247. Is their possibly some 'HANKY PANKY' going on?

VIEWS@15946

hanky-panky |ˌhaNGkēˈpaNGkē| 
noun informal, humorous behaviour, in particular sexual or legally dubious behaviour, considered improper but not seriously so: there's no hanky-panky involved, no dating of customers | suspicions of financial hanky-panky.
==================================================================

My intimate (Just the three of us) Summary Trial ....continues (Snippet No.2)

P43
PROCEEDINGS
................

Blogger's Note: Pick up sticks; session 2 
* Asterisks and emboldening are mine 

THE COURT:  Okay.

While you may very well feel as though you have a righteous cause to pursue, Mr. Steen, *  the manner in which you've pursued it in this instance has been completely inappropriate.  The notice of civil claim is drafted in a manner that is practically illegible, illegible in the sense that it articulates no legal foundation for the claim.  I'm not saying that your claim is not a righteous one, but the manner in which this matter has come before the court, in the sense of the filing of the notice of the claim, the filing of the requisition without notice to the other side, and not providing them with the materials is, in my view, warranting of an award of costs.

EVERT STEEN:  I did not provide them with materials?  I'm not understanding that.

THE COURT:  When did you provide them with the materials?

EVERT STEEN:  Which materials are we referring to?  

THE COURT:  Of this - 

EVERT STEEN:  The November 13?

THE COURT:  Of this application.

EVERT STEEN:  Ah.  I have Xpressposts.  The last material that I sent was on the - February the 4th, witnessed - 

THE COURT:  Who did you send them to?

EVERT STEEN:  -- at the court - at the registry in Courtenay and they were received on the 5th, on the Friday, the 5th.

THE COURT:  Mr. - Mr. Van Camp?

MR. VAN CAMP:  I really can't speak to the manner of how they got to my office, they came across my desk...

* I am going to bring to the attention of the reader, what appears clearly atrocious connectivity between Administration (i.e. 'the Court') and Administration (i.e.the Registration Office, below in the same building) 

This Office headed by the 'Registrar' in charge, I believe to be Justice Stuart Cameron, acquiring the post in 2011.

[Justice Cameron, former law society spokesman on "issues relating to discipline and investigation."] 

  

I remind the reader of a telephone call some 10 minutes before leaving my Hornby Island home on Thursday, Feb.11th. It is the Registrar's Office in Victoria asking me if I "know the name of the Defence Counsel on my case for tomorrow."  

Floored,I reply: "WOW! Yes...a Mr.Johnny Van Camp!" 

Registrar: "Thank you Mr. Steen."

This now takes me to an initial effort by Mr. Van Camp's Office (i.e. hand-picked Defence Counsel for the MINISTRY of JUSTICE itself), who, on FEBRUARY 04, 2016, REGISTERED (in the same building) a: 

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

(Victoria /Filed/ FEB 04 2016/ REGISTRY)

REQUISITION - GENERAL 

Filed by: The Attorney General of British Columbia ("Attorney General") 

Required: 

1. The Attorney General respectfully requests that a Registrar review the attached documents and consider whether to refer them to the court under Supreme Court Civil Rule 9-5(3) so the court may consider an order to strike the plaintiff's notice of civil claim under Rule 9-5(1) 

This requisition is supported by the following documents: 

1.Notice of claim, filed November 3, 2015;

2. Notice of Application, filed November 3, 2015

3. Requisition rescheduling summary trial filed November 17, 2015 

4. Affidavit of Evert Jan Steen; and

5. Claimant's Statement of Argument 

NOTES: The plaintiff has set down a hearing for summary trial on February 12, 2016, unilaterally by the enclosed requisition. The action is based on an alleged improper decision of BC Provincial Court from May 2010. 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)

A copy of this requisition and all materials filed in support will be sent by email to the plaintiff at his address for service, once filed and confirmation has been received that the materials have been referred to court.

Date: February 4, 2016  

Signature of: Johnny Van Camp  (Lawyer for filing party) 

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

The above I received as an email the morning of February 05, 2016. 

Suffice to say the Registrar did NOT BITE, and the 'TRIAL,' (as such) commenced, certainly with no response to me from Registration. Except the 2 calls: One earlier that Feb.11th morning, asking if I would be attending next day the 12th, and the later one asking if I knew the name of Defence Counsel.

With additional indications by the Court (Justice Gaul clearly had my latter filed materials in hand; i.e.the BLACK Copy) and Defence had chosen to use the Registered files from November 03, 2015. (see above)

NOTE: 2 Highly important, pertinent and perturbing points: 

Notice above filed Feb.04 Requisition, No.3: 

MY Requisition rescheduling summary trial filed November 17, 2015.

Upon asking for a Rescheduling, with the Trial set for November 27 of the month, Registry had informed me I could do so, AS LONG AS I HAD NOT SERVED THE MINISTRY MY FILES! I replied that I had NOT as yet done so! As such, I was allowed the postponement date, as I then set it for February 12, 2016. 

The MAIN and HIGHLY concerning scenario begs the question? 

HOW DID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE OBTAIN ALL my Registry filed MATERIALS, WITHOUT MY HAVING SERVED THEM ANY AS YET???

Clearly there is only one answer! 

They obtained THEM by retrieving them from the Registry Office!

MULL ON THE ABOVE WHY DON'T YOU?

READING BETWEEN THE LINES.....IS THERE A HINT OF FRICTION BETWEEN REGISTRY AND THE COURTS?

CU NEXT WEEK FOR SNIPPET NO.3

     

246. ."Your Application has been addressed" (PICK UP STICKS)

VIEWS @15898

JUSTICE GEOFFREY GAUL:  "Your application has been addressed.  The notice of civil claim that you filed in November of 2015 has been struck out * for the reasons that I've articulated, and also your claim has been dismissed.

I'm going to be retaining these materials because I have annotated them and so that should be the extent of things."

"For the reasons that I've articulated." 

So, let's have a closer look at the above... And please follow me closely here...

Firstly: To be accurate, I filed the 'Notice of Application' on November 3, 2015.  There were some issues about payment methods that were over come by Xpress posting a 'Money-Order' to the Ministry of Finance. (some $280 total) Credit Cards or PayPal are out of the question. 

I then received information my Summary Trial date was set for November 27th.    

Having been informed I could improve upon my 'argument,' by several other SRLs, also battling the system, on November 12th  I enquired with the Registry Office in Victoria if I could possibly postpone  the November 27, 2015 Court Date.  

Speaking to an Admin there, I was informed that as long as I had not served Defense with the Application papers (I had NOT, and to STATE so on the Application 'Requisition'), I could 'CANCEL' the November 27th and "pick a new date." 

Although I was amazed at the simplicity and ease - that I could just "pick any date" - since a Friday allows me a late ferry to get back home (remember I live on an Island), I picked Friday, February 12, 2016,  as my new Summary Trial Date.  That then gave me a breather, and in early January 2016, I re-tackled the affair, for preparation for February 12th!

I had a number of email exchanges earlier in 2015 with Mr. Kurt Sandstorm, the Deputy Minister of Justice. One of his more telling sentences had been: 
  
"Also, I should inform you that the provincial government does not provide compensation to parties to litigation because they are dissatisfied with a judicial decision."

I had made clear my 'argument' lay far beyond 'dissatisfaction with a judicial decision.' I was speaking of one of his Office's Judges purposefully ignoring my clearly Jurisdictionally applicable filing, and stubbornly ignoring my citizen's rights, by decidedly mis-interpreting the Rules. 
=================================================================

Dated February 04, 2016, on February 5, I received a first email from the AG assigned Defense Counsel, Mr. Johnny Van Camp. It contained a 'Requisition,' addressed to the Victoria Court's Registrar. 
I asked him/her to "review the attached documents ...etc., and to consider an order striking the plaintiff's notice of civil claim under Rule 9-5 (1) " Purportedly: 
"(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case maybe, 
(b) (see below)......

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

On February 8, 2016, my response to Mr. Van Camp was as follows: 

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).
[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.

(b) “it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,”
- “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. 

(P 2)

- “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.”

I read about your intriguing work at the Civil Forfeiture Office, but was most impressed by your article: Insidious Idolatry:
(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

(P3)

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 

========================================================
Dear Anonymous READERs.....

If you managed to struggle through all this, you may well entertain the concept of Rule 9-5(1)  "It is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court..."
[ As was suggested that I, as Plaintiff was pursuing, and as such GUILTY of...] 

i.e. the suggestion being that to hold the highest Officer of the court, the Judge, responsible for purposely mis-applying a set Rule, is as such: "An abuse of the process of the Court!" Instead it is I, the mere Canadian Citizen who is being reprimanded for daring to question one of the LORDS of our JUSTICE SYSTEM her reasonings. 

It appears that Judges, in their noble and un-biased, fair position, are ABOVE the LAW, ordering as they see fit, while dismissing ANYONE who QUESTIONs THEM!  All -  “to ensure our legislation meets the highest standards of equity, fairness and respect for the rule of law." 

Come on in insanity! Viva El Donaldo Trumpo! Viva the gun laws! Without a GUN what is a FREE man to do? Oh for Democracy!

Weird shit going on I say!  I will pick up some more sticks SOON! 

245. Trying to make sense of those who run our Justice System.....

VIEWS@who cares...

With the clear sense I am being purposely ignored by BC's Minister Of Justice office,
With the likelihood I will not be receiving any written Reasons for Judgment. verifying the verbal, questionable legal dismissal of my SRL claim (holding the Ministry responsible for the errors I suffered at the hand of one of their Judge's some years ago, and now the latest dismissal in Victoria),

I am going to publicly configure my issues here, in order to ascertain if what occurred during the February 12, 2016 session in the SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA, with Justice Geoffrey Gaul presiding, and the assigned AG Counsel Mr. Johnny van Camp in the saddle for the Ministry, made sense, and/or was legally correct and ultimately 'JUST.'

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

The following text is verbatim transcription of the tale end of the February 12, 2016 Court Session.

I will be working BACKWARDS, i.e. begin with the judge's summation. It will make for a clearer comprehension as to WHAT transpired, and HOW it was configured as the session developed. For reference, the asterisks and emboldening is mine.

Proceedings
From transcript: Page 44

THE COURT: (Justice Geoffrey Gaul) (mid-way through speech)

 ........What will happen - and Madam Registrar please make a note of this,(1)the order is to come to my attention.

(2) Mr.Van Camp is going to draft the order, Mr. Steen. (3) It will come to my attention.  If I disagree with the wording of it, then I'll send it back to him for redrafting - 

EVERT STEEN:  But isn't it based on the wording - on your wording?

THE COURT:  It is.  

EVERT STEEN:  Because I'm going to be getting a - a transcript of this. 

THE COURT:  Very good. 

EVERT STEEN:  Yes.

THE COURT:  That's your option to do so.

EVERT STEEN:  Mm-hmm.

THE COURT:  But your signature - I'm waiving the necessity to have the order go to you for review and then back to Mr. Van Camp and then to the court so that you can get an entered - entered copy of (4) the order that I've made today in the most expeditious manner.  That's how we're going to proceed.  Mr. Van Camp is going to draft it.  It's going to come to me.  If I agree, yes, that's what I ordered, I'll endorse it and then both of you will get copies of it.  All right - 

EVERT STEEN:  So this is the end of the matter?

THE COURT:  This is the end of the matter before me.

EVERT STEEN:  Mm-hmm.

THE COURT:  Your application has been addressed. (5) The notice of civil claim that you filed in November of 2015 has been struck out for the reasons that I've articulated, and also your claim has been dismissed.

I'm going to be retaining these materials because I have annotated them and so that should be the extent of things.

Anything further, Mr. Steen?

EVERT STEEN:  I don't think so.

THE COURT:  Mr. Van Camp.

MR. VAN CAMP:  Thank you, My Lord.

THE COURT:  All right.  I thank you, gentlemen.

EVERT STEEN:  Hmm.  Have to wait here until you - we have to wait until you're gone now, don't -

THE COURT:  No, because I - 

EVERT STEEN:  Oh.

THE COURT:  Thank you, sir.  I appreciate that - 

EVERT STEEN:  Ah.

THE COURT:  -- but, no, there's another matter I'm going to hear now. 

(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED)

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

(1) ...   "the order is to come to my attention"

(2)..." Mr. Van Camp is going to draft the order, Mr. Steen"

My Response (here and now) 

ME: Mr. Van Camp (Counsel for the Defense) is instructed to WRITE the 'order', (then to present it to  the Judge)  and then:   

(3) "It will come to my attention.  If I disagree with the wording of it, then I'll send it back to him for redrafting" - 

ME: I have only ONE word on this take: COLLUSION! Not that I wasn't aware of this before I came in to the session. But, for God's sake fellas, I KNOW you're working for the same office, but at least I would have expected a bit more 'Arms Length' effort, as one would call it. 

THIS is unbiased, fair, objective 'Justice', as they say. '    

THE COURT: 

(4).... the order that I've made today in the most expeditious manner....

I'll endorse it and then both of you will get copies of it.  All right -

ME: I am suggesting that at more than 3 months, since the above was spoken and went down as "an order" I have a different definition of "expeditious." 
"both of us will get copies of it." 

All right - indeed,  point 1 = made: Expeditious is NOT 3 months.  I continue to await the "copy." 

NUMBER (5) above: Point 2.  Justice Gaul: 
"The notice of civil claim that you filed in November of 2015 has been struck out for the reasons that I've articulated, and also your claim has been dismissed."

The above loaded sentence, digested, and interpreted, coming to you soon.... 

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

244. Hear ye; Hear ye!

VIEWS@15857

FALLING ON DEAF EARS

What can it mean to be ignored by the highest institution inside a Democracy? 

The almighty ‘Justice System!’ 

They say ‘silence is golden!’ 

After some 3 MONTHS without having received my LEGALLY entitled ‘WRITTEN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT’, I can only surmise, there are neither administrative, nor RULE APPLICABLE REASONS for having DISMISSED my claim!  

THEY ERRED, and can’t, or simply WON’t admit it.

If so, my dismissal was a ruse, a trumped up charge! They did NOT know how to deal with it. They simply refused to admit the system was to blame, and those within it guilty of injustice!

CONCLUSION: The most basic foundation of our purported Democracy is a sham, a pretence of insidious corruption!

These Honourable Lords and me Ladies, dare to bow so low as to cheat their fellow-citizens of their very constitutional rights, and manage to fall asleep on it! 

And they do so, while looking down askew in blatant day-light, robed and seated on their thrones of the finest antique hardwood tax-payers money can buy. 

Blind, like Justice itself; Honourable, my foot!

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

Unless this relatively newly formed Federal Government can begin implementing some serious house-cleaning soon, the likelihood their mandate for change will have any effect will become less a factor as time passes…. 4 YEARS ain't nuthin!

Such is always been the case. With all good intentions and promises, once the up-hill battle is faced, and the realities of entrenchment of the curses better understood, the cure will appear far more daunting and a lot less attainable.  

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

243. Surrealism Morphs to Become Reality

VIEWS@15838

Cirque de Soleil has fallen to Earth. The Ivory of 8300 Rhinos and Elephants are burnt to teach the killer poachers a lesson; Donald Trump aka the 'Apprentice' seeks to be the next US president, and ISIS brings the 2000 year old preserved ruins of Palmyra to its knees. The world's unfolding as it is.

And today, May 12th is three months to the day I attended my 'Summary Trial' in Victoria.  Captain Kangaroo is in the house and t's called a 'COURT of JUSTICE.'  The JUDGE, the AG DEFENCE Counsel, and lil-ol me the SRL; all present - SIR! Next to this haute-couture, the homeless have pitched their valuables. Who could ask for more?

"I've read your material Mr. Steen; so what would you like me to do for you today?"
 Hmmm? Like 'soup du jour or Smorgasbord? My choice...'
Still no written 'REASONS FOR JUDGMENT!'

I guess, in retrospect - and I mean looking back over 8 years now - I need to come to my senses.
The actual power of those in control is that they can segueway you at all turns. Their bag of tricks is what they went to school for. Manipulation is a fine Art. Now you see it, then you don't! It hurts.

What it says it is, it ain't! THAT's my problem! I take things too literal; like the masses. You are instructed early on: "Careful, that's HOT!" And HOT means Ouch!  "Watch out, that's a big hole; if you step forward it will eat you alive!" "This means THIS, and that means THAT!"

The older ones show you the way, cause 'THEY KNOW!' Until you've figured it out, enter the world and start applying it all yourself. That's when it all goes awry; at least if you have taken it all at its face value.
Cause the 'Art of Living' is like wine; it may 'look' like fine, but yegh, spit, damnation, when you taste it! ROT-GUT! ..... cheap shit! They lied to me!

So life is all about 'Buyer Beware!' Kind of like Magic! Don't EVER take anything for granted! It ain't what it appears to be. Now, that should be easy enough to configure?

Let me take you back to my youth: I'm talking March 20, 1942, the day before my 3rd birth Day. We're in Northern Sumatra, Indonesia, a Dutch 'Colony' at the time. My father was a young lieutenant in the Dutch/East Indian Army, and my mother was, well > my Mother! She had some 4 years earlier returned from her European 'schooling' where she was taught French at boarding school in Switzerland, at 14, then English in London @ 17 to 18 + when she returned to Indonesia as a gorgeous and desirable young woman. My father managed to shanghai her.

So this day, the 20th March, 1942, the Japanese, just a few military types with guns, coaxed us in to packing an overnight bag to gather at some school, just for the night, while figuring stuff out. We knew, well the adults did,  there was a war in Europe, and the fact Pearl Harbour had occurred > December 7, 1941.  So now, some three months later they had invaded Indonesia, and were about to start building their Birma Rail road, so they could chugalug all the splendid resources the Dutch had been profiting from for some 400 years, up to Japan, for their own much-needed use.

Well, that overnightee turned in to 4 + years and some 9 different concentration camps, most of them in the 'hutan' - jungle. (Orang-utan = Man of the Jungle) Why so many camps you wonder? When half of a group of some 400 people had perished in one camp, these were women and children under 14, they'd shovel us off to mix with the leftovers of another camp. They were very efficient with their management tactics, not unlike the Dutch themselves.  

The point I want to make here is that while some of the tenacious believer survivalists, spending time thinking of maybe someday eating a 'soup du jour', other than rat soup, or mouth-watering while thinking of some fine smorgasbord of delicacies, while holding out and hanging in for those long years, in the end succumbed when sent to the Netherlands.

The necessary psychological adjustments, based on the ingrained experiences just became too much, and a good number fell by the wayside in a variety of manners. I guess I was 'lucky' to have been as young as I was. I never held the Japanese responsible for their atrocities. As I grew up, I understood why they wanted the rich and resourced Indonesia. After all, why were the Dutch there? The Portuguese in Africa, the French? The Brits in India and Australia? The American slave trade? Ah, yes, what about this North American continent?

Who killed the Natives and their Buffalos? Who profited from the reindeer and beaver pelt trade? This is the only 'Colony' that was never given back to their originals! Whoa Canada, our chrome and naive land...> just to mention our bit.

Justice is a misnomer! It's just NOT natural! Like Don Quixote, I shoulda known better than to mess with 'Authority.' Stop dreaming fella....it's a nasty, dog-eat-dog fantastic world out there! Bring on the Circus! Virtual reality's the next expansion. Surrealism's the new reality.

Bring on the Donald; his 'Duck's' as good as any; his quack for change will shake some booties!   Watch your heads; big shit will be flying... It's a new day for this morphing species!

Where's that Rotgut gone?









 

242. Letter to the Minister of 'Democratic Institutions.'

VIEWS@15815

Dear Maryam Monsef, Minister of Democratic Institutions:

First, congratulations on your relatively new, what should be a demanding, yet exciting position. 

Second, as an elder Canadian citizen, I am writing you about my serious concerns with the state of our country’s legal system. It is incredible that as the very foundation of our democracy, it can be functioning at the level it is, and allowed to continue to do so.  

Mostly as an SRL, now in my eighth year nightmare, I have encountered conflict of interest, collusion, sleazy manipulative practices, lack of respect, and coercion. I could say, I may have seen it all. 

This is real and scary stuff, Maryam! 

It is my response to the experience I have suffered in our ‘fair' Canada, strangely considered to be “one of the finest democracies in the world.” 

I have been writing a blog about my experiences, and am told "eyes are upon me."

Hopefully I need not fear for my life, while addressing the to me fundamental issues of our Nation, continued to be controlled and run by its insiders. 

I have tried to communicate with Justice Minister Raybould’s office. As well, I have contacted the Canadian Judicial Council’s Office at various times, and lately the Prime Minister’s office, alerting them about my deep concerns. Since I feel a sound Legal System lies at the very foundation of any political institution, I am seeking a Public Inquiry, after which I suggest a major overhaul of the system. Rules, accountability and all. Away with the old boys’ club!  It is time we entered the 21st Century.

Your Ministry has recently come to my attention, and I surmise this area would lie within your office’s jurisdiction.

It is my opinion that before improvements to any part of government can be implemented, the first requirement lies  to fix our Federal Justice system. After doing so, hold accountable those we put in charge.  

NOTHING else can function properly, unless our foundation, the Laws of the Land, are equitably written, then properly applied and adhered to.   

I would much appreciate your response.

Sincerely,

evert-jan steen

self.rep.litigant.net@gmail.com

241. Species on the Brink of EXTINCTION - The END is Nigh?

VIEWS@15773

Although those of you 'curioso' (anonymously appreciated), are showing fair numbers in viewer readership, I am realizing I am primarily reflecting on my own thoughts and experiences;
and, as such, I mostly feel l am talking to myself!

So, with little or no input from anyone, I will discontinue these efforts. in the near future

After some 15000 views/readings, these are the stats!
So, not doing this to jerk off, by seeming self-involved, I have decided I am/was WRONG to think others were of a similar view, and, if so, would have SAID SO!

Guess, CANADIANS - whoever you are...  - decided  this was not the case, at least within my expressions.

As such, it has been a very LONELY place to express my views on.
Still, I hugely 'THANK'  Google, for my Blogger allowances by letting me speak my 'Democratic' mind! FREELY!  
=====================================================================

Still, based on my legal procedures, and where I am "logistically functioning"  from a Canadian Legal perspective :

I continue to await my LEGAL RESPONSE, in what is called :
'The Written Reasons for Judgment.!' (to my February 12th/ 2016 Summary Trial./ where I am holding the BC. Ministry of Justice / Attorney General of the Province, responsible for their  Judge's wrong/erroneous, rule decision.

(Ie. The ENTITY/Judge, had to identify, according to the rules as written and purportedly practiced), which one applies  > UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES..). 

Since from my perspective, "they haven't a leg to stand on", I continue to not hear a PEEP from them!
At May12th it will be THREE MONTHS TO THE DAY!
 is soon some THREE MONTHS HENCE!(

As such, it is MY take, they have no 'REASONABLE LEGAL LEG' to stand on!
=================================++++++++++

"Are YOU, British Columbia, Canada,  'Jennie', not called 'Jane' in  ONTARIO?"
"YES!"  Ontario Jane states. I am, she!
WELL, UR WRONG! staes our JUSTICE System! U KNOW not who U are ?

 To REITERATE our Legal System a farce, it is  CORRUPT!  

Ironically, we, in Canada, considered to be "one of the finer democracies in the world."
Take it from ME! It is a COMPLETE FARCE! A farce, stuck in our pretentious 'human HEADS!!

As a species, we are a runaway species ... all in the head... we are fucked !
And, as of now, on the brink of EXTINCTION! (in my view)

I come to you as a 77 year old Colonist. Not the smartest, not most stupid!
So although I will be putting this space to BED!

I am very seriously involved in a WEBSITE concept!
It's name is:

GO-Cascadia.com!

I have been at the concept for some 9 years now!
Join me on my sojourn if you care....