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!