Monday, January 15, 2024

Chronicles of Twatrick: The strength of his convictions.

Anonymous tipster brings to my attention this January 14 tweet from undischarged (and trustee-less) bankrupt Patrick Ross, who insists that his right to sue me is "absolutely not in question. Affirmed on multiple occasions by the [Supreme Court of Canada]."

And yet, as I wrote recently, it is passing strange that, even as Patrick assures one and all of that, he made absolutely no effort to move this action along for all of 2023. Also, as I have reported, when given the chance to disclose during a court hearing that he had no trustee, Patrick chose instead to mislead the Court:


Finally (and as I have discussed lately), given that Patrick is so confident in his lawyering, if/when he decides to move this case forward, I'm sure he will have no objection to my filing a motion that will require him to first make his case about his standing to sue, so that we can resolve that issue before wasting any more of the Court's time.

In any event, Patrick is welcome to continue his bloviating given that he does not seem to be making even the slightest effort to put his legal acumen to the test.

P.S. While Patrick is adamant that there exists precedent that allows undischarged bankrupts to (in rare circumstances) initiate legal proceedings on their own, he continues to ignore some significant issues, as I have been assured that that kind of freedom applies mainly to undischarged bankrupts that are in good standing with their trustee and the OSB; that is, they are up to date with their reporting and financial obligations, and are studiously paying off their Conditional Discharge Order (CDO). That's why the bankrupt normally needs to get the permission of their trustee, as it is the trustee's responsibility to ensure that any such action will not interfere with their payment obligations, and that money used for the action doesn't take away from any "after-acquired assets" that rightfully belong to the creditors.

I think you see the problem here as, the instant Patrick puts his argument before the Court, I will make sure the Court is aware of Patrick's years of contemptuous non-compliance and deliberately misleading the Court as I described above. This is why, even as Patrick bloviates about how he has the legal right to do this, he is relentlessly refusing to move this case forward as he knows what awaits him when he has to explain all of this to a judge.

The end(?).

4 comments:

Anonymous said...


How far behind is Twatsy in his CDO payments and reporting?

CC said...

Anon @ 6:35 AM: First, I am unaware that Patrick has *ever* done any proper financial reporting to his trustee; his lack of co-operation is what caused his trustee to withdraw from his case back in February of 2014, so I'm going to keep it simple and submit that Patrick is well over a decade behind in his reporting, which will not play well with the Court.

As for payments, the judgment defining his required payments under a Conditional Discharge Order (CDO) was issued Oct 31, 2014: https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/2014/2014skqb352/2014skqb352.html. Patrick immediately filed a defective and worthless appeal, then disappeared and made no payments for the next few years.

When I finally had Patrick's defective appeal dismissed as abandoned in 2018, he apparently made some months worth of payments but not even *remotely* enough to catch up on all those missed years, and he has made none for quite some time now. So he is years behind on his payments as well.

All of this will be placed before the Court as appropriate whenever Patrick thinks he's ready to move this case along.



MgS said...

He’s just going to sit on it until 3 years or so have elapsed and someone files to have it dismissed as an abandoned action.

It’s “safer” for Patrick to duck and weave - leaving no address at which he can be served or contacted - so the various entities looking for his pasty arse can’t find him. In order to move his lawsuit forward, he’s going to have to rectify that issue (and no, substitutional service via e-mail isn’t adequate here - that’s been shown time and again).

Then there’s the whole matter of whether he has been honest with the courts in his dealings over this matter. Judges tend not to like being lied to, even if it’s “a lie of omission”. I suspect at this stage, a judge hearing Patrick’s claim that he has every right to sue independent of a Bankruptcy Trustee’s permission would result in an order to “get your bankruptcy affairs in order, and then we’ll talk about whether a lawsuit can go forward”. (And we know all too well how that’s likely to play out - unfortunately, that might result in the lawsuit itself lingering about like a bad smell for another few years)

CC said...

MgS: I believe you understand the situation perfectly well. However, I don't intend to let that lawsuit hang around for years. If Patrick wants to let it just sit there, I'll ignore it *for a while* but, at some point, I will file to have it dismissed. And as part of my argument, I will provide the Court with the numerous examples of Patrick *bragging* about how he is suing me, while never actually doing anything to move the process along. (I have screenshots of all those tweets, which Patrick was stupid enough to publish, not realizing they could be used against him.)

Also, I've actually spoken with his former trustee recently (they were acquired by a larger conglomerate but are still responsible for the files of the original trustee) and they are decidedly not impressed with his behaviour. So if he goes looking for assistance there, he's not going to get a toasty warm welcome.

In short, at the moment, I suspect Patrick is spending a good deal of time avoiding his former trustee, the Saskatchewan sheriffs, various process servers and the federal Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. And that only the parties I *know* about. But he *is* the smartest d00d on the Intertoobz.

Just ask him.