Friday 18 September 2015

207. When is a system CORRUPT* ?

VIEWS@13859

*corrupt |kəˈrəptadjectivehaving or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain:• evil or morally depraved: the play can do no harm since its audience is already corrupt.
• archaic (of organic or inorganic matter) in a state of decay; rotten or putrid: a corrupt and rotting corpse.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Synonyms 1. false, untrustworthy, dishonest, venal (showing or motivated by susceptibility to bribery especially in public office), 2. one who acts on mercenary motives, without regard to honor, right, or justice. 3. A corrupt politician is one originally honest who has succumbed to temptation and begun questionable practices. A dishonest politician is one lacking native integrity. A venal politician is one so totally debased as to sell patronage., 4. contaminated.  5. putrescent, rotten,spoiled. 6. demoralize, bribe. 7. debase, vitiate. 8. contaminate, pollute,spoil, defile. 9. putrefy.
================================================


Corrupt - in an exemplary democracy no less. What is it in our species that allows for this?Ultimately it must be greed, or some driven NEED, where the sense of 'having,' or belonging becomes the deciding factor. If you train the mind to pay homage to the hierarchy of the status quo, righteousness trumps conscience.* In sufficient numbers it verifies the elite's allowances. Who am I to question 'justice'? "That's just the way it is." Feudalism reigns on, alive and well. I keep reiterating: Survival of the fittest. Do as we say, or else. It may be as simple as that. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* conscience |ˈkänCHənsnoun; an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior: he had a guilty conscience about his desires | Ben was suffering  pangs of conscience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So our demo-crazy continues to be governed by powerful hypocrites. This is now the norm.
Get used to it.  Can we, as serf plebeians, at least change their titles?   
========================================================    
 judge |jəjnouna public official appointed to decide cases in a court of law.• a person who decides the results of a competition or watches for infractions of the rules.• a person able or qualified to give an opinion on something: she was a good judge of character.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't state: a learned, qualified, noble, highly principled human being; merely: "a public official appointed to decide cases in a court * of law."who "watches for infractions of the rules.Though likely always aware of the infractions, all is guided by the 'rules' as interpreted from within, depending on the mood, the urge, the promise, the possible advantages and, yes, the demeanour of 'the party.' The chosen ones always benefit.  Questioning outsiders become mere fodder.   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* court |kôrtnoun(also court of law *a tribunal presided over by a judge, judges, or a magistrate in civil and criminal cases: a settlement was reached during the first sitting of the court | she will take the matter to court| [ as modifier ] :  a court case.• the place where a court meets.• (the courtthe judge or judges presiding at a court.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* law |noun(often the lawthe system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties: they were taken to court for breaking the law| a license is required by law| [ as modifier ] :  law enforcement.• an individual rule as part of a system of law: an initiative to tighten up the laws on pornography.• systems of law as a subject of study or as the basis of the legal profession: he was still practicing law.====================================================
NOTE how it speaks of "a system of law" / "as the basis of the legal profession." 
====================================================Lastly
After some 4 months of corresponding with several individuals in the Minister of Justice of BC's Office (Time flies when you are dealing with 'The System'), though the tonality of exchange continues to be polite, it is becoming clear their officials are not prepared to discuss the specific details I am wanting to address.  I am speaking of Counsel to Counsel; me being the Plaintiff as Self Representing Litigant; they being the Defendant, as Government, as suggested in the Guidebook of the Crown Proceeding Act literature. The Government to be treated like just another 'individual' or 'corporation.'   
Answered responses generally contain additional references to legal text through government links, with a kind of arm's length attitude. I have encountered, and now clearly established, a certain impenetrable wall.
If only I could shout, as Ronald Reagan did at the Berlin wall,  "Take down that wall Mr. Gorbachev!" 
- Take down that wall you bureaucrats and let your people IN! 
I am awaiting response to a one last effort. Should it not render the requested information, I shall take a leap of faith soon, and see what happens.
The waste of time, energy and general cost remains horrendous.

 

Thursday 3 September 2015

205. Re: Government / Courts Websites.

VIEWS@13762

Below some quotes from today's 'Open Law Lab' Blog:

"When we talk about terrible websites, it's not just that they look like they're from 1999 (though that's definitely a part of it). It's also that the processes are burdensome, unclear, and made even more so with bad web experience and interaction design."

"All of it adds up to hugely expensive sites that are not usable for the target audiences, and that aren't flexible enough to adapt to changing times' standards of what good, trustworthy, engaging, confidence-inspiring websites look like."

"This certainly isn't just a federal government agency problem. The same bad-outdated-confusing website criticism applies to most every court website I have experienced."

Attesting to the above, I recount my online government instructions regarding the filing/ service methods of my 'Written Questions' during the Discovery phase, way back in 2010, as per Rule 35.01 (below). 

When you visit the CANLII.org site you will note the continuous 'updating' by year....although the below texts continue to be the same...
======================================================================

RULE 35 PROCEDURE ON EXAMINATION FOR DISCOVERY BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS

35.01  An examination for discovery by written questions and answers shall be conducted by serving a list of the questions to be answered (Form 35A) on the person to be examined and every other party. 
ANSWERS
35.02  (1)  Written questions shall be answered by the affidavit (Form 35B) of the person being examined, served on the examining party within fifteen days after service of the list of questions.
-------------------->>>>>>
FAILURE TO ANSWER

Further List of Questions
35.04  (1)  Where the examining party is not satisfied with an answer or where an answer suggests a new line of questioning, the examining party may, within ten days after receiving the answer, serve a further list of written questions which shall be answered within fifteen days after service. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 35.04 (1).

Court Order for Further Answers
(2)  Where the person being examined refuses or fails to answer a proper question or where the answer to a question is insufficient, the court may order the person to answer or give a further answer to the question or to answer any other question either by affidavit or on oral examination
........... .....>>>>......
Additional Sanctions
(4) Where a person refuses or fails to answer a proper question on a written examination or to produce a document that he or she is required to produce, the court may, in addition to imposing the sanctions provided in subrules (2) and (3),
(a) if the person is a party or a person examined on behalf or in place of a party, dismiss the party’s action or strike out the party’s defence;
(b) strike out all or part of the person’s evidence; and
(c) make such other order as is just.  R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 35.04 (4).
===================================================================

Ah Yes! a 'proper' question. Not one with a 'semblance' of relevance, but relevant to the issues at hand!  Well, the issues "at hand" I have learned, are whatever the court decides to be 'relevant.'

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

IMPROPER CONDUCT OF EXAMINATION
35.05 On motion by the person being examined, or by any party, the court may terminate the written examination or limit its scope where,
(a) the right to examine is being abused by an excess of improper questions; or
(b) the examination is being conducted in bad faith, or in an unreasonable manner so as to annoy, embarrass or oppress the person being examined
(Underlined + emboldened by me) 
=======================================================================

So, having prepared some 100 + RELEVANT, contract related questions, I served and filed them.

Having noted a 15 day legal window allowance for a Defence's response, after a reminder to their Defense Counsel to please acknowledge receipt of same, and, upon receiving it being asked for a time  extension, I offered "a month."  This turned out to be insufficient, and the battle was on. 

Matters went down-hill ever since. Not only was the 15 day legal response ignored, I was sent a 'newer' longer, more expansive 'Discovery Plan' to which the parties were to sign up for and agree upon. 
The earlier, acknowledged delivery of my written questions was now being entirely ignored. 

Not only did Master Roger at a September 2010 first Conference acknowledge my earlier delivery of the Rule 35A Questions, the fact some 5 months had passed WITHOUT ANSWERS was NEVER QUESTIONED.

And in the end, both Court and Defense Counsel, with their direct objective to drive me COMPLETELY INSANE, had decided to activate the above 'IMPROPER CONDUCT OF EXAMINATION ' themselves, by asking me to answer such questions as to: "When did I retire?" and "What jobs did I perform as a Handyman?" All clearly questions relevant to a fully paid for earlier unusable website. 

My insistent request on having the following sentence handed me down by Master Roger explained: "Under the circumstances all questions are found to be relevant; the Plaintiff shall answer them."  
was met by the following Court responses, which led to the claim's dismissal: 

The senior Master's response was to pass the proverbial 'Jurisdictional' buck by reference to the previous Master:

McLeod: "...that is what Master Roger was supposed to take in to account when he made his order." ...."into account proportionality and the other purposes of the rules. And one of the things that the court can do is to intervene to prevent ongoing, unnecessary discovery, but..."
Steen: (hopeful) "Yes."
MacLeod: "...that's not what we're dealing with today."
Steen: "Well, that's what I thought we were dealing with." 
Macleod: "Well, we're not. We're dealing with the fact that you were ordered to answer these things, so the determination that they were necessary has already been made by the court, you've just..."
Steen: "Without.."
Macleod:...decided...
Steen:... without...
Macleod: ...to disagree...
Steen: ....explaining it? 
Macleod: "Well, it's not the role of the Court to give you advice, so..."
etc. etc. 
===============================================================
Ah yes, 'WELL' there you have it. This time the Officer in Charge of the Court proceedings decides it does not give advice. I never asked for advice in the first place; I asked for a legitimate EXPLANATION! 
BUT! All is under the bridge now. The Court has a mind of its own, each time it hands out an ORDER!

Do not QUESTION THE COURT, because they are beyond The Law; each and every one of them.
It took me a long time to figure this out. Thanks to Rodell and others, I get it now. 
From Kaiser Harper and his Superior bunch in Ottawa, to a circuit Judge in Rural BC, 
>  relevant truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Corruption is alive and well, and without a conscience, reigning over us.

Have a nice day > EH?