Chronicles of Twatrick: Submit a Response Affidavit, he must.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that, in response to a Rule 4.33 Application, the Plaintiff (Patrick "Super Nexus Quadruple Chin Cheeseburger" Ross) would normally be expected to submit a "Response Affidavit," outlining his proposed defence, the purpose being to give my side time to examine his plans for a defense.

Well, it's stricter than that since, if Patrick plans on defending (and it's not clear what possible defense he would have), he must submit such an Affidavit or he will not even be allowed to present a defense at the upcoming hearing on August 20.

Once again, I give you Google AI (which has proven remarkably accurate so far):

 

 

I draw your attention to the bullet point "Challenging the Applicant":

"Without your own evidence, the court only reviews the applicant's record and may automatically dismiss the claim."

In short, Patrick can't just show up the morning of August 20 and start free associating a defense and pulling nonsense out of his ample, cheeseburger-fueled ass -- he needs to put it into an Affidavit, and properly file and serve it, so there will be no day-of ambush litigating from Patrick of which he is so fond.

P.S. Once I receive that Response Affidavit, I will post it here. 

P.P.S. Note the strict requirements for this Affidavit -- explanations for delay must be officially sworn into the record, not simply scrawled by Patrick on the back of a napkin with his crayons, and exhibits must include all notices, correspondence and court documents to bolster Patrick's arguments. In other words, Patrick has some serious work to do over the next week or so to put all that together to deliver it to me in a timely manner.

He might want to get cracking on that. 

BONUS TRACK: It's worth noting that, compared to what I had to do to file a Rule 4.33 Application, Patrick has considerably more work to do to contest it.

For my part, all that was necessary was to claim that more than three years had gone by and there had been no significant advancement and no agreement to suspend the action. I did not have to supply any proof of any of this since you can't prove a negative.

On the other hand, if Patrick wants to contest the application, he does have work to do in terms of claiming and documenting said advancement, producing and swearing into the record agreements or whatever it is he wants to present to the Court and so on. In other words, the burden of proof is entirely on Patrick to provide positive evidence to defeat my application, and he needs to put it all in an Affidavit and get it to me well in advance of the hearing. Which is why he might want to start working on that real soon now.

OH, ONE MORE THING: Patrick has already assured me that:

1. He will attend the August 20 hearing, and
2. He will win.

So we'll see how that goes. 

A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TAKE: I asked Google a slightly different question about the Response Affidavit and got this:

 

For me, the most interesting part is that the Response Affidavit must have a "focused scope"; as in, "Must be strictly limited to replying to the evidence and arguments raised by the applicant."

In other words, it can't follow Patrick's pattern of being a rambling list of historical grievances; it needs to address only the issues in my Application, which is really going to cramp Patrick's style. Oh, and there's that "timely service" requirement again, which is why Patrick might stop obsessing over Candace Owens and get to work.