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. 

 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Homework for my loyal followers.

Related to the recent Rule 4.33-related silliness involving Lloydminster's favourite evasive debtor Patrick Ross, before the actual hearing on August 20 (which, again, should be viewable via a Webex link that I plan on publishing beforehand), I could use all of the information I can collect on Patrick's current location, and employment, and assets and so on.

To that end, I am open to anyone who can supply moderately reliable data related to Patrick including (but not limited to):

• current employment status
• current living arrangements, both in Lloydminster and on the road wherever he happens to be working
• current vehicle, and whether it's actually owned by Patrick and in his name
• where he seems to hang out (restaurants, fitness centres, restaurants, ...)
• most importantly, any other assets in his name that people know of

There is no need to email any of the above to me privately; you are encouraged to leave anything you know in the comments section quite publicly where others can see it and perhaps help others to track down even more information on Patrick.

The more information I can collect on Patrick, the more unpleasant will be his hearing on August 20. 

IMPORTANT: Despite how Patrick loves to whine, there is absolutely nothing illegal about driving by Casa Ross in Lloydminster, and taking photos, and noting the vehicles in the driveway, and describing any apparent activity therein in terms of people coming and going and so on. 

If Patrick wants to bitch about the inconvenience of being in massive debt, there's a simple solution for that. Given time, I'm sure it will come to him. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Happy (belated) interestversary!

In all the excitement of filing my Rule 4.33 Application to kick undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross's sorry, pasty, cheeseburger-filled ass, I'd completely forgotten that it was 59 months ago that a Saskatchewan judge lowered the boom on Patrick and ruled on how much he owed me at that time:

 

 

And what with that delicious 5% post-judgment interest rate, Patrick should now owe me close to $130,000 (an amount soon to go up noticeably once I win my Application and get a costs award).

And to think it all started so many years ago with Patrick opening his big mouth and daring me to bring it on:

 

 

"Bring it the fuck on," challenged Patrick Ross. And, lo, the fuck was indeed brought.

P.S. Apparently, Patrick is still screeching hysterically at me from his Twitter "outlawtory" account. I am, of course, screenshotting all of it for when it becomes time to put all of it in front of a judge when Patrick insists he just couldn't muster the energy to advance his lawsuit against me for over three years, and I counter with how he certainly found the time to tweet about me on a daily basis.

If Patrick had a lawyer, I suspect that lawyer would be advising Patrick to shut the fuck up. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: How to defend against a Rule 4.33 Application

Since an earlier commenter suggested a couple possible defenses against a Rule 4.33 Application, I once again asked Google AI to list the variety of potential defenses and I verified them against all the reading I've been doing, and I've highlighted the most important part of all of them:

 

 

Now, I want you to examine the full set of possible defenses and identify the common feature of all the highlighted bits. So what's the common feature? Simple:

Every single defense requires something to have already happened.

That is, every one of those possible defenses requires something to have happened before the filing of the Application; there is no possible defense that involves the Plaintiff/Respondent doing something after the fact.

In short, once a Rule 4.33 Application is filed, the only conceivable defenses available to the Plaintiff/Respondent are events or agreements or filings that must have already happened. There is nothing the Respondent can do after the Application is filed that would save them.

Make sense? 

Chronicles of Twatrick: OK, fine, let's talk about limitations.

Since some people might be confused by the legal advice published by undischarged bankrupt and perpetual legal loser and evasive debtor Patrick Ross over on his Twitter "outlawtory" account, I might as well clear things up and explain why Patrick's legal efforts against me are going to end badly for him.

Let's first get Google AI to explain the two types of limitations under Alberta law:

 

 

The first thing to note is that none of the above affects a Rule 4.33 Application in any way. Not at all. Nothing Patrick presents in the way of his weird and inaccurate interpretation of limitations is going to save his current lawsuit from being disemboweled on August 20, so just dismiss that possibility entirely. But if that's the case, what is Patrick blathering about?

It appears that what Patrick is talking about is, once I win my 4.33 Application, he plans on immediately filing a new lawsuit once again accusing me of defamation and/or harassment; in short, starting all over again with a shiny new Statement of Claim accusing me of all the same things he did before. And here's why that's not really going to work for him.

Note first that, of the two limitation periods (two years and 10 years), it is the limitation period that comes first that will be used, so Patrick will be subject to a two-year limitation period for his accusations in this new lawsuit, which is going to really crimp his style since that means that he cannot include any accusations that go back more than two years, which means everything in his original 2022 lawsuit is now ineligible for inclusion in this new lawsuit. So what is his argument? I'm glad you asked.

Here's what Patrick thinks is going to save him -- the notion of "continuous offenses":

 

 

You see, what Patrick is counting on is that while all those original accusations against me in his 2022 lawsuit are now completely out of time, he's counting on the idea that, within the last two years, I have either repeated some of that alleged defamation or perhaps published some new alleged defamation. So if Patrick loses that August 20 hearing (and, yes, he will lose), and files a new lawsuit the next day, all he will have to work with is whatever I've published on my blog going back to August 21, 2024 (precisely two years). That's it -- that's all Patrick will have to work with, and he seems confident that in those last two years, he'll find enough alleged defamation (or harassment, it's never clear what Patrick is suing for) to justify another idiotic lawsuit. (Again, nothing I published more than two years ago can be used in Patrick's new lawsuit.)

So how worried should I be? Frankly, not a lot, since the last two years has been my mostly reporting on Patrick's stupid lawsuit (perfectly legal), and checking in on the comings and goings at Casa Ross (again, legal), and asking people to keep tabs on Patrick (yet again, legal), and so on. I'm absolutely not going to waste my time poring over my last two years of output as that will be Patrick's job; it will be his responsibility to examine all of the last two years of my blog output to find either new alleged defamation, or repeats of older alleged defamation. He will absolutely not be able to go back further than that due to the deadline as defined by Alberta's two-year discoverability period. 

In summary, this appears to be what Patrick is spewing about, so if he wants to crawl over my last two years of bloggy output looking for anything untoward (that is not disqualified by Alberta limitations), he's welcome to it.

P.S. Notice how I (unlike Patrick) actually read the legislation and take the time to understand it? 

Chronicles of Twatrick: The stupid is tiring.

I'm not sure how much longer I'll waste my time responding to Patrick Ross's increasingly unhinged and hysterical screeds over on his Twitter "outlawtory" account, where he is now assuring his 14 regular readers that he is absolutely going to defeat my Rule 4.33 Application. It's unclear how he thinks this is going to happen given my numerous detailed explanations as to how Rule 4.33 works, but I'll summarize it one more time with an added detail that just occurred to me.

Here's Google AI's take:

 

so let's examine my participation in the matter.

As I read it, all I am required to do is establish before the Court that there has been no significant advancement in this case for more than three years. That part is easy -- I downloaded the "Procedure Report" of the case, which lists all events and filings associated with the case and which shows an utter and complete lack of anything happening for over three years. Not just no significant advancement, no advancement whatsoever. And at that point, my job is done -- I am under no obligation to do anything more, because now that I've established the three years of inactivity, the entire burden of contesting this Application falls on Patrick. Fully and completely. So what does that mean?

Well, if Patrick wants to claim that there has been significant advancement, then it falls entirely on him to explain the nature of that advancement, and further explain why it does not appear in the Procedure Record. I need to do nothing in that regard; if Patrick is claiming advancement of any kind, he needs to produce that for the Court.

In the alternative, Patrick can argue that one of the exceptions applies here. But, again, if that's his claim, he needs to produce the paperwork/filings; again, there is nothing for me to do, the burden of proof again falls entirely on Patrick.

In short, there's nothing further for me to do; I filed my Rule 4.33 Application and I provided the Procedure Report showing an absolute lack of progress in this case for over three years; my job is done, and I have no obligation to do anything else. Everything from this point on falls on Patrick to excuse his lack of progress, and he has no right to ask me for anything to help him.

I don't think there's much more I can add to the last couple of weeks, so I guess we just wait for the hearing on August 20 which -- as I have said before -- will be available via Webex and whose link I will provide closer to the date for any interested voyeurs. Then we'll see which of the two of us is correct. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: The meltdown continues.

The long, slow intellectual disintegration of undischarged bankrupt and emotional 12-year-old Patrick Ross continues with this recent bizarre, head-scratching illogic:

 

 

Let's unpack this silliness a few words at a time, shall we?

"... the cause against him is still live, ...": Well, of course it is, no one denies that. That is the whole rationale behind my recently-filed Rule 4.33 Application -- to have this "still live" lawsuit fed through a woodchipper for years-long lack of significant advancement on the part of the Plaintiff. Yes, it's "still live" -- even an intellectually-damaged child or Melissa Lantsman can see that. Which brings us to the second part of the absurdity ...

"... and ergo is unlikely to be dismissed." Why? Because it's live? Apparently, Patrick has missed the entire point of Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33, which is to take a live action and make it dead. That's sort of the entire purpose of the Rule; to take a long-dormant action and kick it to the curb because the Plaintiff has failed to advance it in even the most minimal way for over three years.

I'm not sure what part of this confuses Patrick. Surely he's pored over the legislation but, apparently, the best conclusion he could come up with is, "The action is not yet dismissed; therefore, it will not be dismissed."

Really? That's Patrick's take away from all his research and 15 years of representing himself? This hearing should be entertaining. 

BONUS TRACK: I will remind everyone of what happened the last time Patrick represented himself in court, whereupon the judge not only ruled against him but spanked him so savagely for submitting such absolute rubbish that I was awarded enhanced costs:

 

 

Note: "baseless and scandalous" is diplomatic legalese for "thigh-suckingly dumbass fucking stupid." In case you weren't sure.

ON CLOSER INSPECTION, it seems that Patrick's ill-informed tweet of last night is even sillier than I thought. Here's the fuller context:

 

 

As I read it, Patrick's position seems to be that, despite the absolutely ironclad 3-year deadline for Rule 4.33 applications, Patrick is suggesting that that deadline does not apply here due to ... I guess that I (allegedly) continued to defame him after his filing, and that that (alleged) continuous defamation somehow perpetually "reset" the Rule 4.33 clock. What an interesting position, and here's the difference between Patrick and me.

I decided to check on this so I asked Google to look into the circumstances that would result in pausing or resetting the Rule 4.33 three-year clock, and here's what Google AI handed me:

 

 

I peruse all of that and I see nothing that suggests that a Rule 4.33 Application will be defeated by the Defendant reporting on the progress of the action. In fact, under the section "Pausing or Resetting the Clock," I read that, "the burden to advance the action lies with the plaintiff," having nothing whatever to do with the Defendant.

And this is the difference between Patrick and myself; that is, while I actually look up the legislation to see what it says, Patrick simply makes shit up that he wants to believe. And this will probably come back to bite him if he tries that argument in front of a judge, and the judge asks Patrick to point to the paragraph and sub-paragraph that is the basis of his weird argument of, "You must dismiss this Application because the Defendant was mean to me on his blog."

I look forward to that argument on August 20, and you should, too. 
 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Oh, dear ...

Patrick Ross has just assured me that he will defeat my Rule 4.33 Application on August 20 (without explaining how). He has also suggested that my simply reporting on this upcoming hearing constitutes malicious defamation.

I guess we'll see in about a month. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Patrick's next step

Based on my research into Alberta's Rules of Civil Procedure, now that I have served undischarged bankrupt and morbidly obese, emotionally 11- year-old Patrick Ross with my Rule 4.33 Application, if he wishes to contest this Application (and it's not at all clear how he can), he would need to -- in a timely manner -- file a Response Affidavit, explaining (I assume) how his situation somehow does not exactly represent when a long-stalled lawsuit must be fed through a woodchipper by the Court.

I await his inevitably bizarre and irrelevant Affidavit. I assume it will be epic.

Chronicles of Twatrick: Yes, you'll be able to watch the hearing on August 20.

I checked with Google AI to verify that members of the public are allowed to spectate the upcoming August 20 Rule 4.33 hearing via Webex and, sure enough:

 

 

I will provide the Webex dial-in link much closer to the actual date.

BONUS TRACK:  Man, some of you people get up early. Last commenter wonders whether Patrick can dial in to his upcoming hearing on August 20 and, if he does, whether he will be visible to other people who dial in. According to Google AI, if Patrick has the right to dial in and he does so, he must have his camera on:

 

 

That is, all active parties in the proceeding must have their cameras on and must be visible to everyone dialed in to the hearing. As I am represented by counsel, that condition does not apply to me.

Chronicles of Twatrick: I have no idea ...

Apparently, Patrick Ross has decided to relive his "victory" rather than concentrate on the daunting Rule 4.33-related task ahead of him:

 

 

I will have more to say about this later, but rest assured this tweet (and others like it) will be placed before the Court to demonstrate Patrick's contempt for the legal system, and to discredit him when he starts up with his perpetual, "Oh, woe is me, I'm depressed and don't have the energy and my parents passed away and ... blah blah blah."

Stay tuned. 

P.S. If Patrick had not already accepted service of my Rule 4.33 filing, the above tweet would constitute admission that he received the documents. Patrick is not the sharpest sandwich in the picnic basket. 

P.P.S. I predict that Patrick, having researched Alberta's Rule 4.33 and wildly misinterpreted it, will think he's found a loophole. I will go even further and predict what I think that loophole is.

As we all know, the Rule makes it clear that the Plaintiff must have, in the preceding three years, effected some "significant advance" in the civil action in question. I'm willing to bet that Patrick will argue that his tweeting about me with respect to that lawsuit falls under the category of "significant advancement."

I am not joking -- I predict that Patrick will point at some of his most vacuous and meaningless social media publications and insist that those constitute a significant advance in the case.

Let's watch. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: And so it begins ...

Now that Patrick has acknowledged that he has been properly served related to my Rule 4.33 Application, he apparently does not feel the need to behave in an adult or professional manner:

 

 

I imagine we should expect an increasingly embarrassing emotional and intellectual meltdown as Patrick slowly comprehends the level of trouble he's in. All of this childish lashing out will, of course, be placed before the Court when the issue of costs comes up.

P.S. If Patrick continues mouthing off, please bring it to my attention and take screenshots. The Court will have a field day with this stuff. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: What possible defence against Rule 4.33?

Earlier commenter asks a relevant question: If Patrick Ross wants to fight my recently-filed Rule 4.33 Application, what possible rebuttal can he make? Remember that Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 is stunningly simple and straightforward -- if you file a civil lawsuit, then fail to significantly advance it for three straight years, then upon Application by the Defendant, the Court is (with some very specific exceptions, none of which apply here) required to throw out the lawsuit (with scant possibility of refiling it).

So if Patrick decides he's going to fight this, what exactly can he present before the Court? I have no idea, since the Court will be interested in asking only one question: "Mr. Ross, have you advanced this case in any significant way in the last three years?" Is he going to lie about it, given that I have the case's Procedure Record showing a complete lack of activity for over three years?

More amusingly, the standard boilerplate at the bottom of any Application contains the following:

If you intend to give evidence in response to the application, you must reply by filing an affidavit or other evidence with the Court and serving a copy of that affidavit or other evidence on the applicant(s) a reasonable time before the application is to be heard or considered.

So if Patrick plans to fight this, he's going to have to file an Affidavit to that effect, laying out his argument. And if he does so, I will (if it's allowed) post it here so everyone can ponder the basis for Patrick's defence.

The hearing is just over a month away, so if Patrick plans on digging in and fighting this, he might want to start writing that Affidavit now. 

BONUS TRACK: It is telling that, even back in late 2023, Patrick was admitting that he was failing to move this idiotic lawsuit along:

 

 

I can assure you that that tweet will be placed before the Court to show Patrick's utter lack of interest in advancing his own lawsuit.

It is also telling that, for someone who loves to publicly mock others, Patrick has published not one word about any of this on his "outlawtory" Twitter account. I'm going to speculate wildly that he is deliberately avoiding any reference to it in order to subsequently claim he was completely unaware of all of this (despite having recently been legally and properly served).
 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Oh, yeah ... it's on.

 

 

 

UPPITY DATE: Patrick Ross has now officially been served, and is now aware that he is expected to attend a hearing on August 20 to argue this Rule 4.33 Application to dismiss his ridiculous lawsuit against me due to long delay.

 

Whether Patrick acknowledges any of this on his Twitter "outlawtory" account will be enlightening. 

 

MORE UPPITY DATE: A reminder to all as to how Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 is a particularly "unforgiving" bit of legislation:

 

 

In other words, Patrick's refusal to proceed with his stupid lawsuit against me for over three years is coming back to bite him in his pasty ass. And remember -- once an action is kicked to the curb pursuant to Rule 4.33, it's next to impossible to refile it:

 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Going for that costs award.

Nothing really new to report regarding my current "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 Application against Patrick "Super Nexus Quadruple Chin Quintuple Threat" Ross. I have no doubt that I will be winning the application to toss his idiotic lawsuit against me due to inordinate and inexcusable delay, but the more interesting part will be the follow-up where I argue for enhanced or, ideally, full costs against Patrick for his flagrant abuse of process of the legal system for filing such a rubbish lawsuit in the first place.

And part of that argument will be Patrick's numerous tweets from his "outlawtory" account where he very stupidly insisted on mocking me while nonetheless refusing to move his lawsuit forward -- witness this from almost a year and a half ago:

 

 

I'm pretty sure the judge ruling on the costs award will want to know why Patrick had enough time to publish childish tweets like the above, but still couldn't find the time to proceed with his lawsuit. It is ironic that, in all of this, I will be using Patrick's juvenile mockery against him.

Stay tuned.

BONUS TRACK: Amusingly, back in 2018, Patrick's appeal of his bankruptcy judgment was also tossed for inordinate and inexcusable delay (and I can assure you that that will factor into my argument for costs by showing that Patrick has a history of fucking around and wasting everyone's time), but that's not what I want to point out.

Here's part of the judge's ruling in kicking Patrick's appeal to the curb, where you can see Patrick using the same lame excuse he's been dragging out since 2010 every time he's grilled by a judge: "I'm so depressed, I just didn't have the energy."

 

 

Note well how the judge called out Patrick for obvious falsehoods in his argument. Again, this ruling from 2018 will be front and centre when I argue for costs.

MORE: Personally, I think it is going to be at least as useful to show how Patrick, when he submitted his own objection to the registration of my Ontario judgment in Saskatchewan, was absolutely shredded by the judge thusly:

 

 

The point of bringing the above to the judge's attention is to demonstrate how Patrick was once annihilated by the judge for the utter lack of value in his self-represented filing, yet he still insisted on doing it again in his subsequent lawsuit. In other words, even though a judge made it clear that what Patrick produces is rubbish, he refused to learn from that spanking and proceeded to again write his own legal submission.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The "abuse of process" costs award.

As I mentioned earlier, the winner of a "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 Application (that will be me) can ask for full (solicitor-client) costs based on, well, the utter assholishness of the Plaintiff; to put it more legally, if the original action was (see point 3):

 

 

Abuse of process will not be hard to prove to the Court, as I once posted one of Patrick's Affidavits for his lawsuit, where you can get a good idea of its utter frivolity and lack of merit.

First, consider that Patrick -- in an action that complained about other people far more than it complained about me -- was asking for four million dollars in damages. That's Exhibit A as to the lack of reality of that action.

Next, consider that (with one exception) Patrick has represented himself in every legal encounter with me since 2010. Yes, that allows him to save money in not hiring a lawyer. But it also suggests that Patrick will never run his filings past a lawyer because he knows that any self-respecting and competent lawyer would refuse to sign his or her name to such rubbish. That's an important point since, when it comes to asking for costs, I am going to insist that the Court hold Patrick to the same standard as it would any lawyer. 

I think that's an important point as it's a given that courts always give self-represented litigants a little leeway.  But this is different, since Patrick has been doing shit like this for 15 years, so I will be arguing that the court should no longer give Patrick that leeway, and should sanction him just as it would any lawyer that filed such worthless garbage. And as you read that Affidavit, ask yourself what any serious judge would do if that had been filed by a real lawyer.

That is how the hearing will go down. 

BONUS TRACK: Note well how almost that entire Affidavit complains about the alleged actions of one Peter Skinner (who is not even listed as a Defendant), and only in the very last paragraph does Patrick reluctantly concede that I am not guilty of any of that:

 

 

AFTERSNARK: For the purpose of establishing "abuse of process," I will also be placing before the Court a number of Patrick's tweets wherein he brags and gloats about suing me, while still refusing to move the case forward:

 

 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Setting Patrick up for a spanking.

There's a reason I'm really hammering home these details related to Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33, and that's because it's easy to show that Patrick follows this blog and, therefore, when he goes before a judge to argue against my Application, he will have no excuse for not knowing the issues before the court, and the court will have very little patience with his typical whining and grievance fest style of argument.

As an example of how Patrick argues (and how judges will not tolerate his blithering rambling), I refer to my 2021 application to register my 2010 Ontario judgment in Saskatchewan for the purpose of collection enforcement.

My SK lawyer, unsurprisingly, put forth an argument grounded purely in provincial and federal law. Patrick, on the other hand, submitted by way of response a litany of whiny grievances going back to 2008, and complained about how this was all unfair, and that I won my 2010 judgment using fraud and perjury, and that he never got the chance to defend against it (he chose not to submit a Statement of Defence, remember?), and on and on and tediously and irrelevantly on, to the point where the judge's ruling granting my registration concluded with the following gem:

 

 

That's right ... the judge was so mightily pissed with Patrick's incoherent hearsay, opinion and argument that she not only ruled against him, she mocked his response as "baseless and scandalous", and awarded me enhanced costs because of it. And when Patrick loses this Application, I guarantee that I will be putting the above in front of the judge as an argument for enhanced (if not full) costs, showing that Patrick has a pattern of this sort of time-wasting nonsense. 

So Patrick is welcome to try the same sort of nonsense he has tried before, since I will be ready for it, and it will end very badly for him, indeed. Like the kids say these days, I'll be bringing the receipts.

BONUS TRACK: Even if Patrick has an attack of sense and drops his idiotic lawsuit against me before this goes any further, he would still be on the hook for my legal expenses related to this going back to the initial filing in 2022.

 

 

No matter what Patrick does, he's going to be paying costs. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: It's quiet out there ...

Against my better judgment, I checked in on the Twitter account of undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross and, unsurprisingly, there was nothing about the last several days of Rule 4.33 blog posts here, despite the fact that we all know Patrick reads this blog and loves to tweet snarky, condescending insults so let's summarize how this is going to go down.

As we have all learned recently, Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 has nothing to do with a lawsuit's merits, or the childish and frivolous malice of the Plaintiff, or anything like that. It is, rather, a purely and exclusively time-based rule -- if a civil claim has been stalled for more than three years, then upon application by the Defendant, the Alberta court is required to dismiss that action for long delay. Nothing else is taken into consideration other than the three-year deadline. Which Patrick is well past by now so, yes, he's going down. So what is the point of documenting his childish bragging over all that time? 

I'm glad you asked.

All of that is being collected and will be placed before the court to justify a significant subsequent costs award, as I have shown before:

 

Note point 3. above, which clearly shows that, yes, a judge can order full costs if the Plaintiff's conduct is seen as "an abuse of process," and if you don't think more than three years of Patrick bragging about this filing while refusing to move it forward does not fall into that category, you have not been paying attention.

Also, there should be other surprises for Patrick when he shows up for that hearing, but I'll keep all that to myself for now. 

BONUS TRACK: One of Patrick's most damning and self-destructive tweets would be this one:

 

 

wherein Patrick openly admits, back in 2023, that he is failing to advance his lawsuit, then continues to do nothing for another almost three years. I guarantee that tweet will be front and centre in my costs submission.

PATRICK'S POSSIBLE RESPONSES: It's worth pondering (or even predicting) how Patrick will fight back against this application, given that he has very little latitude. We already know about the Rule 4.33 three year time limit, and we know from the case's Procedure Record that Patrick has done absolutely nothing for well over three years, which means that the court is required to dismiss his lawsuit. So what are his possible defenses?

As I've mentioned before, there is a short list of very specific exceptions under which the court must not dismiss a lawsuit pursuant to Rule 4.33:

 

That's it, and I can assure you that none of the above are in play here. There is no authorized court order to pause this case, there is definitely no mutual agreement to put it on hold, and neither party has done anything that could be considered "active participation" that would have resulted in a "significant advance" in the case.

And that's it ... that's all Patrick can argue, and none of it holds. So what will he do? Who knows? 

Chronicles of Twatrick: No, he can't play games with Rule 4.33.

Anonymous commenter on previous post asks, if Patrick's dumbass 2022 defamation lawsuit against me is kicked to the curb for inordinate delay via Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33, does he have the freedom to simply refile it?

Google AI says not likely, due to simple deadlines:

So Patrick is still totally and utterly screwed.

Are you not entertained? 

P.S. It's going on five days since I posted about using Alberta's Rule 4.33 against Patrick Ross' meritless lawsuit against me and, in an unusual development, Patrick has been absolutely silent about this over at his Twitter account. This is very unlike Patrick, who delights in bla-har-har-ing everyone and everything and proclaiming his legal acumen and how he is "winning" at all of this. 

One wonders what is keeping Patrick from mocking all of this. 

OH, DEAR ... one of my loyal followers gifts me with this screenshot of Patrick from a recent YouTube video:

 

 

I can attest that it is unaltered and unretouched. It may be childish to fat-shame someone, but given Patrick's years of mocking others online for a variety of reasons, this seems only fair.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The terror of Rule 4.33.

And just because I feel like it, I will again explain how utterly screwed is Lloydminster's village idiot and resident bankrupt Patrick Ross, now that I have filed a Rule 4.33 Application in the Grande Prairie, Alberta courthouse, the effect being that that will kick his asinine lawsuit against me to the curb for lack of significant advancement.

You can review the previous blog post to get the details but let's sum it up: If a Plaintiff in Alberta files a civil suit, then proceeds to not move it along in any meaningful or significant way for a three-year period, the Defendant can file a Rule 4.33 Application to have it dismissed, at which point (subject to very stringent exceptions) the court is required to dismiss the action. The court has no discretion, it must automatically dismiss the action under this Rule.

Once again, Google AI does a nice job of showing how simple and how unforgiving is Rule 4.33:

Note how the overview above confirms what I just said:

• The three year deadline is non-negotiable.
• It is the Plaintiff's responsibility to move the case along.
• The advancement must be meaningful and significant; minor filings or unproductive settlement talks don't count.
• Frantic scrambling at the deadline does not make up for three years of lack of activity.

As you can see, Rule 4.33 has little sympathy for a Plaintiff like Patrick who files frivolous, vexatious garbage, then just lets it sit year after year so he can brag about how he is suing someone. And there's nothing he can do about it now that my filing is in. So what are Patrick's options? Limited, to put it mildly.

First, I will win this application -- it is the closest thing to a legal no-brainer slam dunk as you are ever likely to see. It is the textbook definition of what Rule 4.33 was meant to deal with, and it will deal with it.

I will also get costs ... how much remains to be seen but it will be at least partial indemnity, and I will be arguing for full indemnity given Patrick's frivolous filing and abuse of process (the fact that he has bragged about this on Twitter while refusing to move it along for three years is not going to sit well with the court). But there's one more thing.

Given that Patrick filed his dumbass lawsuit at the Grande Prairie courthouse, and that's where I filed my Rule 4.33 application, I will be insisting that he appear in person (unlike last time, where he called in via Zoom, for which the judge made it clear he was unhappy about that and told Patrick he was expected to attend in person).

So, yes, I will be making a full-throated argument that Patrick needs to be there in person, at which time there might be a surprise or two waiting for him at the courthouse. More than that, I cannot say at the moment, but if anyone thinks I am exaggerating or embellishing any of this, they are free to do their own research to understand how Rule 4.33 works, and how it has precious little patience with vexatious litigants like Patrick.

More to come as it happens. 

BONUS TRACK: Anonymous commenter asks whether Lord Baron Twatrick von Loadenhosen can salvage his ridiculous lawsuit against me by arguing about its underlying merit. No, and let's let Google AI once again drive this home:

 

I hope that answers that question. Still more to come, just not right this minute.

RANDOM THOUGHT ... it just occurred to me that explaining all this Rule 4.33 stuff in excruciating detail is going to cause real problems for Patrick when this goes in front of a judge. As we all know, Patrick follows this blog and loves to publish snarky comments about what he reads here over on his Twitter account, and here's why that's going to get him in trouble.

If Patrick comments on, say, this post, I can use that as evidence that he's read it and, furthermore, that he now knows that the merit (actually, the embarrassing lack thereof) of his lawsuit is of no relevance to a Rule 4.33 Application. Which means that if he tries that argument in front of a judge, I'll immediately argue that Patrick is wasting the court's time since he is already aware that the underlying merit does not matter.

In short, I would ask my loyal and long-suffering followers to keep a close watch on Patrick's "outlawtory" Twitter account and to take screenshots of anything he publishes related to these most recent blog posts so that I can use that as evidence that he reads my blog and that he should therefore understand how Rule 4.33 works and that the court should have little patience with meaningless arguments.

Yeah, it's time to use Patrick's snotty arrogance against him. 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Hammer to fall.

For those who have been following this meandering saga for years, let it be known that the hammer is finally about to fall on massively-indebted undischarged bankrupt and financial fugitive Patrick "Super Quintuple Nexus Threat High School Chick Magnet Quadruple Chin" Ross, as I have just had confirmed my filing at the Grande Prairie courthouse of my Rule 4.33 Application. This is colloquially known as Alberta's "Drop Dead Rule," and it is going to put an end to Patrick Ross' idiotic defamation lawsuit against me once and for all.

The idea behind Alberta's Rule 4.33 is nad-grindingly simple -- if the Plaintiff (that would be Patrick) files a civil action, then at some point proceeds to do nothing with it for three straight years, then upon a Rule 4.33 application by the Defendant (me), the Court is required to dismiss the action. Required. This is not discretionary for the Court, it's mandatory. The Court has no choice but to kick the lawsuit to the curb. This applies exactly to this case as Patrick filed his meritless dumbfuck stupidity in August of 2022, and the last activity of any kind was in December 2022. That's more than three years, which means Patrick's lawsuit is toast.

Lest you think I exaggerate or embellish, here is Google AI's devastatingly accurate characterization of that Rule:

 

 

Let me expand on the above so you can truly appreciate how Patrick is absolutely fucked here. (That scrabbling sound you hear is Patrick frantically Googling "Rule 4.33".)

First, you can see in the opening paragraph above the hard three-year deadline related to the application, which does not actually require no activity for three years, simply "no significant advancement" of the file. What this means (and has been affirmed several times by Alberta courts) is that even if you did some stuff during those three years, unless it represented actually moving the case along toward a resolution, it doesn't count. In Patrick's case, there was literally no activity whatsoever. Not just nothing significant ... nothing at all. None. Zilch. Sweet fuck all. So Patrick has definitely blown that three-year deadline.

If you read further, there are a small number of exceptions under which the Court will not dismiss an action under Rule 4.33 -- I can assure you that absolutely none of them apply here so there is nothing that will save Patrick in any way. So let me say this again -- now that I've filed my Rule 4.33 Application, there is absolutely nothing Patrick can do to stop it. (If you don't believe me, do your own research, then come back and tell me if I've misrepresented anything.) But we're not done yet.

You see, a successful Rule 4.33 applicant (again, me) will be entitled to costs. And how much costs? I'm glad you asked, so I asked Google about this, and here is the AI output:

 

 

Note how costs would normally be partial indemnity, unless ... yeah ... unless the Plaintiff's behaviour was "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous", and if the opposing party's conduct is seen as "an abuse of process." Do you think it will be difficult to demonstrate Patrick's bad faith in filing such a frivolous and meritless lawsuit? I don't. And I will be strenuously arguing for full costs based on Patrick's online behaviour in the last three years (all of which I have been screenshotting for just this occasion).

In fact, it gets even worse for Patrick but I will keep that to myself for now. In closing, you are all welcome to check into Alberta's Rule 4.33 to satisfy yourself that, now that my Application has been filed, there is absolutely nothing Patrick can do to defeat it, and the Court will be required to dismiss his idiocy, and award me costs.

The irony, of course, is that Patrick filing a worthless lawsuit, then just sitting on it for years so he could keep bragging about it while refusing to move it forward, is exactly why he is now so screwed.

P.S. If any of my loyal fans are so inclined, you are welcome to bring this new development to Patrick's attention any way you wish (Twitter account "outlawtory", email address "dragonfireideas@gmail.com"). I suspect Patrick will desperately want to blar-har-har all of this on social media, but that will only prove he's now aware of it, which will make service so much simpler.

He really is utterly screwed.

BONUS TRACK: Oh, my, poor Patrick just buried himself even deeper with this idiotic tweet, proving that he follows this blog, which is not going to end well for him in court.

 

MORE AFTERSNARK: Appreciate if you will the irony in Patrick describing his pet lawsuit as "extremely-meritorious." One wonders if, after he does his research, he will realize that Rule 4.33 applications are purely and solely time-based; the merit (or lack thereof) of the underlying action being dismissed for long delay is totally irrelevant. That is, while Patrick's lawsuit is definitely absolute garbage, it wouldn't make the slightest difference if it wasn't.

Chronicles of Twatrick: The spoliation.

Oh, dear ... undischarged bankrupt and massively indebted Patrick Ross has been a bad boy lately, in that he has been quietly deleting numerous tweets in which he was gleefully bragging about his spectacularly meritless lawsuit against me. I'm not sure why he thought this would protect him as I have announced publicly on a number of occasions that I was taking screenshots.

Witness, for example, this single screenshot from a while back searching for the words "day" and "lawsuit" among the rest of the childish spewage over at Patrick's Twitter account:

 

 And today, given exactly the same search parameters:

 

Oh, yes, Patrick has been busy frantically deleting the evidence of his bad faith. One wonders what part of "I have been taking screenshots" Patrick did not understand.

My lawyer is going to have a field day with this. More to come.

IT GETS FUNNIER: Apparently, the search feature on Twitter is magnificently broken so that it can't even satisfy trivial requests, prompting lifelong bankrupt Twatrick von Loadenhosen to complain thusly:

 

This is actually funnier since it shows that Patrick is eminently proud of his production of bragging about his lawsuit, even as he refused to move it forward. I'm glad he cleared that up for me -- it's legally really helpful.

Stay tuned.