56. Justice of The Peace Code of Ethics

Site Views = 4615

I made a mistake about the deadline for my appeal. When ordered transcripts are a part of your appeal, the deadline for filing kicks in the moment you have been advised the transcripts have been completed (and are thus ready for payment and delivery). Upon that 'announcement' you have 60 days to 'perfect your appeal and file your documents.

This makes me breathe easier, because I was beginning to panic for not having them, thinking I had to file within 30 days after serving my 'Notice of Appeal,' (which would have been so, had I not included the transcripts for Exhibit review) This now gives me the opportunity to continue here.

A reader's comment about not being physically present at an appeal hearing verifies what I have experienced and discussed. Jurisdictional disparity (i.e. by lack of bodily representation being the 'foreign' presence) makes it nigh impossible for a court officer to remain unbiased. Rather then confuse below with additional material, I will post as is, and argue my next point in the following post.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE CODE OF ETHICS 

A code of ethics specific to JPs was originally proposed by the Justice of the Peace Association 

of British Columbia. Like the code of ethics for Provincial Court Judges, the Justice of the Peace 

Code of Ethics provides very important guidance to JPs on how to discharge their responsibilities 

as judicial officers. The Code of Ethics, as approved by the Judicial Council of B.C., appears 

below: 

Independence 

Rule Justices of the Peace must both be and appear to be independent, impartial, and unbiased. 

1.00   

Rule Justices of the Peace must avoid all conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived, and are 

1.01 responsible for promptly taking appropriate steps to disclose, resolve, or obtain advice with 

respect to such conflicts when they arise. 

Rule Justices of the Peace should not be influenced by partisan interests, public opinion, or by fear of 

1.02 criticism. 

Rule Justices of the Peace should not use their title and position to promote their own interests or the 

1.03 interests of others. 

Rule Justices of the Peace should discharge their duties in accordance with the law. 

1.04 

Rule Justices of the Peace are subject to the Provincial Court Act and the authority and guidance of 

1.05 the Chief Judge acting thereunder. 

Knowledge 

Rule Justices of the Peace should maintain their competence through their work, by participating in 

2.00 training and education courses and by seeking guidance from the Office of the Chief Judge in 

specific areas as required. 

Rule Justices of the Peace should remain up to date on changes in the law relevant to their judicial 

2.01 function. 

  

Conduct 

Rule Justices of the Peace are subject to ongoing public scrutiny and therefore they must respect and 

3.00 comply with the law and conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public 

confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. 

Rule Justices of the Peace should approach their duties in a calm and courteous manner when dealing 

3.01 with the public and others and should present and conduct themselves in a manner consistent 

with the dignity of the Court and their office. 

Rule Justices of the Peace should convey in plain language their decisions and the reasons therefore 

3.02 where such are legally required.

Rule Justices of the Peace must safeguard the confidentiality of information that comes to them by 

3.03 virtue of their work and should not disclose that information except as required by law. 

Rule In discharging their duties, Justices of the Peace must treat those with whom they deal in a 

3.04 respectful and tolerant manner regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, culture, 

language, mental abilities, or physical abilities of those persons. 

Administration of Justice 

Rule Justices of the Peace shall refrain from openly and publicly criticizing the administration of justice 

4.00 or the conduct of others. Justices of the Peace shall recognize that only the Chief Judge may 

speak publicly on behalf of the Provincial Court and that through appropriate channels, it is to the 

Chief Judge that they should communicate their criticisms, suggestions, and concerns. 

Rule Justices of the Peace should deal with the tasks that come before them in a timely manner and 

4.01 should make themselves accessible to those requiring their services. 

  

Infringement of the Code of Ethics 

Rule Justices of the Peace who infringe this Code of Ethics act inconsistently with the interests of the 

5.00 administration of justice and offend the honour and dignity of the Court. 

55. RE: Software License/Contract (LEXOLOGY)

Views @ 4615

The following is an online copy; Note my 'underlined' adds.

"A practical guide to software license agreements: governing law and dispute resolution

• Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
• Canada
• November 12 2013
•  

"Software license agreements usually contain provisions that specify the law that governs the agreement and a procedure for resolving disputes relating to the agreement. Those provisions can have a significant effect on the rights and obligations of the software vendor and customer. The software vendor and customer should select a governing law that is appropriate for the agreement and a dispute resolution procedure and venue that are appropriate and fair to both parties." 

(Note: Our contract fails to deal with a suitable 'venue.' Courts refer to it as 'Jurisdiction.')

Governing Law

"To properly negotiate a software license agreement, and to perform obligations and exercise rights under the agreement, both the software vendor and the customer must know the legal rules that govern the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement. Those legal rules will be determined primarily by the law of a particular jurisdiction (i.e. a country or province/state), which is commonly called the “governing law”. The governing law is important because different jurisdictions have different legal rules relevant to software license agreements, and even a small difference in legal rules can have a significant effect on the rights and obligations of the software vendor and the customer."

"Under Canadian law, a software license agreement is usually governed by the law specified in the agreement or, if the governing law is not specified, the law of the jurisdiction that has the most real and substantial connection to the agreement. If a software license agreement with connections to multiple jurisdictions (e.g. the contracting parties are in different countries) does not specify the governing law, then a court or arbitrator will determine the governing law if there is a dispute regarding the agreement."

(NOTE: With the creation of web-sites and, in our case, almost daily email connectives and exchanges, it becomes a moot point as to the concept of "the most real and substantial connection...") 

"It is usually best if the software vendor and customer include in the software license agreement a provision that specifies the governing law, so that the vendor and customer know with certainty the law that will govern the agreement. Most software vendors and customers prefer their respective local law to be the governing law, but a different law might be better. The software vendor and customer should select a governing law based on careful consideration of the potential effect of the law on all aspects of the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement. The selection of a governing law presents considerations of cost and risk, because a contracting party that is not familiar with a proposed foreign governing law must either obtain legal advice from a qualified foreign lawyer or accept the risk that the foreign law is materially different from the law of the contracting party’s jurisdiction."

(NOTE: NOT in our case! Live and learn.)

Dispute Resolution

"Software license agreements often specify a procedure for the resolution of disputes between the software vendor and customer. Dispute resolution procedures can include some or all of the following:

• informal negotiation – one or more rounds of direct negotiation by representatives of the vendor and customer, with each round of negotiation involving more senior representatives.
• mediation – negotiation facilitated by an independent and experienced neutral person  (a “mediator”)  who  assists the vendor and customer to try to achieve a negotiated resolution of the dispute but does not have authority to impose a binding decision.
• arbitration – formal dispute resolution through a private adversarial process in which the vendor and customer present evidence and argument to one or more independent decision makers (“arbitrators”) who have authority to impose a binding decision that is subject to review by a court in limited circumstances.
• litigation – formal dispute resolution through a public adversarial process in the applicable court system in which the vendor and customer present evidence and argument to an independent decision maker (a “judge”) who has authority to impose a binding decision that is subject to review by an appeals court."

"Each kind of dispute resolution procedure has advantages and disadvantages, including varying degrees of privacy/confidentiality, timeliness/speed and finality. The optimal dispute resolution procedure will depend upon the nature and circumstances of the software licensing transaction and the preferences of the software vendor and customer."

"The location (also known as “venue”) of a dispute resolution process can impose significant costs and logistical burdens on either or both of the disputing parties. Dispute resolution in a local venue can provide a significant home field advantage. The dispute resolution venue does not have to be in the governing law jurisdiction. A software vendor and customer might negotiate a compromise on this issue by selecting a neutral dispute resolution venue or agreeing that the party commencing dispute resolution proceedings will do so in the other party’s local venue."

(NOTE: When Judge Justine Saunders in BC, dismissed my case, based on "lack of Jurisdiction," she was clearly not aware of the Ontario Default Rule for filing: "RULE 6 FORUM AND JURISDICTION 6.01 (1) An action shall be commenced, (a) in the territorial division (1) in which the cause of action arose, or "...  Had I filed in Ontario, a judge would have been correct to order a dismissal, based on the Default rule for filing :)... Sickening Ironies abounds! 

Recommendations

• "The governing law of a software license agreement should be selected based on appropriate legal advice and consideration of the potential effect of the law on all aspects of the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement. A dispute resolution procedure should be selected based on consideration of the comparative costs and benefits of each kind of procedure. A dispute resolution venue should be fair to both the software vendor and customer."

(NOTE: In my ultimate compilation of an online case-file, I will strongly suggest (providing the client can prove full payment for work done) the venue for litigation be the client's 'venue.' ) 

54. PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH TRUTH...

Pageviews: 4567

I just had to go here. As with any effort of expression, there are at least two sides to everything. If there wasn't, you could not compare anything. We live on the perpetual tightrope of a teeter-totter. Stand in the middle, and nothing happens; balanced, you are in limbo. The Scales of Justice work like that. Make a valid point, finger the correlating rule, and 'Bingo,' you are rewarded with a cookie. The scale tilts in your favour. But, overlook the trap, omit a technicality, and the consequences are immediate. Gotye!

So a fool is born to play the village idiot - every day. I too am that idiot who flies where angels fear to tread. Or is it mere self-indulgence? Or as one 'professional' put it: "You've got nothing better to do, with all that time on your hands..." There's truth in everything. Even the psychopath suckled from his loving mother's breasts. Poor thing, look at him now! What's become of you? Who's to blame? What matters anymore? A defense lawyer is there to DEFEND! NOT to ask who's right, or wrong?

I get paid to do a job, pay my mortgage, my car collection, my addict son, his offspring. We must grow the economy; to hell with anyone stands in my way... and that includes you - buddy!
Like 'SumOfUs.org,' 'ForrestEthics,' 'FriendsofCBC,' 'LeadNow.ca,' etc., we are questioning where it is we are going "in the circumstances." (Remember this phrase, I will be continuing to use it, until I can decipher what it means.)

To sum-up, before I go back to my Appeal Docs ( Exhibit Book; Factum; transcripts etc.), this effort is to put the word out; to reach out to others who just know they have been had, and with facts - can prove it! And, in so doing, see if my teeter-totter efforts can bring Some of Us, out of the Forrest (which we can't see because of the trees) and possibly, through some connective tissue, grow this effort in to a sensible, working force, that can become, not only useful to others, but by leading now, stifle some of this hemorrhaging, and STOP the creature from bleeding to death.


If there are individuals out there with proven talent and untainted conscience, who are willing and able to help bring this legally sinking ship to cruise another day, please don't hesitate to connect. In the meantime, spread the word. May the parasite of noble intentions overcome the evil of the wayward.
"Playing Russian Roulette with Truth"may not be such a bad bullet.

53. Appeal DEADLINE > ??

I have just come to realize I was WRONG in my calculations with the deadline for filing my Appeal! The Government's online instructions read, under the heading: 

"What is the deadline for perfecting my appeal?"

When there is no transcript of evidence required, you must perfect your appeal within 30 days of when you filed your Notice of Appeal. Where a transcript of evidence is required, you must perfect within 60 days of receiving notice that the transcript has been completed."

I am awaiting the notice of completion of the order of two transcripts. This would indicate, that as of today, November 15, 2013, there is as yet no definite filing deadline.
_________________________________________________________________________________
VIEWS TO DATE 4495

Together with the messages the Court sent me, below is a section of our government's online instructions. Conflicting when combined, they are responsible for my ultimate confusion.

"Review the pleadings in the action

* The examination may relate to any matter in issue in the proceedings as raised by the pleadings and particulars. In order for a question to be allowed and not refused at discovery, it must be relevant; it must relate to an issue raised in the pleadings. Have a working familiarity with all pleadings in the action.

* Create a pleadings summary, if necessary, summarizing the key points raised in each pleading. 

*Summarize potential lines of questioning applicable to each pleading, keeping in mind the elements of any causes of action and applicable defences that you want to explore."

Although I posted several new postings on BLOG: Case #10-49776, presently entrenched in gathering docs for my Appeal deadline, I will likely not be back here until later this month. Until then...:)

52. HOW TO AVOID SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT

A reader's much appreciated comment has created a wake-up call. I have withdrawn a number of sensitive posts, delegating them to 'draft.' Thank you CS.

Anger, feelings of betrayal, confusion, and sheer loneliness, can lead to one's frustrated flailing, where intoxicated, as if possessed by parasites, you loose all sight of rationale. Nothing seems to matter more than the tantrum aired. Any animal in distress reverts to abhorrent behaviour.

foolhardy |ˈfoōlˌhärdē|adjective ( -dier, -diest)recklessly bold or rash : it would be foolhardy to go into the scheme without support.
I previously visited and mulled over the above definition. Sound reasoning tells me to listen to all who continue to remind me I do not stand a hope in hell of getting anywhere.  Why is it then that I feel compelled to fight? Why can I not just swallow the essence of this reality? 
"It would be foolhardy to go into the scheme without support."
scheme |skēm|nouna large-scale systematic plan or arrangement for attaining some particular object or putting a particular idea into effect. 
"without support" ('foolhardy' - 'scheme' - no 'support').  So, without 'support,' it would be 'foolhardy' to even challenge the 'scheme.' 
Ergo: Since my 'support' is nigh on zero - no bucks, jurisdictional disparity while self-representing in the Capitol of the Country, up against the most well-integrated in the system, WHO do I think I am fooling?  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
This motivates me to reflect on a more all-encompassing resolution of an individual's behaviour.After opinioning I was in the Third Act of my life (as I related it to a full-length play), a friend of mine who recently found me on Google after some 53 years, now in his eighties, felt he was in his 4th Act!   
There, already, was a simple, yet entirely new take on the concept of existence itself. At times, in conversation, en passant so-to-speak, I might mention that as one of the last born colonialists (i.e. Indonesia in 1939) while still in a jungle prison camp in northern Sumatra, at six, in late '45, I did not realize until early adulthood that both H-bombs at Hiroshima, as well as Nagasaki, while exterminating tens of thousands, in fact had saved my life.  
I am positive that the acute awareness of  'the moment', as I continue to live its 'present,' will continue to be a major factor to how I sense and behave in 'time'. Although these days an accepted philosophical factor (Eckhart Tolle, "The Power of Now"), while I was growing up with that attitude to time, and the 'here and now', and how that was all there was when you are a starving child, I was severely reprimanded for it in my early adulthood (sixties).
At the time, the system was still entrenched by focusing on the 'lay away plan' for one's latter years. i.e., it was 'irresponsible' NOT to have that thinking be the overall incentive to life.The world has now caught up, and indeed, we have ALL become vulnerable. All of us now suffer from that realization there is NOTHING that can be taking for granted! ANYTHING could happen at ANY-time, and put us all out of our collective misery.
SO, with this posting, I am taking HEED of the recent warning/ alarm as indicated by "CS." I again state a caring and appreciative: "Thank You."  I will be more general with my uploads; I will try to reach out to see if I can find 'Support' that may help to, possibly, become conducive to positive change, in a more gentle, less confronting manner.
heed |hēd|verb [ trans. ]pay attention to; take notice of : he should have heeded the warnings.
I think "HE" just did!

51. Enslaved to dedication

Views at 3610

To the common man, most all of life is the drudgery of maintenance. So, once the daily bodily chores have been taken care of, and the ship that's home is prepared to sail another day, I set myself down with that gnawing feeling of commitment, and dedicate the bulk of most my days to the 'luxury' of self-expression. All with the intention, some useful legacy, some contribution, prevents the same nightmare from happening to someone else.

There will likely be less volume in this site until the appeal comes around. I'm still not certain how you, the reader, have access from this site (The Lonely Road) to the Case Study.

50. Politics Leads - The Law Follows

3588 Views...

With finger-pointing at the very office of Prime Minister Harper during the present political scandal concerning the deeply troubled Senate issues, it is no wonder lilliputians like myself easily fall by the wayside. Thanks, or blame, to Steve Jobs and Google to allow old farts like me their modicum of reflection on the state of this, our developed world.

'Politic' [Definition]
Adjective (of an action): seemingly sensible and judicious under the circumstances
Verb: engage in political activity: (politicking) often derogatory [related] 'sagacious' (adjective) - having or showing keen mental discernment and good judgment; shrewd
'shrewd' (adjective) - having or showing sharp powers of judgment; astute (also: - mischievous; malicious)

The phrase "under the circumstances" will haunt me to my grave. My ordered transcript for the two most telling sessions contains my question to Master MacLeod during the definitive September 20, 2013, motion hearing: "Would you please explain the meaning of: "All questions are relevant under the circumstance." Master MacLeod's answer: "It's not the rule of the court to give you advice."

 I have plenty of indications where 'the court,' with its presiding officer, has indicated advice - freely. "You may appeal if you like, Mr. Steen; but I would advice you seek counsel."(The honourable Judge Justine Saunders).  Then again I have learned the hard way, it is the prerogative of the presiding 'ONE' in charge, to set the tone of the rules and regulations.
Call it politic, call it brute force, call it the idiosyncrasies of ingredients that arise from particular circumstances to combine by order to represent justice; just - ice Power!

If democracy does not allow a citizen to ask an officer the reason, or meaning of his actions; if the state's rules do not reflect the state's actions; then democracy speaks with a forked tongue.

Does  Mr. Harper, have to explain his actions? When the Master orders, citizen Steen may NOT question the 'circumstances.' Right, or wrong - abide, or else! 'That's Just the Way it Is!'

Led by politics, like a meek puppy, the Law follows. It's called: 'Democracy.'

So wake up, and smell the coffee already.