252. FINAL Response from AG's Office in Victoria ?

VIEWS@ 16241 


I am no longer surprised at either the attitude, nor tardiness that runs the very highest order of our Legal System.  The hue and cry over the lack of access to justice by the ever increasing numbers of Self-Representing Litigants, forced to do so for a variety of reasons, costs only being ONE of them, all seems to fall on their annoyed ears.

To add to the chaos of inner discombobulation within which it appears each department is sufficiently autonomous to render on to Caesar whatever they see fit to communicate and establish,  just several days ago I received, by regular mail, a document from AG's Counsel - Mr. Johnny Van Camp.

I would have liked to post it here, but I again haven't the savvy tech knowledge to do so. Cut/ Paste ?
It won't work; Drag/Drop, it worked, but then shows up as a 'Question Mark' when uploaded. Been here before, so I am just retyping its contents, sans letterhead etc.  So much for either my ignorance, or the machine's un-allowance.   Maybe it's a battle between Mac and ??????

After stating the Case + its number, Van Camp's letter, dated June 15, with 'Via Email' crossed out and the tiniest almost ineligible  'Regular Mail' inserted, reads:

"Enclosed is the entered order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Gaul dated February 12, 2016.

As you know, Gaul J ordered for you to pay $100 in costs for having my client defend your application for judgment at the summary trial on February 12, 2016.

Please forward me payment of this amount by certified cheque or money order made out to the Minister of Finance of British Columbia and delivered to my attention by June 30, 2016.

Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. Once payment is received, I will consider this matter closed.

Yours truly,

Signed, Johnny Van Camp
Barrister and Solicitor
JVC/tm "

Enclosure
=====================================================================


The 'Enclosure' is an ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION

BEFORE  ) 'The Honourable Mr. Justice Gaul )   February 12, 2016


ON THE APPLICATION of the plaintiff

251. To Appeal, or NOT to appeal?

VIEWS@16120

For the last week or so, I have been entertaining whether to quit, or to have one last stab, or poke if you like, at 'JUSTICE.'

Feeling I have gained some insight in to the inner sanctum of the running procedures of at least the Victoria Court system, I wonder whether on top of all the likely political frictions, my tiny bit of nibbling can ever even amount to a 'drop in the bucket.'

"Jan, the Courts are not about Justice." Ah, yes, I remind myself, look around at the general mess - everywhere, globally. But then, at times, you see how a single individual case makes a huge difference. Most often the difference occurs on the negative side of the scale - crazed souls on their killing sprees. But then, on the positive end, you read about a 13 year old who has invented some awesome life-saving device that can help thousands of people.

To live with negativity is easy; to blame is quick. We can spend all day complaining about an array of issues. To be positive takes effort, and does not always bring improved results. Negativity is draining; positivity brings hope by reflecting on, and acknowledging, the great achievements of others.
It is ultimately a choice of mind which directive to play.

If I appeal, it would put me in front of THREE judges. That alone would create a whole different scenario. If only ONE of them would acknowledge the Rules as written, it would show me that the insidious cancer can be treated; that the system does have conscionable individuals working from within; that not all is lost.
-----------------------------------------
JUDGE GAUL'S summation:

"... the fact of the matter is I can find nothing in the notice of civil claim that is before me that sets out any foundation, legal or otherwise, that justifies or could support the claims Mr. Steen is making against the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia. In my opinion, the notice of civil claim discloses no reasonable claim and to allow it to proceed would amount to an abuse of the court’s process. "
------------------------------------------
"- the notice of civil claim discloses no reasonable claim"

My claim discloses that by dismissing my claim in Courtenay, based on 'Lack of Jurisdiction', Justice Justine Saunders decided to err - on purpose! 

She would NOT hear my valid reasons for having used the 'OR' (b) Rule for filing; the very Rule the Attorney General used to win their case against a Defendant who had stated his argument was that BC "Lacked Jurisdiction!" They WON and were paid costs on that one!

The fact the Default Rule for filing in Ontario is "Where the Claim originates"  is clearly another hugely telling FACT!

" - to allow it to proceed would amount to an abuse of the court’s process. "

My Court process, unknowingly called: "a Chambers Application" became an in-house manipulated piece of work, beneficial to Defence, and useless and costly to myself.

The lesson here appears to be that the Justice system can not be shown to err, or cheat. Like the Kings and Queens of our Democracy, these titled Lords and Ladies are NEVER wrong, and certainly shall not be challenged! To do so appears to be: "an abuse of the court’s process."

The lesson is that the Courts regulate to interpret matters as they see fit; they are at all times 'Right', regardless the facts of law; only the rich and well positioned can ever really challenge them.

To Appeal would be my very last stand, since there is no where else to turn. Other than of course working to bring the issues to the the Trudeau door. As it is they are in my daily email box, asking for donations to their causes!

249. The ILL-LEGAL and MERRY > GO-ROUND

VIEWS @ 16045

I am TODAY coming to my senses! At long last....

WHAT THE HELL AM I THINKING, IMAGINING I CAN ACTUALLY DETERMINE JUSTICE?

It does not exist, and is UN-Natural to begin with.

Take for instance the WOLF SPIDER (YES, this is an analogy!)

"In many spider species, females eat the males after sex. Studies have suggested various complex evolutionary reasons involving costs and benefits to the species, sperm competition and esoteric sexual selection schemes.

Turns out the motivation for this creepy cannibalism is much simpler.

It's all about size. If males are small, they're easier to catch and therefore more likely to be prey, say Shawn Wilder and Ann Rypstra from Miami University in Ohio. Big females eat their puny mates simply because a) they're hungry and b) they can.

Wilder and Rypstra found that among the wolf spider (Hogna helluo), large males were never eaten by their mates, while small males were consumed 80 percent of the time. "

"In the past, humans have practiced cannibalism in many parts of the world. Today, the Korowai are one of the few tribes believed to eat human flesh as a cultural practice. In most countries, the act of human cannibalism is not illegal, nor a problem."

There it is: "Cannibalism is not illegal, nor a problem!

End of Analogy!
=====================================================================

Thinking I had 30 days to file my Notice of Appeal upon receiving the written generalities as  'Oral Reasons for Judgment' this past June 1, 2016, were WRONG! After speaking with Victoria Registry, both the "In Chambers" department and then the 'Court of Appeal' Registry, I am both better informed, and now, a lot wiser. 

On giving my Case number, I was informed: "No, you did not have a Trial, you had a decision to an "In Chambers Application."  And, yes,
"I had 30 days to file a Notice of Appeal to that decision." 

"You mean 30 days after the Court session on the 12th?" 

"That is correct!"

So my eagerness awaiting the actual details to the February 12th 'In Chambers Session' - were to NO AVAIL. The need to have the details, based on the FACTs of the full dismissal on that day in a COURT of Justice; the details, I was promised - as ordered by Judge Gaul to be interpreted by Defence Johnny Van Camp, then to be handed Justice Gaul, who would then peruse, and affirm same, and/or possibly change some; these 'DETAILS' would then be sent to me! And I was excused and "forgiven having to sign them." 

So THERE I FOOLISHLY THOUGHT, all those months, I WAS AWAITING DETAILS, RELATING TO FACTS; FACTS ON WHICH COURTS BASE THEIR JUDGMENT. FACTS WHICH CAN NOT BE QUESTIONED, SINCE FACTS ARE THE REAL STUFF OF LIFE!  

So, it's just like that! If you are the little guy, thinking to take on the 'system,' eventually you are eaten alive! It's all about SIZE! There are: "...various complex evolutionary reasons involving costs and benefits to the species," The powerful will 'WOLF' you up!

It is Nature at its most supreme! It is THE BEAUTY OF JUSTICE! REAL justice; natural justice.

Looking at what is involved at this stage.... filing a request form asking for an extension of time to appeal... and a myriad of additional factors in the world and realities all around me, I have come to the ultimate decision that I have come to the end of this cancerous battle. 

In retrospect, I do not even think I made any inroads, my efforts must have been, if not   self-indulgent, certainly naive. The world is mean; let's get used to it! And it is about to get a lot worse!

The other factor gnawing at me lately is the reality you readers are all ANONYMOUS. It's beginning to feel distant, and a bit scary as well. I am gradually discovering a different concept of reality. My core being is beginning to loose its purpose. A feeling I assume not unlike dying from the inside out, and I don't know if I'm ready to let that grow in to a 'Natural Phase Out' yet. 

So a new chapter in this old man's saga is unfolding. I will muse on it for a while, then likely wrap this whole thing up.  It's Time to move on......

248. The Powers of 'JUSTICE'; the Rhetoric of NOTHING!

VIEWS@16007

On June 1, I received the 'Official,' unsigned, two page email (i.e. written doc) of the 'Oral Reasons for Judgment' to my Summary Trial, held in Chambers this past February 12, 2016.

HERE IT IS:

Steen v. British Columbia (Justice) ............(Page 2)

[1] THE COURT: I will give you my decision now. In doing so, I reserve the right to make editorial revisions to my reasons before their reproduction in final form. In no manner will the results of my decision be changed.

[2] I have before me a notice of application that was filed on 3 November 2015, by the plaintiff, Mr. Steen. It was set down for hearing by a requisition he filed on 17 November 2015.

[3] The defendant’s office was not served with the plaintiff’s materials; however, they became aware of the application and they have filed a response. That response was filed on 11 February 2016, yesterday.

[4] When I read Mr. Steen’s notice of application in advance of this hearing, the nature of the application and the legal basis for the relief he is seeking remained unclear to me. After having heard Mr. Steen, it appears he wishes to have his claim against the defendant, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia, determined by way of summary trial. Moreover, the principal relief he appears to seek is an award $125,000 in general damages for “financial losses, legal costs and representation, time and life consumed, general emotional suffering and duress, as well, loss of his good name within his communities, both at home and online”.

[5] In response to Mr. Steen’s application, the defendant says Mr. Steen’s action discloses no reasonable claim and is an abuse of the court's process. Consequently, the defendant seeks an order pursuant to Rule 9-5(1)(a) and (d) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules striking out Mr. Steen's notice of civil claim and dismissing his action. 

"[6] As best I can determine, having read the notice of civil claim a number of times, and having heard Mr. Steen’s submissions, he alleges a Provincial Court judge erred when, in May of 2010, she dismissed his original Small Claims action against an Ontario corporate defendant. Specifically, Mr. Steen contends that the judge erred when she advised him that he should sue the corporate defendant in Ontario and when she advised him to appeal her decision dismissing his action.

[7] Mr. Steen asserts he followed the judge’s flawed advice and that in doing so he incurred significant costs and expenses. This is the foundation of his claim for damages against the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia. It remains unexplained how he reached the actual sum of $125,000 in damages."

[8] Mr. Steen appealed the Provincial Court judge's decision dismissing his original action. That appeal came before Madam Justice Dardi of this court in August of 2010. Because the respondent had served its material late, Mr. Steen requested and was granted an adjournment of the hearing so that he could properly respond to the issues being raised by the respondent. For reasons that are not clear to me,
Mr. Steen did not pursue his appeal. Instead, he chose to abandon it. He then pursued a lawsuit against the same corporate defendant in Ontario. That legal action, it would appear, was unsuccessful. Mr. Steen has now turned his attention back to British Columbia and seeks relief from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for what he says are the errors the Provincial Court judge made in his original action.

[9] I have read the transcript of the proceedings in Provincial Court, as well as the judge’s reasons for judgment. I do not agree with Mr. Steen when he says the judge provided him with erroneous legal advice. In my view, the judge found Mr. Steen had filed his action in the incorrect registry and as such he had not complied with the Small Claims Rules. In the result, she dismissed his claim, concluding the Provincial Court of British Columbia did not have jurisdiction to hear it. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the judge explained to Mr. Steen:
"If you wish to appeal my decision, then you’re certainly welcome to do that, but I can't tell you how to do that."

[10] In my opinion, the judge was not giving Mr. Steen legal advice, nor was she telling him what he should do. 

[11] Mr. Steen did appeal from the Provincial Court judge’s decision, but as I have already noted, he abandoned that appeal. That occurred about six years ago. While my function today is not that of an appellate court, I will note that the time for determining whether the Provincial Court judge erred when she rendered her decision in May 2010 has long since passed.

[12] I understand that Mr. Steen may be frustrated and disillusioned with his attempts to pursue his original civil claim against the corporate defendant. He initiated that claim in British Columbia, but it was dismissed because the court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. His subsequent attempt to pursue the claim in Ontario was also unsuccessful. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is I can find nothing in the notice of civil claim that is before me that sets out any foundation, legal or otherwise, that justifies or could support the claims Mr. Steen is making against the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia. In my opinion, the notice of civil claim discloses no reasonable claim and to allow it to proceed would amount to an abuse of the court’s process.

[13] For all of these reasons, I am ordering, pursuant to Rule 9-5(1), that Mr. Steen’s notice of civil claim be struck out and that his action be dismissed. 

“G. R. J. Gaul J.” 

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

Above is essentially an overview of where I have been and what I fruitlessly pursued over these many years, with several erroneous filing errors attributed to myself in [2 + 3].  I mentioned in a former post, how it 'appears' clear to me, there are serious administrative discrepancies within the communication channels of the Registry at ground level, and the Higher Powers of the Ministry of 'JUSTICE' ' in its halo chambers above.

All leaves the reader with a sense this old man has been wasting the court's precious time and facilities, without having had a leg to stand on.  No references to any facts, nor details required, as is prescribed by law:

[No.5]  "In response to Mr. Steen's application, the defendant says Mr. Steen's action discloses no reasonable claim and is an abuse of the court's process. Consequently the defendant seeks an order pursuant to Rule 9-5(1) (a) and (d) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules striking out Mr. Steen's notice of civil claim and dismissing his action."    

In Para [9] :..." the judge found Mr. Steen had filed his action in the incorrect registry and as such he had not complied with the Small Claims Rules."

"the judge found"..... Not, 'Let's have a scrutinizing look at the Rules for filing a claim in BC. ' NOT, 'I noted with interest in your Affidavit materials your Exhibit in which the very office of the AG took a man to court (after some 12 year lapse), using the very 'B' (or) Rule for filing (as you had used) and WON!

Again, and I repeat (as I see it): This is NOT about Justice; it is about keeping SRL riffraff, like myself and hundreds of thousands of other upright CANADIAN CITIZENS - looking for ACTUAL  justice, as applied by the very Rules that are in place (wanting as they are) -  OUT of the system. 

GOD forbid we give these diehards even a modicum of acknowledgment. Since daring to question the System for all its inherent discrepant allowances is: 

"An abuse of the Court's process."   

May they - the most upright noble and honourable, forever impartial and thoroughly just lords and ladies of our higher and SUPREME COURT of this exemplary democratic land - sleep and rest in their conscionable peace!

                                                      "S. R. L. E.J.Steen."

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

I leave you with the following Government provided  text: 

"When reviewing a case, the Court of Appeal looks at whether the decision-maker made a mistake in understanding the facts of the case or interpreting the law. The mistake must be obvious and fail to consider relevant evidence. 

Furthermore, that mistake must have had such a significant effect on the outcome of the case that it led to the incorrect decision being made. 

Because the appeal court does not hear evidence from witnesses, it is very difficult for the appellant to convince the appeal judges that the previous decision-maker reached the wrong conclusion about the facts of the case."

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

An Appeal is heard by THREE JUDGES! 

So, in this, my very last stand, I will seek to discover whether these THREE, DIFFERING, and purportedly IMPARTIAL, seasoned individuals, presently representing a more LIBERAL and JUST government, upon interpreting the laws as defined  - which they should be thoroughly and intimately familiar with - will these THREE MOST HONOURABLE SOULS side with the Rules of Law, or reiterate diplomatic gobbledygook rhetoric to side with their legal counterpart,  the most honourable BROTHER justice Gaul?  

After all these thousands of lonely hours spent seeking Justice - trying to make sense of Rules as written,  am I in the final analysis, in FACT, just a silly old fart? Some nutsy Don Quixote?

Costly as it will be, I will pursue this LAST and FINAL STAND! 

< PREVIOUSNEXT >