On the one hand, he is apparently desperately trying to drive forward his utterly meritless defamation action against Peter Skinner, stamping his pudgy little feet and insisting that Peter agree to a schedule for questioning and discovery and crap like that.
On the other hand, Patrick has simultaneously gone to ground somewhere (reportedly living out of his car these days), and refusing to respond to any of e-mails, phone calls or registered mail from Canada's increasingly annoyed Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, while also refusing to divulge his current address for the purpose of proper and adequate legal service.
Someone should explain to Patrick that that's not how it works -- he can't, on the one hand, insist on others following the rules of court and fulfilling their legal obligations, while he remains hidden, not even providing an address for proper legal service. The Court has no patience for self-represented shit like that, as Patrick is about to find out.
All this means is that, if Patrick decides to threaten you with yet more spectacularly worthless legal actions, it means nothing until he provides you with a full and proper address for legal service; until that happens, you are free to consign anything he sends you to the compost bin.
P.S. If all of the above is not enough, it goes without saying that, given Patrick's established history of refusing to pay judgment or cost awards, he will absolutely be required to put up significant security for any legal action -- I would guess at least $20,000, if not more -- to make sure that, when he loses, cost awards could be paid. But that's not the worst part.
A legal beagle friend assures me that, given Patrick's massive debt to me, if he did manage to convince the Court to let his action proceed (hideously unlikely), while I would not be allowed to seize such security immediately pursuant to my judgment against Patrick, once the action was dispensed with and any cost awards were paid from the security, I would be able to seize what was left. In short, Patrick can absolutely count on the fact that he would be getting back absolutely none of whatever security he is ordered to turn over for his action to proceed.
In the end, no matter how much your life sucks, look on the bright side -- you're not Patrick Ross.
3 comments:
We realize that Ken Ross's health may be faltering, but we sure hope he manages to live another year or two, so he can live to see a big portion of his life's work go directly to you and Mr. Skinner. Ken (and Carol (RIP)) is leaving his idiot son a nice inheritace, which Twatsy has already squandered, although many of the formalities of financial seizure haven't yet been executed.
ROD: What you wrote is unintentionally amusing, as I have heard through my back-channels that Patrick is bragging to friends and family members that he's found jurisprudence and loopholes that means he won't have to pay me, and that he can block further attempts at seizure, and even be able to reclaim what I've already taken.
I have no idea what Patrick's basis would be for these absurd claims, but this perfectly matches Patrick's history of insisting that he knows the law better than anyone else, and that no one has any need to worry. Specifically, this sounds like what Patrick would be telling his family, who are probably freaking out about how Patrick has pissed away all that money.
In any event, all I can say is that this what I have been told, but it totally fits with Patrick's history of telling everyone that this is not a big deal and they have nothing to worry about.
Somehow it seems more than a little bit unlikely that Mr. Ross has found jurisprudence that will enable him not to pay you. The courts have repeatedly been unimpressed with his legal arguments, and courts seem generally to be very reluctant to entertain "novel readings" of prior rulings without a considerable amount of evidence to support the claim.
While Mr. Ross' legal status is likely quite unique in Canadian law, I suspect it would take a far more skilled legal mind than he possesses to string together an argument that the courts would be willing to entertain.
Post a Comment