62. Summation from Blog No.2

VIEWS @4911

I have copied this from my Case #10-49776 Blog, just in case you did not access it. The text reflects my responses to the contract, signed on April 14, 2008, on which every legally applicable 'truth-by-fact' is meant to reflect, and as yet, hasn't.

SUMMATION:

Words, words, words! All hollow, wrapped in a contract, defended by excuses. 
Well-intended, or merely a PR ploy? To me it is disgraceful! A circus sideshow.
I understand Defense has spent over $100,000. to date.
I have been forced by the courts to pay for costs, now over $5,000.
It has ruined my life, soon coming up to 6 years.

The reader must understand that my original claim was confined to:  'contractual non-compliance'
No more; no less! My earlier Blog reported on case procedures. I had been informed that once materials are served and filed with our courts, they are in essence 'Public Property.'
Even emails written by the Prime Minister to his staff are 'Public Property.'

My name is out there; I have nothing to hide, but might have something to fear. Are we now threatened to live with fear? What might I have said that is so 'unacceptable? The truth, represented by facts? Our democracy is unfolding here, and it does not feel 'comfortable.'

When filing their Statement of Defense, with a Counterclaim of 'Defamation,' Defense, with Counsel, managed to pull the focus away from the claim. We have, in fact, not addressed the issues of the claim, since defense managed, with Motions to dismiss, waylay any attention to the claim with their determined focus on keeping me busy answering questions in 'Discovery and Undertakings that had NO relevance to the claim. This has been allowed for over 2 years now.

At one point, June 2012, I decided, I had more than enough evidence, and felt we needed NOT abuse the Court's time any longer. But Defense decided it was not satisfied, and kept delaying procedure by asking more far-fetched questions. These were somehow tolerated by the courts. A feat I still do not understand Case Management allowed.

Remember, it came to the Master ordering me: "All questions are relevant in the circumstances." That phrase has still not been explained to me. What ARE the circumstances? Why are questions about my past career relevant to WHAT circumstances? The Contract? In which as you read I had ZERO duties to fulfill? I call it MADNESS! We have gone belly UP!

Later, when we come to close this case down, I will discuss: The matter of Self-Representation from a distant Jurisdiction. Although our Government makes allowances for it, it just does NOT WORK!
Certainly NOT in more complicated cases like this, that, in fact, should NEVER have been allowed to become so convoluted!

This too will end... surely...