Sunday, January 01, 2023

Chronicles of Twatrick: 2023 coming down hard.

Hard to believe it's been almost a year and a half since a Saskatchewan judge allowed the registration in that province of my 2010 malicious defamation judgment against Lloydminster's Patrick "Super Duper Alpha Male" Ross, laying out just what he owes me and how rapidly that amount is increasing:

As regular followers of this sorry saga surely know, Patrick has made it clear that he has no intention of ever paying off what he owes me, and has even stated quite publicly that he does not consider my judgment valid (despite what courts in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta have found). But what exactly is in store for Patrick in 2023? I'm glad you asked.

As it stands, I have at least three avenues via which I can legally drag Patrick in for questioning regarding his finances and assets and, after pondering, I'm thinking that I might use the powers granted me by Canada's Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, particularly those found in Section 163, so let's take a quick look at what's there.

Section 163(1) looks promising:

However, note well that that paragraph describes the power of the trustee to examine the bankrupt, and since Patrick has not had a trustee since February of 2014 (said trustee having discharged himself due to Patrick's ongoing refusal to honour his obligations under the bankruptcy regime), that paragraph doesn't really apply here. But scroll down just a wee bit and ... JACKPOT!

Yup, that's what we're after, as that paragraph goes into gruesome detail as to how the undischarged and uncooperative bankrupt can have his sorry ass hauled in for questioning by a creditor, and that would be me. And the best parts of the above?

First, note well that all that examination would be under oath, so if Patrick lies (as he is wont to do), well, that's perjury. But that's not even the best part.

Note also that my questioning is not limited to just Patrick. No, the BIA gives me -- the sole creditor -- the power to question "any other person named in the order," which almost certainly would include anyone who might have had financial dealings with Patrick over the last several years, including his father and siblings (and possibly even others), so Patrick and all the rest of those reprobates might start preparing for the eventual court order requiring them to turn over years worth of bank statements and credit card statements and tax returns and so on and so on, because I am absolutely going to name that entire collection of idiots in the eventual court order.

Finally, no one need take my word for any of this -- read that section of the BIA for yourself and tell me it doesn't say what I claim it does. Long story short, sometime in this new year, Patrick will be on the receiving end of a court order, requiring him to turn over to me a truckload of financial statements, then ordering him to sit for a BIA-mandated examination under oath. And I won't be leaving his family members out of the fun, either.

Anyway, how's your year going so far?

ADDENDUM: In the comments section, "PLG" asks the burning question for 2023:

The big question for me is, what are the consequences when Patrick doesn't show up to this (or furnish any of the ordered stuff)? 'Cause you know he won't, so there better be some for the whole thing to be worthwhile.

I will refrain from editorializing and refer interested spectators to the BIA, in particular the following sections. First, here's parts of Section 164:

As one can read, failure to produce has consequences for either Patrick or anyone else named in the order.

More significantly, a failure to attend an ordered examination will have consequences for both Patrick and, again, anyone else ordered to attend for questioning:

The tail end of that section can be summarized as "a warrant may be issued for their arrest."

I plan on doing this entirely by the book; I will file the appropriate action(s), and let the power inherent in the BIA take it from there. And if that culminates in arrest warrants being issued for one or more people, so be it.

P.S. Note well that Patrick has very little room to fuck around and waste time, as the BIA makes it absolutely clear that, once ordered to produce documents, Patrick and anyone else has only five days to hand them over. So when things start to happen, they will happen quickly.

MORE ADDENDUM: Lest anyone think I am embellishing any of this, I will once again simply point you to the BIA, and this section explaining under what circumstances the court is more than willing to issue an arrest warrant for a bankrupt:

In short, if Patrick, any time after he declared bankruptcy in December of 2012, transferred out of his possession without permission so much as $25 worth of property, well, that might have consequences.


Anonymous said...

Actually, my favourite part is that the court could award costs, so that Patrick might even have to pay for the pleasure of being questioned under oath. That would be icing on the cake.

Anonymous said...

I'm confused, CC, what's even the point of trying to drag his family into it?

Anonymous said...

I have to say, para 163 (2) looks pretty straightforward. Nowhere does it require the presence of a trustee, and since Patrick is still a bankrupt, the whole thing clearly applies to him. Not sure how he can argue his way out of this. Make sure that among the documents you require, you ask for copies of *all* historical versions of his father's current will, as well as his mother's will. But I figure you've already got a handle on this. Oh, and all current and former land titles for all members of his immediate family and *their* families.

Also, I'm fairly sure that you can demand disclosure of all of that *before* you drag him in for questioning, since you want time to examine all of that information to know what questions to ask.

I can't wait to see how this plays out.

CC said...

Anon @ 1:33 PM: Because quietly signing over your assets to family members is the most common way to conceal stuff. Given that Patrick has worked regularly but there's rarely anything in his bank account, it's not unreasonable to imagine that he's moving that income elsewhere, such as to a relative's account, who might then just as quietly hand it back to Patrick under the table.

Also, if you're bankrupt and you receive an inheritance, all of that is legally the property of the trustee, so it's common for bankrupts, if they know they're about to inherit, to get someone to rewrite the will, get nothing, not have to declare it and, once you exit bankruptcy, have it signed back to you.

There are hundreds of tricks and almost all of them involve co-operative family members willing to hide assets from creditors until the danger is past. Hence the necessity of forcing those folks to disclose any financial dealings they had with the bankrupt.

Anonymous said...

Do you have any actual evidence of this? Given that you're being sued for saying these things, actual evidence would be useful to you. Yes?

Anonymous said...

ANON @ 1:33 PM: CC is right, it's common for bankrupts to do everything they can to hide assets from creditors, and one way is to divest yourself of any assets to family members until you get your discharge, then have those family members just sign it all over to you. It's also fairly easy to convince a judge that family members need to disclose their dealings with the bankrupt if you can show real oddities in their finances.

One example is if a bankrupt has been working regularly like Patrick has, but there's next to no activity in their bank account. So the question would be, where did that income go? (Of course, that's the sort of question you could ask Patrick directly and under oath, and he'd have to disclose that information, but if he doesn't give a believable answer, then it's time to question family members.)

Another example is if a will was altered to leave nothing to the bankrupt, but leave assets to his siblings instead. The way you expose that is to insist on seeing a copy of the will to see if everyone else in the family inherited considerable assets but the bankrupt got nothing. That is something the family would have to explain.

In the end, it's perfectly normal to insist on questioning family members, that's why that part of the BIA makes it clear you have the right to do that.

CC said...

Anon @ 2:31 PM: Go away, Patrick, you're becoming tiresome.

Purple library guy said...

The big question for me is, what are the consequences when Patrick doesn't show up to this (or furnish any of the ordered stuff)? 'Cause you know he won't, so there better be some for the whole thing to be worthwhile.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand how Patrick can just keep refusing to pay you after all these years. How can someone get away with this?

CC said...

Anon @ 7:51 AM: Your puzzlement is understandable, but I was warned some time ago that undischarged bankrupts can drag this sort of thing out for many years by simply living off the grid and, effectively, having no life to speak of and no obvious assets.

In Patrick's case, this means that even though he is 41 years old, he does not own a home (that I know of), apparently has no savings or retirement account, and has no steady job (from what I've seen, he does scut work in the oil industry, bouncing from one employer to the next). To put it simply, Patrick -- well into middle age -- has achieved so little that he can get away with continuing to live in his parents' basement, having made absolutely no mark on society of any kind other than being the butt of jokes year after year on social media.

With people like Patrick, the trick is patience. While Patrick constantly claims victory in dodging and weaving and evading process servers and sheriffs and garnishment orders and the federal Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, all of this *will* eventually catch up to him, which is why I'm returning to the BIA and what it allows me to do in terms of dragging him (and possibly family members) in for questioning under oath.

Again, the trick is patience. Because no matter how good one is at running and hiding, at some point, one runs out of road.

Anonymous said...

If Patrick gets arrested for any of this, does that mean he will have a criminal record? That would certainly restrict his employment opportunities. I think lots of jobs need you to be bonded, and you can't get bonded with a criminal record, can you?

CC said...

Anon @ 10:00 AM: I am not a lawyer so I will tell you only what I *understand* is the situation.

First, as defamation (even malicious defamation) is a civil matter, having been found to have committed that by the court in 2010 does not give Patrick a criminal record. In addition, declaring personal bankruptcy also does not result in a criminal record so, thus far, Patrick is safe. But here's where it gets dicey.

Even though defamation is a civil matter in Canada, as you can read above, if Patrick is ordered by the court to sit for questioning, that will be under oath, so if he lies, he's committing perjury, and that is definitely a criminal offense. And even if he is not convicted of perjury, if he's arrested and is subsequently ever asked, "Have you ever been arrested?", I would assume he would have to admit to it, which might also have consequences.

Long story short -- so far, Patrick has done nothing to warrant a criminal record, but he will certainly be given ample opportunity in the upcoming year to give himself one. Oh, and if any family members are ordered to sit for questioning and they lie, that would also cross into criminal record territory.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I don't buy that anyone can be arrested for redirecting as little as $25 of their own money.

CC said...

Anon @ 12:04 PM: You seem to have mistaken me for someone who gives a crap what you do or do not buy. I very deliberately reproduced the relevant part of the BIA so that others could read for themselves.

More to the point, you are way off-base by describing that as "[Patrick's] own money." When you file for bankruptcy, you are effectively handing over management of your assets to a trustee, so it is no longer "your" money. Period.

If this is too intellectually taxing for you, feel free to read a book.

MgS said...

In regards to evidence of illegitimately disposing of assets, or attempting to conceal same in a variety of means, the clauses in the bankruptcy act that CC is citing exist specifically to assist with revealing such efforts on the part of the bankrupt.

One might imagine that when the bankrupt has been noted by judges in previous hearings as “not being an honest but unfortunate debtor” (see [27] of, that the courts and other bodies associated with enforcement of the BIA might well be curious about such matters.

Also, given the defamation lawsuits being thrown about like confetti at a wedding, the discovery phase for those would be similarly revealing … should those cases ever get to that stage.

Anonymous said...

If Patrick inherits from his father or inherited from his mother while he's bankrupt, why doesn't he just refuse to accept the inheritance until he's out of bankruptcy? If he doesn't get the inheritance, then there's nothing to turn over. All he needs to do is be patient, right?

CC said...

Anon @ 7:33 AM: It doesn't work that way. As a simple example, see here:

"Some people think that if you receive the inheritance after your discharge then it is yours to keep. That is not the case. It is the triggering event (The date the person dies) that decides who receives the inheritance."

In short, if you are in the will when a person dies, that is the "triggering event" that requires you to disclose that inheritance. If all you had to do was hold off accepting assets, that would be a ridiculously easy way to cheat your creditors. So, no, that does not get Patrick off the hook.