51. Enslaved to dedication

Views at 3610

To the common man, most all of life is the drudgery of maintenance. So, once the daily bodily chores have been taken care of, and the ship that's home is prepared to sail another day, I set myself down with that gnawing feeling of commitment, and dedicate the bulk of most my days to the 'luxury' of self-expression. All with the intention, some useful legacy, some contribution, prevents the same nightmare from happening to someone else.

There will likely be less volume in this site until the appeal comes around. I'm still not certain how you, the reader, have access from this site (The Lonely Road) to the Case Study.

50. Politics Leads - The Law Follows

3588 Views...

With finger-pointing at the very office of Prime Minister Harper during the present political scandal concerning the deeply troubled Senate issues, it is no wonder lilliputians like myself easily fall by the wayside. Thanks, or blame, to Steve Jobs and Google to allow old farts like me their modicum of reflection on the state of this, our developed world.

'Politic' [Definition]
Adjective (of an action): seemingly sensible and judicious under the circumstances
Verb: engage in political activity: (politicking) often derogatory [related] 'sagacious' (adjective) - having or showing keen mental discernment and good judgment; shrewd
'shrewd' (adjective) - having or showing sharp powers of judgment; astute (also: - mischievous; malicious)

The phrase "under the circumstances" will haunt me to my grave. My ordered transcript for the two most telling sessions contains my question to Master MacLeod during the definitive September 20, 2013, motion hearing: "Would you please explain the meaning of: "All questions are relevant under the circumstance." Master MacLeod's answer: "It's not the rule of the court to give you advice."

 I have plenty of indications where 'the court,' with its presiding officer, has indicated advice - freely. "You may appeal if you like, Mr. Steen; but I would advice you seek counsel."(The honourable Judge Justine Saunders).  Then again I have learned the hard way, it is the prerogative of the presiding 'ONE' in charge, to set the tone of the rules and regulations.
Call it politic, call it brute force, call it the idiosyncrasies of ingredients that arise from particular circumstances to combine by order to represent justice; just - ice Power!

If democracy does not allow a citizen to ask an officer the reason, or meaning of his actions; if the state's rules do not reflect the state's actions; then democracy speaks with a forked tongue.

Does  Mr. Harper, have to explain his actions? When the Master orders, citizen Steen may NOT question the 'circumstances.' Right, or wrong - abide, or else! 'That's Just the Way it Is!'

Led by politics, like a meek puppy, the Law follows. It's called: 'Democracy.'

So wake up, and smell the coffee already.

49. DO IT, BUT BE PREPARED FOR THE WORST!

Page views 3366, I just checked. What's a page view? Where is it explained? Do I need to know? How curious am I? Who's in my 'Circle?' Do I care? I left Facebook, because 'they' had posted a silly shot of me on my business site http://go-bizlist.ca, the year I drove my Smart car to Nevada to spend time with my daughter at Burning man. Quite the experience, but once is enough. I'm going to do this stuff for only so much longer. It consumes you. I can't STAND the paper work. Files everywhere, and I still can't find what I'm looking for. Wish I had a robotic file-clerk; maybe in 10 years they'll be on special @ Walmart's.

My appeal seems to be registered. I have been given a Case Number. I paid $181.00 to file the 'Notice of Appeal', 'Appellant's Certificate Respecting Evidence' (a list of exhibits you intend to refer to), and an 'Affidavit of Service Notice'. Ur not allowed to email the court. Call them, leave a message, then sit around waiting for an answer, if it's important. They'll FAX you stuff, or else use regular mail. It's all highly tentative at a distance!

This posting's heading refers to a news item about whistleblowers and 'do-gooders' in general. At worst you'll get shot; the less threatening invaders, like me, tend to get burned out, or just squashed, like a gnat. The objective is to see this through, then compile in to an online available Case-study, and hope it forewarns other possible gullible people from wasting their time and money. Will it be worth it? Whatever, I'm doing it.

If you feel like seeing a film based on a real court case, about a man who invented the intermittent windshield wipers, watch Marc Abraham's 'A Flash of Genius'. The inventor spent some 18 years of his life in and out of court, lost his house, family, and his job. He was obsessed with 'justice.' Ironically, he did win in the end. I think he received some 18 million dollars. Was it worth it? I'm still hoping to pay my investors back... If I only had the $100,000 Defense has spent to date, it would be ALL over.

Soon...

47. The Blind Leading the Blind!

After watching Robin Williams being 'interviewed' by Craig Ferguson the other night, observing how their overt sexually expressive behaviour is 'allowed' on TV these days (big brother TV execs in need of audience, likely ignoring their religious norms), it makes me wonder what this Google blog allows me to say, before they censure my text.  

I was going to head this posting: 'I'm Pissing Up a Rope!' This, after enough critique by individuals who stated: "Jan, you've got to get off your high horse!" All around me, advice is to desist. I repeat, I've  come to this stage, I might as well take it to its - potential - last glimmer of hope. It's like buying a lottery ticket, I am aware of it. And I am pessimistic, since the judge will be from the same jurisdiction, family; hence less likely to overturn.

So, at 74+, embroiled in the rhetoric of the system, having lived most of my life outside the BOX, it looks like I am at long last confronting big brother head on! My appeal, left to a single Judge's interpretation, will either resurrect the case, allowing its fair due process to trial, or with a defense's further 'aid' put the kibosh on it. Yip, such is our 'demo-crazy.'

I once told Telus, who are all about 'the future is friendly': "I'm not interested in the future. I live in the PRESENT, so HELLO... how about some service NOW! :) >.  Many other 'hooks' will try to con you with their "It's FREE; try it now! Our representatives are standing by!" Guess there's no seats on the premises? OR, "Get up to $10,000 off the price of your new Cadillac!"...." But, sorry, in your case its going to be $5.00, since you don't have this, that and the other..."

All is a grand tease; a ploy to catch our vulnerability. So as a former positive living entity, I am saddened to acknowledge the species is rapidly falling by the wayside.

This too will pass...

46. Dear Readers @ 3044 Page Views to date

I had my first 'comment' yesterday! YEAH! Though it took a while - I knew 'you' were there; so "thank you," I feel less lonely already; it doesn't take much to feel better, even if the statement is negative, but well-intended. So, let me go there for a moment - to communication, sharing, acceptation, or critique and rejection.

Communication - what is it? Sharing - what is it? Privacy, what is it? Physical privacy is a must with me. I feel 100% complete when I am with nature. Clearly defined, I am 'one' with my surroundings; I understand and accept its ways. Being alone with nature allows my objectivity to bear the storms of human lunacy.

DON'T visit me - please! DON'T think of me - PLEASE! It creates unnecessary energy/ friction. My locals are well-trained that way. Only a very few can enter my physical private realm unscathed. I need no additional negatives! But 'online,' (this blog) I can carry my cerebral battle, as it relates to the machination we indulge in as partakers of a larger society. We can 'share' thoughts, and principles - at arms length, without invasion. Delete, and it is gone (not:); but 'Hey!' Good enuff, already! I canceled my Facebook when somehow a silly-me Burning Man get up, which my daughter ordered me to wear, showed up on my website... What? Who did That? No thanks, out-a-there!

Last thought Blog relative: I am appealing, but it's possible a date deadline logistic may screw me up.
Hope not...

44. When is an opinion NOT personal?

An ORDER is an 'OPINION.' An Opinion is an individual's assessment of materials at hand, as he/she relates them to the 'relevant issues in the circumstances.' The 'ordered opinion' is formed and registered at a specific point in time; regardless its bearings to any set rules, it remains 'Subjective.'

Notwithstanding, its 'relevance' stands unquestioned, unless successfully appealed. Uncontested, the 'ordered opinion' becomes law. So, little case by case, case-law subjectively manipulates the rules, and changes format. Let's call it 'in-breeding?'...:)

When I threw in the towel, after I sensed my discovery process of Defense's incessant demands for unrelenting questions would never end, by being out of Case Management, I had hoped for at least a three (3) judge panel during Appeal (as well as being out of the Ottawa Jurisdictional bottle neck of possible like-minds).

I am wrong! An Appeal to an 'Interlocutory'* Dismissal by a Master is heard by a single Judge in a Divisional Court. For Ottawa, this being - in Ottawa. Again, Jurisdiction is NOT in my favour.
*(given provisionally during an action)

The rules for required specs show much to prepare. It's far more complicated than where I have been. I have experienced that a tiny 'technicality' can jinx all efforts and costs. My former BC Example:
When my case in Small Claims Court in BC was "dismissed for lack of Jurisdiction,"my question to the Judge at the time was: "So, Your Honour, there is nothing I can do?" Madame Justice, the Honourable Justine Saunders answered: "Well, Mr. Steen, you may appeal, if you like...."

After many hours of effort and costs of filing, some 6 months later Defense Counsel argued: "You may not appeal after a Hearing, only after a Trial." Regardless my argument that Small Claims Court do not have 'Trials', that 'Hearings' are the 'Trials' of the Small Claims Court, the Supreme Court presiding judge, needing our 2 hour especially reserved and paid for session to clean up business of the morning, (after being alerted of the issue by Defense) briefly stated before postponing our session: "Mr. Steen, I shall have to look in to the matter whether I am even allowed to hear this..."

I decided to abandon the appeal, and instead sojourned to file in Ottawa. Here we are today. Is it worth it? Is what you are served the justice you deserve?
What I need to find out is whether there was ever a cross-provincial, out of Jurisdiction, Self-Representing case that has won an appeal. (?) Anyone?

 

43. A COURT MASTER'S CONTRIBUTION TO CASE LAW

NOTE:

From a RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT by Counter Claim; (original Claimant's/ Plaintiff's perspective). Although headlined as "Plaintiff,"machination of the 'modern system' has now tweaked this in to 'Case Law.' Stretched far beyond its origin of simple, confined relevance to 'Contractual non-compliance,' with clear-set rules to adhere to, instead, rhetorical practice by a jurisdictionally local 'moving party' has challenged 'under-oath' officers to deal with what is presented them in the 'here and now.' As such, applicable Rules lie ignored, while the 'reality' of active powers by well-placed motions with their one-sided subjective attacks, run havoc with truth, fact, and rules!  

The relevance of "matters in issue," as set out by the Rules of Civil Procedure, have NOT been at issue.  Defense, by hour-glass, has teeter-tottered the game to become the new Plaintiff. Checkmated by a Master, the Motion creating 'Moving Party' has won this round!

Far from done, I am in the process of appealing. Although the site has had some 2800+ page views to date, 'some feedback' would be much appreciated. (Or am I to continue my 'lonely road'?)
This order, by a Superior Court Master, places my appeal in a Divisional Court. Although I had hoped for three judges, I believe appeals from 'self-representing' citizens are likely categorized as sufficiently 'irrelevant,' to be left to the judgement of a single judge.   

I need to find Case Law (if it exists) in which a Self-Representing Claimant won an appeal! Anyone?

_________________________________________________________________________________

 http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc5996/2013onsc5996.html

Steen v. 3902641 Canada Inc., 2013 ONSC 5996 (CanLII)

Date:	2013-09-23
Docket:	10-49776
URL:	http://canlii.ca/t/g0r4v
Citation:	Steen v. 3902641 Canada Inc., 2013 ONSC 5996 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/g0r4v> retrieved on 2013-10-11
Share:
Print:	PDF Format
Noteup:	Search for decisions citing this decision

CITATION: Steen v. 3902641 Canada Inc., 2013 ONSC 5996

COURT FILE NO.: 10-49776

DATE: 23/09/2013

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE:                 EVERT JAN STEEN, Plaintiff

                        AND:

3902641 CANADA INC. carrying on business as N-VisionIT INTERACTIVE, Defendant

BEFORE:      MASTER MACLEOD

COUNSEL:   T. Kirk Boyd, for the Defendant, moving party

Evert Jan Steen, Plaintiff, responding party (by telephone)

HEARD:        September 20^th, 2013

ENDORSEMENT

[1]            The defendant moves to strike the statement of claim and dismiss the action commenced by Mr. Steen in 2010.  The basis for that is failure by Mr. Steen to comply with an order made by Master Roger on May 8^th, 2013.  That order provided that if the plaintiff failed to answer the list of undertakings referred to in that order by May 10^th, 2013 then the action was to be dismissed with costs.

[2]            As I will describe in a moment, the order of May 8^th was a consent order made after a series of previous orders.  At that time Mr. Steen, who resides in British Columbia, was represented by counsel.  It is clear that Mr. Steen has willfully refused to comply with the order and that the dismissal of his action is the appropriate remedy.  I am therefore granting the requested relief.

Background

[3]            This action is a breach of contract action in relation to a web site development agreement signed in April of 2008. Mr. Steen seeks a refund of money paid to the defendants, the cost of replacing his web site and consequential damages.  The action was commenced in October of 2010 although I understand from Mr. Steen that he had earlier attempted to bring it in British Columbia but the Supreme Court of B.C. declined jurisdiction.  The action was defended in January of 2011.  There is a counterclaim for defamation.

[4]            Both parties represented themselves for some time and in January of 2012 the action was made subject to case management under Rule 77.  It had been agreed between the parties that rather than oral discovery, they would proceed by written interrogatories.  At a case conference in May of 2012 Master Roger ordered that both parties were to answer all relevant questions as fully as possible by June 29^th, 2012.

[5]            At a further case conference on July 18^th, 2012 Master Roger ordered Mr. Steen to answer a number of unanswered questions unless he was specifically refusing to do so and he also scheduled the defendant’s motion to compel those answers.  Subsequently the time for answering was extended to August 31, 2012 and the parties were required to set out all refusals and undertakings that were in dispute in a refusals and undertakings chart.

[6]             A full day motion was argued on December 6^th, 2012 during which the Master carefully reviewed the relevance and sufficiency of the outstanding questions, follow up questions and refusals. The plaintiff was specifically ordered to answer questions and undertakings and ordered to pay costs.  Subsequently Mr. Steen appointed counsel.  At a case conference on February 27^th, 2013 with his counsel in attendance I ordered him to answer his outstanding undertakings by March 8^th, 2013 and to pay the outstanding costs.  Mr. Boyd confirms that some answers were provided in response but there were still answers missing and many of those that were provided were considered to be unresponsive or inadequate.

[7]            On May 8^th, 2013 there was a further motion in which the defendant sought answers to undertakings that were still outstanding or better answers or to undertakings that were considered unresponsive as well as answers to refusals.  By that time the defendant had also appointed counsel, Ms. Alexander and Mr. Steen still had counsel, Mr. Griffiths. 

[8]            The motion was resolved by agreement between counsel.  It provided yet another deadline to answer the remaining undertakings and contained the provision that if the undertakings were not answered the action would be dismissed.  This was the third order requiring the plaintiff to provide many of the same answers.  A motion date was also set to deal with incomplete or disputed answers in the event that was required.  

[9]            In compliance with the May 8^th order, the plaintiff was to be provided with a list of outstanding undertakings.  The list was provided.  Mr. Steen does not dispute the fact that he has still not answered those questions nor does he dispute that he clearly understood what it was he was supposed to do.

The issue of disability

[10]        On June 8^th, 2013 Mr. Steen filed a notice of intention to act in person.  Subsequently Ms. Alexander, lawyer for the defendant, received an e-mail and then a voice message from someone identifying himself as a lawyer named Noel Daley.  Mr. Daley states that he was an investor with Mr. Steen and that it was his $45,000.00 paid to the defendant for the web site design so he “has a big dog in the hunt”.  In the voice mail he then questions whether Mr. Steen might not now be suffering from some sort of dementia and advises Ms. Alexander to bring this to the attention of the court.  Mr. Daley did not purport to be retained nor to be taking any action to be appointed as litigation guardian.

[11]        On July 2^nd, 2013 Mr. Steen sent an e-mail to the court office in which he advised he is aware of both the e-mail and the voice mail.  He stated that he “would endorse a court order to undergo a full psychiatric assessment that could well lead to the Court’s appointment of an official litigation guardian, or amicus curiae on behalf of plaintiff Steen”.

[12]        I refer to this simply to illustrate that I am aware of it.  Ms. Alexander has quite properly drawn it to the attention of the court by referring to it in her affidavit.  Other than the suggestion by Mr. Daley in his communication with Ms. Alexander, there is nothing formally before the court to suggest that Mr. Steen is under a disability.  His own response may be regarded as opportunistic and if anything suggests the contrary since it appears he appreciates the nature of the proceeding he is involved in and the consequences of being found to be incompetent.   Nothing has been done by Mr. Steen or Mr. Daley to appoint a litigation guardian.  Mr. Griffiths who represented Mr. Steen between March 26^th, 2013 and June 18^th, 2013 apparently took instructions without indicating any concern that his client was not competent to instruct him.

[13]        On the telephone during the argument of the motion, Mr. Steen appeared to fully comprehend the nature of the motion and the consequences of dismissal of the action.  He filed a cross motion in which he asked me to set aside the order of Master Roger and he was able to clearly articulate his objection to answering the questions because he believed them to be irrelevant and abusive.  I do not accept that there is any reason to believe that Mr. Steen is a person under a legal disability.

Analysis and disposition

[14]        Mr. Steen made it abundantly clear during the motion that he has made no attempt to answer the remaining undertakings because he does not agree he should have to.  He states that they are not relevant and are too much work.  When I asked him if he would comply with the order if I gave him a further 30 days he advised me he would only do so if the court could guarantee he would not then be asked more questions. 

[15]        Under the circumstances I have no option but to conclude that the failure to answer the undertakings constitutes willful and intentional disregard of a court order.  As stated by Ferrier J. in 1066087 Ontario Inc. v. Church of the First Born Apostolic Inc. et. al. cited by counsel for the defendant, where a plaintiff has shown utter disregard for the orders of the court, it is unfair to require the defendant to continue to incur costs defending the action.  A similar conclusion was reached by the Divisional Court in Vacca v. Banks (2005) 6 C.P.C. 22.  In any event, Master Roger has already ordered that the action be dismissed if there was failure to comply and that order was not appealed.

[16]        Accordingly the action of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs of the motion.  The costs are fixed at $2,800.00 on a partial indemnity scale.

[17]        I note that the counterclaim continues although I was advised that counsel would seek instructions in this regard. If the counterclaim is continuing then it would be inappropriate to award the defendant costs of the action at this time.  In the event the counterclaim is discontinued then I may be spoken to with respect to a final disposition of costs.

___________________________

Master MacLeod

42. The Overview

The OVERVIEW

(as viewed by Jim Raymond)

"Jim Raymond, an English professor at Alabama, is the head of the judgment-writing course for federally appointed judges in Canada. He is also the co-author of an excellent book on good legal writing called "Clear Understandings"1. The subject of Professor Raymond's lecture at our judgment writing school is: "The First Page Says It All". Whether you are writing a factum or a judicial opinion, Raymond recommends that you begin with an overview statement, which tells the reader what the case is about, who did what to whom, the issues and your position on them - all in no more than a page. Raymond's view reflects a fundamental principle of persuasive factum writing: put context before details. The principle of context before details is also an important theme in a superb book on good legal writing, Thinking Like a Writer: A Lawyer's Guide to Effective Writing and Editing, by Stephen Armstrong and Timothy Terrell.

The overview statement has been used for several years by all good counsel arguing criminal appeals in our court, even though it is not required by the criminal appeal rules. The criminal bar has simply adopted the overview statement as a technique of good written advocacy.

Effective January 4, 1999, the Rules Committee amended the factum rules for civil appeals to our court to require an overview statement in Part II of the appellant's factum and in Part I of the respondent's factum.

Although the overview statement is now mandatory, you need to know why it is important. The overview statement is important because it provides a road map for the rest of your factum. It gives the judge the context for your appeal, and with the context the judge can better absorb and understand the details to follow. I consider the overview statement the most important part of the factum.

I have these suggestions for writing effective overview statements:

(i) In the overview statement you must begin persuading the court of the rightness of your client's cause. Tell your story in human terms, that is, appeal to the human being in the judge. Forget the legal jargon. Pretend the judge is just your well-informed next door neighbour. Engage the judge, capture the essence of what the case is all about and communicate the justness of your position. In other words, solicit the judge's affection for your cause.

(ii) State the key issue or issues on which the appeal turns in your overview statement but be careful not to state the issue or issues too broadly. If you state an issue too broadly, then your factum will be too long because the amount of detail is tied to how narrowly or broadly you state the issue. Worse, we judges will not know what to look for, what facts are crucial and what facts are background. For example, if you are attacking a municipal by-law, stating the issue as the validity of the by-law is too broad. Better to say that the issue is whether the by-law is invalid because it was passed in bad faith.

(iii) The overview statement should contain just enough facts to give context to the key issue and to preview what is to come. Most counsel do not give enough facts in their overview statements. You should front-load but not overload your overview."

_________________________________________________________________________________

Superior Court Case #10-49776 -

 The Overview

(by Jan Steen)

With a clear and final understanding, the Contract serves as written 'Proof of Fact' between 2, or more, parties. 'The Statement of Work' is an on-line Contract between a Web-developer and its Client. Above the signatories, it states to be legally binding. In case one of the parties upon the contract's due-date completion decides part, or all, of its factor items have not been complied with, or completed, that party may file a claim in a Court of Law, challenging the other party. During the due diligent process of the Court's format, according to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the validity of the claim will be determined. Or so one expects.

Created by the very most senior appointed Court Officials, these Rules are set in stone. They leave little room for subjectivity. In 2010 the Rules were further 'tightened.' An even greater specificity towards succinctness was applied. During the process of Discovery, the former "semblance of relevance" was shortened to "Relevance." The phrase "relating to any matter in issue" became: "relevant to any matter in issue."

It can be appreciated by this Claimant, whose original Claim for contractual non-compliance was filed in a British Columbia court, that 'the best Defense is a good Offense' (As the cliche goes). Defense, after consultation with Counsel, in self-interest, may well decide to evade the facts, since scrutiny may not favour that course  - i.e. to argue the facts as implemented by contract. By rendering persuasive rhetoric with the aid of available, effective ploys, such as the filing of a Motion to dismiss, including hints the Respondent Claimant is half dead old, recalcitrant, irrational, vexatious, emotionally involved, lives in a distant province, on an Island to boot, and has a frivolous claim - an over-worked Court Official together with the Jurisdictional physical Presence of Defense, may, in time, begin to show certain positive enhancements. 

So indeed finds this Jurisdictional distant Respondent/ Claimant has become the case. After some 2 years dilly-dallying, the matters at issue, i.e. the original claim, have yet to be addressed. And, AYE, here lies the rub. Defense has cleverly managed to avoid the issues at hand; what, under the Rules should be relevant, and addressed, as 'product liability', by clever slight of chess, in full view and acceptance by the Court, has become the rhetoric of a case law's stretched IR-relevance! Much costly court time has been taken up, with no regulation or adherence to the Rules in sight. 

I have come to the conclusion legal procedure is not about justice. It is about best using the tools of persuasion and amenities at hand to gain the upper hand. Statistics state that only some 5% of all claims manage to reach Trial. By knowingly obstructing the implementation of the Rules as set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Plaintiff's continued abidance by the Master's orders, would have shown flagrant disrespect for the Rules. 

The last 'Long Motion,' with new Defense Counsel in tow, requested continuing demands for more IR-relevant answers (in this Respondent's view). New, old questions were re-entered. Again "In the circumstances," all were ordered relevant by the Master. The respondent still awaits explanation of "In the circumstances." The Master's Endorsement had set out grave conditions for the Respondent/ Plaintiff. Non-compliance would lead to the case dismissal. With this, in fact, Defense would have at long last achieved their objective. Although this is clearly clever Defense, as I see it, it does not reflect well on our Courts of Justice, and its ultimate bottom line: The Rules of Civil Procedure. There is a self-defined, 'je ne sais quoi," bitter irony to this matter. "Civil Procedure" indeed!

The Judicial Oath of Office states: 

                      "I, ______________, swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ______________, and will do right to all manner of people, after the laws and usages of this province, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will; so help me God.".

Thus I concluded I could no longer comply with what I decided to be a blatant obstruction of both Oath and Rules. As such, with my conscience clear, but acknowledged sheer attrition by exhaustion, I was willing to surrender this chapter. In the War of legal chess, I now proceed with my next move: A Divisional Court's Appeal, as well as an application for a Judicial Revue.

_________________________________________________________________________________

This too shall pass...

41. Do Rules Rule, or is Justice a Game?

So here we are, at a possible final destiny. Has this become a battle of a 'Self-Representing' old geyser, who has been told to get off his 'High Horse,' in his efforts to challenge the legal system, by requesting the Court adheres to their self-set Rules?

Is Justice John F. Molloy opinion true: "The once honourable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business."  (?)

 Or is there a final Honourable Judgement by a conscientious judge, who decides to forego 'case law', by acknowledging, and adhering to the Rules?

Or has this just become a desperate, wasteful attempt at keeping the system's ever increasing recruits working for a pay day, to the detriment of facts, and contractual obligations?

If so, there is not only a Lonely Road to Justice, there IS no Road to Justice, since all appears to be a game of which Party has the CLOUT to WIN!

In that case, to hell with Democracy :(! May this undeserving, abusive species perish, to leave a more integrated world with a superior equilibrium! We are a run-away, disgraceful bunch. Our time is up!