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.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The "abuse of process" costs award.

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: