With the clear sense I am being purposely ignored by BC's Minister Of Justice office,
With the likelihood I will not be receiving any written Reasons for Judgment. verifying the verbal, questionable legal dismissal of my SRL claim (holding the Ministry responsible for the errors I suffered at the hand of one of their Judge's some years ago, and now the latest dismissal in Victoria),
I am going to publicly configure my issues here, in order to ascertain if what occurred during the February 12, 2016 session in the SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA, with Justice Geoffrey Gaul presiding, and the assigned AG Counsel Mr. Johnny van Camp in the saddle for the Ministry, made sense, and/or was legally correct and ultimately 'JUST.'
=============================
The following text is verbatim transcription of the tale end of the February 12, 2016 Court Session.
I will be working BACKWARDS, i.e. begin with the judge's summation. It will make for a clearer comprehension as to WHAT transpired, and HOW it was configured as the session developed. For reference, the asterisks and emboldening is mine.
Proceedings
From transcript: Page 44
THE COURT: (Justice Geoffrey Gaul) (mid-way through speech)
........What will happen - and Madam Registrar please make a note of this,(1)the order is to come to my attention.
(2) Mr.Van Camp is going to draft the order, Mr. Steen. (3) It will come to my attention. If I disagree with the wording of it, then I'll send it back to him for redrafting -
EVERT STEEN: But isn't it based on the wording - on your wording?
THE COURT: It is.
EVERT STEEN: Because I'm going to be getting a - a transcript of this.
THE COURT: Very good.
EVERT STEEN: Yes.
THE COURT: That's your option to do so.
EVERT STEEN: Mm-hmm.
THE COURT: But your signature - I'm waiving the necessity to have the order go to you for review and then back to Mr. Van Camp and then to the court so that you can get an entered - entered copy of (4) the order that I've made today in the most expeditious manner. That's how we're going to proceed. Mr. Van Camp is going to draft it. It's going to come to me. If I agree, yes, that's what I ordered, I'll endorse it and then both of you will get copies of it. All right -
EVERT STEEN: So this is the end of the matter?
THE COURT: This is the end of the matter before me.
EVERT STEEN: Mm-hmm.
THE COURT: Your application has been addressed. (5) The notice of civil claim that you filed in November of 2015 has been struck out for the reasons that I've articulated, and also your claim has been dismissed.
I'm going to be retaining these materials because I have annotated them and so that should be the extent of things.
Anything further, Mr. Steen?
EVERT STEEN: I don't think so.
THE COURT: Mr. Van Camp.
MR. VAN CAMP: Thank you, My Lord.
THE COURT: All right. I thank you, gentlemen.
EVERT STEEN: Hmm. Have to wait here until you - we have to wait until you're gone now, don't -
THE COURT: No, because I -
EVERT STEEN: Oh.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir. I appreciate that -
EVERT STEEN: Ah.
THE COURT: -- but, no, there's another matter I'm going to hear now.
(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED)
==============================
(1) ... "the order is to come to my attention"
(2)..." Mr. Van Camp is going to draft the order, Mr. Steen"
My Response (here and now)
ME: Mr. Van Camp (Counsel for the Defense) is instructed to WRITE the 'order', (then to present it to the Judge) and then:
(3) "It will come to my attention. If I disagree with the wording of it, then I'll send it back to him for redrafting" -
ME: I have only ONE word on this take: COLLUSION! Not that I wasn't aware of this before I came in to the session. But, for God's sake fellas, I KNOW you're working for the same office, but at least I would have expected a bit more 'Arms Length' effort, as one would call it.
THIS is unbiased, fair, objective 'Justice', as they say. '
THE COURT:
(4).... the order that I've made today in the most expeditious manner....
I'll endorse it and then both of you will get copies of it. All right -
ME: I am suggesting that at more than 3 months, since the above was spoken and went down as "an order" I have a different definition of "expeditious."
"both of us will get copies of it."
"both of us will get copies of it."
All right - indeed, point 1 = made: Expeditious is NOT 3 months. I continue to await the "copy."
NUMBER (5) above: Point 2. Justice Gaul:
"The notice of civil claim that you filed in November of 2015 has been struck out for the reasons that I've articulated, and also your claim has been dismissed."
The above loaded sentence, digested, and interpreted, coming to you soon....
=====================
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment