An Old Man Ranting! : April 2015

Friday, 24 April 2015

186. 'DANGER!' > PROCEED AT OWN RISK > MORPHING SPECIES AHEAD!

VIEWS@ 12300

I will never stop admiring TIMING! The happenstance of ingredients, seemingly un-organized events, coalescing as if part of a larger concept.

Last night, listening to Rex Murphy on the CBC National, he spoke of the disappearance of 'Character' and 'Conscience.' I maintain our species is rapidly morphing. It is as if there is only so much 'Conscience' to go around.

It is, as if, with the exploding global population, man's emotions are becoming a luxury. Survival, which lies at the core of existence, is making its demands.
'Feelings,' as we so cherished, Human Feelings, we thought, set us apart from all other species (except of course the realization that a nursing, caring mother wildebeest, or such like, would show a certain concern for the protection of her offspring.)

But, ultimately, we, as humans, set ourselves apart from all other Nature. We had that something 'special,' the something, je ne sais quoi > 'Godly.'

In the eighties we interpreted the 'ME' generation. Reconsider though, with today's 'Selfie,' those were still the cool days of 'ME.' But, in the West, we're still okay by expanding our Selves by bringing in a friend or two, or a celebrity, if we're lucky, and share in a 'Selfie' and High-Five. But be not fooled, the overall take is about ME! Me! The ME in the centre!

Looking outwards, Eastward, certain Selfies are covered, hooded, anonymous! They're on a rampage, up to no good, sowing mayhem wherever they can.

Looking inwards, right here, the stuff Rex Murphy speaks of, is full-face ME, the plain clothed 'Selfie.' The one smiling at you, embracing you at the party, while stabbing you, later, when the urge shows. When the party is over, I get my adrenalin kick from video wars; my blood and guts are virtual. Clothed in 'acceptance,' my guise is surreptitious, not in view > full-frontal. I smile by day, and kill at night.

So here's where I am going. They are the same, only the execution differs. And its commonality lies in the general drying up of the emotions.
Together with Character, and Conscience, Sympathy, Empathy, Sorrow, Pity, Sadness, Trust, Surprise, Joy, Shame, Love, Kindness, Friendship, Courage, Happiness, Wonder, Patience, Respect, Confusion, Hope, Awe, these are the more complex emotions that lead us to look outward and share the experience of life.

But! Only if we can afford them! When there is Fear, Anger, Disgust, and Envy it leads to the temperament of explosion with the need to destroy.

We are all hypocrites, to an extent. If we WANT Goodness, we must MAKE it, to BE it, from within.

"The Canadian armed forces are fighting to defend our democratic values." Are they really?
"Our Rules of Civil Procedure are there to serve our people's rights." Are they 'Civil'? Do we have 'Rights?' Are the Rules ruling? Are they in fact 'RULES?'
rule |ro͞ol| noun1 one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere: the rules of the game were understood.• a principle that operates within a particular sphere of knowledge, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable: the rules of grammar.

Oh for the good old days of Trust, Honour, and a clear, affordable Conscience >:)
Bring on the clones...:((((>>>

Wednesday, 22 April 2015

183. Digging up some facts...

VIEWS@12248

I didn't manage to complete below, the missing (Draft) #183 Posting

So that we may fully comprehend as to who and what lies at the heart of this badly broken, one-sided 'legal' system, before we take a serious look at The Rules of Civil Procedure (as presently in place and effective) let's begin by interpreting where it is all coming from, and who is, in fact, ultimately responsible.

This information renders a more detailed understanding of the Role the Attorneys General fulfill in the provinces, as well as the Role of the Honourable Mr. Peter MacKay, who, at present, is both the Minister of Justice as well as the Attorney General of Canada. It is his, and their departments who are the flagships of the system. They are ultimately the ones who carry responsibility for what is legally practiced and thus allowable.

===============================================================

'Thank you ....Wikipedia...

The court system of Canada is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature while others are provincial or territorial.

The Canadian constitution gives the federal government the exclusive right to legislate criminal law while the provinces have exclusive control over civil law. The provinces have jurisdiction over the administration of justice in their territory. Almost all cases, whether criminal or civil, start in provincial courts and may be eventually appealed to higher level courts. The quite small system of federal courts only hear cases concerned with matters which are under exclusive federal control, such as federal taxation, federal administrative agencies, intellectual property and certain aspects of national security. The federal government appoints and pays for both the judges of the federal courts and the judges of the superior and appellate level courts of each province. The provincial governments are responsible for appointing judges of the lower provincial courts.

This intricate interweaving of federal and provincial powers is typical of the Canadian constitution.
==================================================================

Roles and Responsibilities of the Attorney General

The Attorney General has a unique role to play as a Minister.

One part of the Attorney General's role is that of a Cabinet Minister. In this capacity the Minister is responsible for representing the interests and perspectives of the Ministry at Cabinet, while simultaneously representing the interests and perspectives of Cabinet and consequently the Government to the Ministry and the Ministry's communities of interest.

The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Executive Council. The responsibilities stemming from this role are unlike those of any other Cabinet member. The role has been referred to as "judicial-like" and as the "guardian of the public interest".

Much has been written on the subject of ministerial responsibilities and the unique role of the Attorney General.

There are various components of the Attorney General's role. The Attorney General has unique responsibilities to the Crown, the courts, the Legislature and the executive branch of government. While there are different emphases and nuances attached to these there is a general theme throughout all the various aspects of the Attorney General's responsibilities that the office has a constitutional and traditional responsibility beyond that of a political minister.

The statutory responsibilities of the office are found in section 5 of the Ministry of the Attorney General Act. Section 5 states:
The Attorney General,
(a) is the Law Officer of the Executive Council;
(b) shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law;
(c) shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Ontario;
(d) shall perform the duties and have the powers that belong to the Attorney General and Solicitor General of England by law and usage, so far as those powers and duties are applicable to Ontario, and also shall perform the duties and powers that, until the Constitution Act, 1867 came into effect, belonged to the offices of the Attorney General and Solicitor General in the provinces of Canada and Upper Canada and which, under the provisions of that Act, are within the scope of the powers of the Legislature;
(e) shall advise the Government upon all matters of law connected with legislative enactments and upon all matters of law referred to him or her by the Government;
(f) shall advise the Government upon all matters of a legislative nature and superintend all Government measures of a legislative nature;
(g) shall advise the heads of ministries and agencies of Government upon all matters of law connected with such ministries and agencies;
(h) shall conduct and regulate all litigation for and against the Crown or any ministry or agency of government in respect of any subject within the authority or jurisdiction of the Legislature;
(i) shall superintend all matters connected with judicial offices;
(j) shall perform such other functions as are assigned to him or her by the Legislature or by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. "

What follows is an overview of the various components of the Attorney General's roles and responsibilities, primarily as outlined in the Act.

Chief Law Officer of the Executive Council (s. 5(a))

The role of chief law officer might be referred to as the Attorney General's overall responsibility as the independent legal advisor to the Cabinet - and some have even suggested that the role possibly extends to the Legislature as well. The importance of the independence of the role is fundamental to the position and well established in common law, statutes and tradition.

As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a special responsibility to be the guardian of that most elusive concept - the rule of law. The rule of law is a well established legal principle, but hard to easily define. It is the rule of law that protects individuals, and society as a whole, from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties.

The Attorney General has a special role to play in advising Cabinet to ensure the rule of law is maintained and that Cabinet actions are legally and constitutionally valid.

In providing such advice it is important to keep in mind the distinction between the Attorney General's policy advice and preference and the legal advice being presented to Cabinet. The Attorney General's legal advice or constitutional advice should not be lightly disregarded. The Attorney General's policy advice has the same weight as that of other ministers.

Criminal prosecutions (s.5(d))

One of the most publicly scrutinized aspects of the Attorney General's role is the responsibility for criminal prosecutions encompassed in section 5 (d) and s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 92 gives the provinces authority to legislate in matters related to the administration of criminal justice and thereby gives the provincial Attorney General authority to prosecute offences under the Criminal Code.

The Attorney General does not, however, direct or cause charges to be laid. While the Attorney General and the Attorney General's agents may provide legal advice to the police, the ultimate decision whether or not to lay charges is for the police. Once the charge is laid the decision as to whether the prosecution should proceed, and in what manner, is for the Attorney General and the Crown Attorney.

It is now an accepted and important constitutional principle that the Attorney General must carry out the Minister's criminal prosecution responsibilities independent of Cabinet and of any partisan political pressures. The Attorney General's responsibility for individual criminal prosecutions must be undertaken - and seen to be undertaken - on strictly objective and legal criteria, free of any political considerations. Whether to initiate or stay a criminal proceeding is not an issue of government policy. This responsibility has been characterized as a matter of the Attorney General acting as the Queen's Attorney - not as a Minister of the government of the day.

This is not to suggest that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions are made in a complete vacuum. A wide range of policy considerations may be weighed in executing this responsibility, and the Attorney General may choose to consult the Cabinet on some of these considerations. However any decisions relating to the conduct of individual prosecutions must be the Attorney General's alone and independent of the traditional Cabinet decision making process. In practice, in the vast majority of cases, these decisions are made by the Attorney General's agents, the Crown Attorneys.

An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's - responsibility in conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the public interest - which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available.

The responsibility is to present the case fairly - not necessarily to convict. This is a fundamental precept of criminal law, even if it is not a particularly well-understood concept among the general public. One of the Attorney General's responsibilities in fostering public respect for the rule of law, is to assist the public in understanding the nature and limits of the prosecutorial function.

Ultimately the Attorney General is accountable to the people of the province, through the Legislature, for decisions relating to criminal prosecutions. Such accountability can only occur, of course, once the prosecution is completed or when a final decision has been made not to prosecute. The sub judicae rule bars any comment on a matter before the courts that is likely to influence the matter. The sub judicae rule strictly prohibits the Attorney General from commenting on prosecutions that are before the courts. Given the stature of the Attorney General's position, any public comment coming from the office would be seen as an attempt to influence the case.

Although the Attorney general can become involved in decision-making in relation to individual criminal cases, such a practice would leave the Minister vulnerable to accusations of political interference. Accordingly, it is traditional to leave the day-to-day decision-making in the hands of the Attorney General's agents, the Crown Attorneys, except in cases of exceptional importance where the public would expect the Attorney General to be briefed.

Legislative Responsibilities (s. 5(e) and (f))

The Attorney General has broad responsibilities associated with Government legislation. These responsibilities have been described as twofold. One is to oversee that all legislative enactments are in accordance with principles of natural justice and civil rights (see also s. 5(b) above). This is obviously an important and broad area of responsibility. The second aspect of this responsibility is to advise on the constitutionality and legality of legislation.

The Attorney General's legislative responsibilities are played out in a variety roles. The Office of Legislative Counsel reports to the Attorney General. Legislative Counsel plays a key role in ensuring the legal integrity of Government legislation. Although the Legislative Counsel's reporting relationship to the Attorney General does allow the Attorney General to provide guidance and set standards, individual pieces of legislation are drafted on instructions from client ministries and are not within the sole control of Legislative Counsel or the Attorney General. It should also be noted that Legislative Counsel also has a direct responsibility to the Legislature as the Office also drafts all private member's bills.

The Attorney General has a further role to play as part of whatever Cabinet Committee is formed to review legislation and regulations. Here the Minister has an opportunity to comment on the technical issues related to legislation and regulations prior to Cabinet consideration.

The Attorney General's role on legislative matters is as an adviser to the Cabinet. Although unlikely, Cabinet could, in theory, receive the Attorney General's legal opinion on legislation and choose to disregard it. The Attorney General's role is not independent of Cabinet decision making as in the area of criminal prosecutions. As was noted earlier, the Attorney General must make careful distinctions about the legal opinions and policy or political preferences being offered about legislation.

Civil Litigation (s.5(h) and (d))

In addition to the specific responsibilities to conduct civil litigation on behalf of the Government and its agencies (s. 5(h)), the Attorney General has broader litigation responsibilities flowing from the historical powers of the Attorney General referred to in s. 5(d) of the Act. These powers are based on the Crown's parens patriae (parental) authority. The Attorney General's authority, therefore, is not only to conduct litigation in cases directly affecting the government or its agencies but also to litigate cases where there is a clear matter of public interest or public rights at stake.

This has been characterized as a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the public interest is well and independently represented. It may involve interventions in private litigation or Charter challenges to legislation, even if the arguments conclude that the legislation does contravene constitutionally protected rights.
(emboldened by me)

Responsibility for Court Administration (s. 5(c))

A key component of the Attorney General's responsibilities to ensure the administration of justice in the province is the administration of the courts and as a result the responsibility for maintaining liaison with the judiciary.

Given the fundamental importance of the independence of the judiciary, the responsibility for courts administration is often a very sensitive and delicate issue. Great care and respect for the principles of judicial independence must be exercised in this area.

Monday, 20 April 2015

185. Only thing to Fear is FEAR itself!

VIEWS@12180

Someone commented on my latest posting the other day. By the way, there have been VERY few over these trying years. Concern was voiced about my inclusion of the 'word' ISIS in conjunction with 'other words.'

Upon reflection, after some discussion about 'what I thought I was trying to do', I realized how incredibly sensitive the general public has become.

Remember US President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's speech, March 4, 1933 (and I mean this was a man saying this on March 4, 1933):

Addressing himself to the causes of the economic crisis and its moral dimensions, Roosevelt placed blame squarely on the greed and shortsightedness of bankers and businessmen, as seen in the following excerpts:

"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days."

Addressing himself to the causes of the economic crisis and its moral dimensions, Roosevelt placed blame squarely on the greed and shortsightedness of bankers and businessmen, as seen in the following excerpts (I have emboldened some text):

"..rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.

Mankind has forever taken advantage of the vulnerable. After all, so does all of Nature. This, in a full view's objective, may be acceptable. Sensible or not, to cleanly fight an opponent in any ring is a choice, But, under the guise of 'Justice' it becomes a double edged sword. There is paradox everywhere...

The age-old child's prayer looms strangely over a young developing brain when it needs to digest its full meaning:
"Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep,
If I shall die before I wake,
I pray the Lord my soul to take.
Amen."

How in Heaven's name can you fall asleep with that little ditty on your brain?
YIP! Life's indeed like a box of chocolats: "You never know what yer going to get..."

Boy! That Forrest Gump was smart :)

Sunday, 19 April 2015

184. The BIG Release (RU 4 IT, or AGIN IT?)

VIEWS@12121

Well, to the day, April 14, 2008, EXACT-ly 7 years ago, I signed the fateful contract. This past April 14th, I signed the all encompassing release, with its proviso I won't post any disparaging remarks about the clients, or else....:(>

"Hi Jan:

They have, I am told reluctantly, accepted the Release as attached. Please sign it and fax it to me as soon as possible.

Ms. Alexander would like you to know, however, that should you publicize (i.e. on the internet) any disparaging remarks about her clients and/or their company, they could pursue a new legal action against you. That is, of course, correct, as is could, were it to happen, be a separate actionable wrong."

As I replied, I have long outgrown the need to be 'disparaging.' Both my anger and bewilderment have gradually subsided. After rigour mortis sets in, you come to a point when you need to pull away from the body subjective. When all the parrying has been done; after the coffin has been lowered; dirt applied to cover the sins; all horror buried; there's need to stand back, assess, and ultimately understand the greater picture. If you don't, you'll go crazy.

The hardest fix is to come to the realization that all was a complete waste of time. The erroneous belief to have thought that such a grand and age-old institution is in fact a farce, a sham, a pretence of the highest order. That it has been, and continues to, lavish great damage upon the ordinary citizens, who are forced in to playing along; all under the guise of 'JUSTICE!'

So you go for a walk; watch birds fly; observe eagles, desperate to catch the last fish. You re-assess your mankind, and face the fact he is not so pretty. You realize that lies are lived under the guise of 'Justice.' That Mr. Dress-Up is alive and shaping your existence, under your very nose!

Hey dude, I have no jurisdiction over what the other guy ordered you; he said that under the circumstances all questions are relevant. So stop asking questions; Stop being so nosy. Bloody well answer them, or we'll pulverize you!
These are the honourable pillars of our society - in costume, on their stage! De LAW is in dis HOUSE!
Don't you GET IT? THAT's reality!

This realization now gives me the shivers, and I find it utterly scary.
Smart Meters, Monsanto, Bill C-51, ISIS is amongst us... invasion of our privacy?
WHAT privacy? WHAT democracy? Am I a terrorist for questioning?

Look inward and ask that question! DEAL with REALITY, or, be a pon, a slave; a slave to the ultimate pillars of your society. We are on a runaway train, and it is speeding down-hill exponentially.
Are you for us? or agin us?

Thursday, 9 April 2015

182. This 'DEVELOPED', quasi Democratic, NATION = F-$$#@*&-D

VIEWS@ 11980

I actually thought I would take respite from another posting for a while!
But listening to the Duffy Senate opening defence motivates me to respond.

YES! Is the answer! YES! Ring the bells > LOUD AND CLEAR!

If it isn't: "DE PLANE; DE PLANE" (For those of you old enough to remember Fantasy Island phrase; I think I remember correctly)
It is now: "DE RULES; DE RULES!"

Your Honour, Mr. Duffy was merely doing what all other Senators have been doing for years... After all, it's a well-deserved position, given seasoned elders, honoured for their contributions over the years, while helping to fill the coffers of our 38% majority government. Surely you are not suggesting, your honour, and I mean your 'HONOUR', yourself put in place by the present conservative government, you would question these well-established, statutory allowances of clearly acceptable partisan activities. "Under the circumstances"?

With all DUE RESPECT YOUR HONOUR, Mr. Duffy fully complied with existing allowances; allowances that gave Senators free range to entitled reimbursements, in order to collect for any and all of their myriad government related expenditures... like flights to visit family, and dinners at the you-know-who and where.

After all, your UNTOUCHABLE GRACIOUS PILLAR OF ALL KNOWLEDGE AND DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, what would YOU have done "Under the circumstances?"

This UPRIGHT and NOBLE CITIZEN, our Mater Duffy, is NOT GUILTY, your honour!
NOT guilty of ANY of the some 31 trespasses he is being accused of.

Poor Senator Duffy was merely following and applying the ample Rule allowances enjoyed by his fellow haves!

SHAME on you for setting him up as a scapegoat!
and SHAME on you for destroying Mr. Steen's and thousands of other citizen's rights!
Rights they thought they had, but at great costs discovered were a cover up SHAM of ill-defined rules, and collusive system manipulates. constructed to take advantage of naive, vulnerable and mostly upright plebeians.

Notwithstanding, Mr. Prime Minister,
I can envision your political connectives with your global cousins.
I understand your aspirations towards a possible historic legacy.
I accept your trying efforts as the chosen representative of a malfunctioning, quasi wayward democracy.
I fully comprehend you are NOT to blame for your trespasses either, SIR!

SINCE WE PUT YOU IN TO POWER!

WE, THE RELUCTANT, WHO COULD NOT BE BOTHERED TO GET IT SUFFICIENTLY TOGETHER TO PUT ANOTHER LEADER IN YOUR POSITION.
YOU, SIR, together with all your APPOINTEES, are NOT to BLAME - for anything!

Like Mr. Duffy, SIR, Your government, Your Rules, all are as clearly defined as they are practiced! WHY SHOULD YOU BE responsible for taking full-out advantage of what is in place?

HOWEVER, what IS in place, under the guise of 'CIVIL PROCEDURE,' under the guise of 'JUSTICE,' is a scandalous PRETENCE, an ignominious rendition of a super-self-controlled system. It continues to function, beyond any sensible comprehension, as the foundation of our legal system, there to take advantage of the paying, innocent masses.

THIS is where 'OUR DEMOCRACY,' in practice, falls apart, SIR, and your multiple appointees. This is where the human disgrace is bred > SIRs and Madames in power.

Whether we, as feudal plebeians, can ever make a dent in the controlled affairs of the chosen few, is the $60,000 question? (Or has inflation upped this amount)?

Monday, 6 April 2015

181. All Well and Good if Only.....

VIEWS@11952

'Margaret's' latest blog entry has brought me full circle

Legal Mapping

by Margaret

"As I've been reflecting on different patterns and models of Access projects, I've realized that we should be investing in a massive Legal Pathways Mapping project. We should be creating consistent (and hopefully also smart, interactive, encoded) maps of all the legal procedures that are amenable to be mapped."

Blogger Steen can't find way to drag drop Margaret's drawing:

(Cartoon drawing of Face + path -----1----2---3----4----(what looks like a rocket taking off); Text reads "Legal Mapping what is the step-by-step process version of a person's legal experience, so we can lay it out visually for them to see." )

"The output would be usable, procedural, visuals, to give people a birds eye view of the legal world they are living in, and the specific steps they can take to move along the path.

I hear requests for legal infographics from people outside the legal sector who want to be more literate in law. But I don't think traditional infographics, with a smattering of facts, data points, and graphs are what will be most useful. Visuals that talk through the basics of a legal topic have some use, but process-based maps -- whether they are the 1-2-3-4-5 of steps to get through a procedure, or the branching decision tree to tell you if you are eligible for a legal procedure or not -- have much greater value."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My online comment to Margaret' posting:

"All well and good if the legal system you are dealing with is built on a solid foundation; if the prescribed RULES of PROCEDURE are clearly and sensibly defined; if those in charge of that system strictly adhere to the aforesaid; if, indeed, due process is based on proof by fact; where issues dealt with at all time relate; where procedure is clearly defined and relevant to the issues at hand. Where progress towards a finite interpretation is at all times visible.

If NOT, all functions in a maze, and any directives only help to further confuse."

=================================================

Sitting back now to mull this over, I take stock of my 'realities.'

It is another Spring gradually awakening on the Wet Pacific Coast. Spring, as it does out here, is a bit of a teaser. Now you think it's here; then there's another wallop of a storm, and cold weather. Well, 'cold' from our perspective; nothing compares to the East, or even Alberta.

So again, today, Spring indicates it's HERE! The sun beckons me outside; the garden invites to aerate earth and prepare for seeding; mason bees are pollinating first blossoms; recently returned green-violet swallows are checking out the skies; Mr. Rufus has arrived.

And this old man is thinking twice, with a knick-knack tally-wack ...

What is important lies in the head. Let's take stock; let's assess what's really REAL...>

In Nature, the strong and adaptable survive. Territories have been allotted, systems defined; those who belong, adhere; those who question, eliminated. These are the rules; anything else, is merely window-dressing; a pretense for fools to hang themselves.

"Hey though": say I, "at 76, I got this far..." But then sets in the 'BUT.' Did you really think you were going to achieve 'Justice?' That you would get your promised day in court? I mean the one where they actually dealt with the issues, as per indicated in their Rules? Not the various and plural ill-defined and questionable sessions you attended by telephone, in your distant foreign Jurisdiction? You know the one called BRITISH Columbia? WHAT were you thinking? To make sense of it all? To make a difference? Lil-old -YOU?

Maybe, for now, its time to tackle a different cause; to wait and see how Kaiser Harper fares after the Duffy senate scandal's dust has settled, and the Nation has voted, and spoken....> all 38 % to bring in another majority government? Oh, the utter SENSE of it all :)>.

I think, in between tilling and seeding, I'll take on my more local BC Hydro. They're an entire kettle of fish all their own. Have a peek at my CNSRLN.blogspot.ca posting.

For now, I'll leave my futile efforts, taking the Rules of Civil Procedure apart, and leave them for some later winter's musings.

'Time heals all wounds' they say.