VIEWS@ 16782
Recognizing there will ALWAYS be enemies, whether it's THEM or US, it is a time to digest, relax, reflect, and regain some simple natural sanity.
When you try confront and interact with the best - as an out-sider - with no off-shore cash account, or other impressing attributes, just plainly playing the part of the nosy 'BUG', there is no way in HELL, you stand a chance to come out satisfied at the other end.
Democracy is thus a myth.
The whole latter part of confronting the Ministry of Legal Systems * - head-on - has been one confusing maze of seeming intentionally set up, internal, and confusing agendas. Waylay this culprit!
During my 'Access to Justice,' as mentioned, NEVER did I have any real problems with Registry Services, finding them in general extremely patient and helpful. No 'Attitude' or 'Posture' was ever shown me.
If this has been a system's adjustment over these past years, with now some 30% SRLs forced to do their own litigations, then I say 'KUDOS' to that part of the 'System.' From my perspective, it is working well. Thank you folks!
What I have learned from these legal machinations is that more of us are now willing to challenge the set and staid hierarchies of our established institutions. I nibbled away at the in-accessible Lords and Ladies and their representatives of the Legal Foundation of our Democracy - Higher Folk - who have managed to set themselves up to become UN-accountable for their daily efforts as professionals hired to perform their daily duties in Government paid positions! With NO luck, or Justice!
BUT! We are on to their shenanigans and we ain't taking NO MORE of it!
The work that lies ahead is to try our darnedest to FIX what it was originally set up to be! Irony is, that when talking to just about ANY regular citizen, they all KNOW about it, but feel utterly INCAPABLE OF DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT! DUH! Am I going to be one of them?
The question then looms: Can we collectively DO IT? ...... There's the rub, and only Time Will Tell!
For now, I am taking a break, spending time with family, all who laud I am in a kinder, less absorbed/ possessed sort of way...
The objective is to bring others aboard. While there are a lot of single efforts occurring on differing fronts, the challenge is to amalgamate under one STRONG UMBRELLA, confront Ottawa and DEMAND serious legal reform!
With the general state of our Humanity, there is LITTLE TIME LEFT for any 'Fixen'!
See you 'all' in a bit.....
* I can no longer call it 'Justice' since it is a misnomer. Let's call a spade a spade shall we?
Though still working on my major: gocascadia.com website, if Master Google allows me, I am reduced to leaving some of my personal rantings in this blog.
Wednesday 31 August 2016
Monday 22 August 2016
259. "When the Athletes start Talking about Doping...."
VIEWS@16712
".... then we are on the right path to fixing it."
When I replace that with: 'When judges and lawyers begin talking about how they are dis-honouring their profession by self-interpreting the Rules, thus cheating citizens and depriving them of their legal rights to a fair hearing, then we will be on the right path. Then - maybe, just MAYBE the word 'Democracy' might become a true representation of what it stands defined to be.
Having grown to become more of a realist, I say: Good luck! This just ain't gonna happen.
Listen to madman 'The Donald'. While strangely agreeing with part of his upfront, off-the-cuff simplistic platform, I shudder about the man himself - to think this is ACTUALLY a Presidential potential for the most influential country in the world. His existence and the role he is playing is a clear indication our North American Citizens are fully aware they are being shafted by those who are allowed to run our systems.
However, his outlandish statement, about how Obama and Clinton are responsible for the creation of Isis, holds a strange and far reaching kernel of truth. All you need do is fathom the overall hypocrisy of most all our democracies to understand the reasoning why the less fortunate and oppressed are creating such chaos.
It is my take the world is running amok, since it is run by hypocritical example. Leaders of entrenched Institutions, blind with greed, dictate what goes. Driven by Free Enterprise, the CEOs who own and run these Institutions, have replaced what formerly were Kings, Queens and Lords.
The only 'LORDS' left are the most Honourable Lords and My Ladies who run our Legal systems. "My decision is Functus!" she spoke. As in, I have rendered my decision and there is nothing more to add. We can decide and tell you anything we feel like and want to; we are above the law. Our verdicts are the rules It's the soup du toujours. I now have text information that literally indicates it.
In her 'Reasons for Judgment' Madame Justice Garson's first Para states:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Summary:
The applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal the dismissal of his claim against
the Crown for damages arising out of the dismissal of his Provincial Court action by
a Provincial Court judge.
".... then we are on the right path to fixing it."
When I replace that with: 'When judges and lawyers begin talking about how they are dis-honouring their profession by self-interpreting the Rules, thus cheating citizens and depriving them of their legal rights to a fair hearing, then we will be on the right path. Then - maybe, just MAYBE the word 'Democracy' might become a true representation of what it stands defined to be.
Having grown to become more of a realist, I say: Good luck! This just ain't gonna happen.
Listen to madman 'The Donald'. While strangely agreeing with part of his upfront, off-the-cuff simplistic platform, I shudder about the man himself - to think this is ACTUALLY a Presidential potential for the most influential country in the world. His existence and the role he is playing is a clear indication our North American Citizens are fully aware they are being shafted by those who are allowed to run our systems.
However, his outlandish statement, about how Obama and Clinton are responsible for the creation of Isis, holds a strange and far reaching kernel of truth. All you need do is fathom the overall hypocrisy of most all our democracies to understand the reasoning why the less fortunate and oppressed are creating such chaos.
It is my take the world is running amok, since it is run by hypocritical example. Leaders of entrenched Institutions, blind with greed, dictate what goes. Driven by Free Enterprise, the CEOs who own and run these Institutions, have replaced what formerly were Kings, Queens and Lords.
The only 'LORDS' left are the most Honourable Lords and My Ladies who run our Legal systems. "My decision is Functus!" she spoke. As in, I have rendered my decision and there is nothing more to add. We can decide and tell you anything we feel like and want to; we are above the law. Our verdicts are the rules It's the soup du toujours. I now have text information that literally indicates it.
In her 'Reasons for Judgment' Madame Justice Garson's first Para states:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Summary:
Held: The application is dismissed. A Provincial Court
judge is immune from civil liability for acts or omissions done in the course of her
judicial duties, therefore the appeal against the Crown for * vicarious liability for the
acts of a Provincial Court judge has no prospect of success. It would not be in the
interests of justice to grant an extension of time."
=============================================================
".......the appeal against the Crown for * vicarious liability for the acts of a Provincial Court judge has no prospect of success."
=============================================================
".......the appeal against the Crown for * vicarious liability for the acts of a Provincial Court judge has no prospect of success."
So let me see if I can comprehend the above crystal clearly! And, since it was put that way, could it CONTAIN a deeper meaning?
====================================
vicarious |vəˈkerēəsvīˈkerēəs| adjectiveexperienced in the imagination through the feelings or actions of another person: I could glean vicarious pleasure from the struggles of my imaginary film friends.• acting or done for another: a vicarious atonement.• Physiology of or pertaining to the performance by one organ of the functions normally discharged by another.================================================Is Madam Garson indicating I was possessed by some imaginary feelings when I tried my citizen's utmost to bring existing pertinent law to Justice Justine Saunders' attention? A Rule the very Attorney General of BC had successfully used in a Litigation: Case Law, Canada (Attorney General) V. Yasinski, 2006 BCSC 757 (CanLII) as well as the successfully used claim in the BC Court of Appeal:Ingenium Technologies Corp. v. McGraw-Hill Companies. Inc., 2005 BCCA 358 (CanLII)? Only, when a Self-Representing Litigant uses the VERY SAME Rule in order that HE TOO may be honoured by the VERY SAME law, the Rule no longer bares relevance. For all her liabilities enshrined in her sworn ethics of fairness and impartiality - to Her Majesty the Queen likely (i.e. 'The CROWN'), a Judge can CLEARLY do as he/she pleases whenever she/he feels like it. To hell with LAW and ethics, when a citizen comes calling ! The ONLY thing that means and accounts for anything, is whatever is served up that day. And DON"T forget the collusive aspects of all this.....When you take on the 'GOV.' they come at you from both ends; you're in the wheelhouse of the Ratpack now! It's a vicious circle; collusion at its very core!There is only one answer: double standards! How can something so blatantly apparent and corrupt continue to be perpetrated against its citizens? The thing I continue not to understand is WHY the people, the silent majority, continue to let it happen. As I am doing here, I note a lot of venting by numerous causes. All want your money; all mean well, but ultimately almost ZERO is accomplished.For now, this beat continues........ WEIRD ain't it?====================================
*
Saturday 6 August 2016
258. MULLINGs over our RIGGED IN-Justice System
VIEWS@16646
The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion
I had put the following aside for 'later usage,' and here it is - with apologies to its author...
“…everyone – not just the “experts” or system insiders - has the potential to contribute to change.”
“…accomplishing meaningful social change (on racism, on LGBT rights, on gun control) takes sustained, collaborative, and intentional action by communities.”
“…So how can we give ourselves the very best chance of success in moving the needle on Access to Justice – or any other social change?””
“…accurate information about the problem”/ “identify the result we want, and promote evidence-based solutions”
“Paul Schmitz says that effective social change begins with identifying the – concrete, measurable - result one wants.”
“We need to identify small collaborative projects that we have some chance of implementing, and that offer some measurable change for A2J in our backyards.”
“What matters is whether people can come to believe in the justice system again, because they feel included, and respected.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I repost this very telling article:
| “The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.”
-- Justice John F. Molloy
|
The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion
JUSTICE JOHN F. MOLLOY
When I began practicing law in 1946, justice was much simpler. I joined a small Tucson practice at a salary of $250 a month, excellent compensation for a beginning lawyer. There was no paralegal staff or expensive artwork on the walls.
In those days, the judicial system was straightforward and efficient. Decisions were handed down by judges who applied the law as outlined by the Constitution and state legislatures. Cases went to trial in a month or two, not years. In the courtroom, the focus was on uncovering and determining truth and fact.
I charged clients by what I was able to accomplish for them. The clock did not start ticking the minute they walked through the door.
Looking back
The legal profession has evolved dramatically during my 87 years. I am a second-generation lawyer from an Irish immigrant family that settled in Yuma. My father, who passed the Bar with a fifth-grade education, ended up arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court during his career.
The law changed dramatically during my years in the profession. For example, when I accepted my first appointment as a Pima County judge in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee than a judge. The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator arena, with dueling lawyers jockeying for points and one-upping each other with calculated and ingenuous briefs
That was just the beginning.
By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and president of southern Arizona's largest law firm, I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes, profited from.
I was the ultimate insider, but as I looked back, I felt I had to write a book about serious issues in the legal profession and the implications for clients and society as a whole. The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion was 10 years in the making and has become my call to action for legal reform.
Disturbing evolution
Our Constitution intended that only elected lawmakers be permitted to create law.
Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their own opinions and rulings. It's called case law, and it is churned out daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling and that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then becomes case law, or legal precedent. This now happens so consistently that we've become more subject to the case rulings of judges rather than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in our Constitution.
This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities. That's because case law is technically complicated and requires a lawyer's expertise to guide and move you through the system. The judicial system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge's application of case law all too often change the ultimate meaning.
Lawyer domination
When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called a judge. But in reality, when judges look down from the bench they are lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In any other area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of interest.
When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling class of lawyers and judges. First of all, in Maricopa and Pima counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of lawyers, along with concerned citizens. How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated them to the bench?
When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms that leverage their names and relationships.
Business of law
The concept of "time" has been converted into enormous revenue for lawyers. The profession has adopted elaborate systems where clients are billed for a lawyer's time in six-minute increments. The paralegal profession is another brainchild of the fraternity, created as an additional tracking and revenue center. High powered firms have departmentalized their services into separate profit centers for probate and trusts, trial, commercial, and so forth.
The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.
Bureaucratic design
Today the skill and gamesmanship of lawyers, not the truth, often determine the outcome of a case. And we lawyers love it. All the tools are there to obscure and confound. The system's process of discovery and the exclusionary rule often work to keep vital information off-limits to jurors and make cases so convoluted and complex that only lawyers and judges understand them.
The net effect has been to increase our need for lawyers, create more work for them, clog the courts and ensure that most cases never go to trial and are, instead, plea-bargained and compromised. All the while the clock is ticking, and the monster is being fed.
The sullying of American law has resulted in a fountain of money for law professionals while the common people, who are increasingly affected by lawyer-driven changes and an expensive, self-serving bureaucracy, are left confused and ill-served.
Today, it is estimated that 70 percent of low-to-middle-income citizens can no longer afford the cost of justice in America. What would our Founding Fathers think?
This devolution of lawmaking by the judiciary has been subtle, taking place incrementally over decades. But today, it's engrained in our legal system, and few even question it. But the result is clear. Individuals can no longer participate in the legal system.
It has become too complex and too expensive, all the while feeding our dependency on lawyers.
By complicating the law, lawyers have achieved the ultimate job security. Gone are the days when American courts functioned to serve justice simply and swiftly.
It is estimated that 95 million legal actions now pass through the courts annually, and the time and expense for a plaintiff or defendant in our legal system can be absolutely overwhelming.
Surely it's time to question what has happened to our justice system and to wonder if it is possible to return to a system that truly does protect us from wrongs.
A lawyer from Tuscon, Arizona, John Fitzgerald Molloy (b. 1917) was elected to the Superior Court bench where he served for seven years as both a juvenile court and trial bench judge. He subsequently was elected to the Court of Appeals where he authored over 300 appellate opinions, including the final Miranda decision for the Arizona Supreme Court. During that period, he also served as president of the Arizona Judge's Association. After 12 years, Molloy returned to private practice to become president of the largest law firm in southern Arizona. His book has received widespread praise for its candor and disquieting truths. (Photo courtesy of Paragon House)
|
Although our free worlds' justice systems may have seen better days, the inroads towards cutting through the rhetoric and posture of a staid, set system will be an up-hill battle.
It has now been established, these well-positioned lofty Lords and Ladies in their black robed minds, are un-approachable, beyond the laws of their own lands. They are as if in their own castles, without a draw-bridge, umbilical cord.
First we have to publicly verify their immunity. Once established, demand a clear channel towards insisting on their accountability. i.e. CUT their umbilical cord to their invisible and intangible GOD lines.
Friday 5 August 2016
257. When there is NO Alternative to the Impossible!
VIEWS@16638
This is a Blog, gracefully and freely allowed by Google on their Internet channels. NONE of it is private; ALL of it is available to the Global Village. This factor is a reminder when periodically I notice a SURGE in views, since Google shows a Colour Map indicator where views are concentrated. These days, once again, most are coming out of RUSSIA!
16 Views yesterday, 11 views today, our RUSSIANS are showing an interest in our phoney Democracy. Is it mere entertainment value to them? Does it make them feel better to note that a simple citizen in the so-called FREE world keeps hacking away fruitlessly at a system that has been taboo to the masses for hundreds of years? In the long run does it matter in any way? Will it make a difference?
========================================================================
On reference to my 256 posting of Madam Garson's Decision:
application falls to be determined on the basis of the merits (or lack thereof) of the appeal itself. Thus, the threshold question on this application is whether the appeal is doomed to fail, or whether it can be said confidently that the appeal is without merit: Stewart v. Postnikoff, 2014 BCCA 292 at para. 6 (Goepel J.A. in Chambers). This principle applies even where the other Davies factors are met: Stewart. '
YIP! The delay was caused, because 'Mr. Steen' was likely TRICKED in to thinking he was to receive SPECIFIC, DETAILED RULE APPLICABLE WRITTEN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT for his summarily dismissed claim! (since he was PROMISED by Judge Gaul on February 12Th:
THE COURT: ......." and while I've heard what you've just said, it does not alter my view of things. As I say, I understand that this has been a long road for you, and a frustrating one for you, but applying the law as I see it, there is no claim to be brought against the defendants, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of British Columbia, and it would be an abuse of process to allow the claim to proceed. So the claim is struck. The action is dismissed.
================================================
I ask any SANE individual reading the above by me emboldened text, if that does not CLEARLY indicates "There will be a written order-- and it will be DRAFTED by Mr. Johnny Van Camp, DEFENCE COUNSEL!
You see that's how we do it here in our Chambers.... we work together, for ultimate efficiency, with the foremost intentions of stopping these types of individuals from even getting in to our chambers.
"MR. VAN CAMP: So the ‑-* the facts aren't really in dispute."
<<..............>>
THE COURT:"So the registrar has some sort of discretion that the whole or part of a document is subject to Rule 1. The registrar can or may refer it to the court. So ‑-
ME: I repeat the above, once again, since "the words say what the words say" and all is SUPER clear!
And as per below now from the July 22, Appeal session, it has now been clearly established that Judges are above the law:
[17] Mr. Steen’s remedy against a Provincial Court judge’s decision is by way of appeal. He cannot sue a judge personally for a decision he asserts is wrong.
[18] Judicial immunity, inherited through the common law of England, prevents an action from being maintained against a superior court justice in relation to acts or omissions occurring in the performance of his or her judicial duties: Morier and Boily v. Rivard, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 716 at 737-740.
[19] That immunity is conferred on judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia through s. 3(1) of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 443, which states:
The Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice and judges have all the powers, rights, incidents, privileges and immunities of a judge of a superior court of record, and all other powers, rights, incidents, privileges and immunities that on March 29, 1870, were vested in the Chief Justice and the other justices of the court.
20] The same immunity that protects judges of the Supreme Court is extended by statute to judges of the Provincial Court through s. 42 of the Provincial Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 379:
==========================================================================
Okay, so there you have it. Like in an actual CIRCUS, the wheels go round and round. Like the Accountant at year's end asking his client: "Do you want to show a profit, or a loss? What's more beneficial to you?" .....
These NOBLE folk, parading as the 'finest human examples of our society,' have us by the short and curly. They clearly have no conscience, or if they do, they manage to put it on hold when they SWITCH on their FORMAT.
So what is next? I shall need to go beyond the clowns; that's next.
This is a Blog, gracefully and freely allowed by Google on their Internet channels. NONE of it is private; ALL of it is available to the Global Village. This factor is a reminder when periodically I notice a SURGE in views, since Google shows a Colour Map indicator where views are concentrated. These days, once again, most are coming out of RUSSIA!
16 Views yesterday, 11 views today, our RUSSIANS are showing an interest in our phoney Democracy. Is it mere entertainment value to them? Does it make them feel better to note that a simple citizen in the so-called FREE world keeps hacking away fruitlessly at a system that has been taboo to the masses for hundreds of years? In the long run does it matter in any way? Will it make a difference?
========================================================================
On reference to my 256 posting of Madam Garson's Decision:
[15] I accept that Mr. Steen likely had a bona fide intention to appeal the February 12 order, and that the delay was caused by his erroneous understanding of the law. It is unclear whether the respondent was informed of Mr. Steen’s intention to appeal. The delay in this case is relatively short, and it is unlikely that the respondent has been significantly prejudiced by that delay. The respondent concedes that this../
(Page change)
YIP! The delay was caused, because 'Mr. Steen' was likely TRICKED in to thinking he was to receive SPECIFIC, DETAILED RULE APPLICABLE WRITTEN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT for his summarily dismissed claim! (since he was PROMISED by Judge Gaul on February 12Th:
THE COURT: ......." and while I've heard what you've just said, it does not alter my view of things. As I say, I understand that this has been a long road for you, and a frustrating one for you, but applying the law as I see it, there is no claim to be brought against the defendants, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of British Columbia, and it would be an abuse of process to allow the claim to proceed. So the claim is struck. The action is dismissed.
What I will indicate, Mr. Steen, leaving aside whether you agree or disagree, whether you like or dislike the results of today, Mr. Van Camp is going to be drafting the order, the court order. What often occurs ‑- you're leaving, are you?
EVERT STEEN: No, no, I'm ‑- I'm listening.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'll wait till you put your jacket on.
EVERT STEEN: I'm paying attention.
THE COURT: No, no. I want your full attention.
Thank you.
What often happens is that when a draft order is prepared, it's sent to the other side for them to review it and agree, leaving aside whether you like it or, "Yes, that's what Judge Gaul said, that's the order" ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- then you endorse it ‑-
EVERT STEEN: It's not about liking.
THE COURT: What Mr. Van Camp is suggesting is that he draft the order and he send it direct ‑-
EVERT STEEN: What do you mean by that?
THE COURT: He ‑- the order that I've made today. There will be a written order ‑-
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: -- and the order will indicate that on hearing you, and on hearing him, and on ‑- having considered all of the evidence put before me, I make the following order, that your notice of civil claim is struck out, that your action is dismissed."================================================
I ask any SANE individual reading the above by me emboldened text, if that does not CLEARLY indicates "There will be a written order-- and it will be DRAFTED by Mr. Johnny Van Camp, DEFENCE COUNSEL!
You see that's how we do it here in our Chambers.... we work together, for ultimate efficiency, with the foremost intentions of stopping these types of individuals from even getting in to our chambers.
"MR. VAN CAMP: So the ‑-* the facts aren't really in dispute."
<<..............>>
THE COURT:"So the registrar has some sort of discretion that the whole or part of a document is subject to Rule 1. The registrar can or may refer it to the court. So ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: So if we're ‑- if we're past that, then, what I ‑- that's what I tried ‑-
THE COURT: Has ‑- has ‑- is there any pushback from the registry saying, "No, that's not the way it is"?
MR. VAN CAMP: There was initially, I can tell ‑- I can tell Your Lordship. "What are you doing? I've never seen this done before. I'm going to have to bounce it." Eventually, we convinced to put it in the refer it to court pile. I was informed that it's going to sit there and meanwhile this hearing is ‑- it's going to go ahead, of course, and then we're informed yesterday that Master Bouck ‑- I don't know if she rejected it or ‑- or what, I certainly wasn't given reasons, but informed that an application needs to be made to strike. There's no reasons. I wish I had reasons so that we could talk about that. But in any event, I don't take it that you would be bound by that in any event, but, really, what would happen if ‑- if ‑- I'm saying that this is before you now. You do have the authority to strike ‑-
THE COURT: Oh, I clearly have the authority to strike under the Rules ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: So ‑-
THE COURT: -- so that's ‑- that ‑- that is one portion that I can address and I'll ‑- I'll hear Mr. Steen in reply, but when it comes to interpreting the Rules, I don't have a clash of interpretations here, and I'll ‑- I'll tell you right now, for ‑- for what it's worth, the words say what the words say ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: I ‑- I can tell you that we ‑-
THE COURT: -- and ‑- and I can tell you that on my reading of the Rules, you're right ‑-
MR. VAN CAMP: Thank you, My Lord.
THE COURT: -- that the registrar has that ability to look at a document ‑- doesn't mean they have to. They can look at a document. And if they think under (3) that something should be referred to the court, they can do so, and then the court can make an order, and if the court makes an order, then the registrar has an obligation to notify the party. I ‑- I think the wording is quite clear."
ME: I repeat the above, once again, since "the words say what the words say" and all is SUPER clear!
And as per below now from the July 22, Appeal session, it has now been clearly established that Judges are above the law:
[17] Mr. Steen’s remedy against a Provincial Court judge’s decision is by way of appeal. He cannot sue a judge personally for a decision he asserts is wrong.
[18] Judicial immunity, inherited through the common law of England, prevents an action from being maintained against a superior court justice in relation to acts or omissions occurring in the performance of his or her judicial duties: Morier and Boily v. Rivard, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 716 at 737-740.
[19] That immunity is conferred on judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia through s. 3(1) of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 443, which states:
The Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice and judges have all the powers, rights, incidents, privileges and immunities of a judge of a superior court of record, and all other powers, rights, incidents, privileges and immunities that on March 29, 1870, were vested in the Chief Justice and the other justices of the court.
20] The same immunity that protects judges of the Supreme Court is extended by statute to judges of the Provincial Court through s. 42 of the Provincial Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 379:
==========================================================================
Okay, so there you have it. Like in an actual CIRCUS, the wheels go round and round. Like the Accountant at year's end asking his client: "Do you want to show a profit, or a loss? What's more beneficial to you?" .....
These NOBLE folk, parading as the 'finest human examples of our society,' have us by the short and curly. They clearly have no conscience, or if they do, they manage to put it on hold when they SWITCH on their FORMAT.
So what is next? I shall need to go beyond the clowns; that's next.
Wednesday 3 August 2016
256. VERDICT!...... COURTS and JUDGES are BEYOND the LAW!
VIEWS@16606
The Verdict is in, with no surprises; what else could they do - at this late stage. Refer to the facts presented over all these years? Apply the actual Rules?
Because of the length of the text, I will break same down in the near future, and include my responses over a number of weeks. In the meantime I will mull over whether to cease and desist (i.e. Justice is a lost cause), or possibly confront Donald Trump, and ask for his opinion? :)> . (just kidding). But take it from me: The Legal posturing is without question: GROTESQUE , serious and proof our Democracy is a FARCE! "WHOA Canada, our CHROME and NAIVE Land!"
[With PDF's awkward to copy, in order to minimize confusion with the numbered paras (where Para [5] jumps to [6] then runs through to [13], before changing to actual [6] I have moved these paragraphs over to the right. (Clearly a construction error on the part of the transcriber) i.e. NOT me.]
==========================================================================================
Citation: Steen v. British Columbia (Justice),
2016 BCCA 342
Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Garson
(In Chambers)
On appeal from: An order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, dated February 12, 2016 (Steen v. British Columbia (Justice), 2016 BCSC 1132,
Victoria Docket 15-4257).
Counsel for the Respondent (via Telephone): J.Van Camp
Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia July 22, 2016
Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia August 3, 2016
Steen v. British Columbia (Justice) ...............Page 2
Summary:
The applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal the dismissal of his claim against the Crown for damages arising out of the dismissal of his Provincial Court action by a Provincial Court judge. Held: The application is dismissed. A Provincial Court judge is immune from civil liability for acts or omissions done in the course of her judicial duties, therefore the appeal against the Crown for vicarious liability for the acts of a Provincial Court judge has no prospect of success. It would not be in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time.
Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice Garson:
[1] The applicant, Evert Jan Steen, applies for an extension of time to appeal the order of Mr. Justice Gaul made on February 12, 2016, striking Mr. Steen’s notice of civil claim and dismissing the action.
Background
[2] Mr. Steen filed a notice of application in November 2015, seeking to have his claim determined by way of a summary trial. In response, the respondent Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia, applied to dismiss his claim pursuant to Rule 9-5(1)(a) and (d) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules on the basis that it disclosed no cause of action and was an abuse of process of the court.
[3] Gaul J. determined that the nature of the claim being advanced was a complaint against a Provincial Court judge for failing to provide Mr. Steen with the correct advice concerning jurisdiction. The Provincial Court judge had determined that Mr. Steen commenced his claim in the wrong registry in non-compliance with the Small Claims Rules, and dismissed his claim on the basis of absence of jurisdiction.
[4] Gaul J. concluded that there was nothing in the notice of civil claim that set out any foundation, legal or otherwise, justifying or supporting the claims made against the respondent (at para. 12). Mr. Steen’s notice of civil claim was therefore struck and his action dismissed.
[6] The order in question was made on February 12, 2016 and entered February 18, 2016. Mr. Steen did not file his notice of appeal until July 11, 2016.
Law
[7] Section 14(1) of the Court of Appeal Act provides:
(d) extend or shorten the time provided in this Act or the rules or in an
order extending or shortening time, for the doing of an act or taking of
a proceeding;
The Verdict is in, with no surprises; what else could they do - at this late stage. Refer to the facts presented over all these years? Apply the actual Rules?
Because of the length of the text, I will break same down in the near future, and include my responses over a number of weeks. In the meantime I will mull over whether to cease and desist (i.e. Justice is a lost cause), or possibly confront Donald Trump, and ask for his opinion? :)> . (just kidding). But take it from me: The Legal posturing is without question: GROTESQUE , serious and proof our Democracy is a FARCE! "WHOA Canada, our CHROME and NAIVE Land!"
[With PDF's awkward to copy, in order to minimize confusion with the numbered paras (where Para [5] jumps to [6] then runs through to [13], before changing to actual [6] I have moved these paragraphs over to the right. (Clearly a construction error on the part of the transcriber) i.e. NOT me.]
==========================================================================================
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
2016 BCCA 342
Date: 20160803
Docket: CA43781
Between:
Evert Jan Steen
Appellant
(Plaintiff)
And
The Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General for British Columbia
Respondent
(Defendant)
Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Garson
(In Chambers)
On appeal from: An order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, dated February 12, 2016 (Steen v. British Columbia (Justice), 2016 BCSC 1132,
Victoria Docket 15-4257).
Appellant
(Plaintiff)............................................In Person
Counsel for the Respondent (via Telephone): J.Van Camp
Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia July 22, 2016
Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia August 3, 2016
Steen v. British Columbia (Justice) ...............Page 2
Summary:
The applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal the dismissal of his claim against the Crown for damages arising out of the dismissal of his Provincial Court action by a Provincial Court judge. Held: The application is dismissed. A Provincial Court judge is immune from civil liability for acts or omissions done in the course of her judicial duties, therefore the appeal against the Crown for vicarious liability for the acts of a Provincial Court judge has no prospect of success. It would not be in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time.
Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice Garson:
[1] The applicant, Evert Jan Steen, applies for an extension of time to appeal the order of Mr. Justice Gaul made on February 12, 2016, striking Mr. Steen’s notice of civil claim and dismissing the action.
Background
[2] Mr. Steen filed a notice of application in November 2015, seeking to have his claim determined by way of a summary trial. In response, the respondent Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia, applied to dismiss his claim pursuant to Rule 9-5(1)(a) and (d) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules on the basis that it disclosed no cause of action and was an abuse of process of the court.
[3] Gaul J. determined that the nature of the claim being advanced was a complaint against a Provincial Court judge for failing to provide Mr. Steen with the correct advice concerning jurisdiction. The Provincial Court judge had determined that Mr. Steen commenced his claim in the wrong registry in non-compliance with the Small Claims Rules, and dismissed his claim on the basis of absence of jurisdiction.
[4] Gaul J. concluded that there was nothing in the notice of civil claim that set out any foundation, legal or otherwise, justifying or supporting the claims made against the respondent (at para. 12). Mr. Steen’s notice of civil claim was therefore struck and his action dismissed.
Steen v. British Columbia (Justice) .......Page 3
[5] In dismissing Mr. Steen’s claim, Gaul J. said at paras. 6-13 of his reasons for
judgment (indexed at 2016 BCSC 1132):
[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../
Steen v. British Columbia (Justice) .......Page 4
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.
[6] The order in question was made on February 12, 2016 and entered February 18, 2016. Mr. Steen did not file his notice of appeal until July 11, 2016.
Law
[7] Section 14(1) of the Court of Appeal Act provides:
14 (1) The time limit for bringing an appeal or an application for leave to
appeal is
- (a) 30 days, commencing on the day after the order appealed from is
pronounced, or
(b) if another enactment specifies a different period, that different period.
[8] The time limit to appeal therefore runs from the date an order or ruling was pronounced, even if written reasons are to follow: Romfo v. 1216393 Ontario Inc., 2008 BCCA 106 at para. 23.
[9] However, s. 10 provides that a justice may extend or shorten the time within which an appeal may be brought:
10 (1) A justice may extend or shorten the time within which an appeal to the court or application for leave to appeal may be brought.
- (2) In an appeal or other matter before the court, a justice may do one or more of the following:
- .....
Steen v. British Columbia (Justice) ........ Page 5
[10] The criteria for an extension of time to begin an appeal were set out in Davies
v. C.I.B.C. (1987), 15 B.C.L.R. (2d) 256 at 259-260 (C.A.) and may be summarized
as follows:
[12] The burden is with the applicant to demonstrate that the criteria are met: Kedia International Inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2008 BCCA 305 at para. 8.
Discussion
[13] Mr. Steen filed his notice of appeal four months after the expiration of the appeal period.
[14] It is evident from his affidavit evidence that this delay was the result of
Mr. Steen’s misapprehension that he had 30 days from the date of receiving written reasons for judgment to file his appeal, rather than 30 days from the date of the order. He says that he received written reasons on June 1, 2016, and then discovered that the time limit had expired.
[15] I accept that Mr. Steen likely had a bona fide intention to appeal the February 12 order, and that the delay was caused by his erroneous understanding of the law. It is unclear whether the respondent was informed of Mr. Steen’s intention to appeal. The delay in this case is relatively short, and it is unlikely that the respondent has been significantly prejudiced by that delay. The respondent concedes that this../
-
1) Was there a bona fide intention to appeal?
-
2) When were the respondents informed of the intention?
-
3) Would the respondents be unduly prejudiced by an extension of time?
-
4) Is there merit in the appeal?
-
5) Is it in the interest of justice that an extension be granted?
[12] The burden is with the applicant to demonstrate that the criteria are met: Kedia International Inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2008 BCCA 305 at para. 8.
Discussion
[13] Mr. Steen filed his notice of appeal four months after the expiration of the appeal period.
[14] It is evident from his affidavit evidence that this delay was the result of
Mr. Steen’s misapprehension that he had 30 days from the date of receiving written reasons for judgment to file his appeal, rather than 30 days from the date of the order. He says that he received written reasons on June 1, 2016, and then discovered that the time limit had expired.
[15] I accept that Mr. Steen likely had a bona fide intention to appeal the February 12 order, and that the delay was caused by his erroneous understanding of the law. It is unclear whether the respondent was informed of Mr. Steen’s intention to appeal. The delay in this case is relatively short, and it is unlikely that the respondent has been significantly prejudiced by that delay. The respondent concedes that this../
Steen v. British Columbia (Justice) .... Page 6
application falls to be determined on the basis of the merits (or lack thereof) of the
appeal itself. Thus, the threshold question on this application is whether the appeal
is doomed to fail, or whether it can be said confidently that the appeal is without
merit: Stewart v. Postnikoff, 2014 BCCA 292 at para. 6 (Goepel J.A. in Chambers).
This principle applies even where the other Davies factors are met: Stewart.
[16] In my view, the chambers judge correctly stated Mr. Steen’s underlying complaint in para. 8 of the reasons. In his affidavit, Mr. Steen says, “I hold the Ministry responsible for a BC Judge’s erroneous dismissal (based on ‘lack of Jurisdiction’), regarding a web-based claim I previously filed in Courtenay, BC, Registry”.
[17] Mr. Steen’s remedy against a Provincial Court judge’s decision is by way of appeal. He cannot sue a judge personally for a decision he asserts is wrong.
[18] Judicial immunity, inherited through the common law of England, prevents an action from being maintained against a superior court justice in relation to acts or omissions occurring in the performance of his or her judicial duties: Morier and Boily v. Rivard, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 716 at 737-740.
[19] That immunity is conferred on judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia through s. 3(1) of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 443, which states:
The Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice and judges have all the powers, rights, incidents, privileges and immunities of a judge of a superior court of record, and all other powers, rights, incidents, privileges and immunities that on March 29, 1870, were vested in the Chief Justice and the other justices of the court.
See also: Hill v. British Columbia (1997), 36 B.C.L.R. (3d) 211 at para. 22.
[20] The same immunity that protects judges of the Supreme Court is extended by statute to judges of the Provincial Court through s. 42 of the Provincial Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 379:
[16] In my view, the chambers judge correctly stated Mr. Steen’s underlying complaint in para. 8 of the reasons. In his affidavit, Mr. Steen says, “I hold the Ministry responsible for a BC Judge’s erroneous dismissal (based on ‘lack of Jurisdiction’), regarding a web-based claim I previously filed in Courtenay, BC, Registry”.
[17] Mr. Steen’s remedy against a Provincial Court judge’s decision is by way of appeal. He cannot sue a judge personally for a decision he asserts is wrong.
[18] Judicial immunity, inherited through the common law of England, prevents an action from being maintained against a superior court justice in relation to acts or omissions occurring in the performance of his or her judicial duties: Morier and Boily v. Rivard, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 716 at 737-740.
[19] That immunity is conferred on judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia through s. 3(1) of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 443, which states:
The Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice and judges have all the powers, rights, incidents, privileges and immunities of a judge of a superior court of record, and all other powers, rights, incidents, privileges and immunities that on March 29, 1870, were vested in the Chief Justice and the other justices of the court.
See also: Hill v. British Columbia (1997), 36 B.C.L.R. (3d) 211 at para. 22.
[20] The same immunity that protects judges of the Supreme Court is extended by statute to judges of the Provincial Court through s. 42 of the Provincial Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 379:
Steen v. British Columbia (Justice) Page 7
42. Judges and justices have, for things done or not done by them in their
official capacity, the same immunities from civil liability as judges of the
Supreme Court have for the things done or not done by them in their capacity
as judges of the Supreme Court.
See also: Hill at para. 22.
[21] There is no cause of action available to Mr. Steen in a suit against the Crown for an allegedly erroneous decision of a Provincial Court judge. It follows that there is no merit to the appeal of the decision dismissing Mr. Steen’s claim as disclosing no cause of action.
[22] Because Mr. Steen’s proposed appeal is without merit, it would not be in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time to commence the appeal.
Disposition
[23] The application to extend the time to file an appeal is dismissed.
See also: Hill at para. 22.
[21] There is no cause of action available to Mr. Steen in a suit against the Crown for an allegedly erroneous decision of a Provincial Court judge. It follows that there is no merit to the appeal of the decision dismissing Mr. Steen’s claim as disclosing no cause of action.
[22] Because Mr. Steen’s proposed appeal is without merit, it would not be in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time to commence the appeal.
Disposition
[23] The application to extend the time to file an appeal is dismissed.
“The Honourable Madam Justice Garson”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)