Saturday 28 February 2015

167. Judges are but people too....

VIEWS@11348

My daze somewhat continues. Imagine? This to be the 8th year in to a nightmare. A nightmare that began with the signed assumption a contract between 2 parties had meaning.

VI Guarantee
"IN WITNESS WHEROF, the parties acknowledge that each has fully read and understood this Agreement, and, intending to be legally bound thereby, executed this Agreement on the date set forth above." (April 14/2008)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
intend |inˈtend|verb [ with obj. ]have (a course of action) as one's purpose or objective; plan: [ with infinitive ] the company intends to cut about 4,500 jobs | [ with clause ] it is intended that coverage shall be worldwide.• plan that (something) function in a particular waya series of questions intended as a checklist.• plan that speech should have (a particular meaning)no offense was intended, I assure you.
infinitive |inˈfinitiv|nounthe basic form of a verb, without an inflection binding it to a particular subject or tense (e.g., see in we came to seelet him see).-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Intending to be legally bound thereby." Not 'SHALL' be bound; "intending" to be.Well, I guess, based on any, or even ALL 'intentions,' it was not to be put in to practice.
So I warn all of you who are about to sign a contract: It isn't even worth the paper it's written on,let alone your John Doe signature.
Now to the role a judge plays, for those foolish enough to believe a broken contract is worth going to court for.  Judges are all practiced lawyers. They have to have a minimum of 10 years practice I believe, before being considered for the leather chair and bird's eye view. 
Judges are people, just like you and me. They have moods, prejudices, egos, and, as such, are  vulnerable while functioning in their appointed environment; an environment they are usually already well integrated with. Meaning to say, they have friends, and drink and smoke at parties. And although now looking down on them, they are dealing with friends, and acquaintances. Their obligation is to them; to the system they have built together.  They are not pure; they are not God! Yet our hierarchy has made them 'untouchables.' To have put a well-oiled lawyer in charge of the system; to have given them carte-blanche powers; this is a scary reality. This is NOT democratic.
I remember helping a friend here in BC with his divorce. His wife was dating her counsel lawyer at the time. It was interesting to note during some 5 years of sickening meandering through the case, in which the children were mere pons, while the action set out to pulverize a good father, and former loving husband. 
Every time a court date would be set, I began to notice it was always in front of the same judge. "Oh yes," a staff member downstairs at the filing desk indicated: "(Lawyer's Name) always waits to use Judge (So 'n So)." Our Court system here in small city country is served by some 5 'circuit judges.' i.e. what goes around, comes around. In fact, it's where my nightmare began.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are we, the people, going to insist on becoming a Democracy or, by practice, continue to allow ourselves to live in a Police State? In order to get away from this incestuous Police State mentality, we need to change the present system. From the bottom up. I say we can do it.
The Rules must be rewritten. They are full of holes; either this, OR that! Adjectives allowing for innuendo. Rules must be unwaveringly solid. It either IS, or it ain't.Get RID of 'interpretation/ subjectivity! There should be no 'ARGUMENT' about ANY-THING! DO NOT ALLOW THE  JUDGE ANY JUDICIAL DISCRETION! It's a rat's nest. (Sorry Rat)
Like a solid contract, all roads must lead to Rome! And in ROME there lies the TRUTH based on FACT! Relevant FACT. Without FACT and strict adherence to solid rules, there is mayhem,and abuse, and discrimination, and favour through the party politic. This leads to destruction of the rightful and innocent. There is, in FACT, a CRIME COMMITTED! As in MY case!
So we don't need seasoned lawyers who have had the allowances to ply their rhetorical games for years. We need to create a class of solid individuals with vast knowledge, unwavering consciences, and a breath of intellect and understanding. These folk at present barely exist! 
We need highly dedicated OUTSIDERS, squeaky clean from ANY former legal innuendo practices. We need to clone a breed of super-human individuals.
Who would they be? Do we even have them among us? Individuals who have had a loving upbringing, with great, caring parents? Individuals, who have proven themselves to be well-integrated in their communities; individuals who have extended themselves by proving they cared more for their fellow man, than themselves. They could be invited to become Judges from any walk of life. It could be a farmer, a scientist, an author, a sheet-metal draftsman.
That's what's needed in my humble opinion.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will tackle and break down my views on Justice Hackland's 'Dismissal Endorsement' imminently. What a pair of words > together... phhht.
The sun is shining; the Herring are about to run and spawn; I have some pruning to get in.WHY the HELL do I continue bothering with this? Like a drug, I can't help myself.    
 






Thursday 26 February 2015

166. On how NOT to PLAY the GAME

VIEWS@11309

Thoughts continue to swirl through my noggin. I'm still getting used to the realities of the dismissal. Why did I even entertain hope? I already live without it? Fools hope. But I must not return to be angry. I must show empathy for those who control and perpetuate the troubled system. 

They created it; they own it. The judge had no choice; he did what was required. Although clearly privy to all the details, he chose not to rock the boat; he couldn't; not at his age; not with his background; he  dutifully complied..... Let the games continue...  

In my last years on earth, I feel the need to continue my sojourn in this realm of the seemingly impossible. As in the Theatre, especially, in the old Greek amphitheater days, I cannot be the deus ex machina, craned in from the sky, with an all-finalizing solution.
================================================================>
deus ex machina |ˈdāəs eks ˈmäkənə-ˈmak-|noun(The God Machine) an unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation, esp. as a contrived plot device in a play or novel.======================================================>
My 'Machine,' this one, comes at my disposal by the likes of Jobs and Gates. I can continue to express my own rhetoric, and see if it falls on deaf ears. This tool most of the modern world is now pre-occupied with. Mesmerized, it is controlling our every nanosecond. We are quickly becoming one large extended brain mass. 

How long will it last? Nothing lasts long these days. With the global madness that is spreading like an uncontrolled virus, together with the natural occurring mayhem of climate change mother Gaia is forced to respond with, there will likely be an implosion soon. Another doomsday will wipe most species out, and some major adjustments will start an other epoch. Earth has been there before. 

In the meantime, while our days still come and go, and now Internet allows us to weave and segue, it allows me to continue to put my titbits to ye :) As long as I am motivated, I can try to sow my seed, and see how fertile a soon to be 76 year old can still be.

This will likely be seeking a different readership. My several years Blogging I know brought out the curious who were involved in the 'biz.' Curious about my sojourns during the 'due process' of the legal game. My naivety of taking it seriously, failing to realize I didn't stand a change from the very outset. That The Rules of Civil Procedure was an anomaly. Why is it always in Italics? Is its slanted accentuation to show it as a WARNING? Careful how you interpret these Rules. They're not being held up by anything; they may fall oooover. WARNING! DO NOT ENTER! or > ENTER @ YOUR OWN RISK! 

In hindsight we should, of course, have taken the initial out of court settlement offer of $30,000. They were scared then! They wanted to avoid going to court at all costs; hence the drawn out 3 year discovery phase dealing with the disruptive counterclaim of defamation confusing the relevant claim. It became an outright MESS!

But we had lost market opportunity, as well as the investors cold hard cash of $75,000 +
We had a full-proof case, and felt entitled to more. Additionally, we wanted to help improve the online contractual format by setting an example; an example that would help stop crooks from taking advantage of gullible citizens. 

But since they were allowed to play the game in their own back yard - with direct, hands-on access to the court, with all matters important - we didn't stand a hope in hell! Ah yes, for Jurisdiction
The word is a veritable concept, and carries multiple meanings. It too should be slanted > Jurisdiction.....
Sorry fella, I don't have Jurisdiction over that.... OR, You lack Jurisdiction.... case dismissed! Next!

So, my intentions will now be more directed towards a possible collaboration with others who too have suffered the slings and arrows of the legal game's misfortune. Is there a possibility to take back our rights? To gradually reverse the police state mentality and reality? To replace this Status Quo with a more truly honourable one? To bring back faith, by promoting honesty and reliability?

This would require drastic changes at the very core. I was raped by a Law Professor who blindly lied after promising he would "put an end to their shenanigans." Then, without consulting me (his client)  colluded with Defense Counsel. This man is teaching law students, preparing them to do their business; teaching them how to stretch time, to draw the most dollars out of their clients, to play the game.

That May 9, 2013 telephone conference with the 'conflict of interest' presiding Master, became my death knell. (2 years prior to becoming a Master, he was a full Partner at the very firm, the recently hired Defence Counsel is working for). Incestuous or what? With hundreds of companies and likely thousands of lawyers... you do the lottery math.

If we return to vote back in the conservatives and or Liberals (they are essentially the same upper-crust high-end folk) nothing will change. Democracy will continue to be the myth, while essentially continuing to live in a police state. 

BUT? Is there a glimmer of change at our proverbial wavy horizon, showing ever increasing nasties floating our way? 
There are presently dozens of existing politically motivated movements, gradually working in greater collaboration to change the status quo. Question is? Can we collectively do it? I say we have less than a decade to achieve it. If not, and the silent majority continues to stay silent by voting back in its government deemed safest, the oil slick will quickly cover and stifle us all.      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below, I have posted the latest addition of the NSRLP. It motivated me to preface the above...
 ==================================================================

Playing the Game: Reconciling Legal Education with the Challenges of Self-Representation

by nsrlp
In her article “The Reality of Pro Se Representation”, Judge Owens compares the self-represented litigant (SRL) experience to a childhood game. Just like ‘Hide & Seek’ or ‘Hopscotch’, the courtroom consists of specific rules and if a litigant does not follow the rules, they are out of the game. Owens goes on to inquire “If you don’t know the rules to the game, how can you win?”[1]
My name is Erin Chesney and I am a law student at the University of Windsor as well as a research assistant for the NSRLP. Throughout my year and a half of legal education, I have learned many of the rules of the game of law in my various courses. Some of these rules are relatively straightforward, while others are more complex in their application. That being said, after studying a given subject for an entire semester, I have never been able to walk into a final exam and say ‘I think I had a complete grasp on all of the law in this course.” Law is complicated, even when legal education is your full time job.
Now, throw into the mix a career, children, expensive legal resources and many other obstacles that stand in the way of many SRLs being successful at the game we call justice. For me, it’s difficult to fathom self-representing while simultaneously confronting all these challenges. However, one of the most valuable lessons I have learned while being a research assistant for the NSRLP is that many SRL’s are extremely intelligent, incredibly resourceful and have the potential to grasp many of the legal concepts necessary to successfully complete a case. If we, as a society, were to move past the stereotypes and start to listen to their stories, we would begin to realize that ‘the SRL problem’ is not a legal education barrier but rather an overall disconnect between what people need and what the system offers them as access to justice.
This semester I am enrolled in both an evidence and a civil procedure course. In both of these classes, we are taught a given rule and the social policy behind implementing said rule. For example, we were taught that in order for a piece of evidence to be admitted at trial, it must be (1) relevant (2) material and (3) not violate any exclusionary rules. We were then taught the method for proving each of these requirements, all of which seemed relatively logical and comprehensible. For instance, the person seeking to admit the evidence can call a witness to testify regarding the materiality of the evidence. In my opinion, these rules are necessary in a court proceeding to ensure justice is being served. Furthermore, although it might take significant studying to master these rules, it is not an impossible feat.
However, there is a final barrier to evidence being admitted that blurs all the lines. A concept called ‘judicial discretion’ gives the judge the power to make the final decision, even if all the aforementioned requirements have been satisfied. From my limited experience in learning about judicial discretion, it is my understanding that the initial reasoning behind providing judges with this authority is well intentioned.
Judicial discretion in the application of rules arises in all areas of law. In a criminal case, for example, this discretion is essentially the determination of whether the probative value (the strength of the evidence in proving a fact) is higher than its prejudicial effect (the harm it will do to the person the evidence is incriminating). From this test, it is clear that fairness for the accused (in a criminal case), which is a Charter-protected right, is a central concern.
I would never propose that I can truly understand the emotional roller coaster that is self-representation. However, I can imagine that after months preparing for a trial and learning as much as possible about civil or criminal procedure, it must be beyond frustrating that a judge can just rule against you. When a SRL has ensured that every single evidentiary requirement has been properly fulfilled, it must be completely devastating and seemingly unfair to suddenly fail without an understandable explanation.
SRLs believe if they learn the rules and show they can apply them, everything will come right for them. It is telling that in the National SRL Study (2013) we saw that SRLs complained far more about being disadvantaged by procedural rules that they thought they had understood and applied, than about any actual outcomes in their case. SRLs are not usually law students and have not attended extensive lectures about the reasoning behind certain legal concepts, such as judicial discretion. It follows that it is not reasonable to expect an individual outside of the legal sphere to instinctively know the context of legal procedure they have studied and the reasons why it might be an important part of the legal process.
In class we are taught that the purpose of rules such as these is to maintain the administration of justice and preserve the rights of those involved. However, to me, the lack of education and support that the legal system provides to SRLs does not seem to be promoting these objectives. This is not one person’s fault, but rather a systemic problem – that disconnect again.
Returning to Judge Owen’s metaphor of a game, it seems to me that a legal case is a game with very specific rules. However, being self-represented in Canada currently is like learning all the rules of the game, only to be tripped while it’s your turn. While it is not impossible to win the game, it is very difficult and emotionally draining. As a result, many SRLs leave court extremely frustrated and even angry, which only continues to perpetuate the stereotypes of self-representation.
SRLs are the new players in the legal game and they aren’t going away. For this reason we need to change the way the game is played if justice has any chance of winning.
[1] Judge Denise S Owens, “The Reality of Pro Se Representation,” (2013) 82 Supra 147

Wednesday 25 February 2015

165. This BEAST is just too BIG!

VIEWS@11285

So there you have it! Seven + years down the drain! Fighting the 'BEAST'; the BEAST that has shown to be too organized and corrupt; corrupt from the top down.
Too much for me to tackle any longer. I have come to understand and accept it now.

Varying thoughts have run through my head these last few days. I had already prepared myself for the next step, in case it concluded like this. But I have decided not to go there now. I'm going to continue to work in positive areas, and from the inside-out try to make a difference.

The days of David versus Goliath are over. It's time to visit the light. Let youth and their organized 'orgs' do their protesting. I'll sign the petitions. I hear We are the criminals now!

Reality is, I've learned about this species of ours, how we are all primarily self-centered. This often leads to negativity. And when the clique is threatened, the protective racket puts up its defensive guard. Then you get spat out! Hey, it's nature at work!

I will over these next days use the dismissal's 'Endorsement', and take it apart by deciphering the rhetoric. Ironic, to think: "dismissal's Endorsement." How could there be such a thing?

To those of you who have kept abreast with me on this Blog, I say a heart-felt adieu. I know most of you have an interest or are involved as legal professionals, and, as such, been curious to observe my SRL meanderings (kept the view counter increasing :)>

And YES, I'm sure this would include the 'boys' from N-VisionIT, the fellas I trusted; the ones who caused me to do what I did; the ones who ultimately became the winners; the ones who have to live with their conscience. Or, if they are fortunate, they may not possess one.

I wish you all what you deserve.
Farewell.
  

Tuesday 24 February 2015

164. VERDICT IN >>>> GUILTY AS CHARGED!



VIEWS@ 11248

BLOG NOTE: After spending some time trying to drag/drop/cut/paste/the original PDF format, I typed the whole document... I have made a brief statement at the end.
================================================================

Feb.20, 2015. 
"For written reasons released today the appeal is dismissed
(signed) Hackland J."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  CITATION: Steen v. 3902641 Can Inc, 2015  ONSC 1086
COURT FILE NO; DC- 13-1971
DATE: 2015/02/20

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: EVERT JAN STEEN, Appellant/ Plaintiff

       AND

3902641 CANADA INC. (N-VisionIT Interactive) - Respondent / Defendant

BEFORE: Hackland J.

COUNSEL: T. Kirk Boyd, for the Appellant/ Plaintiff
                    Monick L. Grenier, for the Respondent / Defendant 

HEARD:    January 20, 2015 (Ottawa)  


ENDORSEMENT

[1]     The appellant appeals the final order of Master MacLeod following a motion heard 
September 20, 2013 in which the respondent successfully sought an order dismissing the action because of the appellants repeated failure to comply with orders requiring him to answer undertakings, particularly the order of Master Roger dated May 8, 2013. 

[2]     The appellant submits that Master MacLeod erred intaking the extreme step of dismissing the appellant's action without first giving him a last chance to comply with the outstanding court order to answer undertakings. It is submitted that a clear last chance order was particularly important because a dismissal order is a discretionary remedy of last resort and because the appellant was self-represented and unsure of his legal rights. 

[3]      The case law establishes that a court should not interfere with the final  order od a Master unless it is clearly wrong or reflects a "palpable or overriding error" (see: Peters v. Prince, 2007  CanLll 46171 (Not.S.C.): Bank of Nova Scotia v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 2003 CanLii 35171 (Not. S.C.D.C.)  

Page: 2

[4]     On December 6, 2012, the respondent brought a motion seeking an Order dismissing the appellant's action on the grounds that he failed to answer discovery questions put to the Plaintiff in writing and for failing to answer outstanding undertakings in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and prior endorsements of the court.  

The respondent’s December 6, 2012 motion was heard before Master Roger who reviewed outdstanding answers and undertakings and found that twent-seven (27) questions and undertakings were outstanding and required more complete answers. In a comprehensive Order dated December 7, 2012, Master Roger orderederd the appellant to answer a specific list of questions and undertakings by February 15, 2013.

[5]      Master Roger declined to dismiss the appellants action, explaining:

"Considering: that the previous orders were made at case conferences without assessing the sufficiency of the answers; that the previous orders were not specific but rather a general request to both parties to ensure that their answers were complete; that the parties are self-represented; that some efforts have been made by the Plaintiff to provide some answers; that most of the outstanding questions are follow-up questions arising from previous answers ( there have been a number of follow-up questions) and considering generally the concept of proportionality, what is just in the circumstances is not to dismiss the action for failing to comply with previous orders and for not fully answering questions but rather to order that outstanding questions, as they are outlined below, be answered by February 15, 2013."

[6]     Master Roger did caution that, “the Plaintiff is, however, on notice that he must comply with this Order in timely manner as this court might exercise its discretion differently should a similar motion return.”

[7]      A further case conference was scheduled for May 8, 2013 before Master Roger in order to secure a date for a long motion. The respondent intended to seek an order dismissing the action on the grounds that the appellant had failed to comply with earlier earlier court orders with respect to outstanding undertakings and discovery questions. However, counsel for the appellant and the respondent reached an agreement pursuant to which Master Roger made an Order requiring the appellant to answer all outstanding discovery questions and undertakings on or before June 15, 2013. Master Roger’s order dated May 8, 2013 included a “last chance” warning:
     
 "If the plaintiff fails to provide any additional answers following receiving the list of outstanding undertakings to be provided by May 10, 2013, then the Plaintiff’s action shall be dismissed with costs to the Defendant upon the Defendant filing with the court an affidavit that no additional answers were provided. This shall be brought as a basket motion in writing with notice to the Plaintiff."

[9]     The appellant discharged his counsel in early June 2013 and resumed representing himself.

[10]     On June 19. 2013, following the expiry of Master Roger’s June 15, 2013 deadline, respondent’s counsel sent an email to the appellant to advise that the respondent would be bringing a motion for an Order dismissing his action pursuant to Master Roger’s May 8, 2013 Order. The appellant did not file any materials in opposition to the respondent’s motion or in support of his cross motion which was, in essence, a request that the court “re-assess” Master Roger’s Order of May 8, 2013, which had not been appealed.

[11]     Master MacLeaod heard the respondent’s motion on September 20, 2013. At the hearing, the appellant confirmed that he understood Master Roger’s previous order requiring him to answer discovery questions and undertakings. He argued before the Master that he was wrongfully being required to answer questions that he considered to be irrelevant and he sought to re-argue Master Roger’s order. Master Macleod clearly explained that he had no jurisdiction to re-consider Master Roger’s order, which had not been appealed.
   
[12]       A review of the motion transcript discloses that Master MacLeod advised the appellant that he could consider allowing him an additional period of time to answer the questions and undertakings in response to which the appellant stated that he would not provide further answers unless the Court would guarantee that he would not have to answer any further questions.
  
[13]       Master Macleod issued comprehensive reasons for his decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s action, concluding as follows:

             "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 ans 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 

Page: 4

if the court could guarantee he would not then be asked more questions. 

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 Bon Apostolic Inc. et al. cited by the counsel for the defendant, where the 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.

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."

[14]        In my opinion, the order of Master Roger of May 8, 2013, made it abundantly clear that he was providing the appellant with a last chance to comply with the orders of the court to answer undertakings. This order was made pursuant to a consent disposition negotiated by the appellant’s own counsel. Still, the appellant refused to comply with that order.

[15]       When the motion to dismiss the action was brought on before Master MacLeod, the appellant sought to re-argue the refusals motion that had previously been decided by Master Roger. Following a careful and patient explanation of the issue and the consequences of the motion, Master MacLeod sought an assurance from the appellant that if he granted a further 30 day extension to answer the questions and undertakings, his order would be complied with. In response, the appellant demanded assurances from the court that he would not be asked to answer any further questions. In these circumstances, I am unable to appreciate how the Master could reasonably have been expected to extend any further indulgences to the appellant.

[16]       In Vacca v. Banks, 2005 CanLll 1054 (ON SCDC), Mr. Justice Ferrier of the Divisional Court made the following observations when he affirmed a Decision of Master Birnbaum dismissing a Plaintiff’s action for non-compliance with court orders in very similar circumstances:
  
     Repeated delays and failures to comply with procedural orders affect not only the parties to the action. They significantly increase the cost of the administration of justice due to the impact on administrative and judicial resources. Repeated breaches of orders must attract significant sanctions otherwise the Case Management Rules will become ineffectual and the ultimate goal of the rules will be unattainable.

Page: 5

The rules must not be rendered nugatory by failure to impose appropriate sanctions in case of breach of orders.

Rules 30.08(2)(b), 60.12 and 77.10(7), specifically provide for the dismissal of a plaintiff’s action in such circumstances. 
  
Furthermore. Although the Master found prejudice to the defendants, in my view it was unnecessary to make such finding as a factor supporting a dismissal of the action.

There comes a time when this court is obliged to meet its responsibility for the effective administration of justice through case management by dismissing an action. Such is the case when the plaintiff repeatedly fails to comply with orders of the court whether or not there is prejudice to the defendants.

In the circumstances of four breached order, including the “last chance” order, the Master realistically had only two options – one was to give the plaintiffs yet another chance – the other was to dismiss the action.

Not only am I unable to find error in the exercise of discretion by the Master, I am of the view that her decision was correct.”

[17]      In conclusion, I am not persuaded that the Master was clearly wrong in ordering the dismissal of this action and indeed I think he was correct.   I find that the appellant was well aware that he had been provided with a last chance to comply with Master Roger’s order to answer undertakings and even when queried by Master MacLeod as to his willingness to comply if granted a further extension, the appellant sought to bargain with the court to impose inappropriate conditions.  The appeal herein is dismissed.

[18]     I would note that the respondents have a counterclaim in this action.  They have advised the court that they will agree to dismiss the counterclaim without costs upon dismissal of the main action.


_________________(signed)______
Mr. Justice Charles T. Hackland

Date: February 20, 2015

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOTE: The above mistaken switch of Counsels is the Court's.

"In the circumstances," or "under the circumstances," the Judge could do little else;
his hands were tied by Case Law.  

The fact it took a month to receive his negative endorsement is likely due to the excessive, general work-load. His preceding adjectives of 'tough,' and 'high-profile,' appears to have mattered little.  All was predictable in the end.  

These years, Case Law pretty well stipulates most all outcome. Once precedents are allowed, they become 'standard,' and hence - law. There is little 'argument' left. Do as you are told; that's it. If they want you out, they'll find a way to verbalize and achieve it.  

As a questioning SRL, that is what I have learned from this experience. The above summation's ease of manipulative rhetoric is scarily perturbing. No one ever dealt with the relevant facts of the case; just as the Respondents ployed it. 

A respected lawyer previously informed me: "Jan, the courts are not about Justice."
It's a game.
Yip, our Police State is alive and thriving! 
I will soon write my rebuttal. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

case law

noun
  1. the law as established by the outcome of former cases.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pro·to·col
ˈprōdəˌkôl,ˈprōdəˌkäl/
noun
  1. 1.
    the official procedure or system of rules governing affairs of state or diplomatic occasions.
    • the accepted or established code of procedure or behavior in any group, organization, or situation.
      synonyms:etiquette, conventions, formalities, customs, rules of conduct,procedureritual, accepted behavior, propriety, proprieties, one's Ps and Qs, decorumgood form, the done thing, the thing to do,punctilio
      "a stickler for protocol"
  2. 2.
    the original draft of a diplomatic document, especially of the terms of a treaty agreed to in conference and signed by the parties.
    synonyms:agreementtreatyententeconcordatconventiondealpactcontract,compact;
    formalconcord
    "the two countries signed a protocol"
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    sta·tus quo
    ˌstādəs ˈkwō/
    noun
    1. the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues.
      "they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo"




Monday 16 February 2015

163. "No Hugs Please, I'm Dutch."


VIEWS@11182 

NOTE: The following article is a direct LinkedIn paste. 
It was written by Sacha Dekker. 

As a small, mostly below sea-level situated, country, the Dutch are by nature sea-faring, folk, having transplanted to just about anywhere. However, their overall attitude is still a bit like that of a fox-terrier; once they've got hold of something, they don't easily let go. 

Make no mistake though, I am a serious Canadian now. However, as the Dutch say: 'de Appel valt niet ver van de boom.' (The apple doesn't fall far from the tree) And since my Genes are 'oorspronkelijk' (originally) Dutch, I guess I'm guilty!

Below's article renders insight into some of my inbred tenacity and character...

==================================================================  
"Let’s just get it out there; we Dutch don’t hug, we don’t give compliments and we are very bad tippers. Obviously that’s a generalisation and I do know loads of Dutch people who give the most beautiful compliments, love hugging and provide a proper tip after good service. Generally though, we just don’t. Does that make us stingy, cold and reserved? Well, we prefer to think we are authentic!
Being authentic 
The whole ‘being authentic’ thing is big for us. Coming from the time when we were a trading nation and contracts were sealed through a handshake and a verbal commitment, it means you are true to yourself and cut to the chase (we also value time and ”move” is simply quicker than ”would you mind terribly stepping aside please”). The problem is that, unlike us, other cultures may neither see nor describe our behaviour as ‘authentic’. They will use words like ‘rude’, ‘direct’, ‘confrontational’ or even ‘unfriendly’. And while all of this comes down to perception, in the end we Dutch probably need to understand that there are only 17 million of us and a couple billion non-Dutch out there. Our ‘authentic’ ways may not always go down as well as we’d hoped. Adapting to other, more context based, cultures may require quite a bit of effort though and I personally have to work really hard to be less, well let’s say ‘explicit’. Even after 12 years of international experience, half the time I still honestly don’t even realise I could potentially be perceived as rude or confrontational. It’s only by asking for regular feedback that I can continuously enhance my understanding of what works and what ‘crosses the line’.
Authority issues 
On top of all of this, we don’t like authority and have a huge need for an egalitarian leader, company and society. “You are not the boss of me” is a phrase that could have originated in the Netherlands and one that we fiercely live by. Our favourite phrase, directly translated, is ‘act normal, that’s crazy enough’. In the Netherlands, trying to be special and standing out from the crowd is simply not done. We are all equal and want to be treated as such. It goes without saying that this causes issues when either Dutch go and work abroad or when foreigners come to our beautiful little country in a leadership position (except for the Danish and Swedish who have the same need for equality in leadership). We want the company hierarchy to be as flat as our country is.
One of the leading Dutch newspapers, NRCQ, published an article (in Dutch) about the differences that I’m describing above. They wrote that when it comes to deciding, together with Sweden and Japan we go for the consensus model, trying to get everyone’s input, more than any other country in the world. Our royal family is one of the most prominent examples of our need for equality. You will see photos of them, dressed in orange t-shirts (along with the rest of the nation during a large event like the Olympics or a World Cup) jumping up and down and cheering on the athletes as much as any of us. In fact, at those moments more than at any other time, we feel they are ‘just like us’ and we love them for it. Just imagine Prince Charles doing something like that...
Celebrate differences
I live in Ireland and my entire team is Irish. To top it off, my line manager and the majority of my colleagues are in the US while my stakeholders are all over Europe. With more international experience also comes the willingness and, more importantly, the ability to adapt more. To think twice, to say things like “could you consider other options?” rather than “this just isn’t going to work” and I’ve even converted to hugging (I now just hug everyone which is potentially going slightly overboard ;-). At the same time, my plea to all other nationalities that I work with, is to please be patient with me. To understand that my brain is hardwired to give direct feedback, to say it as I see it and to be to the point. Trust me; I’m just trying to be authentic ;-) "