Earlier commenter asks a relevant question: If Patrick Ross wants to fight my recently-filed Rule 4.33 Application, what possible rebuttal can he make? Remember that Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 is stunningly simple and straightforward -- if you file a civil lawsuit, then fail to significantly advance it for three straight years, then upon Application by the Defendant, the Court is (with some very specific exceptions, none of which apply here) required to throw out the lawsuit (with scant possibility of refiling it).
So if Patrick decides he's going to fight this, what exactly can he present before the Court? I have no idea, since the Court will be interested in asking only one question: "Mr. Ross, have you advanced this case in any significant way in the last three years?" Is he going to lie about it, given that I have the case's Procedure Record showing a complete lack of activity for over three years?
More amusingly, the standard boilerplate at the bottom of any Application contains the following:
If you intend to give evidence in response to the application, you must reply by filing an affidavit or other evidence with the Court and serving a copy of that affidavit or other evidence on the applicant(s) a reasonable time before the application is to be heard or considered.
So if Patrick plans to fight this, he's going to have to file an Affidavit to that effect, laying out his argument. And if he does so, I will (if it's allowed) post it here so everyone can ponder the basis for Patrick's defence.
The hearing is just over a month away, so if Patrick plans on digging in and fighting this, he might want to start writing that Affidavit now.
BONUS TRACK: It is telling that, even back in late 2023, Patrick was admitting that he was failing to move this idiotic lawsuit along:
I can assure you that that tweet will be placed before the Court to show Patrick's utter lack of interest in advancing his own lawsuit.
It is also telling that, for someone who loves to publicly mock others, Patrick has published not one word about any of this on his "outlawtory" Twitter account. I'm going to speculate wildly that he is deliberately avoiding any reference to it in order to subsequently claim he was completely unaware of all of this (despite having recently been legally and properly served).
7 comments:
I've been wondering about this for the last few days. Since Rule 4.33 is based on nothing but the time that has passed, once it's been over three years and the defendant files an application, how can the plaintiff argue against this? Either the plaintiff can prove he moved the lawsuit along within the last three years, or he can't. And as I read it, it has to have been "significant" advancement. So if, as you say, Patrick has done nothing at all for over three years, then where's the defense? It sounds like that hearing should take about 30 seconds.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/saskatoon/article/enoughs-enough-sask-man-to-pay-150k-for-defamatory-facebook-posts-about-rm-administrator/?cid=sm%3Atrueanthem%3Actvsaskatoon%3Atwitterpost&taid=6a585e5fdd3d1b000105dc4a
Perhaps your decade long saga of chasing Patrick down will make national news.
Anon @ 10:47 AM: That is precisely the point of this post. Given the simplicity of Rule 4.33, either Patrick has moved this case along significantly over the last three years, or he hasn't.
SPOILER ALERT: He hasn't.
So if he decides to oppose this Application, I have no earthly idea what he would present as a counter-argument. If history is any guide, it will be a lengthy, rambling grievance fest going back to 2008 or something like that, and all it would do is piss off the judge and make it more likely that I get full solicitor-client costs.
So if he wants to fight this, he's welcome to it. But he'll first need to submit that Affidavit explaining his defence.
Well - Patrick does have a few weeks to get some kind of response together.
I'm not going to hazard a guess as to exactly what such a motion might contain, but one can make a few guesses based on known events over the last 3 years.
Does that mean he stands a much of a chance? I doubt it. Then again, I also very much doubt that he will in fact be present in the court on August 20.
Anon @ 12:16 PM: I will hazard a guess as to one possibility based on Patrick's history, and that is that he's going to research Rule 4.33, then proceed to totally misinterpret and misunderstand it, then think he's found a clever loophole to get around it. This is what Patrick does -- he studies the law but, rather than accept what it says, he twists it mentally to mean what he *wants* it to say. He's done that a number of times, and it never ends well.
didn't take long for Patrick to mouth you off, all things considered.
https://x.com/i/status/2077811091065995402
I think he's got a serious undiagnosed Opposite defiance disorder issue. A normal, reasonable person wouldn't crash out like this when facing what he's got himself into.
And there it is...he just tweeted "Robert Day is the Candace Owens of Taylor Lorenzs" whatever the hell that means. I'm sure the judge will be amused with him shit-posting about you while still not moving his "case" along
Post a Comment