Chronicles of Twatrick: The weaselly, gutless cowardice of Patrick Ross.

If there is any lesson to be learned from the last few weeks of blog posts here, it's that undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross, despite the fact that he talks big and loves to characterize himself as a super tough, bad-ass dude, Patrick is a gutless, tear-soaked little turd who hates confrontation and lives in abject terror 24/7.

Recall from years ago, when I was still blogging under my "Canadian Cynic" pseudonym, that Patrick vowed to track me down and out me in order to ruin my life. Remember this brave mouthing off from Patrick?

 

 

And, lo, the fuck was indeed brought, to the point where Patrick is now a sniveling, sobbing little shit hiding out somewhere in northern Alberta and too scared to go home because someone might (*checks notes*) drive by:

 

 

This is the same Patrick Ross who gleefully demeans people on Twitter as "liars" and "retards" but really doesn't enjoy when someone like me decides to hold him accountable for owing me $125,000.

I have read all 57 pages of Patrick's idiotic Affidavit to defeat my Rule 4.33 Application and, I can assure you, there is nothing there that required a lawyer to add any value to it. All of that rubbish and dishonesty is pure Patrick from beginning to end, and the only reason Patrick retained a lawyer for this hearing is that he was too cowardly to present his own arguments. (I predict that, as soon as he loses this Application, Patrick will fire that lawyer. Let's watch.)

It is difficult to believe that Patrick has not yet figured out, if he does not enjoy being followed, there is a simple solution -- he can pay me what he owes me, at which time I will do my best to forget that he and his four-and-a-half chins even exist. But it's more than a little hypocritical to whine about someone trying to track you down at the same time you owe that someone a shitload of money and are actively avoiding collection enforcement.

As for today's hearing, once again, the Webex link is https://albertacourts.webex.com/meet/virtual.courtroom70, hearings start at 10 a.m. Alberta time, and I have been informed that my hearing is about number 14 on today's docket, which will give potential attendees the time to log in and troubleshoot any connection issues.

As I have mentioned more times than you need to hear, this should be a short hearing since Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 is an extremely simple procedural rule that mandates that if the Plaintiff [Patrick] fails to advance their action for more than three straight years, then upon Application by the Defendant [me], the Court is required to dismiss the action.

Required.

It's mandatory.

The Court has no discretion in this matter. 

The Court is most emphatically not free to consider the merit of the underlying lawsuit, or anything other than the long and indefensible delay:

 

Most importantly, the Court is not allowed to take into account the fact that the Plaintiff is a whiny, sobbing coward who was too stupid, lazy and arrogant to advance his own lawsuit for more than three years. So I am praying for a judge that understands this.

If you have any questions, ask in the comments. 

BONUS TRACK: Given Patrick's insistence that he now lives in abject terror and suffers from "decision paralysis" (whatever the fuck that means), it seems only fair that I reproduce Patrick's July 18 letter to my lawyer in its entirety, so that everyone can see how Patrick, far from being terrified into paralysis and existing in "survival mode", is still the same obnoxious, condescending, arrogant asshole he has always been. This is Patrick's letter to my lawyer, mocking the idea that I hired an actual lawyer to deal with this Application (shortly after which, ironically, Patrick hired his own lawyer):

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps it's just me, but the above does not seem to be the work of someone cowering in their basement, too paralyzed to deal with the world. Rather, it seems like the bloviating output of a pompous, patronizing, sanctimonious little turd who is enjoying himself immensely and can't wait to have his day in court.

I can assure you, if/when Patrick tries to refile his lawsuit once I get it dismissed, the above letter will be Exhibit "A" in my Affidavit establishing that all of Patrick's bleating about being frightened is utter fiction.

DOUBLE BONUS: In the midst of all of that whiny hyper-ventilating from Patrick's Affidavit, note well the first part of Paragraph 54:

"54. While I understand now that I should have tried my best to move the litigation along, ..."

Quite simply, that is an obvious and open admission from Patrick that he has done nothing to advance his own lawsuit. It is Patrick openly conceding that he has no Defense.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The dishonesty of Patrick Ross.

If you want to understand the depth of Patrick Ross's dishonesty, I'll give you an example from a single paragraph out of his tedious Affidavit -- the rest of that document is equally bullshit.

Here's paragraph 25, where Patrick hyperventilates hysterically over ... well, fiction:

 

 

so let's deconstruct that nonsense a few words at a time.

"Mr. Day had either ordered or asked" ... Well, which is it? Asked or ordered? I'm pretty sure I don't have the inherent authority to order anyone around from hundreds of kilometers away, so that phrase is a bit over the top.

"physical surveillance of my private residence" ... but that isn't Patrick's private residence, it belonged to his parents and Patrick has been off working in northern Alberta for quite some time now, so describing it as his "private residence" is a bit of a stretch.

"These individuals wore masks and removed the license plates from their vehicles to evade identification." ... This is the most hysterically misleading sentence of the bunch and we'll have to disembowel it a couple words at a time.

"These individuals wore masks" ... I am aware of one accommodating volunteer who swung by Casa Ross while wearing a scarf around his face; that makes it one individual who wore one face covering. Note well how Patrick's exaggeration has morphed this into multiple individuals wearing multiple masks.

"and removed the license plates ... to evade identification" ... Uh, no. In fact, the single individual in question explained that he had just purchased the vehicle and that the temporary paper tag was properly taped in the truck's rear window while he awaited his permanent plate. Predictably, Patrick was too stupid to figure that out and, ever since then, the story is of a nefarious, sinister stalker who (weirdly) removed his own license plate (which is a truly stupid thing to do since it just begs to get pulled over).

This is the level of slimy misrepresentation that absolutely permeates Patrick's entire Affidavit. And Patrick's lawyer was too stupid, too lazy or too incompetent to recognize the warning signs of total bullshit and signed his name to all of this.

BONUS TRACK: I will just let you slowly and lovingly savour the rancid bullshit of this pathetic and dishonest weeping and moaning:

 

 

 

That's what happens when you challenge someone to "bring it the fuck on."

 

 

You asked about Exhibit D? You are going to be disappointed, as here is the email Patrick received and entered in his Affidavit as Exhibit "D", which is nothing more than an acknowledgment that he had made the request:

 

 

That is less than exciting. 

 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Patrick's lawyer is, quite literally, threatening the Court.

That's a powerful accusation I'm making but give me a minute to back it up.

Here's Paragraph 6 of Patrick's recent Application, where Patrick's lawyer quite clearly suggests that there's no point dismissing Patrick's lawsuit because he would just refile it and that would be an affront to "judicial economy":

 

 

Let's think about this in a couple of ways.

First, that logic is stunningly stupid since, if it were valid, then every Rule 4.33 Application could be defeated by the Plaintiff promising to refile the same lawsuit the next day, so what would be the value of Rule 4.33 in the first place? But that's not the most disturbing part.

By claiming to be concerned about "judicial economy," Patrick's lawyer is clearly threatening the court with, "Hey, court resources are tight, and if you dismiss my client's lawsuit, he'll simply refile it and waste more of your court resources, and you don't want that, do you?"

As in, "Nice court you got here, be a shame if someone came in and wasted your budget because you ruled the wrong way."

I wonder if that sort of quiet intimidation of the Court rises to the level of a complaint to the Law Society of Alberta. 

BONUS TRACK: Patrick is lying as well. In his tediously verbose and dishonest 57-page Affidavit, right near the end, Patrick adds the standard boilerplate that his action is legitimate and is filed for no improper purpose: 

 

 

Except back in his Application, Patrick describes his own lawsuit as being "inextricably tied" to my long-settled 2010 default judgment against him:

 

 

The claim of being "inextricably tied" is bullshit. My 2010 judgment against Patrick is long settled and Patrick is long past any deadline where he can do anything about it. Claiming some sort of inextricable linkage represents nothing more than Patrick openly admitting that his lawsuit was filed as retribution for my earlier victory -- a clearly improper purpose.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Happy interestversary, perjury and mouth-breathing legal incompetence.

First things first: today, August 19, 2026, marks exactly five years since a Saskatchewan judge told vexatious litigant and undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross how much he owed me:

 

and bumped up the annual accruing interest rate to a delightful five per cent, which means that Patrick currently owes me between $125,000 and $130,000, an amount about to increase noticeably due to the mouth-breathing incompetence of his new lawyer who appears to be (and I do not make this suggestion lightly) one of the dumbest carbon-based life forms on the planet.

For the last couple of weeks, I have been speculating as to what Patrick would try as a last ditch, desperate, "gotcha"-style legal ambush to try to salvage his depressing situation and, yesterday, the madness arrived in the form of an Application that ... I cannot even do it justice by paraphrasing, you need to read the entire section of Patrick's proposed grounds for dismissal of my Rule 4.33 Application for yourself:

 

 

Let's start with the truly stupidest part of the above. Patrick's new lawyer -- who I'm guessing got his law degree by collecting the required number of Optimum points -- did not even make out a valid Rule 4.33 defense. None at all.

As I have explained far too many times by now, there are two (and only two) defenses against a Rule 4.33 "Drop Dead" Application:

1. You claim that you have advanced your case significantly in the three years before the Application, or
2. You claim that there exists a court-ordered or mutual agreement for suspension of litigation.

That's it; that's all that's available as a defense. As you can see, Patrick's lawyer made neither of those arguments above. Rather, the filed Application was a jaw-dropping collection of ad hominem bullshit regarding intimidation and harassment and stalking and surveillance, with a new twist of "terrorizing a litigant" thrown in for good measure. And keep in mind, a practicing lawyer crafted this nonsense and put his name to it. But it gets so much worse, as said lawyer also signed off on Patrick's claim that he is "actively" taking steps to overturn a default judgment from 2010.

Read that again to truly appreciate the dumbass level of stupid of a lawyer who does not know how default judgments work. I have, on numerous occasions, explained the strict requirements for filing to set aside a default judgment, like here, and it is mind-boggling that an actual lawyer does not understand even the most basic fundamentals of how a default judgment works, and even (as I wrote in the previous post) enabled Patrick's perjury by signing off on Patrick's legally impossible claim that he is "actively" working to overturn that judgment from back in 2010.

I really am looking forward to this hearing tomorrow to watch my counsel feed Patrick's lawyer through a wood chipper.

BONUS TRACK: I would be remiss in not addressing the very next line after the excerpt above:

 

 

Apparently, Patrick is so "firmly committed" to proceeding with his lawsuit that he has done absolutely nothing with it for the last three and a half years and now wants a do-over.

Also, no one is stopping Patrick from doing the above. Once I have his current lawsuit dismissed for long delay, he's perfectly free to file another (updated) lawsuit and try it all over again. So his "litigation plan" is nonsense, and his lawyer should have understood that.

REMINDER that the Webex link for tomorrow's hearing is  https://albertacourts.webex.com/meet/virtual.courtroom70. Proceedings for the day's docket starts at 10 a.m. (Alberta time), and we are apparently number 14 on the docket.

BY THE WAY, I just noticed the nonsensical stupidity of paragraph 7 above:

 

 

But Patrick's current lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with my 2010 judgment against him for malicious defamation -- those are two totally unrelated actions and are not "inextricably tied" in any way.

However, having written the above, did Patrick just admit that the whole purpose behind his current long-dormant lawsuit is to try to get even with me for my legal victory over him in 2010? That would seem to be an open admission that he filed his lawsuit for an improper purpose, not because he honestly thought I defamed him, but simply because he wants to get even. 

It seems the Court should know about that.

THIS IS TOO FUNNY: In addition to asking the Court to dismiss my Rule 4.33 Application, Patrick is also asking the Court to order a "litigation plan" which would ... again, I cannot do this justice, you have to read the two paragraphs related to that from his Affidavit:

 

 

Take a moment, if you will, and appreciate the absolute fucking stupid in the above request from Patrick's Application. Patrick, having utterly ignored his own lawsuit for three and a half years and advanced it not even the tiniest iota, is now standing there, stamping his little feet and insisting that the Court issue an order to move this whole thing along -- to make sure this matter is "vigorously prosecuted without further delay."

I don't even know how to mock this.

P.S. Nowhere in any of this meaningless swill is there any reference to Patrick being a trustee-less undischarged bankrupt who owes me over $125,000 and has refused to pay any of the judgment or cost awards against him going all the way back to 2010. You'd think the Court might find that ... relevant. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Patrick committed perjury in his opposing application.

I have received a truckload of utter bullshit and dumbass goddamned fucking stupidity from Patrick's Calgary lawyer (who I am tempted to identify just to embarrass him in front of his peers) and in the midst of all that, Patrick committed unequivocal blatant perjury.

In his Application, Patrick writes:

"Finally, the Defendant's [me, CC] Rule 4.33 Application should be dismissed because the within action is inextricably tied to a 2010 default judgment that the Plaintiff [Patrick] is actively taking steps to set aside; ..."

Patrick is "actively taking steps to set aside" my 2010 defamation judgment against him? That is a howlingly blatant lie for one simple reason.

It was a default judgment and, as anyone with even a smattering of legal knowledge would know, a default judgment cannot be set aside unless it is done in a timely manner. It's been 15+ fucking years since I got my judgment against Patrick, and he has done absolutely sweet goddamned fuck all to "set aside" that judgment, and he is about 15 years too late to do it, anyway.

What Patrick filed is pure perjury, and I have advised my lawyer to treat it as such. And, yes, the August 20 hearing is still on, where you will be able to identify the stupid goddamned lawyer that signed his name to Patrick's perjury.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The Webex link for Thursday's Rule 4.33 hearing.

As I have just been told, the link I posted earlier,  https://albertacourts.webex.com/meet/virtual.courtroom70, is the correct link for the Grande Prairie virtual courtroom for Thursday, August 20, and virtual hearings are open to the public.

Court starts at 10 a.m. (Alberta time), and my case is #14 on the court list so it might take some time to get to it, but that should give you time to test your connection and do any troubleshooting.

I plan on attending but I will not actively participate as I have a lawyer to handle that for me. I really am curious as to what defense is going to be offered.

FOLLOWUP: I just connected to test my Webex configuration and it seems fine, so anyone else might want to take a minute to connect to the hearings that just started. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Two days and counting.

First, let's deal with the Webex link for the upcoming August 20 hearing for my Rule 4.33 Application (for which I have not agreed to a requested extension). I have been informed by the Grande Prairie courthouse that the standard Webex link for Chambers is always https://albertacourts.webex.com/meet/virtual.courtroom70, and if that changes in the next two days, I will post the change here. If you feel like testing that link later today, there may or may not be anything there depending on whether there are any virtual proceedings but you're invited to check it out. And now, to business.

It remains to be seen whether Patrick or his lawyer are going to try any frantic last-minute shenanigans, like officially filing for an extension to waste even more of my time, or trying to submit their Response Affidavit only two days before the hearing. I can at least take comfort in the fact that, unlike Patrick, Patrick's lawyer should understand the rules of court and will know that there are limits to the stupid shit that he can try (like arguing that Patrick's lawsuit is "extremely-meritorious" ... stupid shit like that).

 

 

As for Patrick, now that he's gutlessly bailed on defending the inordinate delay in advancing his own lawsuit, I can see that he's over on Twitter, being the misogynistic racist he's always been and relentlessly attacking and demeaning a black woman. What else is new? And it's hard to take seriously that Patrick needs more time to prep his lawyer for this hearing when Patrick is over on Twitter calling people "retards":

 

 

In any event, two days and counting. I'm open to predictions as to how Patrick and his lawyer are going to try to fuck this up. 

BONUS TRACK: First commenter asks the same question others have been asking for a couple weeks now: What possible defense can Patrick's lawyer present to defeat my Rule 4.33 Application? And I will again speculate that Patrick (if his lawyer even agrees to make this argument since it is meritless) will argue that, for the last three years, Patrick has been subject to my crippling "harassment" and "intimidation" which has made it impossible for him to move his own action along.

Not only is this not a valid defense against a Rule 4.33 Application, but I thought I'd take a look at the possible amount of "harassment" and "intimidation" I could be accused of based on what I published on this blog in, say, the year 2025. If you expand the links on the left, you can see the number of blog posts on a per-month basis for all of 2025:

 

As you can see, I published a total of 52 blog posts in all of 2025, making an average of one post per week. It's difficult to see how that corresponds to such a relentless attack on Patrick that he was paralyzed by it and could not find the time to advance his own lawsuit. More to the point, if Patrick could not find the time to do the work himself, he always had the freedom to do what he did just a few days ago: hire a lawyer to do it for him.

Anyway, I am as baffled as everyone else in terms of what argument will be made by Patrick's lawyer. I guess we'll find out in the next day or two.

ONE MORE THING: I have in my possession (and, therefore, so does Patrick's lawyer) the "Procedure Record" for Patrick's 2022 lawsuit, showing every single filing and activity related to this case. It starts at August 26, 2022, when Patrick filed his dumbass lawsuit. I reproduce here only the very last part of that record so everyone can see the absolute lack of activity after March of 2023:

 

 

Note well the last activity labeled with "Patrick Ross" -- an Affidavit filed back in November of 2022, well over three years ago. There is also a mysterious event from March of 2023 that I do not recognize, but since Patrick listed (improperly) three different and unrelated defendants in his lawsuit, that probably has to do with one of the other two defendants. Regardless, that is also still more than three years before I filed my Application, and here's the critical part of the above.

There is no activity related to this case for over three years. None. Zero. Anyone who downloads the Procedure Record for this case can see that clearly.

When I claim that Patrick has done nothing to advance his own lawsuit for more than three years, no one need take my word for it -- one need only examine the official Procedure Record to see that. This is not arguable, and it not debatable. It's part of the case record. So it is still a complete mystery as to what Patrick's lawyer is going to present as a defense.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Three days and counting.

Rule 4.33 "Drop Dead" Application still on schedule for this coming Thursday at 10 a.m. (Grande Prairie, AB time) and stunningly lazy and arrogant Plaintiff Patrick Ross, via his freshly-acquired lawyer, has officially requested an extension in order to prepare the Response Affidavit he's had more than a month to draft and serve.

Fuck, no, for a couple of reasons.

First, as I just mentioned, since Patrick was served with my Application more than a month ago (July 15, to be precise), he has -- rather than getting to work on that Affidavit -- been insulting me on social media, so I'm not in a particularly accommodating mood.

More to the point, it's not clear what Patrick's lawyer would do with extra time since, as I have pointed out more times than is probably healthy, Patrick has no defense. None. Zip. Nada. Sweet fuck all. Here's a summary from the above link:

 

 

and I can assure you that there is nothing there that will rescue Patrick, who has now spent the last four years since filing his asinine lawsuit against me doing absolutely nothing to move it along, but did take the time to occasionally brag about it (even as he failed to move it along):

 

 

So, no, I'm not feeling in a generous mood and there will be no extension. Let's get into court and get this done.

And for some thigh-slapping entertainment value, here's what Patrick wrote in a letter to my lawyer just after being served with my Application:

 

That would be Patrick, snickering over my apparent need for adult supervision by hiring a lawyer, shortly before he frantically retained his own lawyer less than a week before the scheduled hearing. How droll.

SPECULATION: If Patrick was still running the show over there, I would speculate that a defense he might try would be to find something I posted on social media and deliberately misrepresent it as my somehow allowing Patrick more time for his lawsuit.

Sadly for Patrick, it was only two months ago (June 19 of this year) that I specifically published a warning that I was running out of patience with him and was ready to file a dismissal motion against his stupid lawsuit:

 

 

There is no possibility of misinterpretation here -- I am clearly warning Patrick of my potential plans so he should have taken that seriously. He chose not to, and here we are.

A GOOD QUESTION: Last commenter asks:

"Do you think Patrick told his new lawyer about this blog and all the posts you've written about him and this case over the last few weeks? Do you think he would try to use that as part of a defense?"

What an interesting question. First, I think that if Patrick was still representing himself, he would absolutely try to make my recent blog posts part of his Rule 4.33 defense; I suspect he would insist that all of this was "harassment" and "intimidation" and was "deleterious" to his ability to defend himself. In fact, he tried this a few years ago when I filed to have his bankruptcy ruling appeal dismissed as abandoned due to inordinate and inexcusable delay.

Patrick tried that sob story on the judge back then, who was having none of it:

 

 

So Patrick has a history of being a childish whiner. But he would have a couple problems with this strategy in these more recent circumstances.

First, what I choose to blog about is my business, and in no way prevents Patrick from moving his case forward. None of my blogging impedes Patrick from advancing his case, and none of it represents harassment or intimidation.

A bigger problem for Patrick is that a Rule 4.33 Application deals exclusively with a lack of activity for a case prior to the filing of the Application. Nothing I've done since then can be incorporated into Patrick's defense, so any references to what I've blogged since July 15 are not in the smallest way relevant to a defense for Patrick.

As for Patrick whining to his new lawyer about these last few weeks of blogging, he's invited to let him know for all I care.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Four days and counting.

Only four days until my Rule 4.33 hearing against undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross, who is currently melting down over on Twitter, obsessively attacking (surprise surprise!) a black woman.

I will be making a record of Patrick's social media output over the last month so that if/when his new lawyer asks for an extension to get up to speed on this case, I will point out that they wouldn't need an extension if Patrick hadn't spent the entirety of the last 30 days being a 24/7 misogynistic racist over on Twitter instead of dealing with my Application (filed on July 15).

In any event, I will remind everyone (and this is something that Patrick knows since I've mentioned it before and Patrick has already admitted he reads this blog) that, new lawyer or not, he is hopelessly out of time to file and serve a proper Response Affidavit:

 

 

My current opinion on this is that, if asked, I would not agree to any extension, and I would argue that any attempt by Patrick's lawyer to file a Response Affidavit at this late date should be rejected by the Court as being ridiculously out of time.

I should get the Webex call-in link for the 10 a.m. (Grande Prairie time) August 20 hearing in the next day or two, and I will be posting it here as soon as I learn it.

BONUS TRACK: It occurs to me that my (at least) daily postings related to this Application were not simply a way for me to gloat about how I was pushing back against Patrick and his dumbass lawsuit; rather, I think they were the inspiration for Patrick to frantically search for, and retain, a lawyer at this late date.

It was only last month that Patrick was gleefully bragging about his "extremely-meritorious" lawsuit against me:

 

 

However, as my blog posts slowly established how Alberta's Rule 4.33 works, Patrick's cackling and bragging got quieter and quieter, until possibly he began to clue in as to how fucked he was, and thus began his frantic search for a grown-up to save his sorry ass.

I am unaware of any way in which Patrick getting a lawyer is going to rescue him. In fact, it might make things even easier for me since a lawyer will be required to stick to the specific issues related to Rule 4.33, and will avoid wandering all over the rhetorical battlefield, yammering on about harassment and intimidation and trucks without license plates and stupid shit that happened over 15 years ago and so on.

Having an actual grown-up standing in for Patrick might be the best development for me in all of this, since my side won't have to prepare for his spittle-flecked, tear-soaked emotionalism. This could work out well after all.

To paraphrase Patrick (actually, to quote him verbatim from his letter to my lawyer when Patrick was ironically referring to me):

 

 

Indeed. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: About those security for costs

Following closely on the heels of the previous blog post related to Patrick Ross frantically hiring a lawyer at the last minute, there is the issue of what it takes to convince the court to require Patrick to put up security for costs (to ensure that, after I win my Application, I am sure to get my inevitable costs award).

As before, I can ask Google about what it takes in Alberta to merit forcing a Plaintiff to hand over a chunk of cash as security, and the answer is really, really bad for Patrick:

 

 

Let's examine the first few conditions one at a time.

"Enforceability and Assets: Whether the plaintiff has sufficient unencumbered, liquid assets or property located within Alberta to satisfy a potential costs order."

It's safe to say that Patrick is absolutely fucked there since, as far as I know, he has no assets whatever in Alberta -- no house, no property, no nothing. Strike one.

"Financial Status Evidence: Clear proof or adverse inferences drawn from a failure to provide meaningful evidence regarding financial position."

Patrick has more than a decade of history of hiding his assets from me, so he is pretty much screwed here as well. Strike two.

"Conduct and History: Past behavior in the litigation, including whether the plaintiff has failed to pay previous cost awards from prior steps or proceedings."

Holy shit, is Patrick in trouble here, given that he has not paid a single cost award since I won my judgment against him in late 2010. He is so utterly fucked here. Strike three.

I don't even need to continue ... I have enough overwhelming evidence of Patrick's contemptible, arrogant behaviour over the years to bury that little turd.

Next week should be interesting. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: The one where Patrick gets a lawyer.

For the last several days, I've been wondering what sort of sleazy, desperate, frantic, last-minute douchebagitude Patrick Ross was going to try in order to ice his upcoming August 20 Rule 4.33 hearing, and now we know. I learned yesterday that Patrick has retained a lawyer for ... honestly, I'm not sure. So let's examine the consequences of this latest bit of assholery by Patrick, shall we?

As one of my recent commenters suggested, said new lawyer will undoubtedly ask for an extension to get up to speed on this file, and my initial reaction to that would be:

Fuck, no. For a couple of reasons.

First, Patrick was served with my Application on July 15, so he's had an entire month to retain a lawyer; instead, he waits until less than a week before the hearing to reveal this new development. Fuck, no.

More to the point, it's not clear what a new lawyer would need to understand about a Rule 4.33 Application that is about as close to a guaranteed slam dunk as one can imagine. Anyone who's followed my legal analysis and references will agree that the hearing should go pretty much like this:

Court: "Has your client done anything in the last three years to move this case along? Anything at all? Even the tiniest iota of progress?"

Patrick's lawyer: "Well, no, but ..."

Court: "Dismissed. We're done here."

Am I missing anything? So, no, I would not agree to any extension. But a different recent commenter makes a more interesting suggestion:

"That lawyer must be a masochist, or extremely desperate for billable hours."

I think there's something more interesting happening here, so let me explain.

It is entirely possible that New Lawyer Guy sincerely thinks he has a winnable case, but only because Patrick has, well, lied to him about the facts. Anyone who's followed Patrick on social media knows that he is relentlessly dishonest about everything in that, to win his arguments, he will distort, misrepresent, embellish, exaggerate and so on. Whenever Patrick describes some incident, it's always safe to say, "I'll bet it didn't happen quite that way."

For the most part, Patrick won't outright lie -- what he will do instead is spin. And I'm willing to bet various body parts that that is precisely what he did with his new lawyer. Rather than be properly and brutally honest with his new lawyer, it's more likely that Patrick wove a fantastical tale of harassment and intimidation and illegal surveillance and stalking and threats of violence and masked men with trucks that did not have a license plate, etc., etc., while deliberately leaving out some of the juicier aspects of the case, such as Patrick's status as a trustee-less, undischarged bankrupt who owes me $125,000 and has 15 years of history of refusing to pay court-ordered judgment and costs, and so on.

I'm willing to bet that, rather than make sure his new lawyer truly understands this case, Patrick treated that new lawyer as little more than another receptacle on social media to bullshit and spin. Which brings us back to the first commenter's suggestion that said lawyer will almost certainly ask for an extension, which makes me consider another possibility.

If asked, perhaps I should reply, "An extension? Why, sure, no problem ... on condition that your client put up $10,000 in security for costs, given how much he owes me and his long and sordid history of stiffing me for court-ordered costs. Oh, I'm sorry, you weren't aware that your client was a smarmy little weasel who refuses to pay costs when he loses? Gosh, that must come as an unpleasant surprise."

So maybe I'll go that way. Extension? Sure. As soon as Patrick hands over $10,000 to more than cover the eventual costs award from this Application. I guess we'll wait and see whether the subject comes up.

AFTERTHOUGHT: It just occurred to me that it's probably because of my relentless evisceration of Patrick's case over the last few weeks that Patrick finally figured out that he needs help. Recall that, only a few weeks ago, Patrick described his original lawsuit as "extremely-meritorious":

 

 

and insisted that that would be enough to defeat my Rule 4.33 Application. However, on more than one occasion, I pointed out that a Rule 4.33 Application does not in any way consider the merits of the underlying action, only the long delay:

 

 

It's entirely possible that my weeks of shredding Patrick's legal arguments finally sunk into that greaseburger-addled brain of his, to the point where he scampered off to hire someone who actually understands how the law works.

IRONY EPIC FAIL: Savour, if you will, this early sentence in the July 18 letter from Patrick to my lawyer, wherein Patrick -- who has just now hired a lawyer -- yammers on about the value of letting grown-ups handle all of this:

 

 

You can't make this stuff up. You just can't.

ABOUT SECURITY FOR COSTS ... I asked Google about the proper circumstances in which I could demand security for costs from Patrick, and it came up with the following:

 

 

Oh, man, look at that last condition ... "or tries to hide money". I'm pretty sure Patrick's years of dodging and weaving and refusing to pay what he owes me qualifies. But I guess we'll see when the situation arises.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Apparently, Patrick has just retained a lawyer.

I will leave it at that for now.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The Mental Health Fictionalization.

With only six days to go before my Webex-available (dial-in link forthcoming) Rule 4.33 Application hearing against Patrick Ross at the Grande Prairie courthouse, and ongoing dead silence from Mr. Ross (no request for an extension, no Response Affidavit), I will quite possibly offend some readers by predicting that, if Patrick shows up, he will do what he always does and whine piteously about how he's depressed and/or suicidal and just couldn't muster the energy to attend to this matter (despite constantly bragging on Twitter about how much he's been enjoying all of this). Let me give you a couple examples.

It was back in March of 2012 that I dragged Patrick into a Calgary courtroom because of his refusal to accept service and refusal to submit a required Financial Statement of Debtor. And after the judge spanked Patrick soundly for being a weaselly little weasel, Patrick promptly turned on the waterworks:

 

 

Gratifyingly, the judge was having none of Patrick's childish blubbering and bogus emotional manipulation and just continued with her orders.

Fast forward to 2018 and a hearing where I applied to have Patrick's idiotic appeal of his spectacularly-generous bankruptcy Conditional Discharge Order dismissed as abandoned, where Patrick again played the "Woe is me, I'm so depressed" card with the judge, who also did not give Patrick's whiny blubbering any credence:

 

 

So what should we expect if Patrick actually appears at the upcoming August 20 hearing? I'll go out on a limb and predict more "I'm so depressed and CC's harassment and intimidation and ..." childish sob stories about how he should not be held accountable for his years-long laziness.

I'm tempted to start a pool. Anyone want a piece of that action? 

BONUS TRACK: It's worth showing how quickly Patrick bounces back from being "suicidal" to gloating on his blog as to how much he's enjoying himself. Here's Patrick only two days after that 2012 hearing at which he blubbered on about his "mental health issues":

 

 

Yes, that's Patrick being gleeful about how that hearing turned out. Apparently, Patrick's depression comes and goes depending on his proximity to a courtroom. 

P.S. It's worth noting that, in all the time Patrick has been complaining about depression, he has never, ever produced an Affidavit or doctor's note to that effect -- not in all the 16 years he's been whining about it. I have already alerted my lawyer to be prepared for Patrick to try this nonsense at the upcoming August 20 hearing.