Chronicles of Twatrick: More affidavit hilarity.

Having recently mocked an excerpt from one of the affidavits of undischarged bankrupt and possibly soon-to-be-homeless Patrick "Well, hellllooooo, ladies" Ross, I present you with another snippet, this one from a November 2022 affidavit wherein Patrick takes issue with my submission that there might have been a family farm handed down by an ancestor, and Patrick insists that having made that claim is wildly defamatory. Here is almost the entire page from that affidavit:

The first couple paragraphs are not relevant to this point, they're just to chuckle once again over Patrick's obsession to use the most legalistic and bombastic verbiage possible, as in, "The issue binding Mr Day to the conduct of his co-defendants is not necessarily a matter of formal association, but rather a matter of formal affiliation through common action." You can be forgiven if you fell asleep halfway through that; I have previously posted examples where, in front of an actual judge, Patrick tried this kind of nonsense and the judge responded simply with, "What in the name of Michelle Ferreri's wine box are you babbling about?".

In any event, even as Patrick insists that I defamed him by discussing the possibility of farm land, review the above and note well the very careful qualifiers I used. Even as Patrick wants to claim that I was making statements of fact, one can clearly see how carefully I chose my conditionals: "according to rumours (which I have not yet substantiated ...", "I have been informed", "I have been told" and "If any of the above is true". Even a child can see that I am couching my writing in speculation, and making it clear that while I have heard these rumours, I have seen no proof of them. This is a big problem for Patrick, as he knows well that that is a defence against defamation, but he will of course deny this, but the above also demonstrates why Patrick gets his ass kicked so often in court.

You see, Patrick is easily one of the most dishonest rhetoricians on social media -- he perpetually and relentlessly misrepresents others' writings and points of view, then claims victory by dispatching an opinion that was never made. This is his modus operandi -- it is the definition of arguing in bad faith.

Patrick's major failing is that he takes this same behaviour into the courtroom, and appropriately gets absolutely crucified for it. Patrick utterly fails to appreciate that, while his childish word games might play well on Twitter, it invariably blows up in his face in front of a judge, just as the above is going to do if it gets to court, as any competent judge will trivially explain to Patrick that all of the above production of mine are obviously statements of opinion given all those qualifiers, and Patrick will get humiliated once more.

Tune in again when I mock and humiliate another excerpt from Patrick's legal filings.

BONUS TRACK: It's worth pointing out that Patrick continues to make the same mistake on the very next page regarding my speculation about a "fraudulent conveyance" if Patrick's family tried to hide his ownership of the rumoured farm land. Here is the relevant portion of Patrick's affidavit:

Yet again, note well my clear and unambiguous qualifier when I write [emphasis added]:

"In the context of this spat with Patrick, the possibility of an FC arises with respect to two rumours I have been hearing:"

How does one reproduce that sentence and not appreciate that, once again, I am indulging in speculation and openly admitting that these are unsubstantiated rumours? (And lest you think I am taking things out of context, you're welcome to read the entire post here.)

This is, quite literally, the quality of Patrick's legal filings -- grotesque misreading and misrepresentation of what I wrote, out of which he fabricates bogus accusations. As I said, this might play well with Patrick's dozens and dozens of Twitter followers, but it will not end well when placed in front of an actual judge.

It never does.