Patrick Ross has just assured me that he will defeat my Rule 4.33 Application on August 20 (without explaining how). He has also suggested that my simply reporting on this upcoming hearing constitutes malicious defamation.
I guess we'll see in about a month.
Based on my research into Alberta's Rules of Civil Procedure, now that I have served undischarged bankrupt and morbidly obese, emotionally 11- year-old Patrick Ross with my Rule 4.33 Application, if he wishes to contest this Application (and it's not at all clear how he can), he would need to -- in a timely manner -- file a Response Affidavit, explaining (I assume) how his situation somehow does not exactly represent when a long-stalled lawsuit must be fed through a woodchipper by the Court.
I await his inevitably bizarre and irrelevant Affidavit. I assume it will be epic.
I checked with Google AI to verify that members of the public are allowed to spectate the upcoming August 20 Rule 4.33 hearing via Webex and, sure enough:
I will provide the Webex dial-in link much closer to the actual date.
BONUS TRACK: Man, some of you people get up early. Last commenter wonders whether Patrick can dial in to his upcoming hearing on August 20 and, if he does, whether he will be visible to other people who dial in. According to Google AI, if Patrick has the right to dial in and he does so, he must have his camera on:
That is, all active parties in the proceeding must have their cameras on and must be visible to everyone dialed in to the hearing. As I am represented by counsel, that condition does not apply to me.
Apparently, Patrick Ross has decided to relive his "victory" rather than concentrate on the daunting Rule 4.33-related task ahead of him:
I will have more to say about this later, but rest assured this tweet (and others like it) will be placed before the Court to demonstrate Patrick's contempt for the legal system, and to discredit him when he starts up with his perpetual, "Oh, woe is me, I'm depressed and don't have the energy and my parents passed away and ... blah blah blah."
Stay tuned.
P.S. If Patrick had not already accepted service of my Rule 4.33 filing, the above tweet would constitute admission that he received the documents. Patrick is not the sharpest sandwich in the picnic basket.
P.P.S. I predict that Patrick, having researched Alberta's Rule 4.33 and wildly misinterpreted it, will think he's found a loophole. I will go even further and predict what I think that loophole is.
As we all know, the Rule makes it clear that the Plaintiff must have, in the preceding three years, effected some "significant advance" in the civil action in question. I'm willing to bet that Patrick will argue that his tweeting about me with respect to that lawsuit falls under the category of "significant advancement."
I am not joking -- I predict that Patrick will point at some of his most vacuous and meaningless social media publications and insist that those constitute a significant advance in the case.
Let's watch.
Now that Patrick has acknowledged that he has been properly served related to my Rule 4.33 Application, he apparently does not feel the need to behave in an adult or professional manner:
I imagine we should expect an increasingly embarrassing emotional and intellectual meltdown as Patrick slowly comprehends the level of trouble he's in. All of this childish lashing out will, of course, be placed before the Court when the issue of costs comes up.
P.S. If Patrick continues mouthing off, please bring it to my attention and take screenshots. The Court will have a field day with this stuff.
Earlier commenter asks a relevant question: If Patrick Ross wants to fight my recently-filed Rule 4.33 Application, what possible rebuttal can he make? Remember that Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 is stunningly simple and straightforward -- if you file a civil lawsuit, then fail to significantly advance it for three straight years, then upon Application by the Defendant, the Court is (with some very specific exceptions, none of which apply here) required to throw out the lawsuit (with scant possibility of refiling it).
So if Patrick decides he's going to fight this, what exactly can he present before the Court? I have no idea, since the Court will be interested in asking only one question: "Mr. Ross, have you advanced this case in any significant way in the last three years?" Is he going to lie about it, given that I have the case's Procedure Record showing a complete lack of activity for over three years?
More amusingly, the standard boilerplate at the bottom of any Application contains the following:
If you intend to give evidence in response to the application, you must reply by filing an affidavit or other evidence with the Court and serving a copy of that affidavit or other evidence on the applicant(s) a reasonable time before the application is to be heard or considered.
So if Patrick plans to fight this, he's going to have to file an Affidavit to that effect, laying out his argument. And if he does so, I will (if it's allowed) post it here so everyone can ponder the basis for Patrick's defence.
The hearing is just over a month away, so if Patrick plans on digging in and fighting this, he might want to start writing that Affidavit now.
BONUS TRACK: It is telling that, even back in late 2023, Patrick was admitting that he was failing to move this idiotic lawsuit along:
I can assure you that that tweet will be placed before the Court to show Patrick's utter lack of interest in advancing his own lawsuit.
It is also telling that, for someone who loves to publicly mock others, Patrick has published not one word about any of this on his "outlawtory" Twitter account. I'm going to speculate wildly that he is deliberately avoiding any reference to it in order to subsequently claim he was completely unaware of all of this (despite having recently been legally and properly served).
Nothing really new to report regarding my current "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 Application against Patrick "Super Nexus Quadruple Chin Quintuple Threat" Ross. I have no doubt that I will be winning the application to toss his idiotic lawsuit against me due to inordinate and inexcusable delay, but the more interesting part will be the follow-up where I argue for enhanced or, ideally, full costs against Patrick for his flagrant abuse of process of the legal system for filing such a rubbish lawsuit in the first place.
And part of that argument will be Patrick's numerous tweets from his "outlawtory" account where he very stupidly insisted on mocking me while nonetheless refusing to move his lawsuit forward -- witness this from almost a year and a half ago:
I'm pretty sure the judge ruling on the costs award will want to know why Patrick had enough time to publish childish tweets like the above, but still couldn't find the time to proceed with his lawsuit. It is ironic that, in all of this, I will be using Patrick's juvenile mockery against him.
Stay tuned.
BONUS TRACK: Amusingly, back in 2018, Patrick's appeal of his bankruptcy judgment was also tossed for inordinate and inexcusable delay (and I can assure you that that will factor into my argument for costs by showing that Patrick has a history of fucking around and wasting everyone's time), but that's not what I want to point out.
Here's part of the judge's ruling in kicking Patrick's appeal to the curb, where you can see Patrick using the same lame excuse he's been dragging out since 2010 every time he's grilled by a judge: "I'm so depressed, I just didn't have the energy."
Note well how the judge called out Patrick for obvious falsehoods in his argument. Again, this ruling from 2018 will be front and centre when I argue for costs.
MORE: Personally, I think it is going to be at least as useful to show how Patrick, when he submitted his own objection to the registration of my Ontario judgment in Saskatchewan, was absolutely shredded by the judge thusly:
The point of bringing the above to the judge's attention is to demonstrate how Patrick was once annihilated by the judge for the utter lack of value in his self-represented filing, yet he still insisted on doing it again in his subsequent lawsuit. In other words, even though a judge made it clear that what Patrick produces is rubbish, he refused to learn from that spanking and proceeded to again write his own legal submission.
As I mentioned earlier, the winner of a "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 Application (that will be me) can ask for full (solicitor-client) costs based on, well, the utter assholishness of the Plaintiff; to put it more legally, if the original action was (see point 3):
Abuse of process will not be hard to prove to the Court, as I once posted one of Patrick's Affidavits for his lawsuit, where you can get a good idea of its utter frivolity and lack of merit.
First, consider that Patrick -- in an action that complained about other people far more than it complained about me -- was asking for four million dollars in damages. That's Exhibit A as to the lack of reality of that action.
Next, consider that (with one exception) Patrick has represented himself in every legal encounter with me since 2010. Yes, that allows him to save money in not hiring a lawyer. But it also suggests that Patrick will never run his filings past a lawyer because he knows that any self-respecting and competent lawyer would refuse to sign his or her name to such rubbish. That's an important point since, when it comes to asking for costs, I am going to insist that the Court hold Patrick to the same standard as it would any lawyer.
I think that's an important point as it's a given that courts always give self-represented litigants a little leeway. But this is different, since Patrick has been doing shit like this for 15 years, so I will be arguing that the court should no longer give Patrick that leeway, and should sanction him just as it would any lawyer that filed such worthless garbage. And as you read that Affidavit, ask yourself what any serious judge would do if that had been filed by a real lawyer.
That is how the hearing will go down.
BONUS TRACK: Note well how almost that entire Affidavit complains about the alleged actions of one Peter Skinner (who is not even listed as a Defendant), and only in the very last paragraph does Patrick reluctantly concede that I am not guilty of any of that:
AFTERSNARK: For the purpose of establishing "abuse of process," I will also be placing before the Court a number of Patrick's tweets wherein he brags and gloats about suing me, while still refusing to move the case forward:
There's a reason I'm really hammering home these details related to Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33, and that's because it's easy to show that Patrick follows this blog and, therefore, when he goes before a judge to argue against my Application, he will have no excuse for not knowing the issues before the court, and the court will have very little patience with his typical whining and grievance fest style of argument.
As an example of how Patrick argues (and how judges will not tolerate his blithering rambling), I refer to my 2021 application to register my 2010 Ontario judgment in Saskatchewan for the purpose of collection enforcement.
My SK lawyer, unsurprisingly, put forth an argument grounded purely in provincial and federal law. Patrick, on the other hand, submitted by way of response a litany of whiny grievances going back to 2008, and complained about how this was all unfair, and that I won my 2010 judgment using fraud and perjury, and that he never got the chance to defend against it (he chose not to submit a Statement of Defence, remember?), and on and on and tediously and irrelevantly on, to the point where the judge's ruling granting my registration concluded with the following gem:
That's right ... the judge was so mightily pissed with Patrick's incoherent hearsay, opinion and argument that she not only ruled against him, she mocked his response as "baseless and scandalous", and awarded me enhanced costs because of it. And when Patrick loses this Application, I guarantee that I will be putting the above in front of the judge as an argument for enhanced (if not full) costs, showing that Patrick has a pattern of this sort of time-wasting nonsense.
So Patrick is welcome to try the same sort of nonsense he has tried before, since I will be ready for it, and it will end very badly for him, indeed. Like the kids say these days, I'll be bringing the receipts.
BONUS TRACK: Even if Patrick has an attack of sense and drops his idiotic lawsuit against me before this goes any further, he would still be on the hook for my legal expenses related to this going back to the initial filing in 2022.
No matter what Patrick does, he's going to be paying costs.
Against my better judgment, I checked in on the Twitter account of undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross and, unsurprisingly, there was nothing about the last several days of Rule 4.33 blog posts here, despite the fact that we all know Patrick reads this blog and loves to tweet snarky, condescending insults so let's summarize how this is going to go down.
As we have all learned recently, Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 has nothing to do with a lawsuit's merits, or the childish and frivolous malice of the Plaintiff, or anything like that. It is, rather, a purely and exclusively time-based rule -- if a civil claim has been stalled for more than three years, then upon application by the Defendant, the Alberta court is required to dismiss that action for long delay. Nothing else is taken into consideration other than the three-year deadline. Which Patrick is well past by now so, yes, he's going down. So what is the point of documenting his childish bragging over all that time?
I'm glad you asked.
All of that is being collected and will be placed before the court to justify a significant subsequent costs award, as I have shown before:
Note point 3. above, which clearly shows that, yes, a judge can order full costs if the Plaintiff's conduct is seen as "an abuse of process," and if you don't think more than three years of Patrick bragging about this filing while refusing to move it forward does not fall into that category, you have not been paying attention.
Also, there should be other surprises for Patrick when he shows up for that hearing, but I'll keep all that to myself for now.
BONUS TRACK: One of Patrick's most damning and self-destructive tweets would be this one:
wherein Patrick openly admits, back in 2023, that he is failing to advance his lawsuit, then continues to do nothing for another almost three years. I guarantee that tweet will be front and centre in my costs submission.
PATRICK'S POSSIBLE RESPONSES: It's worth pondering (or even predicting) how Patrick will fight back against this application, given that he has very little latitude. We already know about the Rule 4.33 three year time limit, and we know from the case's Procedure Record that Patrick has done absolutely nothing for well over three years, which means that the court is required to dismiss his lawsuit. So what are his possible defenses?
As I've mentioned before, there is a short list of very specific exceptions under which the court must not dismiss a lawsuit pursuant to Rule 4.33:
That's it, and I can assure you that none of the above are in play here. There is no authorized court order to pause this case, there is definitely no mutual agreement to put it on hold, and neither party has done anything that could be considered "active participation" that would have resulted in a "significant advance" in the case.
And that's it ... that's all Patrick can argue, and none of it holds. So what will he do? Who knows?
Anonymous commenter on previous post asks, if Patrick's dumbass 2022 defamation lawsuit against me is kicked to the curb for inordinate delay via Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33, does he have the freedom to simply refile it?
Google AI says not likely, due to simple deadlines:
Are you not entertained?
P.S. It's going on five days since I posted about using Alberta's Rule 4.33 against Patrick Ross' meritless lawsuit against me and, in an unusual development, Patrick has been absolutely silent about this over at his Twitter account. This is very unlike Patrick, who delights in bla-har-har-ing everyone and everything and proclaiming his legal acumen and how he is "winning" at all of this.
One wonders what is keeping Patrick from mocking all of this.
OH, DEAR ... one of my loyal followers gifts me with this screenshot of Patrick from a recent YouTube video:
I can attest that it is unaltered and unretouched. It may be childish to fat-shame someone, but given Patrick's years of mocking others online for a variety of reasons, this seems only fair.
And just because I feel like it, I will again explain how utterly screwed is Lloydminster's village idiot and resident bankrupt Patrick Ross, now that I have filed a Rule 4.33 Application in the Grande Prairie, Alberta courthouse, the effect being that that will kick his asinine lawsuit against me to the curb for lack of significant advancement.
You can review the previous blog post to get the details but let's sum it up: If a Plaintiff in Alberta files a civil suit, then proceeds to not move it along in any meaningful or significant way for a three-year period, the Defendant can file a Rule 4.33 Application to have it dismissed, at which point (subject to very stringent exceptions) the court is required to dismiss the action. The court has no discretion, it must automatically dismiss the action under this Rule.
Once again, Google AI does a nice job of showing how simple and how unforgiving is Rule 4.33:
As you can see, Rule 4.33 has little sympathy for a Plaintiff like Patrick who files frivolous, vexatious garbage, then just lets it sit year after year so he can brag about how he is suing someone. And there's nothing he can do about it now that my filing is in. So what are Patrick's options? Limited, to put it mildly.
First, I will win this application -- it is the closest thing to a legal no-brainer slam dunk as you are ever likely to see. It is the textbook definition of what Rule 4.33 was meant to deal with, and it will deal with it.
I will also get costs ... how much remains to be seen but it will be at least partial indemnity, and I will be arguing for full indemnity given Patrick's frivolous filing and abuse of process (the fact that he has bragged about this on Twitter while refusing to move it along for three years is not going to sit well with the court). But there's one more thing.
Given that Patrick filed his dumbass lawsuit at the Grande Prairie courthouse, and that's where I filed my Rule 4.33 application, I will be insisting that he appear in person (unlike last time, where he called in via Zoom, for which the judge made it clear he was unhappy about that and told Patrick he was expected to attend in person).
So, yes, I will be making a full-throated argument that Patrick needs to be there in person, at which time there might be a surprise or two waiting for him at the courthouse. More than that, I cannot say at the moment, but if anyone thinks I am exaggerating or embellishing any of this, they are free to do their own research to understand how Rule 4.33 works, and how it has precious little patience with vexatious litigants like Patrick.
More to come as it happens.
BONUS TRACK: Anonymous commenter asks whether Lord Baron Twatrick von Loadenhosen can salvage his ridiculous lawsuit against me by arguing about its underlying merit. No, and let's let Google AI once again drive this home:
I hope that answers that question. Still more to come, just not right this minute.
RANDOM THOUGHT ... it just occurred to me that explaining all this Rule 4.33 stuff in excruciating detail is going to cause real problems for Patrick when this goes in front of a judge. As we all know, Patrick follows this blog and loves to publish snarky comments about what he reads here over on his Twitter account, and here's why that's going to get him in trouble.
If Patrick comments on, say, this post, I can use that as evidence that he's read it and, furthermore, that he now knows that the merit (actually, the embarrassing lack thereof) of his lawsuit is of no relevance to a Rule 4.33 Application. Which means that if he tries that argument in front of a judge, I'll immediately argue that Patrick is wasting the court's time since he is already aware that the underlying merit does not matter.
In short, I would ask my loyal and long-suffering followers to keep a close watch on Patrick's "outlawtory" Twitter account and to take screenshots of anything he publishes related to these most recent blog posts so that I can use that as evidence that he reads my blog and that he should therefore understand how Rule 4.33 works and that the court should have little patience with meaningless arguments.
Yeah, it's time to use Patrick's snotty arrogance against him.
For those who have been following this meandering saga for years, let it be known that the hammer is finally about to fall on massively-indebted undischarged bankrupt and financial fugitive Patrick "Super Quintuple Nexus Threat High School Chick Magnet Quadruple Chin" Ross, as I have just had confirmed my filing at the Grande Prairie courthouse of my Rule 4.33 Application. This is colloquially known as Alberta's "Drop Dead Rule," and it is going to put an end to Patrick Ross' idiotic defamation lawsuit against me once and for all.
The idea behind Alberta's Rule 4.33 is nad-grindingly simple -- if the Plaintiff (that would be Patrick) files a civil action, then at some point proceeds to do nothing with it for three straight years, then upon a Rule 4.33 application by the Defendant (me), the Court is required to dismiss the action. Required. This is not discretionary for the Court, it's mandatory. The Court has no choice but to kick the lawsuit to the curb. This applies exactly to this case as Patrick filed his meritless dumbfuck stupidity in August of 2022, and the last activity of any kind was in December 2022. That's more than three years, which means Patrick's lawsuit is toast.
Lest you think I exaggerate or embellish, here is Google AI's devastatingly accurate characterization of that Rule:
Let me expand on the above so you can truly appreciate how Patrick is absolutely fucked here. (That scrabbling sound you hear is Patrick frantically Googling "Rule 4.33".)
First, you can see in the opening paragraph above the hard three-year deadline related to the application, which does not actually require no activity for three years, simply "no significant advancement" of the file. What this means (and has been affirmed several times by Alberta courts) is that even if you did some stuff during those three years, unless it represented actually moving the case along toward a resolution, it doesn't count. In Patrick's case, there was literally no activity whatsoever. Not just nothing significant ... nothing at all. None. Zilch. Sweet fuck all. So Patrick has definitely blown that three-year deadline.
If you read further, there are a small number of exceptions under which the Court will not dismiss an action under Rule 4.33 -- I can assure you that absolutely none of them apply here so there is nothing that will save Patrick in any way. So let me say this again -- now that I've filed my Rule 4.33 Application, there is absolutely nothing Patrick can do to stop it. (If you don't believe me, do your own research, then come back and tell me if I've misrepresented anything.) But we're not done yet.
You see, a successful Rule 4.33 applicant (again, me) will be entitled to costs. And how much costs? I'm glad you asked, so I asked Google about this, and here is the AI output:
Note how costs would normally be partial indemnity, unless ... yeah ... unless the Plaintiff's behaviour was "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous", and if the opposing party's conduct is seen as "an abuse of process." Do you think it will be difficult to demonstrate Patrick's bad faith in filing such a frivolous and meritless lawsuit? I don't. And I will be strenuously arguing for full costs based on Patrick's online behaviour in the last three years (all of which I have been screenshotting for just this occasion).
In fact, it gets even worse for Patrick but I will keep that to myself for now. In closing, you are all welcome to check into Alberta's Rule 4.33 to satisfy yourself that, now that my Application has been filed, there is absolutely nothing Patrick can do to defeat it, and the Court will be required to dismiss his idiocy, and award me costs.
The irony, of course, is that Patrick filing a worthless lawsuit, then just sitting on it for years so he could keep bragging about it while refusing to move it forward, is exactly why he is now so screwed.
P.S. If any of my loyal fans are so inclined, you are welcome to bring this new development to Patrick's attention any way you wish (Twitter account "outlawtory", email address "dragonfireideas@gmail.com"). I suspect Patrick will desperately want to blar-har-har all of this on social media, but that will only prove he's now aware of it, which will make service so much simpler.
He really is utterly screwed.
BONUS TRACK: Oh, my, poor Patrick just buried himself even deeper with this idiotic tweet, proving that he follows this blog, which is not going to end well for him in court.
MORE AFTERSNARK: Appreciate if you will the irony in Patrick describing his pet lawsuit as "extremely-meritorious." One wonders if, after he does his research, he will realize that Rule 4.33 applications are purely and solely time-based; the merit (or lack thereof) of the underlying action being dismissed for long delay is totally irrelevant. That is, while Patrick's lawsuit is definitely absolute garbage, it wouldn't make the slightest difference if it wasn't.
Oh, dear ... undischarged bankrupt and massively indebted Patrick Ross has been a bad boy lately, in that he has been quietly deleting numerous tweets in which he was gleefully bragging about his spectacularly meritless lawsuit against me. I'm not sure why he thought this would protect him as I have announced publicly on a number of occasions that I was taking screenshots.
Witness, for example, this single screenshot from a while back searching for the words "day" and "lawsuit" among the rest of the childish spewage over at Patrick's Twitter account:
Oh, yes, Patrick has been busy frantically deleting the evidence of his bad faith. One wonders what part of "I have been taking screenshots" Patrick did not understand.
My lawyer is going to have a field day with this. More to come.
IT GETS FUNNIER: Apparently, the search feature on Twitter is magnificently broken so that it can't even satisfy trivial requests, prompting lifelong bankrupt Twatrick von Loadenhosen to complain thusly:
This is actually funnier since it shows that Patrick is eminently proud of his production of bragging about his lawsuit, even as he refused to move it forward. I'm glad he cleared that up for me -- it's legally really helpful.
Stay tuned.
For reasons I will not get into yet, I'm curious as to precisely where Patrick is hanging out these days. Is he crashing in the basement at Casa Ross now that sister Penny appears to have moved in? And, more importantly, it would be useful to know where he's working at the moment.
Any info along those lines (possibly accompanied by legally-taken pics) appreciated.
P.S. I had, for a while, wondered why that hovel had not gone on the market, since I naturally assumed the will stipulated that it would be sold and proceeds split among the squalling siblings. But from what I hear, one of the needier siblings has moved in, and that makes sense, but it also means that Patrick still has no actual residence (apart from perhaps living in the basement). So what is Patrick's official "residence" from a legal perspective? That is, what is his proper address for legal service? And if it's not Casa Ross, is Patrick technically homeless?
So many questions.
I am reminded of this spewage from Patrick "Three chins and growing" Ross who, back in 2023, freaked out over someone allegedly taking pictures around Casa Ross, then bragging that he had "a lead" and was likely to make an apprehension sometime soon.
Yes, only two days after the 45th birthday of undischarged bankrupt and financial fugitive perpetually looking over his shoulder Patrick Ross, it is now a full 58 months since a judge paddled Patrick's voluminous backside, told him how much he owed me and cranked up the interest rate on that debt to a delicious five per cent:
And given Patrick's refusal to co-operate or make any payments on his rapidly-increasing debt to me, we're now looking at over $125,000. And now on to a couple bits of somewhat new business.
In an earlier comment, some anonymous regular opined on the stupidity of Patrick, who could have simply accepted his 2014 bankruptcy Conditional Discharge Order (CDO) of $200 per month for 14 years, because that's a pretty meagre monthly payment and he would have been almost done by now. Uh, it's worse than that.
One of my reliable sources informs me that, yet again, undischarged bankrupt and man whistling past the graveyard Patrick "Super Nexus Chick Magnet Quintuple Threat" Ross is bragging about how he "defeated" me in a court hearing a few years back. I've explained what happened in that hearing at least a couple of times but, what the heck, here's the definitive overview so you know what actually took place.
Not long after Patrick filed his monumentally meritless and frivolous defamation lawsuit against me in mid-2022 (a filing for which he now refuses to proceed), I decided to try to file -- on my own -- a motion to have that action dismissed for a number of reasons. I've already pointed out how absurd it was (Patrick whining about stuff that happened as far back as 2008), but the salient feature was that, in a bout of over-confidence, I decided that I was smart enough to file that motion myself.
So I did.
Predictably, because I had little experience in representing myself in legal matters, I filed a notably deficient motion -- I simply did not reference everything I needed to reference. And at the hearing, the judge diplomatically pointed this out and explained that he could not rule on a motion that was not properly drawn up, and that was the end of that (although, curiously, the judge even said that it looked like I had a pretty strong case but, still, he could not proceed). End of hearing. So let's make sure you understand what happened there.
I did not "lose" that hearing, and Patrick did not "win" that hearing, for the simple reason that there was no hearing. The judge did not hear arguments from either Patrick or myself, and did not rule on the merits of the arguments -- he simply said that there was not enough in my filing to proceed, and ended those proceedings. No one won, and no one lost, and I have the right to refile that motion any time I want. So, no, Patrick, did not "win" that hearing. But if Patrick wants to compare legal victories, let's start a list:
So if Patrick wants to keep bragging about a "victory" for which there was no actual hearing, good for him. I'll compare that with my basketful of victories any time.
P.S. Just to be clear, because my motion was never actually "heard" and ruled upon, I have every right to re-file it whenever I want. Which is why I'm making a record of every time Patrick yaps on about me -- so that when I do that re-filing and Patrick whines that he's been too busy to proceed with his idiotic action, I have a binderful of him having enough time to talk smack about me.
For what it's worth, today is Patrick's 45th birthday, so you're invited to drop him a note if you can figure out where he is when he's not frantically avoiding process servers and debt collectors and paying me the $125K+ that he owes me.
... this never happened the most:
P.S. It goes without saying that this scenario is hard to believe since, if you were trying to remain inconspicuous, the last thing you would do is wear a mask in the middle of June on a residential street and be openly taking photos of peoples' cars.
I'm going to guess that no actual evidence of this will be forthcoming.
P.P.S. Apparently, over on X, Patrick is insisting that all of the above actually happened but, sadly, no one had a chance to take a picture as evidence. Really? In a society where pretty much every single person owns a smartphone with a camera, not a single person had the presence of mind to snap a photo as the culprit was running away? Gosh, what bad luck.
Anyone here swing by Casa Ross and check out the collection of hillbilly hardware for sale?
First, today is the first day of the thigh-suckingly exciting estate sale of the late and massively unlamented Ken Ross of Lloydminster, where offspring, undischarged bankrupt and financial fugitive Patrick "Dragon Fire of Assholery" Ross and his hillbilly siblings will be clearing out a garageful of velvet Elvis paintings and collectible "Castrol" oil cans or whatever it is that's been piling up over there in Lower Mayberry RFD.
Quite the accomplishment for someone who, years ago, challenged me to ...
And we all know how that turned out, don't we?
P.S. I just heard that at least one of my followers/confidential informants is going to stop by that estate sale and perhaps take some pictures. Cool.
P.P.S. One of my spies tells me that Patrick is once again talking smack about me on Twitter -- he's getting it wrong but that's not the point. The point is that, when I eventually get around to having Patrick's idiotic defamation lawsuit dismissed as abandoned (given that he refuses to move it forward), and he once again whines (as he has before) that he was just too busy or depressed to find the energy, I will be presenting to the court all of Patrick's tweets related to me to prove that Patrick certainly had the time to tweet about me.
It's baffling that Patrick still hasn't figured out that every single thing he publishes about me will be placed in front of a judge at some point to establish malice.
BONUS TRACK: It's worth pointing out how Patrick, year after year, avoids dealing with his legal issues and, when he's finally dragged in front of a judge, he invariably whines about how he's depressed or suicidal or didn't have the energy to get stuff done.
Case in point: After filing a defective appeal of his 2014 bankruptcy judgment, Patrick refused to fix the defects, then walked off, leaving the defective appeal to gum up the works for the next three and a half years and used that as an excuse to not start making the court-ordered payments. When I finally filed to have his appeal dismissed as abandoned due to ridiculous delay, and this went before a judge, well, here's the part of the ruling where Patrick uses the same tired excuses:
As you can see, Patrick's attempt at a defense was to whine that he just didn't have the energy in three and half years to perfect his appeal. And the judge just wasn't buying it.
Which is why it's so important that Patrick keep talking smack about me on Twitter, so I can keep taking screenshots of all of it and, when it gets to court and Patrick tries all the same tired nonsense, I will have a binder full of evidence that he certainly had time to attack me on Twitter while, curiously, not finding the time to move his own lawsuit along.
It's weird that, in all this time, Patrick hasn't figured this out.
Uh ...
Is this GF real and does she know that Patrick is a bankrupt deadbeat who owes me around $125,000? I'm guessing no.
Someone should tell her.
Remember, kids, if you're free this coming weekend and are in the vicinity of Lloydminster, SK, check out the hillbilly hot dog fest at Casa Ross.
Let me know how it goes.
Once again, my trusty confidential informants come through and let me know about the upcoming estate sale at "Casa Ross" in Lloydminster, so if any of you are in the area and want to drop by there, you're invited to let me know how it's going.
Be assured that it is perfectly legal to take pictures since, at an estate sale, there is obviously no expectation of privacy.
P.S. If you take the time to stop by there, you could perhaps diplomatically and innocently ask if that family of hillbillies has any plan to put the place on the market. That would be useful information for me.
P.P.S. If anyone is looking to serve Patrick with legal papers, well, there you go.
One of my confidential informants reports that undischarged bankrupt and soft core porn author Patrick "Super Duper Nexus Chick Magnet" Ross appears to be hanging out in the environs of Fort McMurray, doing whatever it is that "swampers" do to the best of their ability. And while I have nothing new to report beyond that, it's worth mocking Patrick for another one of his legal brainfarts.
You see, it was back in 2010 that Patrick was given several months to respond to my Statement of Claim, suing him for malicious defamation. As he was out of province, he was legally entitled to 40 days to file and serve a Statement of Defence. To no one's surprise, Patrick mouthed off and insulted my then-lawyer and refused to reply so that, after five months, I had finally run out of patience and instructed my lawyer to file to place Patrick in default, meaning that the court would simply remove Patrick from the proceedings and those proceedings would continue without him; in short, there would still be a hearing to determine a ruling and damages but the court would hear only my side.
That made winning considerably easier, and it was in November of 2010 that the Superior Court of Ontario issued a deliciously short endorsement (short since it was based on a default judgment and there was no opposing side's arguments to consider), and the endorsement was thus:
And here's where Patrick's brainfart comes in as, for the next several years whenever I dragged Patrick into court, he insisted that all of this harassment was terribly, terribly unfair since (according to Patrick) he had never been served with the ruling. And here's the brainfart.
You see, Patrick seemed to think that the result of that hearing in late 2010 would be some lengthy screed addressing various issues related to the case, and a probing analysis of my arguments, and so on and so on, and he was absolutely convinced that I was nefariously withholding this from him to his disadvantage. Amusingly, what Patrick failed to understand (and it appears still does not understand to this day) is there was no such lengthy ruling; the endorsement you read above is everything.
That's it. There is no more, and that's because we had filed to place Patrick in default, which means there was nothing from Patrick that the judge had to consider. Ergo, only my side was heard, and it was a short hearing and an even shorter ruling/endorsement.
And yet, to this very day, Patrick still insists that I somehow deprived him of his rights by refusing to provide him with what he is convinced is a lengthy ruling full of legal analysis when, in fact, there is no such thing. It does not exist. It never did. But Patrick never bothered to look into the matter to figure that out.
Patrick really does consider himself some sort of whiz kid boy lawyer, yet he never bothered to take the 30 seconds it would have cost him to figure this out. You can see why he keeps losing. And why he owes me a ton of money.
As another example of the ridiculous exaggeration, embellishment and misrepresentation presented by Patrick Ross in his August 2022 defamation lawsuit against me, here's another snippet from his Affidavit of November of that year, in which Patrick takes me to task for alleged criminal activity for, as he describes it, advertising a "bounty" for him:
As I'm sure you can see, Patrick is deliberately conflating the idea of the legal concept of a bounty in the context of tracking down, say, people who have skipped bail with the idea of simply compensating someone for their time and effort in being helpful. You can see this pretty clearly by examining the first part of the referenced "Exhibit D":
where, hilariously, I say nothing more than that if someone can provide me with verifiable information regarding Patrick's employment, I will donate $100 to their favourite charity; this is what Patrick wants to present to the court as an example of my blatant lawbreaking and criminal activity.
Are you starting to get the idea of how badly this is going to go for Patrick in front of a judge?
P.S. One of the more entertaining aspects of Patrick's filings is how he so desperately tries to impress the Court with his tortured and convoluted verbiage in trying to sound professionally legalistic. Note the second half of his line 29 above, where he refers to issues "such as that which is the subject of this action". Patrick can never use a single phrase when an entire string of incomprehensible blather will do, and he seems to think this will impress a judge.
Patrick's obsession with using 25-cent words frequently makes him sound like an idiot, as in from line 29, the opening, "Mr Day's own actions explicitly made requests ...". Really? My actions made requests? What the fuck does that even mean?
Patrick's writing reminds me of Mark Twain's savage review of the works of over-hyped American author James Fenimore Cooper. The full critique can be found here, but my favourite part of that review (the part that applies so perfectly to Patrick) is this:
You can see that that describes Patrick's prose perfectly -- it's not enough for Patrick to write that I made requests ... no, no, Patrick has to gussy up his spewage and suggest that it was my actions that made requests, a statement that makes no logical sense. This has been Patrick's pattern for years, and it's probably why every judge that's had to listen to him rolls their eyes after only a few minutes.
Consider this snippet from a personal court appearance by Patrick way back in 2012, where Patrick opens his submission to the total confusion of the judge ...
