Chronicles of Twatrick: "Three massive weaknesses," you say?

I just recently noticed this annoyingly vague and meaningless tweet from Lloydminster's favourite village idiot and homeless bankrupt:

 

 

and anyone who's followed Patrick's bizarre and weaselly rhetoric over the years can see that he's holding true to form. You see, Patrick's most common rhetorical weapon is to publish ominous but ambiguous threats with no specifics whatsoever, leaving readers to scratch their heads and wonder what the fuck he's blithering on about.

Patrick's ambiguity is couched in suggestions of risk and danger, one of his favourite tricks being to publish something like, "Well, it seems a certain someone did a certain something, not knowing about the possible consequences to that someone of doing that something ..."; you know what I mean since you've undoubtedly seen it before. Vagueness and ambiguity and head-scratching lack of detail.

And there's Patrick above, trying very hard to sound menacing and sinister while, you know, divulging absolutely no details as to what I should be worried about or why. One wonders if Patrick has yet figured out that, in the upcoming August 20 "Rule 4.33" hearing, the single issue before the Court will be the fact that he failed to advance his lawsuit against me for more than three straight years. That's it -- the Court will not entertain any arguments that don't relate directly to that.

So it's not clear why my blogging about Patrick's weaselly, ambiguous vagueness will have anything to do with August 20, although it would be entertaining if Patrick were to try to bring it up. I'm pretty sure that would end badly for him. 

P.S. In that tweet above, Patrick is clearly suggesting that he has some sort of surprise lined up for the hearing; he's made that suggestion prior to previous hearings and it always ended tragically for him. But one does have to wonder what he thinks he's discovered that will salvage this situation for him given the clarity and simplicity of the Rule 4.33 legislation. 

P.P.S. It's worth noting that, despite what Patrick thinks, hearings aren't like what he sees on "Matlock" ... there are no sudden surprises or "gotchas", as judges hate that sort of thing. Everything needs to be submitted ahead of time so that opposing parties have the time to examine any filings or pleadings or what have you. So it's not clear what Patrick has in mind based on the above, but I'm fairly sure that he's not going to be springing any surprises on the Court without having first filed it properly with the Court and opposing counsel. Because, despite what Patrick thinks, that's how the law works. 

BONUS TRACK: It's worth demonstrating how badly it ends for Patrick when he shows up in court and tries to make the hearing all about his endless, random grievance fest against me, rather than concentrating on the issue(s) officially before the Court.

After I got my judgment against Patrick in late 2010, I registered that judgment in Alberta, then served Patrick with a motion to produce for me a "Financial Statement of Debtor" (FSOD). He failed to do so and, eventually, we dragged him into a Calgary court on March 6, 2012 to address this very specific issue (failure to produce FSOD), whereupon Patrick -- after being invited to address the Court -- started rambling randomly and incoherently about the Charter of Rights and freedom of expression and conscience and ...

 

 

Note how the judge patiently gives Patrick a minute or so to make an ass of himself, then drags him back to reality by pointing out what the hearing is about. Note how it's not only about how Patrick can't focus on the issue at hand, but he can't even formulate proper, comprehensible sentences, sort of like:

 

 

This snippet is particularly entertaining:

"I don’t actually know if I want to submit this to the Court or not."

Wait, what!? Either you have something you want to put in front of the Court, or you don't; why in the name of Patrick's four-and-a-half chins would you tell the Court that you have some alleged evidence but you haven't decided whether or not you want the Court to see it? And note that that's when the judge had had enough of Patrick's irrelevant free associating grievance fest and dragged him back to unpleasant reality.

It will be interesting to see if Patrick tries the same disassociated free verse at the August 20 hearing, as I guarantee I will be ready for it.

Oh, and it's worth mocking Patrick for advising the judge that he always planned to "appeal the judgement". This is a nonsensical statement since, given that Patrick ignored my Statement of Claim and never even filed a Statement of Defence and that I eventually got a default judgment, well, you can't "appeal" a default judgment. What you can do is file to overturn it, which is a very different thing. The fact that Patrick doesn't understand the difference is telling.

DOUBLE BONUS TRACK: Just to drive home the point I've made a number of times, the hearing for a Rule 4.33 Application addresses a very small number of core issues, and nothing beyond that. I asked Google AI, "What are the issues addressed in a Rule 4.33 Application?", and I got exactly the answer I expected:

 

 

Regarding this case, it's been well over three years of total inactivity, none of the recognized exceptions apply, and there were absolutely no subsequent steps that could have been interpreted as restarting the clock. What "questions" are there beyond that?