As a followup to my previous post where I identified two absolutely blatant lies from the recent affidavit of Patrick Ross, I asked Google whether lying on a sworn affidavit in a civil case constituted perjury, and Google AI left no doubt:
Let's consider the details of the above.
First, if you make a false statement in a sworn civil affidavit, it still requires two properties to rise to the level of perjury:
- You made the false statement knowingly, and
- You made the false statement intending to mislead the Court.
I think we can all agree that the above perfectly represents the two claims of Patrick's in the previous blog post. Regarding his first claim, Patrick absolutely knew that:
- He had done nothing to "actively" try to overturn my default judgment of 2010, and
- He knew there was no possibility of doing that, anyway, given the passage of time.
In short, Patrick knowingly lied, and he did it with the intent of misleading the Court. The same can be said of his claim that I "instructed" people to track Patrick from his father's funeral -- I have searched my entire blog archives for the word "funeral" and I have found nothing that even remotely corresponds to my instructing anyone to do that, so that is another blatant lie. So far, then, we seem to have established that Patrick committed perjury.
Moving on to the next point from Google AI, such perjury is "a serious indictable crime, even if the civil case is not affected by the lie." So one cannot excuse perjury by saying simply, "Hey, it made no difference in the outcome of the case." Yes, I won my Rule 4.33 Application, but Patrick apparently still committed perjury.
As for the penalties, well, up to 14 years in prison. So maybe it's time to collect all of Patrick's lies from his recent affidavit, and ask the Court to find that he committed perjury. As you can see, I've already found two obvious lies and I've barely started looking through all 57 pages of it.
Stay tuned.
P.S. You are invited to read the actual legislation regarding perjury here.
BONUS TRACK: In Canada, private citizens such as myself cannot file charges of perjury; that must be done either through the police or the Crown Prosecutor, so I just now sent off an e-mail to the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service asking to chat with someone about having Patrick charged with perjury.
Again, if you don't think Patrick committed perjury, I recommend reading the legislation carefully.
ANOTHER LIE: It took me under a minute to identify another of Patrick's lies; here, he accuses me of directly contacting his former employer, Fluidpro:
I did no such thing; rather, I reproduce the opening of one of my 2025 blog posts:
which makes it absolutely clear that someone else (a commenter on my blog) checked in at Fluidpro, not me, and I was simply reporting on what they learned. I'm guessing that I will find lie after lie in Patrick's affidavit given time.
ONE MORE EXAMPLE: I wasn't sure what to do with this one as it is so weird, but this has all the signs of another lie from Patrick. Patrick has on occasion insisted that simply asking others to help me locate Patrick so I can collect what he owes me is tantamount to hiring unlicensed debt collectors and unlicensed skip tracers, in violation of Alberta law. Here is how Patrick described it in his affidavit:
Patrick's claim is, of course, obvious nonsense, but what's fascinating is that he opens that paragraph by insisting that he was "advised by counsel" that his position was valid.
I find it difficult to believe that Patrick's lawyer would have advised him that way; any sane lawyer would know that I have every right to ask people for assistance in locating Patrick, so it may be that Patrick's lawyer gets dragged into this to testify as to whether he actually advised Patrick as above.
P.S. Make sure you understand that my objection to paragraph 24 is not Patrick's utterly insane legal interpretation, but his claim that he was "advised by counsel" that his position was legally defensible. So a question for you legal eagles out there: Is there some special significance in a filing if you claim that you were advised by counsel on some issue? Must you have actually been advised by counsel, or can you just use that qualifier whenever you want to sound important?
ADDENDUM: For what it's worth, when I asked Google about this last bit, here's what it had to say:
So, yes, for Patrick to have used that qualifier, it must be true that his counsel actually gave him that advice which, honestly, is difficult to believe because it's such nonsense.
HOLY CRAP, I JUST NOTICED THIS ...
So if this is to be believed, Patrick insists that even before the hearing on August 20, he had instructed his lawyer to begin the paperwork to set aside my 2010 default judgment (despite the utter impossibility of that). I think Patrick's lawyer is going to get dragged into this, and will have to clarify what he did and did not tell Patrick, and what Patrick told him.
EVEN MORE ... regarding Patrick's contention that he is actively working to set aside my 2010 default judgment, Patrick knows full well that that is legally impossible as he was told so in 2021 by a Saskatchewan judge when I filed to register my original judgment in that province. Here's paragraph 16 of that 2021 ruling:
Note well the clear and unambiguous finding of the judge: "The Judgment is final, ...". Patrick received this ruling so he has known for five years that there is no legal avenue for him to set aside that judgment; thus, his claim that he is actively working to set it aside is knowingly false and was made to mislead the Court.
10 comments:
Google AI better be careful. Twatsy will add it as a "co-defendant"/"co-conspirator" who is so cruelly harassing him with big, bad CC, to his next hilariously doomed lawsuit.
14 years in prison would do ol'Twatsy some good
Holy shit 14 years? Damn that makes owing over a hundred grand sound not so bad. Fourteen years in the slammer? I would not want to be the man looking at fourteen years.
Regarding the possibility of Patrick overturning the 2010 default judgement (and the impossibility of that happening), I have a hypothesis, so just humour me for a moment...
Is it possible that Patrick is just Grade-A stupid?
I know, it's wild and irresponsible speculation on my part, but it's become obvious that the guy isn't playing with a full deck. Is it possible that he might actually believe that it's possible to get it overturned, and has been fruitlessly researching the topic for years on end, but never finding legal precedence that he could use, and therefor he's never filed an application to overturn it?
Now, Patrick is a weasel, and as a legal defense against perjury in this particular instance, he's probably not beneath telling a judge that he thought it was a possibility, even if he's lying, and knew it wasn't going to happen. "Your Honour, I'm an idiot, and depressed, and no one likes me. Therefore, I'm innocent of this particular charge of perjury."
Augray: As silly as it sounds, that is a potentially valid defense against perjury: "Your Honour, I'm just too stupid to understand that what I wrote was nonsense."
@Anonymous@607AM: courts tend to be fairly lenient on first time offenders (I don't believe PR has any kind of significant criminal history) - it would be relatively unlikely that a judge would assign a maximum penalty sentence here. Think months as most probable, or possibly a suspended sentence.
If you run all of the listed offenses through AI (perjury, harassment, evading OSB, evading civil judgement, malicious prosecution) the possible sentencing guidelines for such crimes get serious really fast. How is Patrick unaware of all of this?
At this point, I think Patrick is on thin ice when it comes to anything involving the law and having to make sworn statements, appear in person, etc. (his legal credibility is toast)
If Ross ends up in prison it will be easier to serve him with legal papers.
So, continuing with my "Patrick is Stupid" thesis, is it possible that the judge declares that "Yes, I agree, you're an idiot, and because of that, you're wasting everyone's time, so I decree that you can't represent yourself in court anymore"? Because if my earlier scenario arises, it seems like a worthwhile target to aim for.
So, just for fun, I looked up section 104 of the Alberta Consumer Protection Act. Here it is in its entirety:
(1) No person may engage in a designated business unless the person holds a licence under this Act that authorizes the person to engage in that business.
(2) If required to do so by the applicable regulation, a person who engages in a designated business at more than one location must hold a separate licence issued under this Act for each location that authorizes the person to engage in that business.
Note the word "business" in the above, a word which Patrick also uses in relation to debt collection in section 24 of his affidavit. Part 11 of the act (which is sections 109 to 118) regulates Collection Practices. Here's section 109 (again in its entirety):
In this Part,
(a) "collection agency" means a person, other than a collector, who carries on the activities prescribed by regulation;
(b) "collector" means an individual employed or authorized by a collection agency to carry on the activities prescribed by regulation on behalf of the collection agency.
As far as I can recall, CC has never asked any of his readers to act as collectors, that is, collect the money that Patrick owes him. The worst I've ever heard regarding this ongoing saga is someone asking Patrick when he's going to pay CC the money he owes him, and that is most definitely not acting as a collector, so Patrick complaining about individuals engaged in the business of debit collection is completely spurious, and isn't rooted in reality.
Similarly, in the Definitions section of Alberta's Collection and Debt Repayment Practices Regulation, it's pretty obvious that the example above doesn't qualify. And while it's prohibited for a collector or a collection agency to call someone's employer in some circumstances, there seem to be exceptions. And also, I can't see why an individual would be restricted from doing so if they were just trying to track down the employee. And no, this is not a suggestion that someone call Patrick's employer.
And finally, Alberta's Consumer Protection Act makes no mention of skip-tracing (a term I hadn't heard of before today). Text searches for "skip" and "tracing" find nothing, and none of the sections seem to deal with it, so if Patrick was advised by his counsel that this was illegal based on the Act, his counsel's incompetent.
Post a Comment