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. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Rule 4.33 -- the only thing that matters.

In case anyone is skeptical about the brutal simplicity and directness of Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33, I present the relevant part of my own Application to have Patrick Ross's long-dormant and dumbass defamation lawsuit against me dismissed for long delay. Removing all of the irrelevant frontmatter and backmatter from the Application, this is all that's left:

 

 

Take your time and appreciate that the entire "Grounds for making this application" section consists of precisely two lines:

• When Patrick filed his lawsuit, and
• That it's been over three years since he's done anything with it.

That's it -- for a Rule 4.33 Application, there is nothing more to be said. That is the only thing the Court cares about, and it is the only defense available to Patrick. The Court has absolutely no interest in any of Patrick's bitching, moaning and whining about how his lawsuit is "extremely-meritorious"; the Application focuses on the only thing the Court is prepared to consider, and that is the unacceptable delay.

I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this.

Chronicles of Twatrick: 18 days and counting ...

Meanwhile, undischarged bankrupt and homeless oil patch swamper Patrick "Blar Har Har" Ross (who owes me around $130,000 and climbing) is currently staring down the barrel of a much more imminent deadline, as he needs to file and serve his properly sworn Rule 4.33 Response Affidavit in the next several days or risk the Court telling him that he will not even be allowed to open his festering, cheeseburger-crammed gob come the hearing this August 20.

Here's what Google AI has to say about Patrick's need for a sense of urgency:

 

 

So, given the range in the above, Patrick might have another week to get this done and filed or, as happened back in 2010, he will end up losing this action out of sheer stupidity, laziness and/or arrogance.

And remember (and this bit of clarification is for Patrick, who openly admits to reading this blog), his Affidavit must address only the two issues before the Court related to Rule 4.33:

• his evidence that he advanced his case "significantly" in the past three years, or
• his evidence that there was a formal standstill agreement that suspended activity.

Patrick cannot use his Affidavit to whinge on and on and on about how his lawsuit is "extremely-meritorious", as he did last month:

 

 

 

So it is safe to say that Patrick is well aware of what he can and cannot include in his Response Affidavit, and if it ends up being Patrick's typical whiny, tedious grievance fest going back to 2008, I will be placing before the Court a bunch of the above where I reminded Patrick of his deadline and obligations as the Plaintiff in this case.

And I will absolutely be placing before the court Patrick's snotty, condescending, patronizing and simply offensive correspondence with my lawyer; I'm pretty sure that's not going to win him any sympathy from the Court.

In any event, tick tock, dude ... waiting on that Affidavit. 

BONUS TRACK: Anon commenter asks whether I believe Patrick will actually buckle down and file a proper and relevant Affidavit for this Application, to which I can honestly reply ... I don't care, because no matter what Patrick does, it won't make any difference. Let's consider the possibilities:

First, Patrick either fails to file, or files too late to have it considered by the Court. I win by default and Patrick does not even get the chance to be heard.

Alternatively, Patrick files a long, tedious list of grievances going back more than a decade and a half, despite having been warned that he must address the issues related exclusively to Rule 4.33 and nothing else; that results in Patrick's really pissing off the Court and still losing.

Finally, Patrick files a proper Affidavit addressing the issues ... well, that is not going to happen since he does have any of that evidence. He did not (according to the case's Procedure Record) advance his action in even the smallest way for well over three years, and there has never, ever, ever been any sort of agreement to suspend the action. So there's literally no evidence for him to present.

I really don't care what Patrick does; none of it is going to save him.

Oh, I guess the final scenario is that he doesn't even show up for the August 20 hearing, but that does not really differ from the first possibility, does it? 

P.S. Curiously, after mouthing off about this last month on social media, he's been surprisingly quiet about all of this. Is that the smell of panic and desperation?

P.P.S. I look forward to Patrick trying to argue that he's just been too depressed and harassed and intimidated to advance his case, even as he makes unwatchable and unwatched (18 views in 3 days) YouTube videos.

 

BONUS ENTERTAINMENT: For no reason, I am reminded of when someone advertised an upcoming Netflix special covering the years-long spat between myself and Mr. Ross; nothing ever came of that but it was several days of head-scratching surrealism.
 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Still waiting for that Response Affidavit.

Since undischarged bankrupt and self-described boy lawyer Patrick Ross seems determined to go through with the upcoming August 20 hearing regarding my Rule 4.33 Application to kick his sorry-ass (and long dormant) lawsuit to the curb, I will once again point out that he is fast running out of time to file and serve the mandatory Response Affidavit (RA), in which he details the defenses he plans on presenting that day:

 

And since I know that Patrick reads this blog, I will graciously assist him in reminding him of what must be in his RA, and what should not be.

Note how the list above dictates what to include, and it's all precisely and specifically related to the purpose of Rule 4.33 and consists of two (and only two) categories of evidence:

1. If Patrick wants to claim that he significantly advanced his action in the last three years, he must provide a clear and detailed timeline of those advancements.
2. If Patrick wants to claim that there was some sort of agreement to suspend the litigation, he needs to produce those (sworn) agreements.

In addition, any such documentation cannot simply be claimed at the hearing; rather, all of it must be sworn into the record ahead of time.

And that's it -- the RA should not contain anything other than the above. Specifically, it cannot be a receptacle for Patrick's perpetual, relentless whiny grievance fests going back to 2008 -- the Court will have little patience with Patrick complaining about what I might have blogged about his family's farm in 2014.

So if I were Patrick, I'd get to work on collecting that evidence, getting it sworn in and writing and filing that Response Affidavit. Time's getting short, and the Court will not look kindly on Patrick submitting an illiterate, steaming hot mess of petulant grievances the day before the hearing.

P.S. I am going to check on whether I have the right to post Patrick's upcoming Response Affidavit on this blog. It seems that since it would be a properly filed and served document related to an ongoing action, it would be considered publicly accessible. I will, however, make sure before I do that. 

P.P.S. As I have promised before, I will be publishing the Webex info so interested voyeurs can spectate the hearing of August 20. 

BONUS TRACK: Since I know Patrick reads this blog. I will give him some free advice on the most common mistakes people make when crafting an Affidavit:

  

 

To be perfectly honest, I'm not trying to be helpful to Patrick here. Rather, I'm laying a trap of describing what he needs to avoid, so that when his RA shows up loaded with all of the above, I can say, "Hey, I tried to warn him, but he didn't listen."

Chronicles of Twatrick: Drop the lawsuit? Not so fast.

As I continue to peruse the law related to Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 for my upcoming August 20 hearing, I asked Google whether the Plaintiff (in this case, undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross) has the right to simply drop the lawsuit that is the target of my Application, and what (if any) consequences there would be.

Here's the opinion of Google AI:

 

 

This is revealing as it shows that, given that the Rule 4.33 hearing for this matter is already scheduled for August 20, Patrick can't simply say, "Ah, never mind the whole thing," at least not without the permission of myself or the Court, which means that if Patrick does try to withdraw his meritless lawsuit before the hearing, I have the right to say, "Uh, no, we're doing this, so make sure your August 20 is open, dude."

Even better, note the "Abuse of Process / Terms" section, which makes it clear that upon discontinuance, I can still apply for costs and the court could rule that Patrick has no right to turn around and simply refile the same stupid lawsuit (which, in fact, he has already promised to do).

In short, if Patrick thinks that dropping this lawsuit will make his problems go away, well, he's in for an unpleasant surprise. He really should get himself a lawyer.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Tick, tock ...

Undischarged bankrupt and aspiring soft core porn author Patrick "You Gonna Eat That?" Ross is rapidly running out of days to decide which way he's going to jump regarding my filed and scheduled (August 20) Rule 4.33 Application to kick his sorry-ass lawsuit to the curb for interminable delay.

If he plans on contesting the application, he must file and serve a proper and legal Response Affidavit that addresses solely the issues related to such an application, and all tendered evidence needs to be sworn into the record and not just scrawled on the back of a place mat from "Cheeseburgers 'R' Us." 

 

  

On the other hand, if he decides to drop the action, every day he delays in doing so represents an increasing "abuse of process" of the legal system in the sense of dragging out an action that you ultimately withdraw shortly before the scheduled hearing -- something that really pisses off the Court. 

 

 

Oh, and if Patrick tries to argue that, darn it, he just couldn't muster the energy to deal with this, then I'll point out that he certainly still has the time to record childish and unwatchable videos for YouTube.

"Your Honour, I'm about to ask you to invest 10 minutes of your life that you will never, ever get back."

Patrick needs to make some very hard decisions, and he needs to make them soon. Tick, tock ...

P.S. It's telling that, after Patrick yammered on about his "extremely-meritorious" lawsuit against me back in early July:

since then, he's gone vewwwy, vewwwy quiet. Trying to ignore this is not going to help Patrick, it's just going to make things much, much worse.

Tick, tock ... 

BONUS TRACK: I draw your attention to one of the non-negotiable requirements of the Response Affidavit that Patrick will have to file to contest my Application:

"Focused Scope: Must be strictly limited to replying to the evidence and arguments raised by the applicant."

That makes it clear that Patrick will absolutely not be allowed to whinge on interminably with one of his rambling grievance fests going back to 2008; he must focus exclusively on the points made in my Affidavit, and my Affidavit is short and specific:

• More than three years have gone by with no advancement of this case by the Plaintiff, and
• There has been no mutual or court-ordered suspension of the litigation that would justify this delay.

That's it -- those are the only points Patrick will be allowed to address, nothing more. He will not be permitted to insist that his lawsuit is "extremely-meritorious," or that he was delayed due to "harassment," or that ... well, you get the idea. Those are the rules and if Patrick tries to play games, it will end very badly for him, indeed.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Can't say I didn't warn him.

Here's a new tidbit regarding Patrick Ross and his upcoming evisceration at Grande Prairie courthouse. While reading some Rule 4.33 rulings and appeals, I noticed that, occasionally, a Respondent tried to defend themselves by insisting that the Applicant had, in some vague and nebulous way, given them the impression that they had agreed to extend the time to litigate the underlying action. Put another way, the Rule 4.33 Respondent (in this case, Patrick) might argue, "Hey, CC published something that I interpreted as giving me more time!"

Except that it was only last month (June 19 blogpost) and before I ever knew of the existence of Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 that I very clearly warned Patrick of my intention to eventually deal with him:

 

That passage of mine cannot be misinterpreted -- it is clearly not gifting Patrick with a deadline extension of any kind, and just as clearly promises that I will be getting around to him and his stupid lawsuit at some point when I tire of him.

In short, any argument by Patrick that he thought I was giving him an extension is already dead in the water. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Misreading the law once again.

A couple weeks ago, perpetual bankrupt and financial fugitive Patrick Ross gave us all a clue as to what he thinks might be a defense against a Rule 4.33 Application, when he published a tweet containing this screenshot:

 

 

so let's deconstruct this, shall we? First, it seems that Patrick believes that because an action is "live" at the moment, it is required to remain live, or something like that. 

Let's establish something right off the bat -- yes, Patrick's idiotic 2022 defamation lawsuit against me is "live" at this instant in time; it is currently active and, yes, it is capable of being pursued in court. Of course that's true, no one is denying that.

What Patrick stupidly or deliberately ignores is the very next sentence, that sentence making it thigh-suckingly clear that the action is live provided it has "not been killed, barred or extinguished by legal rules." 

Which is the entire point of a Rule 4.33 Application -- to extinguish Patrick's lawsuit by legal rules. That is the sole function of Rule 4.33: to take a live action and make it dead. It's unclear why Patrick finds this confusing since his own tweet explains it right there in that second sentence.

So, yes, Patrick's lawsuit is technically still "live", and it will remain live until August 20, when I kill it via Rule 4.33. It will be live on the morning of August 20, and dead sometime thereafter. Is that really so difficult to understand? 

BONUS TRACK: There is some delicious synchronicity in the fact that August 20, 2026 (the date of my upcoming Rule 4.33 hearing) is the day after the 5-year interestversary of a Saskatchewan judge ruling on how much Patrick owed me at that time:

 

 

I can assure you that that information will be placed in front of the Court, for the entertainment value alone. Keep checking back for the Webex link if you want to attend that hearing; I'll publish closer to the date.

MORE BONUS TRACK: Recall from an earlier post that if Patrick wants to mount a defense against my Rule 4.33 Application, he needs to do it via a legal and proper Response Affidavit that is filed and served in plenty of time for me to examine it.

 

 

So Patrick might want to stop publicly obsessing over Candace Owens and get to work on that.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Damned if he does, ...

(NOTE: You need to read the previous post before diving into this one, as I am addressing one of the comments there.)

In my last post, I talked about Patrick's rapidly-dwindling options in terms of forging ahead with contesting my Rule 4.33 Application, or possibly just bailing on the whole thing and dropping the lawsuit before the August 20 hearing to spare himself the crippling humiliation. Well, it turns out that he's really painted himself into a corner no matter what he does.

A general rule of civil actions is that if you sue someone, and cause them to incur legal expenses, then later announce, "Ah, never mind, let's just forget the whole thing, I'm dropping the suit," you are pretty much guaranteed to be hit with a costs award due to the expenses you forced the Defendant to incur; the Defendant will be entitled to file for what are called "discontinuance costs" because you chose to "discontinue" the action after having filed it in the first place.

Discontinuance costs could vary anywhere from "partial" indemnity (perhaps 40-60% of their costs), up to "full" indemnity (solicitor-client costs, meaning you'll owe them every dime they had to spend) if the Court is really unhappy with your behaviour. So what does that have to do with Patrick? I'm glad you asked.

I asked Google about how discontinuance costs relate to Rule 4.33 Applications, and I was told the following:

So let's chat about the above, shall we?

In the above, Rule 4.36 represents just the general rule about discontinuance costs, regardless of the nature of the lawsuit. But the rest of that talks about how that Rule interacts specifically with a Rule 4.33 Application, and it's there that Patrick appears to be screwed.

• Ignore the first bullet point, that talks about Rule 4.36 in general.
• You can ignore the second bullet point as that doesn't apply here.
• It's that third point where Patrick is in deep shit.

Normally, even if someone drops their action against you, you don't get full costs; more likely, you'll get partial or perhaps "substantial" costs, but it takes the Court getting really pissed off with you to order you to pay the full solicitor-client costs, and that's what that third point is talking about.

The standard Rules of Civil Procedure dictate that while being nailed with solicitor-client costs is unusual, the Court has the discretion to do that if it finds that the lawsuit was vexatious, frivolous or an "abuse of process." And that's what that third point is explaining.

What it says is that if you're already the target of a Rule 4.33 Application (as Patrick is here), the Court will look very unkindly on you suddenly dropping your action as it could be interpreted as simply trying to avoid the inevitable Rule 4.33 hearing and beatdown. As that third bullet point clearly reads, that kind of behaviour could very well be considered by the Court to be "abuse of process" and, once upon a time, I showed exactly how that can be used by a judge to justify full solicitor-client costs in a Rule 4.33 Application:

 

 

Let me summarize all of that. If a judge finds that Patrick's conduct in all of this rises to the level of abuse of process, that judge is free to award me full solicitor-client costs -- my costs going all the way back to August of 2022 when Patrick first filed this idiotic lawsuit. And one of the reasons to find abuse of process is (hilariously) if Patrick drops this lawsuit after I filed my Rule 4.33 Application.

Really, appreciate the irony here. If Patrick tries to salvage the situation by dropping his lawsuit before the August 20 hearing, the Court is free to interpret that as "abuse of process", which can justify a full costs award for me. At this point, there's really no way for Patrick to win here. 

P.S. I hope I explained adequately that Patrick dropping his lawsuit at this point would actually work against him as the Court clearly explains that that sort of timing is exactly what it would see as an abuse of process. Patrick really has buried himself here. At this point, he can't even walk away without getting spanked.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Submit a Response Affidavit, he must.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that, in response to a Rule 4.33 Application, the Plaintiff (Patrick "Super Nexus Quadruple Chin Cheeseburger" Ross) would normally be expected to submit a "Response Affidavit," outlining his proposed defence, the purpose being to give my side time to examine his plans for a defense.

Well, it's stricter than that since, if Patrick plans on defending (and it's not clear what possible defense he would have), he must submit such an Affidavit or he will not even be allowed to present a defense at the upcoming hearing on August 20.

Once again, I give you Google AI (which has proven remarkably accurate so far):

 

 

I draw your attention to the bullet point "Challenging the Applicant":

"Without your own evidence, the court only reviews the applicant's record and may automatically dismiss the claim."

In short, Patrick can't just show up the morning of August 20 and start free associating a defense and pulling nonsense out of his ample, cheeseburger-fueled ass -- he needs to put it into an Affidavit, and properly file and serve it, so there will be no day-of ambush litigating from Patrick of which he is so fond.

P.S. Once I receive that Response Affidavit, I will post it here. 

P.P.S. Note the strict requirements for this Affidavit -- explanations for delay must be officially sworn into the record, not simply scrawled by Patrick on the back of a napkin with his crayons, and exhibits must include all notices, correspondence and court documents to bolster Patrick's arguments. In other words, Patrick has some serious work to do over the next week or so to put all that together to deliver it to me in a timely manner.

He might want to get cracking on that. 

BONUS TRACK: It's worth noting that, compared to what I had to do to file a Rule 4.33 Application, Patrick has considerably more work to do to contest it.

For my part, all that was necessary was to claim that more than three years had gone by and there had been no significant advancement and no agreement to suspend the action. I did not have to supply any proof of any of this since you can't prove a negative.

On the other hand, if Patrick wants to contest the application, he does have work to do in terms of claiming and documenting said advancement, producing and swearing into the record agreements or whatever it is he wants to present to the Court and so on. In other words, the burden of proof is entirely on Patrick to provide positive evidence to defeat my application, and he needs to put it all in an Affidavit and get it to me well in advance of the hearing. Which is why he might want to start working on that real soon now.

OH, ONE MORE THING: Patrick has already assured me that:

1. He will attend the August 20 hearing, and
2. He will win.

So we'll see how that goes. 

A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TAKE: I asked Google a slightly different question about the Response Affidavit and got this:

 

For me, the most interesting part is that the Response Affidavit must have a "focused scope"; as in, "Must be strictly limited to replying to the evidence and arguments raised by the applicant."

In other words, it can't follow Patrick's pattern of being a rambling list of historical grievances; it needs to address only the issues in my Application, which is really going to cramp Patrick's style. Oh, and there's that "timely service" requirement again, which is why Patrick might stop obsessing over Candace Owens and get to work.

JUST FOR FUN, I asked one more reworded question of Google AI: "What if the Plaintiff in a Rule 4.33 Application fails to file a Response Affidavit?" And once again, it would end very badly for Patrick:

 

 

And once again, Patrick might want to get to work on that.