My bad ... I had completely overlooked May 19, which was yet another monthly interestversary for Lloydminster's Patrick "Mega Ultra Nexus Dragon" Ross in terms of it being exactly 21 months since a Saskatchewan judge told him how much he owed me and cranking up the annual interest rate on that amount from 2% to 5%:
And, sure, I've managed to claw back a few thousand dollars from Patrick over the years, but it doesn't come close to the additional interest he now owes me. But all that aside, there is a more interesting development.
Via an anonymous tipster, I was told that boy lawyer Patrick Ross is now threatening to sue even more people than he's threatening to sue now. I didn't get any further details but, if this is true and you are one of the people in Patrick's gravy-slathered sights, I'm going to help you out and explain how you can protect yourself. All of what follows is based on a publicly-available transcript involving Patrick Ross and Peter Skinner from back in August of 2022, and I will reproduce the salient bits verbatim so you know I am not misrepresenting anything.
The backstory to this is that Patrick -- for whatever reason -- decided to sue Peter Skinner some time back, and filed a Statement of Claim with the then Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta. Peter responded with a Statement of Defence that included (among other things) the observation that, as an undischarged bankrupt, Patrick has no legal standing to initiate any legal actions without the permission of his trustee. It is with that understanding that I reproduce this exchange between the judge and Patrick, where the judge brings up Patrick's status as an undischarged bankrupt and how it typically relates to a legal action:
(Side note: There is an obvious transcription error in the above in that line 25 should clearly read, "Okay. So then you had to get permission from your trustee ...". I think that's fairly obvious as the text in the transcript makes no sense otherwise. In any event, onward.)
Note first that the judge is making a trivial observation; that under normal circumstances, an undischarged bankrupt has no standing to file a legal action, and should get the permission of his or her trustee. This is in no way controversial; it's the way things normally work. However, note well how Patrick tries very hard to mislead the court.
First, Patrick (correctly) admits that he is an undischarged bankrupt; however, it's what Patrick leaves out that is so crucial. Based on the exchange above, the judge could be forgiven for assuming that Patrick's is a typical bankruptcy, with a conditional discharge order and a monthly payment that Patrick is making and so on; that is, a bankruptcy that is proceeding smoothly towards an inevitable discharge.
Nowhere in the above does Patrick volunteer that he is years behind on his obligatory reporting to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, and years behind on his payments, and that I have successfully filed to have him removed from the protection of bankruptcy and currently have a collections order against him in the province of Saskatchewan. No, all Patrick discloses is that he is "as yet undischarged," clearly trying to give the impression that there's nothing out of the ordinary here. But it gets so much worse.
When, on line 25, the judge (quite appropriately) asks Patrick whether he ran all this by his trustee, this might have been a good time for Patrick to disclose that he does not have a trustee. In fact, Patrick's trustee discharged himself in February of 2014 due to Patrick's contemptuous non-compliance with his obligations under the bankruptcy regime, and right then would have been perhaps a good time for Patrick to admit that. Instead, and stunningly, Patrick replies simply, "No, I didn't ...", then desperately tries to change the subject.
I'm fairly sure that the judge would have been gobsmacked to learn that, rather than this being a typical bankruptcy, Patrick has been without a trustee for almost a decade but, as you can read for yourself, Patrick volunteers none of that and soldiers on. I won't say that this is an outright lie, but I submit that it's more than fair to suggest that Patrick deliberately misled the Court in that exchange. But, once again, it gets worse in this exchange on the very next page as the judge, still unaware of the situation, continues to assume that Patrick has a trustee:
Yet again, that would have been a good time for Patrick to perhaps 'fess up to his lack of a trustee (and a number of other things), and yet again, Patrick continues to mislead the court. So what is the point of all this?
The point is, if Patrick is actually trying to sue others for whatever reason, and you're one of his intended targets, you need to be aware of all of the above and you need to bring all of it to the attention of the Court and not let Patrick so obviously mislead by omission. Now, Patrick is convinced that he found legal precedent that allows him to sue others with or without a trustee. Well, maybe he did, and maybe he didn't, but given his current situation, if he wants to make that argument to a judge, that judge really needs to know all of this, and if Patrick is currently vowing to slap you with some sort of legal action, well, drop me a note and I will make sure you are up to date with everything you need to crush him in court.
Oh, and what I think is the most important thing here? If you examine that most recent snippet, it clearly represents a judge telling Patrick in plain and simple English how things normally work for an undischarged bankrupt, so if Patrick insists on continuing to pull shit like this, what the above shows is that Patrick was told in no uncertain terms that he should work through his trustee, and that he is refusing to follow the advice of the court. And judges, really, really, really hate people who do that.
In any event, happy interestversary! See you next month.
BONUS TRACK: Anonymous commenter asks whether Patrick really has legal precedent such that he can sue people without a trustee. Well, yes and no, so let me explain.
As you can read in that first snippet above, the judge openly concedes, "There are always bankruptcy exceptions," and he's right -- there is a small and very restricted set of circumstances under which an undischarged bankrupt can unilaterally launch a legal action independent of his trustee, but Patrick fails to appreciate why those exceptions don't even remotely apply to him.
The whole point of bankruptcy is that, once you file, you effectively hand over the management of all of your assets to your trustee, whose job it is to protect the interests of both the bankrupt and, more importantly, the creditors. More specifically, it is the responsibility of the trustee to ride herd on the bankrupt, and ensure that conditional discharge payments are made so that the creditors will receive the money owed them. And as long as the bankrupt is following the rules, and making the payments such that the creditors are being paid, then the court is sometimes willing to give the bankrupt some leeway in terms of how to choose to spend their remaining money. And now you see Patrick's problem.
Patrick wants to argue that he is entitled to that leeway, despite the fact that he is years behind on his obligations and payments, to the point where I have had to start collection proceedings against him. Put more simply, given how much Patrick owes me right now, along with his contemptuous mockery of his own bankruptcy, there is zero chance that a judge would look at this case and approve of any of Patrick's frivolous legal harassment.
Quite simply, all of Patrick's alleged precedents assume an undischarged bankrupt in good standing, who is fulfilling his responsibilities as a bankrupt and can therefore be given a little latitude to spend his money as he wishes. That this doesn't describe Patrick is something I should not have to explain, but if Patrick wants to try this crap with anyone, as I said, drop me a note and I will make sure you have everything you need to annihilate that little shit in court, and get costs.
I trust I've clarified the situation.
5 comments:
Does Patrick really have legal precedent that he can sue people while an undischarged bankrupt? Or is he just misunderstanding the law again?
Anon @ 9:51 AM: Oh, I had noticed that immediately -- that Patrick, while bragging about his indisputable precedent, was clearly too afraid to disclose to the judge the sordid state of his bankruptcy.
In the end, I think that what will damage Patrick the most is the proof that, almost a year ago, a judge told him *directly* that he should be working through his trustee, so when he tries this shit again, his target should respond by putting the full transcript in front of the judge to establish how Patrick misled the original judge and is now just playing games.
Sometimes, Patrick really is his own worst enemy.
It would appear that Patrick’s “retirement strategy” is basically to sue everybody in sight for seven figures and hope that one of them pans out … and that he is somehow able to collect the amounts awarded.
Considering his behaviour, I’m having a lot of difficulty believing that any court in Canada is going to award that kind of damages to him in the first place … and that’s before considering that unlike US courts, Canadian courts are much less willing to hand out large damages awards in the first place.
… and of course, one always has to look at the various defences that someone being sued by him might put forward to the courts (assuming that he could even get his case before a judge … and I have a feeling it would fall apart in discovery).
Who's he threatening now? I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong but has he ever won in court? It's baffling our justice system has let individuals like him tie up our courts with all his hopes and dreams of securing a pension from someone.
A quick Google search aptly demonstrates how terrible his reputation is and his bankruptcy record is common knowledge. Suing people for harming his stellar reputation is categorically impossible. He's done so much damage to himself over the his online conduct alone one has to wonder how further anyone could damage it.
I've read your entire blog about your adventures with this man and it's hard to believe if it weren't for the mountain of evidence provided by you and others. Write a book or pitch a tv series about your unfortunate history with him. I've watched worse documentaries on lesser stories. It's amazing this man is still alive. I'm convinced this man is the reason we all have to follow warning labels on everything including not to eat claymore mines.
If anyone was requiring an example of failure, Patrick Ross would logically be the best entity to bring forward. They say to fail forward but he's regressed to the fetal stage in what it means to be an adult.
Thank you for the updates and to everyone who interacts with these entries because this site alone could be used to demonstrate how feeble he is and any argument he has any sort of a positive reputation.
Anon @ 4:00 PM: I was given no information as to who Patrick might be after now, only that he was *allegedly* threatening to sue even more people for besmirching his good name. And, no, since this started in 2010, Patrick has never won a single court action related to my defamation action against him. Not one. 100% loser. And now he's been reduced to blatantly misleading the judge.
This will not end well for him. At all.
Post a Comment