99. IDIOM: Forest For The Trees?

VIEWS @ 7889

Definition: "If someone can't see the forest for the trees, they are so caught up in small details, they fail to understand the bigger picture." 

As I am trying to gather my wits, several points come to mind here.

I am now in possession of Defense's Appeal response Materials. Although I will be cautious not to divulge details, since it could effect the September 10th, 2014, Ottawa appeal date, I will attempt to objectify what I perceive is occurring. Remember, I am somewhat depleted in both energy and attitude.

Follow me through this please, as if it were a new chapter, a new beginning, a new springtime for sewing new seeds of thought.

An Artist creates Art; an Actor acts out a part; a Performer performs a piece ; a Builder builds a structure; a digger digs a hole; an Accountant accounts for financial records; a Lawyer practices law!

DEFINITION: 'Practice'

1) The actual application or use of an idea, belief, or method, as opposed to theories about such application or use.

2) Repeated exercise in, or performance of an activity or skill, so as to acquire or maintain proficiency in it.

Granted, the concept of 'Practice,' in order to become proficient at anything, applies across the spectrum of occupations. Yet, "practicing law" does not indicate or clarify any adherence, or finite obedience to the profession itself.  Where the digger digs, the builder builds, or plumber plumbs, the lawyer practices!

So I am coming to a clearer overall concept of the process of practicing law. A recent email asked me if I was coming to Ottawa to "argue your appeal in person." The concept clarifies itself with the realization I will need to "ARGUE" my positional stance in front of a 'JUDGE.' And only if my oral capacity (based on having practiced my  'ARGUMENT') should be superior to the Defense's 'ARGUMENT,' might the Judge > should she/he be in a mood too favor my 'ARGUMENT'> consent to my appeal.

I would then, having practiced my trade as a novice, self-representing litigant as such, have WON the ARGUMENT. Aha! Such may lie ahead of me in the theatre of a Court Room.

If indeed this is, (and it appears so) the reality of LAW, and any "relevance to the issues at hand" (i.e. the original CLAIM BASED ON CONTRACTUAL NON-COMPLIANCE) have been LOOONG forgotten.

Over some 4 years time of discovery, defense filed motions to dismiss, and Master allowed indulgence of questions ultimately considered "relevant in the circumstances," matters have been stretched to the point where NONE of what was originally served and filed is any longer on the table. In fact, the tables were turned. By practicing constructive manipulation, the Claimant has been made the culprit.

Well 'practiced' ARGUMENTS by Defense over time created a reversal of roles: Defense's position became that of the 'MOVING PARTY, turning the Claimant into the Responding Defendant. Then, with a Master's siding, managed to hang the recalcitrant considered Self-Representing Filing Party for throwing in the towel by refusing to continue answering most irrelevant-to-claim questions.

FROM THE CANADIAN BAR REVIEW

"The law requires that parties to a contract exercise their rights under that agreement honestly, fairly and in good faith. This standard is breached when a party acts in a bad faith manner in the performance of its rights and obligations under the contract.

“Good faith” conduct is the guide to the manner in which the parties should pursue their mutual contractual objectives. Such conduct is breached when a party acts in “bad faith” - a conduct that is contrary to community standards of honesty, reasonableness or fairness."

We have yet to deal with the contract based issues of the claim at hand if, indeed, the relevant facts are to be allowed front and center. To date, all has been posturing in order to avoid the facts. With all the practicing of law, we can not see the Forest for the Trees.