76. The CRUELTY of IN-justice!

VIEWS @ 6224

Someone aptly described it as a "CIRCUS!"

• Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

  
  Then there is Donald Rumsfeld who stated:

  • (In a Press Conference at NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium, June 6, 2002) 
  • There are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns."

  I will add the following to the above:

  "Knowingly, I thought I knew the knowns; but I was fooled. My knowns proved to be unknowns. I have been hoodwinked and am, the fool - in deed!"

  
  

  This is costly adult entertainment for the fool-hardy.  

  Welcome to the pornography of legal wrangling; the circus of insanity; the business of law. Welcome to the dictatorship of the rich and well connected. Goodbye concept of 'democracy.'

  This is what I now know and propose:

  No self-representing litigant should be allowed to file a claim in a non-jurisdictional, urban court. There is zero chance for 'due process,' let alone success. Failure is guaranteed! 

  Where it strongly favours its forum convenience, with its various allowances for easy filings of motions, Court access, and associated familiar, integrated faces, the 'foreign,' disparate, opposing party struggles to have any real matter acknowledged, let alone dealt with. The objective is to wear the litigant down in every manner. The original Claim has long disappeared in nebulous smoke. The Rules are not an issue. It is a game of attrition. 

  The 2010 well intended, 'improved rules' of discovery, which puts counsel in charge of procedure, has instead killed due process. In practice, it does NOT work. 

  Rules, although its basic solid, must abolish any 'OR' allowances. Judges can use them subjectively. This is NOT solid, clearly defined law, recognizing facts of the matter. 

  An ENDORSEMENT order should not have: The following shall be done such and such, OR something else. This is plain asinine! If one Motions's ENDORSEMENT determines an expressed order, it must be adhered to! It cannot willy-nilly be changed with the next ENDORSEMENT. 

  If an order states: "that Costs of the motion to be reserved to the trial judge." We can't have the next conference stating the Plaintiff shall pay 'this many dollars'! 

  If an order states: "The purpose of this case conference is to timeline the action to a date by which it will have to be set down for trial." We can't have the claim dismissed on account of the claimant's failure to "answer all questions, since in the circumstances they are relevant," without having checked to verify the questions ARE IN FACT RELEVANT TO THE MATTERS IN ISSUE!  

  WHAT HAPPENED TO PROPORTIONALITY? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FAIRNESS OF JUSTICE AS SET DOWN IN THE SEDONA AGREEMENT?

  WHAT HAPPENED TO QUESTIONS HAVING TO BE "RELEVANT TO THE MATTERS AT ISSUE?" 

  It all disappeared during the only relevant matter: doing the 'business of law!' 

  I put full blame on the system's allowances for vacillation!  High-time to call a spade a spade!  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

75. Renewed Request for Status of Transcripts

VIEWS @ 6058

FOR THE RECORD

"Appeal deadline for filing when transcripts are a part of the appeal, is 60 days after being informed the transcripts are ready for delivery." 
(Those are the Rules, as I interpret them) 

Dear Ms "X' and Ms "Y" :

(Miss 'X' is head of transcribers; Ms 'Y' of Court Services)

Online court information suggests our Superior Courts are open "Year-round." 

I quote from pages Ms. 'Z' (Divisional Court) FAXED me on October 21, 2013, Time: 2:20 PM

P.10

"Part Three: Transcripts. If you are filing a transcript and an electronic version of the transcript was prepared, you must file the electronic version of the transcript with the court, in addition to a hard copy." 

1) I continue to await the "ready for delivery" notice of both transcripts; presumably I will be informed of differing "ready" dates, since the one ordered from Ms.'S' although it seemed to be almost ready, has, as yet, not been 'fully reviewed.' *

- The second transcript's readiness, I am informed, will be sometime in January, 2014. 

2) Without asking you for legal advice, I do  pose the following logistical question?  Does the 60 day filing of my 'Certificate of Perfection' begin upon notice of readiness of the FIRST transcript? OR, as I assume, with TWO different transcribers involved, it would be the "Notice of Readiness" by the SECOND transcriber that would start the Timeline Clock of 60 days! As Administrative heads of your Departments, PLEASE  inform me of the correct answer.

3) Would you both please be so good as to inform me HOW I can go about filing the indicated required electronic version of the transcript? Am I required to order and pay for an additional copy? Or may I obtain the transcriber's copy? 

4) With court reporters/ transcribers working as government sub-contracted, self-employed entities  - at their homes, away from the Courts where the 'ORIGINAL ELECTRONIC VERSION' is no doubt kept 'SECURE,' and untampered -

do the transcribers, or a designated, safe, other technical person in charge, make a direct facsimile copy of same, which they then legally sign out, under the premiss they have a duplicate facsimile, and swear to copy same - identically?  

5) Surely the original electronic version stays put, safely in the court files? Please explain this format for me.

What is the deadline for perfecting my appeal?

Based on the above, and so I may better comprehend and prepare the logistics of the appeal documents I am required to complete for my 'Certificate of Perfection', I am asking you for a clear and definitive answer as to why my request to obtain 2 transcripts (which I began enquiring about in October 2013) continues to be an enigma to me.

I include Ms "S"'s November 5, email * (Below). It concerns the December 06, 2012 transcript I ordered. Ms 'S' clearly informs the status of the transcript. However, instead of her imminent re-connect, as indicated, it is followed by a month long silence from most all departments I then contacted to enquire the readiness and delivery of both transcripts. 

On December 2, 2013, It was ultimately explained to me by Ms. 'B' (client services Ministry of Attorney General) who stated: "...the Court reporters are waiting for a deposit/ and or payment from you."

I was completely unaware of the fact it was my lack of effort that had halted and further delayed this process.

The $200 money order deposit for the September 20/ 2013 transcript has been delivered and acknowledged.

The $380 money order part-payment of the first transcript has been PO determined delivered, but has yet to be acknowledged. Acknowledgment of its delivery will hopefully include the outstanding particulars of the total owed, so that a single payment settles all. 

As an addendum I add, these transactions are purely one-sided. Where is the security for delivery of goods the litigant citizen has ordered and now paid a good amount up front for? 

I look forward to your responses.

Thanking you in advance,

Sincerely,

Jan Steen

 ________________________________________________________________________

*
From: Ms 'S' + email

Date: November 5, 2013 7:23:36 AM GMT-08:00

To: Me @ me @email

Subject: Re: Transcript Steen v. Canada Inc

Hi Mr. Steen,

The transcript is being reviewed for release, I will be in touch later today to pass along payment details, as well as to collect details about sending the transcript.  The cost of mailing the transcript will also be added to the total cost of the transcript. 

Regards,

"S"

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Client Me @ email> wrote:

Hello "S":

I would much appreciate receiving an update about how the December 06, 2012, requested transcript of the Master Roger presiding Motion of Case #10-49776 is coming along.

Thank you,

Jan Steen

On 22-Oct-13, at 5:52 PM, "S" wrote:

I can look into the PayPal option that sounds like the best way. I'll let you know when I have it set up.

"S"

NOTE: The above  NEVER happened....

74. WHAT is going on?

VIEWS @ 5967

Today, December 23, 2013, it has been 4 days since a Canada XPRESSPOST envelope, containing a $380.00 money order was delivered to the house address of a transcriber.

Paying extra (some additional $17.00) to make certain, with official Tracking allowance of the envelope, it is guaranteed delivery status (with a $100 insurance in case of loss). Although we have PO proof of delivery, an email request for verification has yet to be acknowledged by the transcriber.

Experience continues to indicate that every step in my procedural process (call it my 'due process'), if not showing questionable gaps of 'legality,' at least lacks professional ethics.

While the Rules - on paper - are down to distinguishing a fine-line paradigm between "'relevance' to the issues at hand," rather than the 'semblance' of relevance...,"the 'business of law'," i.e the 'commerce' of law, while infinitely entwined with the process itself, seems to allow for no end of acceptable disparities.

Compare BC's Business sector of transcribers 'environment' to Ottawa's. In my jurisdiction, if you request a transcript from any Court sessions you have been a party to, the court will refer you to the 'Offices of their Transcribers' which is a private business contracted by the government. The Vancouver Island offices are located in Nanaimo. Upon contacting the office, you are asked basic particulars of the session Hearing; verification for ordering consist of your Name, Address, Phone number, and your Email address. No need for FAXING signed requests.

After its Admin obtains the electronic Court Reporter's recording, it assesses costs and advices you of same. Upon completion, you are notified, and after payment using a variety of methods, you are sent a PDF version of the ordered transcript, and can/ may pick up a hard copy, or have it sent to you.
Doing the procedure several times, each transaction was completed with several weeks. It is a well-run business!

In our capital's Superior Court my experience continues to be worrisome. At Court level I was dealing with a variety of individuals. After doing quite well with the initial contact from 'Records Management' Department, matters turned strange, before I was eventually corresponding with the Supervisor of Court Operations Department.

I was again asked to identify the hearings/ case conference/ motion sessions I requested a transcript for. I indicated the sessions' dates, parties involved, and official presiding. After being informed certain sessions have not been recorded, I order 2 that are of particular interest to me. I fill out and return an official Request Form. I am then given the names of the 2 court reporter/ transcribers; the second transcriber not being the original reporter; reason given is that reporter is "too busy."

Payment I am informed will be "cash, money order, or certified cheque." It is explained reporters work out of their homes. I suggest 'Cash' will be awkward (I live in BC), I suggest a number of alternatives: Bank 2 Bank; email transaction; PayPal.

The following is an exchange at October 22, 2013.

First Transcriber writes: 

"I can look into PayPal option that sounds like the best way. I'll let you know when I have it set up." 

On November 4, 2013, I ask: 

" I would much appreciate receiving an update about how the December 06, 2012, requested transcript of the Master Roger presiding Motion of Case #10-49776 is coming along."

On November 5, 2013, transcriber answers:

"The transcript is being reviewed for release, I will be in touch later today to pass along payment details, as well as to collect details about sending the transcript.  The cost of mailing the transcript will also be added to the total cost of the transcript."

Same day I ask: "Who is reviewing it before release?" 

Transcriber responds: "I am reviewing it for release."

"The master will review his decision and sign of on the release of that portion prior to its release."

Although PayPal is initially acceptable to this transcriber (and I never refused to pay by money order, or certified cheque), for about a month all email communication abruptly ceases, regardless my various attempts questioning what is transpiring, even to the Attorney General's office.

Eventually, on December 2, 2013, I receive an email explanation from a Client Services Officer, Court Services Division, saying: "Thank you for your email dated November 25, 2013, addressed to the Ministry of the Attorney General regarding the status of your request for two transcripts.

Court reporters may request a deposit prior to commencing work on transcripts and may require full payment prior to releasing completed transcripts. I understand that the court reporters are waiting for a deposit and/or payment from you. To make arrangements for payment please contact ..." (Name of Reporters etc.)

Though it all seems to make little sense, since that email, I have again been communicating with both transcribers. The second transcriber demanding a $200.00 "Deposit." I sent a registered money order. It arrives, PO verified. I receive no acknowledgment. After asking the Supervisor to please have it verified, I receive the transcriber's email. Thank you, and completion would be sometime in January, 2014.

However, a $380.00 (part payment) Money Order sent the first Transcriber by Express Post and verified delivered on December 19th, has yet to be acknowledged! Several emails requesting an update about both the transcript and remaining costs, go unanswered.

With over $600 paid, and nothing to show for it,  I am now at the end of month three of the initial requests for the 2 transcripts.

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

73. the futility of effort and energy.

VIEWS @ 5894

Having gradually come to the realization that for a variety of reasons my efforts appear pointless, I just deleted my Case Study Blog. I am barking up a thick wall, and it may well be self-created. Sanity lies in the eye of the beholder.

Thinking this 'Google Blog' means of democratic expression would strive towards a certain sanity of communication and a healthy exchange of sharing experiences, time is proving that isn't the case.

Instead, the general consensus is, of the few who did bother to comment (and I do appreciate your efforts), that I should get myself a good lawyer, since I'm not making a lot of sense. Neither indication is encouraging, since I can't afford good Counsel, nor would know where to find one; and if I am not  getting my points across, and actively sharing what I feel to be huge problems with the system, I should cease and desist my efforts.

So, with New Year's resolutions not far off, I will give it serious consideration.

This too will pass  

72. YOU ARE CAUSING YOURSELF HARM.

VIEWS @ 5791

"I am reading your blog and you are causing yourself harm - you ought not to confess your doubts and frustrations in a blog that is being read by the opposing party and probably being laughed at."

Out of appreciation, consideration, and respect

Dear 'Name Withheld':

Harm was done years ago by contractors who did not honour their contract; then again by those who run our legal system.   When officers, in charge of the court failed to adhere to the Improved 2010 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Those rules were changed to make the system more efficient, by cutting out factors that could in anyway be considered irrelevant or frivolous. Factors the defense in fact accused me of - for filing a 'frivolous' claim - after offering to settle for $30,000 out of court; frivolous indeed! .... Reality at its worst  and weird!

"The semblance of relevance to any matter" was changed to "the relevance to any matter." Forced by a British Columbia judge's dismissal, based on 'Lack of Jurisdiction,' this self-representing litigant was then obliged to file his claim in a Forum Non Convenience - the Superior Court of Ottawa. To date he has been subjected to a number of serious irregularities and has paid dearly for it, both in time and money! As a disparate, long-distance Citizen, with the lack of amenities available to him, the Defendants managed to take advantage of their 'Forum Convenience' jurisdiction. 

In this age of High-Tech, it has become abundantly clear to this elderly appellant, this country - my country - appears like an undeveloped, third world catch-as-catch-can, free-for-all, winner-take-all, grab-bag of hypocrisy!

I say: Shame on us!

Why did the Masters not take time to assess the validity of the questions? To interpret if, by fact, they were in deed 'relevant' to the issues at hand, i.e. the claim? As early as June 2011 this claimant sought out Case Management participation, looking for fair treatment.

At that time, Defense Counsel had stated: "Case Management is archaic, my client does not want it."

Forced by a Defense Motion to forego Case Management, on September  13, 2011, the Master ordered:

1. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Plaintiff withdraws, without prejudice, any motion to have the action managed by the Case Management office;
2. THIS COURT ORDERS that the parties accept the Discovery Plan attached as Schedule A hereto;
3. THIS COURT ORDERS that the parties agree to attend a mediation no later than by the end of the year 2011 or another time agreed upon by both parties;
4. THIS COURT ORDERS that Costs of the motion to be reserved to the trial judge.

Our representing Counsel for that motion Hearing emailed me, stating the Master had added: "So that you are aware, the Master advised that he was of the view that this is an appropriate candidate for Case Management and, but for the provision in the order dealing with it specifically, he would have ordered it."

Ironies abound, when on January 17, 2012, 'on his own initiative,' the Master Ordered the Case in to Management when Defense was allowed to self-represent. That self-same "archaic" Case Management has since seen fit to dismiss my case. Not on any Claim validity assessment, but purely on the basis of this claimant's ultimate refusal to continue answering the to him most ludicrous and case irrelevant  questions. Questions deemed "Relevant in the circumstances."

Case Management is described on line as follows:

" A. The History of Judicial Case Management in Ontario

The subject of judicial case management has been extensively studied, especially in the United States. It is widely accepted as a key factor in successful delay reduction initiatives and increased justice system efficiency. Although there is no monolithic definition or form for what we mean by the term "judicial case management", successful regimes generally exhibit four main features: early and continuous judicial control over the case; time limits for each step in the process; constant monitoring to ensure compliance; and firm dates for judicial proceedings with strict controls on adjournments." 

If a Case Management Master is not there to explain their motives for reasoning as they do, to self-representing, lay members of the democratic public, where is one to go for answers?

Dear appreciative 'Nameless': I do not mind being vulnerable. I know who I am; I am comfortable in my skin. I have seen life on earth at an early age, and what people do to each other. There is ugliness and injustice.

There is much here that does not sit well. Between the rhetoric of what is meant to be, and what occurred, there are too many gaps, too many unanswered reasonings for allowing this - yet to be heard case - dismissed, and filed as Case Law, on the basis this claimant, after complying with a number of earlier orders, refused to yet again answer - to him highly irrelevant questions - without having been given a sensible reasoning of WHY, HOW, and in WHAT way the questions were related, had relevance, and thus pertinence to the claim, and, as such, served an overall fairness to Defense.

Should the Defendants be laughing at me, I have enough energy to cover their laughter. It is they who must live with their consciences. Their contractual promises overshot their capacity. It cost us $44,000. We have all lost in this futile battle. 

In all fairness to the Masters, I am sure they are hugely challenged, and likely over-burdened. We are all humans, trying to figure it out. Hoping to make some positive contribution, I have decided to confront this. There MUST be a way to manifest the personal and subjective from creeping in to proceedings. 

So, thank you, "Nameless", for sending me your message. 

Please know, I have no fear; I have no problems showing my vulnerability. I am made of flesh and blood. I am not yet a mechanical clone. Although that day looks to be imminently upon us. 

In the meantime, I will take my legal issues as far as I am able, curious to receive the final system's statement - by Appealing to a single Judge.

Be well, and content, within your good fortune during this season, in which there is a special need for caring for those who are less fortunate than ourselves. We KNOW that most humans suffer, and that, as a species, we are running havoc over this, our one and only globe!

This too will pass..... 

"Happy Holidays" to you, and all who are blessed to afford it! 

71. TRICKS OF A TRADE....

VIEWS@5645

For those of you who may be plunging through my 2nd Blog, Case #10-49776, a study, which deals with some actual logistical daily exchanges between the principals, even for us involved, they are at times sufficiently complicated and confusing. So it is entirely understandable an 'outsider' may not get head or tail out of the 'sense' of it all. Suffice it, as long as the reader comprehends the main points.

I continue to experience the system's process functions most profitably by stretching procedure to its limits. The more in-efficient, time-consuming and far-removed from actual RELEVANCE, the better it suits its professionals. This is a reality with most all professions. The Vet wants to see your pet again - the sooner the better; the Dentist needs to see you again, no later than 6 months for your regular check-up... and on it goes; this is how the economy functions.

The Judges may have created the rules, but their foot-soldiers run the business. It's the policeman who hands you the ticket if he catches you going through the red light, not the District Court Judge.

I have now spoken to a number of individuals who tried to take their 'Case' to court. They felt an injustice had been committed, and, as upright citizens, they felt they were obliged to seek justice.
By the Man/Woman they informed me they were NEVER given an opportunity to get to the actual facts of the case. Their 'Due Process' consisted of way-laying, diverting, changes of officials, excuses, what-have-you, ANYTHING but DEALING WITH THE FACTS!

That is exactly where I'm at. In the end I became so fed up with both Defense and Case Management Masters NOT dealing with the issues of my claim, NOT adhering with the Rules (at least as I interpreted them) but instead, allowing for the continued asking of asinine, irrelevant questions!
According to the Master: "In the circumstances all questions are relevant. The Claimant shall answer them!" (or else!)

Well, I refused, darn well realizing it would never cease. And the inevitable 'or else' happened, as of course it always does, and I was royally dismissed.
Relevant Question: What diploma did you receive after graduating from theatre school?
How dim of me, NOT to recognize the subtle relevance to my claim of this question :) >

Here's my 'Relevant Question: "Should the CEO still have all his teeth, how often does he brush them?" Because, I guess, If he does NOT brush them frequently enough, that could be the LEGITIMATE reason why the $44,000.00 contracted website was never finished on time. And THUSLY, it was all MY FAULT! (For Not getting a special Diploma certificate from my Theatre School in 1962 AC > that's  after Christ)

So I now await the delivery exchanges of the two transcripts I have ordered. This will take another month at least. Fool that I am, I continue to go deeper in debt. By spring I will attempt to file the documents for my appeal, and then await the verdict of ONE SINGLE JUDGE WHO WILL BE DRAWN FROM A LOCAL POOL OF PROFESSIONALS.

Together with an as yet number of logistical technical hurdles ahead of me, the chances he/she, the judge, will recognize the case's many irregularities and allow the case to go to trial, are slim at best.

This too will pass, and I will likely die a bitter man, just like most folks around me....

  

70. FLOGGING A DEAD HORSE ?

VIEWS @ 5597

With all that is occurring politically at the very echelon of our government; with the desire to receive more feedback in these efforts; with the cold shoulders from prospective legal counsel, I realize no one likes to associate with a potential futile effort.

Still, going deeper in debt, I keep grinding away at the remaining straws available to me. When last month all efforts to obtain the 2 transcripts ordered came to a grinding halt (it's still a puzzle to me); when I discovered the $181.00 filing fee had not been deducted from my Credit Card; when I realize the enormous costs I keep incurring: The December 06, 2012, Motion transcript costing some $600, up front before I get to actually obtain it. The September 20, 2013, transcriber requiring a money order down payment of $200. before even starting the transcription.

All this, while time gnaws away at my mindset, like a water-torture test. If this is 'due process,' it is  telling me that my efforts have nothing to do with justice. All is about attrition. My Claim was never an issue! Waylaid by a Counterclaim, Defense Motions to dismiss, and the excruciating difficulties of logistics by my 'Lack of Jurisdiction,' over time, the system has brought me to my knees. I am now paying UP for the 'luxury' of obtaining some verbatim history, to be rendered me by entrepreneur transcribers working from home.

If I ever get to physically obtain them, thinking they will make a difference to my appeal, all I will ultimately have is the opinion rendered by a single appellant judge. She/He, not wanting to naysay their environment, will likely find some technicality and put it all to bed.

However, within these next months I shall have finished adding and completing my CanLii #10-49776 Case Law Study, and you the reader will at least be able to deduce the facts, and know what it is I am fighting for.
Additionally, I intend to complete this Blog site by making a far more cohesive Contract available.

NOTE: Ironies abound. Someone just suggested that a site that cost some $44,000 in 2008, can now be had "With all the bells and whistles" for some $4,000. I keep saying: "Timing is everything."

69. IS EVERYTHING RIGGED?

VIEWS @ 5514

With grave concern I watched the 'Michael Morton Case' on television last night. Accused of the murder of his wife, in front of his young son, he was wrongfully jailed for some 25 years, until the case was reopened by caring lawyers, and DNA on a kerchief determined someone else committed the murder. Recently discovered transcript from at the time, whereby the young son had stated his dad was not there, had been held back as evidence.

There are frightening amounts of highly disturbing anomalies running rampant through our purported system of fairness, justice, and 'Due Process.' My efforts here to get to the bottom of the irregularities I am encountering pale in comparison to the Michael Morton horrors. The show stated: "If the law is not followed there should be consequences!"

Those "consequences" took some 25 years out of an innocent man's life who had lost a wife he loved, a son who turned on his 'criminal' father and was gravely effected, and an ultimate fluke of some law-abiding, caring, professionals so concerned they helped him pro bono.  

Why are so few of us willing to stand up and demand justice as is prescribed by law!? It must be because most have given up; given up on believing mankind is essentially good. Steadily growing inwards, we are living in an age of fear now, accepting what befalls us, carrying on the best we can.

I am beginning to sense a certain evil at the helm. Catch as catch can, the devil takes the hindmost. By doing NOTHING, we are feeding the beast! That's why Everything is Rigged! 

NOTE:
I continue to await delivery of the 2 transcripts I have ordered.
I am expecting a verification notice that a $200 money order I sent as down-payment to a transcribers' home address (delivered by Registered mail yesterday) has in fact been received.
(So that the transcriber may commence with the transcription of the ordered session. This one being the September 20, 2013, final 'Special Appointment' with the Senior Master. The Master who ultimately dismissed the claim, based on my unwillingness to continue answering the to me irrelevant questions.
i.e. questions having absolutely no relevancy to the contractually based claim. Questions the former Master had indicated as: "All questions are relevant in the circumstances and shall be answered!"
The claimant, asking for an explanation of the sentence was informed: "The court is not there to explain itself." 
      

68. WHO IS IN CHARGE OF PROCEDURE ?

VIEWS@5480

FOR THE RECORD

Dear Ms. "En Francais": 

You are indicated, online, to be the email-accessible, executive contact for the Ottawa, Ontario, Court House; the primary contact for the Ministry of the Attorney General.

I am a 74 year old, self-representing Canadian Citizen, living on a minimum pension in British Columbia. I am self-representing in a recently dismissed claim by a Master in your Ottawa Case-Management Department. 

On October 21, 2013, I filed an Appeal in the Ottawa Divisional Court. I exchanged documents (some 22 Pages) by FAX with Ms. "Aussi". I was given the Divisional Court file number: DC-13-1971. Additionally, in hand writing it stated: "I need you to send information of your credit card to process the fee for filing. Please do not correspond by email. You can mail all..." That ends the bottom of the page.

I herewith forward you my October 20, 2013, email to Miss 'Aussi'. Please NOTE, this date to be ONE DAY prior to being instructed NOT TO CORRESPOND BY EMAIL!

NOTE: Since the email was NOT returned, I deduce It was received as intended. Ms. 'Aussi' did NOT respond to same. However, my latest Visa Card statement does NOT show an Appeal filing deduction fee. 

Unless I am informed otherwise, It is an indication the APPEAL may not have been completed ? This would be an OMINOUS sign!

Below, I have highlighted my Credit Card info. If that did not suffice, does the Court expect Visa Card Details be sent by email? If NOT, why did Ms. 'Aussi' not inform me she was unwilling to get my credit card particulars from the Motion Desk? Since the bottom page text abruptly finishes, it might be Ms. 'Aussi' expected me to send my Credit Card details to her by Canada POST? I did NOT do that, assuming Ms.'Aussi' would receive my card particulars from the Motion Desk; I.E. MY CARD SPECS ARE ACCESSIBLE ON YOUR FILES! If NOT,

THIS IS AN OMINOUS SIGN!

As the primary contact for the Court Services I look forward to some constructive remedy to the above, should in fact my suspicions be correct. I have ordered 2 transcripts, and I am in touch with Ms Van 'X''s office as well as both transcribers. Each is being sent their required down payments by registered mail and money order. 

Having been informed the one transcript has been completed, as of December 09, 2013, it is MY understanding my deadline for 'Perfecting my Appeal' is now on or about February 03, 2014. 

I will much appreciate your response.

Jan Steen

PS: I am sorry to inform that my FAX allowance no longer functions.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

From: myself@gmail.com

Subject:  RE: Appeal Case #10-49776

Date: October 20, 2013 7:42:02 PM GMT-07:00

To:  enfrancais@ontario.ca

Hello Ms 'aussi':

You should receive my priority post envelope any moment now.

It contains the required :

1) Notice of  Appeal

2) Certificate of Evidence

3) Affidavit of Service.

* Re payment: I have my Credit Card Info with the Motion Desk.
Please inform me if you have access to it, or whether you need me to supply you with it.

I surmise I have complied and look forward to your follow up directions,

Jan Steen

________________________________________________________________________

* (Made RED + BOLD) + underlined

NOTE: Although on the 21st of October, Ms. 'Aussi' faxed this Appellant some 22 pages, telling me I was NOT allowed to email her office, is it possible I did not receive all of her instructions?

Whatever it is, I am getting a gnawing feeling there's some kink in the procedures. 

QUESTION: WHY AM I NOT ALLOWED TO EXCHANGE EMAIL INFORMATION? 

Do we continue to live by mail?

67. ALARM BELLS RINGING?

VIEWS @ 5738

I am beginning to get the succinct feeling of going around in circles! It appears NO ONE IS really IN CHARGE. After a lengthy 'Quiet,' I am now getting mixed messages. I actually believe there's some-body pulling strings! But the gist of it is: I don't know WHAT is going ON! And it may well be the state THEY want me to be IN. 
i.e: Puzzle the old fart! Confuse him! Maybe he'll have a heart attack! Thank you; case closed!

Facts:
Dictated Government Rules and regulations stipulate defined timelines! As a citizen I have discovered, you can be quickly pounced upon if you FAIL to meet a deadline, or err, and get caught on a 'technicality.' 
Our GOVERNMENT, however, may trespass in an array of discrepancies. Since there is no individual attached, per se, it's just a 'system's' anomaly; SORRY! 

Today I received my Desjardins credit card statement. It did NOT show a $181 appeal filing fee. HMMM! On October 21, 2013, I filed my appeal! Ms Jean Salkeley of the Divisional court FAXED me the date stamped forms, which I filled out and returned.  Ms Salkeley asks: "I need you to send information of your Credit Card to process the fee for filing. Please do not correspond by email You can mail all..." (bottom end of page)
I supplied Ms Salkeley with the particulars of my Credit Card!

The sheet also states: "The divisional court file number is: DC-13-1971."

Ms Julie Bertrand is in "Court Services," focusing on "Clients." I contacted Ms Bertrand.
So, reader, look at Ms Bertrand's email below.  

_________________________________________________________________

On 2-Dec-13, at 1:42 PM, Bertrand, Julie (MAG) wrote:

Dear Mr. Steen:

Thank you for your email dated November 25, 2013 addressed to the Ministry of the Attorney General regarding the status of your request for two transcripts.

Court reporters may request a deposit prior to commencing work on transcripts and may require full payment prior to releasing completed transcripts.  I understand that the court reporters are waiting for a deposit and/or payment from you.  To make arrangements for payment please contact Erin Stumpf via e-mail at erin.stumpf@ontario.ca regarding the December 6^th, 2012 Motion before Master Roger and Sue Treganowan atSusan.treganowan@ontario.ca regarding the September 20^th, 2013 motion before Master MacLeod. Please note that acceptable forms of payment would be cash or a certified cheque or money order made payable to the court reporter. Pay pal is not accepted as form of payment for transcripts.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Regards,

Julie Bertrand

Client Services Officer

Court Services Division

East Region

Tel. 613 239-1269

________________________________________________________________________ 

NOTE:  I had already been in touch with both transcribers; each would transcribe the digital session I had attended. They do this at home, and it was made clear must be paid by either CASH, or money order or certified cheque!

I argued that I lived on an Island in the Salish Sea; that it would take a bit of effort to come to Ottawa to pay for their services in CASH!  I argued that a Money order, or Certified cheque - sent by Canada Post (bless their hearts, at Xmas time chaos even) - was a bit of an awkward method in this modern world.  How about Bank2Bank? Interac email? Paypal... I can DO all these! NO! It has to be Cash, or a money order, or certified cheque... and to be send to the transcribers addresses.

I am still awaiting contact from the transcribers, after their supervisor indicated to me some 4 days ago they would send me their invoices + addresses!

So earlier today I sent the below email:

   _____________________________________________________________________

FOR THE RECORD

Hello Ms Bertrand:

I am contacting you again, in order to establish ONE SOLID, ACCEPTABLE CONNECTION with the Ottawa Court system. One defining connective with whom I am allowed to exchange vital information by EMAIL!

If you ARE that person, since you indicate to be in the office of Court + Client Services, would you please verify that? If you are NOT, would you please refer me to the single contact a Citizen is allowed to exchange information with, in order to clearly comprehend what is occurring. Thank you!

1) I have heard from Supervisor Ms. Van Zyl who stated her transcribers would contact me with their Addresses and send invoices of costs and/ or deposits.
I continue NOT to have that information from the two transcribers. 

It has been over a month now to get any additional particulars on the two transcriptions ordered. You advised me one is ready to be sent after payment!

2) I just received my Desjardins Credit Card statement and do NOT see a deduction of the $181 costs Ms. Jean Salkeley required when I filed my appeal on October 21, 2013. I gave Ms Salkeley my credit card particulars, as she requested of me.

3) Jean Salkeley forbids all email contact! Do I send her a letter enquiring about my appeal status? Was Miss. Salkeley advised not to charge me, and somehow default the appeal? Or was it an OVER-site? Please advise me.

All in all, I am getting a clear sense of confusion. Is there ANYONE at your most Superior Court of this Country who can inform me of what exactly is transpiring? 

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Jan Steen

(Self-representing Citizen of Canada)

66. Good News from Attorney General's Office

Views @ 5275

The apparent reason for lack of communication, about status of Transcripts ordered, seems to be based on MY miss-understanding of payment for same! Looks like transcripts are ready for delivery, but need to be paid for!
WHY then have I NO EMAIL FROM EITHER TRANSCRIBER, INDICATING their transcript is ready for delivery, pending payment , with AN INVOICE OF A SET AMOUNT OF MONEY OWED THEM!

This, I'm told can be achieved by paying 'CASH'. (But I'm on an Island in a faraway distant land of Honalee! Guess THAT won't happen...) OR by Money order, or certified cheque!

I have indicated, and the court has used my CREDIT CARD! But I guess a Credit Card's no good for paying for transcripts!?

So, in my response, I have asked for each Transcriber to email me the amount owing, and how they will verify what I will be receiving is in deed what I asked, and paid for. 

This too will pass (But, at least this response is showing communication has opened again)