23. THE 'IN'-SANITY OF TRUST

Words with no meaning lead to the insanity of justice.

The days of honour, a meaningful handshake, looking eye-2-eye - are gone. We are inundated with the hype of manipulation. "But wait! There's more..." - Buy NOW, and you'll get it almost for nothing! 100% guaranteed!

I can not play this cheating game. You are what you do, not what you say you will. We are becoming less grounded as I see it. How well does a guilty conscience fair? How harmonious can the package be? The following is a list of case relevant words and their definitions.
If ever this claim manages to get to trial, these words will either be held up, or bent, to fit the suit.

DEFINITION OF:

1) Contract: A written or spoken agreement, that is enforceable by law.
2) Signature: A person's name written in a distinctive way as a form of identification.
3) Product: A substance that is manufactured for sale.
4) Project: An individual or collaborative enterprise that is carefully planned and designed to achieve a particular aim.
5) Aim: Point or direct at a target; have the intention of achieving. ("Aiming at 6 weeks")
6) Intention: An aim, or plan. ("...intending to be legally bound thereby.")
7) Similar: Resembling without being identical. ("Similar to Craigslist and Kijiji")
8) Timeline: A graphic representation of the passage of time.
9) Milestone: An action or event marking a significant change or stage in development.
10) Goal: An aim or desired result. "The dates are identified as goal dates based on the project timeline of 8 weeks."
11) Liability: The state of being responsible for.
12) Agreement: A negotiated and typically legally binding arrangement between parties as to a course of action.

13) COLLUSION:  Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, esp. in order to cheat or deceive someone, esp. between opponents in a lawsuit.

14) LAW: The system of Rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

15) RULE: One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles, governing conduct with a particular activity or sphere, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable.

NOTE:

The Rules of Civil Procedure, as created by Canada's highest court officials, prescribe Questions during the Discovery phase to be "relevant to the matters in issue." The matters in issue deal with the Respondent/Plaintiff's claim of a non-compliant contract - no more; nothing less.

The Rules, regarding questions posed by either party (as 'improved' in 2010), state the former phrase: "the semblance of relevance" to be re-fined to "relevance." Additional adjustments set out to re-define earlier Rules which allowed for a broadness of subjectivity and irrelevance. This had led to increased costs and Court time.

The present continuous Defense allowable barrage of non-relevant questions in this case shows serious rule-applicable disparities to this Plaintiff. The Court's allowances for continued Defense Motions to be filed, shows this Plaintiff a failure to abide by the 2010 'improved rules.'

As a Canadian citizen I have equal right to the laws and, as per its officers oath of office, I am entitled to equal and unbiased treatment.

I seriously question the Court's financial penalties already imposed upon me. Living on a basic pension, I was forced financially to self-represent. At this stage I am deeply in debt.
An earlier filed Plaintiff's Motion 'lost in the paperwork' indicates a serious discrepancy, showing my lack of jurisdiction further handicaps me. Additionally, the Government's Legal online system has as yet to allow distant claimants to handle their affairs efficiently. This clearly further impedes me.

This Google Blog seems to be my only practical tool to reach out.