3. DEMOCRACY - A MYTH

The concept of Democracy is inherent in its assumption that the state is run by the People! *
I have experienced this to be a Myth!

Ever hear mention the phrase: 'Political Math?' Here's an example:
There's an election in which 5 candidates are up for the 'Position.'
Question: "What percentage does it take to declare the winner?"
Quick, don't peek...

Well, if all candidates receive 20% of the popular vote (the democratic vote of those who bothered to vote), there is clearly NOT a WINNER! It's a tie!

But wait. All you need is to have ONE candidate receiving 21% (meaning another gets 19%) and assuming the remaining 3 still have 20%, then you have a winner! The candidate with 21% (out of 100% votes) WINS, and is appointed to hold the position!
This means that 79% of the Democratic Voting public did NOT WANT that candidate; yet he/she is the winner by a landslide of 1% :)>

Now lets have a similar look at the Rules of Civil Procedures (always written in italics). 
Although in Canada these Rules, (whoops Rules) within the different provinces are mostly the same, Province to Province they are subtly different. What may be the default Rule in one province, may be switched to be the 'or' rule in the next Province!
(i.e. in British Columbia): (under) "Rule 1 - Making a Claim  
Filing a notice of claim:
(2) A claimant must file a notice of claim and pay the required fee at the Small Claims Registry nearest to where
(a) the defendant lives or carries on business, or
(b) the transaction or event that resulted in the claim took place."

One would 'assume' that Default (a) is equivalent to (b) in that it clearly states: 'or'

In Ontario, these two Rules are reversed!
"RULE 6 FORUM AND JURISDICTION
Place of Commencement and Trial
6.01 (1) An action shall be commenced,
(a) in the territorial division,
(i) in which the cause of action arose, or
(ii) in which the defendant or, if there are several defendants, in which any of them resides or carries on business; or
(b) at the court's place of sitting that is nearest to the place where the defendant or, if there are several defendants, where any one of them resides or carries on business.

(2)  An action shall be tried in the place where it is commenced, but if the court is satisfied that the balance of convenience substantially favours holding the trial at another place than those described in subrule (1), the court may order that the action be tried at that other place."

 In my initial experience in BC's Small Claims Court I filed a Claim under the 2b, the 'or' Rule.
Although 2 (b) clearly states: "the transaction or event that resulted in the claim took place,"
the BC Judge, in her 'wisdom' dismissed my claim, based on "Lack of Jurisdiction;"

In my humble opinion the Honourable judge ERRED by refusing to acknowledge the 2 (b) 'OR' rule, as well as additionally refusing to acknowledge several other, pertinently applicable Rules of Civil Procedures were  it made it VERY CLEAR I was entirely within my 'Jurisdiction' to have filed the claim in BC. All mattered NOT to this honourable Judge! Again Democracy played out at its finest.

Had I, as a self-representing claimant at that time, been sufficiently savvy about the differing Rules of the Provinces, I would have been able to inform the Honourable BC Judge that in Ontario the default Rule for filing a claim states it to be 6.01 (1) (a) (i) "In which the cause of action arose." Meaning to say, your Honour, if I had filed my claim in Ontario, the residing judge 'could' well have stated, regardless of the several additional pertinent and applicable rules: "Case dismissed, based on Lack of Jurisdiction." (i.e. the Ontario Judge would have decided to adhere to the default Rule).

The Rules - though SEEMINGLY CLEAR AND SUCCINCT - are ultimately interpreted and applied by those hired by our system still called a 'Democracy*.' The final adherers thereof are, indeed, our - Judges. And they Judge and order as only they see fit.

You may be acquainted with the differences of 'Lower Court' and 'Higher Court', or 'Small Claims Court' versus 'Superior Court.' In BC (British Columbia) this is actually called 'Supreme' Court. And guess what? ALBERTA does not HAVE a SMALL CLAIMS COURT! Big bizz only I guess; enough said...

Since I am still in a Superior Court 'somewhere' in our 'Democracy' of Canada, and it was suggested I delete my former Blog about my experiences, I won't, at this point, divulge another WORD about our procedures.

* DEMOCRACY (a Definition):
"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Madness, ain't it?  Democracy?  It's a 'DEMO' gone 'Crazy', I say!

2) THE BUSINESS OF JUSTICE

'Justice'- a definition: "The quality of being fair and reasonable" + "The administration of the law, or authority in maintaining this."

Let's take a good look at the words inherent to this definition: 'quality,' 'being fair,' 'reasonable,' 'administration,' 'authority,'... all words, loaded with meaning.

To be fair, 'Justice' is UN-natural; i.e., it is foreign to Nature. Imagine a wildebeest being chased by a lion. Exhausted, it suddenly stops dead in its track to discuss the 'quality' of life, the 'fairness,' the  'reasoning' behind the chase: (Heavy breathing) "Now just a second, Mrs. Lion, can't you please let me go, justice this time?" "Sorry dude, I got to feed my youngens, keep my pride. No offense, it's just-ice business; know what I'm sayen?" CRUNCH! "The administration of the law"is at work, with its "authority in maintaining this." This is the law; the law of the jungle!

YIP! The act of administrating justice, with that killer instinct, is big business amongst our modern homo sapiens too. And if you've got the bucks, with the right counsel on your side, you can keep on 'doing business.' If you are the prey, and most of us are, watch out! Doing Justice is not for the fool hardy. It's a costly game of chess. Winner takes all.

Democracy and free speech are a myth, a pretense, a posturing of reality. We live in a Demo gone Crazy. We either get used to it, or stand up to fight for the facts that are stated in the Rules of Civil Procedures and properly represent: "The quality of being fair and reasonable!"

1) When Enuff's Enuff - The Beat Goes On!

WELCOME TO:  http://www.about-justice.blogspot.com '

This Blog sets out to post experiences by individuals who have encountered serious problems with our system. Often, fair and solid Rules are in place. But it can be those who are in charge of adhering to the Rules who may be motivated to interpret them subjectively. Thus, what is clearly Democratic under the Rules, becomes self-serving to the interpreters. 
By bringing questionable judgments to the public, this Blog hopes to help clean matters up!    

I was told we live in a Democracy. If so, I am going to do my very best to uphold whatever of it I can help maintain! When I became involved in a court case, I was told by 'highly informed' individuals I should start a Blog, so that others might benefit from my experience. So I did - elsewhere. The Blog dealt with my Superior Court claim. I understood materials, once filed, were public property.

With its key words: 'The Lonely Road to Justice,'  the Blog quite quickly showed up No.1 on Google. I had entered some 64 Postings over 2 years. Cut a long story short, recently I was advised to take it all down - delete it - to show good faith to the Defense, who were using it as a Counterclaim. "The best Defense is a strong Offense!" they say. The Democratic chess match was on.

However, before deleting it, I did not want my 2 year efforts to go to waste. In trying to retain the overall essence of the Blog, I changed the URL, kept the look the same, and - wishful thinking - hoped for a No.1 Google position. Well, although there was much appreciated forum input, I spent many frustrating hours going around in circles, not understanding why, with the adjusted URL, I could not retain the essence of the site. I finally gave in - by giving up. It wasn't easy; maybe it was old-timers. Hopefully this new effort will become a lasting fix. Anyway Google rules!

I herewith invite anyone who has encountered, or is presently encountering, serious problems with the legal system to contact us. And, if you state a sound case, let's upload it for all to read and comment on.
Remember, you must be able to prove injustice, by comparing the action, or judgment, to the rules.

Once I have had my day in court, I plan to compile all, and make it available online as a Case History.

May our misery help avoid others from similar suffering. Enuff's Enuff! :)