Patrick has played this game for years ... ignoring e-mails, screening phone calls, pretending he's never received legal documents, lying about sending in legal documents, promising undertakings and never delivering ... the list goes on and on and tediously on. And he has an absolute history of having his father (whose house he shares) insist to servers that Patrick is not there at the moment, or that he doesn't live there anymore, or who the hell is this Patrick of whom you speak, that sort of thing. Well, enough.
Patrick will be served eventually, there is no doubt about that. But to make this easier, all and sundry are invited to drop Patrick a note on social media (he is not hard to find -- just follow the stench of false bravado, bad faith debate and misogyny), and politely let him know that we're looking for him (as if he didn't already know).
Normally, I'd just ignore this spineless cowardice on Patrick's part and let the legal system run him to ground, but there is a delicious irony here. You see, Patrick considers himself the biggest, baddest, meanest right-wing yahoo on the Intertoobz, and takes great pleasure in misrepresenting others' opinions, then relentlessly insulting those people over things they never said. This is his pattern, and it has always been thus.
In the end, though, when Patrick is finally handed his ass intellectually, he has the same fallback position every single time -- he challenges his intellectual better to a fistfight.
I'm not kidding.
When Patrick inevitably gets trounced in a debate, without exception, he invites the victor to come find him for a fistfight, which is where the irony comes in, given how Patrick is now reduced to starting furiously whenever there is a knock at the door, and peering out from behind the living room curtains while his father denies his existence, or something like that.
So while we will run him to ground eventually (feel free to look up "substitutional service"), if you run into Patrick on the Intertoobz, politely mention that we're looking for him, and ask him why he's being such an evasive weasel. And if, perchance, he snaps back at you with a reply, by all means, take a screenshot so we have proof that he knows we're looking for him -- that sort of evidence always comes in handy when Patrick is finally dragged before a judge, and insists he had no idea and if only someone had told him.
I'm going back to work now, but if you run across Patrick in your travels, say hi from whatever process server is currently being paid to track him down. But be polite. Always polite. It's just good manners.
P.S. If you, by the remotest of chances, actually know where Patrick can be found in terms of where he works or where he hangs out, DO NOT post that information; rather, simply e-mail it to me privately at firstname.lastname@example.org. If you leave any sort of info like that in the comments, I will make a note of it but I will also delete that comment immediately.
Got that? No public posting.
BY THE WAY, let me make a public service announcement that might save you hours, nay, days, of wasted time and aggravation with respect to the aforementioned Patrick Ross. Quite simply, Patrick always, always, always argues in bad faith. What that means is that Patrick will take what you say/write, deliberately distort and misrepresent it, then proceed to criticize you relentlessly for a position you've never taken. This is what he does -- Patrick has no interest in honest dialogue, his only interest is in eventually claiming "victory" over you.
If you want the perfect example of what it means to argue in bad faith, well, there's this gem from years back; I believe most people will recognize Patrick in what they read there.
I'm just trying to be helpful.