That's gonna leave a mark.
BY THE WAY, appreciate the dumbassitude here:
Uh, the only reason a judge would not allow you to speak at all is if your opponent's argument is so stunningly pathetic and meritless that your argument is not even required. It's not clear why Patrick thinks this is so hilarious since all it proves is that the judge didn't even need Peter's submission to kick Patrick and his asinine motion to the curb.
Patrick really does not understand how the law works. Not even a little bit.
P.S. If Peter's description is accurate, and the judge explicitly asked Patrick if, as an undischarged bankrupt, Patrick sought the permission of a trustee before filing this action, Patrick is well and truly fucked in every possible way, as it suggests that that is a deal-breaker as far as the Court is concerned. It will be important to see either a transcript of this hearing, or to read the judge's written ruling, or both, but this does not bode well for Patrick's future prospects for filing vexatious and meritless actions simply for the purpose of harassing others, if the Court has indeed found that Patrick's current status prevents him from doing that.
AFTERSNARK: To celebrate his massive legal ass-kicking, Patrick hies himself to Better Than Fred's for another $21, 7,000-calorie greasefest:
inspiring a couple of his northern Alberta colleagues to publicly wonder if he's still one of their co-workers:
I'm guessing the answer is, not for long. But that's just a guess.
AFTERSNARK: I have been informed by a reliable source that Patrick finally got around to deleting the above two mocking comments but, hey, the Internet never forgets.
15 comments:
Amazingly, Twatrick is gloating on his Twitter that today was a "win" for him.
Granted, this is the same guy who claims he won this Lloydminster streetfight.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hDIoN5HdJb0
Is there a transcript??? I hope there's a transcript!!!
It's stupider than that. Patrick also gloated, "Well, of the things I wanted today, I got only one thing I wanted: By order of the Justice in Chambers, this matter is approved to continue."
Uh, that's because, as I understand it, today's motion was restricted to arguing whether parts of Peter's Statement of Defense should be struck; the judge said no. That was the only matter before the Court, so it was the only matter the judge was going to rule on. The judge allowed the matter to continue as he/she was never asked to find otherwise.
Fuck, what a maroon.
How do you even make such a loser statement like "I got only one thing I wanted" and it not even being the thing that today was even about and make it sound like some kind of win???
Twatrick be like "I got only one thing I wanted today" whereas Skinner be like "I got the only thing I wanted today". See the difference?
So ... that make Patrick's win/appearances ratio zero for how many appearances in court?
The only "win" in this for Patrick is that it continues the charade even longer.
Time to put definitive motions to dismiss the entire farce of a case before the court - meritless doesn't even begin to describe it ... but it does somehow describe the person who launched the lawsuit ...
MgS: Patrick Ross needs to charged with obstruction of justice, or wasting the courts time, or something similar.
Wait, what was the costs award?
Anon @ 1:20 AM: Does it matter? We all know Patrick is not going to pay it, which is fine with me since it simply reinforces his pattern of refusing to obey court orders, which makes every subsequent attempt of his to try to file an action that much less supportable. I don't think Patrick has any idea of the damage he's done to himself with his history of legal non-compliance; I'm pretty sure we're at the point where the Court simply does not take him seriously anymore. And it's not even *close* to over yet with that boy. Stay tuned for what's coming down the tracks at him.
It matters because cost awards often reflect a court's displeasure with either party. Or the court's displeasure with both parties.
Did Peter get his costs or not?
I have no idea.
I saw Peter on his Twitter account claiming that his costs were $7500. I saw that he was also going to demand a special costs order. If Peter got his costs, why isn't he telling us?
Because, typically, after a ruling, both sides are invited to submit a costs application. So neither side will know what the costs award is for at least several days.
At what point does this abuse of the legal system become a criminal affair? Because he is deliberately blowing thousands in public funds just to make an ass of himself.
Sounds like there was no costs award.
Geez. To "win" the application, but not get your costs... that's a statement from the court. Not a good one.
Post a Comment