'DAMNED IF YOU DO; DAMNED IF YOU DON'T'
"… those who preach it up, to make the Bible clash and contradict itself, by preaching somewhat like this: 'You can and you can't - You shall and you shan't - You will and you won't - And you will be damned if you do - And you will be damned if you don't.' " (Evangelist Lorenzo Dow, 1836)
Little seems to make real sense anymore. Scientists inform, we are loosing 200 species a day. Looking at the absolute chaos and madness we are surrounded by these days, like Custard's Last Stand, I have come to realize I have reached a last opportunity to make a final 'ARGUMENT' of my case, and my reasonings, in Court. Anticipating the outcome, at least it will be closure to this effort.
The fact it has even come to this stage is a disgrace in itself. It emphasizes the fact our systems are broken, if ever they worked. My insistence on sanity, by questioning procedure, when holding Rules up to Process, has led me to where I stand. To think one has to ARGUE one's case, is an indication the Rules don't work. To me a rule = a rule! Like a STOP sign, or a RED light. If you do NOT STOP AT THE RED LIGHT, YOU ARE GUILTY > AND YOU PAY!
There is NO ARGUMENT!
NOTE: I ask the reader to carefully decipher the rhetoric of the following quoted texts, and attempt to ascertain a CLEAR UNDERSTANDING of the meaning of the words.
December 06, 2012.
In MASTER PIERRE ROGER'S response to Defence's Motion to dismiss the claim (repeated filed motions with this request), the Master's ENDORSEMENT reads:
1. "This motion is really or primarily a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's action for failing to answer questions asked under rule 35, and for failing to comply with previous endorsements."
TO THIS PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT I WENT FAR BEYOND YOUR ORDERS - SIR!
"...previous orders were made at case conferences without assessing the sufficiency of the answers;"WHO'S JOB WAS IT TO ASSESS THAT?
- "...previous orders were not specific but rather a general request ..."
IS A GENERAL REQUEST - AN ORDER? IF AN ORDER IS NOT AN ORDER BUT A GENERAL REQUEST, what is a foot soldier to do? Not kill the enemy, cause she's cute?
- "... most of the outstanding questions are follow-up questions arising from previous answers (there have been a number of follow-up questions)"
THE APPELLANT ASKS "WHEN IS ENOUGH ENUFF?'
- "The above is a fair and reasonable disposition, in the circumstances of this case.
WHAT 'disposition'? WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES?"
DEF: Disposition: * a person's inherent qualities of mind and character:
* the action of arranging or ordering people or things in a particular way:
* (dispositions) military preparations,in particular the stationing of troopsready for attack or defines;
* the power to deal with something as one pleases: if Napoleon had had railroads at his disposition, he would have been invincible. (HMMM, mulls this appellant)
RULE 35 PROCEDURE ON EXAMINATION FOR DISCOVERY BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS
Under Court Order for Further Answers, Rule 35.04 (2) states:
"Where the person being examined refuses or fails to answer a proper question or where the answer to a question is insufficient, the court may order the person to answer ..." (etc)
OK reader, we are speaking ENGLISH here! WORDS are ALL we got! The 'usage,' 'order,' together with their MEANING determines the over-all SENSE!
Follow me - PLEASE!
IMPROPER CONDUCT OF EXAMINATION
Rule 35.05 : On motion by the person being examined, or by any party, the court may terminate the written examination or limit its scope where,
(a) the right to examine is being abused by an excess of improper questions; or
(b) the examination is being conducted in bad faith, or in an unreasonable manner so to annoy, embarrass or oppress the person being examined.
Now let us spend a moment with the text, and usage of WORDS, as per above.
- A PROPER question, as opposed to an IM-PROPER question.
I render 2 SAMPLE questions:
Blogger: 'Did you have steak for breakfast?' or, 'Did steak have you for breakfast?'
On first reading, it would appear, the second question could well be considered 'IM'- proper.
However, should the steak you had for breakfast kill you, (i.e. it was IM-properly cooked),
you might well ARGUE, the sentence: "Did steak have you for breakfast" is a PROPER question, since it BLOODY well KILLED YOU!
So, Rule 35.05 (a) the right to examine is being abused by an excess of improper questions;
The 'QUESTION' then becomes, as was used in my case (but NEVER explained):
WHAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE THAT MADE THE ONSLAUGHT OF NEVER-ENDING QUESTIONS RELEVANT?
Remembering the Claim to be about a Non-Compliant Contract concerning the building of a website with a Completion date, and scope conditions, signed, and to be legally binding between the Web-developer and myself as client.
Here, "under the circumstances," is one of the ordered, 'Case Relevant' later-posed Questions:
(Are you ready?)
- What diploma did you receive from theatre school?
If you are not yet laughing, or disgusted, here's another one:
- What jobs did you perform as a handyman, before you retired?
My response? The Pillars of our society are making a mockery of our hugely serious legal foundations, foundations that lie at the core of a now going sick society! These quasi learned MEN are taking advantage by puppy-playing upstanding, tax-paying, regular folk. I say SHAME on them!
I STATE:
"This examination is being conducted in bad faith, or in an unreasonable manner so to annoy, embarrass or oppress the person being examined."
NOTE: I second, and 'AYE' the above!
Underlined by me, below is the full text of a number of the orders from December 06, 2012, conference.) Quoting Master Roger's ENDORSEMENT, in which he states:
#3. "Considering that the previous orders were made at case conferences without assessing the sufficiency of the answers; that the previous orders were not specific but rather a general request to both parties to ensure that their answers were complete; that the parties are self-represented; that some efforts have been made by the Plaintiff to provide some answers; that most of the outstanding questions are follow-up questions arising from previous answers (there have been a number of follow-up questions) and considering generally the concept of proportionality, what is just in the circumstances is not to dismiss the action for failing to comply with previous orders and for not fully answering questions, but rather to order that outstanding questions, as they are outlined below, be answered by February 14, 2013.
(Compare top of 3 with "failing to comply with previous orders"
#4. The above is a fair and reasonable disposition, in the circumstances of this case. The Plaintiff is however, on notice that he must comply with this order to a timely manner, as this court might exercise its discretion differently should a similar motion return.
(Here we have the never explained "circumstances of this case." Then the threat,)
#5. The Statement of Claim, as drafted, is not an example of excellence in drafting however at this stage in the action, the motion under Rule 25.11 as requested is dismissed for added reasons as outlined above. This court does not have jurisdiction under rule 21.01 and is therefore not deciding that part of the motion.
(Apologies to the Court for not managing an A+ Statement of Claim)
#6. Regarding Plaintiff's preparation/ answers to Defence's Questions and Undertakings Chart;
....."All questions or undertakings ordered answered have been found to be relevant and outstanding."
(No explanation given; they just ARE!)
(Follows details of numbered questions to be answered by Plaintiff.)
#37. Undertakings:
1: a copy of the Plaintiff's most up to date cv is to be provided.
11: The above is without prejudice to any motion under rule 21 that the Defendant may wish to bring. In this regard I wish to confirm my recommendation that the Defendant consult with legal counsel before bringing a rule 21 motion."
NOTE: I knew the above ENDORSEMENT to be the turning point in my affairs. Without, in fact, actually having perused the 'relevance' of Defence's questions, without, in fact, having assessed and interpreted my answers, and my questioning as to how a number of them were 'relevant to the issues at hand', there was a blanket indication I had "failed to comply with previous endorsements."
___________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: Then I erroneously thought I had found my needle in the Haystack by contacting Mr. Joseph Griffiths. This Law professor at U of OTTAWA was going to stop the never-ending shenanigans of Defence. His promises ultimately resulted in pointing his finger at me, while colluding (without prior consultation with me, his client) with newly-hired Defence Counsel.
Too grotesque, I can't even deal with this Jekyll and Hyde story now....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I remember now that I had sent both Defence Counsel and Case Management, photographs of Master Pierre Roger (former Partner @ BLG) + Jill Alexander (working as an Associate there) without ever getting any response from Case Management! Master P. Roger simply vanished).
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTE: Although Master Macleod reminded me: "The Court is not there to give advice," the above Pierre Roger Defence suggestion to find Counsel to deal with Rule 21, is blatant > ADVICE!
Whereas this SRL was NOT ENTITLED TO THE ANSWER OF A SIMPLE QUESTION:
"WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAKES THESE QUESTIONS RELEVANT?"
_________________________________________________________________________
September 20, 2013,' Special Appointment'
- Master Callum Macleod presiding + Counsel for Defence; and Steen by telephone from BC. TRANSCRIPT PAGE 31:
STEEN: "... if you ordered to give me more time to do it, since we have spoken today, this scenario
can continue, you know, forever unless - unless somebody puts a stop to something - at some point..[...] there again could be a motion wanting more questions, - are you not in a position as a Master to say that, if Mr. Steen answers these next set of questions there shall be no more motions."
THE COURT: "Yeah. No. I would not make that kind of order because I don't know what your answers would be. So when - when your answers are answered, then, if they ask for more questions and you think that is unreasonable, then and only then, would I be in a position to determine whether I agree with you or not."
NOTE: Already, this is different from what I endured during Master Roger's reign; too late, however.
STEEN: "Okay. So may I ask you this then? If you are going to allow me another 30 days to answer these questions, would you then, also allow me to ask further questions?"
THE COURT: "That issue is not in front of me today. You have not brought a motion about your questions and so, I don't have any opinion on that at all."
NOTE: This SRL had tried a NUMBER OF TIMES TO FILE A MOTION WITH ZERO RESULTS!
The several times I thought I had managed, they were pooh-poohed!
Roger @ December 06/2012: "I'm not aware of your motion sir. I have a lot of paperwork you know!" I even thought I had a Motion in for the September 20th MacLeod session. But NYET!
STEEN: "So - okay ... the focus is on me?"
THE COURT: "Yes. It's completely on you because the - one of the problems with the relief they're asking for, is they're asking me to dismiss your claim, but not the counter-claim, so you're still in the action even, if I dismiss it."
STEEN:[ discusses how counter-claim has already taken up more than half the energies to date... ]
THE COURT: It would continue, presumably, unless they discontinue it, it would continue and then, they would set it down for trial when they think they're ready.
NOTE: I have made the above last sentence BOLD! To me, a most telling indication of informing me I'm up the creek without a paddle; it is made very apparent Defence is acknowledged as being in the driver's seat! "They would set it down for trial when they think they're ready." ( Is there any further need to indicate collusion? )
When in the June 2012 Conference with M.P. Roger, I indicated I had enough information to go to Court; that I did not want to take up any more court time (all according to the determined specifics of the RULES) I, in fact, later realized I had dug my own grave! Giving Defence carte blanche to carry on! The above MacLeod coined phrase is proof example of this!
[transcript follows general discussion about how Macleod won't question the former Master, who was "supposed to have looked in to proportionality and relevance..."; how both claims ran parallel and how Defence's Motion is there to strike out to dismiss the Plaintiff Claim, but carry through with the Counterclaim of Defamation]
STEEN: Okay. Well, I really have nothing more to add sir. It's up to you now.
[follows a 4 page tete-a-tete between the 2 professionals]
____________________________________________________________________
Follow-up questions to follow-up answers > to follow-up years >> until we finally drown, or kill him from sheer exhaustion....to ensure we keep this business to ourselves!
So, I have begun to formulate my opening speech - my 'ARGUMENT' so to speak - to the Appeal Judge, for my December 03, 2014, Ottawa Divisional Court Hearing. I understand the Divisional Court to be strictly concerned with the general abidance to the RULES. i.e., Were they, at all times, strictly adhered to? Can my 'ARGUMENT,' by rendering what I believe to be PROOF, show some, or even ANY PROOF serious anomalies and or trespasses occurred? And if so, who is guilty thereof?
So far, it is little old me who has been determined the 'guilty' party. The dismissal of my Claim was ultimately based on my decision to REFUSE to ANSWER any more, to me, most far-fetched ridiculous, CASE IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS and UNDERTAKINGS, all of which I had been ordered to answer, "under the circumstances."
i.e. Until, and unless, I receive a rational explanation as to how the questions were 'relevant to the issues at hand,' this Appellant's response is: the examination is being conducted in bad faith, or in an unreasonable manner so to annoy, embarrass or oppress the person being examined.
So let us EXAMINE some of the pertinent RULES that should play a determining ROLE in the Judge's ASSESSMENT of my APPEAL. (Notice of Appeal)
That's next.
Have a nice day all you Anonymous readers....I'm flattered. Thank you.
To date, exhausted, I'm alive and well. Am I to fear any of U, the readers? > FEAR FEAR itself?
Don't think so; Too BIZZY for that! Don't catch EBOLA, ISIS, or Lyme disease...:(
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment