Chronicles of Twatrick: The stupiding.

Oh, *sigh* ... apparently, Lloydminster's Patrick "Lord Baron Twatrick von Loadenhosen" Ross is lashing out again, playing boy lawyer with yet another self-penned legal diatribe:

Not having read it, I will simply assume it is of the same quality as his last legal submission, which was disemboweled by the judge as ...

But that's not why we're here. No, the deliciousness in Patrick's more recent online bloviating lies in this tweet:

See, here's the thing -- if you're currently pleading penury to try to avoid paying a $100K+ judgment for malicious defamation, it is really, really, really stupid to go on social media and subsequently brag about your "new career."

I'm just saying, that was truly fucking stupid on Patrick's part.

But I suspect you knew that.

P.S. Since Patrick will absolutely need to prove that he suffered actual damages in this action, he will be required to turn over information such as his current and previous employers, along with financial history, to establish the size of those damages. And I can assure you, as soon as that information is entered into the record as part of the above proceedings, I will know where to send the garnishment order.

Patrick is making my life extraordinarily easy. I should send him a fruit basket.

BONUS TRACK: Currently, Patrick is defending the legitimacy of this idiotic action by insisting that the legislation does, in fact, give undischarged bankrupts the freedom to initiate legal proceedings in certain circumstances, this being one of them. Technically, he is correct but, as always, he adopts the most exquisitely-tortured interpretation of what he is reading.

While bankrupts, in some cases, have the right to sue under their own name (that is, without needing the permission of their bankruptcy trustee), the understanding is that that's allowed as long as the bankrupt has been honouring their obligations under the bankruptcy regime, have been keeping up payments, are not in arrears, and launching such an action will not interfere with their ability to continue to do so.

Oh, dear. I think you see Patrick's problem.

When trying to convince the court that he should be allowed to pursue this action, Patrick will be required to admit that his trustee discharged himself from Patrick's case years ago due to Patrick's relentless non-compliance, that he (Patrick) is years behind on payments, and that -- most recently -- Patrick was kicked out of bankruptcy protection due to non-payment and now owes me the entire amount of the original 2010 judgment against him (plus significant outstanding interest and never-paid cost awards).

As someone who has had to deal with Patrick's delusional opinion of his own legal expertise all these years, I think I'm safe in assuming that this will not end well for Patrick.

But that's just a guess.

MORE BONUS: I've just chatted with a friend who has some expertise in this area, and he assures me that what I've written above is substantially accurate. Simply put, while the law technically gives Patrick the right to initiate a legal action under his own name in a restricted number of areas, there is effectively zero chance that any judge would allow it given Patrick's well-established history of evasion, contempt of court convictions, non-payment, and his crushing debt load to me.

Apparently, Patrick's only way around this would be to either pay off what he owes me in full (effectively cancelling his bankruptcy, at which point he's free to do whatever he wants), or to come to some sort of settlement agreement with me (which he has made clear is never, ever going to happen).

Short of either of those two things happening, I am assured that any sane judge will look at Patrick's application, and bellow, "So you have $25,000 to retain a lawyer for this, while arguing that you don't have the money to pay your creditor!?!? I don't fucking think so, dude."

In fact, the most likely scenario will be that Patrick's meritless application will be kicked savagely to the curb, and costs will be awarded against him.

I'm sure absolutely none of this surprises you anymore.

ONE MORE THING: While Patrick loves to think he's capable of representing himself in all of this, I think it's fair to say that he's really, really bad at this. Simply put, he has dug such a hole for himself that there is no conceivable way he can even begin to put together a minimally arguable case without truly competent counsel, and I am assured that said competent counsel would require a substantial retainer. And therein lies Patrick's problem.

The instant I learn of such retained counsel (and, trust me, I would learn of it in very short order), I would simply add to the collection enforcement file against Patrick the name of said counsel, for the purposes of seizing that retainer payment as part of the collection process. What this means is that any potential counsel, in addition to demanding a substantial retainer from Patrick, would probably be put off knowing that they would immediately be served with a collection order trying to reclaim that money.

I'm guessing that any lawyer, upon learning of that wrinkle, would most likely conclude that getting into this particular cesspool with Patrick just isn't worth the trouble.

But that's just a guess.