231. All HONOURABLE, seasoned, conscientious, accountable professionals ( ? )

VIEWS@15355

"improving (our) quality of judicial service in the superior courts of Canada"

Note:  So if CONSERVATIVE is WHITE (check URL of CJC below), does the newly elected, more indicatively 'Canadian' flavoured LIBERAL, group stand any chance at all?  Let's get real here. 

We voted for CHANGE, and lo, we GOT it; well, at least the top echelon 'LOOK' different! So now what? The new figure-heads at the top of the pile are STILL working with the solidly entrenched many - all who have been running it their way just dandy under Kaiser Harper? (Remember him?) 

The well-entrenched who have clearly turned a blind eye to the utterly disgraceful state of this SYSTEM across this fine country of OURS! I can NO-longer call it the "JUSTICE" system! 
Let's FACE it! It has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with JUSTICE!

'JUSTICE'  is a now a DIRTY WORD in my books.  Let's have a peek at theJudicial Council's  'duties.' (I tried to copy a photo of the group here, but it gave me problems; here's the link)
https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/about_en.asp?selMenu=about_members_en.asp

The Canadian Judicial Council is made up of 39 members who are the chief justices, associate chief justices, and some senior judges from provincial and federal superior courts across Canada. 
What is the Canadian Judicial Council’s role?

"The Canadian Judicial Council is a federal body created under the Judges Act (R.S., 1985, c. J-1), with the mandate to "promote efficiency, uniformity, and accountability, and to improve quality of judicial service in the superior courts of Canada"

If a federally appointed judge has breached the standard of good behaviour and is not suitable to be a member of the judiciary, only Parliament can remove the judge from office. And, under the Judges Act, Parliament has assigned the process to review alleged breaches of conduct to the Canadian Judicial Council.

By directing complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council, Parliament acknowledges that the public must have a way to voice its concerns about judges. At the same time, the system must allow judges to respond to allegations of misconduct in a fair manner. The process must be efficient, fair, and objective."

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

NOTE: Have a look see at the Judges Act.  As Chairman - lady (person) over a 4 year period WHAT will Madame Justice Minister Jody Wilson Raybould be able to achieve with those fine folk in all of some 4 + meetings?

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

In 63: 

"5) The Council may prohibit the publication of any information or documents placed before it in connection with, or arising out of, an inquiry or investigation under this section when it is of the opinion that the publication is not in the public interest. (6) An inquiry or investigation under this private section may be held in public or in private, unless the Minister requires that it be held in public. "

Inquiries may be public or private

Under 65: 
" (1) After an inquiry or investigation under section 63 ..." etc. 

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

Have a thorough read here, since you will come to realize there is absolutely NO WAY to go this route. Where do you start? Are you going to pick a scapegoat, like a Mike Duffy?

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

The following is from an "about to retire"Justice Matlow who had himself been 'reprimanded': 

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/02/12/canadian-judicial-council-under-fire-by-federal-judge.html"

"Matlow wants a full review of the council’s powers, ordinary people sitting on its inquiries, more transparency into its processes and said judges who are found guilty of misconduct should not automatically be entitled to have their legal fees paid by taxpayers — as is the case under current legislation."

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

Only way to clean this up is to revamp the WHOLE SYSTEM, FROM THE GROUND UP!
Send a message to all involved there's gonna be a major house cleaning throughout the WHOLE country; laws are going to be rewritten, allowing next to NO argument (some in Family Law); laws will be identical - Federally! One Jurisdiction fits ALL! Basta! No more hanky-panky between lawyers and judges! Cameras mandatory in all courts! 

On February 12,  awaiting entry to the court room, AG Defense counsel Johnny Van Camp handed me a folder with his 'DEFENDANT'S BOOK OF AUTHORITIES.'
Under tab 1 it showed at the top of the page: "License Disclaimer: This Act is Current to January 27, 2016.  "CROWN PROCEEDING ACT [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 89
"Crown" means Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia;

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

In Ontario it states: "Proceedings Against the Crown Act." In Ontario it is always "the Crown."
In BC, the 'CROWN' is only mentioned once; everywhere else it becomes the phrase:
"the government."

Held side by side, the 2 'Acts' look nothing like each other.
So my question is: How are we to make sense of ANYTHING?
Is a Canadian Citizen's RIGHTS different, depending on which province he/she ends up living in?  Is this the 21st Century?  To most of us, apparently not where it really counts.

 ====================

Looking at the time phase allowable for service,  here's the indication as to the time limitation an "Application Response" is held to under the Supreme Court Rules:

We are speaking of  Defence J. Van Camp's response to my November 03, 2015, doc files; 

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

Application response

(9)A person who is served with documents referred to in subrule (7) of this rule and who wishes to respond to the notice of application (in this subrule called the "responding person") must do the following within 5 business days after service or, in the case of an application under Rule 9-7, within 8 business days after service:

(a) file an application response;

(b) file the original of every affidavit, and of every other document, that

(i)   is to be referred to by the responding person at the hearing, and

(ii)   has not already been filed in the proceeding;

(c) serve on the applicant 2 copies of the following, and on every other party of record one copy of the following:

(i)   a copy of the filed application response;

(ii)   a copy of each of the filed affidavits and documents, referred to in the application response under subrule (10) (b) (ii), that has not already been served on that person;

(iii)   if the application is brought under Rule 9-7, any notice that the application respondent is required to give under Rule 9-7 (9).

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

The very first correspondence I received acknowledging "this matter" (my claim) was an email, date-stamped February 4. 2016. I received it on February 5. PDF's do not let themselves be copied... (at least I can't) so I will reproduce it best I can here...
======================================================================

British

Columbia 

(emblem)

February 5, 2016

via email

Evert J.Steen

(Address)

Dear Mr. Steen

RE:   Steen, Evert v. Minister of Justice & AG BC

_____Victoria Registry No.15 4257______________

I am counsel for the Attorney General of British Columbia in respect of this matter. I have been 

instructed to seek dismissal of your claim by desk order pursuant to Supreme Court Civil Rules 9-5 , a copy of which is attached for ease of reference.

Please find enclosed the following filed documents for service upon you. 

i.   Requisition filed February 4, 2016;
ii.  Notice of Civil Claim filed November 3, 2015;
iii. Notice of Application filed November 3, 2015;
iv.  Requisition rescheduling summary trial file November 17, 2015;
v.   Affidavit of Evert Jan Steen; and
vi. Claimant's Statement of Argument

I will relay the court's decision respecting my client's request to dismiss uyour claim when received. Otherwise, I will be appearing to oppose your application currently scheduled for hearing in Victoria for February 12, 2016

Yours Truly,
(Per: Signature)

Johnny Van Camp
Barrister and Solicitor
JVC/ch
Encls
__________________________________________________________________________
Ministry of

Justice and Attorney General..........Addresses/ Tel numbers
====================================================================
Forwarding same to Justice Minister's Mrs. Raybould's Office, on February 08, 2016 I responded with ..... Please see next Posting:

230. The Best Defense is a Good Offense

VIEWS@15318

There is sooo much intrigue at play in the game of 'politics.' And the bottom line is that it is all soooo tiring..., especially when your weapons are few, blunt, and mostly aimed from a distance - like this!

I watched  CBC's 'MarketPlace' last night, about societal discrimination. But the thing we need to accept is that discrimination lies at the very root of survival; i.e. it is a 'natural' law.  

Its negative connotations only crept in when mankind through organized religion felt it could 'overcome' it through acceptance. To accept, even 'cherish' the fact we were not all borne equal. That through the act of overcoming prejudice, by acceptance and kindness, we would become 'richer' and more lofty as human beings; that this would ultimately set us apart from other creatures and make us more 'God-like.' Hey! Take another selfie why don't ye!

It just ain't working; especially since we continue to breed ourselves in to extinction. We are running amuck. Move over brothers KOCH; move over Kardashians, family Trump is in the house; the house of plenty-bucks (their very own!)  "Trump for President!"  Yeah... Have you EVER seen better theatre? Bring on the fireworks! Bring on the Circus. Not: "Tear down that wall Mr. Gorbachev! " (Remember?) No, it will be the largest, longest, highest wall ever built since the 'Great Wall of China,' built during the Ch'in Dynasty in 221 BC. It will 'keep out the drugs, guns, and corruption, once and forever!' That'll teach 'them.' America will be good and pure again...:)   It's MADNESS, I say. Bring on the clowns! Or is it 'clones?'

Below is a cut/pasted article from the Jewish-Business News. I love the intrigue ....

Holy Water: HE APPEARED out of nowhere. Literally.

The Israeli Police needed a new commander. The last one had come to the end of his term of office, several senior officers had been accused of molesting their female subordinates, one had committed suicide after being accused of corruption. So somebody from outside was indicated.

When Binyamin Netanyahu announced his choice, everybody was amazed. Roni Alsheikh? Where the hell did he come from?

He does not look like a policeman, except for his mustache. He never had the slightest connection with police work. He was, actually, the secret deputy chief of the Shin Bet – the internal secret service.

Malicious tongues whispered that there was a simple reason for this strange appointment: the Shin Bet chief was about to move on. Netanyahu did not want Alsheikh to succeed him. So he sent him to command the police instead.

The name Alsheikh is a corruption of the very Arabic al-Sheikh – “the old one”. His father is of Yemenite descent, his mother is Moroccan.

He is the first police chief to wear a kippah. Also the first who was once a settler. So we were all waiting for his first significant utterance. It came this week and concerned mothers mourning their sons.

Bereavement, Alsheikh asserted, is really a Jewish feeling. Jewish mothers mourn their children. Arab mothers don’t. That’s why they let them throw stones at our soldiers, knowing that they will probably be shot dead.

Sounds primitive? That’s because it is primitive. It is also rather frightening that our new Chief of Police, the man responsible for law and order, has such primitive perceptions.

A FEW days later, our Minister of Defense, Moshe Yaalon, who controls a vastly larger empire, repeated this assertion. Arab bereavement, he declared, cannot be compared to Jewish bereavement. That’s because Jews love life, while Arabs love death.

When our gallant soldiers (all our soldiers are gallant) sacrifice their life, it is to defend the life of our nation, while Arab terrorists carry out suicide missions in order to go to paradise. Their mothers encourage them. That’s how Arabs are.

All these super-patriots are too young to remember that Jewish mothers in Palestine encouraged their sons and daughters to join the underground organizations in the fight against the British occupation (a fight for life, of course). Perhaps the British policemen imagined the same about the Jewish mothers – forgetting that just a few years earlier millions and millions of white Christian Europeans joined the armies with their mother’s blessing and killed each other. For life and freedom.

When two such high-ranking officials repeat such mindless nonsense almost verbatim, there can be only one reason: they are reading from the “explanation sheets” sent out daily by the Prime Minister’s office to all government ministers and high-ranking officials. (In Israel we don’t like to use the word “propaganda” – we call it “explanation” – hasbara in Hebrew – instead.)

ONE WORD about police chief Alsheikh’s kippah.

When I was an adolescent in Tel Aviv, I hardly ever saw anyone wearing a kippah. Neither in school (I left at age 14 to work for a living), nor in the Irgun underground, nor in the army did I see a fellow pupil or comrade wear such headgear. Young people were ashamed to wear it.

Nowadays almost half the people on TV proudly wear kippot. True, some of them wear them in such a way or of such a size that the camera cannot see them. But government appointees wear them like a badge of honor, to signify that they are true believers in the ruling ideology. Like a red star in China or a tie in the US.

In the last few months Netanyahu has appointed new people to several of the most important government functions. The police chief is the least of them. One is the Attorney General (called “Legal Adviser to the government”), the most important government official, with vast powers. Another is the new chief of the Shin Bet. Unlike any of their predecessors, they all wear kippot.

To explain the significance of this, one has to understand the Jewish religion. It is quite unlike, say, the Christian religion, and far closer to Islam. All talk about “Judeo-Christian” tradition is based on ignorance.

THE HEBREW word for religion is “dat”. Like the Arab equivalent “din”, it basically means “law”. Judaism is a set of commandments (613 in the Bible alone) imposed by God. In return, God has “chosen” us as “His” people and “given” us the Holy Land. One cannot be a Jew without belonging to the Jewish people, which owns the Holy Land forever.

For 2000 years and more, Jews were dispersed throughout the world. Their attachment to the Holy Land was purely spiritual. The Jewish people was a religious concept.

Then came Zionism. It was invented at the end of the 19th century. Almost all its creators were devoutly atheist. They did not believe in a God who had “exiled” the Jews.

When I was young, nobody in this country spoke about a “Jewish State”. We spoke about a “Hebrew State”. An extreme fringe group (nicknamed “Canaanites”) even asserted that we are a new Hebrew Nation which has nothing to do with Judaism. Most of my generation thought along the same lines, though not quite with these words.

I am often asked why a determined militarist like David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister and Minister of Defense, exempted religious pupils from military duty. My explanation is quite simple: like most of us, he believed that the Jewish religion in this country was dying out. Zionism had supplanted it. The new Hebrew pioneer did not need all that religious nonsense.

Then came the war of 1967, the “miraculous” victory, the conquest of all the country up to the Jordan River, with all its holy places. Far from dying, the Jewish religion suddenly sprang to new life. Now it is expanding rapidly, kippot can be seen everywhere. Especially among the settlers.

This rejuvenated religion is closely connected with an extreme right-wing, ultra-nationalist, Arab-hating ideology. This is the wave on which Netanyahu, a non-religious, non-kosher-eating super-nationalist opportunist, is riding now. Practically every day – literally – new nationalist-religious laws and bills pop up.

One bill says that in case of doubt, judges must “consult” Jewish law (the “Halacha”). This ancient law, some of it 2500 years old, treats women as inferior and condemns gays to stoning. It has nothing to do with modern life. Another bill allows the Knesset majority to eject from Parliament elected members who do not recognize the state as “Jewish and democratic” (which may sound like an oxymoron). School textbooks in secular schools are given a religious overtone (but are not yet burnt). Independent-minded teachers are dismissed. The Minister of Education wears, of course, a kippah. Six members of the prestigious Council for Higher Education have resigned because of the government’s effort to stuff that august body with nationalist and religious agitators.

Where is the so-called “left” in all this? One may well ask. They are invisible. Except for a few remnants, as well as the beleaguered Arab faction, they keep quiet, in the belief that they must move to the right (also called “center”) to keep their heads above the holy water.

I shall not be surprised if one evening I turn on the TV and – lo and behold – there is Binyamin Netanyahu’s head adorned with a nice, neat kippah.

Read more about: Uri Avnery

229. Justice = System

VIEWS@15314

justice |ˈjəstəs| noun1 just behavior or treatment: a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people.• the quality of being fair and reasonable: the justice of his case.• the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this: a tragic miscarriage of justice.
NOTE:  The 'quality' of being fair; the 'justice' of his case...

system |ˈsistəm| 
noun1 a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular:• a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network
"a group of related hardware units or programs or both, especially when dedicated to a single application."

NOTE: "connected things or parts forming a complex whole...an interconnecting network" !
George Bush: "You're either with us, or against us!" Good ol' George.
They're all akin to CULTS in my book, speaking their own legal jargon: 'legalese."

legalese |ˌlēɡəˈlēz| noun informalthe formal and technical language of legal documents that is often hard to understand.

NOTE: "hard to understand." Right! But just the way we like it. 

cult |kəlt| noun• a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister: a network of Satan-worshiping cults.NOTE: We'll leave the analogy with 'Satan' out of it for now. What MUST be acknowledged however is the immense harm these purported lords and ladyship honourable pillars of our society are  creating by ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands 'honourable' citizens.  By doing it KNOWINGLY, that part makes it truly EVIL! - Why does Lady Justice Wear a Blindfold? 

"Blind Justice is the theory that law should be viewed objectively with the determination of innocence or guilt made without bias or prejudice. It is the idea behind the United States Supreme Court motto “Equal Justice Under Law” and is symbolized by the blindfolded statue of Lady Justice which is the symbol of the judiciary."

We, as purported democracies (USA + CA), try to portray this objectivity in TV shows like: 'The Voice' - where the judges do not 'SEE' the contestant, merely judging the singer's VOICE (so there is no discrimination involved other than assessing the voice!)

This process of 'judgment' is now more and more applied in a variety of areas: Picking musicians for an orchestra (before musicians were predominantly 'WHITE.')  Screening contestants for jobs, literally behind screens... the intention being that color, name, or background should not measure in.

But the 'Justice System' that - "set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network," being  "dedicated to a single application," likes to keep things just the way they honed their 'system' over all these many years. 

Watching my favorite  interviewer Charlie Rose debate Obama's potential choice for a new Supreme Court judge (after the death of Justice A. Scalia), phrases like: "How to fix the Supreme Court" ..."The fight over public policy" ... "Accountability doesn't seem to apply to the supreme court" "There's a lack of transparency" "Judges treasure their anonymity"... "the need for cameras and public recording in the court rooms." INDEED! "Let their be cameras!" Let's demand transparency and accountability! Demo - crazy indeed!

Reflecting on my February 12th court session it was interesting to note (with just 'Judge' Gaul, Def. Counsel J.Van Camp, myself and ONE other, youngish 'buddy' lawyer there, whom I asked: "So who are you in this?" "Oh, I'm just interested" is all he answered. Maybe the AG's office "Instructed" him to attend? Hey, 'Tom' (Dick or Harry) why don't you sit in, have a look how we do this kind of thing when there's a cheeky SRL's knocking at our hallowed sanctity.      

So we are awaiting the Judge's entrance in to the Court room:
A knock from the other side of the door indicates Justice Geoffrey Gaul is ready to enter the premises; we get up, as the lady clerk goes to open the door; the judge enters, mounts his sanctuary and sits down, while def counsel + onlooker 'Tom' bow in deep reverence; we all sit down; myself on the left, looking up, Def Counsel V. Camp on the right. ('Dick' behind us is in the lawyer section)

I had noticed from the brief, earlier cases (circa 10 mins each) that a digital timer indicated the sessions were being recorded. Having done my research, I had brought my small Sony recorder, with fresh triple AAA batteries just in case. Apparently, there are no laws AGAINST recording (if you are one of the parties, or a bonafide 'reporter.' 'Joe' public however is NOT allowed to record.
Ultimately I was told by the Sherriff's office downstairs (we were in 401, on the 4th Floor) that it was up to the judge to allow, or disallow recording. (HMMMMM)

So we are bowed and seated, and the lady clerk states: "Evert Steen versus the Ministry..." (I'll verify this exactly once I am in possession of the transcript)
Then Justice Gaul addresses me. It is clear, at least to me, he has NOT read a word of my files, but has maybe had a peek at fellow comrade V. Camp's "APPLICATION RECORD" which under TAB 1 shows my November 03, 2015, NOTICE OF APPLICATION (NOT my Feb 05, registered, adjusted version).

He addresses me:  'Well, Mr. Steen, I've had a look at your claim and why don't you tell this court what you'd like me to do?' (close to something like that)

I re-iterate how Justice Justine Saunders erred when she dismissed my claim for "lack of Jurisdiction" ...etc.  That I have exhibit case law proof etc... that I feel entitled to recompense...

Justice Gaul: Alright Mr. Steen, thank you sir, you may sit down...
He then has a VERY LENGTHY amiable conversation with Johnny V. Camp. How the reasons for dismissal are clear, which Rules are applicable ...etc.

At one point G. Gaul even says: "Hmmm interesting" (or something close) when Van Camp brings up the CROWN PROCEEDING ACT which discusses the "Liability of government" bringing Rule 9-5 1 to the fore which in fact absolves any Judge from whatever it is they decide to order... "while acting in good faith..." etc"

At some point I ask the judge if he has my February 5th Registered Folder, which he then holds up, "Right here" but never refers to, referring solely to defence's material.  

After what appears to be some 30 minutes, we are dismissed and asked to return at 1 o'clock at which time he will have a verdict.

Long story short (for now:) we are waiting for some 40 minutes (i.e. until 20 to 2 PM) when the entrance ritual of deep bowing is played over again, at least by Van Camp and Court Clerk. With no excuse about having let us wait, I am quickly dismissed, with the exact Van Camp's "instructed" Rules usage. (I should mention there is a Sheriff in the court room. I guess just in case I become abusive).

With my mind racing, wondering if I'm going to put up an argument about not having had an opportunity to even peruse any of the evidence of the case,  I decide it will be a waste of time. His order is 'functus' as they say.  Terse lipped, smelling a RAT, the most 'abusive' I become is gathering my papers, then getting up during his summation, and putting on my black Cardigan. *

Gaul mutters something; I mutter something back (the transcript SHOULD carry the details). I can't remember if I wait for his exit, and the bowing, or if I just exit, with the Sheriff following me out...
I know he is behind me in the stairwell, just in case I have a fit I guess.

All went as expected; Next....  

*
Note: The cardigan is interesting. I had visited my daughter in LA over Xmas. An actress, from time to time she gives me T shirts, and now this cardigan. I didn't know this, but before leaving home, thinking to wear 'black' for the occasion would be suitable.

Well, not until sitting in the hallway circa 9:30 AM on the Tuesday, while retrieving my 1.75 strength, dollar glasses from the cardigan's top-left pocket do I notice a red line embroidering at its top. I had to take it off in order to read what it said: 

Trial and Error    is what it says. I had to smile, cause it's from a film she had a lead in some 15 years ago, acting opposite Michael Richards in a legal 'Comedy' in which she played the prosecutor!

228. Conflict of Interest, Collusion, or BOTH?

VIEWS@15308

We are no longer a country of laws, we are a country where laws are "creatively interpreted."

(I 'borrowed' this wonderful line from an interesting US site: caught.net) ...

NOTE: While awaiting my FULL and PRECISE (I.E.UNTAMPERED) TRANSCRIPT, DELIVERABLE CIRCA MARCH 17,  I have begun studying the potentially undeterminable factors that surround both Conflict of Interest and Collusion. I have tasted it in Ontario Superior Court, but now it is by fact, based on my quicky Summary Trial this past FEB.12, a reality, since it undeniably occurred. So now I am questioning WHO is NOW next responsible - as in line - so to speak.  

In the nutshell: I, Evert Jan Steen, Self-Representing Litigant took my provincial Ministry of Justice to court, holding them responsible for one of their Judges orders for dismissing my claim for "Lack of Jurisdiction."  (I maintain she was wrong and have (had) all the Exhibit + Argument I felt required to prove so)

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

In a February 11, 2016 email to me, the day before the trial (I was already driving to Victoria)
J.V. Camp states:
 
"I'm informed your application for summary trial will be proceeding tomorrow. Please note that I will be appearing on behalf of the Attorney General of British Columbia to oppose it. Enclosed is a copy of my client's filed response to your application.

I will have a copy of our application record and a book of authorities for you at the hearing."

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

On February 12th,  Federally appointed Judge Geoffrey Gaul again dismisses my claim based on several Rules presented by Defence Counsel Johnny Van Camp who, having been "instructed,"  offers up Rulings the Judge had apparently never seen before.

NOTE the amazingly short timeline here that would NEVER, in ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE  be allowed ANYONE else! 
The filed PDF Application Response contains the following Rules:

Assessing Rule 9-5(1) I NOTE:

(a)   “it discloses no reasonable claim…”  It clearly does to this SRL Claimant.

(b)      (d) “it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.” If questioning our rule- representers is an abuse of the court’s process, I’d like to see that stated in ink.  

- According to the Crown Proceeding Act (always in Italics!; I guess if NOT, it would be meaningless!)


The section specifies that no claim against government arises from "anything done or omitted to be done by a person acting in good faith while discharging or purporting to discharge responsibilities (i) of a judicial nature vested in the person, or (ii) that the person has in connection with the execution of judicial process."    

NOTE: Below are the sections I have cut / pasted that concern my recent path of discovery, asking when is collusion > collusion, and when is conflict of interest such. To me, the circumstances could not have proven to have been more blatantly BOTH!    

============================ 

The Federal Government appoints and pays our superior court judges

Geoffrey Gaul a former Crown prosecutor who in recent years was director of legal services for the criminal justice branch in Victoria, has been appointed a judge of the B.C. Supreme Court, federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced Friday.

His practice expertise is in criminal law, environmental law, and first nations/aboriginal law

CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL

Judicial independence means that judges are not subject to pressure and influence, and are free to make good decisions based solely on fact and law. Independence is ensured by three things:

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR JUDGES

4. Diligence

Statement: Judges should be diligent in the performance of their judicial duties.

Judges should not engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial duties or condone such conduct in colleagues.

 ===========================

NOTE:  There are an enormous amounts of "should" everywhere. 

The more I look in to these proceedings, the more I realize that any NEW government, with all their possible 'good' intentions, clearly can't be firing every one who has been working under a different government before. So all the illicit intrigue perpetrated by, and suitably comfortable for, the tens of thousands of highly placed individuals, HOW in heavens name is a 'NEWLY installed Government, withy their handful of 'FRONT' people going to deal with this all?

Aye there's the rub! And naive lil ol' me am having all this reality slowly sink in.....

We may have voted for change, but it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY THERE WILL BE ANY OF NOTE!

  

True Democracy will forever be a well-oiled MYTH.