Someday, I may post the collection of Patrick Ross-related rulings that have been issued over the years, but for now, I will provide just this one paragraph from the ruling of J. McMurtry (QBG 430 of 2021), in the matter of my registering my 2010 defamation judgment against Patrick in Saskatchewan back in 2021 when Patrick -- representing himself -- attempted to formulate some legal arguments:
That would be Justice McMurtry, pretty much dismissing Patrick's gibberish as, well, total rubbish.
It's still one of my favourite paragraphs.
P.S. It's worth reminding everyone of this part of Patrick's meritless defamation lawsuit against me -- how much he thinks he is entitled to:
That's right ... Patrick wants the court to award him four million dollars.
Four.
Million.
Dollars.
Yeah, that's gonna happen.
9 comments:
Twatsy Ross begging to be spared the enhanced 5% Saskatchewan interest rate must have been hilarious.
He seems to think the justice is a police detective who will investigate whatever for him.
Anon @ 3:12 PM: You are more accurate than you know. Over the years (during which Patrick represented himself in all but a single action), Patrick treated every motion as a vehicle to launch a list of childish grievances going back to 2010 or earlier; effectively, he insisted on trying to re-litigate the original judgment, even as every judge explained to him that that wasn't going to happen.
Patrick sees himself as a crack, top-notch boy lawyer when, as you can see above, he was frequently dismissed by the judge as a total crackpot spewing meaningless hearsay without attribution or corroboration. That's never changed in all these years.
You'd think boy genius lawyer would know about the relatively new $200,000 defamation limit which says you don't have to prove you were damaged financially. You just have to show that you were libeled/slandered by specific statements, like saying you have a grievous disease, or commit major crimes, or that you tell lies (beyond normal insults like having no brain) without him providing proof. Did he lose a recording contract or some other major source of money worth millions? But I'm not a lawyer
Anon @ 3:12 PM: Patrick has never been a stickler for consistency in his legal arguments. Or logic. Or precedent. In fact, all these years, Patrick has never, ever, ever presented a motion or affidavit that has ever made any sense (as you can see above, when the judge basically spanked him for being a dipshit).
Patrick has never filed an argument that was relevant or on-point. Rather, he treats each filing as a grievance fest, where he simply whines about, well, everything, almost none of it having to do with the issue in question. At some point, I will post his entire action against me, where he whines about stuff I said over 15 years ago. It's amusing and pathetic at the same time.
Well - if he's going to whine about things that old, and he subsequently filed the lawsuit in 2022, there are significant chunks of his lawsuit which you can ask be quashed right off the top, since there is a lovely little clause in the legislation about time limits and he would have a hard time claiming "not to have known" (or should have known) given the ongoing situation between the two of you.
It reminds me of an old prank where you misuse the TDD system, telephones for the deaf, and you place a call to a hearing person. The telephone relay service assistant is required by law to say verbatim, whatever you type to the hearing person, including swear words, sexual propositions or insults of any nature.
In a similar level of juvenility, forcing a judge to read various outrageous statements in a submission probably gives our favourite legal eagle much smirking satisfaction.
Anon @ 8:55 PM: I don't think Patrick does that out of a sense of snark or thinking he's being funny. I think he honestly believes that dumping a list of irrelevant grievances on the judge has the potential to sway the ruling in his favour. Instead, all he's doing is pissing off the judge. He's been doing this for over a decade, and it has never, ever convinced a judge to rule for him. But he keeps doing it, anyway.
Twatsy Ross's situation is a double-whammy of pathetic futility. First, Twatsy is a thoroughly stupid person. Second, Twatsy is guilty as sin, and has absolutely no legal recourse for his decade-plus of bad behaviour. Thus, we witness the hilarity of a profoundly dumb person arguing utterly hopeless legal issues and cases.
Post a Comment