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.
8 comments:
Patrick's latest argument over at his Twitter account is talking about a 10-year deadline, not just 3 years. What is he talking about?
Anon @ 7:36 AM: I saw that silliness and I refuse to dignify it with a rebuttal. I can only *hope* Patrick tries that argument at the hearing.
I looked up Patrick's supposed 10-year deadline and I don't see that it has anything to do with a Rule 4.33 Application. I couldn't find a single example of a Rule 4.33 case that even mentioned it. It's all three years and only three years.
Well, ipso facto, the 3 year deadline is a legal relic from when Canada was legislated procedurely under New France law, with regards to the post-hoc Patriarch, the Abscond Heir, and the Sacred Ghost.
But, calendarically, and caveat emptor, Canada is now ruled, a fortiori, by the metricious system, and in flagrante delector, the nemesis is, inter se, and resa menses, only required to prove that, pertaining to, ...
... Yes your honour?
You had me going for a minute there, thwap. Well played.
I just finished spending a few minutes reading through Alberta Court Rules S4.33, and I think I see a couple of possible avenues for Patrick to attempt to play in a gambit to save his lawsuit:
1) Using 4.33(6), serving you with a proposal for a "suspension period" (possibly backdating the start date) sometime in the next few weeks. This could happen as late as the day of the hearing. I would expect this would be accompanied by a pleading to the judge to adjourn the hearing for 2 months for you to respond.
Considering that under 4.33(7), you would have 2 months to respond to said proposal, you could argue that the proposal was being made far too late to be considered seriously, or that the proposal amounts to a "last minute ambush" tactic which should not result in the hearing being adjourned for 2 months for you to respond.
2) Plead with the judge for a suspension period order under 4.33(9). Note that this option exists regardless of whether he makes a suspension proposal under 4.33(6) or not.
... I am no lawyer, but I would hazard a guess that either of those approaches would be unlikely to garner a sympathetic hearing from a judge ... but courts have been known to make decisions that one doesn't expect.
Anon @ 10:27 AM: I would read the legislation more carefully to understand why none of the above is an option.
Not being an option and Patrick attempting to argue it are two very different things.
Post a Comment