Chronicles of Twatrick: "Patrick is so screwed" edition.

Take a moment if you will, and go back here and read the two lengthy comments from one Peter "Rogue Nerd One" Skinner, the target of Patrick Ross' recent idiotic million dollar lawsuit, and appreciate just how monstrously large a house Peter is about to drop on Patrick. In particular, appreciate this bit:

"Then we'll be making a motion to force opposition counsel."

If I read that correctly, that means that Peter will be arguing (among other things) that Patrick is simply so dishonest or disingenuous or downright incompetent that he should be required to retain counsel, and not be allowed to represent himself as he has done so badly all these years. Well, in aid of Peter making his argument, I will now regale you with a story I have never published related to Patrick, to demonstrate just how spectacularly incompetent and dishonest he is, and if Peter wants to add this to his affidavit, he has my blessing.

Recall that I got my default judgment against Patrick back in 2010, and published it openly, and I know for a fact that Patrick was aware of this within 24 hours of publication because he admitted that openly:

Ever since then, at every opportunity over the years, Patrick has made two puzzling claims to the Court. At every opportunity. And they are the following.

First, Patrick insists that he has never been served with a copy of what he describes as the "full" or "long form" judgment. He openly concedes that he has seen the three-paragraph endorsement above, but is firm in his position that, all this time, I have nefariously refused to serve him with the long form of the actual judgment, a document which Patrick claims would have laid out the issues and analysis and findings and would have allowed him to mount a proper appeal. So that is Patrick's first claim.

Related to the above is a much more specific claim -- Patrick insists that, when we first dragged his pasty ass into court way back in March of 2012, he made this very claim to the judge, whereupon (according to Patrick) the outraged judge agreed that he had been unfairly treated by this withholding and ordered my then-lawyer to serve him with the judgment, whereupon (again, according to Patrick) we flagrantly disobeyed her court order and still refused to turn it over. That is the more specific of Patrick's claims, and it's worth noting that Patrick has never given up whining about this, repeating those accusations even in his most recent legal submission of this year, 2021:

Let us deal with Patrick's more specific claim first: that in March of 2012 in open court, after he claimed that he had never received the "long form" of the judgment, the judge agreed that he should have been and ordered my counsel to provide it to Patrick, after which we disobeyed that court order and continued to keep it from him.

Well, given that I have the transcript from that hearing (which has also been sent to Peter Skinner who is welcome to use it in any way he sees fit), we can examine Patrick's claim in exquisite detail.

Let's begin on that fateful day of March 6, 2012, when Patrick, having been ordered to appear in court, shows up late and interrupts my counsel's presentation, holds up his hand from the gallery and identifies himself:

That would be Patrick, making a less than optimal first impression by showing up late and blaming it on being given the wrong address, a claim the judge is clearly skeptical of but, whatever, he is told to park it until my counsel is finished. And then it really goes to shit when it is Patrick's turn, at which point ... oh, hell, just read it:

I will be merciful and cut it off there, since one can already see that Patrick is simply trying to snow the judge with various legal expressions, and the judge admits she has no idea what the fuck Patrick is yammering on about. But it gets funnier as Patrick, clearly unaware of what this hearing is about, again insists that he never received a copy of the judgment, then hilariously tries to re-litigate my 2010 action against him:

Oh, dear God.

As you can see, Patrick is literally trying to re-argue the 2010 action, but the judge is having none of it and drags Patrick back to the real world, and the very specific reason he is there. But here's what we've been working up to, related to Patrick's specific claim that he never received the judgment, and that the judge agreed with him and ordered us to provide it, but that we continued to refuse. Let me enlighten you as to what actually happened:

Go back and read that again to make sure you understand what just happened -- the judge has heard Patrick's claim of never having been served with the judgment, and makes it devastatingly clear that she does not believe him:

"... I’m sure Mr. Kraft’s file is replete with affidavits of service that show that you were served."

In fact, the judge did subsequently order that we serve Patrick with the judgment, but only because since Patrick kept claiming he had never seen it, we might as well just send it to him one more time to play it safe. It is thigh-suckingly clear from the above that the judge does not believe anything Patrick is saying, so Patrick's interpretation of what happened back in March of 2012 is rancidly dishonest, as you can all see. But if you think that's bad, it gets so much worse. 

Regarding Patrick's relentless insistence that, in all these years, he has never received a copy of the "long form" judgment, he is, in fact, technically correct, but for the following reason:

There is no such thing.

There never has been.

It does not exist.

The endorsement you saw above and which I present to you again:

is all there ever was, and there is a simple reason why there was never a "long form" judgment in this case: It's because Patrick chose not to defend, so we filed to have him found in default, at which point my then-lawyer argued my case in court unopposed, whereupon the judge ruled in my favour and issued that endorsement. There was never a "long form" judgment because, since Patrick chose not to defend, there were no defenses from his side to analyze and make findings for.

Let me state this even more clearly and embarrassingly for Patrick: Not only did he thoroughly misrepresent what happened at that March 2012 hearing, but he has been -- for almost a decade now -- bitching about not having been served with a document that never existed, something he could have learned from a simple phone call years ago. My then-lawyer clarified this earlier this year, writing to me personally:

"The judge delivered his ruling orally from the bench and endorsed the record accordingly.  It was not a trial, of course.  It was an uncontested motion."

There is no "long form" judgment. There never was -- something Patrick never bothered figuring out for almost 10 years now, and something he could have learned with a single phone call or e-mail. And that is why Patrick should absolutely not be allowed to represent himself anymore. Because he is eye-rollingly, nad-grindingly incompetent and disgustingly dishonest, and Peter Skinner is more than welcome to add this example of Patrick's incompetence and dishonesty to his affidavit.

You're welcome.

IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING WHY, if the judge clearly did not believe Patrick's claim of never being served, she still ordered us to re-send the judgment (which you all now realize was just the endorsement), my then-counsel asked about that at the end, which precipitated this exchange:

In short, even though the judge was convinced Patrick had been served multiple times, given that Patrick was denying it in person, she was legally obligated to take his word for it; hence, the end result of, "Oh, just send it again so I can deem service adequate once and for all."

And now you know.

BONUS TRACK: I have, for Peter's benefit, sent him a copy of the entire transcript from that March 6, 2012 hearing. Since it is part of the public record, he is free to post it in its entirety if he wishes.

Gosh, Keean ... eliminationist rhetoric much?

From ex-Rebeler and white nationalist Keean Bexte, the headline could have read something like, "Member of PM Trudeau's security detail objects to vaccine mandate."

Instead, we get the truly creepy image of a man described as having "had enough" and aiming a military sniper rifle downrange suspiciously close to Trudeau's name:

Nothing overly threatening about that, I'm sure.

P.S. If, after all of this, Cpl. Daniel Bulford is still on Trudeau's security detail (or even still in the military), then new Defence Minister Anita Anand has really fucked up the very first thing on her TO DO list.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Motion Fitness edition.

Following up on my last post, given the evidence provided by various commenters, I am now comfortably certain that Lloydminster's Patrick "Mullet Man Kid Cash Super Duper Fucking Threat etc etc etc ..." Ross has a membership at Motion Fitness, given Patrick's penchant for bragging about his manly, pec-shredding workout routines, and the rather obvious photographic evidence:

And why does this matter? I'm glad you asked.

First, it's just another data point in tightening the noose around Patrick, for which every bit of information helps. Every single observation about where he is a member, or where he hangs out with any frequency, is being fed to the Saskatchewan sheriffs. But that's not the whole story. Not even close.

If Patrick is indeed a member of that gym, then he must be paying for it somehow, which is why, in the e-mail I have just drafted to the sheriffs, I am directing them to first verify Patrick's membership and, if verified, to request that Motion Fitness hand over the information on however Patrick is paying for that membership. Assuming that payment is via either a regular charge to Patrick's credit card, or a regular electronic withdrawal from Patrick's bank account, I will then have at least some of Patrick's banking info confirmed, whereupon the sheriffs will go after whatever account is attached to Patrick's membership. But we're not done here.

Once Patrick's membership is confirmed, I will insist that Motion Fitness cancel his membership, pursuant to my collection enforcement, as there is no way that Patrick should be paying for a gym membership when he owes me a ton of money:

But wait, there's more, and this is where it gets interesting.

It is entirely possible, given Patrick's current status as an undischarged bankrupt who should not have an unsecured credit card, that he is not paying for his gym membership himself; rather, it would not be surprising if his father, Ken, is covering that, and that would truly open a can of worms, because if I can show that Patrick's father is quietly covering any expenses related to Patrick, then I have standing to demand that his father turn over all of his finances and disclose in what other ways he's supporting Patrick financially. Quite simply, all it will take is a single example of Patrick being subsidized by his father to blow this wide open.

In case you cared.

P.S. It is amusing to observe that Patrick has posted nothing -- literally, nothing -- to his regular Twitter "OutLawTory" account for many days now. As I have explained before, this is Patrick's way of pretending that none of this is really happening, and also his way of establishing plausible deniability, in that when he eventually re-appears, he will insist he's been busy, and wasn't checking his account, and he had no idea that any of this was happening and, gosh, if only someone had told him.

Yeah, good luck with that.

P.P.S. Oh, one more thing. If it turns out that Patrick is paying for his gym membership via a regular e-withdrawal from his bank account, then the instant that's confirmed, I will be directing the sheriffs to freeze and seize that account, which means that not only will Patrick's gym membership die a gruesome death, but the same will happen to everything based on regular withdrawals from that same account. And who knows what else that might be?

Car payments? Car insurance? An online subscription to "Manly Mullet Monthly"? Oh, yes, if it turns out that Patrick's gym membership is locked to his bank account, I can assure you that everything locked to that account will be going bye-bye in short order.

In case you cared.

P.P.P.S. Patrick mocking someone else for "hiding" from a lawsuit is a tweet that did not age well:

$100 BOUNTY STILL UP FOR GRABS: As I announced previously, I will donate to the charity of one's choice $100 for the first person who provides me with verifiable information as to Patrick's current place of employment.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Mullety and the Bounty.

Sorry, I can never resist a good pun. In any event, just to re-up a bit of an earlier tweet, now that the Saskatchewan sheriffs have actually started working on my collection enforcement filing against Lloydminster's Patrick "Kid Cash Quintuple Threat etc etc etc ..." Ross, even though I've supplied them with a fair bit of Patrick's personal data (including his last known bank account and bank branch), it would be delightful to actually identify where he works these days.

It's common knowledge that Patrick is currently labouring manually and menially at some sort of outdoorsy forestry job in the vicinity of Grande Prairie, Alberta, and even though we might be able to get everything we need based on recent direct deposits to his bank account, I'm still offering to donate $100 to the charity of choice for anyone who can provide me with verifiable info related to Patrick's current employer.

And in case you're in the area of Grande Prairie and aren't sure who you should be looking for, I have stolen shamelessly the following screengrab from a Twitter account so you can recognize Patrick when you stumble upon him:

I have no idea what's up with Patrick going for the "Ted Lasso" look these days but, whatever. I suspect it wouldn't take long for SK sheriffs to track Patrick down based on his bank records, but the $100 bounty is still out there if you want to help out your favourite charity.

Good luck, and let's be careful out there.

P.S. As I have no Facebook account, I can't check in on Patrick's Facebook page, but rumour has it he's quite forthcoming there in terms of bragging about what he's doing, and where he eats and so on. So if anyone wants to check that out, well, there you go.

P.P.S. Oh, and in case you'd forgotten just what I will be extracting from Patrick, no matter how long it takes:

And that would be Patrick's debt to me that is now increasing by 5 per cent per year.

I hope he has a well-paying job. For purely selfish reasons, of course.

THE FIRST POSSIBLE LEAD: According to one commenter, there is persuasive evidence that Patrick works out at Motion Fitness Grande Prairie. I will be passing that tidbit on to the Saskatchewan sheriffs, for whom that should be easy to verify. And why does that matter?

Because if Patrick is currently paying for a gym membership, that is money that should be going to me, so I'm going to argue that his membership should be cancelled tout de suite.

And that is just the beginning. Keep those cards and letters coming in.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Padded resume edition.

Short update on the collection enforcement proceedings against Lloydminster's Patrick Ross -- SK sheriffs report that, based on what Patrick has or once had on his LinkedIn profile, they contacted a company named "DFI," who assured the sheriff they had never heard of him and had never had an employee by that name.

I'm sure you're shocked that Patrick seems to be fabricating his work history.

P.S. It would still be delightful if anyone could provide Patrick's current meatspace co-ordinates with respect to employment. To that end, you're more than welcome to put out an APB on Patrick from your favourite social media account. We do know that he is allegedly working in the vicinity of Grande Prairie, and frequents that town's higher-end fast food emporiums and bull-riding arenas. So keep your eyes open and keep me posted.

BOUNTY! As motivation for you folks to track down Lord Baron Twatrick, here's the deal -- I will donate $100 to the (CRA-registered) charity of choice of the first person who supplies verifiable information as to where Patrick is currently working. By "verifiable," I mean that Saskatchewan sheriffs can contact said employer and confirm his employment.

If you want to provide said info, for the sake of privacy, don't leave it as a comment; rather, e-mail it to me at "canadiancynic@yahoo.ca"; since all email is time-stamped, I will know who the winner is, and I'll verify the donation by posting a pic of the donation receipt.

Fair?

Chronicles of Twatrick: Collection enforcement just got real.

To my surprise, it appears that the Saskatchewan sheriffs have actually started work on my collection proceedings against Lloydminster's Patrick "Kid Cash Nexus Thunderbolt Quintuple Threat Dragon Fire Blar-Har-Har Cosplay Mullet Street Fighting Man" Ross. I had been under the impression that there was about a two-month backlog for this but, no, it seems they're now on to my file.

They've just started so there's no exciting news to report yet, but this is when I want to make sure The Man has all the information they could possibly use so you, humble reader, are invited to pass on any and all info you have as to Patrick's current location, employment status, eating habits and so on. I have already handed over to them Patrick's last known bank account number (at Synergy Credit Union in Lloydminster, in case Patrick reads this and thinks I'm bluffing), so it remains to be seen whether that will reveal other tidbits, like whether he's getting paid via direct deposit and who is doing the paying. (Hello, garnishment order!)

In any event, it appears that the legal has landed, and the timing is amusing, given that Peter "Rogue Nerd One" Skinner left a recent comment here, assuring us that he will be serving Patrick at his Lloydminster address on Monday to have Patrick's idiotic million dollar lawsuit tossed, and would it not be entertaining if that process server showed up at Casa Twatrick at the same time the Sheriffs popped by?

That would be the legacy of Patrick Ross: You actually have to take a number and stand in line to serve him.

CC HQ gets results!

Apparently, the Morlocks at Ezra Levant's Rebel News are keeping tabs on your humble scribe, and have been paying particular attention to my position that most of what they're up to does not even remotely fall under the umbrella of "strategic litigation," which it would have to in order to make all those donations tax-deductible through their shady partner organization, "The Democracy Fund."

That the hacks at Der Rebel are clearly feeling the heat over this topic can be seen by their sudden emphasis on, you know, strategic litigation, as seen in this recent ignorant swill horked up by in-house troll Sheila Gunn Reid:

Yes, it would seem that the good folks at Rebel News and The Democracy Fund are getting a bit nervous about whether their mandate for "strategic litigation" will stand up to CRA scrutiny, so they're going out of their way to keep using that phrase at every opportunity.

We'll see how that ends for them.

P.S. Once again, Rebel News' Sheila Gunn Reid doesn't have the foggiest idea what she's talking about. As I wrote previously, the primary distinguishing feature of strategic litigation is its focus on a very small number of allegedly representative cases (emphasis added):

Strategic litigation is the identification and pursuit of legal cases as part of a strategy to promote human rights. It focuses on an individual case in order to bring about broader social change.

In short, by insisting that Der Rebel is taking "20 strategic lawsuits," Gunn Reid is merely proving, yet again, that she is just as monumentally fucking stupid as ever.

I'm sure you're shocked.

The perfect storm of yammering douchebagitude.

True North's Andrew Lawton opining on whatever the fuck Jason Kenney is blabbering about:

And perhaps Jason Kenney's first priority should be to not murder any more Albertans, right, Andrew?

I'm glad we had this little chat.

EPIC IRONY FAIL: It's amusing to watch Jason Kenney yet again blame someone else, as if Alberta's employment situation is the fault of Calgary's new mayor. Apparently, Kenney has forgotten that he is the fucking premier of that oil-soaked province, and that maybe - just maybe - it's his job to fix shit.

But it's someone else's fault. It always is.

P.S. It might be fun to put together a list of everyone Jason Kenney holds responsible for Alberta's current fiscal situation (other than himself, of course). Here's a start:

• Liberals
• The federal equalization formula
• Foreign-funded environmentalists
• Joe Biden
• The Saudis
• COVID-19

I'm sure the list goes on.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Plausible deniability and imminent collection edition.

A couple things. First, it would appear that Lloydminster's Patrick "Nexus of Assholery High Noon Bad Company Author Actor Director Quintuple Threat The Whole Fucking Deal Kid Cash Thunderbolt $21 Burger Super Mullet Street Fighting Man" Ross has gone quiet on his Twitter "OutlawTory" account. Commenter "RogueNerdOne" -- in reality one Peter Skinner who Patrick recently (and rather unwisely) sued for defamation despite Patrick being an undischarged bankrupt who has no right to initiate legal actions -- opined that this is because Patrick was being mocked so roundly on that account that he bailed to lick his wounds.

No, that's not it.

I can assure you from personal experience that whenever Patrick disappears from view, it's because he later wants to be able to claim that he was unaware of something. In this case, since numerous of Patrick's mortal enemies were pointing out to him his lack of standing to sue anyone, if he responded to such jibes, those responses could be used in court to prove that Patrick was aware of his transgressions, whereupon it would go very badly for him indeed. Hence, Patrick's vanishing act, so he could come back later, whining, "What? Gosh, I had no idea, if only someone had told me!"

That this is what is happening is obvious from Patrick's redoubled efforts to be a total douchebag on his other Twitter account, "dragonfireideas", which means that if you want to get his attention, you should tag him there until he realizes the futility of his dodging and weaving, and returns to his primary account, knowing that the game is up.

And speaking of the game being up, it is distinctly possible that collection efforts against Lord Baron Twatrick von Loadenhosen might commence far earlier than I thought. The original estimate was that it would take SK sheriffs a couple months to get down to our recent filing. However, because we previously filed a collection order for a few thousand in cost awards against Patrick, my coruscating SK lawyer is checking if we can simply piggyback our more recent filing on top of the earlier one. After all, since the only difference between the two filings is the amount, it would seem to make sense to enforce the two simultaneously, so we'll find out shortly if they're willing to do that. If so, enforcement could begin literally any day now, with hilarious consequences.

I don't know how the collection enforcement process works, but I don't think The Man has any obligation to notify Patrick when it starts. Patrick has already been served with our filings, so he knows collection is coming. Beyond that, I don't think the sheriffs have any responsibility to give Patrick a heads-up before freezing and emptying his bank accounts, whereupon Patrick might learn of this only when he tries to pay the bill for another $21 "Better than Fred"s house burger in Grande Prairie and finds his debit card de-activated.

I just thought some of you might want to know all this.

P.S. As we've discussed here on previous occasions, there are actually some benefits to the collection process not starting for a couple months.

First, now that the interest rate on the outstanding amount is increasing at 5 per cent as opposed to the earlier 2 per cent, Patrick's $100K+ debt to me can now be viewed as a moderately good investment. Assuming that I eventually squeeze out of Patrick every dollar he owes me, the fact that what he owes me is going up over $5,000 a year is better than what I'd get from any normal savings account.

On top of that, as long as Patrick keeps working at his Northern Alberta contract, he is building up a history of both income and expenses, all of which he will be required to turn over once collection starts, whereupon I will see not only what money is coming in, but where it's all going (besides $21 house burgers in Grange Prairie).

Finally, given Patrick's history, it's safe to assume that he will be as unforthcoming as possible, meaning that once he refuses to reveal his financial situation, this will escalate to the SK Sheriffs Voluntary Questionnaire and, after Patrick refuses to co-operate, to the SK Sheriffs Mandatory Questionnaire, which will require Patrick to attend in person to answer any and all questions under oath which, given Patrick's contempt of the legal process and his unswerving belief that he knows all the legal loopholes available to him, opens up the distinct possibility of perjury and criminal charges.

Did I mention that Patrick had the chance to get out of all of this years ago with just an apology and paying my at-the-time legal fees of less than $10,000? Yeah, I think I mentioned that.

The road not taken.

PM Justin Trudeau might want to have a chat with his personal protection.

While popping in on ex-Rebeler and white nationalist memorabilia expert Keean "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" Bexte is normally moderately amusing, this is not ... it's downright frightening:

As if it's not creepy enough that Trudeau's security detail is openly complaining about him to members of the public, Bexte launches into sordid detail:

So, just to be clear, if what Bexte writes above is to be believed, what we have here are the people explicitly tasked with protecting the Prime Minister of Canada, palling around with a known white nationalist and regaling him with how much they dislike the guy whose safety is their only job.

If this is not a firing offense for "Cpl. Bulford," then, fuck, nothing is.

YUP, IT'S FOR REAL: Here's the Prime Minister of Canada's personal sniper bodyguard, publicly telling a known white nationalist how much he despises his boss:

Nothing threatening about that, I'm sure.

P.S. If Cpl. Bulford is still employed by the Government of Canada at the end of the day, that is just fucked up beyond words.

P.P.S. New Canadian Defence Minister Anita Anand's first task should be to tell Cpl. Bulford that he has 15 minutes to pack up his desk, after which he will be escorted to the door to make sure he leaves the building and the property.

JUXTAPOSE!

GOP: "I don't trust Big Government; I trust the American people."

Also GOP: Gerrymanders the fuck out of every voting precinct in the United States to thwart the actual will of the voters.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Still making friends edition.

 

Rebel News: Profiting off other peoples' misery edition.

Just when you think Ezra Levant and his merry band of professional grifters at Rebel News could not possibly sink any lower, they still manage to surprise. Here's predictably talentless hack Alexandra Lavoie, shamelessly milking someone else's misfortune for Rebel self-promotion:

The sleazy self-promotion involved here is a Rebel News petition to "SAVE JOANIE!!!", which Rebel will (if history is any guide) monetize by using all the names collected for subsequent sales pitches, and promotions, and rental to interested parties. What else is new? But here's the twist.

The affiliated Rebel YouTube video has attracted numerous commenters, who are yanking their little puds in outrage over this apparent medical malpractice, shrieking idiocies like "Those doctors should be fired!", or "Their medical licenses should be revoked!", or "They're breaking their oaths!!!" and other ignorant imbecility, apparently unaware that it has always been thus -- when medical services are in short supply (as they are now), it is the responsibility of the medical profession to prioritize delivery, and it's not at all surprising that someone too fucking stupid or irresponsible to look after her own health is going to end up down the list as compared to someone who does not want to be a virus-spewing plague rat, infecting everyone around her in a hospital full of other vulnerable people. But here's the best part.

It behooves us to ask, why is it that beds for non-COVID-19 patients like those waiting for lung transplants are in such short supply that they have to be rationed? Who is forcing health care providers into having to make these life-altering choices?

Ezra Levant and Rebel News. That's who.

There is a certain irony in having watched Ezra and his bottom-dwelling Morlocks at Der Rebel, for all these months, encouraging the public to refuse masks, and reject vaccines, and gather in large groups to the point where the health care systems in numerous provinces were utterly overwhelmed and doctors had to decide who got surgery and who didn't, only to now sob inconsolably over the plight of the very people who are, quite simply, suffering the unfortunate consequences of taking Rebel's really, really, really bad advice. And for Ezra and Rebel to now monetize these peoples' misfortune is truly the icing on the grift-based cake.

Ah, well, it is as a wise man once opined:

Well said, Ezra. Well said.

Well, well, well ... if it isn't the consequences of my actions.

Oh, dear:

Rebel News fundraiser to launch Charter challenge in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Chronicles of Twatrick: Garnishment edition, and fun with math.

It is unlikely that there will be any exciting, breaking news related to Lloydminster's Patrick "Writer Actor Director Author The Whole Fucking Threat" Ross for the next month or two as the Saskatchewan Sheriffs work their way down to our filing in their INBOX, but it behooves us to do the math to see what will happen when my inevitable garnishment order kicks in.

From the current version of Saskatchewan's "Enforcement of Money Judgments Regulations," we can see the effect of garnishment on Patrick's typically meagre income from the string of menial jobs he's had:

So what does this mean in terms of the effect it will have on Lord Baron Twatrick? Well, let's run the numbers.

What is "exempt from seizure" is simply the amount per month that Patrick will be allowed to keep, the rest going to his primary (and only) creditor: me. And how much will be that be?

First, note that there are two alternatives, the exemption amount being the greater of the two choices above, that greater amount being $1,500 when one's income is low. What this means is that no matter how destitute you are and how little you bring home, you get to keep that first $1,500. So if Patrick nets $1,500 or less per month, he gets to keep it all. Every penny. And while that might seem cause for celebration on Patrick's part, it has one ugly consequence: He will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever get out of bankruptcy.

Ever.

If Patrick makes so little every month that his entire take-home pay is exempt from seizure, then he is paying off precisely none of what he owes me, an amount that is now increasing due to accruing interest at just under $500/month. So that's not good for Patrick. But let us continue.

If we imagine Patrick nets, say, $1,600 per month, what happens? Simple: He still gets to keep his $1,500 per month, but must now turn over the surplus $100 to me. Every month. And once again, while Patrick might crow about how this is screwing me over, we once again note that, under this repayment scheme, he will be an undischarged bankrupt for the rest of his life.

$2,000 per month? Easy -- Patrick keeps his $1,500 and I get the remaining $500. And Patrick is barely covering the interest on his debt to me and, again, lifetime undischarged bankrupt. This is not looking good for Lord Baron Twatrick von Loadenhosen, is it? So how does Patrick get out of this?

Well, if you check the formulae above, there is a tipping point where Patrick gets to keep more than $1,500 per month, and that is when 70 per cent of his take-home pay exceeds $1,500, and that happens with a net monthly income of $2,143.00; with that monthly net, Patrick still keeps his $1,500, while I get the remaining $643, and it is at that point where any further monthly income on Patrick's part means he can finally keep a little bit more.

For example, say Patrick (through some miraculous fluke of the universe) finds work where his monthly net is $2,500. At that amount (again, at any amount over $2,143.00), formula a) above is used, which means that Patrick gets to keep 70 per cent of that -- $1,750 -- while I get the remaining $750.

$3,000? Patrick gets to keep $2,100, and I get the surplus $900. And so on, and so on, and so on. So if Patrick nets more, he gets to keep more, while I of course will always get to seize more. But the ugly downside for Patrick here is always waiting in the wings: what he owes me is relentlessly increasing by almost $500 per month, so even if I am collecting from him, unless he gets a spectacularly well-paying gig somewhere, he is barely covering that accruing interest. Oh, and it is worth pointing out that what Patrick is allowed to keep per month covers all possible sources of income for him combined, so there are no loopholes there. Getting multiple jobs will make no difference.

Finally, it's worth mentioning what happens if Patrick has a sudden property-related windfall, such as inherited house or farmland; as you might guess, there is zero chance Patrick would be allowed to keep that.

In the end, given all of the above and Patrick's history of unskilled, low-wage employment, it's almost a certainty that Patrick will be allowed to hang onto $2,000, maybe a bit more per month, depending on how lucky he is in convincing someone to pay him a decent salary. But that means that he will never, ever, ever, ever have any nice stuff. No nice new car, no house of his own ... nothing. At best, Patrick might be able to find a crappy one-bedroom apartment and continue driving his Ford Escape from one menial Northern Alberta contract to the next, all the while watching his employer send a sizable chunk of his paycheque to me month after month, for years to come.

Have I missed anything?

P.S. I have been reliably informed that the automatic $1,500 per month that is exempt from seizure is based on the (reasonable) assumption that a debtor needs a minimal net income to simply survive, which might constitute paying for rent, utilities, food, vehicle upkeep and so on. But I have also been informed that, in unusual circumstances, it is possible to petition the court to lower that exemption if it can be shown that a debtor does not have those typical expenses. That is, by arguing that Patrick lives at home and contributes nothing to household expenses, the Court can be convinced to let him keep only, say, $500 per month. (And handing to the Court photographic evidence of his eating habits showing a regular diet of $21 restaurant burgers is not going to help his case.)

It's an interesting possibility and I'll keep it in mind, but I'm not going to obsess over it.

Rebel News: Small business' kiss of death.

Hey, kids, let's check in on the most recent small business that Rebel News crippled financially while raking in truckloads of donations, not a dime of which will go to said business:

So, just to be clear, after Rebel News hoovered up God-knows-how-many tens of thousands of dollars, encouraging Chris Scott to continue breaking the law and collect fine after fine, the end result is as you see -- three days in jail for Scott, 18 months probation, and tens of thousands in fines and costs, absolutely none of which will be covered by Ezra or Rebel News.

None.

Because that's how Rebel's "Fight the Fines" campaign works -- you get legal representation for free, but you are on the hook for everything else. So one can easily imagine that, if Rebel raised, say, $100,000 to represent Chris Scott, the end result is that Rebel and its lawyers got to keep the entire kitty, while Chris Scott got shafted with probation, jail time, fines and costs, all of which are his to deal with. But it gets worse.

Apparently, Scott is so indescribably addled that he's preparing to bury himself even further:

And, yes, Rebel News is fundraising off of this. Because, you know, money.

BONUS TRACK: It's worth appreciating how many millions of dollars have been sucked up by Rebel's "Fight the Fines" campaign, with so depressingly little to show for it.

As I am on Rebel's mailing list, I get regular self-congratulations from Rebel's in-house troll Sheila Gunn Reid, squealing with glee over the most recent "victory," wherein some Rebel-subsidized lawyer managed to get some piddling, dick-ass fine overturned. If you close your eyes, you can almost hear Sheila's nails-on-chalkboard screeching about the magnificent win of paying one of Rebel's lawyers $7,600 but, by God, they sure got Karen's $350 fine for not wearing a mask in the Dollar Store tossed, so all you generous donors are making a difference!!

(Pay no attention to the fact that most of these insignificant cases had a good chance of being overturned already, simply by having the defendant express remorse in front of a judge, or explain possibly extenuating circumstances, all without the need for a $750/hour lawyer.)

But once one stops obsessing over these trivial cases, one is suddenly forced to confront the fact that -- to the best of my knowledge -- Rebel has not won a single of their high-profile, flagship cases.

Not one.

Rather, their perpetually-flogged cases involving Pastor Art, or the Whistle Stop Cafe, or the other restaurants I wrote about earlier, have not ended with a single victory. Instead, the end result is always the same -- defendants who find themselves saddled with fines, costs, jail time and maybe the loss of their business -- while Rebel's lawyers are off doing the backstroke:

It's truly head-scratching to estimate how much money has been poured into this campaign, when the only people ending up with all that money are the people working for/with Rebel News.

I doubt I could come up with a more magnificently brilliant (while still totally legal) grift if I tried.

CC HQ READER CHALLENGE: If anyone wants to provide a link to a single high-level "Fight the Fines" victory, I will be happy to post it here. And by "high-level," I mean a widely-promoted case with actual strategic litigation value, and not the insignificant "Our brilliant lawyer, Chad Williamson, got Martha's $750 fine thrown out, whoo hoo!!" idiocy we are all so used to.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The babysitting.

If Lloydminster's Patrick Ross thinks he's going through a rough patch in his life right about now, it is entirely possible that it is about to get a bit worse.

As regular readers of this forum will know, with Patrick having been kicked out of bankruptcy due to ongoing, relentless non-compliance with the basic requirements of bankruptcy, he now owes me the full amount of my original 2010 judgment against him for malicious defamation, plus some significant interest that's been accruing over the years (originally two per cent, now five per cent). But that's not the whole story. Oh, no, there's more.

While I have been glibly using the phrase "kicked out of bankruptcy" to describe Patrick's current unenviable status, that's not really accurate; it is more accurate to say that Patrick is, in fact, still in bankruptcy, but that the stay of proceedings that protected him for years from any attempt at collection on my part has been lifted by the Court, thus allowing me to proceed with extracting assets from whatever orifice of Patrick's is available. So let me clarify what that means.

What it means is that, at the moment, Patrick lives in the worst of all possible universes -- he is still an undischarged bankrupt, while having none of the protections of bankruptcy. Put another way, he has all the drawbacks of bankruptcy, with absolutely none of the benefits. And why does this matter? I'm glad you asked.

It would seem that, even as I am now free to start collecting what Patrick owes me, since Patrick is still a bankrupt (with no foreseeable way out other than paying me the full amount that he owes me), Patrick should still be subject to the standard restrictions of bankruptcy, such as not being allowed to have an unsecured credit card, not being able to apply for a bank loan and, most importantly, being legally required to report his status as an undischarged bankrupt when doing things like -- oh, I don't know -- filing a one million dollar defamation action against someone.

So while I'm more concerned with enforcing the collection order I have just filed with the Saskatchewan sheriffs, it seems that it's still worth confirming that Patrick is not violating the terms of his bankruptcy. But it also seems that I am not the one who needs to be babysitting him to see that that's done.

No, it seems to me that, since Patrick is still officially a bankrupt, then it is bankruptcy court that should be monitoring him. That is, even though he is no longer protected by that stay of proceedings, Patrick still technically belongs to bankruptcy court, and I would suggest that it is that court that should be riding herd on him, and smacking his fingers whenever he breaks the rules.

To that end, I will arrange this week to check in with the court and remind them that, as long as Patrick is an undischarged bankrupt, he is still their problem, and it is their job to deal with his conduct under the bankruptcy regime, not mine. Put another way, while I start stripping Patrick of all his assets now and for the foreseeable future from one side, I will make sure bankruptcy court is riding his ass from the other side (something that should not be done at my expense).

In the end, it's entirely possible that Patrick should start getting a whole new set of services, these from the court enforcing the very restrictions and conditions of the bankruptcy that is now doing Patrick no good whatsoever.

I could suggest that it could get even worse for Patrick but, honestly, I have no idea how.

P.S. Tune in next week when I assure you that there is no way Patrick is ever going to inherit the family home he is currently squatting in.

The dumbfuck stupid ... it burns ...

Uh huh ...

And by "visited Delaware," McDaniel means "went home for the weekend." To Delaware. Where he lives.

This is the level of GOP assholishness up with which we have to put.

JUXTAPOSE!

Rebel News' Ezra Levant, regarding Dr. Jill Biden and her doctorate in education:

Rebel News' Ezra Levant, regarding right-wing dingbat and Rebel News favourite Dr. Leslyn Lewis, with her doctorate in international law:

See how that works?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Awesome ... first commenter points out that while taking a steaming dump on Dr. Jill Biden's doctorate, Ezra Levant happily uses the same title to dignify one of the intellectual cripples at his next Ezrafest, "Dr. Julie Ponesse":

and does the same for blithering crackpot Charles McVety:

Well spotted, commenter. Well spotted.

JUXTAPOSE!

Rebel News: "Professional athletes should just shut up and dribble."

Also Rebel News: "Professional athletes need to be heard."

Pick a lane, kids.

Jesus. Freaking. God.

 

I'm guessing Ezra invited Glenn Beck because Rudy Giuliani and Alex Jones were unavailable.

Rebel News: The small business kiss of death.

Ezra Levant's Rebel News encourages Hamilton's "Nique" restaurant to flout COVID-19 lockdown regulations, publicizes the flouting and fundraises off of it. Result: Nique is closed down and is now for sale, while Rebel keeps all the money.

Ezra Levant's Rebel News encourages Calgary's "Without Papers Pizza" restaurant to flout COVID-19 lockdown regulations, publicizes the flouting and fundraises off of it: Result: Without Papers Pizza is closed down, while Rebel keeps all the money.

Ezra Levant's Rebel News encourages Calgary's "Outlaws Taphouse and Bar" restaurant to flout COVID-19 lockdown regulations, publicizes the flouting and fundraises off of it: Result: Outlaws Taphouse and Bar is closed down, while Rebel keeps all the money.

Johnny, who's our next idiot ^H^H^H^H^H contestant?

Let's watch.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The lawyerizing.

I just can't ...

Rebel News gets results!

 Wheeeeeeeee!

So, if I read the timeline correctly:

1. Rebel News encourages Without Papers Pizza (WPP) to break the law so Rebel can fundraise
2. WPP breaks the law and gets fined
3. Rebel News celebrates convincing WPP to break the law and get fined, and fundraises $3.62 million to "Fight the Fines"
4. WPP, after stupidly being convinced to break the law, goes under
5. Rebel News pays none of the fines
6. Rebel News keeps all the money

Does that sound about right?

A short fiction story.

It is the year 15,846,226,092 AD. The Sun is a dead, burnt-out cinder, floating uselessly in space. What little remains of humanity has burrowed deep into the Earth for whatever residual heat they can get from the dying core of the planet. And somewhere, in a grotto miles underground, a resolute group of humans sits around a struggling fire in total silence, until one of them raises his head slowly, stares balefully at the others, and mutters, "Sure, it's taking a while, but Merrick Garland is going after Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress. Just you watch."

Keean Bexte is the David Menzies of Sheila Gunn Reids.

Learned well from his former master at Rebel News, he has, in terms of flat-out, straight-up lying about shit. Here's Keean "Tomorrow Belongs To Me" Bexte, claiming BIILLLLYYYUNS ...

And then there's reality:

I'm glad we had this little chat.

REGARDING LEARNING FROM HIS YODA, white nationalist and fake journalist Keean Bexte is quietly doing exactly what he learned from his stint over at Rebel News. While putting on airs of being a media outlet, over at "The Counter Signal", it's all about the clicks and pure monetization, almost certainly for the purpose of creating a rentable mailing list.

If you examine any article at that site, each one typically has numerous hyperlinks, ostensibly to substantiate claims being made in the article. But if you look closer, every one of those links is nothing more than a link back to that site which is collecting tracking information about you. Every link. Without exception.

As one example, in the article screen-shotted above, you would think that that link named "Allan Report" would take you to a copy of, you know, the actual report, stored perhaps at Google Docs or reported at CBC News. Here's the underlying hyperlink:

https://thecountersignal.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e13267a26ec46fed6cd883ea1&id=3bd372173e&e=447891c09e

Bexte's alleged media outlet has nothing to do with news, and everything to do with collecting your personal information in order to sell it down the line.

But you knew that, right?

Chronicles of Twatrick: The bloatening.

For someone who is about to have $104,000 (plus numerous unpaid cost awards dating back to 2012) extracted forcibly from various bodily orifices by the collections enforcement arm of the Saskatchewan sheriffs:

it is passing strange that Lloydminster's Patrick "Lord Baron Twatrick von Loadenhosen Quintuple Threat Kid Cash Thunderbolt Sexy Mullet Street Fighting Man" Ross might be a bit more circumspect regarding his bragging about a regular Grande Prairie diet of twenty-one dollar burgers:

And, yes ... all this is being added to the collections package for the Sheriffs.