Chronicles of Twatrick: How to defend against a Rule 4.33 Application

Since an earlier commenter suggested a couple possible defenses against a Rule 4.33 Application, I once again asked Google AI to list the variety of potential defenses and I verified them against all the reading I've been doing, and I've highlighted the most important part of all of them:

 

 

Now, I want you to examine the full set of possible defenses and identify the common feature of all the highlighted bits. So what's the common feature? Simple:

Every single defense requires something to have already happened.

That is, every one of those possible defenses requires something to have happened before the filing of the Application; there is no possible defense that involves the Plaintiff/Respondent doing something after the fact.

In short, once a Rule 4.33 Application is filed, the only conceivable defenses available to the Plaintiff/Respondent are events or agreements or filings that must have already happened. There is nothing the Respondent can do after the Application is filed that would save them.

Make sense? 

Chronicles of Twatrick: OK, fine, let's talk about limitations.

Since some people might be confused by the legal advice published by undischarged bankrupt and perpetual legal loser and evasive debtor Patrick Ross over on his Twitter "outlawtory" account, I might as well clear things up and explain why Patrick's legal efforts against me are going to end badly for him.

Let's first get Google AI to explain the two types of limitations under Alberta law:

 

 

The first thing to note is that none of the above affects a Rule 4.33 Application in any way. Not at all. Nothing Patrick presents in the way of his weird and inaccurate interpretation of limitations is going to save his current lawsuit from being disemboweled on August 20, so just dismiss that possibility entirely. But if that's the case, what is Patrick blathering about?

It appears that what Patrick is talking about is, once I win my 4.33 Application, he plans on immediately filing a new lawsuit once again accusing me of defamation and/or harassment; in short, starting all over again with a shiny new Statement of Claim accusing me of all the same things he did before. And here's why that's not really going to work for him.

Note first that, of the two limitation periods (two years and 10 years), it is the limitation period that comes first that will be used, so Patrick will be subject to a two-year limitation period for his accusations in this new lawsuit, which is going to really crimp his style since that means that he cannot include any accusations that go back more than two years, which means everything in his original 2022 lawsuit is now ineligible for inclusion in this new lawsuit. So what is his argument? I'm glad you asked.

Here's what Patrick thinks is going to save him -- the notion of "continuous offenses":

 

 

You see, what Patrick is counting on is that while all those original accusations against me in his 2022 lawsuit are now completely out of time, he's counting on the idea that, within the last two years, I have either repeated some of that alleged defamation or perhaps published some new alleged defamation. So if Patrick loses that August 20 hearing (and, yes, he will lose), and files a new lawsuit the next day, all he will have to work with is whatever I've published on my blog going back to August 21, 2024 (precisely two years). That's it -- that's all Patrick will have to work with, and he seems confident that in those last two years, he'll find enough alleged defamation (or harassment, it's never clear what Patrick is suing for) to justify another idiotic lawsuit. (Again, nothing I published more than two years ago can be used in Patrick's new lawsuit.)

So how worried should I be? Frankly, not a lot, since the last two years has been my mostly reporting on Patrick's stupid lawsuit (perfectly legal), and checking in on the comings and goings at Casa Ross (again, legal), and asking people to keep tabs on Patrick (yet again, legal), and so on. I'm absolutely not going to waste my time poring over my last two years of output as that will be Patrick's job; it will be his responsibility to examine all of the last two years of my blog output to find either new alleged defamation, or repeats of older alleged defamation. He will absolutely not be able to go back further than that due to the deadline as defined by Alberta's two-year discoverability period. 

In summary, this appears to be what Patrick is spewing about, so if he wants to crawl over my last two years of bloggy output looking for anything untoward (that is not disqualified by Alberta limitations), he's welcome to it.

P.S. Notice how I (unlike Patrick) actually read the legislation and take the time to understand it? 

Chronicles of Twatrick: The stupid is tiring.

I'm not sure how much longer I'll waste my time responding to Patrick Ross's increasingly unhinged and hysterical screeds over on his Twitter "outlawtory" account, where he is now assuring his 14 regular readers that he is absolutely going to defeat my Rule 4.33 Application. It's unclear how he thinks this is going to happen given my numerous detailed explanations as to how Rule 4.33 works, but I'll summarize it one more time with an added detail that just occurred to me.

Here's Google AI's take:

 

so let's examine my participation in the matter.

As I read it, all I am required to do is establish before the Court that there has been no significant advancement in this case for more than three years. That part is easy -- I downloaded the "Procedure Report" of the case, which lists all events and filings associated with the case and which shows an utter and complete lack of anything happening for over three years. Not just no significant advancement, no advancement whatsoever. And at that point, my job is done -- I am under no obligation to do anything more, because now that I've established the three years of inactivity, the entire burden of contesting this Application falls on Patrick. Fully and completely. So what does that mean?

Well, if Patrick wants to claim that there has been significant advancement, then it falls entirely on him to explain the nature of that advancement, and further explain why it does not appear in the Procedure Record. I need to do nothing in that regard; if Patrick is claiming advancement of any kind, he needs to produce that for the Court.

In the alternative, Patrick can argue that one of the exceptions applies here. But, again, if that's his claim, he needs to produce the paperwork/filings; again, there is nothing for me to do, the burden of proof again falls entirely on Patrick.

In short, there's nothing further for me to do; I filed my Rule 4.33 Application and I provided the Procedure Report showing an absolute lack of progress in this case for over three years; my job is done, and I have no obligation to do anything else. Everything from this point on falls on Patrick to excuse his lack of progress, and he has no right to ask me for anything to help him.

I don't think there's much more I can add to the last couple of weeks, so I guess we just wait for the hearing on August 20 which -- as I have said before -- will be available via Webex and whose link I will provide closer to the date for any interested voyeurs. Then we'll see which of the two of us is correct. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: The meltdown continues.

The long, slow intellectual disintegration of undischarged bankrupt and emotional 12-year-old Patrick Ross continues with this recent bizarre, head-scratching illogic:

 

 

Let's unpack this silliness a few words at a time, shall we?

"... the cause against him is still live, ...": Well, of course it is, no one denies that. That is the whole rationale behind my recently-filed Rule 4.33 Application -- to have this "still live" lawsuit fed through a woodchipper for years-long lack of significant advancement on the part of the Plaintiff. Yes, it's "still live" -- even an intellectually-damaged child or Melissa Lantsman can see that. Which brings us to the second part of the absurdity ...

"... and ergo is unlikely to be dismissed." Why? Because it's live? Apparently, Patrick has missed the entire point of Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33, which is to take a live action and make it dead. That's sort of the entire purpose of the Rule; to take a long-dormant action and kick it to the curb because the Plaintiff has failed to advance it in even the most minimal way for over three years.

I'm not sure what part of this confuses Patrick. Surely he's pored over the legislation but, apparently, the best conclusion he could come up with is, "The action is not yet dismissed; therefore, it will not be dismissed."

Really? That's Patrick's take away from all his research and 15 years of representing himself? This hearing should be entertaining. 

BONUS TRACK: I will remind everyone of what happened the last time Patrick represented himself in court, whereupon the judge not only ruled against him but spanked him so savagely for submitting such absolute rubbish that I was awarded enhanced costs:

 

 

Note: "baseless and scandalous" is diplomatic legalese for "thigh-suckingly dumbass fucking stupid." In case you weren't sure.

ON CLOSER INSPECTION, it seems that Patrick's ill-informed tweet of last night is even sillier than I thought. Here's the fuller context:

 

 

As I read it, Patrick's position seems to be that, despite the absolutely ironclad 3-year deadline for Rule 4.33 applications, Patrick is suggesting that that deadline does not apply here due to ... I guess that I (allegedly) continued to defame him after his filing, and that that (alleged) continuous defamation somehow perpetually "reset" the Rule 4.33 clock. What an interesting position, and here's the difference between Patrick and me.

I decided to check on this so I asked Google to look into the circumstances that would result in pausing or resetting the Rule 4.33 three-year clock, and here's what Google AI handed me:

 

 

I peruse all of that and I see nothing that suggests that a Rule 4.33 Application will be defeated by the Defendant reporting on the progress of the action. In fact, under the section "Pausing or Resetting the Clock," I read that, "the burden to advance the action lies with the plaintiff," having nothing whatever to do with the Defendant.

And this is the difference between Patrick and myself; that is, while I actually look up the legislation to see what it says, Patrick simply makes shit up that he wants to believe. And this will probably come back to bite him if he tries that argument in front of a judge, and the judge asks Patrick to point to the paragraph and sub-paragraph that is the basis of his weird argument of, "You must dismiss this Application because the Defendant was mean to me on his blog."

I look forward to that argument on August 20, and you should, too. 
 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Oh, dear ...

Patrick Ross has just assured me that he will defeat my Rule 4.33 Application on August 20 (without explaining how). He has also suggested that my simply reporting on this upcoming hearing constitutes malicious defamation.

I guess we'll see in about a month. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Patrick's next step

Based on my research into Alberta's Rules of Civil Procedure, now that I have served undischarged bankrupt and morbidly obese, emotionally 11- year-old Patrick Ross with my Rule 4.33 Application, if he wishes to contest this Application (and it's not at all clear how he can), he would need to -- in a timely manner -- file a Response Affidavit, explaining (I assume) how his situation somehow does not exactly represent when a long-stalled lawsuit must be fed through a woodchipper by the Court.

I await his inevitably bizarre and irrelevant Affidavit. I assume it will be epic.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Yes, you'll be able to watch the hearing on August 20.

I checked with Google AI to verify that members of the public are allowed to spectate the upcoming August 20 Rule 4.33 hearing via Webex and, sure enough:

 

 

I will provide the Webex dial-in link much closer to the actual date.

BONUS TRACK:  Man, some of you people get up early. Last commenter wonders whether Patrick can dial in to his upcoming hearing on August 20 and, if he does, whether he will be visible to other people who dial in. According to Google AI, if Patrick has the right to dial in and he does so, he must have his camera on:

 

 

That is, all active parties in the proceeding must have their cameras on and must be visible to everyone dialed in to the hearing. As I am represented by counsel, that condition does not apply to me.

Chronicles of Twatrick: I have no idea ...

Apparently, Patrick Ross has decided to relive his "victory" rather than concentrate on the daunting Rule 4.33-related task ahead of him:

 

 

I will have more to say about this later, but rest assured this tweet (and others like it) will be placed before the Court to demonstrate Patrick's contempt for the legal system, and to discredit him when he starts up with his perpetual, "Oh, woe is me, I'm depressed and don't have the energy and my parents passed away and ... blah blah blah."

Stay tuned. 

P.S. If Patrick had not already accepted service of my Rule 4.33 filing, the above tweet would constitute admission that he received the documents. Patrick is not the sharpest sandwich in the picnic basket. 

P.P.S. I predict that Patrick, having researched Alberta's Rule 4.33 and wildly misinterpreted it, will think he's found a loophole. I will go even further and predict what I think that loophole is.

As we all know, the Rule makes it clear that the Plaintiff must have, in the preceding three years, effected some "significant advance" in the civil action in question. I'm willing to bet that Patrick will argue that his tweeting about me with respect to that lawsuit falls under the category of "significant advancement."

I am not joking -- I predict that Patrick will point at some of his most vacuous and meaningless social media publications and insist that those constitute a significant advance in the case.

Let's watch. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: And so it begins ...

Now that Patrick has acknowledged that he has been properly served related to my Rule 4.33 Application, he apparently does not feel the need to behave in an adult or professional manner:

 

 

I imagine we should expect an increasingly embarrassing emotional and intellectual meltdown as Patrick slowly comprehends the level of trouble he's in. All of this childish lashing out will, of course, be placed before the Court when the issue of costs comes up.

P.S. If Patrick continues mouthing off, please bring it to my attention and take screenshots. The Court will have a field day with this stuff. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: What possible defence against Rule 4.33?

Earlier commenter asks a relevant question: If Patrick Ross wants to fight my recently-filed Rule 4.33 Application, what possible rebuttal can he make? Remember that Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 is stunningly simple and straightforward -- if you file a civil lawsuit, then fail to significantly advance it for three straight years, then upon Application by the Defendant, the Court is (with some very specific exceptions, none of which apply here) required to throw out the lawsuit (with scant possibility of refiling it).

So if Patrick decides he's going to fight this, what exactly can he present before the Court? I have no idea, since the Court will be interested in asking only one question: "Mr. Ross, have you advanced this case in any significant way in the last three years?" Is he going to lie about it, given that I have the case's Procedure Record showing a complete lack of activity for over three years?

More amusingly, the standard boilerplate at the bottom of any Application contains the following:

If you intend to give evidence in response to the application, you must reply by filing an affidavit or other evidence with the Court and serving a copy of that affidavit or other evidence on the applicant(s) a reasonable time before the application is to be heard or considered.

So if Patrick plans to fight this, he's going to have to file an Affidavit to that effect, laying out his argument. And if he does so, I will (if it's allowed) post it here so everyone can ponder the basis for Patrick's defence.

The hearing is just over a month away, so if Patrick plans on digging in and fighting this, he might want to start writing that Affidavit now. 

BONUS TRACK: It is telling that, even back in late 2023, Patrick was admitting that he was failing to move this idiotic lawsuit along:

 

 

I can assure you that that tweet will be placed before the Court to show Patrick's utter lack of interest in advancing his own lawsuit.

It is also telling that, for someone who loves to publicly mock others, Patrick has published not one word about any of this on his "outlawtory" Twitter account. I'm going to speculate wildly that he is deliberately avoiding any reference to it in order to subsequently claim he was completely unaware of all of this (despite having recently been legally and properly served).
 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Oh, yeah ... it's on.

 

 

 

UPPITY DATE: Patrick Ross has now officially been served, and is now aware that he is expected to attend a hearing on August 20 to argue this Rule 4.33 Application to dismiss his ridiculous lawsuit against me due to long delay.

 

Whether Patrick acknowledges any of this on his Twitter "outlawtory" account will be enlightening. 

 

MORE UPPITY DATE: A reminder to all as to how Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 is a particularly "unforgiving" bit of legislation:

 

 

In other words, Patrick's refusal to proceed with his stupid lawsuit against me for over three years is coming back to bite him in his pasty ass. And remember -- once an action is kicked to the curb pursuant to Rule 4.33, it's next to impossible to refile it:

 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Going for that costs award.

Nothing really new to report regarding my current "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 Application against Patrick "Super Nexus Quadruple Chin Quintuple Threat" Ross. I have no doubt that I will be winning the application to toss his idiotic lawsuit against me due to inordinate and inexcusable delay, but the more interesting part will be the follow-up where I argue for enhanced or, ideally, full costs against Patrick for his flagrant abuse of process of the legal system for filing such a rubbish lawsuit in the first place.

And part of that argument will be Patrick's numerous tweets from his "outlawtory" account where he very stupidly insisted on mocking me while nonetheless refusing to move his lawsuit forward -- witness this from almost a year and a half ago:

 

 

I'm pretty sure the judge ruling on the costs award will want to know why Patrick had enough time to publish childish tweets like the above, but still couldn't find the time to proceed with his lawsuit. It is ironic that, in all of this, I will be using Patrick's juvenile mockery against him.

Stay tuned.

BONUS TRACK: Amusingly, back in 2018, Patrick's appeal of his bankruptcy judgment was also tossed for inordinate and inexcusable delay (and I can assure you that that will factor into my argument for costs by showing that Patrick has a history of fucking around and wasting everyone's time), but that's not what I want to point out.

Here's part of the judge's ruling in kicking Patrick's appeal to the curb, where you can see Patrick using the same lame excuse he's been dragging out since 2010 every time he's grilled by a judge: "I'm so depressed, I just didn't have the energy."

 

 

Note well how the judge called out Patrick for obvious falsehoods in his argument. Again, this ruling from 2018 will be front and centre when I argue for costs.

MORE: Personally, I think it is going to be at least as useful to show how Patrick, when he submitted his own objection to the registration of my Ontario judgment in Saskatchewan, was absolutely shredded by the judge thusly:

 

 

The point of bringing the above to the judge's attention is to demonstrate how Patrick was once annihilated by the judge for the utter lack of value in his self-represented filing, yet he still insisted on doing it again in his subsequent lawsuit. In other words, even though a judge made it clear that what Patrick produces is rubbish, he refused to learn from that spanking and proceeded to again write his own legal submission.