justice |ˈjəstəs| noun1 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.
NOTE: The 'quality' of being fair; the 'justice' of his case...
system |ˈsistəm|
noun1 a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular:• a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network
"a group of related hardware units or programs or both, especially when dedicated to a single application."
NOTE: "connected things or parts forming a complex whole...an interconnecting network" !
George Bush: "You're either with us, or against us!" Good ol' George.
They're all akin to CULTS in my book, speaking their own legal jargon: 'legalese."
legalese |ˌlēɡəˈlēz| noun informalthe formal and technical language of legal documents that is often hard to understand.
NOTE: "hard to understand." Right! But just the way we like it.
cult |kəlt| noun• a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister: a network of Satan-worshiping cults.NOTE: We'll leave the analogy with 'Satan' out of it for now. What MUST be acknowledged however is the immense harm these purported lords and ladyship honourable pillars of our society are creating by ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands 'honourable' citizens. By doing it KNOWINGLY, that part makes it truly EVIL! - Why does Lady Justice Wear a Blindfold?
"Blind Justice is the theory that law should be viewed objectively with the determination of innocence or guilt made without bias or prejudice. It is the idea behind the United States Supreme Court motto “Equal Justice Under Law” and is symbolized by the blindfolded statue of Lady Justice which is the symbol of the judiciary."
This process of 'judgment' is now more and more applied in a variety of areas: Picking musicians for an orchestra (before musicians were predominantly 'WHITE.') Screening contestants for jobs, literally behind screens... the intention being that color, name, or background should not measure in.
But the 'Justice System' that - "set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network," being "dedicated to a single application," likes to keep things just the way they honed their 'system' over all these many years.
Watching my favorite interviewer Charlie Rose debate Obama's potential choice for a new Supreme Court judge (after the death of Justice A. Scalia), phrases like: "How to fix the Supreme Court" ..."The fight over public policy" ... "Accountability doesn't seem to apply to the supreme court" "There's a lack of transparency" "Judges treasure their anonymity"... "the need for cameras and public recording in the court rooms." INDEED! "Let their be cameras!" Let's demand transparency and accountability! Demo - crazy indeed!
Reflecting on my February 12th court session it was interesting to note (with just 'Judge' Gaul, Def. Counsel J.Van Camp, myself and ONE other, youngish 'buddy' lawyer there, whom I asked: "So who are you in this?" "Oh, I'm just interested" is all he answered. Maybe the AG's office "Instructed" him to attend? Hey, 'Tom' (Dick or Harry) why don't you sit in, have a look how we do this kind of thing when there's a cheeky SRL's knocking at our hallowed sanctity.
So we are awaiting the Judge's entrance in to the Court room:
A knock from the other side of the door indicates Justice Geoffrey Gaul is ready to enter the premises; we get up, as the lady clerk goes to open the door; the judge enters, mounts his sanctuary and sits down, while def counsel + onlooker 'Tom' bow in deep reverence; we all sit down; myself on the left, looking up, Def Counsel V. Camp on the right. ('Dick' behind us is in the lawyer section)
I had noticed from the brief, earlier cases (circa 10 mins each) that a digital timer indicated the sessions were being recorded. Having done my research, I had brought my small Sony recorder, with fresh triple AAA batteries just in case. Apparently, there are no laws AGAINST recording (if you are one of the parties, or a bonafide 'reporter.' 'Joe' public however is NOT allowed to record.
Ultimately I was told by the Sherriff's office downstairs (we were in 401, on the 4th Floor) that it was up to the judge to allow, or disallow recording. (HMMMMM)
So we are bowed and seated, and the lady clerk states: "Evert Steen versus the Ministry..." (I'll verify this exactly once I am in possession of the transcript)
Then Justice Gaul addresses me. It is clear, at least to me, he has NOT read a word of my files, but has maybe had a peek at fellow comrade V. Camp's "APPLICATION RECORD" which under TAB 1 shows my November 03, 2015, NOTICE OF APPLICATION (NOT my Feb 05, registered, adjusted version).
He addresses me: 'Well, Mr. Steen, I've had a look at your claim and why don't you tell this court what you'd like me to do?' (close to something like that)
I re-iterate how Justice Justine Saunders erred when she dismissed my claim for "lack of Jurisdiction" ...etc. That I have exhibit case law proof etc... that I feel entitled to recompense...
Justice Gaul: Alright Mr. Steen, thank you sir, you may sit down...
He then has a VERY LENGTHY amiable conversation with Johnny V. Camp. How the reasons for dismissal are clear, which Rules are applicable ...etc.
At one point G. Gaul even says: "Hmmm interesting" (or something close) when Van Camp brings up the CROWN PROCEEDING ACT which discusses the "Liability of government" bringing Rule 9-5 1 to the fore which in fact absolves any Judge from whatever it is they decide to order... "while acting in good faith..." etc"
At some point I ask the judge if he has my February 5th Registered Folder, which he then holds up, "Right here" but never refers to, referring solely to defence's material.
After what appears to be some 30 minutes, we are dismissed and asked to return at 1 o'clock at which time he will have a verdict.
Long story short (for now:) we are waiting for some 40 minutes (i.e. until 20 to 2 PM) when the entrance ritual of deep bowing is played over again, at least by Van Camp and Court Clerk. With no excuse about having let us wait, I am quickly dismissed, with the exact Van Camp's "instructed" Rules usage. (I should mention there is a Sheriff in the court room. I guess just in case I become abusive).
With my mind racing, wondering if I'm going to put up an argument about not having had an opportunity to even peruse any of the evidence of the case, I decide it will be a waste of time. His order is 'functus' as they say. Terse lipped, smelling a RAT, the most 'abusive' I become is gathering my papers, then getting up during his summation, and putting on my black Cardigan. *
Gaul mutters something; I mutter something back (the transcript SHOULD carry the details). I can't remember if I wait for his exit, and the bowing, or if I just exit, with the Sheriff following me out...
I know he is behind me in the stairwell, just in case I have a fit I guess.
All went as expected; Next....
*
Note: The cardigan is interesting. I had visited my daughter in LA over Xmas. An actress, from time to time she gives me T shirts, and now this cardigan. I didn't know this, but before leaving home, thinking to wear 'black' for the occasion would be suitable.
Well, not until sitting in the hallway circa 9:30 AM on the Tuesday, while retrieving my 1.75 strength, dollar glasses from the cardigan's top-left pocket do I notice a red line embroidering at its top. I had to take it off in order to read what it said:
Trial and Error is what it says. I had to smile, cause it's from a film she had a lead in some 15 years ago, acting opposite Michael Richards in a legal 'Comedy' in which she played the prosecutor!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment