NOTE: The following 'FAX' came about during my exchanges with Defense's former Counsel. On May 19, 2011, I delivered my 100+ Written Questions for Discovery (Form 35A) Attachment PDF. Although Defense Counsel acknowledged receipt of same, with a 15 day legally allowable window for Defense's response to answer, he did NOT deliver the Questions to "my client," until May 25, 2011.
Requests for an extension allowance resulted in the following. Although the Plaintiff received the FAX on June 1, 2011, the Plaintiff's contact with Case Management on June 2, 2011 indicated NO FAX WAS RECEIVED! (Note the numerous 'self-represented' Plaintiff indications.)
_________________________________________________________________________________
(Omitted Company Name/Address/Tel/FAX)
VIA FACSIMILE ONLY at 613-239-1310
June 1, 2011
Case Management Centre, Room 502
161 Elgin Street, 5th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 2K1
Attention: Kathy Estabrooks
Dear Ms. Estabrooks:
Re: Evert Jan Steen v. 3902641 Canada Inc. c.o.b. as "(Company 'X')"
Court File No. 10-49776
Our File No: 22927R
We are the solicitor for the Defendant (Plaintiff by Counterclaim) in the above-noted action.
The Plaintiff (Defendant by Counterclaim) is self-represented, and is a resident of Hornby Island, British Columbia.
Since the filing of the Statement of Claim, the self-represented Plaintiff, being emotionally involved in the case at bar, has made the management of the case extremely difficult.
On or about May 19, 2011, the self represented Plaintiff served our client with Form 35A-Questions on Written Examination for Discovery. The foregoing comprised about 111 questions where many questions contained sub-questions.
Under Rule 35.02 (1), the Defendant is to answer all written questions within 15 days after service. Due to the excessive number thereof, the Defendant is utterly unable to comply with same. As such, we requested the self represented Plaintiff indulgence into providing time extension until the end of June.
It is apparent that the self represented Plaintiff is intentionally holding matters strictly legal. The Defendant was only provided with 4 days grace period, thus until June 6, 2011, which is completely insufficient in the circumstances.
It appears that the self represented Plaintiff considers the legal system as "doing business". Thus, he agreed to provide limited time extension only if the Defendant compensate him at a $1,000.00 per calendar week, payable in advance, commencing on June 6, 2011. The said proposal shall only subsist until June 27, 2011, being the self represented Plaintiff self-imposed final due date. Such proposal is absolutely unqualified, unreasonable and unacceptable.
2
In order to avoid future delays, increasing legal costs to the Defendant, as well as, more particularly, to reduce Court intervention, we are requesting a Case Conference, pursuant to Rule 77.08, for the purpose of establishing a timetable for the proceeding.We are prepared to attend the conference personally. Presumably, the self represented Plaintiff would be available by telephone.
Your immediate reply to this correspondence would be appreciated or, if you wish, please contact the writer by telephone so that we may discuss this matter in more detail.
We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Yours very truly,
(Company name with held)
SIGNATURE
Roy MacHaalani
c.c.: Evert Jan Steen - Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim (self-represented)
________________________________________________________________________________
NOTE:
1) As indicated above, this SELF REPRESENTED Plaintiff (x 9) received the FAX.
It was NOT sent to Case Management; if it was, there is no record of it.
2) Defense Counsel' s introduction: "We are the solicitor for the Defendant..." It was this Plaintiff's research of the file indicating Defense Counsel was NOT on record. Not until July 21, 2011, did Counsel send 'A NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF LAWYER.'
3) Counsel and Plaintiff began email communication on March 11, 2011. As the sole connective, it was 'crystal clear' Mr. MacHaalani was fully in charge of Defense's affairs. On April 6, 2011, Mr. MacHaalani began referring to 'Company 'X' as "our client."
Ironic as well is the fact that on July 16, 2011, Counsel communicates: "I have also made it clear with very lucid explanation as to why Case Management is obsolete at the present time."
________________________________________________________________________________
The following are the first 22 original Written Questions, as sent by Plaintiff on May 19, 2011 and answered on October 18, 2011, with Defense's Questions preceding receipt on October 11, 2011.
The 5 month delay in 'answering' these questions has never been addressed. For the record, I also herewith indicate I allowed defense until June 27th/June extension - WITHOUT payment.
_______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF WRITTEN QUESTIONS:
QUESTIONS REFER TO DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
(The initial 5 introductory questions pertaining to identity have been omitted)
QUESTION 6.
Does Defendant concur Plaintiff approached Defendant, 'Company X', after spotting their favorable position on Guru.com, an online website that posts web companies doing business Internationally?
QUESTION 7.
Does Defendant agree the following must have been highly appealing? The fact Defense was Canadian, guaranteed their work 100%, and would go beyond the client’s expectations; that as “Web Gurus,” it warned prospective clients not to go offshore, since it might prove regrettable? (Communication problems; lack of court representation; other recourse problems).
QUESTION 8.
Does Defendant concur there were a number of pre contract, highly detailed, self-promoting email exchanges, as well as a number of re-assuring follow up telephone calls by Defendant with the Plaintiff, allowing Plaintiff additional positive assessment and good reason for proceeding to contract?
QUESTION 9.
Does Defendant concur:
a) He spoke highly of the project concept, comparing it favorably with online existing Classified giants such as Kijiji and Craig’s List?
b) He had reassured the Plaintiff by indicating numerous, reassuring company work ethics and procedures?
c) Plaintiff had made it abundantly clear that, to him, the production timeline was crucial. Does Defendant agree he guaranteed a far shorter completion date than other developers had indicated?
STATEMENT
In lieu of above, based on the failure to comply with the project’s contracted production timeline, as well as ultimately having to deal with disappointing and unacceptable production results, these Interrogatories shall cover three basic issues:
1) Failure to meet the Project’s contracted Completion date, or any date.
2) Failure to construct a user-friendly, secure, fast and properly functioning, fully customized site, as additionally witnessed by users.
3) Defendant’s general mismanagement of timeline and project.
4) Since Plaintiff was motivated to contract Defense Company 'X' . based on his clear communication and seemingly sound understanding with CEO Mr 'Y', most all interrogatory questions refer to the Defense’s Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, and are directed to, and seek answers from, Company 'X's' CEO, Mr. 'Y'.
QUESTION 10.
I. THE DEFENDANT
RE: 6 AND 7
a) Does Defendant acknowledge he:
- admitted “there were problems with this production;”
- allowed it to run 2 weeks behind schedule, early in production;
- apologized for the Contract not having been “sufficiently detailed enough at the beginning;”
- removed the project’s original designated project manager because “Hey Jan, it’s clear to me that 'Name’s' project management skills are not where they should be at. We have removed him from the project management role..;” on September 2/0810 weeks after contracted completion deadline.
- apologized to Plaintiff for making certain factors not clear (i.e. deliverables being the Plaintiff’s responsibility);
- allowed production Completion Date of July 11/08 to come and go with NO apologies, or recompense;
- allowed Production to stretch over 7 months, some 4 months over schedule, before Plaintiff terminated it in mid December/08;
Or
b) Does Defendant still maintain he neither misrepresented his skills, capabilities and competency, nor (Plaintiff adds), his promotional promises and trust, while demanding and receiving all of the contracted funds?
Explain, by example, which of the above items Defendant argues the Plaintiff was to blame for?
QUESTION 11.
INITIAL COMMUNICATIONS & EXPECTATIONS
With reference to Defense’s Statement of Defense (and Counterclaim), Plaintiff draws Defense’s attention to II. (8) and II (10) in which Defense acknowledges “Plaintiff approached the Defendant with a request for proposal to create and build a classified website.”
Does Defendant acknowledge stating in said proposal’s ‘Project Description’ (March 20/08): “The objective of the project is to create a website similar in functionality to Kijiji and Craig’s List but allowing users to perform searches based on distance within a zip code/postal code (etc) ?”
- Explain what Defendant actually meant when he stated “a website similar in functionality to Kijij and Craig’s List?”
QUESTION 12.
With below Reference to Defense’s Statement of Defense, II (9), does Defense agree stating he was not capable of constructing a classified website for the entire world?
“While your idea is a great idea with solid potential; after reviewing with my partners it is clear to me that being a small business we simply don’t have the capital to build this type of endeavour. The cost of collecting, importing and cross analyzing all postal codes and zip codes of the world is a daunting task and would take significant amount of time (likely a couple of hundred hours) [etc).”
Please explain in detail what Defense recalls stating he was capable of producing? QUESTION 13.
Re II (9) Does Defense acknowledge the word ‘prototype’ was mentioned only after Defense had reconsidered the size of the project and indicated he and his staff were however capable of creating a more ‘defined,’ smaller, market; the market of Canada and the USA?
QUESTION 14.
Does Defense acknowledge stating the following?
a) (Defense Email to Plaintiff Feb.12/08) “[..] a working copy of the entire site in Canada and US,” as in stating, they, 'Company 'X' (“the small business”) would be more than capable of creating a “full working site for the US and Canadian market” i.e., this ‘Prototype’ to function as a “full working model” to which down the road other Markets and Country Database Postal Codes could be added to?
b) Not a ‘simplified prototype’ as in an inferior, rough, hinted at, cheap, or ‘having to redo’ version, but a “full working model” for a defined, smaller market - that of Canada and the US?
QUESTION 15.
Re II (9) Would Defense please identify any and all email correspondence, including contract, or proposal, in which the exact phrase “a simplified working model” or its “intended to generate additional funds” are stated.
QUESTION 16.
Re II (10) The Project Description in the Defense’s Proposal of Feb.25/08 reads: “The objective of the project is to create a website similar in functionality to Kijiji and Craig’s List..(etc).”
If this Defense written text does not represent, or is to be “a state-of-the-art website”, with “similar functionality to Kijiji and Craig’s List etc.” then would Defense please explain the difference in its operation and appeal?
QUESTION 17.
Further to II (10) In the Proposal’s ‘Conclusion,’ does Defense agree stating:
a) “Company 'X' is committed to providing high-quality solutions with a focus on covering all the bases to ensure a well-integrated, high-performance website. This includes attractive and fast-downloading designs and easy to use functionality. We believe these skills will be an asset to this project..[..] We are also passionate about staying current with community–specific trends and technologies.”
b) Explain in detail the difference between ‘State of the Art’ and the above Defendant quoted text, having stated the type of work the Defendant was generally accustomed to deliver.
QUESTION 18.
RE. III (12) THE CONTRACT
Would Defence agree ‘STATEMENT OF WORK’ and ‘CONTRACT’ are synonymous?
QUESTION 19.
a) RE III (13) Please show Contractual text reference, of the following:
- “The contract states that the website design, structure and functionality are to be built by Defendan
- “whereas the website conten
(Plaintiff NOTE: Last incomplete sentence is a Plaintiff's error)
QUESTION 20.
Re III (14) Plaintiff’s obligation was to pay funds for work completed– which he did. Indicate text verifying Plaintiff had additional obligations.
QUESTION 21.
RE III (i) (15) STATEMENT OF WORK
This contract was emailed Plaintiff on April 14/08. Can Defendant explain which of the following Defendant written texts it supports?
a) (March 21/011 Statement of Defense) “The Defendant proposed a detailed Statement of Work,”
b) (Feb 19/08) “..[..] any proposal with this level of detail targeting investors must be done of high quality and detail so that the investor understands what they are taking a chance on. In terms of appeal, the site will need to be intuitive and attractive etc.”
c) Feb 25/08 Defense (Mr. CEO) email to Claimant dated February 25/08. “We are being detailed so it’s accurate.”
) Company 'X’s Guru.com PR: “We work closely with our clients to ensure the project is well defined early in the process. This ensures that the website or application is built right the first time to maximize
productivity and brand equity in the final product.”
Then conversely:
e) OCT. 28/08 CEO to Steen : “The functionalities outlined initially were not detailed sufficiently, we did our best to help you spec it out [..] This project has had its challenges that I contribute to unclear specifications.”
- Which of the above statement(s) is true?
QUESTION 22.
(ii) Is Defendant acknowledging he was overworked, and spent too little time to ‘ensure the project is well defined early in the process?’ If not,
1) Explain why it was not well defined from the outset?
NOTE: ABOVE QUESTIONS ARE DELIVERED DEFENSE ON MAY 19, 2011; DEFENSE ANSWERS SAME ON OCTOBER 18, 2011.
______________________________________________________________________________
Some 50% of the 100+ ANSWERS ARE OBJECTED TO, as (PER BELOW).
The "I" is Defense Company 'X's CEO:
6. ANSWER 6: I object to answering this question on the ground that it is a leading question/suggestive interrogation to the matters in issue.
7. ANSWER 7: I object to answering this question on the ground that it is a leading question/suggestive interrogation to the matters in issue.
8. ANSWER 8: I object to answering this question on the ground that it is a leading question/suggestive interrogation to the matters in issue.
9. ANSWER 9:
a. I object to answering this question on the ground that it is a leading question/suggestive interrogation to the matters in issue.
______________________________________________________________________________
Some 50% of the 100+ ANSWERS ARE OBJECTED TO, as (PER BELOW).
The "I" is Defense Company 'X's CEO:
6. ANSWER 6: I object to answering this question on the ground that it is a leading question/suggestive interrogation to the matters in issue.
7. ANSWER 7: I object to answering this question on the ground that it is a leading question/suggestive interrogation to the matters in issue.
8. ANSWER 8: I object to answering this question on the ground that it is a leading question/suggestive interrogation to the matters in issue.
9. ANSWER 9:
a. I object to answering this question on the ground that it is a leading question/suggestive interrogation to the matters in issue.
c. I object to answering this question on the ground that it is a leading question/suggestive interrogation to the matters in issue.
10. ANSWER 10:
a. I object to answering this question on the ground that it is a leading question/suggestive interrogation to the matters in issue.
b. I object to answering this question on the ground that it is a leading question/suggestive interrogation to the matters in issue. Nevertheless, the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim states that it skills, capabilities, and competencies were accurately represented to the Plaintiff/ Defendant by Counterclaim.
11. ANSWER 11:
I object to answering this question on the ground that it is a leading question/suggestive interrogation to the matters in issue.
_________________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: According to the Master's Order of May 9, 2012, both Parties were to revisit their previously 'incompletely answered Questions.' The following are the 'revisited answers' "best efforts" by Defense as ordered delivered on June 29, 2012.
6. ANSWER 6: 'Company 'X'' can only assume. 'Company 'X' has no way of confirming or denying how Evert Jan Steen found 'Company 'X.'
(Plaintiff Note: This goes to prove that the substance of telephone calls, unless recorded, are unproven. The Monday, May 6, 2008, introductory telephone call between CEO and Plaintiff discussed Plaintiff's discovery on Guru.com of Company X.)
7. ANSWER 7: Company 'X' has no way of knowing how appealing it would have been to Evert Jan Steen.
8. ANSWER 8: Company 'X' confirms that there were several emails and phone calls prior to signing of the Statement of Work.
NOTE: FACT shows there were some 48 emails between February 6, 2008 and April 14, 2008, the signing of the contract.
9. ANSWER 9:
a) No. While CEO identified it as a unique idea with potential, CEO identified that CEO's experience and knowledge of Kijiji and Craigslist were limited and therefor could not compare it.
NOTE: FACT! CEO stated he was 'familiar with both.' The proposal to be "mirrored" in the contract reads: "Project Description: The objective of the project is to create a website similar in functionality to Kijiji and Craig'slist but allowing the users to perform searches based on distance within a zip code/ postal code using their locally preferred measurement (e.g. miles vs. kilometres). This will ensure that no cities are left out and users can search outside of of city boundaries. Revenue will be generated by targeting ads by location and potentially additional criteria."
Project Team: ...All development staff in-house, work as team. "Owners 'CEO + CIO' are also expert application and database programmers that often perform project management, application design and development as well."
b) This question is too ambiguous. Please provide specific details.
c) "The Defendant/ Plaintiff by Counterclaim does not guarantee project timelines. The Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim has never done so in the 13 years that the Defendant/ Plaintiff by Counterclaim has been in business. The Statement of Work clearly identifies a timeline as a a goal."
NOTE: Plaintiff takes the reader to the Statement of Work.
"III. Payment Schedule
This payment schedule is as follows. The dates are identified as goal dates based on the project timeline of 8 weeks:
1. Deposit - April 16, 2008 - $10,000 +GST = $10,500.00
2. Milestone 1 - May 2, 2008 - $5,238.09 + GST = $5, 500.00
3. Milestone 1 - May 2, 2008 - $5,238.09 + GST = $5, 500.00
4. Milestone 1 - May 2, 2008 - $5,238.09 + GST = $5, 500.00
5. Milestone 1 - May 2, 2008 - $5,238.09 + GST = $5, 500.00
6. Milestone 1 - May 2, 2008 - $5,238.09 + GST = $5, 500.00
7. Completion - July 11, 2008 - $4,279.45 + GST = $4,493.43 " (1)
In the Respondent's mind, as he understands the english language, a Milestone is a 'SET' marker. Its visual and physical appearance when reached on the road is a 'clear indication' of a specific achievement having been completed. Add the Milestones to its destination, and one reaches the "Completion" of the effort. Every time the Respondent was informed a 'Milestone' had been reached, he was informed of same and instructed to PAY FOR THE NEXT PHASE! He did as he was told!
The primary reason for contracting Company 'X', was their 'GUARANTEE' on Timeline; their 'COMMITMENT' to a full-time adherence to fulfill their 'CONTRACTED' promises - those being their indications to complete the job faster than any other Web Developer approached; their defined 'EXCITEMENT' of the project. No more; no less!
CONTINUED DEFENSE REVISITED ANSWERS
10. ANSWER 10:
There were initial problems with the timeline due to excessive rounds of feedback and insistence by Evert Jan Steen the design must be precisely as Evert Jan Steen desires, regardless of any advice offerd by 'Project Manager 'R'' in an attempt to meet Evert Jan Steen's initial goals of user friendliness. Typical projects require at most 1 or 2 rounds of iterations to an initial design (96% of all projects in the 13 year history of 'COMPANY 'X'); in this project, 5 rounds of iterations were required. No, 'COMPANY 'X' never "allowed" it to run behind schedule. The apology for the Statement of work not being sufficiently detailed initially was offerd merely a gesture of ploliteness to make Evert Jan Steen feel better as there was nothing to apologize for, after all, it was Evert Jan Steen who reviewed the Statement of Work and ssigned it agreeing to the functionalities. Furthermore, '(CEO name)' invested 27 hors preparing the proposal for Evert Jan Steen's consideration. Ultimately, it was Evert Jan Steen's responsibility to read and review the contract and ensure that all deliverables that Evert Jan Steen wanted were included. 'PROJECT MANAGER 'R' was removed from the project due to 'R's inability to control Evert Jan Steen, not because of 'R's' project management skills. * NOTE: September 2, 2008, 'removal of 'R.'
'CEO' offered aplogies to Evert Jan Steen for not making it clear that prerequisites were required merely as a gesture of plotieness to Make Evert Jan Steen feel better, however, 'CEO' did not understand how Evert Jan Steen could have misunderstood previous phone calls and emails from 'Project Manager 'R' to Evert Jan Steen on April 22, 2008 at 11:12 AM and from PJ 'R' to Evert Jan Steen on May 22, 2008 at 10:29 PM identifying that these prerequisites were required.
* NOTE: Evert Jan Steen, self-representing Plaintiff, challenges Defense to prove the existence of the April 22, 2008 11:12 AM email of same, since he continues to maintain he NEVER received it, thus could NOT not reply to it, and therefor questions WHY Defense did not respond to Evert Jan Steen's lack of acknowledging it? With its clearly crucial importance, one would assume Steen's lack of response to same would have created an immediate reminder from PM 'R'! There are NO references to this purported email by Defense in ANY, of over a month's worth, following emails.
Evert Jan Steen maintains the very first email eluding to the need of the so-called Plaintiff-responsible 'Prerequisites' was on May 22, 2008, exactly one month later! In para 16 of that date's PM 'R's' email of May 22, 2008 the text reads: "
"There are also a few things we'll need to obtain in order to progress with some features on the site. These are: one vBulletin licence key, the postal code database, and the zip code database. These will need to be purchased as soon as possible so we can work further on the forum and the searching capabilities of the site." [...] " We are approximitavily two weeks behind schedule. To remediate to this situation, I've discussed with '(CEO)' and I've been able to double my workforce to help the project get back on track." "I'm really sorry about the delay and I really appreciate your patience and your business. I look forward to speak to you soon about the progress of GoPoCo."
NOTE: Does the above sound like a month's anticipated reminder of an earlier, April 22, 2008 purportedly sent similar request? Does a 2 week delay sound like a web-developer's conscientious efforts to "aim for (a) 6 week" completion?
10. ANSWER 10: (Continued):
(1) "With regards to Evert Jan Steen's self-set goal date of July 11, 2008, 'Company 'X' made no commitment to any completion date and therefore obviously no apology is necessary."
_________________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: According to the Master's Order of May 9, 2012, both Parties were to revisit their previously 'incompletely answered Questions.' The following are the 'revisited answers' "best efforts" by Defense as ordered delivered on June 29, 2012.
6. ANSWER 6: 'Company 'X'' can only assume. 'Company 'X' has no way of confirming or denying how Evert Jan Steen found 'Company 'X.'
(Plaintiff Note: This goes to prove that the substance of telephone calls, unless recorded, are unproven. The Monday, May 6, 2008, introductory telephone call between CEO and Plaintiff discussed Plaintiff's discovery on Guru.com of Company X.)
7. ANSWER 7: Company 'X' has no way of knowing how appealing it would have been to Evert Jan Steen.
8. ANSWER 8: Company 'X' confirms that there were several emails and phone calls prior to signing of the Statement of Work.
NOTE: FACT shows there were some 48 emails between February 6, 2008 and April 14, 2008, the signing of the contract.
9. ANSWER 9:
a) No. While CEO identified it as a unique idea with potential, CEO identified that CEO's experience and knowledge of Kijiji and Craigslist were limited and therefor could not compare it.
NOTE: FACT! CEO stated he was 'familiar with both.' The proposal to be "mirrored" in the contract reads: "Project Description: The objective of the project is to create a website similar in functionality to Kijiji and Craig'slist but allowing the users to perform searches based on distance within a zip code/ postal code using their locally preferred measurement (e.g. miles vs. kilometres). This will ensure that no cities are left out and users can search outside of of city boundaries. Revenue will be generated by targeting ads by location and potentially additional criteria."
Project Team: ...All development staff in-house, work as team. "Owners 'CEO + CIO' are also expert application and database programmers that often perform project management, application design and development as well."
b) This question is too ambiguous. Please provide specific details.
c) "The Defendant/ Plaintiff by Counterclaim does not guarantee project timelines. The Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim has never done so in the 13 years that the Defendant/ Plaintiff by Counterclaim has been in business. The Statement of Work clearly identifies a timeline as a a goal."
NOTE: Plaintiff takes the reader to the Statement of Work.
"III. Payment Schedule
This payment schedule is as follows. The dates are identified as goal dates based on the project timeline of 8 weeks:
1. Deposit - April 16, 2008 - $10,000 +GST = $10,500.00
2. Milestone 1 - May 2, 2008 - $5,238.09 + GST = $5, 500.00
3. Milestone 1 - May 2, 2008 - $5,238.09 + GST = $5, 500.00
4. Milestone 1 - May 2, 2008 - $5,238.09 + GST = $5, 500.00
5. Milestone 1 - May 2, 2008 - $5,238.09 + GST = $5, 500.00
6. Milestone 1 - May 2, 2008 - $5,238.09 + GST = $5, 500.00
7. Completion - July 11, 2008 - $4,279.45 + GST = $4,493.43 " (1)
In the Respondent's mind, as he understands the english language, a Milestone is a 'SET' marker. Its visual and physical appearance when reached on the road is a 'clear indication' of a specific achievement having been completed. Add the Milestones to its destination, and one reaches the "Completion" of the effort. Every time the Respondent was informed a 'Milestone' had been reached, he was informed of same and instructed to PAY FOR THE NEXT PHASE! He did as he was told!
The primary reason for contracting Company 'X', was their 'GUARANTEE' on Timeline; their 'COMMITMENT' to a full-time adherence to fulfill their 'CONTRACTED' promises - those being their indications to complete the job faster than any other Web Developer approached; their defined 'EXCITEMENT' of the project. No more; no less!
CONTINUED DEFENSE REVISITED ANSWERS
10. ANSWER 10:
There were initial problems with the timeline due to excessive rounds of feedback and insistence by Evert Jan Steen the design must be precisely as Evert Jan Steen desires, regardless of any advice offerd by 'Project Manager 'R'' in an attempt to meet Evert Jan Steen's initial goals of user friendliness. Typical projects require at most 1 or 2 rounds of iterations to an initial design (96% of all projects in the 13 year history of 'COMPANY 'X'); in this project, 5 rounds of iterations were required. No, 'COMPANY 'X' never "allowed" it to run behind schedule. The apology for the Statement of work not being sufficiently detailed initially was offerd merely a gesture of ploliteness to make Evert Jan Steen feel better as there was nothing to apologize for, after all, it was Evert Jan Steen who reviewed the Statement of Work and ssigned it agreeing to the functionalities. Furthermore, '(CEO name)' invested 27 hors preparing the proposal for Evert Jan Steen's consideration. Ultimately, it was Evert Jan Steen's responsibility to read and review the contract and ensure that all deliverables that Evert Jan Steen wanted were included. 'PROJECT MANAGER 'R' was removed from the project due to 'R's inability to control Evert Jan Steen, not because of 'R's' project management skills. * NOTE: September 2, 2008, 'removal of 'R.'
'CEO' offered aplogies to Evert Jan Steen for not making it clear that prerequisites were required merely as a gesture of plotieness to Make Evert Jan Steen feel better, however, 'CEO' did not understand how Evert Jan Steen could have misunderstood previous phone calls and emails from 'Project Manager 'R' to Evert Jan Steen on April 22, 2008 at 11:12 AM and from PJ 'R' to Evert Jan Steen on May 22, 2008 at 10:29 PM identifying that these prerequisites were required.
* NOTE: Evert Jan Steen, self-representing Plaintiff, challenges Defense to prove the existence of the April 22, 2008 11:12 AM email of same, since he continues to maintain he NEVER received it, thus could NOT not reply to it, and therefor questions WHY Defense did not respond to Evert Jan Steen's lack of acknowledging it? With its clearly crucial importance, one would assume Steen's lack of response to same would have created an immediate reminder from PM 'R'! There are NO references to this purported email by Defense in ANY, of over a month's worth, following emails.
Evert Jan Steen maintains the very first email eluding to the need of the so-called Plaintiff-responsible 'Prerequisites' was on May 22, 2008, exactly one month later! In para 16 of that date's PM 'R's' email of May 22, 2008 the text reads: "
"There are also a few things we'll need to obtain in order to progress with some features on the site. These are: one vBulletin licence key, the postal code database, and the zip code database. These will need to be purchased as soon as possible so we can work further on the forum and the searching capabilities of the site." [...] " We are approximitavily two weeks behind schedule. To remediate to this situation, I've discussed with '(CEO)' and I've been able to double my workforce to help the project get back on track." "I'm really sorry about the delay and I really appreciate your patience and your business. I look forward to speak to you soon about the progress of GoPoCo."
NOTE: Does the above sound like a month's anticipated reminder of an earlier, April 22, 2008 purportedly sent similar request? Does a 2 week delay sound like a web-developer's conscientious efforts to "aim for (a) 6 week" completion?
10. ANSWER 10: (Continued):
(1) "With regards to Evert Jan Steen's self-set goal date of July 11, 2008, 'Company 'X' made no commitment to any completion date and therefore obviously no apology is necessary."
NOTE: I ask any Honourable Court; I ask any average intelligent reader: Am I going insane?
If so, please, before carting me away (as mentioned previously), I will gladly undergo a full psychiatric assessment to determine whether I am incompetent, or merely perfectly sane and in full possession of my mental faculties!
10. ANSWER 10: (continued):
"'Company 'X' did not allow the development (please note: Evert Jan Steen incorecctly refers to this as the 'production") to stretch over 7 months, each and every day 'Company 'X' did everything with 'Company 'X's' capabilities to aim for any goal dates that Evert Jan Steen requested, but 'Company'X' never committed to them. 'Company 'X' did complete all of 'Company 'x's obligations as per the Statement of Work and furthermore 'Company 'X' honored Company 'X's 90 business day guarantee."
b) 'Company 'X' accurately represented 'Company 'X's skills, capabilities and competencies. 'Company 'X' did not receive all funds as there are hundred of hours of work spent on out of scope items on a basis of goodwill that were not billed that should have been billed hourly."
11. ANSWER 11:
What 'Company 'X' meant by "a website similar in functionality to Kijiji and Craig'slist" is that it would share some of the same features and/or functionalities based upon the verbal and written communications between Evert Jan Steen and 'Company 'X' as outlined in the Statement of work."
NOTE: I HEREBY DISCONTINUE THE NEXT REVISITED 11 ANSWERS. ALL IS BECOMING TOO CONVOLUTED...
The following is an early Counsel's snippet's response on April 6, 2011
The question 'Q:' is the Plaintiff's
Q: After 'Project Man 'R' was fired on Sept 2, long after the Contracted Completion Date, was 'Project Man Z' promoted to replace him, in advance of "other" Project Managers?'A: 'Company X' never mentioned that 'Project Man R was fired from 'Company 'X.' Rather, he resigned from his position in order to move to Japan to get married. 'CEO' 'X' identified and was of the opinion that 'R' was unable to manage the client’s (Jan Steen) needs because Jan Steen’s focus was very scattered with respect to his own deliverables.After 'R' resignation, and in order to stay on track and complete all the deliverables, "CEO" opted to move the project to 'Z', having years of experience with keeping clients focused. Ironically, it was still a significant challenge to 'Z' to perform his work in keeping the client focused.
The following are CEO's own words to Plaintiff on September 2, 2008, some 6 weeks after the contract's indicated completion date, with NO SIGNS OF COMPLETION IN VIEW!
"Hey Jan,
It is clear to me that 'R's' project management skills are not where they should be at. We have removed him from the project management role and 'Z' will be your permanent project manager..."
NOTE:
Ironically, Plaintiff sent CEO a concerning email as early as May 4, 2008, some 3 weeks in to the project, since Company 'X' had indicated a "aiming for 6 weeks" completion date. Not having seen a single piece of progress, this Plaintiff emails CEO:
"'Name CEO' : Hi.
I don't see myself as an alarmist.
And this is NOT a letter of complaint.
However, looking at the time factor, I have some concerns about the stage of development of our site..
Unless I am wrong, then please allay my worries, there seems to be an inordinate amount of work ahead of us at this stage (at the end of the coming week half through?)
I appreciate that this job, like an iceberg, could have nine/tenths not showing, underwater; if that is the case, please inform me. As I have explained to 'R', this is the firsts time I have not been in control of something I initiated....."
SUMMATION:
This Respondent's efforts lie with his intentions to see justice done. However, this appears to be a 'pipe dream.' His intentions are primarily motivated to see his Investors fully paid back their investment. Although by law, he owes them NOTHING, it weighs on his conscience, since all was pursued in good faith, based on Defense's defined, solid contractual indications.
Ironies abound with the fact Defense has spent over $100,000! Pride must keep them forging ahead. All this reluctant Respondent seeks is his day in Court. He quit demanding 'better answers' - way back - realizing there was plenty of sound evidence at hand.
Clearly, a contract is not worth the e-commerce email it represents; a signature is debatable. Interpretation of the written word is up to the subjective interpretation of each reader.
All is frivolous, and this Blog may well be vexatious!
Respondent awaits Defense Counsel's Motion to dismiss the case; the Master shall be the Judge. Or will it become a higher Court's?
I shall go for a long walk, wondering what is real anymore. I know! Death and Taxes! Both are overdue, what with my already having been found guilty and ordered to pay Motion costs WAY beyond my meager capacity. Every Order brings its new stance. What once was left to the Trial Judge has in time been reinterpreted to be the Plaintiff's penalty. Justice indeed is for the foolhardy.
We are a strange, and awkward species..... "HMMMMMMM" ...as the Judge did muse.
This too will pass.
