First things first: today, August 19, 2026, marks exactly five years since a Saskatchewan judge told vexatious litigant and undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross how much he owed me:
and bumped up the annual accruing interest rate to a delightful five per cent, which means that Patrick currently owes me between $125,000 and $130,000, an amount about to increase noticeably due to the mouth-breathing incompetence of his new lawyer who appears to be (and I do not make this suggestion lightly) one of the dumbest carbon-based life forms on the planet.
For the last couple of weeks, I have been speculating as to what Patrick would try as a last ditch, desperate, "gotcha"-style legal ambush to try to salvage his depressing situation and, yesterday, the madness arrived in the form of an Application that ... I cannot even do it justice by paraphrasing, you need to read the entire section of Patrick's grounds for dismissal of my Rule 4.33 Application for yourself:
Let's start with the truly stupidest part of the above. Patrick's new lawyer -- who I'm guessing got his law degree by collecting the required number of Optimum points -- did not even make out a valid Rule 4.33 defense. None at all.
As I have explained far too many times by now, there are two (and only two) defenses against a Rule 4.33 "Drop Dead" Application:
- You claim that you have advanced your case significantly in the three years before the Application, or
- You claim that there exists a court-ordered or mutual agreement for suspension of litigation.
That's it; that's all that's available as a defense. As you can see, Patrick's lawyer made neither of those arguments above. Rather, the filed Application was a jaw-dropping collection of ad hominem bullshit regarding intimidation and harassment and stalking and surveillance, with a new twist of "terrorizing a litigant" thrown in for good measure. And keep in mind, a practicing lawyer crafted this nonsense and put his name to it. But it gets so much worse, as said lawyer also signed off on Patrick's claim that he is "actively" taking steps to overturn a default judgment from 2010.
Read that again to truly appreciate the dumbass level of stupid of a lawyer who does not know how default judgments work. I have, on numerous occasions, explained the strict requirements for filing to set aside a default judgment, like here, and it is mind-boggling that an actual lawyer does not understand even the most basic fundamentals of how a default judgment works, and even (as I wrote in the previous post) enabled Patrick's perjury by signing off on Patrick's legally impossible claim that he is "actively" working to overturn that judgment from back in 2010.
I really am looking forward to this hearing tomorrow to watch my counsel feed Patrick's lawyer through a wood chipper.
BONUS TRACK: I would be remiss in not addressing the very next line after the excerpt above:
Apparently, Patrick is so "committed" to proceeding with his lawsuit that he has done absolutely nothing with it for the last three and a half years and now wants a do-over.
Also, no one is stopping Patrick from doing the above. Once I have his current lawsuit dismissed for long delay, he's perfectly free to file another (updated) lawsuit and try it all over again. So his "litigation plan" is nonsense, and his lawyer should have understood that.
REMINDER that the Webex link for tomorrow's hearing is https://albertacourts.webex.com/meet/virtual.courtroom70. Proceedings for the day's docket starts at 10 a.m. (Alberta time), and we are apparently number 14 on the docket.
BY THE WAY, I just noticed the nonsensical stupidity of paragraph 7 above:
But Patrick's current lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with my 2010 judgment against him for malicious defamation -- those are two totally unrelated actions and are not "inextricably tied" in any way.
However, having written the above, did Patrick just admit that the whole purpose behind his current long-dormant lawsuit is to try to get even with me for my legal victory over him in 2010? That would seem to be an open admission that he filed his lawsuit for an improper purpose, not because he honestly thought I defamed him, but simply because he wants to get even.
It seems the Court should know about that.
No comments:
Post a Comment