First, while a cursory reading of the cases he cites might suggest he has a point, it should not surprise anyone that those cases refer to the rights of an undischarged bankrupt in good standing; that is, someone who is following the rules of bankruptcy, and honouring his obligations, and is up to date with his payments and his legally-required annual filings.
Those precedents don't apply to someone like Patrick, whose trustee withdrew from his file in disgust, who has refused to make the required payments, who has been stripped of the protections of bankruptcy, who is now the target of collection proceedings and who currently owes me almost $110,000. Given Patrick's years of contemptuous behaviour and non-payment, I can assure you that no sane court on the planet is going to extend him even the slightest sympathy once it understands Patrick's utter lack of interest in following court orders. But wait ... there's more.
If Patrick truly wanted to clarify whether he had standing to pursue this action, there is a trivial way to do this -- contact the federal Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB) and simply ask. What could be easier? Except that is not going to happen because Patrick is well aware that the OSB has been looking for him, and he has been dodging them for months now, which should tell you everything you need to know about how confident Patrick is in his own boy lawyer findings.
I look forward to learning the outcome of that hearing, wherein I'm fairly sure Patrick is going to have his pasty ass handed to him yet again, just like every other time when he assumed he was being stunningly clever but, instead, got disemboweled by the Court.
P.S. Even if the court allows that action to proceed, it will almost certainly require Patrick to put up significant surety, and if he manages to do that, I will be right there to ask where all that cash came from when he owes me as much as he does and refuses to pay.
Yeah, I'm sure this will all turn out just fine for Patrick. And by "fine," I mean spectacular dumpster fire.
P.P.S. The extra recent wrinkle in all of this is that, as I have already described, now that we have identified Patrick's employer, the Saskatchewan sheriffs have initiated garnishment proceedings. We'll see how that factors into the above.
BONUS TRACK: Ah, one last point. As we've noticed, Patrick does love to bury his audience under obscure precedents and rulings; what he has not done is admit to, or provide to his readership, the letter he received from the OSB making it thigh-suckingly clear that he has no right to pursue this (or any other) action.
I can state for a fact that, some time ago, the OSB sent a letter to Patrick, informing him that his current status as an undischarged bankrupt makes him ineligible to file or pursue actions like this. So one can ask the obvious question -- if Patrick is so eager to reproduce all of these precedents that ostensibly favour him, basic fairness suggests that he also publish that letter from the OSB, just so readers can draw their own conclusions. And yet .. and yet ... I am unaware of Patrick ever even mentioning the existence of that letter.
Perhaps interested parties can ask him to share it online. Or, at the very least, simply admit to its existence. That seems only fair, no?
MORE BONUS: There is one more observation worth making here and that is, except for one action where Patrick Ross hired an actual lawyer, he has chosen to represent himself in every action since 2010 ... with predictably disastrous consequences. Quite simply, Patrick has lost every single action to me over the last 12 years, even the one where he shelled out for a lawyer, and that's because, while Patrick fancies himself quite the legal scholar, he invariably misunderstands and/or misinterprets every single thing he reads; hence, his results year after year. Which suggests a simple question:
Given how deeply Patrick has buried himself, why would he not hire a lawyer to assist him at this point? Rather than invent ludicrous precedents out of nothing, why would Patrick not do the smart thing and let an actual lawyer explain to him what he is and is not allowed to do? And I submit the answer is obvious -- Patrick has no interest in knowing the actual law. He understands that he has nothing, he just does not want to be told that by someone competent to explain it to him.
Quite simply, Patrick lives in his own little world where precedents say what he imagines them to say, and he does not want any hint that he is utterly out to lunch and headed for disaster. He is clearly happier in his fantasy world where he can't be held accountable, and with no one to try to actually educate him on how the law works.
And we've already seen how that ends. Every single time. And this time will be no different.
ADDITIONAL MUSINGS: I have, in fact, notified the OSB as to where Patrick works these days. Let's see how that works out for him.
At a wild guess, the court date will arrive, and Patrick will put a motion before the court to delay proceedings so that he can ‘consult counsel’ or some other nonsense.
As you have pointed out time and again, he doesn’t play by the rules, he plays about until the judge gets pissed off enough to kick his arguments to the curb. I think he knows this, and he’s doing much like Ezra does - playing for time to keep people hung up in the court system for as long as possible.
… and yes, it’s absolutely malicious.
Why is no one in Patrick's family intervening to save him from his own stupidity? If I was acting this stupidly, I know my family would sit me down and have a long talk with me and maybe hire me a good lawyer and contact you to see what could be worked out. Does Patrick's family just not give a shit about him?
MgS: An interesting proposition, but Patrick has already fucked himself thoroughly by openly bragging about how much he is looking forward to that court date:
I'm going to assume that Peter Skinner has already taken a screenshot of that tweet to produce for the Court in case Patrick decides to play games. Quite simply, that was an astonishingly stupid thing for Patrick to publish.
Why would he ask the court to strike the defendant's pleadings without prejudice?! That allows the defendant to amend them and refile. What he wants is to strike the defence with prejudice, which would see him win a default judgment. What a maroon!
In my experience dealing with conservatives online, they don’t read or understand the things the post as evidence. What tends to happen is they hear something they don’t like and then they run to Google for a counter. Once they find it, they don’t actually read it. It cut and paste the part they think tells them what they want to hear and link to it as a “gotcha”. It is effective online because it forces people to read the full body of information and by then it’s too late. So what likely happened here is he googled “can someone who is bankrupt sue for x” and Google came back with a yes and he just posted it without reading the terms and conditions of that yes to check if they actually apply or not.
Twatrick's hubris seems only matched by the court's incompetence...
Patrick has a long history publishing stunningly stupid statements online. So far, the primary result of it seems to have been to make him dig himself in even deeper every time.
MgS: Patrick is his own worst enemy. His biggest mistake was not just defaming me, but bragging publicly that he was doing it specifically to ruin my personal and professional reputation. That *instantly* qualified as malice, which made the judgment against him automatic.
Sometimes, that boy is too stupid to know when to shut up.
My lawyer has seen his motion. I'm making it available here:
As most of you have figured out, Patrick while trying to delay things, has create a completely nonsense motion that is incohesive to laymen and lawyers alike.
Counsel doesn't know if we need to fight this or let him win and simply refile. What he's asking for doesn't make sense, and doesn't hamper me in the slightest. If anything, his motion all buy guarantees if he gets to continue this action, which is HIGHLY doubtful as Robert pointed out due his status as a bankrupt, he'll face monstrous surety. He's delinquent and despite 38 (I counted) times informing him they wish to speak with him. He's ignored letter mail and phone calls from them.
His statue does nothing but prove he doesn't have standing to file.
Robert is correct in all the case files Patrick's referencing, they were all bankruptees in good standing and had a trustee.
The court will likely find, as my lawyer has, this is nothing but a stall tactic.
The only question of interest here is -- having bragged for months about how badly he wanted to bring this action -- whether Patrick will suddenly come up with some excuse as to how he is unable to attend that August hearing.
I am also assuming that Peter will, at some point, remind the Court that, before Patrick is allowed to file additional legally incomprehensible and asinine actions, perhaps he should clear his $100K+ debt to me as a show of good faith.
I don't see that happening.
I should point out that, in his 27 pages of absolute blithering nonsense, Patrick continually harps on the "precedents" he's found that ostensibly guarantee his right to sue. What he astonishingly does not reference is the letter he received from the OSB telling him, in no uncertain terms, that he does *not* have such a right. Any half-competent judge is going to want to know why Patrick so meticulously cherry-picked only those rulings apparently in his favour (some going back decades and, by now, irrelevant and obsolete), while totally ignoring a recent and direct missive from the OSB that related explicitly and specifically to his situation.
I can assure you, that obvious attempt on Patrick's part to refuse to disclose to the Court that letter from the OSB is going to end very badly for him.
@RogueNerdOne (& @CC):
I just scanned through Patrick’s filing. It doesn’t quite reach the levels of inanity that we see from so-called Sovereign Citizens when they get in front of the courts, but it’s not far off either - instead of making reference to a large number of non-existent precedents, he spends his time making reference to a bunch of precedents that are at best only tangentially related to his case.
He also does an awful lot of deliberate misinterpretation of things that RNO has posted online. Most of it is pretty clear what your intent is - Patrick is clearly reaching to turn those into “threats” or “attempts to mislead the courts”.
I’m not a lawyer, but I think I’d let the OSB know about the August court date and invite them to join in the proceedings … I’m sure the judge would find their letter to Patrick a most interesting addition to the discussion …
As someone who has some experience with courtroom obligations and disclosure, if Patrick presents his case to a judge while deliberately not disclosing that letter from the OSB that tells him he has no standing to sue, he will be in an assload of trouble. Judges really, really, really hate it when they find out that you deliberately withheld important information. That's the sort of thing that goes to costs, and will be grounds for Peter to argue for substantial costs once he wins.
But, but, but... muh precedents say the OSB is wrong!
I was just told I should show up to the hearing with a gong and should ring it just before Patrick speaks.
As everyone has already suggested, the case law that Patrick is using in this motion once again holds very little judicial value to him as they don't apply to this case.
His bankruptcy law that he thinks allows him to go to court, doesn't. Patrick can't argue personal injury isn't vested with a trustee because there isn't one there to sign off on him to continue to pursue it. Patrick's hoping with all his legal threats that no one would mention his bankruptcy status and possibly reach a settlement. Craig Chandler uses this tactic on people from what I've read on Facebook, and the fact he tried bully me around with threats of a lawsuit for simply stating I wouldn't trust him with my wallet if I was being strip searched. That's my opinion and he tried to scare me. I challenged him on it and to this day I haven't heard anything despite providing him my full contact information.
Patrick _sounds_ smart. He actions and offerings prove that is not the case. I've been horribly wrong this entire time.
Chandler is another one of the bully-boy crowd that likes to threaten to sue anyone who says anything he doesn't like. Unfortunately, he has a lawyer who is very much of a similar mindset to his own, and between the two of them, they're quite the toxic duo - handle encounters with either carefully.
@MgS: I've very familiar with Chandler due to helping candidates run against him. Everyone is very aware of his and how you have to communicate to him.
Very to the point and never use an extra word he may construe to mean something else. Patrick does this a lot. He fixates on a word or phrase and then gets embarrassed by it afterwards.
I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If I say I want to be face to face to see if you'd talk shit to my face, I'm going to do everything I can to make that happen. I'm not that much older than Patrick, and had he ever done this to one of my friends, he'd be pushing daisies. I'm not kidding. We grew up with fathers who were spec ops for CSIS. We travelled the world together and grew up with a motto to protect your family no matter what. If you went after a man's family, business, or friends, in the manner Patrick has with me, you got a beating your body would never forget. That's how men dealt with things just a short time ago. Now we have folks like Patrick Ross.
We're weaker as a society because of it. I truly mean that. We've clogged our court system up with assault cases due to people like Patrick. That's an actual quote from an RCMP officer relating to Patrick's complaints.
Back in the day, you took your beating and you got told why it happened. No one went running to the police. It only took 1 to correct someone's behavior.
It seems that in (what?) 15 years (?) Patrick has gone from being a no-show in court to writing 27-page documents with numerous citations of (possibly irrelevant) precedents. Give him another 50 years and he'll be a law clerk or something.
I doubt PR will act scared of some latter day Keyser Soze type threats.
That you, Twatrick?
Post a Comment