Chronicles of Twatrick: Happy interestversary!

It's hard to believe that it's now a full 32 months since a Saskatchewan judge told undischarged bankrupt and financial fugitive Patrick "Yo, me and my homeboys, yo yo yo" Ross:

that Patrick owes me a whackload of money, an amount that is now increasing at 5% per year, so you can do the math but it's most likely over $120,000 by now and climbing by more than $6,000 annually:

In unrelated news, several tipsters tell me that Patrick is once again talking smack about me over at his unreadable Twitter account, which is fine ... I don't spend a lot of time there, unlike Patrick who I know obsesses over every one of my tweets and blog posts but, whatever fills up his life and makes it meaningful, I guess.

As always, keep me posted on any Patrick-related developments and any news involving the disposition of Casa Ross in Lloydminster.

Chronicles of Twatrick: "Bankrupt's Delight."

"I'm Mullet Boy Patrick and I'm here to say,

Declaring bankruptcy is A-OK."

Chronicles of Twatrick: Back in the Lloyd?

The evil genius that is undischarged bankrupt Patrick "Hey, ladies!" Ross continues his devious evasion of the authorities by (*checks notes*) posting pictures of his location and most recent artery-clogging 5-pound lump of fat and bacon grease tucked in a bun:

As always, we here at CC HQ are interested in what Patrick is doing back in Lower Twatsyville, where he is staying and why he's not hard at work in Grande Prairie swamping away.

P.S. If anyone wants to do a drive-by of Casa Ross in Lloydminster and report on any goings-on, that would be most excellent.

Chronicles of Twatrick: What the heck is going on *here*?

Some tipsters bring to my attention a recent brouhaha happening over in Lower Twatsyville, where there may or may not be sock puppets involved:

If anyone knows the story behind "Five Buck Chuck", it might be moderately entertaining.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Glass houses and all that.

JUXTAPOSE! Man who lived with his parents into his 40s and declared personal bankruptcy to avoid accountability for his behaviour will now mock people on social assistance.

You can't make this stuff up.

Chronicles of Patrick: When you dial back your life goals.

Oh, dear ...

This is the sort of thing you brag about when you're six years old and Dad just got home from work ... it's not really the sort of thing that 42-year-olds announce to the world as a major accomplishment.

P.S. I am always open to getting information related to the whereabouts of Patrick Ross.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Choose your heroes wisely.

Pretend to be surprised that one of Patrick's idols is a guy who crossed a state line to kill two people.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Happy interestversary!

It's now 31 months since a Saskatchewan judge told financial fugitive Patrick Ross what he owes me, and cranked up the interest rate to a delightful five per cent:

While I have collected a few thousand dollars since then by way of seizing Patrick's bank account (until he closed it), feel free to do the math to figure out what he owes me by now.

In the meantime, Patrick mouths off as to how he is "successfully" suing me, while still making no effort to move his frivolous action along.

That's pretty much it.

P.S. I am still interested in anyone with the time and wherewithal to do drive-bys of Casa Ross in Lloydminster and report on any breaking developments, such as evidence of new residents or a For Sale sign or what have you, all of that being perfectly legal despite Patrick's hysterical bloviating.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The danger of nonsense.

In a recent comment, regular reader "MgS" writes of the almost wholly nonsensical filings of undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross:

"That’s kind of the problem with a statement of claim - a claimant can put all sorts of nonsense in it, and it comes down to the court process to winnow out what’s actually relevant to the claim of libel. (And self-represented litigants are far more likely to insert huge amounts of irrelevant material into those statements)."

While I agree with most of that, I will take minor issue with the idea that, when one files total rubbish, it is the court's job to "winnow out what's actually relevant."

When a filing originates with an actual lawyer or someone who knows the law, that filing is typically concise, focused and to the point, as it's been written by someone who wants to be taken seriously and who has taken the time to understand what the Court needs to know related to the matter at hand. As MgS suggests, self-represented litigants are more likely to submit rambling rubbish that is more like a grievance fest than a meaningful filing.

But in the latter situation, is it really the Court's job to "winnow" through all that nonsense to figure out if there is a point? That's a good question, especially with Patrick, whose submissions and Affidavits are so vacuous and irrelevant that they have been pointedly slapped down by the respective judges. In 2018, a judge made it clear that Patrick's filing weirdly tried to claim "cruel and unusual punishment" related to his bankruptcy Conditional Discharge Order:

A later submission of Patrick's was such rubbish that the judge wrote ... well, read it for yourself:

So the question is, when a judge is faced with the sort of sophomoric twaddle as that produced by Patrick, at what point is the judge within her rights to throw up her hands and say, "I'm sorry, it's not my job to parse this dreck to see if there's a point buried somewhere herein"?

Thoughts?

Chronicles of Twatrick: The joy of re-litigation.

As a few people have observed, one of the favourite tactics of undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross is that, regardless of the focus of whatever motion is in front of him, Patrick consistently tries to re-litigate my 2010 judgment against him, and is just as consistently pasted by the Court for doing so. Herein, I reproduce the majority of the ruling that dismissed as abandoned (after 3.5 years of no action) Patrick's appeal of the 2014 Conditional Discharge Order against him, where you can see Patrick doing what he always does:

• making excuses of being depressed while providing no supporting evidence,
• trying to re-open the case years after the deadline to do so has passed, and
• claiming "harassment" even as the judge points out he can see no evidence of same

(NOTE: Para 14 reads, "Mr. Day [sic] faces the same hurdle ..." clearly should refer to "Mr. Ross," otherwise it makes no sense.)

The end result of that hearing was that I won that motion, and Patrick's moldering, three-and-a-half-year-old appeal was unceremoniously fed through a woodchipper, but I thought it was worth you seeing the utter lack of merit of Patrick's filings, and how Patrick likes to make dramatic claims in his Affidavits but is completely unable to back them up in front of a judge.

Same as it ever was.

P.S. Note how even the judge seems put off by Patrick's obsession with trying to use two-dollar words by putting Patrick's adjective of "deleterious" inside quotes.

Note also how Patrick loves to brag about how skilled he is at The Law, only to -- when push comes to shove -- plead with the Court about how he didn't understand the simple concept of who to serve with the perfected appeal and hopes the Court takes pity on him.

P.P.S. When I (eventually) file to have Patrick's current lawsuit dismissed as abandoned, you can count on my putting the above before the Court as the perfect example of how Patrick uses the legal system purely for the purpose of harassment. I'm pretty sure any judge will be more than a little interested in Patrick's history of filing actions, only to stuff them in a drawer and leave them there for years without acting on them.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Speaking of surveillance ...

Not sure if I already wrote about this but, in his Affidavit of November 2022, undischarged bankrupt and swamper to the stars Patrick Ross writes the following curious bit of nonsense:

I included several paragraphs to put it in proper context, but it is Patrick's bizarre claim in Paragraph 33 that raises eyebrows, wherein Patrick insists to the Court that any surveillance of the Ross family home is unlawful unless performed by some mysteriously "licensed" individual.

As regular readers are well aware, I have invited anyone in that vicinity -- if they are so inclined -- to do a drive-by of the property and keep me posted of any interesting developments. I have also made it clear that that is to be done only from the roadway or other public property so that it is absolutely and perfectly legal in every respect.

I am unaware of any laws that dictate that one must have some sort of licensing to observe any publicly-viewable edifice as long as one remains exclusively on public property, so it behooves one to ask -- does anyone have the foggiest idea what Patrick is talking about? Remember, this is a claim that Patrick is making to the Court as part of an official Affidavit, so you would think Patrick would take great care to make sure he is describing the situation accurately.

Anyway ... thoughts?

BONUS TRACK: It's worth reading Paragraphs 33-34 carefully, as Patrick makes another head-scratching claim. Patrick refers to the area of "collections law," and suggests that people who are not somehow "licensed" debt collectors (whatever that means) are barred from engaging in surveillance or in any way assisting in the collection of debt.

It's not clear what Patrick means by this, as I have never represented myself as licensed to do such a thing, and I have never encouraged anyone to pass themselves off as such. But, in fact, I know what Patrick is blathering on about, and it is predictably idiotic.

Once upon a time, when I pondered the possibility of being able to seize all of Patrick's worldly possessions, I complained that I had no way of loading them up at Casa Ross and most likely dumping them at Goodwill or Value Village, and asked for any local residents for assistance, whereupon a couple people chimed in that they were in the area and owned pickup trucks and would be delighted to help out.

That is what Patrick is talking about.

Patrick is prepared to go in front of a judge and describe as unlicensed and unlawful debt collection services the idea of a couple dudes saying, "Yeah, I got a bad-ass truck if you need a hand." That is what Patrick is talking about, and I would almost pay money for Patrick to make that argument in court to see how it works out for him.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Waiting on a miracle.

Here's cripplingly indebted undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross, first desecrating the concept of Wagyu beef, then hoping to win the lottery to salvage the smoldering wreckage that is his life:

Frankly, I hope Patrick wins big since that would make it so much easier for me to finally collect what he owes me. Until that happens, I am assuming that Patrick will remain on the run from numerous parties who would all love a short chat with him. Preferably under oath and in the presence of a court reporter.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Patrick still whining about never being served with judgment.

Nothing really new to report today but I'm not sure I ever mentioned this little tidbit. From the very beginning, Patrick Ross has complained to anyone who would listen that he was being treated unfairly because he had never received a copy of the 2010 judgment against him. (He did, of course, receive it numerous times as I had lawyers representing me that entire time and they always did things by the book so, yes, Patrick most certainly was served with that judgment on countless occasions.)

As I described recently, here's Patrick making that claim at a hearing in Calgary on March 6, 2012:

and here's the judge from that same transcript, making it thigh-suckingly clear that she does not believe him:

To this day, Patrick insists he has never been sent what he describes as "a copy of the original judgment," which somehow hindered his ability to respond. But given that he most certainly has been served with that judgment, why would he keep saying this, year after year? Well, here's why.

Because Patrick is an idiot.

More expansively, Patrick has -- for all these years -- not recognized when he got a copy of the original judgment that was sent to him, for the following reason. Here is, in all its fulsomeness and glory, the 2010 endorsement:

Note how short it is. And also keep in mind that Patrick, only hours after this was posted online in November of 2010, openly admitted to seeing and reading it. But he kept whining about how, endorsement aside, I and my lawyer had for whatever reason continued to deprive him of what he considered the full and original judgment. And here is why Patrick is an idiot:

That is the full ruling from the Court. In its entirety. The whole thing.

If you don't believe me, I present the relevant screenshots from the 4-page Certified Order that was used to register my judgment in Alberta well over a decade ago, wherein I suspect you can see that that Order contains little more than the endorsement:

And why was the "ruling" so brief? Because Patrick chose to not defend or even to submit a Statement of Defense. Under those circumstances, the judge had no obligation to go on and on and tediously on, since all he had to do was allow my lawyer to present my overwhelming evidence of malicious defamation, make a determination, and write it up.

And now you can understand Patrick's monstrous screwup, as it is obvious that -- all this time -- he has laboured under the misconception that the endorsement was just the short form, and that there must somewhere be a long version of the ruling that he could pore over and misunderstand. Even to this very day, Patrick insists that I have nefariously kept such a fictional document from him in order to inconvenience him. But now you understand Patrick's ignorance.

There is no "long form" of that endorsement; what you see above is everything, which Patrick has already admitted he is aware of. So for the last 13 years, Patrick has whined to the Court about the lack of a document that has never, ever existed. And all he's done in all that time is piss off every judge who's had to listen to his complaining.

P.S. Over those 13 years, if Patrick really and truly believed he was being deprived of the "long form" of the judgment, all he needed to do was contact the Ontario courthouse and order it. In all those 13 years, he's never done that. But he continued to whine.

I'm sure you're shocked.

Chronicles of Twatrick: If you want to know why Patrick is always in such trouble ...

If you need to understand why massively indebted undischarged bankrupt and financial fugitive Patrick Ross is in the sorry state he's in, it is useful to note that he is still (in his own mind, cleverly) lying about people and misrepresenting what they are saying. (It is precisely that habit of Patrick's that has him lying low in the hinterlands of northern Alberta and currently owing me around $120,000).

Here's Patrick, lying about what the Prime Minister said, suggesting the phrase "two-fer" was obviously a "racial slur":

Amusingly, even the Toronto Sun, when writing about that incident, put the phrase in its proper context, making it clear it had nothing to do with racism:

This is how Patrick operates -- he knowingly and deliberately mangles the meaning of words for rhetorical victories, except that, sometimes, he pushes it a bit too far and it does not end well for him.

Stay tuned for more developments when, next time, I explain the story behind Patrick's insistence that he has never, ever, ever been properly served with a copy of the 2010 default judgment against him.

BONUS TRACK: If you want to appreciate how little patience the Canadian legal system has with bankrupts who try to play games, here is a 2023 ruling out of Alberta. I am in no way implying that Patrick has done any of this, only that if he has, it's clear that the bankruptcy regime in Canada does not look kindly on that sort of chicanery. And, yes, when Patrick's meritless defamation lawsuit moves forward, I can assure you that, under oath, Patrick will be answering questions about his assets over the last several years, all of which I will pass on to the federal Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.

P.S. As always, I am interested in anyone in the vicinity of Lloydminster to do a drive-by of Casa Ross and report on any developments.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Happy lawsuitversary!

It occurs that in addition to the monthly "Happy Interestversary" post, I should also mark the passage of time since undischarged bankrupt and northern Alberta swamp thing Patrick "Stud Muffin" Ross filed his worthless four million dollar defamation action against me back on August 26, 2022:

And while this might seem slightly juvenile, it actually has some legal value as reminding Patrick of his moldering, dormant action will be used when I eventually file to have it dismissed as abandoned, and I can prove to the Court that Patrick had this pointed out to him on a regular basis and still neglected to move his moronic lawsuit forward.

So, happy lawsuitversary.

P.S. And, yes, I'm still interested in someone who can file motions for me in Alberta. Not asking anyone to do this for free; of course I'll pay.

P.P.S. Anyone in the vicinity of Casa Ross in Lloydminster is invited to do a drive-by and report on whether anything interesting is happening there. It's been well over half a year and if the property has not gone on the market, that suggests that its disposition had already been resolved before now.

AFTERSNARK: I have just had it confirmed by a legal acquaintance that regularly (and publicly) reminding Patrick of his ongoing negligence regarding this lawsuit is actually fairly clever since it will demonstrate to the Court that, when I eventually file to have that stupidity dismissed as abandoned, I did not try to spring it on Patrick; rather, I gave him plenty of warning at regular intervals. Any reasonable Court will find that I satisfied my (minimal) obligations to want to move this along, and it was Patrick who wasted all this time and refused to do so.

That will not play well with the Court.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The courtroom emasculation.

Apparently, undischarged bankrupt and swamp thing Patrick Ross is once again mouthing off at his "OutlawTory" account, opining as to how my thoughtful and nuanced publications here are so much cat food and no one need take them seriously and he knows the law reely, reely well and there's this "Repetition Rule" and I'm in big trouble even though he still refuses to move his lawsuit along and so on.

If you haven't figured it out yet, Patrick talks big on his Twitter account, but his blustering, bad faith arguments don't translate to the courtroom, something you would think he'd understand after almost a decade and a half of doing this. As a prime example, I will repeat a couple of snippets from the transcript of a March 6, 2012 hearing in Calgary, for which Patrick prepared by bragging online about how much he was looking forward to it and he was going to have such fun and he was going to tear my lawyer a new orifice, etc, etc.

(Side note: this hearing was to hold Patrick accountable for having refused to complete, notarize and turn over a Financial Statement of Debtor and nothing more than that; it had nothing to do with whinging, complaining or trying to re-litigate my judgment which had been registered in Alberta for over a year. Keep that in mind as you read about Patrick's behaviour, which should have concentrated on precisely and only that issue before the Court.)

As you can see from Patrick's first couple of minutes, things did not start out well when he had to apologize for being late and then proceeded to confuse the hell out of the judge:

Note how Patrick, when it's important that he put his best foot forward to make a good impression, simply confounds the judge with bafflegab and irrelevancies to the point where the poor judge simply admits she has no idea what Patrick is yapping on about. And does this inspire Patrick to rein it in and focus on the issue at hand? Good Lord, no, as he continues:

The issue before the Court is that Patrick has not handed over a notarized Statement of Debtor pursuant to my judgment against him; instead, Patrick decides to re-litigate the case and promptly drags in the Charter of Rights, and the concept of freedom of expression and freedom of conscience and God only knows where else he would have gone if the judge had not finally had enough and cut him off and reminded him of why he was there.

None of this is to embarrass poor Patrick; rather, it is to demonstrate how Patrick can spin a good yarn over on his Twitter account and sound all lawyery and well-read, but that never, ever, ever translates to the courtroom, where he invariably makes a fool of himself as you can read above. So if you are ever tempted to think, "Hey, that Patrick guy seems to have a point," well, no, he doesn't. But any time he wants to move this lawsuit along and schedule a two-hour hearing where he will be required to answer questions under oath in the company of an official court reporter, he knows where to find me.

BONUS TRACK: If you haven't figured it out by now, Patrick loves to toss in as much legal verbiage and fancy words as he can as he thinks it impresses the Court. Note in that first snippet how he first expresses his "misgivings" about the "pursuit" of this "particular matter" particularly in the "post-judgment." One could have said simply, "I have some issues with this case I'd like to address," but no, not Patrick, if he can announce his "misgivings" about the "pursuit" in the "post-judgment," etc, etc.

And when the judge admits she has no clue what the fuck Patrick is whinging on about, he proceeds to expand on the concept of the "post-judgment", explaining that it means "post the issue of the judgment" as if this somehow clarifies everything. And, dear God, Patrick's verbal diarrhea from the second snippet, where he thinks it's useful to refer to "the specific matters at hand in this particular case" ... one can almost hear the judge's eyes rolling back in her head.

And if you think the above is painful, you should read some of Patrick's fiction.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The Skinner Alternative.

As it's no secret that undischarged bankrupt and vexatious litigant Patrick Ross is currently feuding with one Peter Skinner, it's worth reproducing one of Patrick's Affidavits in his lawsuit against me, this one filed on December 1, 2022, wherein one is puzzled by the fact that almost the entire 15-page Affidavit is devoted to Patrick's complaints, not against me, but against Peter Skinner. It is a baffling document in that it seems entirely off-point when Patrick is allegedly suing me.

I won't reproduce the whole thing, but I will present almost the entirety of the last page (holding back one paragraph for reasons that will become obvious shortly). Here you go:

Note well how Patrick goes on and on and tediously on with his complaints about Peter, then finally gets around to blaming me for ... not dealing with it? Apparently, my nefarious silence is what the court should hold me accountable for, as if I am someone else's babysitter or moral conscience or however Patrick wants to present it to the court.

But it's the very last paragraph of that Affidavit that is truly the capper on all of this complaining:

That's right ... after all of that whinging on, the best Patrick can do in the conclusion of his Affidavit is to reluctantly admit that he has nothing against me. It is truly a mirth-making document in its vacuity and indirectness, and I assume you are now seeing why Patrick is going to have some trouble trying to explain all this to a judge.

BONUS TRACK: Lest you not appreciate the abject silliness of this action against me, here's a single screenshot of paragraphs 30-37 of that same Affidavit, where you can see that Patrick refers to me twice, while referring to Peter Skinner by name 13 times.

One can only imagine the consternation of the judge reading this, and asking Patrick, "I'm confused ... who exactly are you suing here?"

AFTERSNARK: Some people have correctly noted how Patrick's pleadings and filings are, well, rubbish in that they are not so much legal arguments as they are childish whining and a vindictive grievance fest, a good example being the beatdown he got from a judge in 2021 after Patrick filed a 65-page(!) magnum dopus trying to prevent the registration of my judgment in Saskatchewan, to which the judge not only kicked Patrick's idiocy to the curb but even gave him a savage boot to the joy department while doing it:

So, yes, this is Patrick's pattern -- respond to careful and thoughtful pleadings and filings with spittle-flecked outrage and nonsense. Same as it ever was.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The joy of speculations.

As a followup to an earlier post where I demonstrated quite clearly that, rather than accusing chick magnet and swamp thing Patrick Ross of, you know, wrongdoing, I showed how I carefully couched my discussions in numerous speculations and hypotheticals. What is amusing is that, in Patrick's Affidavit from back in November of 2022, Patrick in fact grabbed a chunk of text from a blog post of mine which (hilariously) was literally replete with exactly what I was talking about:

Patrick clearly believes he's got me with the above, while choosing to ignore the conditional/speculative nature of phrases like "according to rumours (which I have not yet substantiated ...", "I have been informed", "I have been told" and, most prominently, "If any of the above is true."

So, once again, Patrick is going to have an uphill climb claiming that I made any actual accusations. Oh, and still nothing on the "Let's get this trial moving" front.

Chronicles of Twatrick: "By proxy."

Something I might never have mentioned before now but undischarged bankrupt Patrick "Rockin' the Mullet" Ross, when drafting his inane legal filings against me, has a great deal of difficulty accusing me of anything directly, which is why his pleadings love to use phrases like I "directed" or "advised" or "encouraged" other people to do stuff, at which point Patrick pivots to demand that I be held accountable for the actions of other parties.

Consider, if you will, these two paragraphs from Patrick's Statement of Claim from August of 2022:

Note how, in paragraph 19, Patrick does not specifically accuse me of harassment; rather, he uses the weasel words that I "led a campaign" of harassment. Continue to the very next paragraph where, again, Patrick has obvious trouble pinning any of the blame on me directly, so he backpedals quietly and suggests only that I "encouraged" others.

Such is the pattern of Patrick's complaints -- unable to actually accuse me of anything in the first person, Patrick's writings are replete with phrases like "inspired by" or "encouraged his followers" or "directed others" or (one of Patrick's favourites) that I caused things to happen "by proxy." And there is the delightful accusation earlier in that very SoC, where Patrick takes issue with (and I am not making this up) "individuals acting in concert" with me.

I think you're starting to understand why Patrick has precious little enthusiasm for getting this case in front of a judge.

BONUS TRACK: I almost forgot about this adorable example from the same Statement of Claim:

wherein I apparently "organized" my readers in some nefarious activity. I think I've made my point.

P.S. I am still interested in any legal beagle in Alberta who is willing to assist me in filing motions in that province.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Happy interestversary!

It is now a full two and a half years since a Saskatchewan judge told undischarged bankrupt and soft-core porn author Patrick "Yeah, ladies, you want some of this, don't you?" Ross how much he owes me and further cranked up the accruing interest from 2% to 5%, making being a Patrick Ross creditor a nifty long-term investment:

There's not much new to report other than that Patrick appears to be back at a former employer, Fluidpro, where he is putting his seven years of university to good use as a "swamper" outdoors in the middle of a northern Alberta winter.

In the meantime, Patrick will post cartoons of people who have money and can afford to buy stuff:

P.S. It's worth presenting yet another example of the utter lack of merit of the defamation action of Patrick Ross, ripped straight from his August 2022 Statement of Claim. As "BACKGROUND," Patrick dredges up something from back in 2008:

The story behind that claim is that, as Patrick likes to do, I used his defense of a man who stood on a car-top platform and screamed at people at an abortion clinic and deliberately misrepresented his position to show how Patrick likes to do stuff exactly like that. However, not long after that, I openly admitted that my accusation was meant to be informative and not to be taken seriously, whereupon (as you can read above) Patrick took that as an apology and accepted it. Make no mistake -- the above is from Patrick's Statement of Claim, where he concedes that I apologized, and that he accepted that apology. Got that?

So it's baffling that, only a page later in Patrick's laundry list of alleged defamation for which he wants me held accountable, he writes:

In the first place, it's not clear that you can sue for something that happened in 2008 but, more significantly, it's not clear that you can sue for something for which you openly admit you already accepted an apology. Such is the lack of logic in the above. But here's the most puzzling part, wherein Patrick accuses me of ... oh, just read it:

I honestly have no idea what Patrick is talking about here -- "automated programs to boost search results" -- but I hope you noticed something more subtle and sleazy.

Patrick first does not accuse me of doing such things; note his clever and weaselly use of the phrases "expressed a desire" and "expressed an intention," then immediately switches his position and clearly suggests I did such a thing, writing, "these programs also boosted the search results ...".

So, did I do such a thing, or did I simply express a desire or intention to do something I do not, to this day, understand? This is actually a common rhetorical trick of Patrick's -- redefining his claims in the middle of a paragraph, hoping the reader does not notice. I will have another example in the next blog post; for now, I have actual work to do that does not involve swamping outdoors in -40C.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Looking for an Alberta lawyer to file some motions for me.

I've been pondering this recently, and I've decided that I've run out of patience with the gaseous bloviating of one Patrick Ross and how he is "successfully" suing me, when all he's done is file an idiotic defamation action back in August of 2022, then fail to move it forward in any way since then.

Sure, I could just ignore it since Patrick is clearly uninterested in proceeding with it, and just wants to use it to brag, but I'm thinking that it would be worth it to file a motion that demands that Patrick either put up or shut up, so here's my thinking.

The obvious plan is to file a motion to have Patrick's stupid action dismissed as abandoned (as I did successfully with his ridiculous appeal of his 2014 Conditional Discharge Order). Now, it's admittedly unlikely that I would win that since the Court is typically accommodating of self-represented litigants, so it's not like I would be counting on that. But that's not the plan.

Even if a judge doesn't find that that action should be dismissed, it is entirely reasonable for a judge to order Patrick to get his shit together and give Patrick a strict timeline to move on this, including deadlines for questioning/discovery and so on, which I will request as the obvious alternative. And that should not be a hard ask for a judge to accommodate.

So, if I decide to charge ahead on this, I'm after someone in Alberta who can file such things for me so I can keep doing what I'm doing now, which is super-duper high-tech stuff. If you have the qualifications and can help out for not an obscene fee, drop me a note at canadiancynic@yahoo.ca and we can chat. Because I think I'm ready to crush this idiocy once and for all.

P.S. It's worth noting that I would not simply ask for a judge to order that Patrick either proceed with his action or drop it. No, I would insist on some conditions for Patrick to be allowed to move this forward.

First, given Patrick's history of refusing to obey court orders and to pay costs, I would insist that he put up significant security so that, if/when I win, I do not have to continue chasing Patrick for even more costs. I think $25,000 would be a reasonable amount. But it doesn't end there.

I would also absolutely insist that Patrick be ordered to pay off in full the money he owes me pursuant to my 2010 defamation judgment against (plus all interest) -- in the neighbourhood of $115,000. And I don't think that's an unreasonable request since it's going on 14 years since Patrick owed me a ton of money, and it's only fair that we clear the decks of all of that before embarking on yet another of Patrick's frivolous, vexatious and childish filings. So my motion will be to demand that, if Patrick really and truly thinks he has a meritorious lawsuit, he will have to front some $140,000 to move on it. And if he decides to bail, I will of course file for full discontinuance costs, putting him even further in debt to me.

So, if I proceed with my plan, we will see just how determined is Patrick Ross to see this through. In any event, if you're in a position to file these things for me, drop me a note and we can talk.

P.P.S. As I do not have substituted service for Patrick Ross for this action, I will have to arrange for a process server to hand-deliver the filing to him at his current employer; that expense will be added to the discontinuance costs I will be entitled to if Patrick withdraws this meritless lawsuit.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Lawsuit DOA.

It occurs that there is something about Patrick Ross' idiotic defamation lawsuit against me that will render it absolutely dead on arrival in court that I have not mentioned before so I'll take a few minutes and explain it.

A critical component of defamation is the difference between a "statement of fact" and an "opinion," where the former certainly has the potential to be defamatory, while the latter is given much more leeway, and this is where Patrick is in a truckload of trouble.

Unlike Patrick, I have become pretty careful with the way I choose my words, and one of my habits is to avoid making unequivocal claims like "X" (unless I am absolutely sure of the facts and can back it up with proof). Rather, I prefer conditional qualifiers like "I have heard ..." or "It's been reported ..." or "There is a rumour ..." or "An anonymous tipster informs me ..." and so on, and even the conditional, "If X is true, ...".

See the difference? I am not making a statement of fact; rather, I am clearly offering a hypothetical and speculating, which makes such statements pretty much impervious to accusations of defamation. Want an example?

At one point, in discussing a possible farm property owned by the Ross family, I discussed the concept of a "fraudulent conveyance." However, I tried to be careful and not say simply that that had happened. Rather, I protected myself with all of the qualifiers and speculatory phrases above, and if you don't believe, you're welcome to read that piece here.

Note well how I went out of my way to make it clear all of that was speculation, with phrases like "appears to be" and "the possibility" and "two rumours" and on and on and on; there is your difference between expressing an opinion versus making a statement of fact. And why is that important? Because Patrick misrepresented what I wrote in exactly the way you would expect, as you can read here in this snippet from Paragraph 6 of his Aug 2022 Statement of Claim:

See how Patrick twisted the meaning of what I wrote, changing a speculative opinion into a statement of fact? And given that that is a crucial distinction when it comes to charging someone with defamation, it's why he is absolutely toast if/when this gets to court.

Dear everyone looking for Patrick Ross:

I recommend Dawson Creek; just look for a morbidly obese incel with a piece of lettuce hanging out of his mouth and congealing BBQ sauce on his Oilers jacket.

You're welcome.

Patrick Ross: Wrong again.

While I am expounding on my current legal slapfight with griftmeister Ezra Levant over on Twitter, undischarged bankrupt and pedophilia-obsessed Patrick Ross decides to get in on the act:

Both of those claims are completely wrong. I'm sure you're surprised.

P.S. It's hard to imagine why I would claim that I was never in contact with the Red Cross when I, in fact, have copious correspondence with Red Cross officials in my archives, some of which I will be reproducing on Twitter.

Patrick Ross: Wrong as ever.

P.P.S. Wherein financial (and possibly criminal) fugitive Patrick Ross cleverly evades his pursuers by publishing his whereabouts:

We are not talking about an evil genius here, are we?

Chronicles of Twatrick: Apparently, I'm not the only one ...

A recent comment from an anonymous tipster suggests at least one other party is investing some actual coin in tracking down Lloydminster's favourite financial fugitive:

... [Patrick Ross] is working for FluidPro in Clairmont, Alberta. I was able to confirm this by calling their offices and asking for him. I left the phone number to the Saskatchewan Sheriffs office with explicit instructions for him to update his place of employment, address, and bank account information to resume garnish proceedings against him from maliciously defaming an individual in 2010. I made it clear to the woman I spoke with that this be done immediately due to his avoidance of providing accurate information to the Sheriffs and Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy offices.

I informed her I'm a private investigator from Lead Investigations Inc out of Calgary who's been hired for an online investigation to locate him for several parties.

This blog has confirmed, accurately, on several occasions Mr. Ross' world is shrinking daily and avoidance of his personal legal issues is no way to settle them.

It's highly recommended he contact the Saskatchewan Sheriff's offices or Lead Investigators Inc at (403) 630-7173 to provide location information that will allow us to serve documents on his person.

To be clear, I do not know who this commenter is, and I have not hired the investigations firm in question; I have, however, verified that such an investigations firm exists in Calgary at that phone number so that much seems accurate.

Coincidentally(?), Patrick has now not tweeted anything on his regularly defamatory "OutlawTory" Twitter account for almost a week, and one is free to wonder if these events are related. In any event, if the anonymous commenter above wants to drop me a note at "canadiancynic@yahoo.ca" to chat, all discussion will be kept entirely confidential.

Perhaps we may be of assistance to each other.

P.S. As regular readers will know, I've made it clear that the instant Patrick Ross tries to proceed with his worthless lawsuit against me, I will require him to disclose where he lives and works and how to properly serve him, and I will share that information with anyone else looking to unload papers on him.

P.P.S. It might be worth noting that not only is Patrick defaming someone by referring to them as "Pedochuckles," but Patrick's relentless insistence on repeating that descriptor over and over and over:

would be interpreted by the Court as unmistakable evidence of malice, which would defeat almost all of Patrick's defenses.

In fact, that is how I got my ruling of malicious defamation against Patrick -- by showing the Court that not only did Patrick defame me, but that he kept repeating the same defamation admittedly to injure my reputation. The judge's finding of malice was probably the easiest decision he had in his career.

If Patrick's target above ever gets ahold of Patrick with legal service, Patrick is toast.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Where in the world ... ?

For someone who lives to talk smack about, well, everyone, undischarged bankrupt Patrick "Stud Muffin" Ross has been awfully quiet lately, what with no tweets on his "OutlawTory" Twitter account since February 2. This is disturbingly unlike Patrick, who rarely passes up the opportunity to publicly accuse someone of being a pedophile, so one wonders how Patrick is doing, whether he is still working up in the vicinity of northern Alberta (allegedly for Fluidpro), and how he affords the accommodations up there on a swamper's salary and without the financial backing of his parents anymore.

If anyone runs across Patrick, check that he's doing all right. And let me know about any further developments at the "Casa Ross" Lloydminster residence.

P.S. Irony:

Posted by a man with all the courage to accuse various people of pedophilia while hiding in northern Alberta from people looking looking to serve him.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Still as bad at the law as ever.

An anonymous tipster informs me that undischarged bankrupt Patrick "The Full Monty" Ross continues to talk smack about me (while still failing to move along his meritless lawsuit), apparently suggesting that I defamatorily accused him of "fraud." Yes, I did ... specifically, identify fraud which, for the hard of thinking, I explained in some detail back here.

In short, it is going to be difficult for Patrick to deny committing identity fraud when he has already openly admitted on social media to doing just that.

Thanks for stopping by.

P.S. A specific example of identity fraud is having unsolicited crap sent to someone's home to annoy them, and I have persuasive evidence that Patrick did exactly that to me some years ago (despite getting the address wrong, although the mail carrier knew my name so knew where to deliver it correctly).

If Patrick wants to move forward with his idiotic lawsuit, I will question him under oath as to whether he was responsible for that, and if he admits it, well ... you can see where I'm going with this.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Back in Grande Prairie, it seems.

For someone on the run from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, the Saskatchewan Sheriffs and whoever else is apparently trying to serve him, undischarged bankrupt and ladies' man Patrick Ross does seem to make it painfully easy to find him, as we can see by this recent YouTube video giving away that he is back in northern Alberta (rumour has it at a previous employer, Fluidpro):

Just another screenshot in a burgeoning folder of pics showing Patrick has time to make vacuous videos about hockey and burgers, but can't seem to find the time to move forward his vexatious, frivolous and meritless $4 million defamation action against me (yes, you read that right, he's asking for four million dollars). Some day in the near future, I will begin posting excerpts so that no one need take my word regarding its frivolity or vexatiousness.

In any event, as I predicted, Patrick has time for hours a day on social media, but not to deal with the legal action that he himself filed, and he knows that the instant he tries to push this along, the first thing that will happen is that I will require him to sit for questioning under oath.  Oh, and he'll have to disclose where he's living and working. And so much more.

Expect little action.

P.S. For historical context, it's worth noting how gleefully Patrick was bragging over 10 years ago:

The above was a blatant lie because Patrick had never hired a lawyer back in 2012. In any event, I'm pretty sure this didn't turn out the way he was boasting.

Oh, and this unwise bit of bragging will also end up in the exhibits:

That would be Patrick, openly gloating about how much fun he is having evading the process servers who were looking for him at the time.

It's one thing to hide from the legal consequences of your actions; it's quite another to go on social media and brag about it.

That was probably a bad move.