251. To Appeal, or NOT to appeal?

VIEWS@16120

For the last week or so, I have been entertaining whether to quit, or to have one last stab, or poke if you like, at 'JUSTICE.'

Feeling I have gained some insight in to the inner sanctum of the running procedures of at least the Victoria Court system, I wonder whether on top of all the likely political frictions, my tiny bit of nibbling can ever even amount to a 'drop in the bucket.'

"Jan, the Courts are not about Justice." Ah, yes, I remind myself, look around at the general mess - everywhere, globally. But then, at times, you see how a single individual case makes a huge difference. Most often the difference occurs on the negative side of the scale - crazed souls on their killing sprees. But then, on the positive end, you read about a 13 year old who has invented some awesome life-saving device that can help thousands of people.

To live with negativity is easy; to blame is quick. We can spend all day complaining about an array of issues. To be positive takes effort, and does not always bring improved results. Negativity is draining; positivity brings hope by reflecting on, and acknowledging, the great achievements of others.
It is ultimately a choice of mind which directive to play.

If I appeal, it would put me in front of THREE judges. That alone would create a whole different scenario. If only ONE of them would acknowledge the Rules as written, it would show me that the insidious cancer can be treated; that the system does have conscionable individuals working from within; that not all is lost.
-----------------------------------------
JUDGE GAUL'S summation:

"... the fact of the matter is I can find nothing in the notice of civil claim that is before me that sets out any foundation, legal or otherwise, that justifies or could support the claims Mr. Steen is making against the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia. In my opinion, the notice of civil claim discloses no reasonable claim and to allow it to proceed would amount to an abuse of the court’s process. "
------------------------------------------
"- the notice of civil claim discloses no reasonable claim"

My claim discloses that by dismissing my claim in Courtenay, based on 'Lack of Jurisdiction', Justice Justine Saunders decided to err - on purpose! 

She would NOT hear my valid reasons for having used the 'OR' (b) Rule for filing; the very Rule the Attorney General used to win their case against a Defendant who had stated his argument was that BC "Lacked Jurisdiction!" They WON and were paid costs on that one!

The fact the Default Rule for filing in Ontario is "Where the Claim originates"  is clearly another hugely telling FACT!

" - to allow it to proceed would amount to an abuse of the court’s process. "

My Court process, unknowingly called: "a Chambers Application" became an in-house manipulated piece of work, beneficial to Defence, and useless and costly to myself.

The lesson here appears to be that the Justice system can not be shown to err, or cheat. Like the Kings and Queens of our Democracy, these titled Lords and Ladies are NEVER wrong, and certainly shall not be challenged! To do so appears to be: "an abuse of the court’s process."

The lesson is that the Courts regulate to interpret matters as they see fit; they are at all times 'Right', regardless the facts of law; only the rich and well positioned can ever really challenge them.

To Appeal would be my very last stand, since there is no where else to turn. Other than of course working to bring the issues to the the Trudeau door. As it is they are in my daily email box, asking for donations to their causes!