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.