259. "When the Athletes start Talking about Doping...."

VIEWS@16712

".... then we are on the right path to fixing it."

When I replace that with: 'When judges and lawyers begin talking about how they are dis-honouring their profession by self-interpreting the Rules, thus cheating citizens and depriving them of their legal rights to a fair hearing, then we will be on the right path.  Then - maybe, just MAYBE the word 'Democracy' might become a true representation of what it stands defined to be.

Having grown to become more of a realist, I say: Good luck! This just ain't gonna happen.

Listen to madman 'The Donald'. While strangely agreeing with part of his upfront, off-the-cuff  simplistic platform,  I shudder about the man himself - to think this is ACTUALLY a Presidential potential for the most influential country in the world. His existence and the role he is playing is a clear indication our North American Citizens are fully aware they are being shafted by those who are allowed to run our systems.

However, his outlandish statement, about how Obama and Clinton are responsible for the creation of Isis, holds a strange and far reaching kernel of truth. All you need do is fathom the overall hypocrisy of most all our democracies to understand the reasoning why the less fortunate and oppressed are creating such chaos.

It is my take the world is running amok, since it is run by hypocritical example. Leaders of entrenched Institutions, blind with greed, dictate what goes. Driven by Free Enterprise, the CEOs who own and run these Institutions,  have replaced what formerly were Kings, Queens and Lords.

The only 'LORDS' left are the most Honourable Lords and My Ladies who run our Legal systems. "My decision is Functus!" she spoke. As in, I have rendered my decision and there is nothing more to add. We can decide and tell you anything we feel like and want to; we are above the law. Our verdicts are the rules  It's the soup du toujours. I now have text information that literally indicates it.  

In her 'Reasons for Judgment' Madame Justice Garson's first Para states:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Summary:

The applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal the dismissal of his claim against the Crown for damages arising out of the dismissal of his Provincial Court action by a Provincial Court judge. 

Held: The application is dismissed. A Provincial Court judge is immune from civil liability for acts or omissions done in the course of her judicial duties, therefore the appeal against the Crown for * vicarious liability for the acts of a Provincial Court judge has no prospect of success. It would not be in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time." 

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

".......the appeal against the Crown for * vicarious liability for the acts of a Provincial Court judge has no prospect of success."

So let me see if I can comprehend the above crystal clearly! And, since it was put that way, could it  CONTAIN a deeper meaning?

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

*  

vicarious |vəˈkerēəsvīˈkerēəs| adjectiveexperienced in the imagination through the feelings or actions of another person: I could glean vicarious pleasure from the struggles of my imaginary film friends.• acting or done for another: a vicarious atonement.• Physiology of or pertaining to the performance by one organ of the functions normally discharged by another.================================================Is Madam Garson indicating I was possessed by some imaginary feelings when I tried my citizen's utmost to bring existing pertinent law to Justice Justine Saunders' attention? A Rule the very Attorney General of BC had successfully used in a Litigation: Case Law, Canada (Attorney General) V. Yasinski, 2006 BCSC 757 (CanLII)  as well as the successfully used claim in the BC Court of Appeal:Ingenium Technologies Corp. v. McGraw-Hill Companies. Inc.,  2005 BCCA 358 (CanLII)? Only, when a Self-Representing Litigant uses the VERY SAME Rule in order that HE TOO may be honoured by the VERY SAME law,  the Rule no longer bares relevance. For all her liabilities enshrined in her sworn ethics of fairness and impartiality - to Her Majesty the Queen likely (i.e. 'The CROWN'), a Judge can CLEARLY do as he/she pleases whenever she/he feels like it. To hell with LAW and ethics, when a citizen comes calling ! The ONLY thing that means and accounts for anything, is whatever is served up that day. And DON"T forget the collusive aspects of all this.....When you take on the 'GOV.' they come at you from both ends; you're in the wheelhouse of the Ratpack now!  It's a vicious circle; collusion at its very core!There is only one answer: double standards!   How can something so blatantly apparent and corrupt continue to be perpetrated against its citizens?  The thing I continue not to understand is WHY the people, the silent majority, continue to let it happen. As I am doing here, I note a lot of venting by numerous causes. All want your money; all mean well, but ultimately almost ZERO is accomplished.For now, this beat continues........ WEIRD ain't it?