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 ...
It only gets worse on the next page, as Patrick thinks he can salvage the situation by being even more obscure and incomprehensible:
I think I'll leave it there for now, but there's more coming.
2 comments:
If I recall correctly, this transcript is from a 2012 hearing in Calgary, well after you already got your default judgment against Patrick in Ontario. If that's true, what it means is that the only issue before the court is your registration of the judgment in Alberta. The court would not care about Patrick's whining about the merits of the judgment or if he thought it was unfair. The time for all of that would have been when you sued him, and he didn't even bother filing a Statement of Defence, so a court in Alberta is certainly not going to give a shit about his bleating.
As the judge said, all that was before him was the fact that there was a judgment from Ontario, and it had been registered in Alberta. Patrick really is a whiny crybaby who doesn't understand how the law works. At all.
Anon @ 10:32 AM: Your memory is correct -- it was back in March of 2012 that Patrick so thoroughly embarrassed himself in a Calgary court. His ignorance extended to his claim that he intended to "appeal" the default judgment against him.
You can't "appeal" a default judgment; all you can do is file to *overturn* it (or set it aside) which, if successful, simply lets you back into the game to try to defend. But to overturn a default judgment, you need to file that quickly after the judgment, or have a *really* good argument for the Court as to why you never filed a defence and why you waited so long to file to overturn. Patrick would have been denied on those grounds in a heartbeat -- I would have presented to the Court in Ontario how Patrick had openly *bragged* about how he avoided dealing with that judgment for months.
The point here is that Patrick insisting he planned on "appealing" a default judgment demonstrates his level of ignorance as to how the law works. In any event, we are *way* past Patrick having any legal strategies left to play.
Post a Comment