168. Once you know the Rules, break them > if you can

VIEWS@11358

TO REITERATE, I copy from Ms. Erin Chesney's NSRLP post: "Playing the Game"
(I have emboldened/underlined pertinent lines)

"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."
================================================================
(Quick Blogger Note: I'm having to deal with a recalcitrant 'FONT' reproduction here. I CAN'T get below to show up as MY writing. Nor this...:( > 

Taking the emboldened lines above ipso facto, any individual, with any brains for logic, will be able to differentiate that which IS, from that which ISN't. Example: Are the bodies dead, or alive?Let's see: Are they breathing? (NO!) Are they still warm? (NO?) Has rigor mortis set in? (Looks like it) ERGO: They are dead! 

However, taken in to a Court scenario and 'Understanding the legal game,' with a certain amount of 'judicial discretion,' we witnessed the following:

I take you back to the case of the last century: The OJ Simpson trial. We all 'knew' he was guilty; yet to prove it > beyond a reasonable doubt > when he tried on the shrunken blood-soaked, now dry gloves, and with the world watching this theatre, the 'game' of it all, low and behold - they didn't FIT! So there! You see! Your honour! The Court! The millions of us WATCHING! The gloves did not FIT! ERGO, beyond a reasonable DOUBT he was not guilty >! Two innocent people murdered; he was FREE to go! The actual killer was never found! (Wink/wink/nudge/nudge)
==========================================================

Ms. Chesney continues:

"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."

=================================================

This Blogger than adds: In the "well intentioned,"or perhaps NOT so well intentioned, lies the proverbial rub, "blurring all the lines!" Those of you may remember the Conrad Black trial; how as a Canadian multi-millionaire he sought to defend himself in an American Court. Well, even he, with his muli-millions of dollars could not 'buy' himself out of the 'relevances' of his troubles. For once, justice had its day; and the irony with OJ was that justice did ultimately find him. That time not as a cold-blooded murderer, but as a thief! Oh to be the child of OJ! 

==================================================

Ms. Chesney continues:

"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." 

==================================================================

DEFINITION: 'Procedural Law '

1. Procedural law or adjective law comprises the rules by which a court hears and determines what happens in civil lawsuit, criminal or administrative proceedings.
   adjective |ˈajiktiv|nounGrammara word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to anoun to modify or describe it.
   'by which a court hears and determines what happens in civil lawsuit, '
   Now we are getting to the essence of our realities > IN PRACTICE!. I repeat again a former lawyer's statement: "Jan, the courts are not about Justice." And when you receive a Defense Counsel's email asking: "Mr.Steen, will you be attending to argue your case yourself?" I say thusly: Argue RELEVANCE? PROOF BY FACT?, PROPORTIONALITY? FAIRNESS? JURISDICTION?  'Oh, you filed a Motion? Well, I have a lot of papers Mr. Steen, I am not aware of it.' (Master Roger)  I am just saying, add the ins and outs of filing procedure, all it takes is the tiniest of technicality (when chosen to be used by the system) and you are whistling 'Dixie.' We don't stand a friggin chance. ===============================================================
   Ms. Chesney:"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."=======================================================================
   It is not just an important part of the process: it IS the process.
   The REAL truth is:  RULES BE DAMNED! SUBJECTIVITY by judicial discretion is the actual law. The untouchable Masters and Judges are the law! THEY are the RULES; No more, no less.  ===============================================================
   Ms. Chesney: "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."=======================================================================
   Correct! And there you have it. All the proportionality applied; all the relevant proof in the world presented; NONE will make a blooming difference, if the system wants you OUT! ========================================================================
   

After suffering 6 years, with some 3 years of never-ending discovery questions, questions that became so ludicrous they had zero relevance to my claim of contractual non-compliance, I fought to have the court explain to me: "under the circumstances all questions have been found relevant; the plaintiff shall answer them!" I kept asking what 'the circumstances were that made the questions "relevant." 

The senior Master's response: "Mr.Steen, the court is not there to give you advice, sir." I was not asking for advice I said, I was asking for an explanation!

The Master informed me that the former Master had already decided the questions were relevant; that it was outside his jurisdiction to question it.   

This is where the 'game' shows itself in all its simplistic glory. The court often decides early on WHO wins; relevance or justice be damned. If the gloves don't fit to DAY, they could not have fit THEN, during the gruesome bloodbath vicious murders! If this Master says such-n-such, all that's required is the replacement of another official at the next hearing. He/she can simply state: 'I wasn't there then; today it's me your facing! I am the Master of this session, and it's my judicial discretion you’re subjected to. So there!

The 'high profile, tough judge,' justice Charles Hackland, recently dismissed my Divisional Superior Court Appeal. He had little choice, "under the circumstances."

==========================================================

Law student, Ms.Chesney: 

 "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."

===========================================================================

Quoting Ms. Chesney:  ...."a legal case is a game with very specific rules."

I disagree with Ms. Chesney here. I indicate a legal case to be a game in which Court Officials determine whatever they wish to apply. Using their legalese rhetoric, they cleverly weave their words to build their reasonings. It's law on demand. Make it up as you go.

Unless, and until, we drastically change the very foundations of our legal system, to make the Rules airtight, so they actually MEAN something, there can be NO justice; 

Until then, it shall continue to be a game, a game played by those who are in control of its system.

Next, I shall break Justice's dismissal down, by inserting my own take. I intend to clarify the gradual build up of his 'argument,' by showing how he carefully eliminated  anything that could have possibly accredited me. 

After that arduous task, I shall gradually start looking at the Rules, and change them, so that when they are referred to, they actually mean something.

Another reality I will venture to discuss is the problems with Rule differences in our Provinces. Surely to God, in this day and age, we can have the same Rules fit all Provinces? + Cut out that damned hiding behind, and dispose of, the bag of tricks called 

JURISDICTION?