[Patrick's] been informed by text, email, and registered mail he has documents waiting for pickup.I have a feeling he's lost interest in this venture, or he's trying to feign ignorance. He won't be able to do that however because I personally texted him staying it was available for pickup, he thanked me, and then said not to contact him on his number. Right after saying that, he texts telling me to tell RoD to unveil who they are and negotiate a settlement. Why would anyone do that?
So even though Patrick still has a pinned tweet bragging about filing and serving this action here, he just -- and make sure you appreciate the stupidity of this -- directly and explicitly informed Peter Skinner that he does not want to be contacted and informed about attempts at legal service.
Pause for a moment and let that sink in ... while openly bragging, via a pinned tweet, that he filed and served a lawsuit, Patrick has now -- on the record -- explicitly instructed the target of his action to not contact him regarding his attempts to serve him back.
I only wish I could be in the courtroom when this is explained to the judge. I'm sure the reaction would be epic. If there was ever an argument for full solicitor and client costs, this is it.
P.S. I am merely speculating but, based on Patrick's extremely well-documented history of playing games with service, and the incontrovertible evidence that he is doing the same thing here, the most likely outcome I can see is that not only will his lawsuit be kicked savagely and brutally to the curb, but Peter will get full costs and Patrick will be deemed a "vexatious litigant" by the Court.
In any event, there is absolutely no question that Patrick's status as an undischarged bankrupt without a trustee is now on record, and he will not be allowed to file any further actions against anyone for any reason.
That, at least, is progress.
8 comments:
Patrick really is not very smart, is he?
The appropriate answer to a direct contact telling you papers exist and where they are is "Oh, okay, thank you". Not "Don't contact me on this number". That kind of game playing is all but guaranteed to result in an unimpressed judge.
This could be an argument as to why a $300 - $500 deposit should be required to file an action. Of course, the system would be more lenient towards lower income people with zero legal histories.
Patrick is acting ridiculous here. I don't think it will end well for him.
https://twitter.com/DragonFireIdeas/status/1464037775259308034?t=XsXmIaVrOQYrMlAxafS1xw&s=19
Interesting strategy to purport this to be part of Peter Skinner's defense when, according to the Canada Post tracker that Peter posted on his Twitter, it's still showing as "Available for Pickup until Thurs Dec 2".
You'll notice his tone has changed from "I didn't do this" to "Peter should be thankful because he got a coupon in the email".
The issue is I didn't solicit the coupon. I didn't add my name and email address to a third party's internal and potentially sold database. Patrick also thinks that identity fraud is about actually obtaining something from it. That's not true. It's the moment a third party enters/uses another person's material identification in an effort misdirect another party. I've never given Patrick Ross permission to enter my details into any online form, regardless if I got a coupon, nothing, or a billion dollars. No one is authorized to use my identity, just like I'm sure no one here's allowed it with theirs unless it's for marketing purposes.
That's just a little window into how misguided Patrick is right now. I can show Patrick's done this in the past, where he even bragged about it online to speak to how effective he was.
Patrick's a child playing games. That's all this is.
RNO: There is no point trying to engage with Patrick on this point, as he tried the same stupidity with me once. After Ezra Levant registered four domain names that matched both my CC handle and my real name (without my knowledge or permission), I suggested he (Ezra) had committed identity fraud.
Patrick immediately blar-har-har'ed that Ezra had in no way committed identity *theft*, despite my having carefully explained the difference between the two according to the criminal code.
Patrick is simply too fucking stupid for words, and all of this is going to end very badly for him.
CC:
I would go on about certain actions I'm about to take, but Patrick reads this blog and I'm not going to help in this case. He's wrong about literally everything he *thinks* is legal, and absolutely wrong in his tactics.
What he's trying to do is fish for more data on what I have. Wouldn't it be grand if right after I get my dismissal on the grounds he's an undischarged bankrupt, he turns and a process server hands him my counter suit, that he can't defend against? I have months of tweets from him where he libels me, and I mean MONTHS of it.
Remember calling me a defendant without so much as a Notice of Libel being sent (and still hasn't sent one)? Imagine if I wanted to be a total asshole and dropped that on him..
DO IT!!!
Anonymous @ 5PM:
"This could be an argument as to why a $300 - $500 deposit should be required to file an action."
This kind of requirement sounds good on the surface, but what it in fact does is create yet another barrier to accessing justice at all. The complexity of the legal system as it is already renders it a "pay to play" system as it is, and we woefully underfund the programs that are intended to ensure that those who cannot afford lawyers can still access it.
While we're on this hobby horse, allow me to introduce you to Alberta's new "Administrative Penalties" regime:
1) If you are issued a ticket by a peace officer, you have exactly 1 week to decide if you're going to contest it. (how quickly can you consult with counsel?)
2) If you do file to have it reviewed, you must pay the ticket at the time of filing, as well as an additional fee for the review.
... doesn't sound too bad, does it? Except if you're living on a paycheck to paycheck job and don't have an extra couple of hundred to burn each month.
But it gets worse:
3) Your ticket isn't reviewed in the courts. It's reviewed by a tribunal - likely populated by ex-cops. (no apprehension of bias there, right?)
4) The Tribunal gets to set its own rules of evidence, and can tell you what you are, or are not, allowed to submit as evidence. ( Oh, you have a dash cam that disproves what the ticket says? Nah - we're not going to accept that )
5) The peace officers notes are considered "sworn testimony" - automatically
6) The decision of the tribunal is final - you cannot appeal it into the courts.
... this is what "pay to play" turns into very quickly ... and just for giggles, the way the law is written, it applies to _ANY_ offence that can generate a fine. Not just traffic offences.
... so, while Patrick Ross is acting like a complete numpty right now, and there is more than good reason that he should be kicked to the curb, the existing vexatious litigant mechanism makes more sense to me.
Post a Comment