Chronicles of Twatrick: Yes, it's perjury.

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:

1. You made the false statement knowingly, and
2. 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:

1. He had done nothing to "actively" try to overturn my default judgment of 2010, and
2. 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.