Yes, feel free to lecture us on hiding from libel suits.
The mind reels. Seriously, it reels.
P.S. At the moment, Lloydminster's Lord Baron Twatrick von Loadenhosen appears to be lashing out, threatening to sue various people for ... who the hell knows? But in his arrogant bloviating, he seems to have crossed yet another line in terms of online defamation.
Witness this recent tweet:
Now, while Patrick has apparently given a number of people a deadline, after which he claims he will launch legal action, he is currently referring to these people as some variant of "defendant." I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that, unless you have actually been officially served, describing you as a "defendant" is massively defamatory. I can assure you that if I had never been legally served in any way, anyone who publicly denigrated me as a "defendant" would be hearing from my lawyer in short order.
But that's just me.
5 comments:
You've been destroying Twatrick in legal proceedings for a decade. Before you and the Saskatchewan sheriffs deliver the coup de grâce to Twatsy, he wants to cosplay as a plaintiff in a defamation suit for a change.
This website is very informative:
Did the plaintiff bring the action while an undischarged bankrupt? If so, they do not have the right to pursue an action in their own name. This power is vested with the Trustee.
https://lakefieldlaw.ca/news-articles/are-you-being-sued-by-a-bankrupt-plaintiff-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
Is there a Trustee in Canada who would give Twatrick permission to do ANYTHING?!!?
Mr. Ross seems to be under the impression that a Cease and Desist letter has actual weight behind it.
Usually they are written in the form of "Please stop doing X, or I will have to sue you". The weight is most definitely not the letter itself, but the threat of a subsequent lawsuit if the recipients don't stop whatever is the subject of the letter.
I hope he's prepared to lawyer up ... but I don't think there's a lawyer out there who would be willing to take him on (at least not without having their fees paid in advance).
Has anyone actually read his c&d letter he posted. No one in their right mind would agree to him terms, and some of his terms he had no legal right to ask for.
Digital monitoring every 90 days by a firm of his choosing for 5 years at my expense? Huge breach of privacy rights, when I can prove he's used fake accounts in the past to harass me and others. Also it's funny he wants me to settle his previous lawsuit that died a horrible death because I absolutely refused to participate in mediation, to the tune of $100,000. Odd, isn't that close to what he owes Robert?
He's at the end of his rope and hoping he can get some schmuck to handle over money. How can a man who literally has no net worth, has barely worked over the past decade, prove damages? He can't. He _really_ should go talk to a lawyer before he gets embarrassed once again in the legal system.
I'm going to write something about this for tomorrow, but if Patrick hired a lawyer for *any* action against *anyone*, I would file a motion and insist on his disclosing where he is getting funds for frivolous and idiotic actions when he owes me in the neighbourhood of $120,000.
Post a Comment