Monday, September 19, 2022

Chronicles of Twatrick: Happy interestversary!

And with surprising regularity, the 19th of the month rolls around again -- another monthly interestversary for Lloydminster's Patrick "Kid Cash Nexus Thunderbolt Quintuple Threat Bikini Designer MMA Cosplay Erotica Author Boy Lawyer Super Mullet UFC Fan Boi Street Fighter" Ross, who is now exactly 13 months into his interest-accruing debt to me:

Interestingly, Saskatchewan is a province relatively friendly to debtors, as it limits normal garnishment to 30% of one's monthly wages (not sure if that's net or gross). The downside to that is that, given that Patrick's debt to me is increasing at approximately $650 per month due to accruing interest and ongoing sheriff's fees pursuant to my collection and garnishment proceedings against him, it is entirely likely that Patrick is losing an uncomfortable chunk of every paycheque from his minimum wage, menial job to me, even as what he owes me in increasing. That's gotta hurt.

In any event, check back in a month for another interestversary. There might be cake.

BONUS TRACK: I've uploaded a complete copy of the transcript of the August 30 hearing in Grande Prairie, AB, wherein Patrick Ross very unwisely filed to strike Peter Skinner's Statement of Defence ["SoD"] and was absolutely disemboweled by the judge for his efforts. I've posted snippets previously, but this is the full and unabridged version, for which I will make a number of observations.

First, it is moderately amusing that, for someone who loves to play boy lawyer on the Intertoobz and insists on claiming that he is so much smarter than all else, when Patrick gets into a courtroom, he turns into a blithering, inarticulate asshat. Witness the few occasions where he is permitted to ramble on, and succeeds only in spewing incomprehensible and meaningless nonsense, unable to focus on the task at hand, until the judge mercifully cuts him off and drags him back to reality. I can assure you, it has always been thus, as far back as his first court appearance related to me in 2012.

Next, Patrick howled with glee on Twitter as to how the judge told Peter his SoD was junk. But that's not what happened, is it? Rather, the judge made a far more general statement as to how the Court typically allows pleadings -- even sub-standard ones -- to move forward, regardless of their quality. While this may or may not refer to Peter's specific SoD, the judge was clearly making that observation in a much larger context.

Following, Patrick similarly gloated as to how the judge told Peter not to speak; again, a hopeless misrepresentation as to what happened, as in the first instance of that, the judge simply wanted to allow Patrick to finish making an ass of himself, and in the second instance, the judge simply told Peter that Patrick's filing was so utterly meritless, Peter would not even be required to speak. But I've saved the best for last.

As is obvious to anyone who reads that transcript in its entirety, there is no question that Patrick is deliberately misleading the court. When asked on two occasions if he had run this by his trustee, Patrick simply said he didn't, rather than admit that he does not in fact have a trustee. This is an absolutely glaring omission, and is obviously deliberate on Patrick's part. It's not clear whether one can claim that Patrick is "lying" to the Court on those occasions, but those misrepresentations certainly fly in the face of someone telling "the whole truth", rather than refusing to disclose inconvenient parts of it.

From my perspective, the major takeaway from this transcript is that Patrick has now been told, bluntly and directly by a Court Of Kings Bench judge, that an undischarged bankrupt is supposed to ask for permission from his trustee before initiating any legal action. It's in writing. You can see that. So if anyone is on the receiving end of any more legal threats or actions from Kid Cash of Lloydminster, you now have some pretty hefty ammunition to wipe him out via a Motion to Dismiss, and you're free to use that transcript to do it.

You're welcome.

P.S. Demand costs.


Anonymous said...

If you're actually collecting several hundred dollars a month, if that interest is at 5 per cent, you should look at this as a savings account with a really decent return. Most even really good savings accounts max out at around 3 to 3.5 per cent, so if that's the best you're ever going to get from Patrick -- garnishing 30 per cent of his minimum wage manual labour job -- you could do a lot worse. And Patrick will always be bankrupt. And you'll always be getting a monthly cheque from him. Forever.

Anonymous said...

What a total embarrassment. First, Patrick seems to be asking for a bunch of things from a single motion. You can't do that. That is absolutely beginner's law, that a court will rule on only the issues put properly before it. But Patrick is asking the court to strike Peter's defense, no, wait, to strike only part of Peter's defense, and wait, he wants some sort of injunction based on threats, no, wait ... And this is the guy who brags about how well he knows the law?

And it's funny how, even after the judge rules on the motion and makes it clear he's done, Patrick continues to annoy the judge with more requests. Patrick doesn't have the foggiest idea of how a courtroom works. I can see why he's lost every action to you over the last 12 years. He's an idiot.

Anonymous said...

I like the part near the top on page 5 where the judge explains that striking a pleading is rarely done, and Patrick says, "Well, I -- I understand that ...", when it's obvious he didn't know that at all. Hasn't Patrick been representing himself for more than a decade? And he still doesn't understand how even simple law works?

CC said...

Anon @ 7:28 PM: With one exception, Patrick has represented himself in every single action related to me and my judgment against him since 2010. And in every single case, without exception, he has not only lost every action but, in many cases, was excoriated from the bench for the idiocy of his application; you may recall a recent incident where his application was described as "baseless and scandalous," and I was awarded enhanced costs because of that.

It is fascinating to see the pompous online bragging from Patrick as to how he is so going to shred it and kick ass before every hearing, only to have his pasty ass handed to him by the Court every single time. And yet ... and yet ... he is still convinced that, *next* time, things will be different, just you watch, yessir.

And that's why he's an undischarged bankrupt who owes me over $100,000.

MgS said...

At this point in time, I would hope that a group of people who are defending themselves from his claims are now getting together and arranging to file a vexatious litigant motion with the courts as well as individual motions to dismiss.

He's free to come up with all the nonsense he wants, but misleading the courts - including by a lie of omission - is both wasteful and calls into question the motivation behind his various lawsuits.

At this point, he's starting to come across a bit like one Ezra Levant, who clearly sees lawsuits as both a "cost of doing business", as well as a way to tie up people who might otherwise directly challenge his bullshit in public.

CC said...


Way ahead of you. Being found a vexatious litigant is about to be the least of Patrick's problems.

Anonymous said...

There’s a Dunning-Krueger pandemic raging in alt-right-qanon-ass-hat land. Two years ago, they were all expert virologists and vaccine researchers. Now they’re all expert lawyers with their sovcit or “first amendment” bullshit. Self representing in court is going to go as well for these idiots as self-medicating with horse dewormer.

CC said...

And that's when they're not being authorities on Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.