Chronicles of Twatrick: One week.

(NOTE: With only a week before the hearing, Patrick has still not (to my knowledge) filed a properly-sworn Response Affidavit. which suggests that he will not even be allowed to present a defense on August 20 if he shows up.)

Only a week until my (Webex-available) August 20 Rule 4.33 hearing at the Grande Prairie courthouse and not a peep from undischarged bankrupt and increasingly frightened and desperate plaintiff Patrick "Boy Lawyer" Ross, which inspires one to wonder what panicky, last-minute and inevitably doomed strategy he's going to spring on me next Thursday morning that will piss off the Court something fierce, but with all of his other problems converging on him, Patrick has one more issue he will have to deal with next Thursday.

You see, since I first filed my (successful) defamation lawsuit against Patrick back in 2010, Patrick has -- with one exception -- represented himself this entire time, and with disastrous consequences for him every single time. (Even the one time he realized he needed an actual lawyer went badly for him as I won that confrontation easily.) So what is the issue here? Thanks for asking.

As most people know, people have the right to represent themselves in court, but with that right comes the responsibility of knowing how to conduct oneself in a courtroom. If you've ever watched a YouTube video of a "sovereign citizen" in court, they invariably insist on representing themselves, then proceed to make absolute fools of themselves.

Whenever one of these yahoos insists that he will represent himself, the judge will caution them that, sure, they can do that, but the obligation that comes with that is that the defendant is then expected to understand the rules of court. They're told that they will be expected to know, for example, the deadlines for when to submit pleadings, and how to properly enter evidence into the record, and how to subpoena witnesses, and how to recognize and address only those issues before the Court, and on and on and on. Technically, the proper phrase here is that they will be "held to the same standard as a lawyer." And this is where Patrick is going to be in trouble next Thursday.

Because, given Patrick's 15+ years of representing himself in all of this, I plan on really hammering home to the Court that it is way past time for the Court to stop cutting him any slack as a self-represented litigant. I will insist, given Patrick's extensive experience writing and filing his own pleadings (as well as his open bragging as to how well he understands the legal system), that the Court finally and brutally hold Patrick to the same standard as it would hold a real lawyer, and I can assure you that will finish him off.

One can start with Patrick's original Statement of Claim against me in August of 2022 -- a document so disorganized, whiny and infantile that no lawyer would have ever signed his name to it; a document that lumped three "co-defendants" into the same action (one of them to this day still not identified), and a document that spent most of its time complaining about the actions of other people.

I could go on about the eye-rolling worthlessness of the accompanying Affidavits (in which Patrick claimed defamation for things allegedly uttered almost 20 years ago), and described as "illegal surveillance" the simple act of driving past Casa Ross in Lloydminster and reporting on what was parked in the driveway, but I will reserve my most direct condemnation about Patrick's personal behaviour in dealing with my lawyers over the years.

That behaviour includes numerous examples of correspondence from Patrick that is/was insulting, demeaning, condescending and childish (snippets of which I have already posted on this blog), and I assure you that I will be placing a good deal of that before the Court, while once again insisting that if Patrick were (quite properly) held to the same standard as a lawyer, he would be brutally sanctioned for his infantile and contemptible behaviour.

Understand something: I'm confident that I will win my Application without bringing up any of the above. What all of the above will be used for is arguing for a substantial costs award to punish Patrick for having filed a junk lawsuit in the first place, then being a snotty, petulant, condescending asshole to actual officers of the court. And, trust me, I have all the receipts for that.

After all this time, I will insist that Patrick be held financially accountable for his egregiously assholish behaviour and meritless pleadings. And after his 15+ years of self representation, I'm guessing the Court might finally have had enough of him. 

P.S. It's worth posting the opening part of the letter that Patrick sent to my lawyer right after being served with my Rule 4.33 Application:

 

Appreciate Patrick's snotty, patronizing tone in correspondence to an officer of the court but -- most importantly -- appreciate Patrick's open admission that "there has been a long delay in this action." As part of a defense against an accusation of a long delay in an action, it's generally a bad idea to then concede that, yes, you agree that there has been a long delay.

Admitting to opposing counsel that you have no actual defense ... now there's a strategy I haven't seen in a while.

P.P.S. Note Patrick's obsession with trying to gussy up his letters and emails with unnecessarily verbose and convoluted prose in an attempt to sound legally intimidating:

"... there are a number of different circumstances that have intersected to make that delay a reality."

Is Patrick simply trying to say, "There are a number of reasons for this delay"? Probably, but that would be too straightforward; hence, his legal bafflegab and jabberwocky, of which he is so fond.

Oh, and conceding that the aforementioned delay is "a reality"? Probably a stupid thing to have put in writing when your entire defense is based on denying such a delay. 

BONUS TRACK: Here's a potential homework assignment for my loyal and long-suffering readers. Here's another snippet from Patrick's July 18 letter to my lawyer (wherein Patrick hilariously offers to drop his dead-in-the-water lawsuit against me if I forgive his entire $125,000 debt to me):

 

It goes without saying that I wasn't interested in that ludicrously insulting offer, but it's the last part of that snippet that is so intriguing, wherein Patrick clearly suggests that I defamed him "within the past few weeks" while offering no evidence of that.

Given that that letter is dated July 18, 2026, Patrick is suggesting that, somewhere on my blog within the few weeks before July 18, I have defamed him. Since most of my blog posts in the last couple of months deal with little more than my describing how things are going legally with Patrick, I am unaware of anything that could be described as "defamation," so if anyone wants to check my posts shortly before July 18, they're invited to identify anything that might fall into that category.

WHAT IF PATRICK DOESN'T SHOW UP FOR HEARING? ... asks the most recent commenter ... would that be good or bad for me? I can safely say that that would be very, very bad for Patrick since in the same letter I am posting snippets from, he clearly promised my lawyer that he would be attending, writing:

"Should your client choose not to take this opportunity, I will defeat your client's application on August 20, then apply for a summary judgement."

I think we can all agree that the above represents an unequivocal promise from Patrick that he will be there, which means the Court will be supremely pissed if he doesn't show after having given that assurance. So Patrick can be a no-show on August 20, but it's hard to imagine a stupider move on his part.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Eight days and counting.

(Two things to cover today, the second being the more interesting of the two.)

First, I still have no word that Patrick has filed his mandatory Response Affidavit to my Rule 4.33 Application and, at this point, I plan to argue that it is out of time and should not be accepted by the Court, for a couple reasons.

First, the defense against a Rule 4.33 Application hinges on two very simple questions:

1. Have you (the Plaintiff) made any significant advancement in your case over the last three years and, if not,
2. Is there a formal, signed agreement or court order allowing the suspension of the action?

That's it, there's nothing more to argue and, in this case, the answer to both questions is a resounding "Hell, no." But there's one more observation related to this that really puts the hob-nailed boots to Patrick's joy department.

Any defense against a Rule 4.33 Application can refer only to events prior to when the Application was filed; in this case, back on July 15. This means that there is nothing that has happened since then that Patrick can incorporate into his defense, such as my blog posts since July 15. This means that he can't use as an excuse for all this delay that he's been examining stuff that happened after July 15, so there's no plausible excuse for this taking almost a month; a Rule 4.33 defense is simple and straightforward and its Affidavit does not require a month to craft. But here's the more interesting point.

As I have mentioned before, if one's lawsuit is dismissed due to Rule 4.33 (or one drops such a lawsuit just to avoid the embarrassment of losing in court), the Court takes a dim view of the Plaintiff simply turning around and refiling the same action all over again in an effort to restart the clock.

For example, here's Google AI making it clear that a Plaintiff refiling the same action after discontinuing the lawsuit just to get another three years could constitute "abuse of process," 

 

 

and it's only logical that if a Plaintiff loses in court, refiling the same action could represent exactly the same abuse of process. And what does all that have to do with Patrick? I'm glad you asked since here's another snippet from Patrick's spectacularly unwise letter of July 18:

 

 

Make sure you understand what Patrick is saying in the above: Patrick is promising that, if I win this Application on August 20, he will -- the very next day -- simply refile his lawsuit "that will feature the claims made against [me] now".

Take your time to truly absorb the thigh-sucking stupidity of someone who, in writing, vows to do something that the Rules of Civil Procedure openly describe as being a possible abuse of process. Revel in the cluelessness of someone who promises to do exactly what the Rules warn against. It is ... mind-boggling.

In any event, only eight days left for Patrick to try something stunningly irrelevant that will almost certainly piss off the Court. All we can do is wait.

IT'S A PUZZLER: Perhaps Patrick's most baffling claim in the above is to refer to "the numerous defamatory statements your client has published since the filing of that action,..."

Um ... wut? My Application was filed on July 15 (less than a month ago), and I'm fairly confident that I have blogged little more than a running commentary of its progress, so I'm not sure how any of that constitutes defamation. If anyone wants to go back and examine my blog posts since July 15, they're invited to identify anything allegedly defamatory.

BONUS TRACK: To follow up on one commenter's note, what if Patrick drops his lawsuit before the 20th? Or what if he does not drop it but simply does not attend? In either case, that would end incredibly badly for Patrick since he has already assured me, in writing, that he plans on being there, as can be seen in this exceedingly unwise assurance from his aforementioned letter of July 18:

The context of the above is that Patrick just finished making a ridiculous offer, and, well, you can read the rest, specifically, "I will defeat your client's application on August 20, ...". That is an unmistakable assurance that he will be there, and if he doesn't show, well, that bogus assurance will be placed before the judge.

In trying to establish some sort of arrogant alpha dominance over these proceedings, Patrick has made some stunningly imprudent claims and promises, all of which have the potential to come back and bite him in his prodigious ass. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: A fatal misunderstanding of "limitation periods."

I was just doing a little research into one of the claims of the massively-indebted and thoroughly-bankrupt Patrick Ross, and it would appear that one of Patrick's major claims as to his ability to continue to sue me even after he loses this upcoming Rule 4.33 Application hearing is based on utter fantasy and Patrick's profound lack of ability to read. I will explain in detail because it's quite something.

First, let us establish the limitation periods for suing for defamation in Alberta (the very rules that Patrick is counting on for all of this), and we'll let Google AI give us a perfect summary: 

 

Let's understand clearly what the above is saying as it will be critically important below. What the above is saying is that, in Alberta, you have two years to file a defamation lawsuit from the date you either discovered or ought to have discovered the alleged defamation. In this case, we can focus on the date when Patrick discovered the alleged defamation since it's documented in his filing of August, 2022. On first reading, this suggests that, given that what Patrick described in that lawsuit is almost four years old, he absolutely cannot simply refile that same lawsuit with the same complaints as all of them would be way outside the 2-year limitations period. That seems clear enough. But what is that 10-year ultimate limit? And this is what Patrick gets hysterically wrong.

As you can see, the 10-year limit generously gives you up to 10 years to discover the alleged defamation, but it in no way overrides the 2-year limit to file. For example, then, if you discovered some alleged defamation five years after which it was published, you would still have only two years to sue over it. On the other hand, if you discovered that alleged defamation after nine years, you would have only one year in order to beat the ultimate limit. If you discover it after 10 years, you are shit out of luck and there's nothing you can do. The crucial point here is that none of that changes the 2-year limit to file your lawsuit, meaning that, no matter what happens at the August 20 hearing, Patrick cannot refile that same lawsuit from 2022 since all of that alleged defamation would be over four years old.

But, hang on ... not so fast. Patrick thinks he's found a loophole, and he explains his bizarre interpretation of the time limits thusly in the aforementioned letter of July 18: 

 

 

If I read this correctly, Patrick seems to think that the 2-year limit does not apply to him since he insists on describing my alleged defamation as "ongoing" and "continuous", then drags in the 10-year ultimate time limit; a time limit we have already established is not relevant to this situation. So Patrick gets that part completely wrong. But it gets worse for Patrick.

Patrick seems to believe that my alleged defamation is "ongoing" and "continuous"; that is, he appears to think that, in some way, the 2-year time limit does not apply to him because, in some mysterious way, I am continuing to defame him and that that "ongoing" defamation continues to reset the 2-year clock (possibly on a daily basis).

Well, no, that's not how it works and, once again, I present Google AI's take on Patrick's novel interpretation of what constitutes "ongoing" defamation:

 

I will not bore you with my analysis of the above, but I will point out the only things that matter:

• Leaving an allegedly defamatory article online after it is published does not reset the 2-year clock, so all of that alleged defamation in Patrick's 2022 lawsuit that Patrick keeps whinging on about is far past the 2-year deadline.
• For the clock to be reset, a fresh, separate claim might arise if the earlier material was published "anew in a significant way or on a different medium"; in other words, if all I did was repeat the same material in the same way on the same social media outlet, that also does not reset the clock.

Now, IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but the above does seem to suggest that, after the hearing on August 20, if all Patrick has is to try to refile with the same material or more recent publications of the same material, he's out of luck. If any lawyers want to weigh in on this, feel free.

IN SUMMARY: I'm genuinely interested in feedback from people with an actual legal background since, as I read it, Patrick cannot simply refile the same 4-year-old lawsuit as it is way out of time, and the only possibilities he has for suing me again for defamation is to identify what is clearly new defamation (not simply republished defamation) within the last two years.

Does that sound about right? 

P.S. It's worth emphasizing just how massively Patrick either misunderstands or misrepresents the 10-year ultimate time limit. Compare Google AI's summary with Patrick's wildly inaccurate interpretation to truly appreciate how far Patrick is off the mark and how all of that in no way rescues him from the standard 2-year limit.

P.P.S. I predict that Patrick will not be able to resist criticizing this blog post and blar-har-har'ing about how wrong I am ... yadda yadda yadda. Let's watch. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Nine days and counting.

And still nothing from boy lawyer Patrick Ross ... no withdrawal of lawsuit, no Response Affidavit, no notification that he's hired a lawyer, no irrelevant motion to strike my Rule 4.33 Application, no filing for an extension ... and time is fast running out. 

I'm guessing that Patrick will wait until the last minute, then spring some truly bizarre and meaningless "gotcha" trick, which will serve only to irritate the Court.

Let's watch. 

REMINDER: Patrick would appear to have blown the deadline for filing and serving a properly-sworn Response Affidavit:

Let's see if he still tries to get something in (which the Court may very well reject as being out of time).

BY THE WAY, it's worth understanding that none of these recent blog posts of mine can be used by Patrick in his Response Affidavit to claim that there has been some sort of engagement with him on my part. That's because a Rule 4.33 Application is limited to investigating the three years prior to the filing of the Application, which was on July 15 of this year. So any argument that Patrick wants to make that there was some sort of recent activity cannot consider anything that happened after that date.

That also means that Patrick has no excuse for his Response Affidavit being this late since, once my Application was filed, that defined precisely what Patrick was allowed to work with (the three years before that date), and he can't argue that he still needed time to include anything from my recent blogging since then. In case that's what he was thinking.

Chronicles of Twatrick: 10 days and counting ...

We are now potentially within the window where undischarged bankrupt and boy lawyer Patrick "I'll take double fries instead of a salad" Ross has blown the deadline to file and serve a proper Response Affidavit related to my Rule 4.33 Application:

 

 

So we are now left to wonder what Patrick plans to do, and I'm taking predictions. Will Patrick ...

• Wait until the last possible minute, then email a chaotic, meandering and unsworn Response Affidavit to my lawyer, and demand that it be heard in court?
• Wait until the last possible minute, then file an irrelevant application of his own, like a Rule 3.68 motion, and demand that it be heard in court?
• Wait until the last possible minute, then announce that he just hired a lawyer who needs an extension to get up to speed on the case?
• Wait until the last possible minute, then withdraw his idiotic lawsuit to avoid having to attend a hearing at all? 

I'm open to other possibilities; lines are open and operators are standing by to mock you. 

REMINDER: I've harped on this many times, but it's worth repeating ... a Rule 4.33 Application (like mine) to dismiss a lawsuit due to long delay has absolutely nothing to do with the merit of the underlying lawsuit. Nothing. So when it comes to Patrick bragging as to how his long-dormant action is "extremely-meritorious" (it isn't):

 

 

that is hilariously irrelevant, since all that matters is that it has not progressed in over three years; the underlying "merit" has no relevance here:

 

 Ideally, the upcoming hearing on August 20 should consist of little more than:

Judge: "Mr. Ross, have you made any significant advancement in your case in the last three years?"

Patrick: "Well, no, but it's extremely-meritorious ..."

Judge: "We're done here."

That's it; that's all it should take. So I guess we'll see what happens and how Patrick manages to embarrass himself yet again.

GOOGLE AI AGAIN: I again asked Google about Rule 3.68 being used to defeat Rule 4.33, and Google AI was fairly clear that that approach was bound to fail (note the clear property of no judicial discretion):

 

 

It's not clear how one might accuse my Application of being a "fraudulent abuse of process" since the entire Application says little more than, "It's been over three years with nothing happening, it needs to be dismissed." Such an Application puts the burden of proof squarely on Patrick Ross to prove that there has been significant advancement, and I don't see how he can do that since, well, there hasn't been.

In any event, I guess we will learn all in the next 10 days. 

BONUS TRACK: My first commenter makes the clearly facetious suggestion that Patrick will point at my recent blog posts related to my Rule 4.33 Application, and insist that those posts constitute some sort of advancement of his lawsuit because I am, in some way, "engaging" with him or something equally vacuous.

I'm hoping that my regular readers understand by now that that's not an option since the "significant advancement" of an action with respect to Rule 4.33 is fairly well-defined, and does not include random blog posts simply talking about it:

 

 

Note in the above that even some actual legal filings don't count as significant advancement since they do not move the lawsuit forward in any "meaningful way." In over three years, there has been no substantive exchanges, narrowing of issues or measurable progress of any kind and, again, the burden of proof falls squarely on Patrick to prove otherwise.

WHAT IF PATRICK DROPS THE LAWSUIT? I discussed this before, but if Patrick -- only days before the hearing -- decides to drop his meritless lawsuit, that could be considered an abuse of process by the Court:

In fact, I already have official correspondence from Patrick assuring me that he will be attending the hearing on August 20, so if he cancels at the last minute, I will absolutely be putting his written assurance before the Court and arguing for abuse of process on his part.

At this point, Patrick does not have many options left, and all of them are bad. 

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.