Chronicles of Twatrick: Rule 4.33 -- the only thing that matters.

In case anyone is skeptical about the brutal simplicity and directness of Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33, I present the relevant part of my own Application to have Patrick Ross's long-dormant and dumbass defamation lawsuit against me dismissed for long delay. Removing all of the irrelevant frontmatter and backmatter from the Application, this is all that's left:

 

 

Take your time and appreciate that the entire "Grounds for making this application" section consists of precisely two lines:

• When Patrick filed his lawsuit, and
• That it's been over three years since he's done anything with it.

That's it -- for a Rule 4.33 Application, there is nothing more to be said. That is the only thing the Court cares about, and it is the only defense available to Patrick. The Court has absolutely no interest in any of Patrick's bitching, moaning and whining about how his lawsuit is "extremely-meritorious"; the Application focuses on the only thing the Court is prepared to consider, and that is the unacceptable delay.

I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this.

Chronicles of Twatrick: 18 days and counting ...

Meanwhile, undischarged bankrupt and homeless oil patch swamper Patrick "Blar Har Har" Ross (who owes me around $130,000 and climbing) is currently staring down the barrel of a much more imminent deadline, as he needs to file and serve his properly sworn Rule 4.33 Response Affidavit in the next several days or risk the Court telling him that he will not even be allowed to open his festering, cheeseburger-crammed gob come the hearing this August 20.

Here's what Google AI has to say about Patrick's need for a sense of urgency:

 

 

So, given the range in the above, Patrick might have another week to get this done and filed or, as happened back in 2010, he will end up losing this action out of sheer stupidity, laziness and/or arrogance.

And remember (and this bit of clarification is for Patrick, who openly admits to reading this blog), his Affidavit must address only the two issues before the Court related to Rule 4.33:

• his evidence that he advanced his case "significantly" in the past three years, or
• his evidence that there was a formal standstill agreement that suspended activity.

Patrick cannot use his Affidavit to whinge on and on and on about how his lawsuit is "extremely-meritorious", as he did last month:

 

 

 

So it is safe to say that Patrick is well aware of what he can and cannot include in his Response Affidavit, and if it ends up being Patrick's typical whiny, tedious grievance fest going back to 2008, I will be placing before the Court a bunch of the above where I reminded Patrick of his deadline and obligations as the Plaintiff in this case.

And I will absolutely be placing before the court Patrick's snotty, condescending, patronizing and simply offensive correspondence with my lawyer; I'm pretty sure that's not going to win him any sympathy from the Court.

In any event, tick tock, dude ... waiting on that Affidavit. 

BONUS TRACK: Anon commenter asks whether I believe Patrick will actually buckle down and file a proper and relevant Affidavit for this Application, to which I can honestly reply ... I don't care, because no matter what Patrick does, it won't make any difference. Let's consider the possibilities:

First, Patrick either fails to file, or files too late to have it considered by the Court. I win by default and Patrick does not even get the chance to be heard.

Alternatively, Patrick files a long, tedious list of grievances going back more than a decade and a half, despite having been warned that he must address the issues related exclusively to Rule 4.33 and nothing else; that results in Patrick's really pissing off the Court and still losing.

Finally, Patrick files a proper Affidavit addressing the issues ... well, that is not going to happen since he does have any of that evidence. He did not (according to the case's Procedure Record) advance his action in even the smallest way for well over three years, and there has never, ever, ever been any sort of agreement to suspend the action. So there's literally no evidence for him to present.

I really don't care what Patrick does; none of it is going to save him.

Oh, I guess the final scenario is that he doesn't even show up for the August 20 hearing, but that does not really differ from the first possibility, does it? 

P.S. Curiously, after mouthing off about this last month on social media, he's been surprisingly quiet about all of this. Is that the smell of panic and desperation?

P.P.S. I look forward to Patrick trying to argue that he's just been too depressed and harassed and intimidated to advance his case, even as he makes unwatchable and unwatched (18 views in 3 days) YouTube videos.

 

BONUS ENTERTAINMENT: For no reason, I am reminded of when someone advertised an upcoming Netflix special covering the years-long spat between myself and Mr. Ross; nothing ever came of that but it was several days of head-scratching surrealism.
 

Chronicles of Twatrick: Still waiting for that Response Affidavit.

Since undischarged bankrupt and self-described boy lawyer Patrick Ross seems determined to go through with the upcoming August 20 hearing regarding my Rule 4.33 Application to kick his sorry-ass (and long dormant) lawsuit to the curb, I will once again point out that he is fast running out of time to file and serve the mandatory Response Affidavit (RA), in which he details the defenses he plans on presenting that day:

 

And since I know that Patrick reads this blog, I will graciously assist him in reminding him of what must be in his RA, and what should not be.

Note how the list above dictates what to include, and it's all precisely and specifically related to the purpose of Rule 4.33 and consists of two (and only two) categories of evidence:

1. If Patrick wants to claim that he significantly advanced his action in the last three years, he must provide a clear and detailed timeline of those advancements.
2. If Patrick wants to claim that there was some sort of agreement to suspend the litigation, he needs to produce those (sworn) agreements.

In addition, any such documentation cannot simply be claimed at the hearing; rather, all of it must be sworn into the record ahead of time.

And that's it -- the RA should not contain anything other than the above. Specifically, it cannot be a receptacle for Patrick's perpetual, relentless whiny grievance fests going back to 2008 -- the Court will have little patience with Patrick complaining about what I might have blogged about his family's farm in 2014.

So if I were Patrick, I'd get to work on collecting that evidence, getting it sworn in and writing and filing that Response Affidavit. Time's getting short, and the Court will not look kindly on Patrick submitting an illiterate, steaming hot mess of petulant grievances the day before the hearing.

P.S. I am going to check on whether I have the right to post Patrick's upcoming Response Affidavit on this blog. It seems that since it would be a properly filed and served document related to an ongoing action, it would be considered publicly accessible. I will, however, make sure before I do that. 

P.P.S. As I have promised before, I will be publishing the Webex info so interested voyeurs can spectate the hearing of August 20. 

BONUS TRACK: Since I know Patrick reads this blog. I will give him some free advice on the most common mistakes people make when crafting an Affidavit:

  

 

To be perfectly honest, I'm not trying to be helpful to Patrick here. Rather, I'm laying a trap of describing what he needs to avoid, so that when his RA shows up loaded with all of the above, I can say, "Hey, I tried to warn him, but he didn't listen."