Chronicles of Twatrick: Lawsuit 2.0.

As I mentioned earlier, Patrick Ross has already informed my lawyer that, now that his previous ridiculous lawsuit was dismissed for unconscionably long delay, he will be refiling the same action, including all of the same claims that are now at least four years old, so I am preparing for that, and here's something for which my loyal readers can offer some assistance.

One of Patrick's most childish strategies is to whinge on and on and pathetically on about how he has been subjected to years of harassment and intimidation, and how he lives in constant fear and is paralyzed by terror and ... well, here's the relevant snippet from his recent Affidavit:

 

 

This is, of course, utter bullshit but, sadly, there are judges that are so eye-rollingly gullible as to fall for this rubbish, so my plan this time around is to put the lie to Patrick's sniveling crybaby act by establishing, with overwhelming evidence, that rather than having been traumatized by my trying to collect from him over the years, Patrick has been quite enjoying himself and bragging about what a good time he's been having.So where do I start?

Recall first the July 18 letter Patrick sent to my lawyer, reproduced in its entirety toward the bottom of this recent blog post. Even an intellectually-deficient judge should be able to see that that letter is not the work of a terrified victim, but is rather the product of an arrogant, condescending, offensive asshat who is clearly having fun. And we're just getting started.

Here's Patrick from July 3 of this year (before he was served with my Application), obviously chuckling over his own brand of infantile humour, referring to me and throwing in a few "laugh-until-you-cry" emojis -- hardly what you would expect from someone who insists that I paralyze him with fear:

 

There are, of course, more tweets like that after the filing of my Application, making it painfully clear that Patrick is not really that afraid of me, but sees all of this as a source of constant amusement.

Then, for good measure, here's a personal email that Patrick sent me inappropriately (as I was represented by counsel at the time), once again being childishly snarky and insulting, again with some knee-slapping emojis to let me know that Patrick is really quite enjoying himself:

 

 

I think you can see where I'm going with this -- the next time Patrick tries this "I life in fear for my life" bullshit, I will already have a collection of Patrick's output making it clear to even the dimmest of judges that he treats all of this as entertainment. And this is where you, my loyal readers, come in.

I want to build a serious portfolio of Patrick's works where he is so obviously gleeful over the fun he's been having with that dismissed lawsuit, so the comments section is open to leave links or screenshots to everything that falls into that category. The goal is to have an extensive part of my next Affidavit contain just Patrick giggling childishly over how much he was enjoying all of this and was never all that scared of me.

So there's your homework assignment. Have at it, while I work on it at the same time. 

P.S. If you don't want to leave a comment, email to "canadiancynic@yahoo.ca". 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Apparently, Patrick will be refiling his dismissed lawsuit.

I have already published the relevant parts of Patrick's letter of July 18, where Patrick makes it clear that upon dismissal of his long-dormant lawsuit, he would simply, "the very next day," refile all of those same claims and more:

 

 

So it looks like we're going to go through this all over again. I will have more to say about this later this weekend, when I will have some homework for my loyal readers.

P.S. Regarding the first commenter's claim of Patrick's current(?) issues with the RCMP and possible charges for criminal activity, this is a tweet from someone who appears to be from Virginia, suggesting that Patrick's potential crimes are capable of crossing international borders:

 

 

 

I find this description utterly believable since it matches perfectly Patrick's pattern of locking onto someone (ideally a female) and obsessively attacking them over the course of several months, including by using burner accounts.

In short, Patrick being charged criminally for something involving harassing or stalking would not come as a major surprise to me. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Why Patrick's refiling of his original lawsuit is toast.

In my previous post, I went into detail about the difficulties that undischarged bankrupt and morbidly obese man-child Patrick Ross will have simply "refiling" his now-dismissed lawsuit against me, but it's amusing to examine this snippet from his August 2022 Statement of Claim to truly appreciate how fucked is Patrick in terms of Alberta's two-year limitations period on actions like this:

 

 

Do I really need to point out that Patrick opens that section of "DEFAMATION BY DEFENDANT DAY" by admitting that all of that happened no later than 2021? What part of "two-year limitations period" so confuses Patrick that he openly concedes in his own Statement of Claim that he is wildly out of time?

The level of stupidity here is simply stunning.

P.S. Patrick is particularly fucked since I have in writing his explicit admission that he knows of Alberta's two-year limitations period:

 

 

It is beyond comprehension that Patrick has conceded that he is fully aware of Alberta's limitations period regarding defamation if he still goes ahead and refiles based on complaints that are at least five years old. I doubt that Court is going to be happy with that.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Can Patrick refile his now-dead lawsuit? He might have problems.

Recall how Patrick Ross arrogantly promised that, if he lost this recent Rule 4.33 Application, he would simply refile it:

 

 

I asked Google about this, and it seems that Patrick is going to have some problems:

 

 

Let's chat about some of the hurdles Patrick faces if he wants to start this process all over again.

First, since the limitations period for defamation in Alberta is two years, and his now-dismissed action was filed in August of 2022, that means that every single claim he made in that lawsuit is now massively out of time, and he needs to start over with claims against me only within the last two years. There's hurdle number one.

"The Exception" states that the underlying claim is still alive only if you can convince the Court that you only recently learned of the defamation. I think we can all agree that given Patrick's obsessive interest in my blog posts, and that all of his claims are listed in his 2022 Affidavit, that argument is going nowhere.

Moving on, no, you can't simply "restart" that action; it's dead, and you need to start over from scratch.

Finally, under Section 3., note the penalties Patrick would face if he tried to refile what was effectively the same action. First, "The court will almost certainly order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's legal costs for the original, dismissed lawsuit."

Patrick would then -- because this is a brand new action -- have to pay all the standard filing and service fees all over again. But the funniest part is listed under "Judicial Skepticism", where the court would be decidedly unhappy with Patrick having wasted everyone's time for well over three years, then wanting to do it all over again.

So is Patrick going to try this again? Almost certainly. And I'll be ready. 

BONUS TRACK: I added to Google's explanation that the case had already been dismissed by the Court, and it enhanced its explanation thusly:

 

 

By the way, I haven't even factored into the above:

1. That Patrick owes me over $125,000, none of which he has paid me, and
2. As an undischarged bankrupt without a trustee, it's not clear that he even has the right to file legal actions on his own. 

So I'd say that Patrick has some work to do if he wants to try this again. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: End of the road.

So to summarize, yesterday, Patrick's recently-acquired lawyer showed up woefully and embarrassingly unprepared in Grande Prairie virtual courtroom 70, and proceeded to make an absolute ass of himself by doing nothing more than regurgitating the idiotic arguments handed to him by whiny perpetual victim and 45-year-old crybaby Patrick Ross.

Given that he could not possibly argue against the clear lack of advancement from Patrick for well over three years, Patrick's lawyer attempted the bold strategy of arguing that Patrick should be accommodated because he suffered from a medical "disability", what with being depressed and harassed and intimidated and living in abject terror so forth:

 

 

Mercifully, the judge was having none of this, pointing out that Patrick's lawyer had provided the Court with not one fucking shred of evidence or affidavit or doctor's note to back this up. In the end, the judge quite correctly applied the law and gave Patrick's lawsuit the boot.

So what's next? Apparently, I should prepare for more of the same since Patrick has already promised to simply refile the same meritless nonsense to restart the three-year clock:

 

 

As soon as he does that, I can assure you he will be in for a surprise, but I'll keep that to myself for the moment. For now, let's just bask in the happiness of Patrick having had his pasty ass handed to him once again by the courts. 

 

 

BONUS TRACK: At one point, Patrick's monumentally-uninterested and unprepared lawyer (who appeared to be counting the billable minutes until he could flee that beatdown) mentioned Patrick's actively trying to overturn my 2010 default judgment against him. You could actually see the tiny smirk on the judge's face as she patiently explained that that judgment was from 16 years ago, and she didn't see how there was much chance of that happening.

PREDICTION: Patrick will have no further use for this lawyer and will fire him shortly and go back to filing stupid lawsuits by himself. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Douchebag lawyer.

I was prepared for Patrick Ross' recently-acquired lawyer to be a clueless, uninformed, slimy colostomy bag, but even I was not prepared for the thigh-sucking sleaziness, when he tried to argue that Patrick's justification for doing absolutely sweet goddamned fuck all for more than three years was that Patrick suffered from a "disability" that prevented him from even hiring a lawyer in all that time (said "disability" being that Patrick was depressed and harassed and intimidated, etc, etc).

Mercifully, the judge handed Patrick's yammering mouthpiece his ass on a platter and pointed out that there was not one fucking shred of filed evidence to support this whiny victimhood bullshit, and that was the end of that argument.

Another martini, please. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: So I won.

Patrick's dumbass lawsuit was just turfed by the court in Alberta.

Time for a martini. 

P.S. I will do a summary tomorrow. By then, Patrick should have refiled his lawsuit with all the same absolute rubbish and misrepresentation and try to do this all over again. It will not go as smoothly for him the second time.

P.P.S. Patrick's lawyer was exactly the kind of disinterested, unprepared douche I was expecting. No surprise there. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Testing the virtual courtroom.

Obviously ahead of time (hearings start at 10 a.m. Alberta time), I've logged into the Webex URL for the Grande Prairie virtual courtroom. Nothing's happening yet, but it's promising that I can see two other people already waiting in the Webex lobby.

I've been told that after virtual hearings start in about 40 minutes, we are approximately number 14 on the docket. If the judge has a clue and sticks to the law, it should be a short hearing. If the judge starts wandering afield and discussing underlying merits, I'm hoping my lawyer slaps him (or her) down in a hurry.

I'll see you there, and feel free to invite your friends.

FOLLOWUP: Hearings start in 15 minutes and already a dozen people waiting on Webex.

AND WE'RE OFF ... 

FEEL FREE TO LEAVE A COMMENT IF YOU'RE DIALED IN. 

 

P.S. This might take a while if they handle all the adjournments and uncontested hearings first. 

 

Apparently, there is another "dismissal for delay" case to be heard. Will be interesting to see how different that case is.

We have simply been pushed down the queue so the judge can handle the short hearings first. The contested hearings will be heard afterwards. 

It sounds like *this* 4.33 case is hung up on the precise definition of "three years" and that the defendant jumped the gun by a couple of weeks -- my case has no such issue. 

I am encouraged that this judge is being *very* pedantic about how the full period of three years is critically important. 

 

I am feeling better about this since the current hearing is going on at length about the steps that *were* taken and whether they were sufficient since, in my case, there was ***nothing*** that was done by Patrick Ross since December of 2022. Nothing. For over three and a half years.

 

Grrrrrrr ... is it possible that the judge won't even get to our case today? How annoying. 

 

OK, a contested Rule 4.33 Application ... and it sounds like the disagreement will be over when advancements happened and whether those advancements were "significant". Again, this is not relevant for my case -- there were *no* advancements of any kind within the last three and a half years. Legally, based on the judge's treatment of this case, I should feel optimistic.

 

This should be interesting ... lawyer for Plaintiff arguing why action should *not* be dismissed because stuff happened. Once again, not relevant for my case since *nothing* was done in over three years. 

 

Yet again, I am encouraged that the entirety of *this* current Rule 4.33 hearing hinges on the contested significance of events that occurred within the three years prior to the Defendant's Application since, in my case, absolutely NOTHING happened. So if the judge subsequently rules against me, she would be mind-numbingly inconsistent with what she's been saying all morning.We're up next

 

Sounds like judge is pretty much done with this case, but I'm not sure how far we are down the list. There's one more hour available for hearings. 

 

Sounds like we *might* be heard today, if the current case can be brief and articulate.

 

OMFG ... are we going to get in today? 

 

 

OFFS, get *on* with it.  I'm up next if this case can be closed.

 

Jesus Christ, how long can you argue about a freakin' truck? 

 

OK, I'm cautiously optimistic so far ... 

Chronicles of Twatrick: The weaselly, gutless cowardice of Patrick Ross.

If there is any lesson to be learned from the last few weeks of blog posts here, it's that undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross, despite the fact that he talks big and loves to characterize himself as a super tough, bad-ass dude, Patrick is a gutless, tear-soaked little turd who hates confrontation and lives in abject terror 24/7.

Recall from years ago, when I was still blogging under my "Canadian Cynic" pseudonym, that Patrick vowed to track me down and out me in order to ruin my life. Remember this brave mouthing off from Patrick?

 

 

And, lo, the fuck was indeed brought, to the point where Patrick is now a sniveling, sobbing little shit hiding out somewhere in northern Alberta and too scared to go home because someone might (*checks notes*) drive by:

 

 

This is the same Patrick Ross who gleefully demeans people on Twitter as "liars" and "retards" but really doesn't enjoy when someone like me decides to hold him accountable for owing me $125,000.

I have read all 57 pages of Patrick's idiotic Affidavit to defeat my Rule 4.33 Application and, I can assure you, there is nothing there that required a lawyer to add any value to it. All of that rubbish and dishonesty is pure Patrick from beginning to end, and the only reason Patrick retained a lawyer for this hearing is that he was too cowardly to present his own arguments. (I predict that, as soon as he loses this Application, Patrick will fire that lawyer. Let's watch.)

It is difficult to believe that Patrick has not yet figured out, if he does not enjoy being followed, there is a simple solution -- he can pay me what he owes me, at which time I will do my best to forget that he and his four-and-a-half chins even exist. But it's more than a little hypocritical to whine about someone trying to track you down at the same time you owe that someone a shitload of money and are actively avoiding collection enforcement.

As for today's hearing, once again, the Webex link is https://albertacourts.webex.com/meet/virtual.courtroom70, hearings start at 10 a.m. Alberta time, and I have been informed that my hearing is about number 14 on today's docket, which will give potential attendees the time to log in and troubleshoot any connection issues.

As I have mentioned more times than you need to hear, this should be a short hearing since Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 is an extremely simple procedural rule that mandates that if the Plaintiff [Patrick] fails to advance their action for more than three straight years, then upon Application by the Defendant [me], the Court is required to dismiss the action. In addition, the burden of moving the case along lies squarely with the Plaintiff:

 

 

The Court is most emphatically not free to consider the merit of the underlying lawsuit, or anything other than the long and indefensible delay:

 

Most importantly, the Court is not allowed to take into account the fact that the Plaintiff is a whiny, sobbing coward who was too stupid, lazy and arrogant to advance his own lawsuit for more than three years. So I am praying for a judge that understands this.

If you have any questions, ask in the comments. 

BONUS TRACK: Given Patrick's insistence that he now lives in abject terror and suffers from "decision paralysis" (whatever the fuck that means), it seems only fair that I reproduce Patrick's July 18 letter to my lawyer in its entirety, so that everyone can see how Patrick, far from being terrified into paralysis and existing in "survival mode", is still the same obnoxious, condescending, arrogant asshole he has always been. This is Patrick's letter to my lawyer, mocking the idea that I hired an actual lawyer to deal with this Application (shortly after which, ironically, Patrick hired his own lawyer):

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps it's just me, but the above does not seem to be the work of someone cowering in their basement, too paralyzed to deal with the world. Rather, it seems like the bloviating output of a pompous, patronizing, sanctimonious little turd who is enjoying himself immensely and can't wait to have his day in court.

I can assure you, if/when Patrick tries to refile his lawsuit once I get it dismissed, the above letter will be Exhibit "A" in my Affidavit establishing that all of Patrick's bleating about being frightened is utter fiction.

DOUBLE BONUS: In the midst of all of that whiny hyper-ventilating from Patrick's Affidavit, note well the first part of Paragraph 54:

"54. While I understand now that I should have tried my best to move the litigation along, ..."

Quite simply, that is an obvious and open admission from Patrick that he has done nothing to advance his own lawsuit. It is Patrick openly conceding that he has no Defense.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The dishonesty of Patrick Ross.

If you want to understand the depth of Patrick Ross's dishonesty, I'll give you an example from a single paragraph out of his tedious Affidavit -- the rest of that document is equally bullshit.

Here's paragraph 25, where Patrick hyperventilates hysterically over ... well, fiction:

 

 

so let's deconstruct that nonsense a few words at a time.

"Mr. Day had either ordered or asked" ... Well, which is it? Asked or ordered? I'm pretty sure I don't have the inherent authority to order anyone around from hundreds of kilometers away, so that phrase is a bit over the top.

"physical surveillance of my private residence" ... but that isn't Patrick's private residence, it belonged to his parents and Patrick has been off working in northern Alberta for quite some time now, so describing it as his "private residence" is a bit of a stretch.

"These individuals wore masks and removed the license plates from their vehicles to evade identification." ... This is the most hysterically misleading sentence of the bunch and we'll have to disembowel it a couple words at a time.

"These individuals wore masks" ... I am aware of one accommodating volunteer who swung by Casa Ross while wearing a scarf around his face; that makes it one individual who wore one face covering. Note well how Patrick's exaggeration has morphed this into multiple individuals wearing multiple masks.

"and removed the license plates ... to evade identification" ... Uh, no. In fact, the single individual in question explained that he had just purchased the vehicle and that the temporary paper tag was properly taped in the truck's rear window while he awaited his permanent plate. Predictably, Patrick was too stupid to figure that out and, ever since then, the story is of a nefarious, sinister stalker who (weirdly) removed his own license plate (which is a truly stupid thing to do since it just begs to get pulled over).

This is the level of slimy misrepresentation that absolutely permeates Patrick's entire Affidavit. And Patrick's lawyer was too stupid, too lazy or too incompetent to recognize the warning signs of total bullshit and signed his name to all of this.

BONUS TRACK: I will just let you slowly and lovingly savour the rancid bullshit of this pathetic and dishonest weeping and moaning:

 

 

 

That's what happens when you challenge someone to "bring it the fuck on."

 

 

You asked about Exhibit D? You are going to be disappointed, as here is the email Patrick received and entered in his Affidavit as Exhibit "D", which is nothing more than an acknowledgment that he had made the request:

 

 

That is less than exciting. 

 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Patrick's lawyer is, quite literally, threatening the Court.

That's a powerful accusation I'm making but give me a minute to back it up.

Here's Paragraph 6 of Patrick's recent Application, where Patrick's lawyer quite clearly suggests that there's no point dismissing Patrick's lawsuit because he would just refile it and that would be an affront to "judicial economy":

 

 

Let's think about this in a couple of ways.

First, that logic is stunningly stupid since, if it were valid, then every Rule 4.33 Application could be defeated by the Plaintiff promising to refile the same lawsuit the next day, so what would be the value of Rule 4.33 in the first place? But that's not the most disturbing part.

By claiming to be concerned about "judicial economy," Patrick's lawyer is clearly threatening the court with, "Hey, court resources are tight, and if you dismiss my client's lawsuit, he'll simply refile it and waste more of your court resources, and you don't want that, do you?"

As in, "Nice court you got here, be a shame if someone came in and wasted your budget because you ruled the wrong way."

I wonder if that sort of quiet intimidation of the Court rises to the level of a complaint to the Law Society of Alberta. 

BONUS TRACK: Patrick is lying as well. In his tediously verbose and dishonest 57-page Affidavit, right near the end, Patrick adds the standard boilerplate that his action is legitimate and is filed for no improper purpose: 

 

 

Except back in his Application, Patrick describes his own lawsuit as being "inextricably tied" to my long-settled 2010 default judgment against him:

 

 

The claim of being "inextricably tied" is bullshit. My 2010 judgment against Patrick is long settled and Patrick is long past any deadline where he can do anything about it. Claiming some sort of inextricable linkage represents nothing more than Patrick openly admitting that his lawsuit was filed as retribution for my earlier victory -- a clearly improper purpose.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Happy interestversary, perjury and mouth-breathing legal incompetence.

First things first: today, August 19, 2026, marks exactly five years since a Saskatchewan judge told vexatious litigant and undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross how much he owed me:

 

and bumped up the annual accruing interest rate to a delightful five per cent, which means that Patrick currently owes me between $125,000 and $130,000, an amount about to increase noticeably due to the mouth-breathing incompetence of his new lawyer who appears to be (and I do not make this suggestion lightly) one of the dumbest carbon-based life forms on the planet.

For the last couple of weeks, I have been speculating as to what Patrick would try as a last ditch, desperate, "gotcha"-style legal ambush to try to salvage his depressing situation and, yesterday, the madness arrived in the form of an Application that ... I cannot even do it justice by paraphrasing, you need to read the entire section of Patrick's proposed grounds for dismissal of my Rule 4.33 Application for yourself:

 

 

Let's start with the truly stupidest part of the above. Patrick's new lawyer -- who I'm guessing got his law degree by collecting the required number of Optimum points -- did not even make out a valid Rule 4.33 defense. None at all.

As I have explained far too many times by now, there are two (and only two) defenses against a Rule 4.33 "Drop Dead" Application:

1. You claim that you have advanced your case significantly in the three years before the Application, or
2. You claim that there exists a court-ordered or mutual agreement for suspension of litigation.

That's it; that's all that's available as a defense. As you can see, Patrick's lawyer made neither of those arguments above. Rather, the filed Application was a jaw-dropping collection of ad hominem bullshit regarding intimidation and harassment and stalking and surveillance, with a new twist of "terrorizing a litigant" thrown in for good measure. And keep in mind, a practicing lawyer crafted this nonsense and put his name to it. But it gets so much worse, as said lawyer also signed off on Patrick's claim that he is "actively" taking steps to overturn a default judgment from 2010.

Read that again to truly appreciate the dumbass level of stupid of a lawyer who does not know how default judgments work. I have, on numerous occasions, explained the strict requirements for filing to set aside a default judgment, like here, and it is mind-boggling that an actual lawyer does not understand even the most basic fundamentals of how a default judgment works, and even (as I wrote in the previous post) enabled Patrick's perjury by signing off on Patrick's legally impossible claim that he is "actively" working to overturn that judgment from back in 2010.

I really am looking forward to this hearing tomorrow to watch my counsel feed Patrick's lawyer through a wood chipper.

BONUS TRACK: I would be remiss in not addressing the very next line after the excerpt above:

 

 

Apparently, Patrick is so "firmly committed" to proceeding with his lawsuit that he has done absolutely nothing with it for the last three and a half years and now wants a do-over.

Also, no one is stopping Patrick from doing the above. Once I have his current lawsuit dismissed for long delay, he's perfectly free to file another (updated) lawsuit and try it all over again. So his "litigation plan" is nonsense, and his lawyer should have understood that.

REMINDER that the Webex link for tomorrow's hearing is  https://albertacourts.webex.com/meet/virtual.courtroom70. Proceedings for the day's docket starts at 10 a.m. (Alberta time), and we are apparently number 14 on the docket.

BY THE WAY, I just noticed the nonsensical stupidity of paragraph 7 above:

 

 

But Patrick's current lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with my 2010 judgment against him for malicious defamation -- those are two totally unrelated actions and are not "inextricably tied" in any way.

However, having written the above, did Patrick just admit that the whole purpose behind his current long-dormant lawsuit is to try to get even with me for my legal victory over him in 2010? That would seem to be an open admission that he filed his lawsuit for an improper purpose, not because he honestly thought I defamed him, but simply because he wants to get even. 

It seems the Court should know about that.

THIS IS TOO FUNNY: In addition to asking the Court to dismiss my Rule 4.33 Application, Patrick is also asking the Court to order a "litigation plan" which would ... again, I cannot do this justice, you have to read the two paragraphs related to that from his Affidavit:

 

 

Take a moment, if you will, and appreciate the absolute fucking stupid in the above request from Patrick's Application. Patrick, having utterly ignored his own lawsuit for three and a half years and advanced it not even the tiniest iota, is now standing there, stamping his little feet and insisting that the Court issue an order to move this whole thing along -- to make sure this matter is "vigorously prosecuted without further delay."

I don't even know how to mock this.

P.S. Nowhere in any of this meaningless swill is there any reference to Patrick being a trustee-less undischarged bankrupt who owes me over $125,000 and has refused to pay any of the judgment or cost awards against him going all the way back to 2010. You'd think the Court might find that ... relevant. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Patrick committed perjury in his opposing application.

I have received a truckload of utter bullshit and dumbass goddamned fucking stupidity from Patrick's Calgary lawyer (who I am tempted to identify just to embarrass him in front of his peers) and in the midst of all that, Patrick committed unequivocal blatant perjury.

In his Application, Patrick writes:

"Finally, the Defendant's [me, CC] Rule 4.33 Application should be dismissed because the within action is inextricably tied to a 2010 default judgment that the Plaintiff [Patrick] is actively taking steps to set aside; ..."

Patrick is "actively taking steps to set aside" my 2010 defamation judgment against him? That is a howlingly blatant lie for one simple reason.

It was a default judgment and, as anyone with even a smattering of legal knowledge would know, a default judgment cannot be set aside unless it is done in a timely manner. It's been 15+ fucking years since I got my judgment against Patrick, and he has done absolutely sweet goddamned fuck all to "set aside" that judgment, and he is about 15 years too late to do it, anyway.

What Patrick filed is pure perjury, and I have advised my lawyer to treat it as such. And, yes, the August 20 hearing is still on, where you will be able to identify the stupid goddamned lawyer that signed his name to Patrick's perjury.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The Webex link for Thursday's Rule 4.33 hearing.

As I have just been told, the link I posted earlier,  https://albertacourts.webex.com/meet/virtual.courtroom70, is the correct link for the Grande Prairie virtual courtroom for Thursday, August 20, and virtual hearings are open to the public.

Court starts at 10 a.m. (Alberta time), and my case is #14 on the court list so it might take some time to get to it, but that should give you time to test your connection and do any troubleshooting.

I plan on attending but I will not actively participate as I have a lawyer to handle that for me. I really am curious as to what defense is going to be offered.

FOLLOWUP: I just connected to test my Webex configuration and it seems fine, so anyone else might want to take a minute to connect to the hearings that just started. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Two days and counting.

First, let's deal with the Webex link for the upcoming August 20 hearing for my Rule 4.33 Application (for which I have not agreed to a requested extension). I have been informed by the Grande Prairie courthouse that the standard Webex link for Chambers is always https://albertacourts.webex.com/meet/virtual.courtroom70, and if that changes in the next two days, I will post the change here. If you feel like testing that link later today, there may or may not be anything there depending on whether there are any virtual proceedings but you're invited to check it out. And now, to business.

It remains to be seen whether Patrick or his lawyer are going to try any frantic last-minute shenanigans, like officially filing for an extension to waste even more of my time, or trying to submit their Response Affidavit only two days before the hearing. I can at least take comfort in the fact that, unlike Patrick, Patrick's lawyer should understand the rules of court and will know that there are limits to the stupid shit that he can try (like arguing that Patrick's lawsuit is "extremely-meritorious" ... stupid shit like that).

 

 

As for Patrick, now that he's gutlessly bailed on defending the inordinate delay in advancing his own lawsuit, I can see that he's over on Twitter, being the misogynistic racist he's always been and relentlessly attacking and demeaning a black woman. What else is new? And it's hard to take seriously that Patrick needs more time to prep his lawyer for this hearing when Patrick is over on Twitter calling people "retards":

 

 

In any event, two days and counting. I'm open to predictions as to how Patrick and his lawyer are going to try to fuck this up. 

BONUS TRACK: First commenter asks the same question others have been asking for a couple weeks now: What possible defense can Patrick's lawyer present to defeat my Rule 4.33 Application? And I will again speculate that Patrick (if his lawyer even agrees to make this argument since it is meritless) will argue that, for the last three years, Patrick has been subject to my crippling "harassment" and "intimidation" which has made it impossible for him to move his own action along.

Not only is this not a valid defense against a Rule 4.33 Application, but I thought I'd take a look at the possible amount of "harassment" and "intimidation" I could be accused of based on what I published on this blog in, say, the year 2025. If you expand the links on the left, you can see the number of blog posts on a per-month basis for all of 2025:

 

As you can see, I published a total of 52 blog posts in all of 2025, making an average of one post per week. It's difficult to see how that corresponds to such a relentless attack on Patrick that he was paralyzed by it and could not find the time to advance his own lawsuit. More to the point, if Patrick could not find the time to do the work himself, he always had the freedom to do what he did just a few days ago: hire a lawyer to do it for him.

Anyway, I am as baffled as everyone else in terms of what argument will be made by Patrick's lawyer. I guess we'll find out in the next day or two.

ONE MORE THING: I have in my possession (and, therefore, so does Patrick's lawyer) the "Procedure Record" for Patrick's 2022 lawsuit, showing every single filing and activity related to this case. It starts at August 26, 2022, when Patrick filed his dumbass lawsuit. I reproduce here only the very last part of that record so everyone can see the absolute lack of activity after March of 2023:

 

 

Note well the last activity labeled with "Patrick Ross" -- an Affidavit filed back in November of 2022, well over three years ago. There is also a mysterious event from March of 2023 that I do not recognize, but since Patrick listed (improperly) three different and unrelated defendants in his lawsuit, that probably has to do with one of the other two defendants. Regardless, that is also still more than three years before I filed my Application, and here's the critical part of the above.

There is no activity related to this case for over three years. None. Zero. Anyone who downloads the Procedure Record for this case can see that clearly.

When I claim that Patrick has done nothing to advance his own lawsuit for more than three years, no one need take my word for it -- one need only examine the official Procedure Record to see that. This is not arguable, and it not debatable. It's part of the case record. So it is still a complete mystery as to what Patrick's lawyer is going to present as a defense.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Three days and counting.

Rule 4.33 "Drop Dead" Application still on schedule for this coming Thursday at 10 a.m. (Grande Prairie, AB time) and stunningly lazy and arrogant Plaintiff Patrick Ross, via his freshly-acquired lawyer, has officially requested an extension in order to prepare the Response Affidavit he's had more than a month to draft and serve.

Fuck, no, for a couple of reasons.

First, as I just mentioned, since Patrick was served with my Application more than a month ago (July 15, to be precise), he has -- rather than getting to work on that Affidavit -- been insulting me on social media, so I'm not in a particularly accommodating mood.

More to the point, it's not clear what Patrick's lawyer would do with extra time since, as I have pointed out more times than is probably healthy, Patrick has no defense. None. Zip. Nada. Sweet fuck all. Here's a summary from the above link:

 

 

and I can assure you that there is nothing there that will rescue Patrick, who has now spent the last four years since filing his asinine lawsuit against me doing absolutely nothing to move it along, but did take the time to occasionally brag about it (even as he failed to move it along):

 

 

So, no, I'm not feeling in a generous mood and there will be no extension. Let's get into court and get this done.

And for some thigh-slapping entertainment value, here's what Patrick wrote in a letter to my lawyer just after being served with my Application:

 

That would be Patrick, snickering over my apparent need for adult supervision by hiring a lawyer, shortly before he frantically retained his own lawyer less than a week before the scheduled hearing. How droll.

SPECULATION: If Patrick was still running the show over there, I would speculate that a defense he might try would be to find something I posted on social media and deliberately misrepresent it as my somehow allowing Patrick more time for his lawsuit.

Sadly for Patrick, it was only two months ago (June 19 of this year) that I specifically published a warning that I was running out of patience with him and was ready to file a dismissal motion against his stupid lawsuit:

 

 

There is no possibility of misinterpretation here -- I am clearly warning Patrick of my potential plans so he should have taken that seriously. He chose not to, and here we are.

A GOOD QUESTION: Last commenter asks:

"Do you think Patrick told his new lawyer about this blog and all the posts you've written about him and this case over the last few weeks? Do you think he would try to use that as part of a defense?"

What an interesting question. First, I think that if Patrick was still representing himself, he would absolutely try to make my recent blog posts part of his Rule 4.33 defense; I suspect he would insist that all of this was "harassment" and "intimidation" and was "deleterious" to his ability to defend himself. In fact, he tried this a few years ago when I filed to have his bankruptcy ruling appeal dismissed as abandoned due to inordinate and inexcusable delay.

Patrick tried that sob story on the judge back then, who was having none of it:

 

 

So Patrick has a history of being a childish whiner. But he would have a couple problems with this strategy in these more recent circumstances.

First, what I choose to blog about is my business, and in no way prevents Patrick from moving his case forward. None of my blogging impedes Patrick from advancing his case, and none of it represents harassment or intimidation.

A bigger problem for Patrick is that a Rule 4.33 Application deals exclusively with a lack of activity for a case prior to the filing of the Application. Nothing I've done since then can be incorporated into Patrick's defense, so any references to what I've blogged since July 15 are not in the smallest way relevant to a defense for Patrick.

As for Patrick whining to his new lawyer about these last few weeks of blogging, he's invited to let him know for all I care.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Four days and counting.

Only four days until my Rule 4.33 hearing against undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross, who is currently melting down over on Twitter, obsessively attacking (surprise surprise!) a black woman.

I will be making a record of Patrick's social media output over the last month so that if/when his new lawyer asks for an extension to get up to speed on this case, I will point out that they wouldn't need an extension if Patrick hadn't spent the entirety of the last 30 days being a 24/7 misogynistic racist over on Twitter instead of dealing with my Application (filed on July 15).

In any event, I will remind everyone (and this is something that Patrick knows since I've mentioned it before and Patrick has already admitted he reads this blog) that, new lawyer or not, he is hopelessly out of time to file and serve a proper Response Affidavit:

 

 

My current opinion on this is that, if asked, I would not agree to any extension, and I would argue that any attempt by Patrick's lawyer to file a Response Affidavit at this late date should be rejected by the Court as being ridiculously out of time.

I should get the Webex call-in link for the 10 a.m. (Grande Prairie time) August 20 hearing in the next day or two, and I will be posting it here as soon as I learn it.

BONUS TRACK: It occurs to me that my (at least) daily postings related to this Application were not simply a way for me to gloat about how I was pushing back against Patrick and his dumbass lawsuit; rather, I think they were the inspiration for Patrick to frantically search for, and retain, a lawyer at this late date.

It was only last month that Patrick was gleefully bragging about his "extremely-meritorious" lawsuit against me:

 

 

However, as my blog posts slowly established how Alberta's Rule 4.33 works, Patrick's cackling and bragging got quieter and quieter, until possibly he began to clue in as to how fucked he was, and thus began his frantic search for a grown-up to save his sorry ass.

I am unaware of any way in which Patrick getting a lawyer is going to rescue him. In fact, it might make things even easier for me since a lawyer will be required to stick to the specific issues related to Rule 4.33, and will avoid wandering all over the rhetorical battlefield, yammering on about harassment and intimidation and trucks without license plates and stupid shit that happened over 15 years ago and so on.

Having an actual grown-up standing in for Patrick might be the best development for me in all of this, since my side won't have to prepare for his spittle-flecked, tear-soaked emotionalism. This could work out well after all.

To paraphrase Patrick (actually, to quote him verbatim from his letter to my lawyer when Patrick was ironically referring to me):

 

 

Indeed.