I have mentioned numerous times the utterly meritless August 2022 defamation lawsuit that was filed against me by undischarged bankrupt and middle-aged oil patch swamper Patrick "Quintuple Threat Nexus Chick Magnet" Ross, but you've always had to take my word that it was a pile of utter rubbish. Well, by way of support, I will gift you the main body of Patrick's accompanying Affidavit of December 2022, which is supposed to bolster his filing of malicious defamation against me.
I will not attempt to sway your thinking on the matter; I will post this affidavit without comment and let my long-suffering readers opine on how well they think this locks down an accusation of defamation against me.
And away we go:
Your thoughts, if you would, as to how well Patrick locked down his defamation lawsuit against me with this Affidavit?
P.S. It's worth noting what Patrick is asking for from the August 2022 Statement of Claim:
That's right ... four million dollars.
Four.
Million.
Dollars.
Plus costs. Don't forget costs.
ONE MORE THING FOR NOW: As many people will know, defamation requires someone making what is called a "statement of fact"; that is, uttering something as being unquestionably factual or true. It is not enough to make statements of opinion; statements of opinion do not rise to the level of defamation as long as it's clear that what is being uttered is clearly opinion.
Witness, then, this snippet from a November 2022 Affidavit of Patrick's, which he claims represents defamation on my part:
Do you see the problem? Well, of course you do since, in literally every single paragraph quoted by Patrick, I am clearly stating that what I am reporting is what I heard, with such qualifiers as:
- "according to rumours"
- "I have been informed"
- "I have been told"
- "If any of the above is true"
Not only does none of this rise to the level of statement of fact, it does not even rise to the level of statement of opinion since all I do is present what I have been told by others, even going so far as to issue the clear disclaimer, "which I have not yet substantiated." By definition, none of this qualifies as defamation, but it is apparently what Patrick considers the smoking gun.
DEFAMATION CLARIFICATION: I worded the above unclearly so let's let Google AI explain the distinction between statements of fact versus statements of opinion:
So, yes, statements of opinion can rise to the level of defamation if they have no basis but, again, as you can see (and as Patrick himself quoted), I was not even publishing statements of opinion; that is, I was not saying, "This is what I believe." Rather (and as you can clearly read), all I was saying was, "This is what I have heard from others, and which has not even been substantiated."
There is no possible case for defamation with those qualifiers. It's baffling that Patrick does not understand that.
BONUS TRACK: I will throw in one last bit of Patrick-inspired stupid to make sure you truly grok the worthlessness of Patrick's action. Regular readers will already know that I have, on several occasions, asked willing people to do a drive-by of "Casa Ross" (the Lloydminster residence of the late and spectacularly unlamented Ken Ross) and let me know what they saw -- perhaps Patrick, perhaps his truck, perhaps evidence of someone living there, whatever. My instructions were clear -- no trespassing, just whatever you could glean from the sidewalk or street out front, remaining on public property the whole time.
You can guess what happened next, as Patrick immediately described this as "illegal surveillance" conducted by unlicensed investigators who were therefore involved in criminal activity. Here's the relevant snippet from Patrick's November 2022 Affidavit:
This suggestion is absolute hogwash as Canadian law (as summarized by Google) makes clear:
In short, anyone has the right to observe as much as they want the "public" areas of another's property as long as they refrain from trespassing.
As you can see, Patrick's lawsuit against me is such utter garbage.











So, Twatsy is attempting to sue you, but spends the entirety of this lawsuit whining about...Mr. Skinner???
ReplyDeleteThis is going to get laughed out of court. It's pathetic, even by Twatsy's rock-bottom standards.
That's just the most obvious of the silliness; the more you read this Affidavit, the more absurd it gets. The funniest part is the very last sentence:
ReplyDelete"57. In the interest of fairness it is worth noting that Mr Day engaged in no threats of physical violence himself."
Then what was the point of all of this verbiage? The mind simply reels.