Following up on the recent surveillance of Casa Ross by one of my Lloyd-based confidential informants, once upon a time, when someone else took a few pictures of that property, Patrick actually stated in a legal filing that such surveillance was illegal and that I should be charged for "hiring" someone to do that. Patrick went so far as to post to an online forum called "Your Lloydminster," making the same idiotic accusations, whereupon he was set right by a couple people who actually understand the law.
Here's Patrick being corrected, then snottily disagreeing with a more knowledgeable correspondent:
And here's Patrick ... well, you get the idea:
The point here is that while Patrick loves to suggest that amateur surveillance is breaking the law, he has already been corrected twice in public that there is nothing criminal about it, so if he tries to make this argument in yet another legal filing, it will very likely end very badly for him.
P.S. I know for a fact that, despite what Patrick says, the license plate had not been removed from the vehicle in question, it was simply posted in the back window of the cab. I know this as I have a photo of that vehicle and the license plate is clearly visible, so Patrick can't even get that right. Pretend to look surprised.
P.P.S. If you truly want to appreciate Patrick's dishonesty, here's something he posted online, suggesting that the person accused of taking pictures of Casa Ross was "planning burglaries, thefts, or other crimes in the area" when Patrick knows full well that none of that was true, but he wanted to foment fear in his neighbourhood in order to get others to help him trace this individual.
This is the level of dishonesty we're dealing with.
No comments:
Post a Comment