144. DRAFT TEXT FOR AN APPEAL HEARING

VIEWS@10242

    ARGUMENT OF APPELLANT

NOTE: The following is a draft of an introductory statement I hope to be allowed. I share it with you,  in case I should not make it to Ottawa, and weaken my stand by, again, attending by telephone)

STEEN: 

"Thank you, your honour for allowing me the opportunity to ‘Argue’ my case from some 5000 km distance. As one in constant search for meaning, as a 75 year old appreciative Canadian Citizen, I “stand on guard for thee.” Myself as a mere citizen; you, your Honour as a "Pillar of our Society.'

In my bodily absence, I beg your no more than 5 minute indulgence.

I understand - and have gleaned to digest, we are NOT here to argue yet to be discussed issues concerning the claim itself – issues, of actual contract related facts. We are here, some 6 years later to ‘argue’ if you will, whether, during this lengthy, meandering process any RULES were broken. 

And if so, who might have broken them?

Having now battled what I mistakenly thought should have been a brief and direct Court case I first filed in 2009, in BC, since the claim deals with the Contractual non-compliance of a website, I am, instead, deeper in debt, and merely wiser to the extent I have been advised that “Courts are not necessarily about Justice.” That RULES can be interpreted subjectively; that matters to issues at hand may proceed in a manner of ‘business,’ and today even by ‘Argument.’ May the best ‘Argument’ win; like in debating class.

This gravely puzzles me, since Dutch-Indonesian born, 4 1/2 years of my youth were spent in Japanese concentration camps, where even the slightest Rule departure could lead to dire consequences. So, all my life, I have always paid special attention with respect to RULES!

I was astonished at the BC Judge’s dismissal of my claim, based on lack of Jurisdiction, when in fact I felt I had ample evidence to validate the secondary “OR” clause for filing in BC.

The JUSTICE OF THE PEACE CODE OF ETHICS, under ‘Conduct’ reads: “Justices of the Peace are subject to ongoing public scrutiny and therefore they must respect and comply with the law and conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

My Blog: ‘The Lonely Road to Justice,’ has had some 10,000 + views now. All my legal knowledge has been gleaned from government posted on-line websites. I have mostly been pre-occupied with questioning the ins and outs of legal procedure. My Blog tries to understand the court’s reasoning, their seemingly obtuse interpretations, rather than clear adherence to defined RULES with their secondary ‘OR’  allowances to their primary Default instructions.

My Blog’s questioning stance, with in time realization there are now hundreds of thousands SRLs having spent their savings, if not lost their homes, to desperately seek a certain ‘Justice,’ only to find they are most-often treated as second class citizens, if not, in fact, merely rudely dismissed. 

Finding myself in those circumstances, has led to my becoming a certain persona non-grata to your apparent self-controlled system.

Although I have been emotional at times, NEVER have I been verbally abusive. 

Every Book has its Cover; every Chapter its beginning; every Argument its Foundation.

My dilemma is as an SRL. With my strongest of opinions lying in the area of strict adherence to the Rules; ESPECIALLY the Rules, as per those sited in my Notice of Appeal. The Rules, as in how I ultimately decided they went beyond the Masters' Orders, since they were, surely, the more superior!  

Today not 5, not 3, but you Your Honour, as a SINGLE ‘Pillar of Our society’ sit in my Judgment. The argument you accept today will depend on your sole and personal assessment and views. 

Like a God, the reasons for judgment are in your hands. You are beyond accountability.

So then the root 'argument' lies in the following:

- Did Mr. Steen fulfill his obligations according to the Rules? He says he more than went beyond the explicit, and defined Rules of Discovery abiding to Master’s orders while going far beyond the relevant issues at hand. 

- Did Defense abide by the rules, or might they perchance have abused any, with their various Motions and continued allowances for additional questions. Defense has NEVER been questioned.

- Why did Mr. Steen have so much trouble filing his Motions? Why were there no public services in place to aid him therewith, as a tax-paying citizen?

- Why did Master Macleod, in his September 20, 2013, ‘Special Appointment’ not allow Mr. Steen’s request for his already outstanding request for an explanation of: ‘What were the circumstances that made the questions relevant?” 

- With Master Macleod’s puzzling answer: ”The Court is not there to give you advice.” 

- Was this citizen not entitled to an answer to a pertinent, relevant question?

-  Instead, the best answer this Plaintiff received was: “Master Roger was supposed to have interpreted that.” 

- No apparent allowances for any verification required - 'in the circumstances.'   

- As a former Partner of the law firm BLG, accepting Defense’s new Counsel Jill Alexander from the self-same BLG, is Master Roger not accountable to a certain conflict of interest, according to the Code of Ethics? 

- Was Mr. Steen’s Counsel Joseph Griffiths with promises to his client to “stop the shenanigans by Defense,” ultimately guilty of collusion with Defense, when he proceeded to consent to allowances for additional questioning by this Plaintiff, during a telephone-conference with Case Management and Defense Counsel, without prior consultation with his client?

OR?

- Are these all misread, erroneous and paranoid interpretations by an elder SRL citizen loosing his mind? 

OR?

- Are they signs showing professionals under oath taking certain liberties with the Rules of Civil Procedure, and their own oaths to their office - because they can? 

- Have professional insiders become the institutionalized comptrollers of our democratic system? 

- Are we becoming corrupt at the core now?

As a determined SRL, and still somewhat proud Canadian, I ask this Court of Justice to seriously consider these questions.