That would be the hearing related to my Application to have Patrick Ross' idiotic lawsuit kicked to the curb. It remains to be seen whether he shows up, or bails at the last minute as he did last time.
Tick tock ...
What I think is an important observation to make about perpetual grifters like Rebel News, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms and Keean "Tomorrow Belongs To Me" Bexte -- in their collective wailing over anti-vaxxer Annette Lewis being denied a double lung transplant, every single one of those opportunistic ghouls was well aware before they started fundraising for her legal battle or running petitions that she had no chance of winning that action. None. Zip. Absolutely fuck all. They all knew that, but it was too good of a grift to pass up, even if Lewis died in the meantime.
Here, let me demonstrate.
Lewis' argument, so unprofessionally and unethically presented by the JCCF, is that Lewis has a Charter right to health care in Canada, even if she refuses to follow the medical requirements to be eligible for the lung transplant she so desperately needs to live.
This is untrue. It is not only untrue, it is obviously, patently untrue, as this argument has been made before and it has been kicked to the curb before. Don't believe me? This is the original ruling related to Lewis from Court of King's Bench of Alberta, making it indisputably clear that Lewis has not a shred of a case. One need only start reading at paragraph 47 to see the court address, then savagely disembowel, the arguments presented by JCCF's ghoulish lawyers.
Make sure you appreciate what is happening in that ruling -- the Court is pointing out that there is more than ample precedent that shows that Lewis never had a case from the outset, suggesting that (and I am speculating wildly here) Lewis was led on by the JCCF, who I can only imagine somehow convinced her that she had a decent chance of prevailing, so she should persist in her refusal to get vaccinated, thereby increasing her odds of, well, dying. So it's not so much that Lewis lost her action; no, it's that any even minimally competent and ethical lawyer would have warned Lewis that legal history was entirely against her. Apparently, though, there's ethics and professionalism, and there's grift and fundraising, so you have to pick one. But wait ... there's more.
Astonishingly, despite that legal ass-kicking -- that left no conceivable doubt about the lack of merit in JCCF's case -- Lewis was apparently convinced to continue holding out because, hey, there's always money in the banana^H^H^H^H^H^Happeal stand and, despite there being zero chance of winning an appeal, they went there, with predictable results, those predictable results being yet another brutal beatdown by the Court.
At this point, any ethical lawyer might take Lewis aside and tell her that this case is going nowhere and there is little value in appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada as that will simply delay the inevitable, which is what the JCCF finally did.
No, no, just kidding, they did nothing of the sort:
So it's not that all of these opportunistic monsters keep losing these cases (during which Lewis might literally die while waiting), it's that even the most cursory examination of the history of such cases would have made it obvious that she was not going to win right from the beginning.
An ethical lawyer might have advised Lewis of that. An ethical lawyer might have given Lewis advice that was in Lewis' best interests. An ethical lawyer might have finally advised Lewis that it was time to stop appealing and just get vaxxed if she wanted her life-saving transplant.
That's what an ethical lawyer might have done. I'm just throwing that out there.
P.S. I'm fascinated with that highlighted statement from the JCCF, in that they claim that they need to "review the decision" of the Alberta Court of Appeal to decide what to do next. But what exactly is there to review? I am not a lawyer, but my reading of the appeals ruling is that it says little more than that the original ruling is fine.
Of course you need to read the ruling, but one would think any decent lawyer would be prepared for an appeals ruling that says, effectively, "The original judge got it right." Is the JCCF seriously poring over that ruling and wasting whatever days Lewis has left? That would be just weird.
However, Lewis is still determining if she’ll be able to raise enough money to take her case to the Supreme Court. Moreover, she doesn’t know how much longer her failing organ will hold up.
“I don’t have a lot of time left. I know that.” she says.
"In the circumstances of this appeal, while Ms Lewis has the right to refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, the Charter cannot remediate the consequences of her choice."
"So, Skippy, over the last year, you promoted Trumpism, Bitcoin and the three-week siege and occupation of downtown Ottawa. How's that working out for you?"
I'm not going to provide links but, over at undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross' Twitter account, he has a pinned tweet and thread describing how much fun he's going to have with his meritless action against numerous people (including your humble scribe), using phrases like "Yee haw, MFers I'm back and I've got big, big news" and "This is going to be fun."
That thread specifically refers to Patrick's attempt to amend his original Statement of Claim, a motion which was scheduled to be heard last Friday, Nov. 4 ... until Patrick got wind of my process server waiting for him at the Grande Prairie courthouse to be served with my Application for Summary Judgment, at which time Patrick called the courthouse five minutes before the scheduled hearing start and begged off due to illness, whereupon later that day he tweeted about working out at the gym.
It is unclear why Patrick continues to promote a pinned tweet bragging about an action for which he abandoned a scheduled hearing. In any event, my hearing is on for Dec. 2, and I can assure you, I will be attending.
P.S. In my imminent letter to the Grande Prairie courthouse, I will be adding the above as an exhibit as to how Patrick publicly boasts about how much "fun" he intends to have with his filing, only to bail on it at the last minute, feigning illness but instead waddling off to pump iron, thereby wasting the Court's time and resources for his own childish entertainment value.
Yeah, Patrick might have given this a little more thought.
UH OH ... while I will be attending my Dec. 2 application hearing virtually, apparently someone else plans on showing up:
"Thankfully, due to the brave actions of our truckers and many of the guests who will grace the stage at the event, we are free from most of Trudeau's tyrannical mandates and restrictions that kept people apart for nearly two years."
"I have not seen all of the footage, but I've seen enough, and enough of the commentary to say: OK, I can't be a part of that. We're all responsible for our own personal reputation or our own brand, if you will, and all of us in the public eye sometimes have to practice hygiene."
Uh huh ...
And given that Brian Saunderson is the PC MPP for Simcoe-Grey, I believe we now understand the flow of information:
Did I miss anything?
Yo, Elon, about this ...
So, Elon, when can I expect Twitter to re-activate my "canadiancynic" account? What's that? Never? Well, that commitment didn't last long, did it?
Patrick Ross: Having a hearing scheduled for 10 a.m., Friday, Nov 4 at Grande Prairie courthouse but, knowing I will have a process server waiting for him there, calls courthouse at 9:55 a.m., insisting he is too ill to attend, and does not show.
Also Patrick Ross, on social media later that very day:
Noted and filed.
DID NOT THINK THAT ONE THROUGH: In response to the first couple of comments, let me elaborate on how Patrick has thoroughly and utterly screwed himself in the long run by trying to be his unjustifiably clever self.
Patrick's first mistake was, upon being contacted by my process server to facilitate personal service, insisting that he is just such a busy dude with an unpredictable work schedule that it would be nigh impossible to synchronize a face-to-face. That was Patrick's first fuckup.
Patrick then compounded that fuckup by immediately (and unwisely) offering to accept service by email, confirming his actual email address. But the stupid did not end there. What finished him off was, when my process server emailed the relevant docs to Patrick, he replied almost immediately that he had received them.
Those with experience in the area of proper and adequate legal service will appreciate just how completely Patrick has boned himself.
Normally, proper legal service requires personal transfer of the relevant documents; that is, handing them over to the actual person being served, then attesting to the fact that they were handed over. On the other hand, if one is having difficulty tracking someone down because, say, they were actively evading service, one can apply to the Court for substitutional service, which allows you to serve someone in any way you can convince the Court should reliably assure that your target gets the documents. This does require you to persuade the Court that you've given it a good effort to serve someone personally, and you just haven't managed it. And now you can see how Patrick has fucked himself.
First, he insisted that he is a hard man to track down -- a truly stupid concession as it mostly makes my argument for me. But it gets worse, as Patrick proceeded to offer a way to serve him: by email. Again, that's Patrick effectively giving me all the argument I need to be granted substitutional service. Oh, and the quick response of acknowledgement of receipt is simply proof that Patrick does indeed receive stuff sent to him at that email address.
I barely need to make the argument for substitutional service for Patrick, as he has done all that for me. This would be Patrick scrambling to solve an immediate problem (trying to avoid being served this one time), while giving no thought to the very long-term and ugly consequences. (Oh, and the fact that Patrick called the courthouse five minutes before his hearing to cancel due to illness -- thereby assuredly annoying the court -- while bragging openly online about his getting all buff and shit at the gym later that same day is not going to play well with the judge, either.)
So, yeah, once again, Patrick went for the quick win while being totally unaware of how he just handed me the right to serve him via simple email in all actions going forward. And, by the way, that sub service works only one way here -- Patrick does not get similar freedom to serve me by email. No, he still needs to hire and pay a process server who has to serve me in person. Why? Because I did not behave like a weaselly asshat and I did not lie to the Court.
See how that works?
as it is accompanied by the following screed from serial prevaricator Sheila Gunn Reid:
"A star-studded lineup of Freedom Heroes will grace the stage in both cities, including Tamara Lich, the organizer and heart and soul behind the Freedom Convoy."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of Lich's bail conditions that she not encourage or promote any of that Convoy stupidity? Is it time for Lich to be going back to jail? One can only hope.
P.S. Also, is it not problematic to advertise Lich as "the organizer and heart and soul behind the Freedom Convoy" if she's trying to downplay her involvement to escape culpability? Can someone bring this description to the attention of Paul Champ?
And that's all you need to know, the operative word being "problem." That would be the CPC's Candice Bergen, in a February email, clearly and explicitly describing the Freedom Convoy siege of downtown Ottawa as a "problem" for which she hopes the PM will shoulder the blame.
Regardless of how the CPC and its mouth-breathing lackeys want to frame that three weeks as legal or lawful or peaceful, the instant Bergen characterized the trucker occupation of Ottawa as a "problem," she was conceding that it was a bit of ugliness she hoped she could use politically.
There is no walking that back. At all.
You don't get to gush over the legality and peacefulness of an insurrection publicly, only to admit it's a "problem" behind the scenes. (And need I point out the unseemliness of admitting something is a "problem" even as you hobnob with, and encourage, the very people creating that problem?)
Fuck those people.
There's a delightful bit of video here wherein British radio host James O'Brien asks a caller 15 separate times to list a single laudable achievement of Boris Johnson, and the caller comes up utterly empty.
Which brings us to Tamara Lich.
In the midst of the current EA Inquiry and so many yobs insisting that Lich is a hero of some kind, it behooves us to ask ... can anyone point to a single accomplishment of hers? That is, just one achievement that, in any way, benefited Canadians other than her and her fellow grifters.
Let us first dispense with any responses that involve how she, in some way, "fought" for Canadians, or "worked tirelessly", or "sacrificed", or what have you. I have no interest in being lectured on the amount of effort Lich put into this grift; I'm after actual results.
There is also the nonsense as to how Lich and her fellow con artists somehow restored freedom. This is, of course, patently untrue, as the "Freedom Convoy" resulted in absolutely no mandates being dropped. (Not to mention that many COVID-19 mandates and restrictions were provincial, while others were imposed by the United States related to border crossing.)
So, again, can anyone anywhere identify a single achievement of Lich's that justifies her being idolized to this extent? Because I'm just not seeing it.
You keep using that word "immense" ...