Chronicles of Twatrick: One week.

(NOTE: With only a week before the hearing, Patrick has still not (to my knowledge) filed a properly-sworn Response Affidavit. which suggests that he will not even be allowed to present a defense on August 20 if he shows up.)

Only a week until my (Webex-available) August 20 Rule 4.33 hearing at the Grande Prairie courthouse and not a peep from undischarged bankrupt and increasingly frightened and desperate plaintiff Patrick "Boy Lawyer" Ross, which inspires one to wonder what panicky, last-minute and inevitably doomed strategy he's going to spring on me next Thursday morning that will piss off the Court something fierce, but with all of his other problems converging on him, Patrick has one more issue he will have to deal with next Thursday.

You see, since I first filed my (successful) defamation lawsuit against Patrick back in 2010, Patrick has -- with one exception -- represented himself this entire time, and with disastrous consequences for him every single time. (Even the one time he realized he needed an actual lawyer went badly for him as I won that confrontation easily.) So what is the issue here? Thanks for asking.

As most people know, people have the right to represent themselves in court, but with that right comes the responsibility of knowing how to conduct oneself in a courtroom. If you've ever watched a YouTube video of a "sovereign citizen" in court, they invariably insist on representing themselves, then proceed to make absolute fools of themselves.

Whenever one of these yahoos insists that he will represent himself, the judge will caution them that, sure, they can do that, but the obligation that comes with that is that the defendant is then expected to understand the rules of court. They're told that they will be expected to know, for example, the deadlines for when to submit pleadings, and how to properly enter evidence into the record, and how to subpoena witnesses, and on and on and on. Technically, the proper phrase here is that they will be "held to the same standard as a lawyer." And this is where Patrick is going to be in trouble next Thursday.

Because, given Patrick's 15+ years of representing himself in all of this, I plan on really hammering home to the Court that it is way past time for the Court to stop cutting him any slack as a self-represented litigant. I will insist, given Patrick's extensive experience writing and filing his own pleadings (as well as his open bragging as to how well he understands the legal system), that the Court finally and brutally hold Patrick to the same standard as it would hold a real lawyer, and I can assure you that will finish him off.

One can start with Patrick's original Statement of Claim against me in August of 2022 -- a document so disorganized, whiny and infantile that no lawyer would have ever signed his name to it; a document that lumped three "co-defendants" into the same action (one of them to this day still not identified), and a document that spent most of its time complaining about the actions of other people.

I could go on about the eye-rolling worthlessness of the accompanying Affidavits (in which Patrick claimed defamation for things allegedly uttered almost 20 years ago), and described as "illegal surveillance" the simple act of driving past Casa Ross in Lloydminster and reporting on what was parked in the driveway, but I will reserve my most direct condemnation about Patrick's personal behaviour in dealing with my lawyers over the years.

That behaviour includes numerous examples of correspondence from Patrick that is/was insulting, demeaning, condescending and childish (snippets of which I have already posted on this blog), and I assure you that I will be placing a good deal of that before the Court, while once again insisting that if Patrick were (quite properly) held to the same standard as a lawyer, he would be brutally sanctioned for his infantile and contemptible behaviour.

Understand something: I'm confident that I will win my Application without bringing up any of the above. What all of the above will be used for is arguing for a substantial costs award to punish Patrick for having filed a junk lawsuit in the first place, then being a snotty, petulant, condescending asshole to actual officers of the court. And, trust me, I have all the receipts for that.

After all this time, I will insist that Patrick be held financially accountable for his egregiously assholish behaviour and meritless pleadings. And after his 15+ years of self representation, I'm guessing the Court might finally have had enough of him. 

P.S. It's worth posting the opening part of the letter that Patrick sent to my lawyer right after being served with my Rule 4.33 Application:

 

Appreciate Patrick's snotty, patronizing tone in correspondence to an officer of the court but -- most importantly -- appreciate Patrick's open admission that "there has been a long delay in this action." As part of a defense against an accusation of a long delay in an action, it's generally a bad idea to then concede that, yes, you agree that there has been a long delay.

Admitting to opposing counsel that you have no actual defense ... now there's a strategy I haven't seen in a while.

P.P.S. Note Patrick's obsession with trying to gussy up his letters and emails with unnecessarily verbose and convoluted prose in an attempt to sound legally intimidating:

"... there are a number of different circumstances that have intersected to make that delay a reality."

Is Patrick simply trying to say, "There are a number of reasons for this delay"? Probably, but that would be too straightforward; hence, his legal bafflegab and jabberwocky, of which he is so fond.

Oh, and conceding that the aforementioned delay is "a reality"? Probably a stupid thing to have put in writing when your entire defense is based on denying such a delay.