Thursday, March 07, 2024

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.


ivoxpierre said...

When Twatrick talks in court, he sounds like a kid trying to "sound" like a lawyer. It's like me pretending to be a doctor and sayin something like "Clearly the aortic tissue on the anterior colonic membrane created a distended embolism that restricts flow to the extremities through the rudimentary valvonic duct..." etc. It's just a bunch of words, from the same area of expertise, but without the knowledge to actually use them. And, he must be under the impression that if he just uses these lawyer-ly words, well he must be representing himself properly under the law. But it doesn't work that way. It's really neither funny nor sad, just an unstated portmanteau of both.

CC said...

ivoxpierre: You describe the situation perfectly. I will refer again to Patrick's March 2012 appearance in a Calgary courtroom, where his opening sentence to the judge was:

"Your Honour, I have several misgivings about the pursuit of this particular matter particularly in the post-judgment."

Who the fuck talks that way? And after a couple more word salad sentences, the judge responded with (verbatim):

"I don't know what you're talking about."

So, yes, this is Patrick's style.

Anonymous said...

My favourites are ", or ought to have" along with "govern yourself accordingly". Capitalized non name words within sentences such as "this Matter" are a personal fave.

The fingerwagging demand to preserve all email and correspondence or else usually quoting some US title or other is always a laugh.

The lawyerless defence can be the jailhouse lawyer who has read all the books and learned. That can work if you really did that. The other lawyerless defense is the rube defense of someone with only common sense, plain speaking and little lawyerish talk. He is not doing that it seems.

Unless this is to set up himself as a hapless oaf being harassed by you, so that when he does get (or reveal) a lawyer, they will aggressively try to relitigate the whole affair, casting you as the bad guy.

This case at the time (2010) was notable for its large award for a default judgement (where PR failed to file a defense) as discussed in second last comment. Given the novelty of the decision (size when no defense was offered), his ambulance chaser will try to open this up for relitigation.

Like all revisionism they will try to judge by today's standards. So calling someone a groomer in 2010 would likely be seen as calling them a farm hand back then. Now it is different. It is actionable. He will say "Your honour, I did not realize my words in 2008 were actionable, like calling someone a murderer would be then. Political discourse allows a wide range of insults to another person's intelligence, their appearance, and suppositions about their personal habits. They may be rude but they should not be actionable in a free society. With the shifting line between actionable and common name calling, there should be restraint in avoiding overzealous enforcement. Such an honest mistake as I made long ago, rectified by removing posts long ago, should not put me in the poor house."

There are flaws in this whole premise of course, but as devil's advocate I do not have to have solutions to these.