Nothing new to report, other than an awkward Twitter silence from the normally yammering blowhard Patrick Ross as he desperately tries to concoct some sort of childish ambush legal strategy to introduce chaos into the upcoming August 20 Rule 4.33 Application hearing, and a reminder that he is fast running out of time (if he hasn't already) to file and serve his Response Affidavit:
If Patrick doesn't get something in by the end of today, I suspect I will have grounds to insist that the Court reject anything he submits Monday or later, at which point the Court will likely hear my Application unopposed. That would be ironic since I won my original judgment against Patrick because he was too lazy and arrogant to submit a Statement of Defense, and I got my judgment by default.
I see a pattern here.
BONUS TRACK: In a July 18 correspondence, Patrick Ross made a proposal, and promised the following:
"I will provide your client seven days to make his decision before I file my reply to your application."
It is almost three weeks later and I am still waiting. Try not to look shocked.
4 comments:
Did Patrick explain how he thought he was going to win this?
Anon @ 7:26 AM: He gave no details but I think I know what he's going to try and it's as nonsensical as you would imagine. More than that, I won't say.
I've been following all of this for the last couple of weeks and based on your posts and the extra reading I've done, I'm not sure how Patrick thinks he's going to win this, but I'll throw out one possibility, totally ridiculous, as to what he might be thinking because I've seen how he thinks before.
You can defeat Rule 4.33 if you show some sort of official agreement that the case has been suspended. Assuming you've never signed and sworn such an agreement (you haven't, have you?), I'm betting that Patrick goes back through all your posts and tweets and finds something minor like you saying, "I'm not going to chase Patrick for now, it's not worth the trouble," and he's going to insist that that represents an official agreement for suspension. It might be just a tweet or sentence in a blog post but I think that's what he's going to try. Because what else does he have?
Anon @ 9:33 AM: That is indeed one of the possibilities I think Patrick is going to try. He will dig his way through my last several months of blog posts and find a sentence where I express disinterest in chasing him down, and he will present that to the Court as an official, mutually-agreed-upon suspension of activity. Good luck with that, it's not how that works, but it's the sort of thing he likes to think demonstrates his legal cleverness.
Post a Comment