Jesus Christ ... it is truly difficult to believe how someone can have buried himself this deeply, yet insist on continuing to dig. Here's Lloydminster's Patrick Ross, whose idea of legal rigour is to throw around three-dollar words like "extraordinary" and "substantive" and "fruition" and "nullity":
Remember, kids, this is the same guy who showed up in court all those years ago and embarrassed himself in every possible way. And it is the same guy who, even after years of representing himself, submitted just this year an affidavit that was such indescribable rubbish that the judge dismissed it as "baseless and scandalous":
and awarded me enhanced costs of $3,000 because of that.
But, sure, Patrick is convinced of the merits of his million dollar action against Peter Skinner because of the obviously extraordinary imminence of his substantive fruition, or something. I can assure Patrick that, in the midst of all his bloviating, he is overlooking a critically important fact, but I'm not going to tell him what it is; rather, I'm going to let him find out the hard way.
There is some entertainment value in thinking that Patrick, knowing just how much legal trouble he is in in his home province of Saskatchewan (where my judgment is now registered) probably figured getting a job in Alberta might save him (jurisdiction-wise), only for him to stupidly pick a fight with someone in (you guessed it) Alberta. That is some truly burning stupid.
And I would be most remiss in not pointing out what Patrick thinks is an appropriate analogy for all of this:
I would point out to Patrick that "the MMA community" does not typically extend to those who simply watch it on pay-per-view in their hotel room in Clairmont, but that would just be cruel. So I won't.
JUXTAPOSE! Here's Patrick, opining on the wisdom of continuing to defame someone who is suing you for defamation:
That would be the same Patrick who, even after being found to have defamed me maliciously over a decade ago, has regularly accused me of having obtained that judgment via "fraud" and "perjury," and who also regularly accused me of disobeying a direct order from the Court, an accusation I shredded back here.
Wise words, Patrick. You should pay attention to them.
I CAN'T EVEN ... It is truly beyond belief that someone who has lost every single legal action for more than a decade is going to lecture anyone on what is an "open-and-shut" case:
I remember Patrick's similar confidence from a number of years ago:
So ... there's that.
4 comments:
While Mr. Ross is free to throw around whatever silly language he wants in his statement of claim, “substantive” is not one that even seems to apply - if there was “substantive” merit to his claims, he would have to demonstrate that Mr. Skinner’s “defamation” had in fact cost him employment or business revenue - something I suspect is rather more difficult to prove than he seems to think it is.
If I were a judge hearing his claims, I’d be looking at him and asking him to substantiate his claims of harm done.
Silly question here, but since Twatrick claims his case has "substantive merit", but is also claiming that Peter is trying to have it dismissed on (in Twatrick's words) an "administrative loophole", isn't Twatrick basically admitting that, reality of the fact that his case is flimsier than pre-dampened toilet paper, that there are in fact "loopholes" to be exploited?
I mean clearly I lack the legal expertise of Twatrick here, but seriously?
Anon: I recommend not trying to follow Patrick's tortured and self-contradictory thought processes ... that way lies madness.
CC - but it's sooo good for a laugh, especially since he's so sure of himself in his tweets where he urges Peter's lawyer to just settle. I can't wait to see what he has to say next when it all gets tossed out since he can't even file a lawsuit on his own behalf as an undischarged bankrupt!
Post a Comment