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.