First, I think we can all agree that, given that Patrick has already publicly stated that he thought a recent visitor to the ol' Ross homestead was for nothing more than to ascertain his location, to suggest he is going to ground to escape imminent "physical harm" is more than a little drama queenish. But let's ignore Patrick's egregious misrepresentation of the situation and concentrate on something that might be more significant to his plight.
You see, Patrick keeps threatening to sue your humble scribe and, as he insists on doing that himself without legal representation, and given that he does not have substituted service for me, he is legally required to serve me properly and legally via a process server -- he knows full well where I am available for such service. But here's his problem (and I suspect some smart cookies can already see where this is going).
If Patrick insists on representing himself without the aid of a lawyer who (unlike Patrick) actually understands law, then he must, by law, make himself available for return service; that is, he is required to provide a proper and legal address for service such that I can respond in kind if and when I am properly served. And now you see Patrick's dilemma.
Even if he hires a process server, it seems to me that Patrick cannot serve me without providing a correct and current address so that I can serve him back; in short, if Patrick chooses to remain in hiding, there is no way he can serve me in a legal way that does not allow me the ability to reply. (If Patrick had a lawyer, that would not be a problem, but given Patrick's insistence on doing things himself, I don't see how Patrick thinks this is going to work.)
As I admitted, I am not a lawyer, but it seems that, having blown this one incident wildly out of proportion and insisting he needs to go into hiding for his personal safety, Patrick has sort of fucked himself out of the ability to do, well, anything. I will, of course, be passing this on to my lawyer, who can decide what consequences this is going to have.
Now, if you will excuse me, unlike Patrick, I have an actual job.
P.S. I predict that Patrick, given an impending deadline of tomorrow, Friday, April 28, to fill out and return the Saskatchewan sheriffs' mandatory financial questionnaire pursuant to my collection proceedings against him, will suddenly argue that he has no obligation to do so given that he is in fear for his life, or something equally ludicrous.
He's done this sort of thing before, and I predict he will do it again.
Let's watch.
P.P.S. As I do not have a Facebook account, I can't check in on whether Patrick has published any more disingenuous nonsense to the Facebook group "Your Lloydminster", so if anyone who has access can poke their nose in there and take a few screenshots for me, that'd be great, thanks.
Perhaps my favourite pic of what someone has already sent me is one "Zevin Kindrachuk" patiently (and quite correctly) explaining that there is nothing even remotely illegal about taking pictures of whatever you want as long as you're not trespassing, with Patrick refusing to have anything to do with logic or reality or, you know, facts:
So appreciate that, even in Lloydminster, people are telling Patrick he's full of shit. I will have more to say about this exchange in a subsequent post.
7 comments:
Is that $500 bounty still available?
Absolutely that bounty is still available, subject to the following conditions. What I want is *verifiable* information regarding Patrick Ross' current address, his place of employment and his vehicle. If I get all of that, you get the money.
If you can supply that, do ***NOT*** send it to me by posting a comment; I will not violate privacy, and I will not allow that comment through. E-mail that info to me at canadiancynic@yahoo.ca. If I receive it, I will not publish any of it, I will use it exclusively to assist in my collection enforcement proceedings.
Finally, I am always open to people just dropping me notes and letting me know if they happen to spot Patrick slouching around town. His latest claim is that he is back in Grande Prairie, AB, but it's increasingly likely that he is now posting total bullshit in order to mislead people trying to track him down.
In any event, there you go. You can try for the reward, or just send along information out of the goodness of your heart.
You're a total hypocrite when you hire people to stalk someone and get their personal information, then claim you don't want to violate their privacy. I hope you get charged for that.
Anon @ 7:49 PM: Your comment is so off-point, it's hard to know where to start to refute it.
First, I never "hired" anyone to track Patrick; you obviously don't understand what that word means. "Hiring" would mean something like hiring a PI to track him down; it implies a contract or agreement. What I did was offer a *reward* or *bounty* for anyone who could furnish me with information. No information? No bounty. It's that simple. No one has been "hired."
Next, related to your suggestion of a violation of privacy, I thought I made it clear that if someone gets that information, they should send it to me *privately*, and I would not publish it, only use it for the purpose of enforcing collection proceedings against Patrick.
More to the point, it's unclear why you don't think I have a right to look for Patrick. He owes me a ton of money, and is doing everything he can to avoid paying. Under the circumstances, I think I have every right to do what I can to find him, as long as I don't break any laws. Which I have not.
Finally, as for being charged for this, I have no idea what I would be charged with, and you certainly haven't supplied an example. My offer to compensate people for providing me with information about Patrick is still on the table, and I stand by it. Patrick went on the Facebook group "Your Lloydminster" and shrieked about the nefarious behaviour of someone who took a picture of his alleged Lloyd address, and he was told pointedly by at least two people in that group that there was absolutely nothing illegal about that. So Patrick *knows* no laws are being broken here, he is simply lying about it.
I think we're done here.
P.S. Followup to last comment -- regarding the photo I posted in a recent blog post showing two vehicles in front of an unidentifiable house, I will point out that that photo was sent to me anonymously by someone who I did not hire to do that, was not aware it was going to be done, and I did not reimburse that individual. In addition, the original photo had the license plates of both vehicles visible, and I cropped the photo to remove both of them.
So anyone suggesting I hired and paid someone to violate the privacy of Patrick and his family is going to have a hard time making that argument.
It's amusing that he seems to think that you must abide by certain rules in chasing him down, but he is allowed to ignore things like being served legally at the address he himself has provided...
Anon @ 1:11 PM: You noticed that, did you?
Post a Comment