Exactly today, on July 11, a Friday on my 2008 Calendar, I encircled: GOPOCO Launch? Note the question mark, not an exclamation!
Why do we do the things we do? Motivation in all its many varied colors - is why. Ironies abound, to think that at the time, with a gnawing feeling we might be too late, with encouragement from the backers I was looking to find the 'right' people to do the job. That the process took longer, because of some douzen developers I had checked out, starting locally on Vancouver Island, then Lower Mainland BC, to end up online and finally 'finding' them! The CEO sounded so overwhelmingly confident!
Looking back, these have been 5 of my very worst years. At what cost? At what effort? To me the pendulum of 'right' versus 'wrong,' has changed, like the world is about to switch its polarity. Anything goes now. To be bad is excusable. Hey! It's a living.
So, with Defense's latest Motion, Affidavits, Exhibits etc. 'just in,' all looking for a 'legitimate' case dismissal, instead of having been ordered to set a Trial date (as Case Management had previously indicated); instead of leaving costs to the Trial Judge (as the Master had previously ordered), with the Master ultimately siding with Defense by ordering me to pay costs, and allowing yet again another lengthy Motion asking for more defined, as well as additional answers - all "relevant in the circumstances."According to his sworn oath, how will the Master order?
NOTE:
It has been 3 weeks since I sent the BC', Ontario', and Canada's Attorneys General my REGISTERED letter. (see Post 18) I continue to await their response.
Though still working on my major: gocascadia.com website, if Master Google allows me, I am reduced to leaving some of my personal rantings in this blog.
Thursday 11 July 2013
Wednesday 10 July 2013
25. 'AMICUS CURIAE' - Friend of the Court.
When in serious doubt, request a Court appointment 'Amicus Curiae,' a "friend of the Court."
Although this may sound like asking for an incestuous, collusive representative to the uninformed like myself, in fact, though with few examples shown, it may well be the gateway to reality to help my case get back on track and be taken seriously. A Court appointed 'Amicus Curiae Litigant Guardian' will represent you, when representing yourself has reached a point of no returns; i.e. you are no longer capable, if ever you were in the first place, to represent yourself. You are considered legally 'unstable.'
I have to date done my utmost to comply with all I have been required to produce during these procedures, until, at last, the true realization of madness began to sink in. A number of times I had come close to throwing in the towel, but each time, waking up, I felt the need to see it through to its bitter end. I have asked myself: Why the need? Why the energy? Why not leave negative alone to run a wanting world? How many years left to live? Turn the other cheek, why BOTHER!
Now I admit, a new chapter is about to begin, or, at least so I think. 'I think, therefore I am' - demented?
Unfold, oh sands of time...
Although this may sound like asking for an incestuous, collusive representative to the uninformed like myself, in fact, though with few examples shown, it may well be the gateway to reality to help my case get back on track and be taken seriously. A Court appointed 'Amicus Curiae Litigant Guardian' will represent you, when representing yourself has reached a point of no returns; i.e. you are no longer capable, if ever you were in the first place, to represent yourself. You are considered legally 'unstable.'
I have to date done my utmost to comply with all I have been required to produce during these procedures, until, at last, the true realization of madness began to sink in. A number of times I had come close to throwing in the towel, but each time, waking up, I felt the need to see it through to its bitter end. I have asked myself: Why the need? Why the energy? Why not leave negative alone to run a wanting world? How many years left to live? Turn the other cheek, why BOTHER!
Now I admit, a new chapter is about to begin, or, at least so I think. 'I think, therefore I am' - demented?
Unfold, oh sands of time...
Monday 8 July 2013
24. RECOMMENDED CHANGES to the RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURES by a SELF-REPRESENTED CLAIMANT.
TO THE HIGHEST RULERS AND TREND-SETTERS IN OUR DEMOCRACY!
Hello rulers of Democracy, precious holders of the common man's save-keeping! Hello to those, put in position, who are there to make certain the Rules you and your predecessors put in place, are in fact adhered to.
As an aging, self-representing claimant, I have had gravely trying times experiencing the present legal system. The dichotomy of its representations are conflicting and clearly at war!
On the one hand The Rules of Civil Procedure, (always shown in italic), on the other hand, the appointed officers interpreting as they seem to see fit!
Aye, and there's the rub! SUBJECTIVITY, playing all its derivative hands.
Having been immersed in my battle to see justice practiced, this leads me to suggest some major changes to the present legal system.
The dire need to upgrade present Civil Procedures, so that NO inherent rules allow for ANY subjective re-interpretation. i.e. "semblance of relevance" is replaced by "relevance." That's IT! No meandering!
My suggestions:
1) Recognize e-commerce connectives across Jurisdictional boundaries and as such relevance to its contractual obligations. If funds, contract, daily supplier/client contact and input etc. are exchanged from that Jurisdiction, it should qualify as the rightful, default jurisdiction in any claim!
2) Should a Counterclaim ensue, it should NOT be allowed to override the initial claim. The claim shall continue to take front and center, unless the court is alerted to, and asked to assess the possible weight of effect of the Counterclaim, and as such, judge it to be influencing procedures enough to give it priority attention.
3) Since Motions to dismiss are a Judge's authority, no motions to dismiss should be allowed during the pretrial, discovery phase. In fact, since Motions favor the Moving Party, there is proven danger that in time, with Jurisdictional disparity, the Respondent's position lessens.
NOTE:
Re Motions
Where a Case Management Master's original order was to leave costs to the Trial Judge, by the 4th Conference the Respondent was held to blame, and ordered to pay for costs! By the 4th Conference, with this claimant attending by telephone, all questions had become "Relevant under the circumstances." What had happened to have these completely claim-non-relevant questions gradually become "RELEVANT?" What 'relevance' has MY personal resume to the non-compliant contract?
I can order a car, pay for it, and decide to drive it off a cliff, should I so decide! My driving talents have NOTHING to do with the purchase and payment of the car! READ THE LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT - PLEASE!
I have studied the Rules of Civil Procedure. Though acknowledging the 2010 'improvements' by leaving less room for subjective interpretation, all with the INTENT of cutting legal rhetoric and time, I have experienced the opposite!
The filing of my May 19, 2011, form 35A Written Questions, which by the Rules of Civil Procedure were to have been answered in two weeks, went unanswered for some 5 months.
Defense Counsel's machinations this self-representing claimant endured at the time continued unabashedly.
4) Allow for a 30 day (not 15 day) "Answers to Written Questions" period. State that "All relevant questions must be answered in detail, as much as possible." Let these answers be a 'One-of.' No ongoing revisits to "Answers to Re-answers to Answers."
5) Make certain there is NO confusion about the Government's online information about the Discovery Plan process. (This claimant, after studying the Rules of Civil Procedure, found Form 35A, Written Questions, wrote and delivered same, only to be informed later about the need for a "LONG FORM DISCOVERY PLAN." This then slowed matters to a crawl, with Defense holding on to this Claimant's Written Questions for some 5 months, before answering!
6) Order affidavits, and Factum filed BEFORE MEDIATION! Order mandatory Mediation to take place ASAP after 90 days of filing/receiving all texts.
7) Without settlement, and based on conference assessment let MEDIATOR order the 'Refusal + Undertakings' charts from both parties.
Allow 14 days after failed Mediation for filing of same, with copies to Mediator (or Case Management).
8) Allow Parties 14 days to complete, and file 'Refusal Chart.'
9) Arrange and apply for Pre-trial date; await court date.
Above should all be achievable in ONE Calendar year.
Tightening the Rules with timeline efficiency, relevance, and procedure, sets out to avoid any possible angles to self-interpret.
The 2010 improvements' opposite of well-meant intentions were in fact achieved - in this claimant's view. By allowing Counsel the role of interpreting 'The Long Form of Discovery,' (under the guise of cutting down trial time) opened a Pandora's box for expansive rhetoric, individual subjectivity, and allowances for an assortment of ploys. All under the guise of 'The best Defense is a strong OFFENSE!'
NOTE:
My experience continues to prove that, all in all, The Rules of Civil Procedure, in their glorious representation, in practice, are either being abused at random, or, if NOT - I am in serious need of an objective double check! As it sits, justice is in the eye of the beholder and the relevance of reality lies with its interpreters.
This too will pass....
Hello rulers of Democracy, precious holders of the common man's save-keeping! Hello to those, put in position, who are there to make certain the Rules you and your predecessors put in place, are in fact adhered to.
As an aging, self-representing claimant, I have had gravely trying times experiencing the present legal system. The dichotomy of its representations are conflicting and clearly at war!
On the one hand The Rules of Civil Procedure, (always shown in italic), on the other hand, the appointed officers interpreting as they seem to see fit!
Aye, and there's the rub! SUBJECTIVITY, playing all its derivative hands.
Having been immersed in my battle to see justice practiced, this leads me to suggest some major changes to the present legal system.
The dire need to upgrade present Civil Procedures, so that NO inherent rules allow for ANY subjective re-interpretation. i.e. "semblance of relevance" is replaced by "relevance." That's IT! No meandering!
My suggestions:
1) Recognize e-commerce connectives across Jurisdictional boundaries and as such relevance to its contractual obligations. If funds, contract, daily supplier/client contact and input etc. are exchanged from that Jurisdiction, it should qualify as the rightful, default jurisdiction in any claim!
2) Should a Counterclaim ensue, it should NOT be allowed to override the initial claim. The claim shall continue to take front and center, unless the court is alerted to, and asked to assess the possible weight of effect of the Counterclaim, and as such, judge it to be influencing procedures enough to give it priority attention.
3) Since Motions to dismiss are a Judge's authority, no motions to dismiss should be allowed during the pretrial, discovery phase. In fact, since Motions favor the Moving Party, there is proven danger that in time, with Jurisdictional disparity, the Respondent's position lessens.
NOTE:
Re Motions
Where a Case Management Master's original order was to leave costs to the Trial Judge, by the 4th Conference the Respondent was held to blame, and ordered to pay for costs! By the 4th Conference, with this claimant attending by telephone, all questions had become "Relevant under the circumstances." What had happened to have these completely claim-non-relevant questions gradually become "RELEVANT?" What 'relevance' has MY personal resume to the non-compliant contract?
I can order a car, pay for it, and decide to drive it off a cliff, should I so decide! My driving talents have NOTHING to do with the purchase and payment of the car! READ THE LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT - PLEASE!
I have studied the Rules of Civil Procedure. Though acknowledging the 2010 'improvements' by leaving less room for subjective interpretation, all with the INTENT of cutting legal rhetoric and time, I have experienced the opposite!
The filing of my May 19, 2011, form 35A Written Questions, which by the Rules of Civil Procedure were to have been answered in two weeks, went unanswered for some 5 months.
Defense Counsel's machinations this self-representing claimant endured at the time continued unabashedly.
4) Allow for a 30 day (not 15 day) "Answers to Written Questions" period. State that "All relevant questions must be answered in detail, as much as possible." Let these answers be a 'One-of.' No ongoing revisits to "Answers to Re-answers to Answers."
5) Make certain there is NO confusion about the Government's online information about the Discovery Plan process. (This claimant, after studying the Rules of Civil Procedure, found Form 35A, Written Questions, wrote and delivered same, only to be informed later about the need for a "LONG FORM DISCOVERY PLAN." This then slowed matters to a crawl, with Defense holding on to this Claimant's Written Questions for some 5 months, before answering!
6) Order affidavits, and Factum filed BEFORE MEDIATION! Order mandatory Mediation to take place ASAP after 90 days of filing/receiving all texts.
7) Without settlement, and based on conference assessment let MEDIATOR order the 'Refusal + Undertakings' charts from both parties.
Allow 14 days after failed Mediation for filing of same, with copies to Mediator (or Case Management).
8) Allow Parties 14 days to complete, and file 'Refusal Chart.'
9) Arrange and apply for Pre-trial date; await court date.
Above should all be achievable in ONE Calendar year.
Tightening the Rules with timeline efficiency, relevance, and procedure, sets out to avoid any possible angles to self-interpret.
The 2010 improvements' opposite of well-meant intentions were in fact achieved - in this claimant's view. By allowing Counsel the role of interpreting 'The Long Form of Discovery,' (under the guise of cutting down trial time) opened a Pandora's box for expansive rhetoric, individual subjectivity, and allowances for an assortment of ploys. All under the guise of 'The best Defense is a strong OFFENSE!'
NOTE:
My experience continues to prove that, all in all, The Rules of Civil Procedure, in their glorious representation, in practice, are either being abused at random, or, if NOT - I am in serious need of an objective double check! As it sits, justice is in the eye of the beholder and the relevance of reality lies with its interpreters.
This too will pass....
Wednesday 3 July 2013
23. THE 'IN'-SANITY OF TRUST
Words with no meaning lead to the insanity of justice.
I can not play this cheating game. You are what you do, not what you say you will. We are becoming less grounded as I see it. How well does a guilty conscience fair? How harmonious can the package be? The following is a list of case relevant words and their definitions.
If ever this claim manages to get to trial, these words will either be held up, or bent, to fit the suit.
DEFINITION OF:
1) Contract: A written or spoken agreement, that is enforceable by law.
2) Signature: A person's name written in a distinctive way as a form of identification.
3) Product: A substance that is manufactured for sale.
4) Project: An individual or collaborative enterprise that is carefully planned and designed to achieve a particular aim.
5) Aim: Point or direct at a target; have the intention of achieving. ("Aiming at 6 weeks")
6) Intention: An aim, or plan. ("...intending to be legally bound thereby.")
7) Similar: Resembling without being identical. ("Similar to Craigslist and Kijiji")
8) Timeline: A graphic representation of the passage of time.
9) Milestone: An action or event marking a significant change or stage in development.
10) Goal: An aim or desired result. "The dates are identified as goal dates based on the project timeline of 8 weeks."
11) Liability: The state of being responsible for.
12) Agreement: A negotiated and typically legally binding arrangement between parties as to a course of action.
13) COLLUSION: Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, esp. in order to cheat or deceive someone, esp. between opponents in a lawsuit.
14) LAW: The system of Rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
15) RULE: One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles, governing conduct with a particular activity or sphere, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable.
NOTE:
The Rules of Civil Procedure, as created by Canada's highest court officials, prescribe Questions during the Discovery phase to be "relevant to the matters in issue." The matters in issue deal with the Respondent/Plaintiff's claim of a non-compliant contract - no more; nothing less.
The Rules, regarding questions posed by either party (as 'improved' in 2010), state the former phrase: "the semblance of relevance" to be re-fined to "relevance." Additional adjustments set out to re-define earlier Rules which allowed for a broadness of subjectivity and irrelevance. This had led to increased costs and Court time.
The present continuous Defense allowable barrage of non-relevant questions in this case shows serious rule-applicable disparities to this Plaintiff. The Court's allowances for continued Defense Motions to be filed, shows this Plaintiff a failure to abide by the 2010 'improved rules.'
As a Canadian citizen I have equal right to the laws and, as per its officers oath of office, I am entitled to equal and unbiased treatment.
I seriously question the Court's financial penalties already imposed upon me. Living on a basic pension, I was forced financially to self-represent. At this stage I am deeply in debt.
An earlier filed Plaintiff's Motion 'lost in the paperwork' indicates a serious discrepancy, showing my lack of jurisdiction further handicaps me. Additionally, the Government's Legal online system has as yet to allow distant claimants to handle their affairs efficiently. This clearly further impedes me.
This Google Blog seems to be my only practical tool to reach out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)