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 proposed 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 "firmly 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.
THIS IS TOO FUNNY: In addition to asking the Court to dismiss my Rule 4.33 Application, Patrick is also asking the Court to order a "litigation plan" which would ... again, I cannot do this justice, you have to read the two paragraphs related to that from his Affidavit:
Take a moment, if you will, and appreciate the absolute fucking stupid in the above request from Patrick's Application. Patrick, having utterly ignored his own lawsuit for three and a half years and advanced it not even the tiniest iota, is now standing there, stamping his little feet and insisting that the Court issue an order to move this whole thing along -- to make sure this matter is "vigorously prosecuted without further delay."
I don't even know how to mock this.
P.S. Nowhere in any of this meaningless swill is there any reference to Patrick being a trustee-less undischarged bankrupt who owes me over $125,000 and has refused to pay any of the judgment or cost awards against him going all the way back to 2010. You'd think the Court might find that ... relevant.
9 comments:
Twatsy relentlessly harasses people online, but thinks that people walking by his house, (maybe taking pictures of the front of the house, etc) constitutes harassment. I heard he tried to call the cops on someone a year ago cause they walked by his house.
Are you sure that Patrick's new lawyer isn't just Patrick with a paper bag over his head?
But seriously, I've read stories from lawyers about a certain kind of client who goes "lawyer shopping", looking for a lawyer who will basically do what they're told. The prospective client doesn't understand the law, doesn't care about it, and won't take advice or listen to reason. Eventually they find what they're looking for, and I suspect that's what's happened here.
I also suspect that your lawyer will blast Patrick's into his constituent carbon atoms. And then the judge will have a go.
Well, that’s as unhinged as I would expect from Patrick. I don’t know who his lawyer is, but to me that looks like an attempt at a “Hail Mary” with a half assed promise to move things along expeditiously … a commitment which will last about as long as Patrick’s stash of cash runs into a conflict between buying that next burger and paying the lawyer for his time. (Or, about as long as his payments to the bankruptcy trustee lasted - whichever comes first)
More seriously, Patrick’s long history of ducking service, not paying court awards (both costs and judgment amounts), and generally being an internet troll should be enough to put down any promise on his counsel’s part to move things along.
“Lionel Hutz”
Some lawyers think their letters are intimidating and scary.
Anonymous @8:50am: They dared have their phone out, apparently. Of course, Patrick will duck and weave the moment someone tries to serve him at that address. The history of Patrick's shenanigans is lengthy, and taking any kind of responsibility is not among his leading traits.
Just how much crack is his lawyer smoking? If Patrick didn't move things along because of "harassment", how is a court order to get a move-on going to help??? What if Patrick doesn't do anything going forward because of this perceived "harassment"? Will there then be a penalty imposed on Patrick for not moving things along? Does he want to be penalized? Again?
I mean, assuming that the Rule 4.33 application is defeated (which seems to have as much chance as me winning the lottery, and I don't play the lottery), wouldn't it be strategically better for Patrick to set the pace, dealing with his supposed psychological problems as they occur, and not being tied to a court-imposed timetable that CC could derail just by asking people to drive down his street and take pictures?
But if Patrick wants to make sure this matter is "vigorously prosecuted without further delay", that's entirely on him. No need for a court to impose it.
Augray: I am not optimistic about your typical judge having the intellectual wherewithal to recognize the irony of a man who ignored his own lawsuit for over three years now *demanding* that the Court impose some timelines so we can get this thing moving.
I'm always disappointed when some ambulance chaser writes a letter without saying "govern yourself accordingly"
Post a Comment