44. When is an opinion NOT personal?

An ORDER is an 'OPINION.' An Opinion is an individual's assessment of materials at hand, as he/she relates them to the 'relevant issues in the circumstances.' The 'ordered opinion' is formed and registered at a specific point in time; regardless its bearings to any set rules, it remains 'Subjective.'

Notwithstanding, its 'relevance' stands unquestioned, unless successfully appealed. Uncontested, the 'ordered opinion' becomes law. So, little case by case, case-law subjectively manipulates the rules, and changes format. Let's call it 'in-breeding?'...:)

When I threw in the towel, after I sensed my discovery process of Defense's incessant demands for unrelenting questions would never end, by being out of Case Management, I had hoped for at least a three (3) judge panel during Appeal (as well as being out of the Ottawa Jurisdictional bottle neck of possible like-minds).

I am wrong! An Appeal to an 'Interlocutory'* Dismissal by a Master is heard by a single Judge in a Divisional Court. For Ottawa, this being - in Ottawa. Again, Jurisdiction is NOT in my favour.
*(given provisionally during an action)

The rules for required specs show much to prepare. It's far more complicated than where I have been. I have experienced that a tiny 'technicality' can jinx all efforts and costs. My former BC Example:
When my case in Small Claims Court in BC was "dismissed for lack of Jurisdiction,"my question to the Judge at the time was: "So, Your Honour, there is nothing I can do?" Madame Justice, the Honourable Justine Saunders answered: "Well, Mr. Steen, you may appeal, if you like...."

After many hours of effort and costs of filing, some 6 months later Defense Counsel argued: "You may not appeal after a Hearing, only after a Trial." Regardless my argument that Small Claims Court do not have 'Trials', that 'Hearings' are the 'Trials' of the Small Claims Court, the Supreme Court presiding judge, needing our 2 hour especially reserved and paid for session to clean up business of the morning, (after being alerted of the issue by Defense) briefly stated before postponing our session: "Mr. Steen, I shall have to look in to the matter whether I am even allowed to hear this..."

I decided to abandon the appeal, and instead sojourned to file in Ottawa. Here we are today. Is it worth it? Is what you are served the justice you deserve?
What I need to find out is whether there was ever a cross-provincial, out of Jurisdiction, Self-Representing case that has won an appeal. (?) Anyone?

 

43. A COURT MASTER'S CONTRIBUTION TO CASE LAW

NOTE:

From a RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT by Counter Claim; (original Claimant's/ Plaintiff's perspective). Although headlined as "Plaintiff,"machination of the 'modern system' has now tweaked this in to 'Case Law.' Stretched far beyond its origin of simple, confined relevance to 'Contractual non-compliance,' with clear-set rules to adhere to, instead, rhetorical practice by a jurisdictionally local 'moving party' has challenged 'under-oath' officers to deal with what is presented them in the 'here and now.' As such, applicable Rules lie ignored, while the 'reality' of active powers by well-placed motions with their one-sided subjective attacks, run havoc with truth, fact, and rules!  

The relevance of "matters in issue," as set out by the Rules of Civil Procedure, have NOT been at issue.  Defense, by hour-glass, has teeter-tottered the game to become the new Plaintiff. Checkmated by a Master, the Motion creating 'Moving Party' has won this round!

Far from done, I am in the process of appealing. Although the site has had some 2800+ page views to date, 'some feedback' would be much appreciated. (Or am I to continue my 'lonely road'?)
This order, by a Superior Court Master, places my appeal in a Divisional Court. Although I had hoped for three judges, I believe appeals from 'self-representing' citizens are likely categorized as sufficiently 'irrelevant,' to be left to the judgement of a single judge.   

I need to find Case Law (if it exists) in which a Self-Representing Claimant won an appeal! Anyone?

_________________________________________________________________________________

 http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc5996/2013onsc5996.html

Steen v. 3902641 Canada Inc., 2013 ONSC 5996 (CanLII)

Date:	2013-09-23
Docket:	10-49776
URL:	http://canlii.ca/t/g0r4v
Citation:	Steen v. 3902641 Canada Inc., 2013 ONSC 5996 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/g0r4v> retrieved on 2013-10-11
Share:
Print:	PDF Format
Noteup:	Search for decisions citing this decision

CITATION: Steen v. 3902641 Canada Inc., 2013 ONSC 5996

COURT FILE NO.: 10-49776

DATE: 23/09/2013

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE:                 EVERT JAN STEEN, Plaintiff

                        AND:

3902641 CANADA INC. carrying on business as N-VisionIT INTERACTIVE, Defendant

BEFORE:      MASTER MACLEOD

COUNSEL:   T. Kirk Boyd, for the Defendant, moving party

Evert Jan Steen, Plaintiff, responding party (by telephone)

HEARD:        September 20^th, 2013

ENDORSEMENT

[1]            The defendant moves to strike the statement of claim and dismiss the action commenced by Mr. Steen in 2010.  The basis for that is failure by Mr. Steen to comply with an order made by Master Roger on May 8^th, 2013.  That order provided that if the plaintiff failed to answer the list of undertakings referred to in that order by May 10^th, 2013 then the action was to be dismissed with costs.

[2]            As I will describe in a moment, the order of May 8^th was a consent order made after a series of previous orders.  At that time Mr. Steen, who resides in British Columbia, was represented by counsel.  It is clear that Mr. Steen has willfully refused to comply with the order and that the dismissal of his action is the appropriate remedy.  I am therefore granting the requested relief.

Background

[3]            This action is a breach of contract action in relation to a web site development agreement signed in April of 2008. Mr. Steen seeks a refund of money paid to the defendants, the cost of replacing his web site and consequential damages.  The action was commenced in October of 2010 although I understand from Mr. Steen that he had earlier attempted to bring it in British Columbia but the Supreme Court of B.C. declined jurisdiction.  The action was defended in January of 2011.  There is a counterclaim for defamation.

[4]            Both parties represented themselves for some time and in January of 2012 the action was made subject to case management under Rule 77.  It had been agreed between the parties that rather than oral discovery, they would proceed by written interrogatories.  At a case conference in May of 2012 Master Roger ordered that both parties were to answer all relevant questions as fully as possible by June 29^th, 2012.

[5]            At a further case conference on July 18^th, 2012 Master Roger ordered Mr. Steen to answer a number of unanswered questions unless he was specifically refusing to do so and he also scheduled the defendant’s motion to compel those answers.  Subsequently the time for answering was extended to August 31, 2012 and the parties were required to set out all refusals and undertakings that were in dispute in a refusals and undertakings chart.

[6]             A full day motion was argued on December 6^th, 2012 during which the Master carefully reviewed the relevance and sufficiency of the outstanding questions, follow up questions and refusals. The plaintiff was specifically ordered to answer questions and undertakings and ordered to pay costs.  Subsequently Mr. Steen appointed counsel.  At a case conference on February 27^th, 2013 with his counsel in attendance I ordered him to answer his outstanding undertakings by March 8^th, 2013 and to pay the outstanding costs.  Mr. Boyd confirms that some answers were provided in response but there were still answers missing and many of those that were provided were considered to be unresponsive or inadequate.

[7]            On May 8^th, 2013 there was a further motion in which the defendant sought answers to undertakings that were still outstanding or better answers or to undertakings that were considered unresponsive as well as answers to refusals.  By that time the defendant had also appointed counsel, Ms. Alexander and Mr. Steen still had counsel, Mr. Griffiths. 

[8]            The motion was resolved by agreement between counsel.  It provided yet another deadline to answer the remaining undertakings and contained the provision that if the undertakings were not answered the action would be dismissed.  This was the third order requiring the plaintiff to provide many of the same answers.  A motion date was also set to deal with incomplete or disputed answers in the event that was required.  

[9]            In compliance with the May 8^th order, the plaintiff was to be provided with a list of outstanding undertakings.  The list was provided.  Mr. Steen does not dispute the fact that he has still not answered those questions nor does he dispute that he clearly understood what it was he was supposed to do.

The issue of disability

[10]        On June 8^th, 2013 Mr. Steen filed a notice of intention to act in person.  Subsequently Ms. Alexander, lawyer for the defendant, received an e-mail and then a voice message from someone identifying himself as a lawyer named Noel Daley.  Mr. Daley states that he was an investor with Mr. Steen and that it was his $45,000.00 paid to the defendant for the web site design so he “has a big dog in the hunt”.  In the voice mail he then questions whether Mr. Steen might not now be suffering from some sort of dementia and advises Ms. Alexander to bring this to the attention of the court.  Mr. Daley did not purport to be retained nor to be taking any action to be appointed as litigation guardian.

[11]        On July 2^nd, 2013 Mr. Steen sent an e-mail to the court office in which he advised he is aware of both the e-mail and the voice mail.  He stated that he “would endorse a court order to undergo a full psychiatric assessment that could well lead to the Court’s appointment of an official litigation guardian, or amicus curiae on behalf of plaintiff Steen”.

[12]        I refer to this simply to illustrate that I am aware of it.  Ms. Alexander has quite properly drawn it to the attention of the court by referring to it in her affidavit.  Other than the suggestion by Mr. Daley in his communication with Ms. Alexander, there is nothing formally before the court to suggest that Mr. Steen is under a disability.  His own response may be regarded as opportunistic and if anything suggests the contrary since it appears he appreciates the nature of the proceeding he is involved in and the consequences of being found to be incompetent.   Nothing has been done by Mr. Steen or Mr. Daley to appoint a litigation guardian.  Mr. Griffiths who represented Mr. Steen between March 26^th, 2013 and June 18^th, 2013 apparently took instructions without indicating any concern that his client was not competent to instruct him.

[13]        On the telephone during the argument of the motion, Mr. Steen appeared to fully comprehend the nature of the motion and the consequences of dismissal of the action.  He filed a cross motion in which he asked me to set aside the order of Master Roger and he was able to clearly articulate his objection to answering the questions because he believed them to be irrelevant and abusive.  I do not accept that there is any reason to believe that Mr. Steen is a person under a legal disability.

Analysis and disposition

[14]        Mr. Steen made it abundantly clear during the motion that he has made no attempt to answer the remaining undertakings because he does not agree he should have to.  He states that they are not relevant and are too much work.  When I asked him if he would comply with the order if I gave him a further 30 days he advised me he would only do so if the court could guarantee he would not then be asked more questions. 

[15]        Under the circumstances I have no option but to conclude that the failure to answer the undertakings constitutes willful and intentional disregard of a court order.  As stated by Ferrier J. in 1066087 Ontario Inc. v. Church of the First Born Apostolic Inc. et. al. cited by counsel for the defendant, where a plaintiff has shown utter disregard for the orders of the court, it is unfair to require the defendant to continue to incur costs defending the action.  A similar conclusion was reached by the Divisional Court in Vacca v. Banks (2005) 6 C.P.C. 22.  In any event, Master Roger has already ordered that the action be dismissed if there was failure to comply and that order was not appealed.

[16]        Accordingly the action of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs of the motion.  The costs are fixed at $2,800.00 on a partial indemnity scale.

[17]        I note that the counterclaim continues although I was advised that counsel would seek instructions in this regard. If the counterclaim is continuing then it would be inappropriate to award the defendant costs of the action at this time.  In the event the counterclaim is discontinued then I may be spoken to with respect to a final disposition of costs.

___________________________

Master MacLeod

42. The Overview

The OVERVIEW

(as viewed by Jim Raymond)

"Jim Raymond, an English professor at Alabama, is the head of the judgment-writing course for federally appointed judges in Canada. He is also the co-author of an excellent book on good legal writing called "Clear Understandings"1. The subject of Professor Raymond's lecture at our judgment writing school is: "The First Page Says It All". Whether you are writing a factum or a judicial opinion, Raymond recommends that you begin with an overview statement, which tells the reader what the case is about, who did what to whom, the issues and your position on them - all in no more than a page. Raymond's view reflects a fundamental principle of persuasive factum writing: put context before details. The principle of context before details is also an important theme in a superb book on good legal writing, Thinking Like a Writer: A Lawyer's Guide to Effective Writing and Editing, by Stephen Armstrong and Timothy Terrell.

The overview statement has been used for several years by all good counsel arguing criminal appeals in our court, even though it is not required by the criminal appeal rules. The criminal bar has simply adopted the overview statement as a technique of good written advocacy.

Effective January 4, 1999, the Rules Committee amended the factum rules for civil appeals to our court to require an overview statement in Part II of the appellant's factum and in Part I of the respondent's factum.

Although the overview statement is now mandatory, you need to know why it is important. The overview statement is important because it provides a road map for the rest of your factum. It gives the judge the context for your appeal, and with the context the judge can better absorb and understand the details to follow. I consider the overview statement the most important part of the factum.

I have these suggestions for writing effective overview statements:

(i) In the overview statement you must begin persuading the court of the rightness of your client's cause. Tell your story in human terms, that is, appeal to the human being in the judge. Forget the legal jargon. Pretend the judge is just your well-informed next door neighbour. Engage the judge, capture the essence of what the case is all about and communicate the justness of your position. In other words, solicit the judge's affection for your cause.

(ii) State the key issue or issues on which the appeal turns in your overview statement but be careful not to state the issue or issues too broadly. If you state an issue too broadly, then your factum will be too long because the amount of detail is tied to how narrowly or broadly you state the issue. Worse, we judges will not know what to look for, what facts are crucial and what facts are background. For example, if you are attacking a municipal by-law, stating the issue as the validity of the by-law is too broad. Better to say that the issue is whether the by-law is invalid because it was passed in bad faith.

(iii) The overview statement should contain just enough facts to give context to the key issue and to preview what is to come. Most counsel do not give enough facts in their overview statements. You should front-load but not overload your overview."

_________________________________________________________________________________

Superior Court Case #10-49776 -

 The Overview

(by Jan Steen)

With a clear and final understanding, the Contract serves as written 'Proof of Fact' between 2, or more, parties. 'The Statement of Work' is an on-line Contract between a Web-developer and its Client. Above the signatories, it states to be legally binding. In case one of the parties upon the contract's due-date completion decides part, or all, of its factor items have not been complied with, or completed, that party may file a claim in a Court of Law, challenging the other party. During the due diligent process of the Court's format, according to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the validity of the claim will be determined. Or so one expects.

Created by the very most senior appointed Court Officials, these Rules are set in stone. They leave little room for subjectivity. In 2010 the Rules were further 'tightened.' An even greater specificity towards succinctness was applied. During the process of Discovery, the former "semblance of relevance" was shortened to "Relevance." The phrase "relating to any matter in issue" became: "relevant to any matter in issue."

It can be appreciated by this Claimant, whose original Claim for contractual non-compliance was filed in a British Columbia court, that 'the best Defense is a good Offense' (As the cliche goes). Defense, after consultation with Counsel, in self-interest, may well decide to evade the facts, since scrutiny may not favour that course  - i.e. to argue the facts as implemented by contract. By rendering persuasive rhetoric with the aid of available, effective ploys, such as the filing of a Motion to dismiss, including hints the Respondent Claimant is half dead old, recalcitrant, irrational, vexatious, emotionally involved, lives in a distant province, on an Island to boot, and has a frivolous claim - an over-worked Court Official together with the Jurisdictional physical Presence of Defense, may, in time, begin to show certain positive enhancements. 

So indeed finds this Jurisdictional distant Respondent/ Claimant has become the case. After some 2 years dilly-dallying, the matters at issue, i.e. the original claim, have yet to be addressed. And, AYE, here lies the rub. Defense has cleverly managed to avoid the issues at hand; what, under the Rules should be relevant, and addressed, as 'product liability', by clever slight of chess, in full view and acceptance by the Court, has become the rhetoric of a case law's stretched IR-relevance! Much costly court time has been taken up, with no regulation or adherence to the Rules in sight. 

I have come to the conclusion legal procedure is not about justice. It is about best using the tools of persuasion and amenities at hand to gain the upper hand. Statistics state that only some 5% of all claims manage to reach Trial. By knowingly obstructing the implementation of the Rules as set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Plaintiff's continued abidance by the Master's orders, would have shown flagrant disrespect for the Rules. 

The last 'Long Motion,' with new Defense Counsel in tow, requested continuing demands for more IR-relevant answers (in this Respondent's view). New, old questions were re-entered. Again "In the circumstances," all were ordered relevant by the Master. The respondent still awaits explanation of "In the circumstances." The Master's Endorsement had set out grave conditions for the Respondent/ Plaintiff. Non-compliance would lead to the case dismissal. With this, in fact, Defense would have at long last achieved their objective. Although this is clearly clever Defense, as I see it, it does not reflect well on our Courts of Justice, and its ultimate bottom line: The Rules of Civil Procedure. There is a self-defined, 'je ne sais quoi," bitter irony to this matter. "Civil Procedure" indeed!

The Judicial Oath of Office states: 

                      "I, ______________, swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ______________, and will do right to all manner of people, after the laws and usages of this province, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will; so help me God.".

Thus I concluded I could no longer comply with what I decided to be a blatant obstruction of both Oath and Rules. As such, with my conscience clear, but acknowledged sheer attrition by exhaustion, I was willing to surrender this chapter. In the War of legal chess, I now proceed with my next move: A Divisional Court's Appeal, as well as an application for a Judicial Revue.

_________________________________________________________________________________

This too shall pass...

41. Do Rules Rule, or is Justice a Game?

So here we are, at a possible final destiny. Has this become a battle of a 'Self-Representing' old geyser, who has been told to get off his 'High Horse,' in his efforts to challenge the legal system, by requesting the Court adheres to their self-set Rules?

Is Justice John F. Molloy opinion true: "The once honourable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business."  (?)

 Or is there a final Honourable Judgement by a conscientious judge, who decides to forego 'case law', by acknowledging, and adhering to the Rules?

Or has this just become a desperate, wasteful attempt at keeping the system's ever increasing recruits working for a pay day, to the detriment of facts, and contractual obligations?

If so, there is not only a Lonely Road to Justice, there IS no Road to Justice, since all appears to be a game of which Party has the CLOUT to WIN!

In that case, to hell with Democracy :(! May this undeserving, abusive species perish, to leave a more integrated world with a superior equilibrium! We are a run-away, disgraceful bunch. Our time is up!  

40. A Former Judge Speaks Out.

NOTE: The following article was allowed duplication from the website: http://tulanelink.com _________________________________________________________________________________ “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.   Copyright 2004, Paragon House From an Internet released preview of the book by John Fitzgerald Molloy, The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, Paragon House, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2004.  Reprinted in accordance with the "fair use" provision of Title 17 U.S.C. § 107 for a non-profit educational purpose.

37. RE: DEMOCRACY

The following recently appeared in the Portugal News. It was written by an old friend of mine who recently Googled to find me after some 50 years.

"Dear Editor,

Re: Democracy

Twenty five year ago, when moving my residence to Portugal, I received this advice from a Briton whose family had assimilated here many years before: “Avoid at all cost becoming involved in our politics.  Real power lies not with the parties but with the individuals who form an Establishment which controls government through nominated politicians, entrepreneurs and the law. They all know each other from university; they all belong to the same clubs and secret societies.  What politicians  may say at the hustings is simply rhetoric; they have all formed a broad consensus of how to further their careers to mutual benefit and at the expense of a caring society. “  

Since then, influenced by vast changes in education, communication and international economics, the politics have changed but the political institutions have not. The image of Headmaster Cavaco knocking the heads together of his unruly pupils so that they recognise the need for national unity in time of crisis is wishful thinking. Those pupils owe their present positions to an electorate which has been suborned by a perpetual diet of anti-social propaganda intended to persuade it that a “get rich quick and let the devil take the hindmost” philosophy is to be applauded.   

Our society needs to take a critical look and positive action to defeat the inherent immorality of a system based on the vagaries and dubious values of the American Dream. Democracy is being substituted by a movement towards concentrating immense executive power in a cartel lead by financiers, global corporations and corrupt politicians.

Therefore, I join Mr. Norman Walker´s advocacy of a protest vote for the Bloco de Esquerda in the local elections.  This small party, dedicated to the enhancement of social values and previously led by honest men of undoubted capability, such as Professors Francisco Louça and Miguel Portas, may never govern but it must be given strength to influence the policy of what is momentarily a very unstable coalition.

Sincerely,   Robert Knight

36. RE: REFUSALS + UNDERTAKINGS + the Rules of Civil Procedure

An Ontario, Canada, Judge recently stated the following during a Case Conference between 2 opposing parties:

l. Examinations for discovery
"Discoveries are nearing completion" etc.

Judge Brown then states:
lV. Refusals

[6] "In these times of very constrained judicial resources, I am loath to schedule refusals motions, in large part because experience shows that in most cases they have little tangible impact on the evidence adduced at trial. Dare I say that frequently refusals are no more than tactical posturing by a party, and when the party is faced with the issue of what a trial judge likely will want to hear by way of material evidence, advisements or refusals often crumble in the weeks just before trial."

V. Setting a trial date

[8] I think the parties have reached the stage where they are ready to discuss potential trial dates...

______________________________________________________________________________

On February 15, 2011, former Defense Counsel sent this party the following email:

"I am writing you again with regards to the above noted matter in an effort to resolve it without court intervention.

After a truthful and frank talk with my client, I reported the outcome of our discussions, conveyed your client’s rejection of the last settlement offer, and highlighted the new counter offer being the sum of $150,000.00, to be paid by March 04, 2011.

As mentioned in my last settlement offer correspondence, dated February 15, 2011, my client’s payroll is running on a period-to-period basis and could absolutely not support the payment of your client’s last counter offer.

Therefore, in order to settle this matter expeditiously, my client is willing to disburse the sum of $30,000.00 as a firm and final offer. In doing so, my client is putting himself at high risk of insolvency, and is fully aware that this amount might bring the business to a state where there'll be nothing left for anyone.

On a side note, this particular offer matches the sum paid by your client to the new web developers in order to reconstruct an acceptable, custom built, user friendly, SEO enhanced portal-website, which, as claimed, should have been performed by our client.

Again, I sincerely believe this offer is very fair in the circumstances. In short, a considerable portion of our client original code is still in use, especially the substantial front-end code and design work.

Your immediate reply to this correspondence would be appreciated.

I trust that the foregoing is satisfactory and I remain,"

(name withheld)

________________________________________________________________________________

In addition to the above, then Defense Counsel sent a 7 page PDF which included the following:

l. Principal Complaints

"The Plaintiff appears to have two principal complaints, being the Defendant's failure (1) to provide a fully functional website pursuant to the Statement of Work, signed April 14, 2008, and (2) to fulfill the 90 business day guarantee to remedy the website code pursuant to the Statement of Work." ....etc.

ll. Contractual Obligations and Website Content and Design

"The contract is the source of all the rights and obligations between the parties. It quite clearly states that the website content is to be delivered by the plaintiff. As for the website design, structure and functionality, it was to be built by the defendant based on the Plaintiff's specific instructions and feedback. "

NOTE: The above is HOGWASH! Other than stating the parties at the top of the contract, NOwhere in The Statement of Work is the (Plaintiff) Client EVEN MENTIONED!

lll. Website Contractual Obligation and Budget

The contract deliverables were conceived for a "simplified prototype" website. The Plaintiff expectations were far more then what the contract intended to deliver."

(NOTE: Sorry, the Contract does NOT state this; the Plaintiff's expectations are sealed within the contract; this includes the earlier Proposal, since the 'Contract' would resemble/mirror the Proposal)

"1- The Defendant's deliverables identified in the Statement of Work were completed on a custom built basis. Moreover, the used technologies are proven to be fully robust;"

( NOTE: The use of Cake PHP as a readily available framework is foreign to most all web-developers; the inclusion of V-Bulletin, as a Forum, became an immediate scam/spam intrusive aggravant; not to mention the fact the site was proven in-operable to its first 50 users)
_________________________________________________________________________________

Client's SUMMATION:

1) Offering $30,000 to settle out of court surely indicates more than just 'SOME OBLIGATION'!
2) Having now spent more than $100,000 to defend a '100% Guaranteed' online seal to client commitment and satisfaction has become a sad addendum to actual reality, AS TO THE COMMITMENT TO A SIGNED CONTRACT!

3) Tomorrow is my 'Special Appointment' tele-conference with Master MacLeod.

4) According to the Rules of Civil Procedures, let justice UNFOLD!