Chronicles of Twatrick: Patrick's lawyer is, quite literally, threatening the Court.

That's a powerful accusation I'm making but give me a minute to back it up.

Here's Paragraph 6 of Patrick's recent Application, where Patrick's lawyer quite clearly suggests that there's no point dismissing Patrick's lawsuit because he would just refile it and that would be an affront to "judicial economy":

 

 

Let's think about this in a couple of ways.

First, that logic is stunningly stupid since, if it were valid, then every Rule 4.33 Application could be defeated by the Plaintiff promising to refile the same lawsuit the next day, so what would be the value of Rule 4.33 in the first place? But that's not the most disturbing part.

By claiming to be concerned about "judicial economy," Patrick's lawyer is clearly threatening the court with, "Hey, court resources are tight, and if you dismiss my client's lawsuit, he'll simply refile it and waste more of your court resources, and you don't want that, do you?"

As in, "Nice court you got here, be a shame if someone came in and wasted your budget because you ruled the wrong way."

I wonder if that sort of quiet intimidation of the Court rises to the level of a complaint to the Law Society of Alberta. 

BONUS TRACK: Patrick is lying as well. In his tediously verbose and dishonest 57-page Affidavit, right near the end, Patrick adds the standard boilerplate that his action is legitimate and is filed for no improper purpose: 

 

 

Except back in his Application, Patrick describes his own lawsuit as being "inextricably tied" to my long-settled 2010 default judgment against him:

 

 

The claim of being "inextricably tied" is bullshit. My 2010 judgment against Patrick is long settled and Patrick is long past any deadline where he can do anything about it. Claiming some sort of inextricable linkage represents nothing more than Patrick openly admitting that his lawsuit was filed as retribution for my earlier victory -- a clearly improper purpose.