- e.lu.sive
adjective
difficult to find, catch, or achieve : success will become ever more elusive.• difficult to remember or recall : the elusive thought he had had moments before.
adjectiveclosely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand : the candidate's experience is relevant to the job.
- jus.ticenoun1 just behavior or treatment : a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people.• the quality of being fair and reasonable : the justice of his case.• the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this : a tragic miscarriage of justice.• ( Justice) the personification of justice, usually a blindfolded woman holding scales and a sword.2 a judge or magistrate, in particular a judge of the supreme court of a country or state.
Eugenie Bouchard just got clobbered at Wimbledon. Relevance was borne out - in front of our democratic eyes to witness. No argument; nothing elusive; justice stood firm. The matter at hand proved the facts. Petra Kvitova was clearly superior. But! Eugenie will be back. Bet on it.
However! This was NOT a game! This was a battle proven by fact! In the circumstances of a CENTER COURT, in the most respected and visible arena of its kind. The spectacle unfolded loud and clear, in the presence of tens of millions of people.
Every aspect of the laws of tennis were on display. The umpire's job was clear and easy. Relevance was in full view. There was not a single excuse. JUSTICE had its day.
And so it should be in the Courts of Law! NOT behind closed doors, by phone, coffee, or tete a tete at a cocktail party. No enhancement, or special treatment for any one party. The laws are relevant, for view by everyone. We, the people, own the law. And the officers, as our pillars of society, are there to protect the people; ALL of the people! THAT is true JUSTICE!
It has been 5 years for this 75 year old SRL. The relevance that are the issues of the claim (the highly defined, factual issues of a non-compliant contract) have yet to be heard. Due process has been re-interpreted. The Heart-of-the Matter may never be confronted.
The insidious game of law by practice, has become a confusing bag of rhetoric. I have encountered sham in its hypocrisy. The elusive relevance of RELEVANT has bored a distaste in to my soul. Since I experienced nothing relevant, I feel the shame of my species, questioning JUSTICE, fuelled by its purported virtues laws.
Responding to my reference of the changed Rules of Civil Procedure in 2010, Master Macleod on September 20th, 2013, stated:
"I've read what you said about that and I've read - and I know all about that because amongst other things, I was at the rules committee when they passed the rules, so. But I will tell you that, we're not debating that today, that is what Master Roger was supposed to take into account when he made his order. "
The Judge on September 10, 2014, may well opinion:
' What is relevant today is whether the Masters erred in their dismissal. We are not dealing with proportionality and fairness or any possible merits of the case. You did not comply with the Masters' orders to answer the questions they had determined relevant in the circumstances. Since I have no jurisdiction to question the Masters orders, I can not overturn their dismissal. Good day sir. ... Next! '
I have 2 months to decide whether to drive to Ottawa to attend in person. What can be achieved?Am I grandstanding? What are the chances the appointed judge will recognize irregularities, collusion? Who will she/he be representing? What are my chances? All I ask for is that the present Rules are applied and adhered to. They are far from perfect as they stand. There are far too many holes represented by "ORs" and "What-ever" or "When-ever." Willy-nilly Applications and Motion allowances, are skewing up the essence of efficiency and fairness.
I am looking for CONSTRUCTIVE ADVICE from anyone who will share it. Is there a technicality I need to watch out for? What are the bets on the outcome?
In order to achieve my day in Trial, to assess and evaluate my claim, I seek my appeal, hoping to fill the court room on the 10th of September at 2 PM in the Superior Court in Ottawa, with those of us who are tired of professional in-house rhetoric, demanding straight forward Justice.
To go, or not to go? That is the question. I have 2 months to decide. Life is short and I am fully aware of it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PS: And if the reader is not clear on what the above is based on:
1) I have been questioning Defense's Court allowances for continued demands for additional questions based on my answers to their earlier discovery questions. Questions that had ZERO relevance to the pleadings, i.e. issues of the claim based on contractual non-compliance.
2) What other web-developers did I approach? Supply a Business Plan; a Marketing Plan; Your CV. What jobs did I do as a Handyman? What was my education?
3) All questions considered "relevant under the circumstances" by the Masters- All questions and motions asking for dismissal, motivated to stretch the process, since Defense had absolutely NO INTENTION to EVER go to Trial and get to the 'Heart of the Matter' (i.e. the Contract).
4) For those who do not remember. Signed by both Parties on April 19, 2008:
a) The contract was to develop a custom-built, interactive, online classifieds based on Postal/Zip Codes for North America. Total cost: $43,000 (All monies were paid; no question)
b) The contract had a July 11, 2008, COMPLETION DATE.
c) The completion date came and went. By October 30, the site was still in-complete. Reluctantly uploaded - by myself - complying with a contractual 90 day free fixing allowance, the site proved in-operable.
d) With its crucial timing phase: "On the Internet a little late is too late" (Bill Gates) and time and additional monies spent elsewhere to create a professional, working site, the site was doomed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment