65. Dangling a Carrot = Playing with Emotions.

Views @ 5218

"The ocean -
Vast. Deep.
A limitless pool of life."

So starts a Poem, accompanying a photograph, underwater, looking up at various bull-kelp suspended from the surface; the sun of life feeding an intriguing splash of light.

- A double page Ad on the second page of a caring national magazine. An Ad for a pipeline that sets out to protect our oceans.
- So say you are a CEO needing to feed your 20 employees; you are the one whose job it is to bring in the client; how far would you go to entice? 'Well, just watch me!'

That said, it's confirmed; there's a "limitless pool of life" out there. Let's call them 'suckers.' In the real world, can you blame the ones who find you? There's a fool born every minute (and a blog created every half/second, so I read).

To separate wheat from chaff, to determine truth from reality - before the signature goes down to paper to 'close the deal,' we need to spread the puzzle on the table. To assess ALL THAT LIES CONTAINED WITHIN, let's punch up the font size of the core that presents most of the hidden nasties. Then, I say, make illegible small print VERBOTEN!

Do not be fooled by the dichotomy of gentle association. A pipeline is a pipeline; it carries cargo sold for bucks to distant lands! Nothing is full-proof. Do you drive a car? Watch TV? I do. Hypocrites all, demanding our creature comforts. Life continues to be about survival. Is sustainment even feasible? Could it be re-attained? By controlling reproduction? Could we grow back to a nature's equilibrium and live in balance? This is now our species dilemma.

In the meantime, unless a big foot comes down, I will continue to pursue this endeavour to its natural end. While what is done is done, I look forward to leaving behind my rendition of what may help others prevent the miseries of time, energy, costs, and emotions I continue to endure.

Remember, I am still awaiting response from the transcript office about my ordered transcripts. There appears to be a FLY in the ointment. Is it contagious?

64. Thanks Giving to Those Who Care!

Views to date @ 5,159  (Last month @ 1, 544)

The reasons for continuing this Blog is based on viewership. The purpose is to inform, not to entertain. It is reflected in my title. Although I appreciate views by the curious, hopefully the input by those who acknowledge my efforts by responding will help to stimulate the positive while working through the negatives.
The question is? With questionable behaviour at the very zenith of our offices, how can we encourage lay-folk to help make a difference in keeping the system adhere to its rules?

Do we merely accept the downward slide to our no longer pretty world, because our fate lies in ruining it? Or are we prepared to soldier and overcome injustice; injustice that seems to becoming the norm? Will evil be the new default? Will justice become an expensive luxury!

So, is this Lonely Road to Justice a mere naive, mad attempt by a fool? Will even the concept of justice, which in itself is foreign to nature, become a thing of the past? Despite the outcry, it seems to be establishing itself as the tool for survival of the fittest. To hell with the rules.

I continue to await receipt of ordered transcripts I feel will serve as proof of evidence in my appeal. They show my questioning procedure; they indicate response by those in charge. Who's right? Who's wrong? What matters is who WINS!

The meek will NOT inherit the earth! Happy Thanksgiving!

63. Legal Suggestions from a Self-Representer

Views @ 5030

I have absolutely NO idea what is happening! I filed the Appeal; ordered 2 transcripts (others were not available). I communicated with both transcribers, and although their emails are "name@ontario.ca", they do their transcribing at home. I have not managed to verify if they work for the government, or a private company (they exist). Since January 2013, I read, all recordings are done digitally.

One transcriber informed me on November 5, the transcript was "being reviewed,"and that, upon payment, it would be ready for delivery. That was the last I heard! Despite several attempts to enquire what happened, all communications have ceased!

This then takes me to refocus on where we are at, how we got here, and why (in my opinion) it all went drastically astray.

Having discussed that Self-Representation may work fairly in our Hinterland Communities, where adversaries meet face to face with their Judge Judy (no offense), when it comes to Jurisdictional disparity where the litigant is forced to present his/her case in Defense's domicile, this creates HUGE undemocratic disadvantages, as has been rudely experienced by this self-representing litigant.

FIRST SUGGESTION:

When it comes to doing jurisdictional cross-border business, where the litigant can prove having by 'contract acquired services,' or 'goods with guarantees,' 'that were paid for within his/her jurisdiction,' from the defendant supplier, the allowance for filing the claim should be in the litigant's jurisdiction.

HOWEVER, to avoid scammers from willy-nilly achieving this, a pending claim shall first be adjudicated by an impartial party - say the office of the Public Guardian, or an Amicus Curiae.
In this litigant's case the claim was clear and precise: "Contractual non-compliance." That's it; nothing more, nothing less. WHAT WAS AGREED TO IN THE CONTRACT + additional PROOFs of relevant communication that led to the contract.

Should the Appointed (Impartial) Party acknowledge sufficient legitimacy for the claim, the litigant may file in his/her forum conveniens. With the affirmative, the likelihood of fairing better for Self-Representation has just increased. If it is argued clearly there are not sufficient grounds for the claim, the litigant would have to file in Defense's Jurisdiction, should he still wish to do so.
NOTE: The assessing 'Appointed Party' need not know the name, or jurisdiction of the Defending party. 

Note the following link on the 'Principles of Jurisdiction on the Internet:'
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property99/domain/Betsy.html

SECOND SUGGESTION:

Considering how e-commerce is a now a major factor in most everyone's lives; how costs of Counsel precludes many citizens from access to the courts, democracy, if indeed it is to continue to serve the people, should, after assessing the income and assets of both parties, in practice, allow any litigation over $25,000 (allotted in Small Claims Court) legal aid serviced by a well-positioned professional. That professional to be receiving fair pay for services upon completion, or if not successful, a basic stipend, payable by our government.

THIRD SUGGESTION:

Should, with the Statement of Defense, a Counterclaim be filed, unless it has clear relevant connectives to the matters at issue within the claim, the Counterclaim may not interfere with the due process of the claim. It must be dealt with after the issues of the claim have been resolved.

FOURTH SUGGESTION:

Although well-intentioned to save court time, the Discovery Process, as implemented, needs adjustments. Its process leaves too much room for interpretation by the parties. Left unchecked, opportunity for meandering off course in to irrelevancy is too apparent. With a Self-Representing Litigant on board, it allows a more knowledgeable Defense Counsel room to maneuver. Cleverly timed Motions can easily redirect the focus of the issues at hand. An offensive Defense can leave a valid claim defeated, without justice having been served.

FIFTH SUGGESTION:

Retain Small Claims Court with Litigation up to $25,000, in which litigants reside within the same Jurisdiction. Cross-border, interprovincial litigation in Canada's Superior or Supreme Courts should not  allow self-representation. The system can not fairly deal with it. Justice is unlikely to be served.

62. Summation from Blog No.2

VIEWS @4911

I have copied this from my Case #10-49776 Blog, just in case you did not access it. The text reflects my responses to the contract, signed on April 14, 2008, on which every legally applicable 'truth-by-fact' is meant to reflect, and as yet, hasn't.

SUMMATION:

Words, words, words! All hollow, wrapped in a contract, defended by excuses. 
Well-intended, or merely a PR ploy? To me it is disgraceful! A circus sideshow.
I understand Defense has spent over $100,000. to date.
I have been forced by the courts to pay for costs, now over $5,000.
It has ruined my life, soon coming up to 6 years.

The reader must understand that my original claim was confined to:  'contractual non-compliance'
No more; no less! My earlier Blog reported on case procedures. I had been informed that once materials are served and filed with our courts, they are in essence 'Public Property.'
Even emails written by the Prime Minister to his staff are 'Public Property.'

My name is out there; I have nothing to hide, but might have something to fear. Are we now threatened to live with fear? What might I have said that is so 'unacceptable? The truth, represented by facts? Our democracy is unfolding here, and it does not feel 'comfortable.'

When filing their Statement of Defense, with a Counterclaim of 'Defamation,' Defense, with Counsel, managed to pull the focus away from the claim. We have, in fact, not addressed the issues of the claim, since defense managed, with Motions to dismiss, waylay any attention to the claim with their determined focus on keeping me busy answering questions in 'Discovery and Undertakings that had NO relevance to the claim. This has been allowed for over 2 years now.

At one point, June 2012, I decided, I had more than enough evidence, and felt we needed NOT abuse the Court's time any longer. But Defense decided it was not satisfied, and kept delaying procedure by asking more far-fetched questions. These were somehow tolerated by the courts. A feat I still do not understand Case Management allowed.

Remember, it came to the Master ordering me: "All questions are relevant in the circumstances." That phrase has still not been explained to me. What ARE the circumstances? Why are questions about my past career relevant to WHAT circumstances? The Contract? In which as you read I had ZERO duties to fulfill? I call it MADNESS! We have gone belly UP!

Later, when we come to close this case down, I will discuss: The matter of Self-Representation from a distant Jurisdiction. Although our Government makes allowances for it, it just does NOT WORK!
Certainly NOT in more complicated cases like this, that, in fact, should NEVER have been allowed to become so convoluted!

This too will end... surely...

61. Our Morphing Species...>>>

Used to be you could trust your fellow being. When it was about physical survival. "There's a lion prowling the village; watch out!" Keeping your community safe meant you were pooling your forces to be stronger. Concerns were about the extended family, the group.

Then we began living in cities; the nuclear family broke up; we became a community of strangers. Flying became affordable; you could escape from a shitty home scene and opt to live in peace elsewhere. The global village was created; the have-nots supplied the haves with cheaper goods, and felt better. Multiplication increased numbers. Just give us what we want - now!

We're all in the head - now. Computers slowed us down, only to speed us up for instant gratification. In hand, we click: Gimme that  - NOW! We don't look up; we look down. We don't earn it; we demand it.
But there's still a lion lurking in our village; so watch out!

This time it speaks in forked tongues. Smiling, it bears gifts, encourages you to sign up; cause it's your friend. Nature's in your face, beckoning from a screen. The lion's cute, but in disguise; it devours you at leisure.  

We're all in the head - now. Believe us. Trust us. 100% guaranteed, it's on special with up to thousands of dollars off. But quantities are limited, so call NOW! Get your free trial, our receptionists are standing by! You never meet your suppliers. Tactility is in the speed of your fingers, not your feet. It's a new reality, a new truth. Trust me!

Still there are the Rules. Stop at a RED light; pay your taxes; don't be abusive in public! And we still obey! In law, the experts created the Rules of Civil Procedures. Created, yes, but like the lion, what's their purpose? To uphold? Or sit in disguise, while pretense is the new reality?      

I'm not keeping up. I'm not getting it. The power lies with the few, not the community. Why can't I embrace that rhetoric? Why can't I just accept it? This is my dilemma, I'm stubborn and paying for it.

Due process is being re-interpreted by our public servants. The rules are morphing.

60. The ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM!

Views @ 4834

We are entering a new chapter! With me as the enemy!

I have created an impasse!  By daring to challenge the Masters; by questioning Public Servants WHY we are not 'playing by the rules', I have aggravated the system. By questioning clearly set standards of behavioural proportionality and rule-bound procedure; by not complying to questionable orders, I have  been dismissed and now created an impasse. 

This old man, he played one - (too many)

he played knick-knack on their thumb

with a knick-knack paddywhack

give the dog a bone 

this old man came rolling... home.

I refused to roll over and die by attrition, or sheer exhaustion. 

This is a demo gone crazy. There is clearly no goodwill here; no "Mr. Steen, you make a good point; we are overburdened, and got lost in the immediate demands from our locals. Let's try again, and this time see if we can have a serious look at your claim and try adhere more by the rules..."  

Nope! It is - do as we say, or else; adversarial all the way.

Oddly, only some ten years ago, this Blog would not have existed. A mere gnat like me could not have expressed himself like this. I would have swallowed my losses, and gone back to harmless puttering, squashed like a recalcitrant bug, realizing justice was paid for by those who can afford it.

In the late sixties I was a documentary film maker with my own company in old TO. We produced some 30 + Career Guidance films on 16 mm film. One won the Chris Award for best in its category. Did I invent quick cutting? (One frame/2 frame/4 frame/ one frame, segways in to new scenes?) Who cares? Video tape had not been created yet, just like computers now. One's lot in life is determined by time, place, and circumstance. 

I was going to do a lot of things, and did the things I did! Such is life; you only have so much control, while trying to keep it all 'together'! Now this! Why? To right a wrong? It is possible? Doesn't look like it. Still, you do what you do, and then you're dead! Spit in the bucket of time we are. 

"Dad, don't be weird!" 

59. Going to the Source - Looking for Answers

views @ 4767

FOR THE RECORD

To Masters Pierre Roger and Calum MacLeod:

Gentlemen:

I contact you today, since you are both in the driver's seat, while I, a Self-Representing Elder Citizen, am domiciled in a distant jurisdiction called British Columbia.   

As early as June 2011, I made efforts to seek your department's assistance. They were stifled by then defense Counsel Roy MacHaalani, stating "Case Management is archaic, my client does not want it." Ironies abound In hindsight!

While I feverishly held on to my interpretations of the 'Rules of Civil Procedure,' you allowed Defense incessant discovery undertakings, punishing me for costs, and ultimate dismissal of my claim. 

My appeal procedures have hit a glitch. My request for transcripts, although acknowledged, and proceeded with by its transcribers, have not been forthcoming. I understand, upon completion, they are presented for your stamp of approval. I also understand, you may verify, but not adjust.

For the record, I note that I have ordered (but continue to await receipt thereof), the December 06, 2012, transcript of the lengthy session with Master Roger.

As well as the September 20, 2013, 'Special Appointment' with Master MacLeod, and Counsel Kirk. 

I was looking to order a third transcript - the May 08, 2013, 'session.' 

Filed on March 25, 2013, as a: 'Requisition to Schedule Appearance Long Motion Dates'  

- Equipped with Counsel Joseph Griffiths this time, I was informed the May 08 'session' would be a Case Conference to "fix a Motion Date."

- On May 06, I was informed by Counsel Griffiths, Miss. Jill Alexander of BLG has been retained

- On May 10, I was informed by Counsel Griffiths, the 'Case Conference' was in fact a full blown motion, with new orders!

- Outstanding undertakings shall be provided, and Plaintiff shall answer them, or defendant "may seek to stay or dismiss the action."

- Mr. Griffiths, I discovered, in fact, added a number of relevant questions of his own: What my diploma was from Theatre School; what jobs I had as a handyman. 

All case, and contractual non-compliance claim "relevant in the circumstances."

- I also gleaned later, the May 08, Motion, was a Counsel 'call-in-affair.' And although I am informed all Motions are recorded, this one was NOT! 

For this Appellant to seek out additional efforts by "raising the incompetence or ineffective assistance of counsel" (as below) would only be to add to the misery of the matters presently at hand.  

_______________________________>

Superior Court of Justice Protocol – Allegations of Incompetence

• 1. 

  Before raising the incompetence or ineffective assistance of counsel, or that counsel otherwise contributed to a miscarriage of justice, appellate counsel has an obligation to satisfy themselves as soon as possible, by personal inquiry or investigation, that there is some factual foundation for the allegation, apart from the instructions of the appellant

  ____________________________________________>

It is my understanding of deadline dates for filing appeal docs, that  - without transcripts, it is 30 days after filing Notice of appeal. That would suggest today. 

However, I have requested 2 transcripts, including the October 29, 2013, dated, Certificate of Ordering a Transcript for Appeal of the September 20, 'Special Appointment' with Master MacLeod. 

  

In closing, gentlemen, although I do not yet know the details of your intent, the silence from the transcript department is deafening.

Surely you are not jeopardizing my efforts to appeal. 

If I am wrong, why the silence, and when may I expect the delivery of the 2 transcripts ordered, so I may continue my due process?

As always, sincerely,

Jan Steen

_______________________________________________________>

1:45 

Motions and Express Motions – tips  

from a Master 

Master Calum Macleod 

Superior Court of Justice, East Region, Province of Ontario 

• Planning and strategizing  the motion 

• Necessary preparations 

• What to consider in formulating your arguments 

• Oral presentation and advocacy in motions 

• Express motions – what you need to do differently 

- meeting the 5-minute rule and getting your point across 

• Ethics and professional practice issues for motions 

- undertakings and answers to undertakings 

- Withdrawing from the record 

- Confidentiality and privilege 

• Special issues and special motions  

2:45   

networking Refreshment Break 

• Timing and content of expert witness reports 

- Rule 53.03 

- The earlier the better 

- Expert witness reports and settlement 

• “Hot-tubbing” of expert witnesses 

• Ethical and professional issues related to witnesses  

and expert testimony 

4:00 

Mastering Written Advocacy 

Barry leon 

Partner 

Perley-Robertson, Hill & McDougall LLP  

Written advocacy is increasingly important in all forms 

and at all stages of dispute resolution. There are several 

key aspects to effective written advocacy – understanding 

them will make your written advocacy more persuasive 

and compelling. This session will focus on how you can 

improve your written advocacy in every document you 

prepare. 

• The most common legal drafting errors and how to  

avoid them 

• Key factors to consider 

In a decision issued June 6th, Master MacLeod of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice asked whether particulars should be more readily ordered under the Ontario rules given the relationship between pleading, discovery and expense. He concluded:

All of this is to say that the requirement of particulars for the purpose of pleading should not be construed too narrowly. A request for particulars should be upheld if it appears that it will result in a more focused and intelligent pleading and it should be refused if it simply adds another unnecessary step or delays the progress of the action.

Master MacLeod is on Sedona Canada and clearly cares to encourage efficient litigation. He has demonstrated a unique willingness to take a detailed look at how parties have conducted a step in a proceeding (as opposed the steps taken) and hold them to account: see e.g., L’Abbé v Allen-Vanguard.

58. Time to Revolutionize?

VIEWS @ 4721

With a surge in Blog readership these last few days has come a disconcerting quiet in response to my enquiries regarding transcript materials of certain sessions I am needing for usage in my appeal documentation. 

I consider myself a conscientious, honest and caring, more or less average citizen. Although we all suffer from a certain amount of hypocrisy, I try my very best to keep mine at a minimum. I long ago decided to retain a certain amount of naivety. Rather than thinking negatively and live by mistrust, I keep a healthy amount of positivism on hand. 

My efforts, both expressed here and with the logistics of my legal cause, are not about 'having something to do, because there's nothing else left to occupy me.' (This was someone's hint not too long ago: "You've got too much free time on your hands.") Let me tell you, this project has been a 5 year long exhausting NIGHTMARE! 

The only factors that keep me at it is a certain determination to establish whether the system is indeed broken beyond repair, or, if indeed, with effort and insistence, some good can be achieved by questioning what has been allowed during these procedures.  

Is it time to take the rhetoric of inflated promises out of our PR texts?

Is it time to simplify and shoot straight? 

Is it time for truth and honesty - to return? 

Is it time to hold a signatory party to his contract?

Is it time to stop wasting time? 

Is it time to revolutionize?

Thinking back to where it all went awry; an older man believing a younger businessman's promises. To realize that a signed contract, with clearly set out dates and intentions, has come to mean NOTHING! That the rhetoric of language, when related to the actual reality of product presentation, was only so much hot air! 

Things could have been so much simpler; so much more direct; so much more satisfying, so much more successful - for everyone. Well, of course, some have, and are benefitting from all this...   

I now likely await some possible indication of a technicality hitch from above, carrying its big stick or squashing boot, OR, low and behold, could it perchance be a glimmer of good news that could herald a switch in tidings, and bring some sanity to these proceedings?  

Time will tell, and HEY! This too will pass. 

57. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT

I am by Nature a highly active individual. This ordeal has kept me seat-borne, as if in a straight-jacket, for over 5 years (if you start counting when the ordeal with the site first began). NOT to be confused with the present appeal, I am going to copy the text from the 2010 BC Appeal, which was in fact never heard! Oh for the incredible waste of time and energy.... Here goes:
_________________________________________________________________________________

A. Nature of the Appeal  

1. The Appellant Evert Jan Steen hereby applies for an order to overturn the dismissal of his claim as ordered by Madame Justice Justine Saunders, and order the claim be given its due hearing.

B. Basis for the Appeal

The Appellant respectfully refers the Court of Appeal to the following Small Claims Rules:

Rule 1 - Making a Claim

1) Rule 1 (2) A claimant must file a notice of claim and pay the required fee at the Small Claims Registry nearest to where:
(i) "the defendant lives or carries on business, or "
(ii) "the transaction or event that resulted in the claim took place."

2) Rule 18 - Other Rules about Service...
(6) (b) Service of a Notice of claim outside British Columbia

"the transaction or event that resulted in the claim took place in British Columbia"

3) The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (section 3) states:

"A court has territorial competence in a proceeding.... if "
(e) "there is a real and substantial connection between British Columbia and the facts on which the proceeding against that 'person' is based." 

4) Pursuant to section 10 of the Act:

...(a) without limiting the right of the Plaintiff to prove other circumstances that constitute a real and substantial connection between British Columbia and facts on which a proceeding is based, a real and substantial connection between British Columbia and those facts is presumed to exist if the proceeding ...(e) - concerns contractual obligations and...

(iii) the contract
A. is for the purchase of.... Services, for use other than in the course of the purchaser's trade or profession, and ...
B. resulted from solicitation of business in British Columbia by or on behalf of the seller.
...(f) - concerns a business carried on in British Columbia.  

[made bold for emphasis]
________________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Then take the following Rule for filing in Ontario. It clearly shows the Default rule reversed from British Columbia. Still, also note the 'OR', allowances in both Provinces.
________________________________________________________________________________
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, etc... carries on business; or

(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 in at another place than those described in subrule (1) etc...
_________________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: The above, when related to the Post 56 Court Officer's Code of Ethics, would suggest to this Blogger, that it seems clear that the Rules of Justice, as applied, lie in the eyes of the beholder.
And as I have mentioned before, had I filed in Ontario, the judge may well have referred me to the Default rule, asking me why I did not file in BC, then dismissing the claim based on "Lack of Jurisdiction."

What is real anymore? Am I crazy?.... This too will pass...

56. Justice of The Peace Code of Ethics

Site Views = 4615

I made a mistake about the deadline for my appeal. When ordered transcripts are a part of your appeal, the deadline for filing kicks in the moment you have been advised the transcripts have been completed (and are thus ready for payment and delivery). Upon that 'announcement' you have 60 days to 'perfect your appeal and file your documents.

This makes me breathe easier, because I was beginning to panic for not having them, thinking I had to file within 30 days after serving my 'Notice of Appeal,' (which would have been so, had I not included the transcripts for Exhibit review) This now gives me the opportunity to continue here.

A reader's comment about not being physically present at an appeal hearing verifies what I have experienced and discussed. Jurisdictional disparity (i.e. by lack of bodily representation being the 'foreign' presence) makes it nigh impossible for a court officer to remain unbiased. Rather then confuse below with additional material, I will post as is, and argue my next point in the following post.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE CODE OF ETHICS 

A code of ethics specific to JPs was originally proposed by the Justice of the Peace Association 

of British Columbia. Like the code of ethics for Provincial Court Judges, the Justice of the Peace 

Code of Ethics provides very important guidance to JPs on how to discharge their responsibilities 

as judicial officers. The Code of Ethics, as approved by the Judicial Council of B.C., appears 

below: 

Independence 

Rule Justices of the Peace must both be and appear to be independent, impartial, and unbiased. 

1.00   

Rule Justices of the Peace must avoid all conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived, and are 

1.01 responsible for promptly taking appropriate steps to disclose, resolve, or obtain advice with 

respect to such conflicts when they arise. 

Rule Justices of the Peace should not be influenced by partisan interests, public opinion, or by fear of 

1.02 criticism. 

Rule Justices of the Peace should not use their title and position to promote their own interests or the 

1.03 interests of others. 

Rule Justices of the Peace should discharge their duties in accordance with the law. 

1.04 

Rule Justices of the Peace are subject to the Provincial Court Act and the authority and guidance of 

1.05 the Chief Judge acting thereunder. 

Knowledge 

Rule Justices of the Peace should maintain their competence through their work, by participating in 

2.00 training and education courses and by seeking guidance from the Office of the Chief Judge in 

specific areas as required. 

Rule Justices of the Peace should remain up to date on changes in the law relevant to their judicial 

2.01 function. 

  

Conduct 

Rule Justices of the Peace are subject to ongoing public scrutiny and therefore they must respect and 

3.00 comply with the law and conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public 

confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. 

Rule Justices of the Peace should approach their duties in a calm and courteous manner when dealing 

3.01 with the public and others and should present and conduct themselves in a manner consistent 

with the dignity of the Court and their office. 

Rule Justices of the Peace should convey in plain language their decisions and the reasons therefore 

3.02 where such are legally required.

Rule Justices of the Peace must safeguard the confidentiality of information that comes to them by 

3.03 virtue of their work and should not disclose that information except as required by law. 

Rule In discharging their duties, Justices of the Peace must treat those with whom they deal in a 

3.04 respectful and tolerant manner regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, culture, 

language, mental abilities, or physical abilities of those persons. 

Administration of Justice 

Rule Justices of the Peace shall refrain from openly and publicly criticizing the administration of justice 

4.00 or the conduct of others. Justices of the Peace shall recognize that only the Chief Judge may 

speak publicly on behalf of the Provincial Court and that through appropriate channels, it is to the 

Chief Judge that they should communicate their criticisms, suggestions, and concerns. 

Rule Justices of the Peace should deal with the tasks that come before them in a timely manner and 

4.01 should make themselves accessible to those requiring their services. 

  

Infringement of the Code of Ethics 

Rule Justices of the Peace who infringe this Code of Ethics act inconsistently with the interests of the 

5.00 administration of justice and offend the honour and dignity of the Court. 

55. RE: Software License/Contract (LEXOLOGY)

Views @ 4615

The following is an online copy; Note my 'underlined' adds.

"A practical guide to software license agreements: governing law and dispute resolution

• Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
• Canada
• November 12 2013
•  

"Software license agreements usually contain provisions that specify the law that governs the agreement and a procedure for resolving disputes relating to the agreement. Those provisions can have a significant effect on the rights and obligations of the software vendor and customer. The software vendor and customer should select a governing law that is appropriate for the agreement and a dispute resolution procedure and venue that are appropriate and fair to both parties." 

(Note: Our contract fails to deal with a suitable 'venue.' Courts refer to it as 'Jurisdiction.')

Governing Law

"To properly negotiate a software license agreement, and to perform obligations and exercise rights under the agreement, both the software vendor and the customer must know the legal rules that govern the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement. Those legal rules will be determined primarily by the law of a particular jurisdiction (i.e. a country or province/state), which is commonly called the “governing law”. The governing law is important because different jurisdictions have different legal rules relevant to software license agreements, and even a small difference in legal rules can have a significant effect on the rights and obligations of the software vendor and the customer."

"Under Canadian law, a software license agreement is usually governed by the law specified in the agreement or, if the governing law is not specified, the law of the jurisdiction that has the most real and substantial connection to the agreement. If a software license agreement with connections to multiple jurisdictions (e.g. the contracting parties are in different countries) does not specify the governing law, then a court or arbitrator will determine the governing law if there is a dispute regarding the agreement."

(NOTE: With the creation of web-sites and, in our case, almost daily email connectives and exchanges, it becomes a moot point as to the concept of "the most real and substantial connection...") 

"It is usually best if the software vendor and customer include in the software license agreement a provision that specifies the governing law, so that the vendor and customer know with certainty the law that will govern the agreement. Most software vendors and customers prefer their respective local law to be the governing law, but a different law might be better. The software vendor and customer should select a governing law based on careful consideration of the potential effect of the law on all aspects of the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement. The selection of a governing law presents considerations of cost and risk, because a contracting party that is not familiar with a proposed foreign governing law must either obtain legal advice from a qualified foreign lawyer or accept the risk that the foreign law is materially different from the law of the contracting party’s jurisdiction."

(NOTE: NOT in our case! Live and learn.)

Dispute Resolution

"Software license agreements often specify a procedure for the resolution of disputes between the software vendor and customer. Dispute resolution procedures can include some or all of the following:

• informal negotiation – one or more rounds of direct negotiation by representatives of the vendor and customer, with each round of negotiation involving more senior representatives.
• mediation – negotiation facilitated by an independent and experienced neutral person  (a “mediator”)  who  assists the vendor and customer to try to achieve a negotiated resolution of the dispute but does not have authority to impose a binding decision.
• arbitration – formal dispute resolution through a private adversarial process in which the vendor and customer present evidence and argument to one or more independent decision makers (“arbitrators”) who have authority to impose a binding decision that is subject to review by a court in limited circumstances.
• litigation – formal dispute resolution through a public adversarial process in the applicable court system in which the vendor and customer present evidence and argument to an independent decision maker (a “judge”) who has authority to impose a binding decision that is subject to review by an appeals court."

"Each kind of dispute resolution procedure has advantages and disadvantages, including varying degrees of privacy/confidentiality, timeliness/speed and finality. The optimal dispute resolution procedure will depend upon the nature and circumstances of the software licensing transaction and the preferences of the software vendor and customer."

"The location (also known as “venue”) of a dispute resolution process can impose significant costs and logistical burdens on either or both of the disputing parties. Dispute resolution in a local venue can provide a significant home field advantage. The dispute resolution venue does not have to be in the governing law jurisdiction. A software vendor and customer might negotiate a compromise on this issue by selecting a neutral dispute resolution venue or agreeing that the party commencing dispute resolution proceedings will do so in the other party’s local venue."

(NOTE: When Judge Justine Saunders in BC, dismissed my case, based on "lack of Jurisdiction," she was clearly not aware of the Ontario Default Rule for filing: "RULE 6 FORUM AND JURISDICTION 6.01 (1) An action shall be commenced, (a) in the territorial division (1) in which the cause of action arose, or "...  Had I filed in Ontario, a judge would have been correct to order a dismissal, based on the Default rule for filing :)... Sickening Ironies abounds! 

Recommendations

• "The governing law of a software license agreement should be selected based on appropriate legal advice and consideration of the potential effect of the law on all aspects of the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement. A dispute resolution procedure should be selected based on consideration of the comparative costs and benefits of each kind of procedure. A dispute resolution venue should be fair to both the software vendor and customer."

(NOTE: In my ultimate compilation of an online case-file, I will strongly suggest (providing the client can prove full payment for work done) the venue for litigation be the client's 'venue.' ) 

54. PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH TRUTH...

Pageviews: 4567

I just had to go here. As with any effort of expression, there are at least two sides to everything. If there wasn't, you could not compare anything. We live on the perpetual tightrope of a teeter-totter. Stand in the middle, and nothing happens; balanced, you are in limbo. The Scales of Justice work like that. Make a valid point, finger the correlating rule, and 'Bingo,' you are rewarded with a cookie. The scale tilts in your favour. But, overlook the trap, omit a technicality, and the consequences are immediate. Gotye!

So a fool is born to play the village idiot - every day. I too am that idiot who flies where angels fear to tread. Or is it mere self-indulgence? Or as one 'professional' put it: "You've got nothing better to do, with all that time on your hands..." There's truth in everything. Even the psychopath suckled from his loving mother's breasts. Poor thing, look at him now! What's become of you? Who's to blame? What matters anymore? A defense lawyer is there to DEFEND! NOT to ask who's right, or wrong?

I get paid to do a job, pay my mortgage, my car collection, my addict son, his offspring. We must grow the economy; to hell with anyone stands in my way... and that includes you - buddy!
Like 'SumOfUs.org,' 'ForrestEthics,' 'FriendsofCBC,' 'LeadNow.ca,' etc., we are questioning where it is we are going "in the circumstances." (Remember this phrase, I will be continuing to use it, until I can decipher what it means.)

To sum-up, before I go back to my Appeal Docs ( Exhibit Book; Factum; transcripts etc.), this effort is to put the word out; to reach out to others who just know they have been had, and with facts - can prove it! And, in so doing, see if my teeter-totter efforts can bring Some of Us, out of the Forrest (which we can't see because of the trees) and possibly, through some connective tissue, grow this effort in to a sensible, working force, that can become, not only useful to others, but by leading now, stifle some of this hemorrhaging, and STOP the creature from bleeding to death.


If there are individuals out there with proven talent and untainted conscience, who are willing and able to help bring this legally sinking ship to cruise another day, please don't hesitate to connect. In the meantime, spread the word. May the parasite of noble intentions overcome the evil of the wayward.
"Playing Russian Roulette with Truth"may not be such a bad bullet.

53. Appeal DEADLINE > ??

I have just come to realize I was WRONG in my calculations with the deadline for filing my Appeal! The Government's online instructions read, under the heading: 

"What is the deadline for perfecting my appeal?"

When there is no transcript of evidence required, you must perfect your appeal within 30 days of when you filed your Notice of Appeal. Where a transcript of evidence is required, you must perfect within 60 days of receiving notice that the transcript has been completed."

I am awaiting the notice of completion of the order of two transcripts. This would indicate, that as of today, November 15, 2013, there is as yet no definite filing deadline.
_________________________________________________________________________________
VIEWS TO DATE 4495

Together with the messages the Court sent me, below is a section of our government's online instructions. Conflicting when combined, they are responsible for my ultimate confusion.

"Review the pleadings in the action

* The examination may relate to any matter in issue in the proceedings as raised by the pleadings and particulars. In order for a question to be allowed and not refused at discovery, it must be relevant; it must relate to an issue raised in the pleadings. Have a working familiarity with all pleadings in the action.

* Create a pleadings summary, if necessary, summarizing the key points raised in each pleading. 

*Summarize potential lines of questioning applicable to each pleading, keeping in mind the elements of any causes of action and applicable defences that you want to explore."

Although I posted several new postings on BLOG: Case #10-49776, presently entrenched in gathering docs for my Appeal deadline, I will likely not be back here until later this month. Until then...:)

52. HOW TO AVOID SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT

A reader's much appreciated comment has created a wake-up call. I have withdrawn a number of sensitive posts, delegating them to 'draft.' Thank you CS.

Anger, feelings of betrayal, confusion, and sheer loneliness, can lead to one's frustrated flailing, where intoxicated, as if possessed by parasites, you loose all sight of rationale. Nothing seems to matter more than the tantrum aired. Any animal in distress reverts to abhorrent behaviour.

foolhardy |ˈfoōlˌhärdē|adjective ( -dier, -diest)recklessly bold or rash : it would be foolhardy to go into the scheme without support.
I previously visited and mulled over the above definition. Sound reasoning tells me to listen to all who continue to remind me I do not stand a hope in hell of getting anywhere.  Why is it then that I feel compelled to fight? Why can I not just swallow the essence of this reality? 
"It would be foolhardy to go into the scheme without support."
scheme |skēm|nouna large-scale systematic plan or arrangement for attaining some particular object or putting a particular idea into effect. 
"without support" ('foolhardy' - 'scheme' - no 'support').  So, without 'support,' it would be 'foolhardy' to even challenge the 'scheme.' 
Ergo: Since my 'support' is nigh on zero - no bucks, jurisdictional disparity while self-representing in the Capitol of the Country, up against the most well-integrated in the system, WHO do I think I am fooling?  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
This motivates me to reflect on a more all-encompassing resolution of an individual's behaviour.After opinioning I was in the Third Act of my life (as I related it to a full-length play), a friend of mine who recently found me on Google after some 53 years, now in his eighties, felt he was in his 4th Act!   
There, already, was a simple, yet entirely new take on the concept of existence itself. At times, in conversation, en passant so-to-speak, I might mention that as one of the last born colonialists (i.e. Indonesia in 1939) while still in a jungle prison camp in northern Sumatra, at six, in late '45, I did not realize until early adulthood that both H-bombs at Hiroshima, as well as Nagasaki, while exterminating tens of thousands, in fact had saved my life.  
I am positive that the acute awareness of  'the moment', as I continue to live its 'present,' will continue to be a major factor to how I sense and behave in 'time'. Although these days an accepted philosophical factor (Eckhart Tolle, "The Power of Now"), while I was growing up with that attitude to time, and the 'here and now', and how that was all there was when you are a starving child, I was severely reprimanded for it in my early adulthood (sixties).
At the time, the system was still entrenched by focusing on the 'lay away plan' for one's latter years. i.e., it was 'irresponsible' NOT to have that thinking be the overall incentive to life.The world has now caught up, and indeed, we have ALL become vulnerable. All of us now suffer from that realization there is NOTHING that can be taking for granted! ANYTHING could happen at ANY-time, and put us all out of our collective misery.
SO, with this posting, I am taking HEED of the recent warning/ alarm as indicated by "CS." I again state a caring and appreciative: "Thank You."  I will be more general with my uploads; I will try to reach out to see if I can find 'Support' that may help to, possibly, become conducive to positive change, in a more gentle, less confronting manner.
heed |hēd|verb [ trans. ]pay attention to; take notice of : he should have heeded the warnings.
I think "HE" just did!