A couple weeks ago, perpetual bankrupt and financial fugitive Patrick Ross gave us all a clue as to what he thinks might be a defense against a Rule 4.33 Application, when he published a tweet containing this screenshot:
so let's deconstruct this, shall we? First, it seems that Patrick believes that because an action is "live" at the moment, it is required to remain live, or something like that.
Let's establish something right off the bat -- yes, Patrick's idiotic 2022 defamation lawsuit against me is "live" at this instant in time; it is currently active and, yes, it is capable of being pursued in court. Of course that's true, no one is denying that.
What Patrick stupidly or deliberately ignores is the very next sentence, that sentence making it thigh-suckingly clear that the action is live provided it has "not been killed, barred or extinguished by legal rules."
Which is the entire point of a Rule 4.33 Application -- to extinguish Patrick's lawsuit by legal rules. That is the sole function of Rule 4.33: to take a live action and make it dead. It's unclear why Patrick finds this confusing since his own tweet explains it right there in that second sentence.
So, yes, Patrick's lawsuit is technically still "live", and it will remain live until August 20, when I kill it via Rule 4.33. It will be live on the morning of August 20, and dead sometime thereafter. Is that really so difficult to understand?
BONUS TRACK: There is some delicious synchronicity in the fact that August 20, 2026 (the date of my upcoming Rule 4.33 hearing) is the day after the 5-year interestversary of a Saskatchewan judge ruling on how much Patrick owed me at that time:
I can assure you that that information will be placed in front of the Court, for the entertainment value alone. Keep checking back for the Webex link if you want to attend that hearing; I'll publish closer to the date.
MORE BONUS TRACK: Recall from an earlier post that if Patrick wants to mount a defense against my Rule 4.33 Application, he needs to do it via a legal and proper Response Affidavit that is filed and served in plenty of time for me to examine it.
So Patrick might want to stop publicly obsessing over Candace Owens and get to work on that.
8 comments:
How much time in advance does Patrick need to give you that response affidavit before the hearing? And what happens when it turns out to be complete garbage and doesn't address anything relevant?
Anon @ 7:30 AM: It's not clear that there is a precise number of days of advance notice required of Patrick; most of the Rules of Civil Procedure suggest that it simply needs to be "reasonable" advance notice, and I'm guessing that that needs to be at least a week ahead of time (possibly more) to give me time to examine and draft and file a Reply.
It would also probably depend on the complexity of the Response, so if Patrick decides to ramble on and on and on, I'd need more advance notice. And if Patrick tries to play games by filing something just before the hearing, as I read it, the judge has the discretion to simply reject the Response Affidavit as being out of time and refuse to allow Patrick to even present a defense.
As for the likelihood that that Response Affidavit is pure junk, if Patrick files something totally unrelated to the Application, that is just going to piss off the judge and I'll argue for additional costs just for having had to read it. So if Patrick plans on filing something, it needs to be in plenty of time and it better be focused on the issues related *solely* to a Rule 4.33 Application and nothing else. A judge is not going to put up with another meandering grievance fest from Patrick.
Are we allowed to make predictions as to how Patrick is going to handle this? It's a tough call, but I think he's simply not going to show on August 20. There's no value in it for him. He's already guaranteed to lose, so it's easier for him to just be a coward and not show up and take the loss.
Anon @ 8:03 AM: That is a good question, I really have no clue just how self-destructive Patrick plans on being. It goes without saying that if he simply fails to show, I will win my Rule 4.33 Application by default, and I will have a compelling argument for serious costs. However, that strategy would be really stupid on Patrick's part for another reason.
Shortly after Patrick was served with this Application, he (stupidly) responded with an arrogant, bloviating, infantile letter in which he wrote:
"... I will defeat your client's application on August 20, then apply for a summary judgment."
Note that first phrase, in which Patrick is *clearly* assuring me that he plans on attending the hearing. There is no possibility of misinterpretation; "I will defeat your client's application on August 20" is unmistakable in its promise that Patrick will attend. So if he doesn't show, I will make sure the judge is aware that he *guaranteed* his attendance, then reneged.
That was probably a really stupid thing for Patrick to put in official correspondence, but it's too late for him to retract it so now he's stuck with it.
I've been monitoring Patrick's outlawtory X account and he's been really quiet about this for a while now. There's been a lot less gloating and bragging about suing you. Maybe he's got a lawyer who told him to shut up.
Anon @ 9:25 AM: I don't think Patrick has hired a lawyer because, if he had, I would have been informed of that, and I've heard nothing. If history is any guide, Patrick will continue to represent himself and make a total mess of it.
So is Twatsy really thinking that he's not only going to defeat your motion, but the judge will be like "congratulations Mr. Twatsy, you're now a millionaire. $4 million dollar summary judgment for you!"???
ROD: It's foolish to guess what Patrick is thinking at any time, but he has assured me that he will not only defeat this Rule 4.33 Application, but that he will win his lawsuit. I guess we'll see in a few weeks.
Post a Comment