Chronicles of Twatrick: 10 days and counting ...

We are now potentially within the window where undischarged bankrupt and boy lawyer Patrick "I'll take double fries instead of a salad" Ross has blown the deadline to file and serve a proper Response Affidavit related to my Rule 4.33 Application:

 

 

So we are now left to wonder what Patrick plans to do, and I'm taking predictions. Will Patrick ...

• Wait until the last possible minute, then email a chaotic, meandering and unsworn Response Affidavit to my lawyer, and demand that it be heard in court?
• Wait until the last possible minute, then file an irrelevant application of his own, like a Rule 3.68 motion, and demand that it be heard in court?
• Wait until the last possible minute, then announce that he just hired a lawyer who needs an extension to get up to speed on the case?
• Wait until the last possible minute, then withdraw his idiotic lawsuit to avoid having to attend a hearing at all? 

I'm open to other possibilities; lines are open and operators are standing by to mock you. 

REMINDER: I've harped on this many times, but it's worth repeating ... a Rule 4.33 Application (like mine) to dismiss a lawsuit due to long delay has absolutely nothing to do with the merit of the underlying lawsuit. Nothing. So when it comes to Patrick bragging as to how his long-dormant action is "extremely-meritorious" (it isn't):

 

 

that is hilariously irrelevant, since all that matters is that it has not progressed in over three years; the underlying "merit" has no relevance here:

 

 Ideally, the upcoming hearing on August 20 should consist of little more than:

Judge: "Mr. Ross, have you made any significant advancement in your case in the last three years?"

Patrick: "Well, no, but ..."

Judge: "We're done here."

That's it; that's all it should take. So I guess we'll see what happens and how Patrick manages to embarrass himself yet again.

GOOGLE AI AGAIN: I again asked Google about Rule 3.68 being used to defeat Rule 4.33, and Google AI was fairly clear that that approach was bound to fail (note the clear property of no judicial discretion):

 

 

It's not clear how one might accuse my Application of being a "fraudulent abuse of process" since the entire Application says little more than, "It's been over three years with nothing happening, it needs to be dismissed." Such an Application puts the burden of proof squarely on Patrick Ross to prove that there has been significant advancement, and I don't see how he can do that since, well, there hasn't been.

In any event, I guess we will learn all in the next 10 days. 

BONUS TRACK: My first commenter makes the clearly facetious suggestion that Patrick will point at my recent blog posts related to my Rule 4.33 Application, and insist that those posts constitute some sort of advancement of his lawsuit because I am, in some way, "engaging" with him or something equally vacuous.

I'm hoping that my regular readers understand by now that that's not an option since the "significant advancement" of an action with respect to Rule 4.33 is fairly well-defined, and does not include random blog posts simply talking about it:

 

 

Note in the above that even some actual legal filings don't count as significant advancement since they do not move the lawsuit forward in any "meaningful way." In over three years, there has been no substantive exchanges, narrowing of issues or measurable progress of any kind and, again, the burden of proof falls squarely on Patrick to prove otherwise.

WHAT IF PATRICK DROPS THE LAWSUIT? I discussed this before, but if Patrick -- only days before the hearing -- decides to drop his meritless lawsuit, that could be considered an abuse of process by the Court:

In fact, I already have official correspondence from Patrick assuring me that he will be attending the hearing on August 20, so if he cancels at the last minute, I will absolutely be putting his written assurance before the Court and arguing for abuse of process on his part.

At this point, Patrick does not have many options left, and all of them are bad. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: 11 days and counting.

I've seen no evidence that upcoming Rule 4.33 victim Patrick "Can I get double fries and extra gravy with that?" Ross has filed/served a properly sworn Response Affidavit to my Application, so I am assuming that he is going to try something "tricky" and what he thinks is clever at the August 20 hearing. Either that or he is simply not going to show up (which would not come as a surprise) and I will win my Application unopposed.

On an unrelated note, Patrick was just over on Twitter condoning the arrests and shootings, by Israeli soldiers, of Palestinian children who show up at food depots desperately hungry and simply looking for enough to stay alive. If you want to be nauseated, read the dismissive tweet by Jonathan Kay, which Patrick retweeted without bothering to read the replies to Kay that brutally disemboweled Kay and his ugly Zionism.

In any event, it's been pretty much radio silence from Patrick regarding the upcoming hearing. One can only speculate as to what he has in mind. 

P.S. It's worth reminding my readers that it was in a July 18 correspondence that Patrick promised, "I will provide your client seven days to make his decision before I file my reply to your application." It's been over three weeks, and no reply. I'm fairly sure a judge will want to know why Patrick lied about that.

Chronicles of Twatrick: 12 days and counting.

At this point, it is safe to assume that Patrick does not intend to submit a proper and sworn Response Affidavit to oppose my Rule 4.33 Application, but will instead try some off-the-wall "gotcha" ambush trick the day of the hearing and, based on what a recent anonymous commenter suggested, I think it will be a nonsensical usage of Alberta's Rule 3.68, summarized thusly:

 

I'm willing to believe that Patrick did a childish amount of research, fell over this Rule, understood almost none of it and concluded that he can use it against my Rule 4.33 Application. Except ... except ... 

 

 

I'm willing to believe that Patrick never read that far -- he saw what he wanted to see in the first one or two paragraphs, and will now file a hopelessly irrelevant application that will be laughed out of court.

If I was a betting man, I'd be putting my money on this bit of hilarity. 

P.S. It's worth observing that if Patrick tries this hopeless trick, I can argue that he knew it did not apply here and that he is so obviously wasting the court's time.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The apparent Webex link for the August 20 hearing.

For you psychologically-damaged weirdos who actually want to attend the upcoming August 20 hearing for my Rule 4.33 Application against cripplingly-indebted boy lawyer Patrick Ross, there is first the general virtual courtroom link, which takes one to a page of various virtual courtrooms around the province.

From there, one can see the Webex link for Virtual Courtroom 70 (Grande Prairie), which appears to the fixed link for all virtual hearings located in Grande Prairie. I'm unsure as to whether this is a fixed link, or whether it changes daily, but as a test, you might try dialing in during the day just to test if you're allowed to attend that day's hearings.

I will verify whatever other information you'll need before August 20, but I encourage you to at least check that if you follow that set of links, you can get logged in and let me know how that goes.

CONFIRMATION: I have email confirmation from the Grande Prairie courthouse that that second link is indeed the Webex link that should work from one day to the next for the Grande Prairie virtual courtroom. I will wait until after 10 a.m. Grande Prairie time today before I try to connect and watch a few minutes of the legalities this morning.

Chronicles of Twatrick: 13 days and counting.

Nothing new to report, other than an awkward Twitter silence from the normally yammering blowhard Patrick Ross as he desperately tries to concoct some sort of childish ambush legal strategy to introduce chaos into the upcoming August 20 Rule 4.33 Application hearing, and a reminder that he is fast running out of time (if he hasn't already) to file and serve his Response Affidavit:

 

 

If Patrick doesn't get something in by the end of today, I suspect I will have grounds to insist that the Court reject anything he submits Monday or later, at which point the Court will likely hear my Application unopposed. That would be ironic since I won my original judgment against Patrick because he was too lazy and arrogant to submit a Statement of Defense, and I got my judgment by default.

I see a pattern here. 

BONUS TRACK: In a July 18 correspondence, Patrick Ross made a proposal, and promised the following:

"I will provide your client seven days to make his decision before I file my reply to your application."

It is almost three weeks later and I am still waiting. Try not to look shocked.

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.