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.