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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment