Chronicles of Twatrick: After-acquired assets.

Oh, my ...

Well, if Patrick still had a trustee, he'd declare them as an "after-acquired asset", but since Patrick's trustee discharged himself from Patrick's file in disgust due to Patrick's non-compliance almost a decade ago, I will just record this in the "Stuff I will take from Patrick when the reckoning comes due" file.

It's not clear whether Patrick's stupidity is endangering the financial well-being of any of his siblings, but I would speculate that none of them will be thrilled to know what Patrick is spending their inheritance on.

That's just a guess.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Time to start disclosing stuff.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I have this week directed that the Saskatchewan sheriffs serve undischarged bankrupt, garnishment fugitive and man who owes me over $100,000 Patrick Ross with their mandatory questionnaire. Since Patrick enjoys talking smack about me on social media, it is only fair that I return the favour. Here are the first two pages of the questionnaire (further pages are not relevant):

I have been assured that the consequences of ignoring the above (or even filling it out inaccurately or incompletely) are unpleasant indeed, so it will be Patrick's choice if he decides to play games with this.

If it comes to it, I already have a pretty good idea of both where he works and where he lives but, given that I already have substituted service for him, I shouldn't need to track him down personally.

In any event, Patrick will shortly be under a legal obligation to fill out and return the above to me. Whether he insists on continuing to play stupid games remains to be seen.

P.S. I have been assured that all costs incurred by further legal action related to this will be added to Patrick's debt to me. In short, Patrick will end up paying for everything I need to do moving forward to collect my money.

P.P.S. Ah, I neglected to mention this part on page 3 of the questionnaire:

It is an offence pursuant to subsection 15(3) and section 122 of The Enforcement of Money Judgments Act for any person to fail to provide complete and accurate information in any questionnaire or examination.

And the possible consequences?

And now ... we wait.

BONUS TRACK: Several years ago, when a process server was attempting to serve Patrick at his Lloydminster residence, his father threatened the server and chased him off the property, yelling that the server was a "tool of Satan." If it comes to that and I have to file an Order for the sheriffs to enter that same residence and seize all property and documentation relevant to my collection proceedings, and Patrick's father unwisely decides to get in the way, the EMJA describes in some detail the consequences of that interference:

As I wrote earlier, it remains to be seen whether Patrick will finally understand it's time to act like an adult, or whether he wants to continue playing games, with the inevitable consequences.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Happy (early) interestversary!

Yes, it's a couple days early but since the upcoming 19th is a Sunday, I thought I'd remind everyone that it is now a full year and a half that undischarged bankrupt and garnishment fugitive Patrick Ross was told by a Saskatchewan court that he owed me over $100,000, and that that amount was now increasing at five per cent per year:

That outstanding amount went down slightly due to the Saskatchewan sheriffs managing to forcibly extract a few thousand dollars from Patrick's credit union account but, as you can see, what Patrick owes me is increasing inexorably and will continue to do so, month after month and year after year.

I have plans for Patrick this year but I am going to keep them to myself for now. I have already mentioned that I have a Saskatchewan garnishment order against Patrick but, as he is currently employed in Alberta, it can't be enforced; it also means he can't return to Saskatchewan for work since that order would kick in immediately so one and all are invited to keep me posted on whether it appears Patrick is suddenly working back in Saskatchewan.

In the end, Patrick has been running from his legal and financial responsibilities for over a decade and, while he might look on this as some sort of victory, it's safe to say this is not a long-term sustainable lifestyle, especially if Patrick assumes he is going to inherit his father's Lloydminster property when the time comes (note: he won't).

That's it for now -- check back in a month for any new developments.

UPPITY DATE, FEB 17: I see no harm in letting people in on this latest development. Some time ago, and pursuant to my collection efforts against Patrick Ross, I directed the Saskatchewan sheriffs to serve Patrick with a voluntary financial questionnaire, wherein Patrick would list his assets, employment, salary and stuff like that there. Given that that questionnaire was voluntary, it will surprise absolutely no one that Patrick replied with nothing.

This morning, given Patrick's failure to reply to that first questionnaire, I have instructed the sheriffs to proceed to the next phase, which involves a mandatory questionnaire, and herein lies the difference.

Whereas there are no consequences for blowing off that first questionnaire, as I read it, ignoring this second one is a really, really bad idea, in that the consequences quite possibly involve uniformed folks showing up at Patrick's residence and seizing things like property and financial documents that would be relevant to my collection efforts. This might be awkward since, as Patrick refuses to disclose where he lives or works these days and lists as an address for service his father's residence in Lloydminster, that is almost certainly where the sheriffs would show up to start taking stuff.

In any event, Patrick is in the process of being served with the mandatory questionnaire and, since I already have substituted service for him, it is unnecessary for me to track him down -- service will involve simply e-mail and a registered letter. And if Patrick does not reply fully and completely within a limited time, well, there's phase three. And if it gets that far, it will be unpleasant.

Chronicles of Ezra: Why this matters.

WARNING: I reserve the right to return and edit this post any way I want. You are welcome to leave comments here or back on Twitter; comments here are ruthlessly moderated to avoid any engagement with Rebel News trolls.

While I've published a fair amount over the years about Ezra Levant's meritless 2016 defamation lawsuit against me related to his self-obsessed and self-serving fundraiser ostensibly for Fort McMurray fire victims, this piece takes this issue to a whole new level and is meant to persuade folks that this is something in which they have a vested interest, and to convince those folks that, yes, there are good reasons to contribute to my "Stand Up To Ezra" Fundraiser in preparation for finally going to trial. You might think you've heard it all before, but I guarantee this post contains information I have never published before, so you might want to get comfortable.

(SIDE NOTE: I typically publish lawsuit-related content on my Twitter account but, given the volume of information, it did not make sense to have a 350-tweet thread, so I'll do my best to keep you abreast of developments as they happen.)

Let's dispense with an obvious concern right away -- one might ask why I'm confident about my chances at trial given that I lost my anti-SLAPP motion against this lawsuit, and further lost the appeal. I will keep this short and brutal as I have written on this topic at length -- I lost because of the stunning and appalling incompetence of the Ontario judiciary. If you don't believe me, you are welcome to peruse all of my earlier publications on the topic, some of which I will refer to again here. I lost because the motion judge was an imbecile, and the Ontario Appeals Court was even dumber. Beyond that, if you need convincing, you can do your own homework as we have more important things to discuss here. So ... onward.

First important point: given that Ezra Levant filed this action under the Simplified Rules in Ontario, each of us was entitled to question the other for up to two hours under oath. Ezra's lawyer already had his shot back in the fall of 2016, wherein he grilled me for almost that amount of time, then proceeded to totally misrepresent what I said to the Court. I will be blunt -- Ezra's lawyer lied to the Court about what I said during questioning, something I have already proved. Whether you believe that or not doesn't concern me, because here's what this tediously long blog post is all about -- I have not yet questioned Ezra, so I still have my two hours to sit his pasty ass down, get him under oath and ask him questions and demand he turn over evidence of my choice. I can assure you, that is going to happen, and the rest of this piece will explain why so many people should be intensely interested in how that is going to work and what Ezra will be legally required to disclose.

The first demand for disclosure from Ezra will, unsurprisingly, be all of the financials related to his 2016 fundraiser where I published that several of his claims were simply untrue:

1. his claim that all (100%) of donations would be turned over to the Red Cross (did not happen)
2. his claim that all (100%) of donations would be "matched" (also did not happen), and
3. that all donors were eligible for Canada Revenue Agency charitable tax receipts (they most emphatically were not).

Logically, of course I would demand all financials related to that fundraiser, as every bit of that information is relevant to my defense. But we are just getting started, and there is so much more that Ezra will be turning over that you might not have thought about, so let's ponder this.

It is already established that Ezra did not turn over the full 100% of donations to the Red Cross, for a very simple reason -- he was using Indiegogo as the fundraising vehicle, and Indiegogo takes a straight 5% off the top as their processing fee. This is well known and not the slightest bit controversial -- everyone (including Ezra) knows how Indiegogo works, so it was massively baffling as to why Ezra kept insisting that that processing fee somehow did not apply to him. Many people asked about it, and they were mocked and ignored, as you can see here. I already know precisely how much Ezra turned over to the Red Cross (it was several thousand dollars short of what was donated), so the obvious question is, if I already have the receipts, what more is there to ask about? As Londo Mollari once said, "Oh, Mr. Morden ... I have not started with you yet."

One of the relevant issues in a defamation action is whether the defendant made a good faith effort to determine the facts; that is, was there due diligence? Ezra even takes me to task in his Statement of Claim, suggesting I did not work hard enough in terms of asking him directly to explain the apparent 5% inconsistency. But if you look at the link above, you can clearly see that others were asking, and they were being blown off, which inspires me to want to know the following:

Given the obvious evasion on the parts of Rebelers Sheila Gunn Reid and Holly Nicholas, were staffers at Rebel Media given instructions as to how to respond to anyone asking direct questions like that? That is, given how easy it would have been to simply answer the question, it is exceedingly puzzling as to why Sheila and Holly steadfastly refused to just respond to Camron, which means that when my questioning time comes, I can assure you I will be requiring Ezra to turn over to me any and all communications between him and other Rebelers where they are being advised about how to reply to people asking for details. Because if there is a single suggestion that Ezra advised anyone to deliberately evade and deflect and refuse to answer, then his whole "lack of due diligence" argument against me is toast. And we are only getting started.

Let us stick with the "100% turned over" argument to see where else it takes us. For example, even as Ezra was making this assurance, it would be trivially easy to show he knew his assurance was false if he was, behind the scenes, in contact with Indiegogo trying to somehow get a special deal where Indiegogo would waive its processing fee. If I could prove that that happened, it would show beyond any doubt that Ezra knew his promise was false, so Ezra will be turning over all correspondence between Rebel Media and Indiegogo related to his fundraiser. All of it. Every scrap.

SPOILER ALERT: I will insist that Ezra turn over all of that correspondence despite the fact that I already have the evidence that Rebel Media was begging Indiegogo to waive the very fee that Ezra was steadfastly denying existed:

So while the above is a bit of a spoiler, it's also a caution that even as I am asking for disclosure of all those financials and underlying communications, I already have the indisputable proof for a lot of it, so if Ezra lies to me during questioning, that may end very badly for him (it's called "perjury" and he might want to ask his lawyer to explain it to him). In any event ... onward.

As another example of what I will be requiring Ezra to turn over, consider Ezra's assurance that 100% of all donations would be turned over in time for "matching," a claim which I already know to be false and which Ezra admitted years ago was false. So if we all know that claim is false, what is there to ask about?

As above, I will insist that Ezra turn over all correspondence between Rebel Media and Indiegogo related to any attempts by Ezra to convince Indiegogo to release those donated funds ahead of time since, if that is what was happening, that is clear evidence that Ezra knew he was lying and trying to salvage the situation behind the scenes. I suspect you're starting to see the pattern -- Ezra will turn over all correspondence even vaguely related to his 2016 fundraiser to establish whether he knew his claims were false and was only trying to make the best of a bad situation while not admitting to any of it. But, as before, we've barely started so a couple more examples.

One of the features of Ezra's fundraiser was the tedious insistence of both Ezra Levant and Sheila Gunn Reid that the Red Cross was delighted with their participation, and that the Red  Cross "thanked " them on numerous occasions. I already know that Rebel Media registered their "Red Cross"-themed fundraiser with neither the knowledge nor permission of the Red Cross, and that the Red Cross was just the tiniest bit unimpressed with having their name used that way. So, yes, Ezra will be turning over the entirety of the communications between Rebel and the Red Cross, on that topic and all others.

So, is that it? Is that the earth-shaking blog post I've been promising you for days? Oh, please, Mr. Morden, I have not started with you yet.

In his disgustingly inaccurate and dishonest Statement of Claim, Ezra accuses me of claiming that he stole money from the fundraiser. I said nothing of the kind; what I suggested was that Ezra was almost certainly getting a personal benefit from his fundraiser, and when his bloviating gasbag of a lawyer asked me to explain that during discovery in October of 2016, I said the following.

I said there were two obvious ways Ezra and/or Rebel Media could be benefiting from that fundraiser:

• By collecting personal information of donors, Ezra was almost certainly monetizing that contact information to subsequently add to his rentable mailing lists, and
• By offering "perks" to donors, he was almost certainly eligible to assign a "fair market value" to them, and claim them as business deductions.

Just to back up the above, I offer a screenshot of a snippet from the transcript of that 2016 questioning, wherein I attempt to explain to Ezra's indescribably clueless lawyer how business deductions work:

My attempt to explain business deductions was an utter waste of time, as it turned out that Ezra's lawyer did not have the foggiest fucking idea how deductions work, and he totally misrepresented what I said above to the Court. (There was a lot of that -- Ezra's lawyer lying about what I said during questioning.) So what is the consequence of the above? The consequence is that, since Ezra totally denies any possible personal or corporate benefit from his 2016 fundraiser, I guarantee he will be turning over all financials related to the money and personal contact info collected, and related to all of the "perks" he offered and how much that represented in terms of deductions for Rebel Media. So, is that it? Is that the post? Oh, please. Onward.

I have written before how Ezra, in order to beat the hard matching deadline of the evening of May 31, 2016, quietly fronted the amount of $96,000 on his American Express card in order to get that amount to the Red Cross in time (still representing a massive shortfall in matching). And while that seems just weird and funny, it inspires a number of questions for which I am going to demand answers:

1. Even as people during the entire month of May, 2016 asked Ezra how he was going to beat the matching deadline, did he ever, at any time, disclose that this is what he was going to do? (Answer: no.)
2. Did transferring that amount on his AmEx card cost a further percentage of the donations?
3. Based on the type of card, did Ezra or Rebel Media get any massive perks such as points or air miles based on that amount transferred?

I can assure you, there is way more that I will be requiring Ezra to turn over, at which time some people might be wondering how much one is allowed to demand during questioning. That is, can someone being questioned finally refuse to disclose any more information by insisting that it just isn't relevant? Well, no, and here's why.

First, I tried that back in 2016, and Ezra's bloviating nutsack of a lawyer assured me that he could ask anything he wanted, and I had a legal obligation to answer. But the second reason Ezra can't refuse to disclose what I want is far more entertaining -- because Ezra himself said so, and here is where the fun starts.

It was back in July of 2009 that Ezra was chortling gleefully about a potential defamation lawsuit against him from one Khurrum Awan (wherein Ezra eventually had his balls handed to him in a sack). Now, one wonders why someone would be so excited about being the defendant in a defamation action, until one reads Ezra's reasoning in this web-archived version of Ezra's post. (The original of that post is long since deleted, for reasons that should become evident in short order. There's a lot of that -- Ezra deleting embarrassing blog posts that I had the foresight to capture years ago.)

I could build up to this slowly but, heck, let's see why Ezra thinks being a defendant in a defamation action is such a super neat-o development:

Now, I'm going to give you a minute to digest the import of the above, to understand how it applies in my situation. Ezra is quite openly and gleefully bragging about how being the defendant in a defamation action affords him unfettered access to, well, just about every fucking thing he wants in terms of internal documents. And for once, I will admit that I agree with Ezra since, if he tries to push back on what I ask in terms of eventual questioning, I will bludgeon him unconscious with his own words above.

Using Ezra's own logic (which he long ago scrubbed from the Intertoobz but is still viewable at the Wayback Machine, to Ezra's obvious regret), I have every right to ask for whatever the fuck I want related to that 2016 fundraiser, and Ezra is absolutely going to turn it over. And if he doesn't, I will quote Ezra Levant to Ezra Levant and get what I want. So ... is that it? Is that what this is all about? No, and what comes next is what we've been building towards all this time.

Because I am not going to restrict myself to just matters related to that fundraiser. You see, Ezra sued me primarily for calling him a "grifter," insisting that that characterization sullied his squeaky clean reputation; in effect, by stating quite explicitly that the description of "grifter" was defamatory, Ezra has opened the door to my demanding Rebel News-related financials for every goddamned thing I want, and I plan to take advantage of it:

• Everything related to Rebel News' fundraisers and petitions ... all of them
• All that "Fight the Fines" nonsense, and where all the money went
• How well paid were the lawyers Rebel News hired to fight those cases?
• Money that flowed between Rebel News and any "Freedom Convoy" entities

And it won't end there, as I will be requiring Ezra to turn over all information related to other infamous grifts that he ran. Let's start with Ezra's panicked plea for money based on his lender threatening to call in his loan. What happened with all that money? Where did it go? I suspect a lot of people would love to know. Well, given that I am the defendant in this action, I can assure you Ezra is going to tell me. But let's not stop there.

How about when Ezra claimed that he had been been blackballed for a mortgage, and immediately started crowdfunding for a new office building? I'm betting folks are more than a wee bit curious about what happened to all that dosh. Well, guess what ... Ezra is going to tell me.

And, finally, one of the issues I have been most curious about -- what is Ezra's/Rebel News' financial relationship with "The Democracy Fund," such that Rebel can run fundraisers while TDF can hand out charitable tax receipts for all of that? Yes, Ezra is going to tell me how that works as well (given that TDF is run by a number of Ezra's old oilpatch buddies).

But I imagine some people are now suspecting that I might be overreaching here; after all, this is going a bit beyond just that 2016 Fort Mac fundraiser, isn't it? On whose authority can I demand the disclosure of all of these financials, and the answer may surprise you. My unimpeachable legal authority for this is ... Ezra Levant, who was imprudent enough to publish the following at that same link above, and I suggest you read this carefully to truly appreciate its significance:

Let me translate the above for you. Given that Ezra sued me explicitly for allegedly damaging his reputation, by Ezra's own logic, he better damned well be squeaky clean since, according to Ezra, 

Defamation's a funny kind of lawsuit, because it's all about the reputation of the plaintiff. Every thing they've said and done goes to the value of their reputation. Every lie they've told, every dishonourable thing they've done -- that's all relevant, because it goes to damages.

You know what? I could not agree more, and since Ezra himself assures us that damages are based on every single lie or dishonourable action one has ever done, he has thrown open the door to allow me to demand details and explanations of all those petitions, and fundraisers, and mortgage applications, and tax receipts, and anything else that goes to his reputation. And I can assure you, I will be insisting he turn it all over, and it will all be entered into evidence so I can use it to defend myself at trial.

And that is what this has all been about, and why people should want to step up and fund my defense against Ezra Levant -- because so many people have said for so many years, "Man, if only we could see where all that money went." Well, here's your chance since I am the person being sued by Ezra Levant and, by Ezra's own logic, as the defendant, I have access to whatever internal documents I fucking want, and it's going to be a "feast."

That is what this is all about -- if you were waiting for someone to step up and dig into the finances of Ezra Levant and Rebel News, here's your chance. Ezra sued me back in 2016; now it's my turn for discovery and questioning him under oath and I can assure you, I am not going to waste the opportunity.

And if you want to make this happen, you're invited to help. I've dealt with this vexatious and frivolous bullshit for over six years now, so it's your turn to step up. If you've always wanted to dig into years worth of financials related to Ezra Levant and Rebel News, then stop whining and put your money where my fundraiser is. I've been fighting this shit for over six years, so it's not unreasonable to suggest that you take a few seconds to offer some support.

This has cost me a lot of cash over the years, but I've stuck it out and now it's my turn. Feel free to help.

FEB 13 UPPITY DATE: There are many more things I will be asking Ezra under oath, and requiring him to hand over, and here's just one more. A while back, an anonymous tipster dropped me a note and asked me if I'd noticed how suspiciously often Rebel "journalists" get detained or arrested by the constabulary, after which they immediately fire up a fundraiser. Well, duh, of course I'd noticed, just like the rest of the planet had noticed.

Anonymous tipster assured me that those journos are expressly coached in how to most effectively provoke the authorities to get the result they want, so you can be sure I will be demanding any evidence or correspondence that establishes that Rebel reporters are reading from a script of some kind, expressly designed to provoke a confrontation for the purpose of playing the victim and registering a new fundraiser.

According to tipster, one example of that alleged script involves deliberately crowding someone to the point where they simply put a hand on you to get some space, whereupon you immediately scream, "Don't touch me! You can't touch me, stop touching me!!", and making sure all of that is caught on video but subsequently edited to show only the end result and not what led up to it.

In any event, that will be part of the discovery process. As will far more.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The prodigal son who can never returneth.

My network of crack, elite, secret, elite and crack spies tells me that Lloydminster's Lord Baron Twatrick von Loadenhosen is currently camped out in the Fort Nelson Hotel in Fort Nelson, BC, suggesting that Patrick is indeed doing everything he can to avoid working in his home province of Saskatchewan so as to not be subject to the garnishment order I have against him.

Sure, that's one way to beat garnishment, but one has to think that leaving the province for employment is going to get kind of tiring after five or 10 years. Then again, it's not like anyone in the Lloyd misses him or anything.