hanky-panky |ˌhaNGkēˈpaNGkē|
noun informal, humorous behaviour, in particular sexual or legally dubious behaviour, considered improper but not seriously so: there's no hanky-panky involved, no dating of customers | suspicions of financial hanky-panky.
==================================================================
My intimate (Just the three of us) Summary Trial ....continues (Snippet No.2)
P43
PROCEEDINGS
................
Blogger's Note: Pick up sticks; session 2
* Asterisks and emboldening are mine
THE COURT: Okay.
While you may very well feel as though you have a righteous cause to pursue, Mr. Steen, * the manner in which you've pursued it in this instance has been completely inappropriate. The notice of civil claim is drafted in a manner that is practically illegible, illegible in the sense that it articulates no legal foundation for the claim. I'm not saying that your claim is not a righteous one, but the manner in which this matter has come before the court, in the sense of the filing of the notice of the claim, the filing of the requisition without notice to the other side, and not providing them with the materials is, in my view, warranting of an award of costs.
EVERT STEEN: I did not provide them with materials? I'm not understanding that.
THE COURT: When did you provide them with the materials?
EVERT STEEN: Which materials are we referring to?
THE COURT: Of this -
EVERT STEEN: The November 13?
THE COURT: Of this application.
EVERT STEEN: Ah. I have Xpressposts. The last material that I sent was on the - February the 4th, witnessed -
THE COURT: Who did you send them to?
EVERT STEEN: -- at the court - at the registry in Courtenay and they were received on the 5th, on the Friday, the 5th.
THE COURT: Mr. - Mr. Van Camp?
MR. VAN CAMP: I really can't speak to the manner of how they got to my office, they came across my desk...
* I am going to bring to the attention of the reader, what appears clearly atrocious connectivity between Administration (i.e. 'the Court') and Administration (i.e.the Registration Office, below in the same building)
This Office headed by the 'Registrar' in charge, I believe to be Justice Stuart Cameron, acquiring the post in 2011.
[Justice Cameron, former law society spokesman on "issues relating to discipline and investigation."]
I remind the reader of a telephone call some 10 minutes before leaving my Hornby Island home on Thursday, Feb.11th. It is the Registrar's Office in Victoria asking me if I "know the name of the Defence Counsel on my case for tomorrow."
Floored,I reply: "WOW! Yes...a Mr.Johnny Van Camp!"
Registrar: "Thank you Mr. Steen."
This now takes me to an initial effort by Mr. Van Camp's Office (i.e. hand-picked Defence Counsel for the MINISTRY of JUSTICE itself), who, on FEBRUARY 04, 2016, REGISTERED (in the same building) a:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(Victoria /Filed/ FEB 04 2016/ REGISTRY)
REQUISITION - GENERAL
Filed by: The Attorney General of British Columbia ("Attorney General")
Required:
1. The Attorney General respectfully requests that a Registrar review the attached documents and consider whether to refer them to the court under Supreme Court Civil Rule 9-5(3) so the court may consider an order to strike the plaintiff's notice of civil claim under Rule 9-5(1)
This requisition is supported by the following documents:
1.Notice of claim, filed November 3, 2015;
2. Notice of Application, filed November 3, 2015
3. Requisition rescheduling summary trial filed November 17, 2015
4. Affidavit of Evert Jan Steen; and
5. Claimant's Statement of Argument
NOTES: The plaintiff has set down a hearing for summary trial on February 12, 2016, unilaterally by the enclosed requisition. The action is based on an alleged improper decision of BC Provincial Court from May 2010. The Attorney General submits the action is plainly flawed and should be summarily dismissed, with the plaintiff thereafter notified and having leave to apply for reconsideration under Rule 9-5(4)
A copy of this requisition and all materials filed in support will be sent by email to the plaintiff at his address for service, once filed and confirmation has been received that the materials have been referred to court.
Date: February 4, 2016
Signature of: Johnny Van Camp (Lawyer for filing party)
---------------------------------------------------------------
The above I received as an email the morning of February 05, 2016.
Suffice to say the Registrar did NOT BITE, and the 'TRIAL,' (as such) commenced, certainly with no response to me from Registration. Except the 2 calls: One earlier that Feb.11th morning, asking if I would be attending next day the 12th, and the later one asking if I knew the name of Defence Counsel.
With additional indications by the Court (Justice Gaul clearly had my latter filed materials in hand; i.e.the BLACK Copy) and Defence had chosen to use the Registered files from November 03, 2015. (see above)
NOTE: 2 Highly important, pertinent and perturbing points:
Notice above filed Feb.04 Requisition, No.3:
MY Requisition rescheduling summary trial filed November 17, 2015.
Upon asking for a Rescheduling, with the Trial set for November 27 of the month, Registry had informed me I could do so, AS LONG AS I HAD NOT SERVED THE MINISTRY MY FILES! I replied that I had NOT as yet done so! As such, I was allowed the postponement date, as I then set it for February 12, 2016.
The MAIN and HIGHLY concerning scenario begs the question?
HOW DID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE OBTAIN ALL my Registry filed MATERIALS, WITHOUT MY HAVING SERVED THEM ANY AS YET???
Clearly there is only one answer!
They obtained THEM by retrieving them from the Registry Office!
MULL ON THE ABOVE WHY DON'T YOU?
READING BETWEEN THE LINES.....IS THERE A HINT OF FRICTION BETWEEN REGISTRY AND THE COURTS?
CU NEXT WEEK FOR SNIPPET NO.3
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment