an amount that (as you can see) is growing by five per cent per year. And while I have managed to forcibly seize a few thousand dollars from him over the last year or so, it's reasonably safe to say that Patrick's debt to me is increasing inexorably by over $500 per month, despite his insistence that as long as he ignores the situation and pretends it's not happening, he won't have to pay me anything.
It doesn't work that way.
In any event, y'all have a fun holiday; I'll be online throughout and working to some extent, but it's time for a little R&R while I allow the Twatrick debt clock to keep chugging along. Patrick can continue to dodge and weave from his legal obligations to the Saskatchewan sheriffs and the federal Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, but there will, someday, be a reckoning. And it will not be pretty.
19 comments:
What's happening with his ridiculous "lawsuit"? Any developments?
Very little ... Patrick has apparently withdrawn his original Statement of Claim and insists he is filing an amended one, but I have yet to be served with it.
Assuming there's no chance Twatsy will pay off the mountain of money he owes you any time soon, what happens down the road? From what I read, his remaining parent, his father, still lives in Lloydminster in the house he owns. So when the father kicks off, does Patrick think he's just going to inherit the house? I can't imagine you won't have the right to swoop in and file to seize it to settle Patrick's debt to you if that's what they try. Does Patrick think he can remain bankrupt and not pay you anything, and still get to inherit the house?
Anon @ 8:10 AM: I have no idea what Patrick is planning, but I'm willing to bet that that entire family is working on some scheme to protect assets by, perhaps, having the estate left to *other* members of the family, who will quietly allow Patrick to take advantage of it. That will, of course, fail miserably as it is the most basic and obvious scam related to bankruptcy -- concealing assets by effectively signing it over to others, then claiming impecuniosity.
I can assure you that, whatever Patrick inherits when the time comes, I will be there to take it to satisfy his debt to me.
P.S. By the time that happens, it is entirely possible that Patrick will owe me $150K, or maybe $200K. And there are other things in the works that I am going to keep to myself for now.
So, assuming he doesn't file a new one, what happens then? Is there a time limit for him to file a new statement of claim?
I have no idea and, at the moment, I'm not interested in wasting any CPU cycles finding out. There is nothing Patrick's idiotic action does that has any effect on my collection against him, or any effect on the accruing interest. Until I am properly and legally served with another Statement of Claim, there is nothing I need to do.
I'm still wondering why Patrick never offered to settle this. All that's happening is that what he owes you keeps going up. Has there ever been any discussion of a settlement just to make all this go away?
Anon @ 2:54 PM: I have, over the years, made four separate settlement offers, all of which would have involved Patrick paying me a *fraction* of what he owes me right now. On every occasion, he essentially told me to shove it and that he had no intention of ever paying me anything and, furthermore, that he did not consider my 2010 judgment against him valid or legally enforceable.
I finally gave up trying to treat Patrick as a grown-up; the only language he understands is a legal beatdown, so that's what's happening. I doubt very much that Patrick will ever get out of bankruptcy, and it will be interesting to see how he handles that as he gets on in years. It was his choice, though.
He clearly sees himself as some kind of “outlaw hero” character. Except in this case, he’s going out of his way to shoot himself in the foot at every turn.
He’ll be in his 80s and still cackling to himself about how he pwned the libs through his actions.
MgS: I sincerely have no idea how Patrick thinks this is going to end. It's now over 10 years since he filed for bankruptcy and, rather than take advantage of the glorious opportunity handed to him by the court (he could have been out of bankruptcy several years ago paying less than $35,000 total), Patrick squandered every chance he was given to the point where he is *still* in bankruptcy, with no trustee, and owing me over $100K. In addition, he has absolutely no legal recourse at this point -- any chance he had to appeal *any* of the rulings against him are long since expired.
It *seems* that Patrick thinks that the longer he buries his head in the sand and avoids dealing with this, the better off he will be. I should not have to explain why that is an extremely bad idea.
Patrick has managed to dodge and weave for this long as he lives very much off the grid, *apparently* moving his income around to make it harder to seize and (from what I've heard) living off of his father's credit card since, as an undischarged bankrupt, he is not allowed to have one of his own.
This is not a sustainable lifestyle and it will all catch up with him, almost certainly during the next year when I exercise my rights as a creditor to drag him in and question him under oath about his finances. This is not something Patrick can avoid by working out of province; his bankruptcy is registered in SK, as is my judgment against him, so there is nowhere he can run to avoid having to sit down and turn over all of his finances and disclose the status of all of his assets since 2012.
Finally, as I have mentioned on a number of occasions, when Patrick's remaining parent passes away, I'm sure Patrick thinks he will simply inherit the Lloydminster property. I can assure you that will not happen, as I am already prepared for when that day arrives. In the meantime, what Patrick owes me just keeps going up, and there is nothing he can do about it.
Long-term thinking has never been one of Patrick's strengths. As he will eventually discover.
What's with Patrick constantly claiming that he has legal precedent to sue people for defamation even though he's an undischarged bankrupt with no trustee? Is he correct? Do those rulings say what he claims they say?
@Anonymous @7:54:
The answer to that is “yes and no”. Patrick has cited a couple of those cases online, and when I’ve gone and read them on Canlii, he’s taking a particularly generous reading of them.
In the ones I’ve read, there are two things that stand out:
1). The plaintiffs in those cases were working with the bankruptcy system, and were well on the way to paying off the conditions of their provisional discharge;
2).The plaintiffs had a working relationship with their trustee.
… Patrick is in no such position with respect to his bankruptcy, and he has been very careful to avoid telling the courts anything about his status in bankruptcy - in particular the lack of Trustee.
Patrick’s 7-figure damage claims are also … well … a bit laughable. To put it kindly that would imply that the alleged harm to his reputation is much greater than that which the courts acknowledge he did to CC … and that just doesn’t hold up to any kind of scrutiny … and I don’t think the courts like being used as a retirement lottery system.
MgS: I was going to make much the same points as you just did. Patrick's alleged precedents mean nothing until he gets a judge to agree that they're relevant to this situation, and therein lies the challenge -- as I've pointed out on more than one occasion, those precedents address bankrupts who are in good standing, are honouring their obligations, and are on their way to paying off their balance. None of that applies here.
Also, as you say, Patrick knows full well that his lack of a trustee is massively problematic since, in his hearing earlier this year, when asked whether he'd run his lawsuit past his trustee, he deflected and never admitted that he did not have a trustee, in effect misleading the court.
Patrick is welcome to keep repeating these precedents, as they mean squat until he gets in front of a judge and makes a compelling argument that they apply to someone who has contemptuously ignored his obligations for years. Until that happens, he can yammer as much as he wants.
Hang on. If Patrick is suing you, doesn't that give you the right to question him under oath, and force him to disclose whatever you want to know? Isn't that what discovery is all about? So don't you have the right to demand that he turn over all of his finances and record of assets, including anything to do with supposed farmland? I mean, by suing you, hasn't Patrick handed you the right to demand all of that information?
Here's a random question cuz 'tis the season and all that, but could CC forcibly seize literally anything Twatrick might get for Christmas as an after acquired asset or whatever the term is? If so, I'd be so tempted to not just do that but then personally send him a lump of coal too.
Anon @ 1:36 AM: Technically, it's all seizable. What Patrick has done to make things even worse is to refuse to disclose his assets for several years now so, when the time comes, he is going to be a *very* busy little wingnut, collecting and turning over a decade's worth of financials, including bank records, credit card records, tax returns and so on, including all financial transactions with family members. And I'm going to bet those family members are not going to be thrilled about being dragged into Patrick's shit show of a bankruptcy. But dragged into it, they will be. I guarantee it.
Anonymous @ 12:36PM:
I'm not certain the degree to which you can drag in topics from other disputes into discovery for a particular case. I would suspect that even in discovery, there would be a strong tendency to "stick to the narrow focus of the case at hand". I thought that lawyers in general tend to frown upon what could be seen as a fishing expedition.
*Now - in a matter of what amounts to a countersuit over another dispute altogether, one might imagine that there is considerable room to drag in other aspects including past and present behaviour of one's opponent under the broad rubric of assessing character.
Note: I say this as someone with only peripheral exposure to the practice of law, and a pidgin knowledge of how to read legislation and how courts interpret things.
MgS: Except that this is all part of the same dispute, which relates to the suspicion of undisclosed assets and whether there have been transfers of assets between parties to conceal them. Given that Patrick is suing people for accusing him of concealing assets, he has opened to the door to having to turn over all financial records related to *any* monetary dealings with *anyone*, and that would certainly include family members and close relatives.
MgS: I think CC's on pretty safe ground here. As I recall, during discovery, you can insist on disclosure of anything even remotely related to the action. If the person being questioned refuses to disclose, you can file a motion to compel disclosure. The reason for the wide-ranging freedom to demand information is that it might not be obvious there is valuable information until you get to see a lot of it.
If the person wants to object to the disclosure, there is always the option to later argue in court that it's not relevant. But you still need to hand it over when asked as part of discovery.
Post a Comment