Friday, July 14, 2023

Chronicles of Twatrick: Sure, let's talk about "improper purpose."

While prepping for yet another week in Europe (this time in the delightful city of Prague, all expenses paid), I will disembowel another of Patrick Ross' latest threats that, oh boy, this time, yessir, he's really got me, just you wait, uh huh.

Here's Patrick, replying to someone who diplomatically suggests he stop being such a weaselly, evasive leech and start paying what he owes me. Patrick responds thusly (and very stupidly):

I will skip pointing out Patrick's problems in trying to sue me while being an undischarged bankrupt without a trustee who owes me over $100,000 and is refusing to provide a legal address for personal service. Yes, let's ignore all of that as Patrick has just smashed himself in the face with a shovel yet again.

If you've ever seen an affidavit, most of them contain a phrase along the lines of, "I make this affidavit for no improper purpose." While that phrase is somewhat antiquated and probably of diminished value these days, its value used to be to assure the Court that your action was valid and had actual value, and was not being filed out of mere spite or vengeance or vindictiveness or harassment. As I said, it's mostly boilerplate these days, but you can appreciate what it's trying to say.

At which point, along comes Patrick, who serves up a delightful tweet making it abundantly clear that his primary motivation in suing me has nothing to do with actual facts, but is simply a cheap stunt to try to offset his massive debt to me. Yeah, that was a pretty stupid thing to say publicly.

Patrick really does have a talent for ...

Take care, kids. I'll post pictures.

P.S. I should point out that Patrick's filed (and subsequently withdrawn) Statement of Claim he keeps touting on Twitter claims defamation by your humble scribe (and I quote verbatim):

"Between 2021 and 2008 ..."

Feel free to point out Patrick's problem in trying to hold me accountable for alleged defamatory statements as far back as 2008.

P.P.S. An earlier anonymous commenter insisted that, while attempting to serve Patrick at the Lloydminster residence, he/she encountered yet other people also attempting to serve Patrick. I would very much like to know who these other people are; they are invited to email me privately ( and enlighten me as to their purpose in all of this. I will keep all this confidential if asked, I just want to know who else is out there as perhaps we can co-operate.


Anonymous said...

As someone with a bit of experience in matters like this, Patrick's biggest problem is the amount of money he owes you that he has refused to pay. I'm betting he doesn't realize that, by not paying, he is violating an actual court order.

In that part of the ruling you posted earlier, the ruling says of Patrick, "I fix costs at $3,000, payable forthwith." That is not a suggestion; that is an ORDER OF THE COURT, ordering Patrick to pay you those costs. By not doing so, Patrick has refused to obey an order of the court, and I'm betting he's done this several times. What this means is that, the instant Patrick tries to file another motion, all you need to do is present the Court with all of the cost award orders Patrick has refused to obey. I guarantee, they will be unhappy with him. More probably, they will order him to pay you the entire amount he owes you before allowing him to file ANY applications against you.

When the Court orders you to pay costs; paying those costs is not optional.

Anonymous said...

(Same anonymous as above): I forgot to mention how badly Patrick's refusal to pay cost awards all these years can backfire on him in a big way.

If he's stupid enough to file an action against you, your simplest response is to just point out all the cost awards he's ignored and not only ask the Court to throw out the action, but you can further ask the Court to order Patrick to pay those awards, on pain of being found in contempt of court and subject to even further financial punishment.

A court should have no problem issuing an order that someone that delinquent in payments needs to get current in a hurry, it might even order Patrick to pay the entire outstanding amount within 30 days. And if Patrick insists he doesn't have that kind of cash, the proper response from the court should be that he's had 13 years to deal with this, and he's blown off numerous opportunities to resolve this. No court will have any sympathy for Patrick at this point, so if he files anything against you, make sure you take that opportunity to have the court issue even further orders against him.

In fact, it would be entirely up to the court to order Patrick to turn over (forthwith :-) a sworn list of all of his assets. By filing any sort of action against you, Patrick is opening himself up to all sorts of legal retaliation, some of which could be VERY costly for him.

CC said...

Anon: I was aware of some of what you wrote, but it never occurred to me to use Patrick's own filing as the springboard to clobber him with more court orders and additional cost awards. As you suggest, once he proceeds with an action, he is at the mercy of the court, who has the authority to order, well, pretty much anything. Oh, and I can assure you, as much as Patrick talks tough, once he gets in front of a judge, he turns into a weepy, blubbering imbecile. This is all a very promising approach.

Anonymous said...

What is bemusing to me is that so many conservatives are exactly like Twatsie.

Conservatives should be labelled a mental illness at this point.

MgS said...

#Anonymous 1:13PM:

Modern day conservatism is filled with people doing the "rules for thee, not for me" routine.

Patrick's desperate efforts to avoid accountability, while attempting to hold others accountable (for exactly what, I'm not sure), will inevitably backfire if it ever gets in front of a judge for trial ... something that I very much doubt will ever actually happen. I suspect he's going to basically "rag the puck" for time, doing just enough to "keep it alive", until one or more defendants gets a motion in front of a judge to dismiss the case.

* and there is a big difference between a motion to dismiss and actually testing the merits of the case in trial. I'd have to dig around a bit, but I'm fairly certain that there are plenty of example cases where the plaintiff has chosen not to move the case along, keeping it alive as a nuisance that ties up resources for the defendants - which I suspect have been dismissed as a result when one or more defendants stands up and says "enough - pee or get off the pot".