Chronicles of Twatrick: Eight days and counting.

(Two things to cover today, the second being the more interesting of the two.)

First, I still have no word that Patrick has filed his mandatory Response Affidavit to my Rule 4.33 Application and, at this point, I plan to argue that it is out of time and should not be accepted by the Court, for a couple reasons.

First, the defense against a Rule 4.33 Application hinges on two very simple questions:

1. Have you (the Plaintiff) made any significant advancement in your case over the last three years and, if not,
2. Is there a formal, signed agreement or court order allowing the suspension of the action?

That's it, there's nothing more to argue and, in this case, the answer to both questions is a resounding "Hell, no." But there's one more observation related to this that really puts the hob-nailed boots to Patrick's joy department.

Any defense against a Rule 4.33 Application can refer only to events prior to when the Application was filed; in this case, back on July 15. This means that there is nothing that has happened since then that Patrick can incorporate into his defense, such as my blog posts since July 15. This means that he can't use as an excuse for all this delay that he's been examining stuff that happened after July 15, so there's no plausible excuse for this taking almost a month; a Rule 4.33 defense is simple and straightforward and its Affidavit does not require a month to craft. But here's the more interesting point.

As I have mentioned before, if one's lawsuit is dismissed due to Rule 4.33 (or one drops such a lawsuit just to avoid the embarrassment of losing in court), the Court takes a dim view of the Plaintiff simply turning around and refiling the same action all over again in an effort to restart the clock.

For example, here's Google AI making it clear that a Plaintiff refiling the same action after discontinuing the lawsuit just to get another three years could constitute "abuse of process," 

 

 

and it's only logical that if a Plaintiff loses in court, refiling the same action could represent exactly the same abuse of process. And what does all that have to do with Patrick? I'm glad you asked since here's another snippet from Patrick's spectacularly unwise letter of July 18:

 

 

Make sure you understand what Patrick is saying in the above: Patrick is promising that, if I win this Application on August 20, he will -- the very next day -- simply refile his lawsuit "that will feature the claims made against [me] now".

Take your time to truly absorb the thigh-sucking stupidity of someone who, in writing, vows to do something that the Rules of Civil Procedure openly describe as being a possible abuse of process. Revel in the cluelessness of someone who promises to do exactly what the Rules warn against. It is ... mind-boggling.

In any event, only eight days left for Patrick to try something stunningly irrelevant that will almost certainly piss off the Court. All we can do is wait.

IT'S A PUZZLER: Perhaps Patrick's most baffling claim in the above is to refer to "the numerous defamatory statements your client has published since the filing of that action,..."

Um ... wut? My Application was filed on July 15 (less than a month ago), and I'm fairly confident that I have blogged little more than a running commentary of its progress, so I'm not sure how any of that constitutes defamation. If anyone wants to go back and examine my blog posts since July 15, they're invited to identify anything allegedly defamatory.

BONUS TRACK: To follow up on one commenter's note, what if Patrick drops his lawsuit before the 20th? Or what if he does not drop it but simply does not attend? In either case, that would end incredibly badly for Patrick since he has already assured me, in writing, that he plans on being there, as can be seen in this exceedingly unwise assurance from his aforementioned letter of July 18:

The context of the above is that Patrick just finished making a ridiculous offer, and, well, you can read the rest, specifically, "I will defeat your client's application on August 20, ...". That is an unmistakable assurance that he will be there, and if he doesn't show, well, that bogus assurance will be placed before the judge.

In trying to establish some sort of arrogant alpha dominance over these proceedings, Patrick has made some stunningly imprudent claims and promises, all of which have the potential to come back and bite him in his prodigious ass.