Below, my email letter response to Mr. Johnny Van Camp's February 04, 2016 introduction to me as dedicated, and instructed Counsel for our BC's Ministry of Justice - "in this matter."
Remember it was 'Family Day' in BC that day. (Nowhere else in Canada, just here.)
===========================================================
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, while with pure intent
CASE #15 4257
VICTORIA, BC, REGISTRY
Monday February,
08, 2016
RE: ‘All In The
Family.’
Dear Mr. Van Camp:
On February 05, 5:01
PM, I received your office’s initial email response to my Application # 15
4257, still set for Summary Trial on February 12, in Victoria, BC.
However, it contained
an Attorney General filed Requisition based on Rule 9-5
Your Requisition
respectfully requests a registrar review my filed documents,
asking the court to consider an order to strike this plaintiff’s notice of
civil claim under Supreme Court Civil Rules, Rule 9-5(1).
[The apparent equivalent of Rules of Civil Procedures : Rule 21(b)
and (d)]
Representing the Minister of Justice via
the Attorney General of British Columbia in
this matter, you NOTE: […] “The Attorney
General submits the action is plainly
flawed and should be summarily dismissed,
with the plaintiff thereafter notified and
having leave to apply for reconsideration
under Rule 9-5(4)
Your Requisition’s
unspecified, bold and broad assertion is presumptive. I understand procedure to
be based on proof of inherent detail. As such it is plainly flawed and should
be summarily dismissed for its lack of identifiable issues.
Assessing Rule
9-5(1) I NOTE:
(a) “it discloses no reasonable claim…” It clearly does
to this SRL Claimant.
- “it is
unnecessary”(?)… To this Claimant it is not only necessary, he challenges the
system’s officers by questioning their accountability. Should they be above the law, as a Citizen with rights,
I am entitled to have that proof of fact.
- “scandalous”… If
holding highly placed officials responsible for their actions is scandalous,
democracy is in trouble, and as such – functioning hypocritically.
- “frivolous”… If
addressing anomalies of procedure is ‘frivolous,’ then our most important
system, supporting our very democratic foundation, is seriously ‘flawed.’
(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.
Mr. Van Camp, with
interest I note your background:
* “Johnny Van Camp will be
graduating from the University of Victoria Faculty of Law in June of 2008. He
is a member of the Tli Cho First Nation from the Northwest Territories, born
and raised in the community of Fort Smith. Johnny will be articling with the
Ministry of the Attorney General after his graduation and looks forward to
assisting the government and Aboriginal peoples with efforts in working toward
reconciliation.”
(Canada’s
aboriginal leaders and the legal whiplash).
I quote you:
“What we are fighting for is democracy, democracy for
ourselves and democracy for all Canadians. […] Most of all, we are fighting for
our rightful place in Canadian society…
This appeal to the fundamentals of democracy forced
Canadians to take notice of the corruption at the root of the process.”
“Throughout this paper I have tried to put forth the
notion that Canadians and the government should strive to accept, endorse and
respect Aboriginal contributions to our legal framework. These contributions
have been essential to the evolution and formation of this country. Continuing
to invoke the legal whiplash to mitigate and malign these contributions not
only prevents a substantive recognition of what it means to be Aboriginal, but
also what it means to be Canadian. I believe that, for the most part, the law
emanates from the life that we give to it. Sometimes, however, I also believe
that the law breathes with a life of its own in order to serve a purpose higher
than what we may be prepared for. In these cases, there is always a tension
between what the law is trying to tell us and how we interpret this message to
suit our purposes in the moment.”
As a
Self-Representing Litigant I completely concur with you Mr. Van Camp.
Hundreds of
thousands of Self-Representing Litigants feel similarly discriminated against. Many
are working diligently across the country, both individually, as well as
organizations such as the NSRLP out of Windsor’s University.
All are urging our
Legal System into beginning to make democratic adjustments. We are demanding
a major overhaul; enough is enough.
Appreciating my Case to be sensitive, I respectfully
suggest your filing the Requisition is increasing what in any other
circumstance would surely be considered
a blatant ‘Conflict of Interest.’ It would not be
tolerated by an impartial judge.
As it is, if there
is to be a Trial, I will be
judged by a member employed by your very office. Taken from our government
website, I quote:
Judges….”they are impartial
decision-makers in the pursuit of justice. The judge provides an independent
and impartial assessment of the facts and how the law applies to those facts.
Their role is to interpret the law, assess the evidence and control how
hearings and trials are conducted.”
Granted, the above text portrays a
utopian democracy. The likelihood of having an impartial, independent judge
appointed, in my circumstances, would be unrealistic.
This then takes me
to suggest we consider settling under Rule 9-1, while at the same time actively
looking towards helping our newly elected Federal Minister of Justice, the
Honourable Ms. Wilson-Raybould, reflect her mandate; “to ensure our legislation
meets the highest standards of equity, fairness and respect for the rule of
law,” as is broadly stipulated by the Honourable Prime Minister Trudeau.
“Canadians expect us, in our work, to reflect the
values we all embrace: inclusion, honesty, hard work, fiscal prudence,
and generosity of spirit. We will be a government that governs for all
Canadians, and I expect you, in your work, to bring Canadians together.
As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
your overarching goal will be to ensure our legislation meets the highest
standards of equity, fairness and respect for the rule of law. I expect
you to ensure that our initiatives respect the Constitution of Canada, court
decisions, and are in keeping with our proudest legal traditions. You are
expected to ensure that the rights of Canadians are protected, that our work
demonstrates the greatest possible commitment to respecting the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, and that our government seeks to fulfill our policy goals
with the least interference with the rights and privacy of Canadians as
possible ”
So, Mr. Van Camp, on
this ‘Family Day’ I suggest we begin implementing as per instructed, by working
to bring Canadians together, under one umbrella, each and every single one of
us. Let us proudly proceed towards becoming one – NOW!
I respectfully await
your office’s response.
Sincerely,
Evert-Jan Steen
=====================
NOTE: With the 12th of February come and gone, it is now clear I was butchered, as INSTRUCTED !
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment