dismissal of his long-dormant lawsuit, he would simply, "the very next day," refile all of those same claims and more:

 

 

So it looks like we're going to go through this all over again. I will have more to say about this later this weekend, when I will have some homework for my loyal readers.

P.S. Regarding the first commenter's claim of Patrick's current(?) issues with the RCMP and possible charges for criminal activity, this is a tweet from someone who appears to be from Virginia, suggesting that Patrick's potential crimes are capable of crossing international borders:

 

 

 

I find this description utterly believable since it matches perfectly Patrick's pattern of locking onto someone (ideally a female) and obsessively attacking them over the course of several months, including by using burner accounts.

In short, Patrick being charged criminally for something involving harassing or stalking would not come as a major surprise to me. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Why Patrick's refiling of his original lawsuit is toast.

In my previous post, I went into detail about the difficulties that undischarged bankrupt and morbidly obese man-child Patrick Ross will have simply "refiling" his now-dismissed lawsuit against me, but it's amusing to examine this snippet from his August 2022 Statement of Claim to truly appreciate how fucked is Patrick in terms of Alberta's two-year limitations period on actions like this:

 

 

Do I really need to point out that Patrick opens that section of "DEFAMATION BY DEFENDANT DAY" by admitting that all of that happened no later than 2021? What part of "two-year limitations period" so confuses Patrick that he openly concedes in his own Statement of Claim that he is wildly out of time?

The level of stupidity here is simply stunning.

P.S. Patrick is particularly fucked since I have in writing his explicit admission that he knows of Alberta's two-year limitations period:

 

 

It is beyond comprehension that Patrick has conceded that he is fully aware of Alberta's limitations period regarding defamation if he still goes ahead and refiles based on complaints that are at least five years old. I doubt that Court is going to be happy with that.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Can Patrick refile his now-dead lawsuit? He might have problems.

Recall how Patrick Ross arrogantly promised that, if he lost this recent Rule 4.33 Application, he would simply refile it:

 

 

I asked Google about this, and it seems that Patrick is going to have some problems:

 

 

Let's chat about some of the hurdles Patrick faces if he wants to start this process all over again.

First, since the limitations period for defamation in Alberta is two years, and his now-dismissed action was filed in August of 2022, that means that every single claim he made in that lawsuit is now massively out of time, and he needs to start over with claims against me only within the last two years. There's hurdle number one.

"The Exception" states that the underlying claim is still alive only if you can convince the Court that you only recently learned of the defamation. I think we can all agree that given Patrick's obsessive interest in my blog posts, and that all of his claims are listed in his 2022 Affidavit, that argument is going nowhere.

Moving on, no, you can't simply "restart" that action; it's dead, and you need to start over from scratch.

Finally, under Section 3., note the penalties Patrick would face if he tried to refile what was effectively the same action. First, "The court will almost certainly order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's legal costs for the original, dismissed lawsuit."

Patrick would then -- because this is a brand new action -- have to pay all the standard filing and service fees all over again. But the funniest part is listed under "Judicial Skepticism", where the court would be decidedly unhappy with Patrick having wasted everyone's time for well over three years, then wanting to do it all over again.

So is Patrick going to try this again? Almost certainly. And I'll be ready. 

BONUS TRACK: I added to Google's explanation that the case had already been dismissed by the Court, and it enhanced its explanation thusly:

 

 

By the way, I haven't even factored into the above:

1. That Patrick owes me over $125,000, none of which he has paid me, and
2. As an undischarged bankrupt without a trustee, it's not clear that he even has the right to file legal actions on his own. 

So I'd say that Patrick has some work to do if he wants to try this again. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: End of the road.

So to summarize, yesterday, Patrick's recently-acquired lawyer showed up woefully and embarrassingly unprepared in Grande Prairie virtual courtroom 70, and proceeded to make an absolute ass of himself by doing nothing more than regurgitating the idiotic arguments handed to him by whiny perpetual victim and 45-year-old crybaby Patrick Ross.

Given that he could not possibly argue against the clear lack of advancement from Patrick for well over three years, Patrick's lawyer attempted the bold strategy of arguing that Patrick should be accommodated because he suffered from a medical "disability", what with being depressed and harassed and intimidated and living in abject terror so forth:

 

 

Mercifully, the judge was having none of this, pointing out that Patrick's lawyer had provided the Court with not one fucking shred of evidence or affidavit or doctor's note to back this up. In the end, the judge quite correctly applied the law and gave Patrick's lawsuit the boot.

So what's next? Apparently, I should prepare for more of the same since Patrick has already promised to simply refile the same meritless nonsense to restart the three-year clock:

 

 

As soon as he does that, I can assure you he will be in for a surprise, but I'll keep that to myself for the moment. For now, let's just bask in the happiness of Patrick having had his pasty ass handed to him once again by the courts. 

 

 

BONUS TRACK: At one point, Patrick's monumentally-uninterested and unprepared lawyer (who appeared to be counting the billable minutes until he could flee that beatdown) mentioned Patrick's actively trying to overturn my 2010 default judgment against him. You could actually see the tiny smirk on the judge's face as she patiently explained that that judgment was from 16 years ago, and she didn't see how there was much chance of that happening.

PREDICTION: Patrick will have no further use for this lawyer and will fire him shortly and go back to filing stupid lawsuits by himself. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Douchebag lawyer.

I was prepared for Patrick Ross' recently-acquired lawyer to be a clueless, uninformed, slimy colostomy bag, but even I was not prepared for the thigh-sucking sleaziness, when he tried to argue that Patrick's justification for doing absolutely sweet goddamned fuck all for more than three years was that Patrick suffered from a "disability" that prevented him from even hiring a lawyer in all that time (said "disability" being that Patrick was depressed and harassed and intimidated, etc, etc).

Mercifully, the judge handed Patrick's yammering mouthpiece his ass on a platter and pointed out that there was not one fucking shred of filed evidence to support this whiny victimhood bullshit, and that was the end of that argument.

Another martini, please. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: So I won.

Patrick's dumbass lawsuit was just turfed by the court in Alberta.

Time for a martini. 

P.S. I will do a summary tomorrow. By then, Patrick should have refiled his lawsuit with all the same absolute rubbish and misrepresentation and try to do this all over again. It will not go as smoothly for him the second time.

P.P.S. Patrick's lawyer was exactly the kind of disinterested, unprepared douche I was expecting. No surprise there. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Testing the virtual courtroom.

Obviously ahead of time (hearings start at 10 a.m. Alberta time), I've logged into the Webex URL for the Grande Prairie virtual courtroom. Nothing's happening yet, but it's promising that I can see two other people already waiting in the Webex lobby.

I've been told that after virtual hearings start in about 40 minutes, we are approximately number 14 on the docket. If the judge has a clue and sticks to the law, it should be a short hearing. If the judge starts wandering afield and discussing underlying merits, I'm hoping my lawyer slaps him (or her) down in a hurry.

I'll see you there, and feel free to invite your friends.

FOLLOWUP: Hearings start in 15 minutes and already a dozen people waiting on Webex.

AND WE'RE OFF ... 

FEEL FREE TO LEAVE A COMMENT IF YOU'RE DIALED IN. 

 

P.S. This might take a while if they handle all the adjournments and uncontested hearings first. 

 

Apparently, there is another "dismissal for delay" case to be heard. Will be interesting to see how different that case is.

We have simply been pushed down the queue so the judge can handle the short hearings first. The contested hearings will be heard afterwards. 

It sounds like *this* 4.33 case is hung up on the precise definition of "three years" and that the defendant jumped the gun by a couple of weeks -- my case has no such issue. 

I am encouraged that this judge is being *very* pedantic about how the full period of three years is critically important. 

 

I am feeling better about this since the current hearing is going on at length about the steps that *were* taken and whether they were sufficient since, in my case, there was ***nothing*** that was done by Patrick Ross since December of 2022. Nothing. For over three and a half years.

 

Grrrrrrr ... is it possible that the judge won't even get to our case today? How annoying. 

 

OK, a contested Rule 4.33 Application ... and it sounds like the disagreement will be over when advancements happened and whether those advancements were "significant". Again, this is not relevant for my case -- there were *no* advancements of any kind within the last three and a half years. Legally, based on the judge's treatment of this case, I should feel optimistic.

 

This should be interesting ... lawyer for Plaintiff arguing why action should *not* be dismissed because stuff happened. Once again, not relevant for my case since *nothing* was done in over three years. 

 

Yet again, I am encouraged that the entirety of *this* current Rule 4.33 hearing hinges on the contested significance of events that occurred within the three years prior to the Defendant's Application since, in my case, absolutely NOTHING happened. So if the judge subsequently rules against me, she would be mind-numbingly inconsistent with what she's been saying all morning.We're up next

 

Sounds like judge is pretty much done with this case, but I'm not sure how far we are down the list. There's one more hour available for hearings. 

 

Sounds like we *might* be heard today, if the current case can be brief and articulate.

 

OMFG ... are we going to get in today? 

 

 

OFFS, get *on* with it.  I'm up next if this case can be closed.

 

Jesus Christ, how long can you argue about a freakin' truck? 

 

OK, I'm cautiously optimistic so far ... 

Chronicles of Twatrick: The weaselly, gutless cowardice of Patrick Ross.

If there is any lesson to be learned from the last few weeks of blog posts here, it's that undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross, despite the fact that he talks big and loves to characterize himself as a super tough, bad-ass dude, Patrick is a gutless, tear-soaked little turd who hates confrontation and lives in abject terror 24/7.

Recall from years ago, when I was still blogging under my "Canadian Cynic" pseudonym, that Patrick vowed to track me down and out me in order to ruin my life. Remember this brave mouthing off from Patrick?

 

 

And, lo, the fuck was indeed brought, to the point where Patrick is now a sniveling, sobbing little shit hiding out somewhere in northern Alberta and too scared to go home because someone might (*checks notes*) drive by:

 

 

This is the same Patrick Ross who gleefully demeans people on Twitter as "liars" and "retards" but really doesn't enjoy when someone like me decides to hold him accountable for owing me $125,000.

I have read all 57 pages of Patrick's idiotic Affidavit to defeat my Rule 4.33 Application and, I can assure you, there is nothing there that required a lawyer to add any value to it. All of that rubbish and dishonesty is pure Patrick from beginning to end, and the only reason Patrick retained a lawyer for this hearing is that he was too cowardly to present his own arguments. (I predict that, as soon as he loses this Application, Patrick will fire that lawyer. Let's watch.)

It is difficult to believe that Patrick has not yet figured out, if he does not enjoy being followed, there is a simple solution -- he can pay me what he owes me, at which time I will do my best to forget that he and his four-and-a-half chins even exist. But it's more than a little hypocritical to whine about someone trying to track you down at the same time you owe that someone a shitload of money and are actively avoiding collection enforcement.

As for today's hearing, once again, the Webex link is https://albertacourts.webex.com/meet/virtual.courtroom70, hearings start at 10 a.m. Alberta time, and I have been informed that my hearing is about number 14 on today's docket, which will give potential attendees the time to log in and troubleshoot any connection issues.

As I have mentioned more times than you need to hear, this should be a short hearing since Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 is an extremely simple procedural rule that mandates that if the Plaintiff [Patrick] fails to advance their action for more than three straight years, then upon Application by the Defendant [me], the Court is required to dismiss the action. In addition, the burden of moving the case along lies squarely with the Plaintiff:

 

 

The Court is most emphatically not free to consider the merit of the underlying lawsuit, or anything other than the long and indefensible delay:

 

Most importantly, the Court is not allowed to take into account the fact that the Plaintiff is a whiny, sobbing coward who was too stupid, lazy and arrogant to advance his own lawsuit for more than three years. So I am praying for a judge that understands this.

If you have any questions, ask in the comments. 

BONUS TRACK: Given Patrick's insistence that he now lives in abject terror and suffers from "decision paralysis" (whatever the fuck that means), it seems only fair that I reproduce Patrick's July 18 letter to my lawyer in its entirety, so that everyone can see how Patrick, far from being terrified into paralysis and existing in "survival mode", is still the same obnoxious, condescending, arrogant asshole he has always been. This is Patrick's letter to my lawyer, mocking the idea that I hired an actual lawyer to deal with this Application (shortly after which, ironically, Patrick hired his own lawyer):

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps it's just me, but the above does not seem to be the work of someone cowering in their basement, too paralyzed to deal with the world. Rather, it seems like the bloviating output of a pompous, patronizing, sanctimonious little turd who is enjoying himself immensely and can't wait to have his day in court.

I can assure you, if/when Patrick tries to refile his lawsuit once I get it dismissed, the above letter will be Exhibit "A" in my Affidavit establishing that all of Patrick's bleating about being frightened is utter fiction.

DOUBLE BONUS: In the midst of all of that whiny hyper-ventilating from Patrick's Affidavit, note well the first part of Paragraph 54:

"54. While I understand now that I should have tried my best to move the litigation along, ..."

Quite simply, that is an obvious and open admission from Patrick that he has done nothing to advance his own lawsuit. It is Patrick openly conceding that he has no Defense.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The dishonesty of Patrick Ross.

If you want to understand the depth of Patrick Ross's dishonesty, I'll give you an example from a single paragraph out of his tedious Affidavit -- the rest of that document is equally bullshit.

Here's paragraph 25, where Patrick hyperventilates hysterically over ... well, fiction:

 

 

so let's deconstruct that nonsense a few words at a time.

"Mr. Day had either ordered or asked" ... Well, which is it? Asked or ordered? I'm pretty sure I don't have the inherent authority to order anyone around from hundreds of kilometers away, so that phrase is a bit over the top.

"physical surveillance of my private residence" ... but that isn't Patrick's private residence, it belonged to his parents and Patrick has been off working in northern Alberta for quite some time now, so describing it as his "private residence" is a bit of a stretch.

"These individuals wore masks and removed the license plates from their vehicles to evade identification." ... This is the most hysterically misleading sentence of the bunch and we'll have to disembowel it a couple words at a time.

"These individuals wore masks" ... I am aware of one accommodating volunteer who swung by Casa Ross while wearing a scarf around his face; that makes it one individual who wore one face covering. Note well how Patrick's exaggeration has morphed this into multiple individuals wearing multiple masks.

"and removed the license plates ... to evade identification" ... Uh, no. In fact, the single individual in question explained that he had just purchased the vehicle and that the temporary paper tag was properly taped in the truck's rear window while he awaited his permanent plate. Predictably, Patrick was too stupid to figure that out and, ever since then, the story is of a nefarious, sinister stalker who (weirdly) removed his own license plate (which is a truly stupid thing to do since it just begs to get pulled over).

This is the level of slimy misrepresentation that absolutely permeates Patrick's entire Affidavit. And Patrick's lawyer was too stupid, too lazy or too incompetent to recognize the warning signs of total bullshit and signed his name to all of this.

BONUS TRACK: I will just let you slowly and lovingly savour the rancid bullshit of this pathetic and dishonest weeping and moaning:

 

 

 

That's what happens when you challenge someone to "bring it the fuck on."

 

 

You asked about Exhibit D? You are going to be disappointed, as here is the email Patrick received and entered in his Affidavit as Exhibit "D", which is nothing more than an acknowledgment that he had made the request:

 

 

That is less than exciting. 

 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Patrick's lawyer is, quite literally, threatening the Court.

That's a powerful accusation I'm making but give me a minute to back it up.

Here's Paragraph 6 of Patrick's recent Application, where Patrick's lawyer quite clearly suggests that there's no point dismissing Patrick's lawsuit because he would just refile it and that would be an affront to "judicial economy":

 

 

Let's think about this in a couple of ways.

First, that logic is stunningly stupid since, if it were valid, then every Rule 4.33 Application could be defeated by the Plaintiff promising to refile the same lawsuit the next day, so what would be the value of Rule 4.33 in the first place? But that's not the most disturbing part.

By claiming to be concerned about "judicial economy," Patrick's lawyer is clearly threatening the court with, "Hey, court resources are tight, and if you dismiss my client's lawsuit, he'll simply refile it and waste more of your court resources, and you don't want that, do you?"

As in, "Nice court you got here, be a shame if someone came in and wasted your budget because you ruled the wrong way."

I wonder if that sort of quiet intimidation of the Court rises to the level of a complaint to the Law Society of Alberta. 

BONUS TRACK: Patrick is lying as well. In his tediously verbose and dishonest 57-page Affidavit, right near the end, Patrick adds the standard boilerplate that his action is legitimate and is filed for no improper purpose: 

 

 

Except back in his Application, Patrick describes his own lawsuit as being "inextricably tied" to my long-settled 2010 default judgment against him:

 

 

The claim of being "inextricably tied" is bullshit. My 2010 judgment against Patrick is long settled and Patrick is long past any deadline where he can do anything about it. Claiming some sort of inextricable linkage represents nothing more than Patrick openly admitting that his lawsuit was filed as retribution for my earlier victory -- a clearly improper purpose.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Happy interestversary, perjury and mouth-breathing legal incompetence.

First things first: today, August 19, 2026, marks exactly five years since a Saskatchewan judge told vexatious litigant and undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross how much he owed me:

 

and bumped up the annual accruing interest rate to a delightful five per cent, which means that Patrick currently owes me between $125,000 and $130,000, an amount about to increase noticeably due to the mouth-breathing incompetence of his new lawyer who appears to be (and I do not make this suggestion lightly) one of the dumbest carbon-based life forms on the planet.

For the last couple of weeks, I have been speculating as to what Patrick would try as a last ditch, desperate, "gotcha"-style legal ambush to try to salvage his depressing situation and, yesterday, the madness arrived in the form of an Application that ... I cannot even do it justice by paraphrasing, you need to read the entire section of Patrick's proposed grounds for dismissal of my Rule 4.33 Application for yourself:

 

 

Let's start with the truly stupidest part of the above. Patrick's new lawyer -- who I'm guessing got his law degree by collecting the required number of Optimum points -- did not even make out a valid Rule 4.33 defense. None at all.

As I have explained far too many times by now, there are two (and only two) defenses against a Rule 4.33 "Drop Dead" Application:

1. You claim that you have advanced your case significantly in the three years before the Application, or
2. You claim that there exists a court-ordered or mutual agreement for suspension of litigation.

That's it; that's all that's available as a defense. As you can see, Patrick's lawyer made neither of those arguments above. Rather, the filed Application was a jaw-dropping collection of ad hominem bullshit regarding intimidation and harassment and stalking and surveillance, with a new twist of "terrorizing a litigant" thrown in for good measure. And keep in mind, a practicing lawyer crafted this nonsense and put his name to it. But it gets so much worse, as said lawyer also signed off on Patrick's claim that he is "actively" taking steps to overturn a default judgment from 2010.

Read that again to truly appreciate the dumbass level of stupid of a lawyer who does not know how default judgments work. I have, on numerous occasions, explained the strict requirements for filing to set aside a default judgment, like here, and it is mind-boggling that an actual lawyer does not understand even the most basic fundamentals of how a default judgment works, and even (as I wrote in the previous post) enabled Patrick's perjury by signing off on Patrick's legally impossible claim that he is "actively" working to overturn that judgment from back in 2010.

I really am looking forward to this hearing tomorrow to watch my counsel feed Patrick's lawyer through a wood chipper.

BONUS TRACK: I would be remiss in not addressing the very next line after the excerpt above:

 

 

Apparently, Patrick is so "firmly committed" to proceeding with his lawsuit that he has done absolutely nothing with it for the last three and a half years and now wants a do-over.

Also, no one is stopping Patrick from doing the above. Once I have his current lawsuit dismissed for long delay, he's perfectly free to file another (updated) lawsuit and try it all over again. So his "litigation plan" is nonsense, and his lawyer should have understood that.

REMINDER that the Webex link for tomorrow's hearing is  https://albertacourts.webex.com/meet/virtual.courtroom70. Proceedings for the day's docket starts at 10 a.m. (Alberta time), and we are apparently number 14 on the docket.

BY THE WAY, I just noticed the nonsensical stupidity of paragraph 7 above:

 

 

But Patrick's current lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with my 2010 judgment against him for malicious defamation -- those are two totally unrelated actions and are not "inextricably tied" in any way.

However, having written the above, did Patrick just admit that the whole purpose behind his current long-dormant lawsuit is to try to get even with me for my legal victory over him in 2010? That would seem to be an open admission that he filed his lawsuit for an improper purpose, not because he honestly thought I defamed him, but simply because he wants to get even. 

It seems the Court should know about that.

THIS IS TOO FUNNY: In addition to asking the Court to dismiss my Rule 4.33 Application, Patrick is also asking the Court to order a "litigation plan" which would ... again, I cannot do this justice, you have to read the two paragraphs related to that from his Affidavit:

 

 

Take a moment, if you will, and appreciate the absolute fucking stupid in the above request from Patrick's Application. Patrick, having utterly ignored his own lawsuit for three and a half years and advanced it not even the tiniest iota, is now standing there, stamping his little feet and insisting that the Court issue an order to move this whole thing along -- to make sure this matter is "vigorously prosecuted without further delay."

I don't even know how to mock this.

P.S. Nowhere in any of this meaningless swill is there any reference to Patrick being a trustee-less undischarged bankrupt who owes me over $125,000 and has refused to pay any of the judgment or cost awards against him going all the way back to 2010. You'd think the Court might find that ... relevant.