Chronicles of Twatrick: Tick, tock ...

Undischarged bankrupt and aspiring soft core porn author Patrick "You Gonna Eat That?" Ross is rapidly running out of days to decide which way he's going to jump regarding my filed and scheduled (August 20) Rule 4.33 Application to kick his sorry-ass lawsuit to the curb for interminable delay.

If he plans on contesting the application, he must file and serve a proper and legal Response Affidavit that addresses solely the issues related to such an application, and all tendered evidence needs to be sworn into the record and not just scrawled on the back of a place mat from "Cheeseburgers 'R' Us." 

 

  

On the other hand, if he decides to drop the action, every day he delays in doing so represents an increasing "abuse of process" of the legal system in the sense of dragging out an action that you ultimately withdraw shortly before the scheduled hearing -- something that really pisses off the Court. 

 

 

Oh, and if Patrick tries to argue that, darn it, he just couldn't muster the energy to deal with this, then I'll point out that he certainly still has the time to record childish and unwatchable videos for YouTube.

"Your Honour, I'm about to ask you to invest 10 minutes of your life that you will never, ever get back."

Patrick needs to make some very hard decisions, and he needs to make them soon. Tick, tock ...

P.S. It's telling that, after Patrick yammered on about his "extremely-meritorious" lawsuit against me back in early July:

since then, he's gone vewwwy, vewwwy quiet. Trying to ignore this is not going to help Patrick, it's just going to make things much, much worse.

Tick, tock ... 

BONUS TRACK: I draw your attention to one of the non-negotiable requirements of the Response Affidavit that Patrick will have to file to contest my Application:

"Focused Scope: Must be strictly limited to replying to the evidence and arguments raised by the applicant."

That makes it clear that Patrick will absolutely not be allowed to whinge on interminably with one of his rambling grievance fests going back to 2008; he must focus exclusively on the points made in my Affidavit, and my Affidavit is short and specific:

• More than three years have gone by with no advancement of this case by the Plaintiff, and
• There has been no mutual or court-ordered suspension of the litigation that would justify this delay.

That's it -- those are the only points Patrick will be allowed to address, nothing more. He will not be permitted to insist that his lawsuit is "extremely-meritorious," or that he was delayed due to "harassment," or that ... well, you get the idea. Those are the rules and if Patrick tries to play games, it will end very badly for him, indeed.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Can't say I didn't warn him.

Here's a new tidbit regarding Patrick Ross and his upcoming evisceration at Grande Prairie courthouse. While reading some Rule 4.33 rulings and appeals, I noticed that, occasionally, a Respondent tried to defend themselves by insisting that the Applicant had, in some vague and nebulous way, given them the impression that they had agreed to extend the time to litigate the underlying action. Put another way, the Rule 4.33 Respondent (in this case, Patrick) might argue, "Hey, CC published something that I interpreted as giving me more time!"

Except that it was only last month (June 19 blogpost) and before I ever knew of the existence of Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 that I very clearly warned Patrick of my intention to eventually deal with him:

 

That passage of mine cannot be misinterpreted -- it is clearly not gifting Patrick with a deadline extension of any kind, and just as clearly promises that I will be getting around to him and his stupid lawsuit at some point when I tire of him.

In short, any argument by Patrick that he thought I was giving him an extension is already dead in the water. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Misreading the law once again.

A couple weeks ago, perpetual bankrupt and financial fugitive Patrick Ross gave us all a clue as to what he thinks might be a defense against a Rule 4.33 Application, when he published a tweet containing this screenshot:

 

 

so let's deconstruct this, shall we? First, it seems that Patrick believes that because an action is "live" at the moment, it is required to remain live, or something like that. 

Let's establish something right off the bat -- yes, Patrick's idiotic 2022 defamation lawsuit against me is "live" at this instant in time; it is currently active and, yes, it is capable of being pursued in court. Of course that's true, no one is denying that.

What Patrick stupidly or deliberately ignores is the very next sentence, that sentence making it thigh-suckingly clear that the action is live provided it has "not been killed, barred or extinguished by legal rules." 

Which is the entire point of a Rule 4.33 Application -- to extinguish Patrick's lawsuit by legal rules. That is the sole function of Rule 4.33: to take a live action and make it dead. It's unclear why Patrick finds this confusing since his own tweet explains it right there in that second sentence.

So, yes, Patrick's lawsuit is technically still "live", and it will remain live until August 20, when I kill it via Rule 4.33. It will be live on the morning of August 20, and dead sometime thereafter. Is that really so difficult to understand? 

BONUS TRACK: There is some delicious synchronicity in the fact that August 20, 2026 (the date of my upcoming Rule 4.33 hearing) is the day after the 5-year interestversary of a Saskatchewan judge ruling on how much Patrick owed me at that time:

 

 

I can assure you that that information will be placed in front of the Court, for the entertainment value alone. Keep checking back for the Webex link if you want to attend that hearing; I'll publish closer to the date.

MORE BONUS TRACK: Recall from an earlier post that if Patrick wants to mount a defense against my Rule 4.33 Application, he needs to do it via a legal and proper Response Affidavit that is filed and served in plenty of time for me to examine it.

 

 

So Patrick might want to stop publicly obsessing over Candace Owens and get to work on that.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Damned if he does, ...

(NOTE: You need to read the previous post before diving into this one, as I am addressing one of the comments there.)

In my last post, I talked about Patrick's rapidly-dwindling options in terms of forging ahead with contesting my Rule 4.33 Application, or possibly just bailing on the whole thing and dropping the lawsuit before the August 20 hearing to spare himself the crippling humiliation. Well, it turns out that he's really painted himself into a corner no matter what he does.

A general rule of civil actions is that if you sue someone, and cause them to incur legal expenses, then later announce, "Ah, never mind, let's just forget the whole thing, I'm dropping the suit," you are pretty much guaranteed to be hit with a costs award due to the expenses you forced the Defendant to incur; the Defendant will be entitled to file for what are called "discontinuance costs" because you chose to "discontinue" the action after having filed it in the first place.

Discontinuance costs could vary anywhere from "partial" indemnity (perhaps 40-60% of their costs), up to "full" indemnity (solicitor-client costs, meaning you'll owe them every dime they had to spend) if the Court is really unhappy with your behaviour. So what does that have to do with Patrick? I'm glad you asked.

I asked Google about how discontinuance costs relate to Rule 4.33 Applications, and I was told the following:

So let's chat about the above, shall we?

In the above, Rule 4.36 represents just the general rule about discontinuance costs, regardless of the nature of the lawsuit. But the rest of that talks about how that Rule interacts specifically with a Rule 4.33 Application, and it's there that Patrick appears to be screwed.

• Ignore the first bullet point, that talks about Rule 4.36 in general.
• You can ignore the second bullet point as that doesn't apply here.
• It's that third point where Patrick is in deep shit.

Normally, even if someone drops their action against you, you don't get full costs; more likely, you'll get partial or perhaps "substantial" costs, but it takes the Court getting really pissed off with you to order you to pay the full solicitor-client costs, and that's what that third point is talking about.

The standard Rules of Civil Procedure dictate that while being nailed with solicitor-client costs is unusual, the Court has the discretion to do that if it finds that the lawsuit was vexatious, frivolous or an "abuse of process." And that's what that third point is explaining.

What it says is that if you're already the target of a Rule 4.33 Application (as Patrick is here), the Court will look very unkindly on you suddenly dropping your action as it could be interpreted as simply trying to avoid the inevitable Rule 4.33 hearing and beatdown. As that third bullet point clearly reads, that kind of behaviour could very well be considered by the Court to be "abuse of process" and, once upon a time, I showed exactly how that can be used by a judge to justify full solicitor-client costs in a Rule 4.33 Application:

 

 

Let me summarize all of that. If a judge finds that Patrick's conduct in all of this rises to the level of abuse of process, that judge is free to award me full solicitor-client costs -- my costs going all the way back to August of 2022 when Patrick first filed this idiotic lawsuit. And one of the reasons to find abuse of process is (hilariously) if Patrick drops this lawsuit after I filed my Rule 4.33 Application.

Really, appreciate the irony here. If Patrick tries to salvage the situation by dropping his lawsuit before the August 20 hearing, the Court is free to interpret that as "abuse of process", which can justify a full costs award for me. At this point, there's really no way for Patrick to win here. 

P.S. I hope I explained adequately that Patrick dropping his lawsuit at this point would actually work against him as the Court clearly explains that that sort of timing is exactly what it would see as an abuse of process. Patrick really has buried himself here. At this point, he can't even walk away without getting spanked.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Submit a Response Affidavit, he must.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that, in response to a Rule 4.33 Application, the Plaintiff (Patrick "Super Nexus Quadruple Chin Cheeseburger" Ross) would normally be expected to submit a "Response Affidavit," outlining his proposed defence, the purpose being to give my side time to examine his plans for a defense.

Well, it's stricter than that since, if Patrick plans on defending (and it's not clear what possible defense he would have), he must submit such an Affidavit or he will not even be allowed to present a defense at the upcoming hearing on August 20.

Once again, I give you Google AI (which has proven remarkably accurate so far):

 

 

I draw your attention to the bullet point "Challenging the Applicant":

"Without your own evidence, the court only reviews the applicant's record and may automatically dismiss the claim."

In short, Patrick can't just show up the morning of August 20 and start free associating a defense and pulling nonsense out of his ample, cheeseburger-fueled ass -- he needs to put it into an Affidavit, and properly file and serve it, so there will be no day-of ambush litigating from Patrick of which he is so fond.

P.S. Once I receive that Response Affidavit, I will post it here. 

P.P.S. Note the strict requirements for this Affidavit -- explanations for delay must be officially sworn into the record, not simply scrawled by Patrick on the back of a napkin with his crayons, and exhibits must include all notices, correspondence and court documents to bolster Patrick's arguments. In other words, Patrick has some serious work to do over the next week or so to put all that together to deliver it to me in a timely manner.

He might want to get cracking on that. 

BONUS TRACK: It's worth noting that, compared to what I had to do to file a Rule 4.33 Application, Patrick has considerably more work to do to contest it.

For my part, all that was necessary was to claim that more than three years had gone by and there had been no significant advancement and no agreement to suspend the action. I did not have to supply any proof of any of this since you can't prove a negative.

On the other hand, if Patrick wants to contest the application, he does have work to do in terms of claiming and documenting said advancement, producing and swearing into the record agreements or whatever it is he wants to present to the Court and so on. In other words, the burden of proof is entirely on Patrick to provide positive evidence to defeat my application, and he needs to put it all in an Affidavit and get it to me well in advance of the hearing. Which is why he might want to start working on that real soon now.

OH, ONE MORE THING: Patrick has already assured me that:

1. He will attend the August 20 hearing, and
2. He will win.

So we'll see how that goes. 

A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TAKE: I asked Google a slightly different question about the Response Affidavit and got this:

 

For me, the most interesting part is that the Response Affidavit must have a "focused scope"; as in, "Must be strictly limited to replying to the evidence and arguments raised by the applicant."

In other words, it can't follow Patrick's pattern of being a rambling list of historical grievances; it needs to address only the issues in my Application, which is really going to cramp Patrick's style. Oh, and there's that "timely service" requirement again, which is why Patrick might stop obsessing over Candace Owens and get to work.

JUST FOR FUN, I asked one more reworded question of Google AI: "What if the Plaintiff in a Rule 4.33 Application fails to file a Response Affidavit?" And once again, it would end very badly for Patrick:

 

 

And once again, Patrick might want to get to work on that.

Chronicles of Twatrick: All quiet on the doofus front.

Nothing really new to report this morning, there's plenty of recent blog posts to entertain you. Just a reminder that, before the upcoming August 20 "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 hearing at the Grande Prairie, Alberta courthouse, I will supply the Webex link so you can dial in and spectate.

As you will have read in the previous post, Patrick is making ominous sounds about how he's planning some sort of sinister surprise for me. I guess we'll just wait and see how that works out, given that he has promised to attend. That's right ... I have correspondence in which Patrick Ross has assured me that he will be attending that hearing. So he really better show.

BONUS TRACK: It is worth noting that if Patrick wants to contest this Application, he would do so by filing a "Response Affidavit" laying out the basis for his defense:

 

 

In other words, he must properly file such an Affidavit and give me time to examine it before the hearing, meaning he can't just show up on August 20 and try to surprise the Court with some novel and incomprehensible argument involving depression or garage sales.

Chronicles of Twatrick: "Three massive weaknesses," you say?

I just recently noticed this annoyingly vague and meaningless tweet from Lloydminster's favourite village idiot and homeless bankrupt:

 

 

and anyone who's followed Patrick's bizarre and weaselly rhetoric over the years can see that he's holding true to form. You see, Patrick's most common rhetorical weapon is to publish ominous but ambiguous threats with no specifics whatsoever, leaving readers to scratch their heads and wonder what the fuck he's blithering on about.

Patrick's ambiguity is couched in suggestions of risk and danger, one of his favourite tricks being to publish something like, "Well, it seems a certain someone did a certain something, not knowing about the possible consequences to that someone of doing that something ..."; you know what I mean since you've undoubtedly seen it before. Vagueness and ambiguity and head-scratching lack of detail.

And there's Patrick above, trying very hard to sound menacing and sinister while, you know, divulging absolutely no details as to what I should be worried about or why. One wonders if Patrick has yet figured out that, in the upcoming August 20 "Rule 4.33" hearing, the single issue before the Court will be the fact that he failed to advance his lawsuit against me for more than three straight years. That's it -- the Court will not entertain any arguments that don't relate directly to that.

So it's not clear why my blogging about Patrick's weaselly, ambiguous vagueness will have anything to do with August 20, although it would be entertaining if Patrick were to try to bring it up. I'm pretty sure that would end badly for him. 

P.S. In that tweet above, Patrick is clearly suggesting that he has some sort of surprise lined up for the hearing; he's made that suggestion prior to previous hearings and it always ended tragically for him. But one does have to wonder what he thinks he's discovered that will salvage this situation for him given the clarity and simplicity of the Rule 4.33 legislation. 

P.P.S. It's worth noting that, despite what Patrick thinks, hearings aren't like what he sees on "Matlock" ... there are no sudden surprises or "gotchas", as judges hate that sort of thing. Everything needs to be submitted ahead of time so that opposing parties have the time to examine any filings or pleadings or what have you. So it's not clear what Patrick has in mind based on the above, but I'm fairly sure that he's not going to be springing any surprises on the Court without having first filed it properly with the Court and opposing counsel. Because, despite what Patrick thinks, that's how the law works. 

BONUS TRACK: It's worth demonstrating how badly it ends for Patrick when he shows up in court and tries to make the hearing all about his endless, random grievance fest against me, rather than concentrating on the issue(s) officially before the Court.

After I got my judgment against Patrick in late 2010, I registered that judgment in Alberta, then served Patrick with a motion to produce for me a "Financial Statement of Debtor" (FSOD). He failed to do so and, eventually, we dragged him into a Calgary court on March 6, 2012 to address this very specific issue (failure to produce FSOD), whereupon Patrick -- after being invited to address the Court -- started rambling randomly and incoherently about the Charter of Rights and freedom of expression and conscience and ...

 

 

Note how the judge patiently gives Patrick a minute or so to make an ass of himself, then drags him back to reality by pointing out what the hearing is about. Note how it's not only about how Patrick can't focus on the issue at hand, but he can't even formulate proper, comprehensible sentences, sort of like:

 

 

This snippet is particularly entertaining:

"I don’t actually know if I want to submit this to the Court or not."

Wait, what!? Either you have something you want to put in front of the Court, or you don't; why in the name of Patrick's four-and-a-half chins would you tell the Court that you have some alleged evidence but you haven't decided whether or not you want the Court to see it? And note that that's when the judge had had enough of Patrick's irrelevant free associating grievance fest and dragged him back to unpleasant reality.

It will be interesting to see if Patrick tries the same disassociated free verse at the August 20 hearing, as I guarantee I will be ready for it.

Oh, and it's worth mocking Patrick for advising the judge that he always planned to "appeal the judgement". This is a nonsensical statement since, given that Patrick ignored my Statement of Claim and never even filed a Statement of Defence and that I eventually got a default judgment, well, you can't "appeal" a default judgment. What you can do is file to overturn it, which is a very different thing. The fact that Patrick doesn't understand the difference is telling.

DOUBLE BONUS TRACK: Just to drive home the point I've made a number of times, the hearing for a Rule 4.33 Application addresses a very small number of core issues, and nothing beyond that. I asked Google AI, "What are the issues addressed in a Rule 4.33 Application?", and I got exactly the answer I expected:

 

 

Regarding this case, it's been well over three years of total inactivity, none of the recognized exceptions apply, and there were absolutely no subsequent steps that could have been interpreted as restarting the clock. What "questions" are there beyond that?

Chronicles of Twatrick: Actual legal ruling about Patrick's refusal to pay his debts

Back in 2020 when I got Patrick kicked out of the protection of bankruptcy for refusing to honour his obligations as a bankrupt, in the middle of that ruling, the judge (Justice L. L. Krogan) slapped the fuck out of Patrick verbally by finding that he was a slimy little weasel who clearly had no intention of ever paying his debts:

 

 

You can count on that passage and many others to be placed before the Court next month when I win my Application and go for costs. I'm fairly sure Patrick is not going to enjoy that hearing.

Chronicles of Twatrick: What happens when Patrick commits perjury?

It just occurred to me that, during my upcoming August 20 Alberta "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 hearing, Patrick will be under oath and it is an absolute guarantee that he is going to lie; that is, commit perjury. It's a given. Patrick lies the way the rest of us breathe. So where does that take us?

As always, let's let Google AI explain the possible consequences once Patrick lies in a civil case in Alberta while under oath:

 

 

Oh, dear, that is a serious set of possible consequences, and since I will get a transcript of the hearing, I guarantee I will be going over it carefully to identify every example of Patrick deliberately misleading the Court.

Oh, I forgot the best part:

 

I'm pretty sure Patrick won't be chowing down on his triple cheeseburgers in prison.

PATRICK'S PREVIOUS PERJURY: Patrick has misled the Court on numerous occasions, and I'll give you just one example here. In 2018, Patrick argued that one of the reasons he never advanced his 2014 bankruptcy appeal (that I also had dismissed for inordinate and inexcusable delay -- see a pattern here?) was that I had "harassed" him in the meantime and that that harassment had been "deleterious" to his ability to proceed (see para 10):

 

 

This was a blatant lie, and the judge even called him out on it in the next paragraph by writing,

 "[Patrick's] affidavit focussed on matters which occurred between 2008 and 2010, and does not provide any examples of behaviour that might be characterized as harassment after February 2015."

In short, the judge simply called Patrick a liar and did not believe him. So when it comes to my upcoming August 20 Rule 4.33 hearing, I will be in attendance and noting for the Court every time Patrick lies to the judge.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Get your Webex client ready.

As I have mentioned before, my Rule 4.33 "Drop Dead" Application hearing against massively-indebted, undischarged bankrupt and financial fugitive Patrick "Super Nexus Badass Chick Magnet Quadruple Chin Quintuple Threat" Ross is on the schedule at the Grande Prairie courthouse:

 

 

for the purpose of having the Court dismiss the long-inactive and meritless defamation lawsuit that Patrick filed against me in 2022, then failed utterly to advance in even the smallest way for more than three years, meaning that the Court will -- pursuant to Rule 4.33 -- be required to dismiss it for long delay:

 

 

And the part you're interested in: regular citizens are free to dial in to the Webex link I will supply closer to the date to watch the proceedings.

 

 

So you might want to install and configure a Webex client before then. 

P.S. I was pondering as to whether to mention this, but a couple days ago, I received an email via an anonymous remailer -- no idea of the identity of the sender -- who advised me that he/she had heard that Patrick's plan for this upcoming application hearing is to wait until the day before the hearing, then drop the lawsuit so he doesn't have to show up. Absolutely no evidence was provided to support this claim but, upon analysis, it does sound like the sleazy sort of thing Patrick would do. Let me explain.

Even Patrick has probably figured out that I'm going to win this application -- the rule is so spectacularly simple and straightforward that there's really little Patrick can present in the way of objection. I have the case Procedure Record which shows that there has been absolutely no activity on Patrick's part of any kind to advance this case for well over three years. That's it; that's all I need to place before the Court and it's over, so Patrick's thinking might be, he's going to lose, anyway, why not just wait until the last minute, then drop the case and not have to go through the humiliation? The legal end result would be the same, so why not just skip the crushing embarrassment? But here's Patrick's problem if he does this.

Courts typically have little patience with people who play games like this; that is, to drag out an action until the last minute, then walk away after running up someone else's legal bill. I think this falls under something like "misconduct" or "abuse of process" or something similar. In any event, judges really, really don't like this sort of game-playing, and if this is what Patrick has in mind, I've been advised that it will end very badly for him for at least a couple of reasons.

First, I would almost certainly be granted major costs (if not all of them) if Patrick does this. But playing that kind of game would have consequences beyond just this case, as I would be able to use this in any future legal spats with Patrick to demonstrate his bad faith. And it wouldn't apply just to me. It seems that, if he does this, this demonstration of bad faith or abuse of process could be used by anyone tangling with Patrick in order to show Patrick's sleazy tactics and lack of good faith. In short, if Patrick does this, he will be making it extremely difficult to ever again launch a legal action against someone.

Again, I was provided with no evidence for this anonymous claim but, upon reflection, I actually hope Patrick does this, as it would pretty much finish him in terms of any new legal actions against me or anyone else. I guess we just need to wait and see.