Only four days until my Rule 4.33 hearing against undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross, who is currently melting down over on Twitter, obsessively attacking (surprise surprise!) a black woman.
I will be making a record of Patrick's social media output over the last month so that if/when his new lawyer asks for an extension to get up to speed on this case, I will point out that they wouldn't need an extension if Patrick hadn't spent the entirety of the last 30 days being a 24/7 misogynistic racist over on Twitter instead of dealing with my Application (filed on July 15).
In any event, I will remind everyone (and this is something that Patrick knows since I've mentioned it before and Patrick has already admitted he reads this blog) that, new lawyer or not, he is hopelessly out of time to file and serve a proper Response Affidavit:
My current opinion on this is that, if asked, I would not agree to any extension, and I would argue that any attempt by Patrick's lawyer to file a Response Affidavit at this late date should be rejected by the Court as being ridiculously out of time.
I should get the Webex call-in link for the 10 a.m. (Grande Prairie time) August 20 hearing in the next day or two, and I will be posting it here as soon as I learn it.
BONUS TRACK: It occurs to me that my (at least) daily postings related to this Application were not simply a way for me to gloat about how I was pushing back against Patrick and his dumbass lawsuit; rather, I think they were the inspiration for Patrick to frantically search for, and retain, a lawyer at this late date.
It was only last month that Patrick was gleefully bragging about his "extremely-meritorious" lawsuit against me:
However, as my blog posts slowly established how Alberta's Rule 4.33 works, Patrick's cackling and bragging got quieter and quieter, until possibly he began to clue in as to how fucked he was, and thus began his frantic search for a grown-up to save his sorry ass.
I am unaware of any way in which Patrick getting a lawyer is going to rescue him. In fact, it might make things even easier for me since a lawyer will be required to stick to the specific issues related to Rule 4.33, and will avoid wandering all over the rhetorical battlefield, yammering on about harassment and intimidation and trucks without license plates and stupid shit that happened over 15 years ago and so on.
Having an actual grown-up standing in for Patrick might be the best development for me in all of this, since my side won't have to prepare for his spittle-flecked, tear-soaked emotionalism. This could work out well after all.
To paraphrase Patrick (actually, to quote him verbatim from his letter to my lawyer when Patrick was ironically referring to me):
Indeed.
We can't decide what would be funnier: Twatsy doing his usual wandering all over the rhetorical battlefield, yammering on about harassment and intimidation and trucks without license plates and stupid shit that happened over 15 years ago and so on, with his rock-bottom IQ. Or, watching some lawyer who was actually called to the bar have to argue Twatsy's ridiculous, hopeless case in public, and watch them ruefully reconsider their life and career choices as they experience professional humiliation.
ReplyDeleteRossOwesDay: As amusing as it might have been to watch Patrick sob and blubber his way through another hearing, I'm happier that it's working out this way since a genuine lawyer will be required to stick to the actual issues before the Court, so this hearing should be over in short order, and that's all I really care about -- getting the win.
ReplyDeleteWhat might be entertaining is watching Patrick's new lawyer discovering, in real time, how Patrick misled him about the facts of the case. I will be taking notes about the hearing and blogging about that afterwards.
I don’t want to disparage Patrick’s lawyer, but it seems highly unlikely that he will be able to save Patrick’s lawsuit. At best, any arguments he might make regarding rule 4.33 are going to be long shots. Unless there is an obscure case somewhere that he can dredge up that would either make the delay “justified”, or otherwise negate the 3+ years of inaction, he’s really doing no more than going through the motions on Patrick’s behalf.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 9:37 AM: First, I'm guessing that Patrick's new lawyer does not really understand the hopelessness of what he's been given. I'm betting that Patrick very stupidly misrepresented what is going on here, and put an inappropriately optimistic spin on things just to get a lawyer to accept this case, and only over the next couple of days is said lawyer going to appreciate how little he has to work with.
ReplyDeleteAs for finding some obscure case to salvage the situation, I've looked at a *lot* of Rule 4.33 cases and the primary point of argument is almost always, sure, there was *some* advancement but was it sufficiently significant and, in many cases, it was judged not significant. In none of those cases was there a complete and total lack of any advancement of any kind.
That is, a judge hearing a Rule 4.33 Application is prepared to hear people argue over the significance of actions that have been taken; that judge is going to be baffled when faced with a Plaintiff being forced to admit that he has, over the last three years, done absolutely nothing. Literally, nothing.
Never underestimate the greed of a lawyer. They know it's a shit case to take, but hey, give me this amount and we'll see what happens.
DeleteWhat happens-the judge calls bullshit and everyone is happy except for fat pat.
Hope he kept a few bucks for those pity party burgers.
The irony of that exerpt from his email...*chef's kiss*
ReplyDelete