18. Cover Letter to the Attorneys General of Canada.

FOR THE RECORD
(Re: Ottawa, Ontario, Superior Court Case #10-49776)

'Dear' Attorneys General of Canada:

Somehow the word "Dear" feels out of place. I know you not and, in my present state, repressing underlying anger, the word tends towards the sarcastic. Sarcasm has no place in open, mature dialogue.

Yet, like rules, it is the protocol word in place. Unless revisited, re-assessed, and 'improved,' as your offices did in 2010 by narrowing the boundaries of interpretation in the Discovery stages of a legal case, it continues its usage. With noble intentions to sharpen meaning, streamline courts' procedures, the introduction of the Long Discovery Plan is playing havoc with my case.  

I have discovered that behind the scenes legal brethren turn a blind eye, while continuing to stretch at will. Give a starving dog a bone and it will bark, tenaciously protecting it. The best Defense is a good Offence! Barrage the Claimer with "You did it!" Inundate him with rhetoric of misinterpretation and paint him as a wanting old fool. By sheer volume of materials, filings of Motions to dismiss, calling the Claim "frivolous", the blog "vexatious", by attrition hope to wear the distant Respondent down. And, "yes," I have now reached that stage! The Ontario Master assessed, ordered, and I paid for costs. His lines are drawn!

With my earlier Blog running the affairs of what became a Counterclaim of Defamation (deleted to show good will), I have again uploaded a new interpretation. In this war to discover Justice, the means of a Google Blog seems to be the only real tool available to me. Its title: 'The Lonely Road to Justice' may need re-evaluation. My intent is not to change it to: 'The Road that Guarantees Injustice'

To make the following crystal clear. With a late case's implementation of mandatory mediation pro-forma rubber-stamped, with more than the requisitioned written materials filed, this case is beyond ready for Trial! The rub remains; the stalling continues. Court allowing, Defense continues to stretch, interfering with due process. The latest allowable motion for yet more demands for answers to case irrelevant questions at long last has broken the spirits of this respondent. 

With this Case in hand, I am herewith asking your offices to revisit your 2010 'Adjusted, and improved' Rules of Civil Procedure, and assess whether your anointed officials are in-deed practicing your teachings; then decide if never-ending irrelevant rhetoric is proof fact adherence to the Rules.
Which is ultimately superior by implementation?

Should you discover any misconduct at play and be willing to voice it, I will be more than interested to share it. Should you NOT, I am prepared to undergo a psychiatric assessment to establish whether I indeed qualify for the Bronze luny award of the year. I might be the culprit! Only Time will tell.

I look forward to your assessment and guidance.

Respectfully Yours,

(This June 24, 2013)

E. Jan Steen

cc: - The Honourable Rob Nicholson, Attorney General of Canada
     - The Honourable John Gerritsen, Attorney General of Ontario
     - The Honourable Suzanne Anton, Attorney General of British Columbia