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.
11 comments:
If he honestly thinks no-one can take pictures on a public road, maybe he should take google pictures to court while he's at it. I'd love to see how that goes.
IANAL, but isn't it good practice to mention which specific law you're citing? After all, you don't want to piss off the judge and/or their staff by making them dig through a century of laws and statutes (although I suspect that the actual response would be more along the lines of "WTF are you talking about?"). In fact, since Patrick refers to two separate jurisdictions (Alberta and Saskatchewan), shouldn't he provide two references?
But unless the Ross Family Home straddles the border, one of these provinces is superfluous to the issue anyway. That in-and-of itself makes me thing that Paragraph 33 is bupkis, and citing the law of two provinces is nothing more than an attempt to inflate the seriousness of the accusation. It's Patrick's legalese version of "good taste, and less filling". But see the disclaimer at the start of this comment.
So if I’m reading this correctly, a guy who has been illegally evading the law and service and his debts is going to court because people are looking for him?
Anon @ 12:59 PM: More generally, Patrick accuses me of "harassment" for putting in the effort to find him. I am not kidding. Really.
Augray: By George, you've got it. Boy lawyer Patrick "Matlock" Ross finds some jurisprudence, proceeds to misinterpret and misrepresent it beyond recognition, then present it to the Court in vague and ambiguous terms, assuming the Court will simply take his word for it.
Regarding jurisdiction, the Ross property is in Saskatchewan, and that is where Patrick filed for personal bankruptcy. On the other hand, Patrick's lawsuit against me was filed in Grande Prairie, Alberta, and he does like to conflate the issues by bouncing back and forth between provinces -- filing in Alberta while yammering on about the (irrelevant) provincial licensing requirements for debt collectors in Saskatchewan.
And, unsurprisingly, Patrick has still made no indication of wanting to move this lawsuit along, but his constant bragging about it does nothing more than give me more screenshots to put in front of a judge to demonstrate Patrick's vexatiousness and bad faith.
Actually, you are in fact harassing him, for one of the few reasons that is completely legal. He owes you money and is trying to avoid paying. There are limits so you can't phone him more than once a week something like that, email excessively. Driving by is not harassment unless the same car is going by many times a day, or you park down the street for hours and furtively write things in a notebook whenever someone comes or goes.
Anonymous @ 11:22AM: One could assert that Patrick is trying with this new lawsuit to relitigate the 2010 case. (The one he lost by virtue of failing entirely to engage with the very legal system he now seeks to exploit)
It would be very difficult for Mr. Ross to argue "harassment" before a judge when at its core, CC is attempting to contact him to enforce an existing judgment. At most he can complain that he doesn't like the tactics used, or perhaps the routine mockery of him in CC's postings on the matter, but I doubt that too many judges are going to be wildly sympathetic to those cries.
So... any idea why the lawsuit was filed in Alberta when these supposedly unlawful things happened in Saskatchewan?
Augray @ 10:05PM: Because Patrick was (and likely is) residing in Grande Prairie while claiming his parents’ address as his residence.
Based on some of CC’s experiences, his father was directly supporting Patrick’s dodging of service. The fact Patrick has not provided the court with a current address for service since his father passed away is pretty good evidence that he has no intention of acting in good faith in this lawsuit either.
* and if that is his “address for service”, then I suspect the land titles information on that property could become very interesting in a few months time when the estate is wrapped up.
MgS @ 9:07am: I'm probably about to forcefully demonstrate what I stated in my initial post, that I'm not a lawyer, but, regarding your observation that Patrick probably filed in Alberta because that's where he's living, I have to ask... so what? If Patrick's going to claim, in an Alberta court, that Saskatchewan laws were broken in Saskatchewan, isn't the Alberta court simply going to say that they don't have jurisdiction?
Thanks for your indulgence (if you choose to do so).
Augray @8:07:
Here’s my take - and like yourself, IANAL, so what follows is purely speculative:
The claim that SK laws were broken would be argued as contributing to a “broader pattern of behaviour” relative to the defamation suit that was filed in Alberta courts. (In other words, the libel suit in Alberta is not litigating any breach of law in another jurisdiction per se)
How much consideration the court gives to that particular dimension of Patrick’s overall statement of claim would, of course depend on how much supporting evidence he can provide. For example, was there a police investigation, and were charges laid relative to those claims, and is there concrete evidence of same? AND - the bonus question is whether or not those actions contribute to the alleged harm done.
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).
MgS @8:51am: Thanks for your response. Yes, I'd assume that in the case of laws allegedly being broken, the court is going to ask for actual evidence, as in a conviction. Short of that, well, why take it seriously? Even a trial for an alleged violation-of-the-law that didn't result in a conviction wouldn't cut it, as bringing it up again would seem to come very close to the American legal concept of Double Jeopardy, that is, hoping to relitigate something there's already been a trial for (is there a Canadian equivalent of that? Probably). So I suspect that a judge will cut right to the chase, and ask if there was a conviction. Patrick's fantasies are going to be declared to be irrelevant.
Post a Comment