221. Trial by YOU-tube

VIEWS@15007

"A chilling message to our members." (Police chief?)

By using a 'real' example I am going to draw an analogy between what in essence could be a comparative of most all self-serving systems. Pick one; pick any...

This  then concerns the Ontario, CA, verdict of the officer who killed the disturbed young man brandishing a knife on a Toronto streetcar. The YOUtube footage shows the fella standing in the front entrance of the main-deck of the bus. (i.e. some three steps up)

Let's 'walk' through the highly disturbing footage shot from a distance of some, I'd say100 feet?
This, from behind were the officer in question was shooting from; i'd say at a 50 feet distance?

1) We see the fella centrally located, in full view, in the doorway of the bus.
2) The verbal, i.e. 'human' audio I can't decipher. Likely the officer shouting to drop the knife...
3) I then hear a shot, the man falls down; then several more shots...
4) Then a number more. I think there were some 7 shots...

Added facts: The man goes down with the first shot, and NEVER seems to move much, let alone getting up to 'continue to be a threat to the policeman, or anyone else in the vicinity.'

This apparently was a trial by Jury. (How I wish there were MORE trials by Jury, even though that does not mean they will be always perfect. Still, if it's a democracy, let at least the people judge, not the insiders).

I heard on the news last night that apparently the first 3 shots fired had been considered "acceptable,"
where the additional FOUR then, were possibly what? OVERkill?
overkill |ˈōvərˌkil| nounthe amount by which destruction or the capacity for destruction exceeds what is necessary: the existing nuclear overkill.• excessive use, treatment, or action; too much of something:animators now face a dilemma of technology overkill.
"To serve and protect"  I remember seeing written on Ontario Police cars many years ago.

 5) The verdict is out and, indeed, the officer is being held responsible for having used an excessive amount of bullets, 'in the circumstances.'

Apparently now the defence is asking for a 'STAY' in the proceedings. Apparently they want to argue the fact the officer merely did his duty; that he was 'trained by the state to do so'; ergo, HE wasn't responsible, those who TRAINED him are responsible!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To recap:

1) A disturbed young man (On drugs? Emotionally un-balanced?), I/we don't know,
gets on a bus and at some point brandishes a knife, clearly to do harm, what else?
The bus is stopped, driver and people all get out unharmed (I believe?) and the man is left on the bus.

2) The police show up, and an officer pulls out his gun (at some 50 feet?) The officer shouts at the man to drop his knife and tells him to get off the bus.... (I presume this is the text; I could not hear it on the video)

3) The man does NOT, and keeps standing there...(I don't know if he 'says anything)

4) The policeman fearing for his life (and potentially others) "To serve and protect" himself and the people, kills the man, firing 7 bullets to do so, when it is clear that ONE has already floored the fella.

Here's my (training) script:
(I'm jumping straight to where the officer shouts at the fella):

1)  Officer: (with revolver aimed at young man) "DROP YOUR KNIFE AND HANDS UP ; COME OUT OF THE BUS!"  (.... Pause....;  Nothing happens).......(something like that?)
- The man ignores/refusing the command. (I don't hear him say anything)

2) Officer: I ordered you to drop your knife, and come out of the bus with your hands up; this is my second and last order.....(pause) If you don't do as I tell you, I'll shoot!  
- The man  ignores/refusing the command. (I don't hear him say anything)

3) Officer: (shouting) OK! You are refusing to do as I say, so I am going to shoot now > RIGHT NOW!...(PAUSE of 3 seconds?) Police officer SHOOTS!

4) But WAIT! > Remember this is MY training > IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES:
a) The young man is brandishing a KNIFE! NOT A GUN!
MY Rules "in the circumstances" would train the officer to SHOOT ; NOT at the MAN, but maybe the glass of the door of the bus?! What a shattering experience that would have been! What a WAKE UP call THAT could have been!

b) AND, if the fella still doesn't come to grips with the situation, maybe advance about 10 feet, and see what he does? Then if he STILL just stands there, in a daze ...

5) Officer: (less shouty) OK fella, I'm not getting anywhere here, I'm going to hurt you now, is that what you want? 
(In psychology, oftentimes distraught people, who snap, when all else has failed, in fact are in some way 'asking' to be heard and 'HURT.'

- If the young man STILL does not change his composure, I would suggest the Officer (we are assuming he is the hot-shot he proved to be, since I believe all 7 shots entered the body) would shout at the arm, or hand brandishing the knife. OR, if the position of the hand is in front of the body at that time, my suggested training instruction would be:
SHOOT HIM IN THE LEG!

6) Even if the culprit had a gun, a sound, well-trained marksman could have shot him in the arm, or leg, and repositioned. It was at a fair distance, and it appeared no one in the immediate vicinity was in  danger....

Lastly, to bring the argument full circle and pertinent to my own case:

QUESTION?
Equating the Police Officer by representing his Police force, there to serve and protect the people;
- with the Officer Judge, representing her Justice Ministry, there to serve and protect people:

ARE THEY NOT THE SAME? 
Maybe the time has come for ALL COURT CASES TO BE YOU TUBED!

It is high-time to draw our attentions to ALL our self-policing, self-serving institutions and make them FAR MORE accountable for their actions! That time is NOW. NOW, or NEVER, I say!

If NOT now, the species is surely doomed. Since nothing is making sense anymore.
We are imploding! Maybe, for the sake of those species still alive, Just as well.

220. Who Cares?

VIEWS@15000

Two things here:
- 15000 views! A small milestone. Continued appreciation to know enough people care to include my personal diatribe and tribulation on these matters that ultimately concern all citizens.
- Below, the latest posting from the NSRLP Office (with my posted comment > also included here).

If Careful Evidence-Based Reporting of Present-Day Realities in the Justice System Makes NSRLP “Political” – Then We Are Guilty as Charged

=================================================================
(My response to above posting)

"So here it finally is! I have been expecting this stand from NSRLP for several years now.

Let's step back for a moment, and assess our combined efforts objectively (as is being posed in the posting): 

According to Astrologers (not me) this is the year of the monkey: The year of...'INTRIGUE'! (AH...duh!). We, Canadians, recently elected a spanking new government! SO eclectic, and representational, it's scarily, and intriguingly full of PROMISE! We, the PEOPLE, demanded >>CHANGE>> and lo and behold >> we GOT IT!

Now it is up to ALL of us to bring these demands for change about, and work our way > DILIGENTLY > to create the 'DEMOCRACY' we all along THOUGHT we were living in, but in PRACTICE were duped by. YES folks, we were (are still mostly), living a LIE!

And with the very well meaning, seriously-caring folk @ NRSLP at the forefront > working from the outside> IN, sticking out their vulnerable necks, together with the throngs of dissatisfied, confused/fed-up SRLs working from the IN-side > OUT (sticking out THEIR vulnerable necks), >>> ALL are working towards the middle, to hopefully, in tandem, with our NEW and talented Government, BRING ABOUT THE NECESSARY CHANGE that can bring this purported Democracy in to a Renaissance of TRUTH > away from, and OUT of 'INTRIGUE!'

Next year, 2017, poignantly clever, will be the year of the ROOSTER:

"Rooster is almost the epitome of fidelity and punctuality. For ancestors who had no alarm clocks, the crowing was significant, as it could awaken people to get up and start to work. In Chinese culture, another symbolic meaning of chicken carries is exorcising evil spirits."

Let all who care help bring our threatened brethren in the legal profession to understand > we mean WELL. We Just don't want to live hypocritically anymore. We merely insist on making sure that honest adherence to the rules as written, and access to justice, are within our means; and that fairness and due process is extended to all alike, rich or poor, represented or not.

So > OUT with INTRIGUE! (we have 12 months) Let's wake up NOW, and become the true democracy I'm certain we can attain."

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

With the above inserted today, I am preparing myself by finalizing my files to be registered and served in time over the next so many days for my up-coming Feb.12th Summary Trial in Victoria. 

219. My 'CHANGE.ORG' petition

VIEWS@14885


Hello readers,

I just registered the domain: Self-RepresentingLitigantsForJustice.org 

Having posted a Change.org petition, I am looking for your endorsement. If you believe in what I am pursuing, would you be so considerate to sign the petition?
Signing it would show support, while the number of signees would indicate, or not, the value of what others and I are trying to improve upon, i.e. the creation of a more fair and accountable legal system.  

The text reads like:

 "The courts are not about justice," a successful lawyer informed me. I feel it should be, as I continue my 6 year battle as an SRL demanding it!  Contrary to indications about fairness, respect, and due diligence of process, it appears to be a lucrative business controlled by the professionals in charge. With your help I am looking to turn that around, and make the courts and its representers accountable for their actions!

On February 12th I will be in a Victoria, BC, Canada, Court, in a Summary Trial with my claim against BC's Minister of Justice for what I purport to be a wrongful dismissal by one of their Judges. Will you support me, making certain I will be fairly heard and justly judged?" 

The link below should get you there: 
https://www.change.org/p/evert-jan-steen-time-to-improve-our-legal-system?recruiter=374911508&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive

My thanks...
Jan Steen

218. To The Honourable Madam, Minister of Justice....

 VIEWS@14,803

Dear Honourable Madame Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Ms. Jody Wilson and Mrs. Rabould:

Please allow this quasi-retired 76 year old Canadian Citizen and SRL, living on Hornby Island, to welcome you to your awesome new job.

I quote our jubilant new Prime Minister: “…We have promised Canadians a government that will bring real change – in both what we do and how we do it”… “assess the effectiveness of our work; and align our resources with priorities, in order to get the results we want and Canadians deserve.”

There is much more there in these lofty promises. All appear eerily unrealistic, yet rosily optimistic. I say this since I have learned to become a realist these last six excruciating years, while battling several of our Provincial legal systems.

Surely, you, as a former prosecutor and native of BC, have experienced the abominable discrimination which is still running rampant throughout most our political systems. Quite frankly Madame Minister of ‘Justice,’ we, the insiders, know that our courts are – with the odd exception (I am told) – generally not about ‘JUSTICE.’

Having studied the Rules of Civil Procedure, I have found there is very little ‘Civil’ about them, when un-attainable and -accountable Judges, can pick and choose as they see fit.

Surely in an established ‘democracy,’ some-body can, and must, be held ‘accountable?!’

With lawyer fees out of reach for the average citizen, you are likely aware of the enormous increase in SRLs these past years. We are at long last gaining some attention. Through my Blog: about-justice.blogspot.ca I have become acquainted with the NSRLP folk, headed by Dr. Julie Macfarlane out of Windsor U. And as well with several other individuals doggedly dedicating their valuable time to help make a difference. All have intentions to rid the system of its hypocrisy in order to improve what surely is the very building block of a solid democratic society.

The NSRL(Project) recently published a National study on SRL results when dealt with in Summary Trials. Suffice to say we were some 99% pulverized.

This then brings me to my upcoming Summary Trial in Victoria on February 12^th, 2016.

I appreciate you can not directly comment on my litigation in which I am holding BC’s Minister of Justice/Attorney General’s Office responsible for their Judge’s errings by dismissing my 2010 case for ‘lack of Jurisdiction’ and allowing me to appeal her verdict.

Although I feel to have ample evidence, I have been advised my ‘cause of action’ requires MORE! Exhibit facts, transcripts and precedent case history are not enough I am told. I will need MORE!  “Just because you did not like a judge’s verdict doesn’t mean you are entitled to recompense. (Asst. Deputy Attorney General).  Enough is not enough!

What then can become the Achilles heel? This is the crux of the matter. All lies in the loop variables of the rules. A ‘Notwithstanding,’ an ‘under the circumstances,’ a Jurisdictional excuse, a default rule in one province being the ‘or’ Rule in the other, a timely retirement when a case comes to court, our Officers at the ‘Justice’ Department know all the angles.

Dear Ms. Jody, Mrs. Raybould, and now ‘The Honourable Madam Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada’, for the sake of honesty and sheer sanity, PLEASE, let us bring these wayward ships around, we have VERY little time left.

We know that it will hurt our status quo, but it is ultimately the right thing to do. No wonder the East is after us in droves. They are full well aware of our hypocritical ways!

Those of us already in the thick of it, will help you get there, if you allow it.

Like Obama’s struggle with his US gun lobby, it won’t be easy, but I feel, working together with your office and determination, real democracy should be achievable.

Respectfully,

E-Jan Steen

217. New Year's Resolutions

VIEWS@ 14777

With death more of a mind-tickler at my age, each year is becoming more precious. Having experienced the departure of friends and acquaintances by accident, or illness, other than my mother who found a most wonderful, final departure in her sleep at 92, none, thankfully in my immediate family, are suffering from anything 'before their time.' 

Still, I have seriously decided (I know I spoke of this last year) to put my battles, and inputs to society to bed this year. It has become an all consuming lifestyle, and although it may appear to some as self-indulgent, the objective is and has been essentially to challenge the hypocritical status quo. 

My 'kids,' all adults now, have ingrained pessimism. "Dad, you can't change the system..." "Stop already! Relax, have fun, do your puttering; grow a garden"....etc.  

So, with that reality creeping to the fore, I have given myself this year as a deadline.

Will my very daring to take on and question the Ministry also be considered "vexatious and an abuse of process"? With our new government in place, and the general well-meant rattlings of others, all nibbling at the legal hypocrisy, I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Access to 'JUSTICE' indeed!

Preparing myself then for the upcoming Feb 12th, Victoria slated Summary Trial, the following is a study result from a recent NSRLP article, which is pertinent and, as such, gravely concerning.

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

RE: "SUMMARY JUDGMENT"

“We next reviewed each of the 65 cases we found in 2014, and removed each case that included either a formal declaration that the SRL was a “vexatious litigant”, or any indicia in the judgment hinting at vexatiousness or “process abuse” (for example, multiple filings in this case, or previous actions on similar points)[5].

This review left us with 45 cases in which there was no reference to vexatious behavior or process abuse – instead the summary judgment decision focused on the merits of the arguments, the technical completeness of the pleadings, and the sufficiency of the evidence being presented by the SRL.

•   In this “sanitized sample”, the increase in summary judgment applications from 2004 to 2014 is still 800%.

•   Where SJPs were brought by represented parties against SRLs (almost all the cases), success was still almost universal: 98% of applications in this group succeeded[6].

Almost half of the decisions as reported – which include appeals against an order of summary judgment – include no or minimal judicial reasoning on the summary judgment issue, making further analysis difficult.”

…….

“What does all this mean?

Broadly speaking, the data confirmed our worst fears. We were concerned at the outset that SJPs might be being used against SRLs in a way that took advantage of their confusion and lack of knowledge and skill.

The results suggest that SJPs are increasingly being used successfully against SRLs. And given the results we see even when we remove cases formally or informally referencing “vexatiousness” or “process abuse”, this suggests that many cases are being struck because of technical errors that are unintentional and could be addressed if SRLs had more assistance.

Or – perhaps most worrisome – that the SRL stereotype rather than the reality of “vexatiousness” in a particular case is being used, rather effectively, by counsel to appeal to judges to order summary judgment against a SRL. Without more complete reasoning offered in many of the decisions, this is difficult to assess.”

……

“Recommendations

There are four recommendations in the full report. These are for:

•   Better monitoring of SJP decisions and outcomes

•   Further and better judicial education informed by this data

•   Enhanced assistance for SRLs who are presently often “ambushed” and unaware of what is happening in a SJP

Consideration of whether the strategic use of SJPs against a SRL raises questions of ethical practice for lawyers.”

(This research was conducted by Julie Macfarlane with Katrina Trask and Erin Chesney

[5] We could not of course appraise the fairness of such conclusions, and simply accepted them on face value.

[6] We counted partial success as 0.5 in our calculation)
===================================================================

+ Better monitoring of SJP decisions and outcomes
- Hopefully my February 12th, Victoria appearance can  be 'monitored', with a number of attendees who have had experience 'in the field,' and are able to make note of proceedings.  
- Maybe I can attract some media to sit in, and instead of being "ambushed" to become but just another ignorant SRL, help to make concrete steps towards that which we continue to call 'JUSTICE.'

Let's work on helping to make this a turn-around year, away from hypocrisy, in to the creation of a true democracy. Our new government has given us that incentive. Let's support them all we can and back them up!

I encourage my readers with thoughts on this to contact me.