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.
Do you honestly think Patrick will file a proper and relevent response affidavit? That doesn't sound like something he would do.
ReplyDeleteJudge: Please state your name for the record.
ReplyDeletePR: I am not the all-caps entity on the document.
Judge: State your name.
PR: I object.
Judge: Overruled. Do you not understand that you need to state your name for the record?
PR: I do not understand, especially in a court that has no jurisdiction over my non-all-caps entity. You must answer my question. Is this a criminal court or an Admiralty court?
Judge: Admiralty? Do you see a boat? This is the civil court in the city of Grand Prairie. State your name.
PR: I object.
Judge: State your name, or I will find you in contempt and remove you to the cells for the next 7 days.
PR: I object. Let the record show that the Judge has threatened my non-caps entity and violated my constitutional rights.
Judge: I find you in contempt and sentence you to 7 days in jail. Take him down.
PR: I am Patrick, of the Family Ross, and I object.
Judge: Bye-bye.
How the opening of the case may go.
"Snotty, condescending, patronizing and simply offensive correspondence"? Do tell.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 9:18 AM: As little I think of Patrick, I doubt he'd stoop to the sovereign citizen defense. Rather, he really does believe he understands the law, then proceeds to misinterpret it fully and completely.
ReplyDeleteAugray: I will investigate whether I can share Patrick's correspondence with my lawyer publicly. I don't think any of that snottiness is covered by privilege since my lawyer does not represent Patrick. I will check.
ReplyDeleteHe appears to have as much of a leg to stand (legally speaking) as a flamingo after both legs have been amputated
ReplyDeleteCan you really use stuff you blogged against Patrick? If all you did was blog it but not send it to him, he can always say he just never saw it, can't he?
ReplyDeleteCC: It's obviously not high on your list of things to do, but... I'm morbidly fascinated. What's going on in his head??? It's like watching a slow-motion train wreck, and here I am, asking for a different camera angle.
ReplyDeleteAugray: there's some stuff going on I can't talk about right now, but if you wanted to speculate that Patrick is finally realizing how much trouble he's in and is melting down emotionally and psychologically, I would not argue the point. I'm sure I'll be able to say more after I win the hearing.
ReplyDelete