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....