35. IN THE NUTSHELL ... 2 + 2 = (.?.) YOU FIGURE IT OUT!

CONTRACT = CLAIM ; CLAIM = CONTRACTUAL NON - COMPLIANCE = NO MORE/  NO LESS!

INTRO:
Although Plaintiff conceived the original 'WantGot.com' as an online postal/ zip code based alternative to eBay(1998), well before Craig'sList (2000) and Kijijij (2005) came online, it became just another idea, until - despite his warning they might be too late - in early 2008, 2 investors encouraged him to proceed with creation of the website.

- February 06, 2008.
With timeline now crucial, acknowledged appreciation for market validity a must, and the ability to execute the concept interactive website with know-how and due diligence, Plaintiff set out to find the 'right' web developer. After assessing a number of potential companies in BC, on February 04, 2008 Plaintiff arrived at Defendant's door. After an encouraging first phone encounter with its CEO, the first February 6th, 2008, Plaintiff email, containing the 'WantGot.com' concept, concluded with:
"I'll lightly cross my fingers, hoping it's not too late..."

- February 17, 2008. Plaintiff to CEO:
"1) I expect your continued full honesty.
2) Stop me if/when you've had enough.
3) I trust you tell me if this is worth pursuing.
4) If so, I will need you to express this to add to its appeal..."

- February 19, 2008. Defendant to Plaintiff: "Hey Jan, I definitely feel this is a worthwhile project and that it has potential [...] - any proposal with this level of detail targeting investors must be done of high quality and detail so that the investor understands what they are taking a chance on. In terms of appeal, the site will need to be intuitive and attractive. The risks I see are as follows: (1) ensure we nail down the functionality required for launch initially and target it and (2) a marketing budget will be essential."

- February 25, 2008. Defendant to Plaintiff: "Hey Jan, Enclosed is a proposal [...]. This sounds like a very exciting project and I believe it could revolutionize the way that classifieds are handled online and targeted advertising is sold."

Proposal for the creation of 'TheWantGot.com' (Working title)

Project Description: "The objective of the project is to create a website similar in functionality to Kijiji and Craig's List, but allowing users to perform searches based on distance within a zip code/postal code [...]. Revenue will be generated by targeting ads by location and potential additional criteria."
Timeframe: 10-12 weeks (50-60 business days), with 6 weeks being our goal.
Conclusion: " 'Defendant Co.' is committed to providing high-quality solutions with a focus on covering all the bases to ensure a well-integrated, high-performance website. This includes attractive and fast-downloading designs and easy to use functionality. We believe these skills will be an asset to this project and look forward to maintaining a strategic relationship well into the future."
"Today, our focus remains on producing exceptional results and exceeding customer expectations."

- March 4, 2008. Defendant CEO to Plaintiff: "[...] We will create a formal statement of work/contract that will reflect the proposal. [...] After launch + 90 days you will have as we discussed a website that is a mix between Kijiji and Craigslist but with the distance-based competitive advantages. [...] We are on the latest cutting edge of programming techniques. We have extensive experience with many current trends and continue to broaden our horizons each and every day."

- March 10, 2008. Defendant CEO responding to Plaintiff March 07, 2008, email: "I'm glad to see the other team was honest and didn't try to string you along with the promise of a cheaper price only to increase the cost later. I know my estimate is accurate and it's nice when "competitors" back me up (cause that doesn't happen often - the sales industry is dirty and cheap and I take pride in not doing that)."

- April 14, 2008. 'Statement of Work' = Contract = AGREEMENT
('Company' = Plaintiff; Name of Web Developer= Defendant; Signed by Parties)

"WHEREAS, The Company desires to increase the search-engine position ranking of its website relative to certain search keywords relating to its products and services."
Note: (As informed later: 'SEO was NOT applied to site)

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
l, Scope: "'Defendant' will perform the following activities:"
ll. Functionalities (Note: Follows a detailed list, a number of which were not carried out, but paid for)
lll. Payment Schedule: "The dates are identified as goal dates based on the project time-line of 8 weeks:
(Deposit -$$; Milestones 2/3/4/5/6= $$; Completion - July 11, 2008" + Final payment $$
Vl. Guarantee:"'Defendant' will fix any bugs, or items not built to project specification at no cost once the project is in production. (90) business days."

"IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties acknowledge that each has fully read and understood this Agreement, and, intending to be legally bound thereby, executed this Agreement on the date set forth above." (Signed by Parties, April 14, 2008)

PLAINTIFF NOTE:
1) Of all the developers approached, Defendant guaranteed not only full-time dedication to the project, but by far the shortest completion time. (Proposal stated: "With 6 weeks being our goal.": Statement of Work: "The dates are identified as goal dates based on the project timeline of 8 weeks.") The timeline, April 16 to the July 11, 2008, Completion Date, actually being 12 weeks!
2) Defendant also portrayed his company as the best informed, keen, capable, and up to latest tech date.
3) Other than paying for each Milestone when required to do so, the Statement of Work indicates ZERO duties to be performed by the Plaintiff/ Client. 

PLAINTIFF NOTE: As early as May 4, 2008, (some 3 weeks in to the project) Plaintiff alerted CEO Defendant to having problems with the Project Manager. This individual's 'removal' however comes only some 7 weeks after the contracted 'Completion date of July11, 2008!

- September 08, 2008. Email from CEO to this Client: "Hey Jan, it is clear to me that 'X's' project management skills are not where they should be at. We have removed him from the project... Soon we will see the light and move into production." *

- October 30, 2008.
After Contracted July 11, 2008, 'Completion Date', Plaintiff calculates 90 free business days for 'fixings', pays final payment and transfers site to Host company in Victoria. Then, reluctantly takes site live to obtain user response. Some 50 Users come and go, deciding the site is confusing, ill-functioning and not user-friendly.

By Winter 2008, a number of additional classifieds have come online. With costs of $42,000 spent on an unacceptable, inferior product, the 6 month window of market opportunity has been lost. In early 2009 Plaintiff seeks to reinterpret site, using most all of the earlier $30,000 Marketing budget to have it be recreated, plus, to differentiate site from other 'likes,' has added additional items.

The guarantees of "you will have as we discussed a website that is a mix between Kijiji and Craigslist ..." etc. have now become hollow assurances of time past.
Bill Gates' slogan: "On the Internet, a little late is too late" rings deafeningly true!

By late 2009, the self-representing legal battle to seek justice ensues. After a BC Court's dismissal, based on "Lack of Jurisdiction," Professional advice suggests Plaintiff start a Blog, to show PROOF of proceedings. Plaintiff does so. That Blog version subsequently becomes a Counterclaim of defamation.

- February 15, 2011.  (Defense Counsel email with offer to settle out of court)
"The contract is the source of all the rights and obligations between the parties.
The Defendant believes that he completed most if not all of his obligations under the contract. We admit there were some delays occasioned by the sudden and unexpected resignation of the project manager. Nevertheless, we don't think there were any damages caused by the foregoing."
* (Compare with above September 08, 2008: "Hey Jan, it is clear to me that 'X's' project management skills are not where they should be at. We have removed him from the project... Soon we will see the light and move into production.")

Plaintiff rejects offer.

As former Defense Counsel indicated:
"The contract is the source of all the rights and obligations between the parties."  

During a number of Case Conferences, with the Case now under Case Management, Motions upon Defense Motions request Claim Dismissal, based on insufficient 'Discovery' answers supplied by this Plaintiff.

Although QUESTIONS TO ANSWERS TO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS ON WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS FOR DISCOVERY are questioned with questions requesting additional answers to new questions, by December 06, 2012, Case Management Master decides: "In the circumstances all questions are relevant Questions" and Plaintiff shall answer them!

A now plainly baffled Plaintiff questions the following:

- May 09, 2013. MOTION DATE
1)  WHY IS  DEFENSE ALLOWED TO PERPETUATE THEIR CLAIM IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS?
2) WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CLAIM OF CONTRACTUAL NON - COMPLIANCE?

ANSWER: 
Since: "THE  CONTRACT IS THE SOURCE OF ALL THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES!" (stated by the earlier Defense Counsel, as an Officer of the Court)

Surely!  THIS, AND ONLY THIS SHOULD BE THE RELEVANT ISSUE! 

As a Canadian Citizen, this Plaintiff is entitled to have procedures abide by their Rules of Civil Procedure - no matter what Jurisdiction - within this democratic Nation. 

As such, with all pertinent matters in place, this Plaintiff should be allowed his day in Court! 

33. David V Goliath, or, Back Against the Wall!

Hello 'NAME WITHHELD':

I contact you for your expertise as "an international authority on internet law." 

Likely few 74 year olds are so foolhardy to take on the legal system. 

As a financially-pressed, British Columbia domiciled, self-representing Claimant, reduced to having become the Respondent, my time is running out. 

At the outset my claim of contractual non compliance against an Ottawa web-developer started out well. Defense offered me a $30,000 out-of-court settlement. However, having spent some $45,000 for the creation of an interactive Kijiji type online Postal/Zip Code based Classifieds which was never satisfactorily produced - thus loosing us our valuable marketing window of opportunity - I decided to soldier on. 

In retrospect, with Defense digging in with Counsel and my scant knowledge of legal chess and procedure, maybe I should have accepted their earlier offer. 

Jurisdictional disparity, well-timed Defense Motions to dismiss, and a Case Management Master's punitive measures laid on this Plaintiff for not answering what became "all questions are relevant in the circumstances" during a stretched discovery phase, have left this present 'Respondent' despondent, wondering how the Rules of Civil Procedure can be so overshadowed with legal ploy.   

Am I indeed the recalcitrant old fool they are determined to make me out to be? Must I be taught an expensive lesson? Or, are average Citizens like myself entitled to have their day in an unbiased and fair court to determine who is in error and who is ultimately beholden? 

On September 20th, I will be attending a 'Special Appointment' with a Master and Defense Counsel by teleconference. It could well become my final coup-de-grace. 

In anticipation, I am seeking the services of someone concerned with these matters. Someone who can play a definitive role in improving web-related legalities, so that others may avoid the senseless nightmares and failed opportunities I have been suffering. 

My blog: www.about-justice.blogspot.com will shed light on my situation.

I hope you will take the time to answer my plea.

Sincerely,

Jan Steen 

32. MORAL PROGRESS OR A DRINK TO EXTINCTION ? ....>bye>bye>humans...

"Activate and use the card that makes FREE happen" reads the recent promotional material send me by a food supplier. Credit limit $2000/ Credit available $2000 @ some 20% interest! How needy am I? How gullible?

So I have been having this ongoing rhetorical conversation with a friend of mine. He states we are a failed experiment. I maintain, in nature, there is no such thing. Some 'thing,' like us, finds a niche and fills it. That's all we did. Only thing is, we have a 'DUE DATE!' ... and we're almost there.

HEY, listen - 'FOLKS', in the 'overall scheme of things' - it's OKAY! We are a spit in time. No big deal! 'Mother' earth, GAIA, will keep spinning and spawning. Have you seen the doc about 'Life after Humans?' or the Martin Scorsese 'Surviving Progress?' Beautiful and brilliant. Shucks though about those stainless steel sinks that'll lie around, WHAT, forever? But nary no tarry, the moon will still carry a piece of our evidence; that footprint, some say created in a studio....

What's real? What's imagined? Egypt and Syria, the whole Middle East belt, but for the riches of Arabia, looking for equality and justice. Give us what YOU have, for we too are entitled! Like China and India, we all want more!

But Mother Gaia is putting her foot down, telling us: "Thank you humans, but enuff's enuff!"  

We are on a run-away train, imminently at the 'Beyond Due Date.'
The most curious fact of our species is that the greed factor has overtaken our capacity to live within the equilibrium of nature.

To that extend we are 'failing' and our time is nigh. Still, I maintain, we are NOT a failed experiment as such! We merely refused to live within our niche. Our blind drug for expansion at any cost is our nemesis.

Progress: What is it? Justice: What is it? Can I motivate you to respond?
I would very much appreciate that!

31. AUDITOR GENERAL TO REVUE SENATORS EXPENSES...

...TO CHECK FOR IRREGULARITIES.

This Plaintiff requests Attorneys General of all provinces to revue the e-commerce legal system. They will come to realize how Jurisdictional disparity is playing havoc with the parity of justice.

Experiencing dissatisfaction after doing business with suppliers online, extra provincial claimants, having filed in the Defense's jurisdiction, are at legal loggerhead and unjustly challenged with lack of access to courts, files and legal aid. The laws thus tend to favor the seller/ supplier.

Much of the system's procedures have yet to catch up to modern times. Filing documents such as Motions, Proof of Service, Pay methods, all must be done by mail, registered, or Fed-Ex. There is NO access to one's file online; access is restricted to hiring someone from within the jurisdiction to act on one's behalf.

29. HOW MOTIONS ARE KILLERS and a COUNTERCLAIM CONFUSES THE ISSUE!

 I have come to question the incredible powers of a 'Motion.'

MOTION: 'A written or oral application, made to a court or judge, to obtain a ruling or order directing that some act be done in favor of the applicant...'

Remember: "In favor of the applicant..."

Say I am the Defense accused in a Plaintiff's claim of transgressions in a transactional contract that has hurt the Plaintiff badly (identified in the Plaintiff's Claim); the Defense with their 'Statement of Defense' has rightfully stated their reasons for disagreeing. The argument stands equal at this stage.

With both documents filed, the avenue to file a 'Motion' allows the 'Motion' filer to ask the court, judge, or Master (if the Case is in Case Management; which ours is) to negate the Plaintiff's Claim giving their reasons for dismissing the case.

Example: "This Motion is a request for an order to dismiss the claim based on, and relating to (named) Rules of Civil Procedure. In our case, as early as September 2011, Defense had filed a Motion requesting the claim be dismissed, on the basis it was frivolous, vexatious, and unfounded. But their main focus was on their Counterclaim of Defamation (the former Word Press Blog I ran).

This Plaintiff has gleaned over a number of Defense Motions (all carrying the constant: THE DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIM) that Motions can 'RULE' by overriding whatever would otherwise be considered 'regular' proceedings that prepare a case for a trial date.

Add to this the complexities for filing, paying for, and attending Motions some 4500 KMS away, since they are heard and attended, face-on-face in the jurisdictional Court of Defense.

Motions can be killers of JUSTICE.  They MUST be re-evaluated by a presently cockeyed, imbalanced system.

WANTED: INTERNATIONAL E-COMMERCE INTERNET LAWYER!

HEAR YE; HEAR YE! Googling all applicable legal Counsel!

If you are a dedicated, scrupulous, and intelligent Internet Litigation Specialist, this opportunity could well put you on the International map towards an illustrious career.

My Ottawa, Canada, Superior Court claim of contractual non-compliance, with need for self-representation, jurisdictional parity, and defense's incessant motions for dismissal requests, have turned this case topsy-turvy. All, except the facts, is in favour of Defense.

Stuck in Case Management, 2500 kilometers away, this Plaintiff/ Respondent is cracking under the incessant pressures of Defense Motions to dismiss, and Master's orders to answer case-irrelevant questions. "In the circumstances all questions are relevant." WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES?
Am I not entitled to know?

WHEN is there ENOUGH Discovery? WHEN do the Rules kick in? WHEN do we get down to the FACTS? WHEN can a Trial date be set? WHY is a trial date not set? AYE, there's the rub!

27. AND THE WINNER IS? (or) When Kudos Are Due.

After the December 06, 2012 Case Conference Endorsement, in which the Master decided I was the culprit, I felt the clear need to have my very own, Ottawa Jurisdictional savvy, Counsel. I googled and found who I thought would be my perfect representation.

Defense files a: "Requisition to Schedule Appearance Long Motion Dates."
"A WHAT?" is this old brain's response to his newly-found, intermittent Counsel...

Whenever I showed signs of confusion, his response was always "Crystal Clear." When it looked like we were in for the ride, his hollow firmness echoed: I have told you before, and I am telling you again, the next Case Conference is all about finalizing the details. It is NOT a Motion.

Instead, the next Case Conference was a full-blown Case Conference dealing with Defense's latest Motion. With newly hired, magna cum laude, U of Ottawa's pretty Miss. Alexander in control, Defense's reins led an ill-functioning, ineffective, unresponsive party by the nose - all the way down to the sweet smells of a summer's garden path. Was it Vent Vert? I'll never know...

Resided by our Master, the questionable Motion session's Endorsement concluded with a full set of  Respondent addressed final new orders. Should the Respondent fail to comply - AGAIN - it would allow to put the case to bed, with a final Defense's Motion to DISMISS THE CASE!

This is the overall gist: The Plaintiff thinks he is over-complying all along; Defense continues to indicate he is NOT. The Master decides, at long last, the dissatisfied Defense must be RIGHT!

All is this Blog-Man's assessment of this incessantly aggravating game of chess. NOTHING seems to relate to actual Justice. You're either up for the onslaught, or stay home. Best party - wins!

Based on the ironic 'Non-Compliance,' at present, this Despondent Respondent awaits his possible Coup de Grace.

With shame to the system, Kudos to Defense.

This too will pass...