Chronicles of Twatrick: JUXTAPOSE!

Undischarged bankrupt and legal fugitive Patrick Ross, who has taken to demeaning various people with the monikers of "Bobbles", "Skidmark", "Cryler" and "Pedochuckles", will now lecture the rest of us on name-calling.

OK, then.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Getting his ass kicked in court again.

From back here, anonymous commenter seeks clarification:

I'm confused. Patrick said he won that hearing because Skinner's defense was in shambles and had evidence included or something.

Your article reads as if Patrick lost the hearing horribly. Is this more dishonest engagement from ole triple chin? Soon that will be quadruple chin based on his latest Youtube fodder for his 13 followers.

I have the full transcript of that August 30, 2022 hearing, and I can assure you Patrick had his ass handed to him by the judge. Unsurprisingly, Patrick thoroughly misrepresents what the judge said, so let me clear that up.

Patrick was attempting to strike the defense of one Peter Skinner in Patrick's ludicrous $17.8 skajillion defamation action against Skinner and (as you can read from that earlier post) made such a total fool of himself that ... oh, read it for yourself (the judge erroneously refers to Skinner as "Mr. Peters"):

Ruling

THE COURT: Mr. Peters [sic], I will not need to call on you. We have a saying in business that an individual who represents himself may have someone that is unwise as a client. In this particular case, Mr. Ross represented himself in filing the defamation lawsuit and a claim of person injury in the nature of harassment. He also was met with a defence by Mr. Skinner. Today, Mr. Ross indicates that the defence is inadequate and inappropriate and, perhaps, should be struck. The difficulty with that is that, like beauty, the quality and nature of a defence is often in the eye of the beholder. 

We allow in the court system people to represent themselves. Is it wise? No, we do not think so, and many a statement of defence has resulted in a court case going against a defendant because of irregularities and inappropriate comments in a defence document. This is not the forum to determine that.

Note first that the judge makes it clear that he doesn't even need to hear a rebuttal from Skinner. This is typically a bad sign -- when you've made such a pathetic and incomprehensible opening presentation that the judge does not even need to hear from the opposing party. But it gets worse for Patrick as it is the very next paragraph of the ruling that Patrick subsequently misrepresents:

Mr. Skinner has the right to be wrong in his document and face the downstream consequence. In this particular case, Mr. Ross may ultimately win the war, but he loses this little battle. He should plan on taking the case forward based on the quality and nature of the documents that are before him.

Patrick has consistently represented the above as the judge saying that Skinner's defense is wrong. That's not how I read it -- from the full context of the hearing, it's not clear the judge has even read Skinner's defense; he is simply saying that, in the general sense, Skinner has the right to file his own defense, and has the right to submit whatever he wants, whether it makes sense or not. This is not a specific criticism of Skinner's defense; rather, it is an opinion on self-represented litigants and their filings in general, nothing more.

The judge clearly ruled against Patrick, and did so without even needing to hear an argument from Skinner. Patrick -- desperately trying to salvage something to brag about -- dishonestly re-interprets the judge's words.

I'm sure you're shocked.

BONUS TRACK: Let me pat myself on the back by pointing out that I wrote this blog post a full two weeks before that hearing. Did I call it or what?

MORE BONUS: This is the perfect example of Patrick misrepresenting the ruling as a slap against Skinner's defense specifically, when it is simply a general opinion of the judge related to the pleadings of self-represented litigants.

JUXTAPOSE!

Man who filed for personal bankruptcy in order to dump his self-inflicted debts on the rest of society will now crap all over (*checks notes*) government handouts.

Chronicles of Twatrick: All quiet on the wanker front.

One of my Lloydminster-based CIs sends me this recent pic:

showing precious little activity at Casa Ross -- perhaps a harbinger of that dump eventually going on the market. Fortunately, I have no lack of eager beavers, volunteering to keep an eye on that property and let me know if anything changes.

That's how it works when you have friends.

P.S. I will not publish the address of the above property; it's easy enough to learn from Patrick's numerous legal filings. But if you are in the vicinity and are inclined to do a drive-by and take a pic or let me know if a "For Sale" sign suddenly appears out front, that would be just ducky as I have legal assistance ready to step in to try to block the sale.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Someone is in a bad mood this holiday season.

Personally, I'd like the guy who filed for bankruptcy and dumped his debts on society to stop mocking the guy who pays for his own vacations.

But that's just me.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Not quite the silver-tongued devil in court.

While I will still have a longer piece on the ongoing (mis)adventures of undischarged bankrupt and financial fugitive Patrick "Kid Cash Thunderbolt Nexus Martial Arts Chick Magnet" Ross in a day or two, here's something to tide you over. While Patrick loves to wax philosophical about his legal acumen, the fact is that when Patrick gets into court, he invariably morphs into a blubbering, weepy sack of inarticulateness.

As just one example, I will use snippets of a transcript from August of 2022, when Patrick tried to strike the defense of one Peter Skinner. Here, on page 4, the judge just wants to understand the basis of the underlying action, whereupon Patrick ... oh, just read it:

As you can see, the poor judge just wants to understand what is happening, while Patrick blathers on incomprehensibly when all the judge wanted to confirm was that Patrick filed an application.

Sadly, not taking a clue from the judges's brevity, Patrick once again launches into a soliloquy immediately thereafter:

Still unclear on how to comport himself in a court of law, Patrick once again responds to a simple question with extended blathering, this time being cut off by the judge who appears to have had quite enough of his meandering irrelevancy:

Shortly thereafter, the judge tells Skinner that he does not even need to hear from him, then proceeds to kick Patrick's application to the curb.

The point here is not that Patrick lost his application (I, in fact, predicted that he would, for exactly the reason the judge provided), but that Patrick -- for all of his online bravado and bluster -- is a stunningly poor and inarticulate participant in legal actions, barely capable of putting sentences together to the point where a judge will simply cut him off. (This is exactly what happened years earlier when I got him in front of a judge in March of 2012 -- it was painful.)

In any event, there will be more on this in a day or two but this should hold you until then.

BONUS TRACK: Given that Patrick loves to, on occasion, dismiss people he doesn't like as "groomers," he might be interested in this latest development, wherein slagging someone as a "groomer" opens one up for (you guessed it) a defamation lawsuit.

Honestly, Patrick just doesn't seem to know when to stop digging, does he?

MORE BONUS: It's worth pointing out yet more of Patrick's utter lack of comprehension of how the law works. Above, you can see where Patrick claims that Peter Skinner accuses Patrick of criminally defrauding his company. A serious claim to be sure, except that there seems ample evidence that Patrick has, over the years, done exactly that to several people ... as long as you understand the claim being made.

There is a difference in Canada between charges of "identify theft" and "identify fraud" and you can read all about it here. If you don't understand what I wrote there, go back and read it again until it sinks in.

YET MORE BONUS: I've written on this before: standard Canadian bankruptcy law is quite clear that, if you are an undischarged bankrupt, you are typically not allowed to initiate any legal actions on your own; rather, you must get the blessing of your trustee. Patrick is quite convinced that he has precedent that allows him to do this; in this, he is sadly mistaken but let's go with that thought.

During the above proceeding, when the issue of Patrick's bankruptcy came up, that was the perfect opportunity for Patrick to disclose to the judge that he did not, in fact, have a trustee, his trustee having discharged himself in February of 2014 due to Patrick's ongoing non-compliance with his legal obligations as a bankrupt.

Note this first exchange, where Patrick gets a massive opening to disclose his lack of trustee, whereupon he quickly changes the subject:

It's clear that the judge is asking Patrick about getting permission from his trustee, the perfect time for Patrick to admit he has none but ... he passes on that chance, deliberately leaving the judge with a misconception as to what is going on.

And on the very next page, the judge once again gives Patrick the golden opportunity to clear up that misconception and, once again, Patrick dodges and weaves:

Now, it's hard to say if one can accuse Patrick of straight-up lying to the judge, but there's no problem with saying that he obviously and deliberately misled the judge by concealing a significant fact.

OK, I think I'm done for today.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Happy interestversary!

Another month, and another several hundred dollars added to the swelling debt of Lloydminster's favourite undischarged bankrupt and fugitive village idiot, Patrick "Super Duper Hyper Warp Speed Nexus Mullet Ass Kicking Quintuple Threat Bad Ass Chick Magnet" Ross:

At the moment, I have a buttload of end-of-week deadlines, so you will all have to be patient to hear the latest scoop on the train wreck dumpster fire that is Patrick's life:

All this, even as Patrick is hiding out somewhere in the wilds of northern Alberta, hoping that knock on the door is not yet another process server or someone from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. So, hang in there, and I'll have something more substantial this weekend.

BONUS TRACK: To no one's surprise, here's Patrick, still insisting on the "Freedom Convoy" being a totally legal and peaceful get-together, despite it being nothing of the sort:

Chronicles of Twatrick: Into the Wayback Machine!

As one more example of the weirdness of Patrick Ross' currently very dormant 2022 defamation lawsuit against me, I will reproduce nothing more than the first four words of the paragraph opening the third section of his Statement of Claim; the section that purports to document my defamation against him:

"Between 2021 and 2008 ..."

I am not making this up ... Patrick is asking the Court to consider his wildly-embellished claims going all the way back to 2008.

Make of that what you will.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The weirdness of the lawsuit.

While I may write more about the weird and meritless defamation action against me from Lloydminster's favourite financial fugitive and debtor, I will give you a single example of its quality (or lack thereof).

In a Dec 2022 Affidavit, Patrick devotes almost a full third of that affidavit describing to the court my allegedly threatening behaviour. This sounds impressive ... until one reads that section and notices it refers entirely to the actions of other people I have never even met. I could mock that content further, but it's worth simply jumping to the end to read this opening to the very last paragraph of that Affidavit:

"In the interest of fairness it is worth noting that [CC] engaged in no threats of physical violence himself."

Go back and read that again to truly appreciate the worthlessness of that part of the Affidavit. After introducing that lengthy section with the subtitle, "THE ROLE OF [CC] IN THREATENING BEHAVIOUR," at the very end, Patrick openly concedes that none of that had anything to do with me.

Thanks for stopping by.

P.S. It is worth noting that Patrick has already admitted that the rationale for his lawsuit against me is simply to try to get even with how much he owes me from my successful 2010 defamation judgment against him; after he filed it, he explicitly offered to drop it if I withdrew my judgment against him. What is so strange about that offer is that, given that Patrick is asking for $4,000,000, winning that would more than make up for what he owes me, so if Patrick truly thought his lawsuit had any merit, why would he offer to make that kind of settlement?

All of this will end up in front of a judge in due course.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Four million dollars, you say?

While I will have far more to say about Lloydminster's favourite undischarged bankrupt closer to the end of this month, this should keep you amused for at least a few hours. I have already mentioned that Patrick Ross filed a defamation suit against me well over a year ago; it is, of course, utterly without merit, but we'll get to that in due course.

What is amusing is what he is asking for:

That's four million dollars.

Four.

Million.

Dollars.

Patrick thinks his personal reputation is worth four million dollars.

Keep in mind that, when I sued Patrick back in 2010 and the judge found that I had absolutely been defamed, and maliciously, I was awarded $75,000 (plus $10,000 in costs). And that was based on clear and unmistakable malicious defamation. Patrick, on the other hand, is convinced that he needs four million dollars to heal all that butthurt.

You can draw your own conclusions.

Chronices of Twatrick: Arguing in bad faith.

OK, I'm ready to believe that undischarged bankrupt and closet incel Patrick Ross is simply trolling me; how else to explain him accusing someone else of not arguing in good faith:

when Patrick's entire online career is simply one bad faith engagement after another, as I so wittily documented back here.

So, yeah, he's trolling me. The idea that he's actually serious is ... well, frightening.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Still dumb as ever.

You know, the Charter also guarantees freedom of expression but, oddly, Patrick owes me a truckload of money for what he once said about me. It's almost as if there are limits to those Charter rights that Patrick refuses to accept.