Chronicles of Twatrick: 11 days and counting.

I've seen no evidence that upcoming Rule 4.33 victim Patrick "Can I get double fries and extra gravy with that?" Ross has filed/served a properly sworn Response Affidavit to my Application, so I am assuming that he is going to try something "tricky" and what he thinks is clever at the August 20 hearing. Either that or he is simply not going to show up (which would not come as a surprise) and I will win my Application unopposed.

On an unrelated note, Patrick was just over on Twitter condoning the arrests and shootings, by Israeli soldiers, of Palestinian children who show up at food depots desperately hungry and simply looking for enough to stay alive. If you want to be nauseated, read the dismissive tweet by Jonathan Kay, which Patrick retweeted without bothering to read the replies to Kay that brutally disemboweled Kay and his ugly Zionism.

In any event, it's been pretty much radio silence from Patrick regarding the upcoming hearing. One can only speculate as to what he has in mind. 

P.S. It's worth reminding my readers that it was in a July 18 correspondence that Patrick promised, "I will provide your client seven days to make his decision before I file my reply to your application." It's been over three weeks, and no reply. I'm fairly sure a judge will want to know why Patrick lied about that.

Chronicles of Twatrick: 12 days and counting.

At this point, it is safe to assume that Patrick does not intend to submit a proper and sworn Response Affidavit to oppose my Rule 4.33 Application, but will instead try some off-the-wall "gotcha" ambush trick the day of the hearing and, based on what a recent anonymous commenter suggested, I think it will be a nonsensical usage of Alberta's Rule 3.68, summarized thusly:

 

I'm willing to believe that Patrick did a childish amount of research, fell over this Rule, understood almost none of it and concluded that he can use it against my Rule 4.33 Application. Except ... except ... 

 

 

I'm willing to believe that Patrick never read that far -- he saw what he wanted to see in the first one or two paragraphs, and will now file a hopelessly irrelevant application that will be laughed out of court.

If I was a betting man, I'd be putting my money on this bit of hilarity. 

P.S. It's worth observing that if Patrick tries this hopeless trick, I can argue that he knew it did not apply here and that he is so obviously wasting the court's time.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The apparent Webex link for the August 20 hearing.

For you psychologically-damaged weirdos who actually want to attend the upcoming August 20 hearing for my Rule 4.33 Application against cripplingly-indebted boy lawyer Patrick Ross, there is first the general virtual courtroom link, which takes one to a page of various virtual courtrooms around the province.

From there, one can see the Webex link for Virtual Courtroom 70 (Grande Prairie), which appears to the fixed link for all virtual hearings located in Grande Prairie. I'm unsure as to whether this is a fixed link, or whether it changes daily, but as a test, you might try dialing in during the day just to test if you're allowed to attend that day's hearings.

I will verify whatever other information you'll need before August 20, but I encourage you to at least check that if you follow that set of links, you can get logged in and let me know how that goes.

CONFIRMATION: I have email confirmation from the Grande Prairie courthouse that that second link is indeed the Webex link that should work from one day to the next for the Grande Prairie virtual courtroom. I will wait until after 10 a.m. Grande Prairie time today before I try to connect and watch a few minutes of the legalities this morning.

Chronicles of Twatrick: 13 days and counting.

Nothing new to report, other than an awkward Twitter silence from the normally yammering blowhard Patrick Ross as he desperately tries to concoct some sort of childish ambush legal strategy to introduce chaos into the upcoming August 20 Rule 4.33 Application hearing, and a reminder that he is fast running out of time (if he hasn't already) to file and serve his Response Affidavit:

 

 

If Patrick doesn't get something in by the end of today, I suspect I will have grounds to insist that the Court reject anything he submits Monday or later, at which point the Court will likely hear my Application unopposed. That would be ironic since I won my original judgment against Patrick because he was too lazy and arrogant to submit a Statement of Defense, and I got my judgment by default.

I see a pattern here. 

BONUS TRACK: In a July 18 correspondence, Patrick Ross made a proposal, and promised the following:

"I will provide your client seven days to make his decision before I file my reply to your application."

It is almost three weeks later and I am still waiting. Try not to look shocked.

Chronicles of Twatrick: 14 days and counting.

Only two weeks left until my Rule 4.33 Application hearing, and there is precious little time for Patrick "Cheeseburger Boy" Ross to file and serve a proper Response Affidavit:

 

 

If Patrick waits too long to file and serve that Affidavit, I could argue that it is out of time and inadmissible. However, if it's the typical spittle-flecked whining we've come to expect from Patrick, it might be in my best interest to just let it be admitted, knowing it's going to piss off the judge. But another possible slimy trick from Patrick just occurred to me.

Rather than properly contest my scheduled Application, Patrick might try to ambush the Court with a last-minute motion to have my Application tossed out, claiming that it is, in some way, improper or invalid or violates the Alberta Rules of Civil Procedure. I have no idea what argument he would make, but I bring this up because he's actually done this before.

It was in 2018 when I filed a motion to have Patrick's long-dormant appeal of his 2014 bankruptcy ruling dismissed for (irony) inordinate and inexcusable delay. Rather than properly prepare for that hearing, Patrick showed up at that hearing and personally served my lawyer with an unexpected application, then insisted that the Court needed to hear his application first. Here is that part of the judges' eventual ruling:

 

 

Note how Patrick, rather than arguing the motion properly before the Court, whips out a "gotcha" counter-motion, and insists that because it claims that my motion is improper (or something like that), it must be addressed and resolved first before the Court should be allowed to continue. As you can see, the Court was having none of Patrick's childish games and booted his surprise motion to the side of the road.

I'm wondering if Patrick is going to try something similar this time; that is, file a counter-application that argues that my application can't be heard until his counter-application is scheduled, heard and resolved. It would be a slimy way to get an extension but, as I showed above, it would not be the first time Patrick has tried something like this.

In any event, two weeks to go and, as far as I know, no Response Affidavit yet.

THE SIMPLICITY OF MY APPLICATION: I already posted the salient contents of my Rule 4.33 Application, which is about as simple and straightforward as anything can be, so I have no idea how Patrick could argue that it should be dismissed for any reason:

 

BONUS TRACK: For the entertainment value, I should reproduce the very last paragraph from Patrick's December 2022 Affidavit against me during which, after having spent the vast majority of the Affidavit complaining about the actions of one Peter Skinner, Patrick ends that Affidavit with this gem:

 

Make sure you read the above slowly and carefully to truly appreciate what Patrick is admitting to the Court. After having spent several pages spewing accusations of harassment, intimidation and threats of violence, Patrick concedes that I did not do any of that.

I'm fairly sure that that closing paragraph is going before the judge on August 20.

ABOUT THAT RULE 3.68 ... I was interested in the most recent anonymous commenter's reference to Alberta Rule 3.68 and how one could use it to defeat my Rule 4.33 Application, so I simply asked Google, "How could I use Rule 3.68 to defeat a Rule 4.33 Application?" It doesn't look like that would be an option for Patrick:

 

 

I won't pretend I understand the intricacies of the above, but the first paragraph seems adequate to confirm that you can't use Rule 3.68 here, so I won't pursue that any further.

P.S. I reworded the question just slightly to see if I got a different answer ... nope, says pretty much the same as above, so I think we're done here:

 

 

Chronicles of Twatrick: 15 days and counting.

Time is getting short for increasingly desperate and frightened undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross to file and serve his mandatory Response Affidavit if he wants to contest my Rule 4.33 Application, although it's unclear what he would even put in that Affidavit since he has no defense.

The only two defenses against such an Application are either:

1. He did something in the last three years to significantly advance his lawsuit (he did nothing), or
2. There was an official and signed agreement or court order to suspend activity (there is not).

So while Patrick really needs to get a move on and produce that Affidavit, it's not at all clear what it might even theoretically contain.

Just be sure to keep August 20 open for the (Webex-available) hearing.

MORE DETAIL: Sometimes, it's worth rewording your question to Google to get more detail, so I asked, "How can someone object to a Rule 4.33 Application?", and I got the following:

 

 

so let's examine the grounds for objection one at a time:

• We've already covered the "Significant Advance" part -- Patrick has done nothing in three and a half years to move this case along. Nothing. So that point fails.
• Is there a "format standstill or extension agreement" between the parties involved? No. Two down.
• Has there been any "court-ordered" extension, stay or adjournment? Nope. Three down.
• Have I (the Applicant) participated in any "substantive steps" in this case that would have reset the three-year clock? Absolutely not.

Having established all of the above, it's not clear what Patrick would do with the "Steps to Oppose in Court" since, quite simply, he has nothing. So it will be interesting to see what happens in the next 15 days.

Chronicles of Twatrick: 16 days and counting ...

... until my Rule 4.33 Application hearing on August 20. Nothing really new to report this morning, other than that if Patrick does not file and serve a proper and relevant Response Affidavit by the end of this coming Friday, that's when I can at least legitimately argue that it would be too late and should be rejected by the Court.

Given that my Application and Affidavit were filed and served on July 15, Patrick will have had more than enough time to craft a response and, if he fails to do so, it's not clear there's any point in him even showing up at the hearing since he won't be allowed to present any arguments without having filed that Affidavit suitably in advance.

Time is running out for Cheeseburger Boy.

BONUS TRACK: I just checked in on Twitter and Patrick is currently obsessing over someone named Guy Felicella, so if he whines that he just didn't have the time or energy to get his Response Affidavit in on time, I will place before the Court his 137 recent tweets about whoever the fuck that is. 

Patrick might be the most cluelessly self-sabotaging yahoo on the planet. 

MORE BONUS: It's worth pointing out that, if Patrick whines about how he should not be held accountable for having done fuck all for well over three years with respect to the lawsuit that he filed, it was back in 2023 when he openly admitted that he was being lazy and dragging his ass on this:

 

 

so I don't think he's going to get any sympathy from the Court. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: 17 days and counting ...

August promises to be an eventful month for undischarged bankrupt and boy lawyer Patrick "Let me complain about something CC did back in 2007" Ross, so let's check that upcoming timeline. (If you're just getting back to this blog after the weekend, you might want to read the posts since Friday; I am trying to be entertaining.)

There is, of course, the August 20 hearing for my Rule 4.33 Application to feed Patrick's dumbass lawsuit through a woodchipper (Webex link forthcoming), while asking for some serious costs for Patrick having filed such a steaming pile of Melissa Lantsman.

Coincidentally, only the day before that will be the full five-year interestversary of a Saskatchewan judge ruling on how much Patrick owed me at that time:

 

 

And even earlier than that is Patrick's deadline to file and serve his Rule 4.33-related Response Affidavit, which should contain nothing but relevant defenses against a Rule 4.33 Application,

 

 

but will, I predict, be just another whiny grievance fest about how he is still struggling with the passing of his father (over three years ago now), and how I am a mean person who spies on his house, and how his lawsuit is "extremely-meritorious," none of which is even remotely relevant in this context:

 

 

So, Patrick is going to have a busy month, and he might want to get cracking on that Response Affidavit. It would be ironic if, in trying to defend against his taking too long to advance his lawsuit, Patrick had his Response Affidavit rejected for ... taking too long to file. That would be pure Patrick, wouldn't it?

BONUS TRACK: Anonymous commenter just now asks how on earth Patrick can contest this Application given that, quite simply, he has no defense. None. To which I can respond, I honestly have no idea, other than that I predict that Patrick will simply file another tedious, rambling, cringeworthy litany of complaints about me, none of which will be relevant and will definitely piss off the judge.

I will remind y'all that Patrick tried that back in 2021, when he contested my registering my judgment in Saskatchewan for the purpose of enforcing a collection order against him and, rather than address the issues related to reciprocal registration of a judgment, Patrick predictably launched into a snotty, tear-soaked tirade against me, which annoyed the judge to the extent of:

 

 "baseless and scandalous" -- that is a pretty thorough spanking, and if Patrick tries the same thing here, I will make sure the above ruling is placed before the Court to demonstrate that this would not be the first time Patrick has wasted everyone's time.

So, I have no clue what Patrick is thinking. I guess we'll find out in 17 days. 

P.S. Patrick still has not paid that, or any other, costs award issued against him over the last 15 years. That fact will also be placed before the judge later this month.

P.P.S. It might be worth noting this paragraph from a 2020 ruling against Patrick, where the judge clearly found that Patrick had no interest in honouring his financial obligations in any way:

 

 

Read the second half of that paragraph slowly and lovingly, wherein J. Krogan rips Patrick a new orifice for being an evasive little weasel who refuses to take financial responsibility for his actions. You can count on this being placed before the Court on August 20 as well.

This upcoming hearing should be epic.