Nothing really new to report about Lloydminster's Patrick "Cabin in the Woods" Ross and my upcoming next move related to collection enforcement:
But it is worth noting once again that Patrick likes to claim that he is currently suing two people for defamation, one of them being me. Let me assure y'all: Patrick is not currently suing me for anything. As it stands, I have never been served legally and properly with a valid Statement of Claim, and it's unlikely that that is going to happen any time soon, for a simple reason.
Because Patrick loves to represent himself in these matters (and we all know how well that's worked out for him over the years), in order to serve me, he would have to provide a valid address for service so that I can respond in kind. He can no longer simply give his father's address in Lloydminster as I have more than enough evidence to show that any registered mail sent to that address is never picked up, establishing that Patrick does not reside there to the extent that he can be served there.
Again, as Patrick insists on representing himself, he is legally required to provide a valid address for service for the purposes of being served, and the instant he does that, I will happily pass on that address to the proper authorities for the purposes of collection enforcement.
I long ago provided Patrick with a valid address for service, so if he really and truly wants to get into this with me, he knows where to find me ... at which point I will know where to find him.
P.S. I am, of course, still interested in any sightings of Patrick, particularly in the vicinity of Lloydminster.
BONUS TRACK: It is perhaps worth pointing out that, last year, Patrick filed a Statement of Claim against me in Court of Queen's Bench, Alberta (not properly served on me, as I have already explained, and subsequently withdrawn by him as it was a steaming pile of nonsense). What is curious about that SoC is that Patrick is claiming defamation on my part for statements I allegedly made -- and I am reproducing this verbatim -- "Between 2021 and 2008, ..."
Pause.
And.
Reflect.
Patrick's (unserved) Statement of Claim against me for defamation refers to alleged events that occurred, at the very latest, in 2021, and as far back as 2008. Even if you are not a lawyer, you are probably aware of the concept of "statute of limitations," so it seems unlikely that, at this point, Patrick even has standing to start anything if his action relies on events that happened up to 15 years ago.
But, hey, I am not a lawyer.
AGAIN, I AM NOT A LAWYER ... but I did a quick check of the time limitations for defamation actions in Alberta, and you can read here:
I am willing to be corrected but it appears that Patrick had three months to properly file and serve on me a Notice of Libel, regarding allegations that he openly admits occurred at the absolute latest in 2021 and that he openly admits he has known about since then. So, honestly, I am unsure as to how he thinks this is going to work out for him.
2 comments:
I've seen this sort of time limit before, and notice that it reads, "3 months after the publication of the defamatory matter has come to the plaintiff’s notice or knowledge." This gives the plaintiff the escape hatch to argue that, even if the event(s) occurred over 3 months ago, they've only JUST become aware of it so that time limit doesn't apply.
It's easy to defeat that argument by showing even a single example of where the plaintiff was clearly aware of the alleged libel some time ago. And I'm assuming you have that evidence.
Anonymous @ 7:37: That evidence exists in multiple forms, including repeated claims by Patrick on social media that he is suing people, as well as a statement of claim which he subsequently withdrew … and never bothered to serve. At this point, he’s so far past the 90 day limit that he’d have to come up with some pretty fancy reasoning to convince the courts why he should be allowed to proceed at all.
Post a Comment