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:
8 comments:
We are all anxiously awaiting Twatsy’s rageposting responses to such on his X account.
Anon @ 1:13 PM: I'm fine with that as it will prove that he is following this blog and is now aware of the hearing.
You managed to serve the Twatster? Did you do it at Casa Ken?
Anon @ 3:27 PM: He was officially and properly served. I will leave it at that.
Lol. FAFO. Eventually.
It seems like Patrick has some tough choices to make here. Does he stick it out and fight this, knowing he'll lose and be hit with a larger costs award? Or does he drop the case now, then still have to pay discontinuance costs? It looks like Patrick is screwed no matter what he does. No matter what he does, the lawsuit is going away, and he's going to owe more money.
Anon @ 6:50 AM: You are describing it perfectly in that Patrick has no real options to get out of this without it costing him money and also having his lawsuit thrown out.
No matter what happens, he's on the hook for my costs in dealing with this. If he drops the lawsuit now, I will file for full discontinuance costs. If he fights this, the lawsuit will still be dismissed after the hearing, and he will be on the hook for even *more* costs.
I'm sure Patrick thought filing a garbage, frivolous lawsuit back in 2022 was great fun and entertaining; now he's finding out the price.
If Patrick tries to fight this, what argument can he use? It seems like this is pretty clear, if Patrick has not significantly advanced his lawsuit in three years, the court has to throw it out. From what you say, nothing has happened since December of 2022. That's more than three years ago, so what could Patrick possibly say to argue against this? All the judge needs to do is ask Patrick, "Have you done anything in the last three years to move this case along?" If he hasn't, what's he going to do, lie?
I can't see why Patrick would subject himself to a hearing where he would just end up embarrassing himself.
Post a Comment