235. WAR or PEACE (?)

VIEWS@15481


TO WHOM JUSTICE SHOULD BE A CONCERN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

RE Case # 15-4257, 

SUMMARY TRIAL, VICTORIA, BC, CANADA, FEBRUARY 12, 2016.  

[EVERT J. STEEN V. MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF BC/ AG]

MR. STEEN - SELF-REPRESENTING : MR. JOHNNY VAN CAMP,  REPRESENTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  

Justice Geoffrey Gaul presiding.

After a DISMISSAL, (FULL TRANSCRIPT posted on my Blog: The Lonely Road to Justice)

As of this day, March 16, 2016, this Plaintiff continues to await the Honourable Court's 

'REASONS FOR JUDGMENT'

My in-chambers session brings forth several seriously troubling questions about the overall structure and procedure of our system; the legal system just being one of them. 

A 7 year nightmare has shown me overwhelming factual evidence we do NOT function in an 'open and accountable' Democracy. 

My experience continues to prove we are functioning under closed, self-governing, self-serving systems. The legal system is merely one of them.

However, since it expresses the very foundation of our purportedly Democratic society, there is now an URGENT requirement to FIX IT! 

We are literally running out of time - everywhere! 

As it sits it is functioning as a pretentious front, using pomp and ceremony under the guise of impartiality and 'Justice.' And since it hasn't ever been seriously challenged, if allowed, it will grow to become worse. 

This rhetorical old boys club is no more then re-iterating what ever happens to be called upon as the 'Soup du Jour.' Justice, in fact, appears to be a dirty word. This SRL is a mere pain in the neck, like clearly anyone else who dares question their cozy status quo.    

Based on the chamber session's exchanges between Sir Judge Geoffrey Gaul and Sir brother Johnny Van Camp, I have a hunch there are some good reasons why I have as yet to receive my 'REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.'   

Both work and are paid by the same Ministry; Judge Gaul has worked for the AG's office; Mr. Van Camp is presently in their employment. 

Is it far-fetched to call this a 'Conflict of Interest?' If so, could any decision and or 'Reasonings'  be considered impartial, or is this COLLUSION?

Am I saying anything here, or am I a mere old cantankerous fool who, as has been suggested, "has nothing better to do?!" 

Seriously folks, if it's going to remain the same, can we at least rename this system, so we are all on the same page?

Call it the In-justice system, or the 'In-quisition.' Or maybe call democracy the demon-crazy? 

Because, as it is, it is hugely scary. Look at what is happening in the US election? Look at the ISIS movement, made up of young individuals who have turned away from hypocrisy and lies, to find mad comfort in sowing mayhem, since nothing else is making sense to them anymore.

May those who run this system, find their consciences in time, decide to become accountable, and set out to turn this ship around.  

As a species we are on the threshold of going one way, or the other. It's up to us!

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

SRL

self.rep.litigant.net@gmail.com

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

Principles of Judicial Office

1.  The Justices of the Peace in Court

1.1 Justices of the peace must be impartial and objective in the discharge of their judicial duties.

Commentaries:
Justices of the peace should not be influenced by partisan interests, public pressure or fear of criticism.

Justices of the peace should maintain their objectivity and shall not, by words or conduct, manifest favour, bias or prejudice towards any party or interest.

1.2 Justices of the peace have a duty to follow the law.

Commentaries:
Justices of the peace have a duty to apply the relevant law to the facts and circumstances of the cases before the court and to render justice within the framework of the law.

1.3 Justices of the peace will endeavour to maintain order and decorum in court.

Commentaries:
Justices of the peace must strive to be patient, dignified and courteous in performing the duties of judicial office and shall carry out their role with integrity, appropriate firmness and honour.

2. The Justices of the Peace and the Court

2.1 Justices of the peace should approach their judicial duties in a spirit of collegiality, cooperation and mutual assistance.

2.2 Justices of the peace should conduct court business with due diligence and dispose of all matters before them promptly and efficiently having regard, at all times, to the interests of justice and the rights of the parties before the court.

2.3 Reasons for judgment should be delivered in a timely manner.

2.4 Justices of the peace have a duty to maintain their professional competence in the law.

Commentaries:
Justices of the peace should attend and participate in continuing legal and general education programs.

2.5 The primary responsibility of justices of the peace is the discharge of their judicial duties.