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.
As I mentioned earlier, the winner of a "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 Application (that will be me) can ask for full (solicitor-client) costs based on, well, the utter assholishness of the Plaintiff; to put it more legally, if the original action was (see point 3):
Abuse of process will not be hard to prove to the Court, as I once posted one of Patrick's Affidavits for his lawsuit, where you can get a good idea of its utter frivolity and lack of merit.
First, consider that Patrick -- in an action that complained about other people far more than it complained about me -- was asking for four million dollars in damages. That's Exhibit A as to the lack of reality of that action.
Next, consider that (with one exception) Patrick has represented himself in every legal encounter with me since 2010. Yes, that allows him to save money in not hiring a lawyer. But it also suggests that Patrick will never run his filings past a lawyer because he knows that any self-respecting and competent lawyer would refuse to sign his or her name to such rubbish. That's an important point since, when it comes to asking for costs, I am going to insist that the Court hold Patrick to the same standard as it would any lawyer.
I think that's an important point as it's a given that courts always give self-represented litigants a little leeway. But this is different, since Patrick has been doing shit like this for 15 years, so I will be arguing that the court should no longer give Patrick that leeway, and should sanction him just as it would any lawyer that filed such worthless garbage. And as you read that Affidavit, ask yourself what any serious judge would do if that had been filed by a real lawyer.
That is how the hearing will go down.
BONUS TRACK: Note well how almost that entire Affidavit complains about the alleged actions of one Peter Skinner (who is not even listed as a Defendant), and only in the very last paragraph does Patrick reluctantly concede that I am not guilty of any of that:
AFTERSNARK: For the purpose of establishing "abuse of process," I will also be placing before the Court a number of Patrick's tweets wherein he brags and gloats about suing me, while still refusing to move the case forward:
There's a reason I'm really hammering home these details related to Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33, and that's because it's easy to show that Patrick follows this blog and, therefore, when he goes before a judge to argue against my Application, he will have no excuse for not knowing the issues before the court, and the court will have very little patience with his typical whining and grievance fest style of argument.
As an example of how Patrick argues (and how judges will not tolerate his blithering rambling), I refer to my 2021 application to register my 2010 Ontario judgment in Saskatchewan for the purpose of collection enforcement.
My SK lawyer, unsurprisingly, put forth an argument grounded purely in provincial and federal law. Patrick, on the other hand, submitted by way of response a litany of whiny grievances going back to 2008, and complained about how this was all unfair, and that I won my 2010 judgment using fraud and perjury, and that he never got the chance to defend against it (he chose not to submit a Statement of Defence, remember?), and on and on and tediously and irrelevantly on, to the point where the judge's ruling granting my registration concluded with the following gem:
That's right ... the judge was so mightily pissed with Patrick's incoherent hearsay, opinion and argument that she not only ruled against him, she mocked his response as "baseless and scandalous", and awarded me enhanced costs because of it. And when Patrick loses this Application, I guarantee that I will be putting the above in front of the judge as an argument for enhanced (if not full) costs, showing that Patrick has a pattern of this sort of time-wasting nonsense.
So Patrick is welcome to try the same sort of nonsense he has tried before, since I will be ready for it, and it will end very badly for him, indeed. Like the kids say these days, I'll be bringing the receipts.
BONUS TRACK: Even if Patrick has an attack of sense and drops his idiotic lawsuit against me before this goes any further, he would still be on the hook for my legal expenses related to this going back to the initial filing in 2022.
No matter what Patrick does, he's going to be paying costs.
Against my better judgment, I checked in on the Twitter account of undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross and, unsurprisingly, there was nothing about the last several days of Rule 4.33 blog posts here, despite the fact that we all know Patrick reads this blog and loves to tweet snarky, condescending insults so let's summarize how this is going to go down.
As we have all learned recently, Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 has nothing to do with a lawsuit's merits, or the childish and frivolous malice of the Plaintiff, or anything like that. It is, rather, a purely and exclusively time-based rule -- if a civil claim has been stalled for more than three years, then upon application by the Defendant, the Alberta court is required to dismiss that action for long delay. Nothing else is taken into consideration other than the three-year deadline. Which Patrick is well past by now so, yes, he's going down. So what is the point of documenting his childish bragging over all that time?
I'm glad you asked.
All of that is being collected and will be placed before the court to justify a significant subsequent costs award, as I have shown before:
Note point 3. above, which clearly shows that, yes, a judge can order full costs if the Plaintiff's conduct is seen as "an abuse of process," and if you don't think more than three years of Patrick bragging about this filing while refusing to move it forward does not fall into that category, you have not been paying attention.
Also, there should be other surprises for Patrick when he shows up for that hearing, but I'll keep all that to myself for now.
BONUS TRACK: One of Patrick's most damning and self-destructive tweets would be this one:
wherein Patrick openly admits, back in 2023, that he is failing to advance his lawsuit, then continues to do nothing for another almost three years. I guarantee that tweet will be front and centre in my costs submission.
PATRICK'S POSSIBLE RESPONSES: It's worth pondering (or even predicting) how Patrick will fight back against this application, given that he has very little latitude. We already know about the Rule 4.33 three year time limit, and we know from the case's Procedure Record that Patrick has done absolutely nothing for well over three years, which means that the court is required to dismiss his lawsuit. So what are his possible defenses?
As I've mentioned before, there is a short list of very specific exceptions under which the court must not dismiss a lawsuit pursuant to Rule 4.33:
That's it, and I can assure you that none of the above are in play here. There is no authorized court order to pause this case, there is definitely no mutual agreement to put it on hold, and neither party has done anything that could be considered "active participation" that would have resulted in a "significant advance" in the case.
And that's it ... that's all Patrick can argue, and none of it holds. So what will he do? Who knows?
Anonymous commenter on previous post asks, if Patrick's dumbass 2022 defamation lawsuit against me is kicked to the curb for inordinate delay via Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33, does he have the freedom to simply refile it?
Google AI says not likely, due to simple deadlines:
Are you not entertained?
P.S. It's going on five days since I posted about using Alberta's Rule 4.33 against Patrick Ross' meritless lawsuit against me and, in an unusual development, Patrick has been absolutely silent about this over at his Twitter account. This is very unlike Patrick, who delights in bla-har-har-ing everyone and everything and proclaiming his legal acumen and how he is "winning" at all of this.
One wonders what is keeping Patrick from mocking all of this.
OH, DEAR ... one of my loyal followers gifts me with this screenshot of Patrick from a recent YouTube video:
I can attest that it is unaltered and unretouched. It may be childish to fat-shame someone, but given Patrick's years of mocking others online for a variety of reasons, this seems only fair.
And just because I feel like it, I will again explain how utterly screwed is Lloydminster's village idiot and resident bankrupt Patrick Ross, now that I have filed a Rule 4.33 Application in the Grande Prairie, Alberta courthouse, the effect being that that will kick his asinine lawsuit against me to the curb for lack of significant advancement.
You can review the previous blog post to get the details but let's sum it up: If a Plaintiff in Alberta files a civil suit, then proceeds to not move it along in any meaningful or significant way for a three-year period, the Defendant can file a Rule 4.33 Application to have it dismissed, at which point (subject to very stringent exceptions) the court is required to dismiss the action. The court has no discretion, it must automatically dismiss the action under this Rule.
Once again, Google AI does a nice job of showing how simple and how unforgiving is Rule 4.33:
As you can see, Rule 4.33 has little sympathy for a Plaintiff like Patrick who files frivolous, vexatious garbage, then just lets it sit year after year so he can brag about how he is suing someone. And there's nothing he can do about it now that my filing is in. So what are Patrick's options? Limited, to put it mildly.
First, I will win this application -- it is the closest thing to a legal no-brainer slam dunk as you are ever likely to see. It is the textbook definition of what Rule 4.33 was meant to deal with, and it will deal with it.
I will also get costs ... how much remains to be seen but it will be at least partial indemnity, and I will be arguing for full indemnity given Patrick's frivolous filing and abuse of process (the fact that he has bragged about this on Twitter while refusing to move it along for three years is not going to sit well with the court). But there's one more thing.
Given that Patrick filed his dumbass lawsuit at the Grande Prairie courthouse, and that's where I filed my Rule 4.33 application, I will be insisting that he appear in person (unlike last time, where he called in via Zoom, for which the judge made it clear he was unhappy about that and told Patrick he was expected to attend in person).
So, yes, I will be making a full-throated argument that Patrick needs to be there in person, at which time there might be a surprise or two waiting for him at the courthouse. More than that, I cannot say at the moment, but if anyone thinks I am exaggerating or embellishing any of this, they are free to do their own research to understand how Rule 4.33 works, and how it has precious little patience with vexatious litigants like Patrick.
More to come as it happens.
BONUS TRACK: Anonymous commenter asks whether Lord Baron Twatrick von Loadenhosen can salvage his ridiculous lawsuit against me by arguing about its underlying merit. No, and let's let Google AI once again drive this home:
I hope that answers that question. Still more to come, just not right this minute.
RANDOM THOUGHT ... it just occurred to me that explaining all this Rule 4.33 stuff in excruciating detail is going to cause real problems for Patrick when this goes in front of a judge. As we all know, Patrick follows this blog and loves to publish snarky comments about what he reads here over on his Twitter account, and here's why that's going to get him in trouble.
If Patrick comments on, say, this post, I can use that as evidence that he's read it and, furthermore, that he now knows that the merit (actually, the embarrassing lack thereof) of his lawsuit is of no relevance to a Rule 4.33 Application. Which means that if he tries that argument in front of a judge, I'll immediately argue that Patrick is wasting the court's time since he is already aware that the underlying merit does not matter.
In short, I would ask my loyal and long-suffering followers to keep a close watch on Patrick's "outlawtory" Twitter account and to take screenshots of anything he publishes related to these most recent blog posts so that I can use that as evidence that he reads my blog and that he should therefore understand how Rule 4.33 works and that the court should have little patience with meaningless arguments.
Yeah, it's time to use Patrick's snotty arrogance against him.
