Chronicles of Twatrick: 14 days and counting.

Only two weeks left until my Rule 4.33 Application hearing, and there is precious little time for Patrick "Cheeseburger Boy" Ross to file and serve a proper Response Affidavit:

 

 

If Patrick waits too long to file and serve that Affidavit, I could argue that it is out of time and inadmissible. However, if it's the typical spittle-flecked whining we've come to expect from Patrick, it might be in my best interest to just let it be admitted, knowing it's going to piss off the judge. But another possible slimy trick from Patrick just occurred to me.

Rather than properly contest my scheduled Application, Patrick might try to ambush the Court with a last-minute motion to have my Application tossed out, claiming that it is, in some way, improper or invalid or violates the Alberta Rules of Civil Procedure. I have no idea what argument he would make, but I bring this up because he's actually done this before.

It was in 2018 when I filed a motion to have Patrick's long-dormant appeal of his 2014 bankruptcy ruling dismissed for (irony) inordinate and inexcusable delay. Rather than properly prepare for that hearing, Patrick showed up at that hearing and personally served my lawyer with an unexpected application, then insisted that the Court needed to hear his application first. Here is that part of the judges' eventual ruling:

 

 

Note how Patrick, rather than arguing the motion properly before the Court, whips out a "gotcha" counter-motion, and insists that because it claims that my motion is improper (or something like that), it must be addressed and resolved first before the Court should be allowed to continue. As you can see, the Court was having none of Patrick's childish games and booted his surprise motion to the side of the road.

I'm wondering if Patrick is going to try something similar this time; that is, file a counter-application that argues that my application can't be heard until his counter-application is scheduled, heard and resolved. It would be a slimy way to get an extension but, as I showed above, it would not be the first time Patrick has tried something like this.

In any event, two weeks to go and, as far as I know, no Response Affidavit yet.

THE SIMPLICITY OF MY APPLICATION: I already posted the salient contents of my Rule 4.33 Application, which is about as simple and straightforward as anything can be, so I have no idea how Patrick could argue that it should be dismissed for any reason:

 

BONUS TRACK: For the entertainment value, I should reproduce the very last paragraph from Patrick's December 2022 Affidavit against me during which, after having spent the vast majority of the Affidavit complaining about the actions of one Peter Skinner, Patrick ends that Affidavit with this gem:

 

Make sure you read the above slowly and carefully to truly appreciate what Patrick is admitting to the Court. After having spent several pages spewing accusations of harassment, intimidation and threats of violence, Patrick concedes that I did not do any of that.

I'm fairly sure that that closing paragraph is going before the judge on August 20.

ABOUT THAT RULE 3.68 ... I was interested in the most recent anonymous commenter's reference to Alberta Rule 3.68 and how one could use it to defeat my Rule 4.33 Application, so I simply asked Google, "How could I use Rule 3.68 to defeat a Rule 4.33 Application?" It doesn't look like that would be an option for Patrick:

 

 

I won't pretend I understand the intricacies of the above, but the first paragraph seems adequate to confirm that you can't use Rule 3.68 here, so I won't pursue that any further.

P.S. I reworded the question just slightly to see if I got a different answer ... nope, says pretty much the same as above, so I think we're done here:

 

 

Chronicles of Twatrick: 15 days and counting.

Time is getting short for increasingly desperate and frightened undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross to file and serve his mandatory Response Affidavit if he wants to contest my Rule 4.33 Application, although it's unclear what he would even put in that Affidavit since he has no defense.

The only two defenses against such an Application are either:

1. He did something in the last three years to significantly advance his lawsuit (he did nothing), or
2. There was an official and signed agreement or court order to suspend activity (there is not).

So while Patrick really needs to get a move on and produce that Affidavit, it's not at all clear what it might even theoretically contain.

Just be sure to keep August 20 open for the (Webex-available) hearing.

MORE DETAIL: Sometimes, it's worth rewording your question to Google to get more detail, so I asked, "How can someone object to a Rule 4.33 Application?", and I got the following:

 

 

so let's examine the grounds for objection one at a time:

• We've already covered the "Significant Advance" part -- Patrick has done nothing in three and a half years to move this case along. Nothing. So that point fails.
• Is there a "format standstill or extension agreement" between the parties involved? No. Two down.
• Has there been any "court-ordered" extension, stay or adjournment? Nope. Three down.
• Have I (the Applicant) participated in any "substantive steps" in this case that would have reset the three-year clock? Absolutely not.

Having established all of the above, it's not clear what Patrick would do with the "Steps to Oppose in Court" since, quite simply, he has nothing. So it will be interesting to see what happens in the next 15 days.

Chronicles of Twatrick: 16 days and counting ...

... until my Rule 4.33 Application hearing on August 20. Nothing really new to report this morning, other than that if Patrick does not file and serve a proper and relevant Response Affidavit by the end of this coming Friday, that's when I can at least legitimately argue that it would be too late and should be rejected by the Court.

Given that my Application and Affidavit were filed and served on July 15, Patrick will have had more than enough time to craft a response and, if he fails to do so, it's not clear there's any point in him even showing up at the hearing since he won't be allowed to present any arguments without having filed that Affidavit suitably in advance.

Time is running out for Cheeseburger Boy.

BONUS TRACK: I just checked in on Twitter and Patrick is currently obsessing over someone named Guy Felicella, so if he whines that he just didn't have the time or energy to get his Response Affidavit in on time, I will place before the Court his 137 recent tweets about whoever the fuck that is. 

Patrick might be the most cluelessly self-sabotaging yahoo on the planet. 

MORE BONUS: It's worth pointing out that, if Patrick whines about how he should not be held accountable for having done fuck all for well over three years with respect to the lawsuit that he filed, it was back in 2023 when he openly admitted that he was being lazy and dragging his ass on this:

 

 

so I don't think he's going to get any sympathy from the Court. 

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.