127. How LAW should be more like TENNIS!

VIEWS @ 9475

TENNIS:

I am an avid fan of good Tennis. Watching the US open this weekend, I'd like to compare this mostly one-on-one sport, with its strict RULES, to our LEGAL system. The comparisons pale!

Seated in a large amphitheater, the crowd looks down on two opponents ping-ponging their racketed balls across a net. A number of white lined rectangles define the playing field. It's called a COURT. The packed house of focussed eyes, moving constantly, left to right - right to left in rhythm, during sometimes gruelling rallies, until the 'Ball,' the primary object in the game, goes out of bounds.

"OUT' shouts a lines-woman designated to keep her eyes on a specific white line within which the 'BALL' needs to stay - if it is allowed to be replayed by the opponent. The players stop playing. The opponent holds up a hand, requesting to see the electronic-eye verification of the call. The referee, seated up high centre Court, under a canopied chair, states: "(name of player) challenges the call; the ball was called OUT!"

The crowd begins a rhythmic clapping, as the ball, being replayed, is shown on a screen. The ball shows to land, just touching the line. The player is proven correct; the ball was in, the paid-official-line-person erred ! The Rule is decisive; since the ball touched the line - the opponent gets his point. No second guessing, no argument, no crying foul, no motion to dismiss! The crowd applauds enthusiastically.

The game proceeds with thousands of eyes judging and millions of viewers watching at home. There is NO ROOM FOR ERROR. Even if it takes 5 sets, there is no argument; ALL IS CRYSTAL CLEAR, as Rules are firmly applied - on the spot.
With FACTS PROVEN, the winner takes all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
LAW:

Then we have the COURTS of LAW. Although it's not tennis, it has rules. Rules affecting millions of people, the fate of children. One would think - for the sake of humanity - the Rules would be even stricter. Fooled you. This is not the case.

Welcome to the world of business - a 'Business' of Law. This game is called 'Justice.' It has no present. What you see is not what you get, since time - over time - warps facts. What was once relevant, is no longer. Issues changed, the focus has shifted. What made sense once, now lies dormant on the back-seat. Words have been re-arranged; rules are up for grabs. The game is a manipulative shifting of realities.  > Get used to it.

Although Courts are open to the public, most all decision takes place behind closed doors. By phone,  at lunch, conference rooms, or socials - sometimes in bed. The 'Theater' of Argument, the visual view, where, at times the public comes to gawk, is strictly left for sensational cases; those that are covered in the likes of the 'Enquirer', or the 'News!' Then, it's entertainment! "Wow! Listen to that!"

Away from public eyes, we are entrenched in the inclusive world of a set 'club'. Our 'Democracy' has plenty of these internal machinations. I shall not pain to detail a long list.

This morning, while unrolling a blind to avoid immediate sunlight, my eyes fell on a tiny two by four inch mouse nibbled booklet, sitting upturned, on top a row of books on one of my window sills.  'QUOTATIONS FROM CHAIRMAN MAO TSE-TUNG' - going back to may twenties I believe.
Regardless your political leanings, its marker lining page 248 spoke to me:

"It is not hard for one to do a bit of good. What is hard is to do good all one's life and never do anything bad; to act consistently in the interest of the broad masses, the young people and the revolution, and to engage in arduous struggle for decades on end. That is the hardest thing of all."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

With my Appeal in the Divisional Court in Ottawa now slated for December 3, I know full well I am  barking up a deaf tree. As a Self-Representing Litigant outsider, the odds of an un-opinioned  judge acknowledging my argument of officials not adhering to the Rules of Civil Procedure, as stipulated, justice notwithstanding, is like asking John McEnroe to return to Tennis and win the US Open.

So with much at question, and oodles continuing unclear, I will venture to continue to interpret this date. I intend to appear in person, represented or not, with a naive hope the system will explain itself: a hope I am at least allowed to dig up my dormant claim and, after some dusting, take it to trial.

Next post will take me to dissect Master Macleod's Interlocutory Dismissal. Peeling it apart, I will question the text, the meaning, and at times my views on the rhetoric of its language.