An Old Man Ranting!

Friday, 5 August 2016

257. When there is NO Alternative to the Impossible!

VIEWS@16638

This is a Blog, gracefully and freely allowed by Google on their Internet channels. NONE of it is private; ALL of it is available to the Global Village. This factor is a reminder when periodically I notice a SURGE in views, since Google shows a Colour Map indicator where views are concentrated. These days, once again, most are coming out of RUSSIA!

16 Views yesterday, 11 views today, our RUSSIANS are showing an interest in our phoney Democracy. Is it mere entertainment value to them? Does it make them feel better to note that a simple citizen in the so-called FREE world keeps hacking away fruitlessly at a system that has been taboo to the masses for hundreds of years? In the long run does it matter in any way? Will it make a difference?

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

On reference to my 256 posting of Madam Garson's Decision:

[15] I accept that Mr. Steen likely had a bona fide intention to appeal the February 12 order, and that the delay was caused by his erroneous understanding of the law. It is unclear whether the respondent was informed of Mr. Steen’s intention to appeal. The delay in this case is relatively short, and it is unlikely that the respondent has been significantly prejudiced by that delay. The respondent concedes that this../

(Page change)

What I will indicate, Mr. Steen, leaving aside whether you agree or disagree, whether you like or dislike the results of today, Mr. Van Camp is going to be drafting the order, the court order. What often occurs ‑- you're leaving, are you?

EVERT STEEN: No, no, I'm ‑- I'm listening.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'll wait till you put your jacket on.

EVERT STEEN: I'm paying attention.

THE COURT: No, no. I want your full attention.

Thank you.

What often happens is that when a draft order is prepared, it's sent to the other side for them to review it and agree, leaving aside whether you like it or, "Yes, that's what Judge Gaul said, that's the order" ‑-

EVERT STEEN: Yeah.

THE COURT: -- then you endorse it ‑-

EVERT STEEN: It's not about liking.

THE COURT: What Mr. Van Camp is suggesting is that he draft the order and he send it direct ‑-

EVERT STEEN: What do you mean by that?

THE COURT: He ‑- the order that I've made today. There will be a written order ‑-

EVERT STEEN: Yes.

THE COURT: -- and the order will indicate that on hearing you, and on hearing him, and on ‑- having considered all of the evidence put before me, I make the following order, that your notice of civil claim is struck out, that your action is dismissed."
================================================

I ask any SANE individual reading the above by me emboldened text, if that does not CLEARLY indicates "There will be a written order-- and it will be DRAFTED by Mr. Johnny Van Camp, DEFENCE COUNSEL!

You see that's how we do it here in our Chambers.... we work together, for ultimate efficiency, with the foremost intentions of stopping these types of individuals from even getting in to our chambers.

"MR. VAN CAMP: So the ‑-* the facts aren't really in dispute."
<<..............>>
THE COURT:"So the registrar has some sort of discretion that the whole or part of a document is subject to Rule 1. The registrar can or may refer it to the court. So ‑-

MR. VAN CAMP: So if we're ‑- if we're past that, then, what I ‑- that's what I tried ‑-

THE COURT: Has ‑- has ‑- is there any pushback from the registry saying, "No, that's not the way it is"?

MR. VAN CAMP: There was initially, I can tell ‑- I can tell Your Lordship. "What are you doing? I've never seen this done before. I'm going to have to bounce it." Eventually, we convinced to put it in the refer it to court pile. I was informed that it's going to sit there and meanwhile this hearing is ‑- it's going to go ahead, of course, and then we're informed yesterday that Master Bouck ‑- I don't know if she rejected it or ‑- or what, I certainly wasn't given reasons, but informed that an application needs to be made to strike. There's no reasons. I wish I had reasons so that we could talk about that. But in any event, I don't take it that you would be bound by that in any event, but, really, what would happen if ‑- if ‑- I'm saying that this is before you now. You do have the authority to strike ‑-

THE COURT: Oh, I clearly have the authority to strike under the Rules ‑-

MR. VAN CAMP: So ‑-

THE COURT: -- so that's ‑- that ‑- that is one portion that I can address and I'll ‑- I'll hear Mr. Steen in reply, but when it comes to interpreting the Rules, I don't have a clash of interpretations here, and I'll ‑- I'll tell you right now, for ‑- for what it's worth, the words say what the words say ‑-

MR. VAN CAMP: I ‑- I can tell you that we ‑-

THE COURT: -- and ‑- and I can tell you that on my reading of the Rules, you're right ‑-

MR. VAN CAMP: Thank you, My Lord.

THE COURT: -- that the registrar has that ability to look at a document ‑- doesn't mean they have to. They can look at a document. And if they think under (3) that something should be referred to the court, they can do so, and then the court can make an order, and if the court makes an order, then the registrar has an obligation to notify the party. I ‑- I think the wording is quite clear."

ME: I repeat the above, once again, since "the words say what the words say" and all is SUPER clear!

And as per below now from the July 22, Appeal session, it has now been clearly established that Judges are above the law:

[17] Mr. Steen’s remedy against a Provincial Court judge’s decision is by way of appeal. He cannot sue a judge personally for a decision he asserts is wrong.

[18] Judicial immunity, inherited through the common law of England, prevents an action from being maintained against a superior court justice in relation to acts or omissions occurring in the performance of his or her judicial duties: Morier and Boily v. Rivard, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 716 at 737-740.

[19] That immunity is conferred on judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia through s. 3(1) of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 443, which states:
The Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice and judges have all the powers, rights, incidents, privileges and immunities of a judge of a superior court of record, and all other powers, rights, incidents, privileges and immunities that on March 29, 1870, were vested in the Chief Justice and the other justices of the court.

20] The same immunity that protects judges of the Supreme Court is extended by statute to judges of the Provincial Court through s. 42 of the Provincial Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 379:

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

Okay, so there you have it. Like in an actual CIRCUS, the wheels go round and round. Like the Accountant at year's end asking his client: "Do you want to show a profit, or a loss? What's more beneficial to you?" .....

These NOBLE folk, parading as the 'finest human examples of our society,' have us by the short and curly. They clearly have no conscience, or if they do, they manage to put it on hold when they SWITCH on their FORMAT.

So what is next? I shall need to go beyond the clowns; that's next.

Wednesday, 3 August 2016

256. VERDICT!...... COURTS and JUDGES are BEYOND the LAW!

VIEWS@16606

The Verdict is in, with no surprises; what else could they do - at this late stage. Refer to the facts presented over all these years? Apply the actual Rules?

Because of the length of the text, I will break same down in the near future, and include my responses over a number of weeks. In the meantime I will mull over whether to cease and desist (i.e. Justice is a lost cause), or possibly confront Donald Trump, and ask for his opinion? :)> . (just kidding). But take it from me: The Legal posturing is without question: GROTESQUE , serious and proof our Democracy is a FARCE! "WHOA Canada, our CHROME and NAIVE Land!"

[With PDF's awkward to copy, in order to minimize confusion with the numbered paras (where Para [5] jumps to [6] then runs through to [13], before changing to actual [6] I have moved these paragraphs over to the right. (Clearly a construction error on the part of the transcriber) i.e. NOT me.]

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

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation: Steen v. British Columbia (Justice),
2016 BCCA 342

Date: 20160803

Docket: CA43781

Between:

Evert Jan Steen

Appellant

(Plaintiff)

And

The Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General for British Columbia

Respondent

(Defendant)

Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Garson
(In Chambers)

On appeal from: An order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, dated February 12, 2016 (Steen v. British Columbia (Justice), 2016 BCSC 1132,
Victoria Docket 15-4257).

Appellant (Plaintiff)............................................In Person

Counsel for the Respondent (via Telephone): J.Van Camp

Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia July 22, 2016

Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia August 3, 2016

Steen v. British Columbia (Justice) ...............Page 2

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.

Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice Garson:

[1] The applicant, Evert Jan Steen, applies for an extension of time to appeal the order of Mr. Justice Gaul made on February 12, 2016, striking Mr. Steen’s notice of civil claim and dismissing the action.

Background

[2] Mr. Steen filed a notice of application in November 2015, seeking to have his claim determined by way of a summary trial. In response, the respondent Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia, applied to dismiss his claim pursuant to Rule 9-5(1)(a) and (d) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules on the basis that it disclosed no cause of action and was an abuse of process of the court.

[3] Gaul J. determined that the nature of the claim being advanced was a complaint against a Provincial Court judge for failing to provide Mr. Steen with the correct advice concerning jurisdiction. The Provincial Court judge had determined that Mr. Steen commenced his claim in the wrong registry in non-compliance with the Small Claims Rules, and dismissed his claim on the basis of absence of jurisdiction.

[4] Gaul J. concluded that there was nothing in the notice of civil claim that set out any foundation, legal or otherwise, justifying or supporting the claims made against the respondent (at para. 12). Mr. Steen’s notice of civil claim was therefore struck and his action dismissed.

Steen v. British Columbia (Justice) .......Page 3

[5] In dismissing Mr. Steen’s claim, Gaul J. said at paras. 6-13 of his reasons for judgment (indexed at 2016 BCSC 1132):

[6] As best I can determine, having read the notice of civil claim a number of times, and having heard Mr. Steen’s submissions, he alleges a Provincial Court judge erred when, in May of 2010, she dismissed his original Small Claims action against an Ontario corporate defendant. Specifically, Mr. Steen contends that the judge erred when she advised him that he should sue the corporate defendant in Ontario and when she advised him to appeal her decision dismissing his action.

[7] Mr. Steen asserts he followed the judge’s flawed advice and that in doing so he incurred significant costs and expenses. This is the foundation of his claim for damages against the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia. It remains unexplained how he reached the actual sum of $125,000 in damages.

[8] Mr. Steen appealed the Provincial Court judge’s decision dismissing his original action. That appeal came before Madam Justice Dardi of this court in August of 2010. Because the respondent had served its material late, Mr. Steen requested and was granted an adjournment of the hearing so that he could properly respond to the issues being raised by the respondent. For reasons that are not clear to me, Mr. Steen did not pursue his appeal. Instead, he chose to abandon it. He then pursued a lawsuit against the same corporate defendant in Ontario. That legal action, it would appear, was unsuccessful. Mr. Steen has now turned his attention back to British Columbia and seeks relief from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for what he says are the errors the Provincial Court judge made in his original action.

[9] I have read the transcript of the proceedings in Provincial Court, as well as the judge’s reasons for judgment. I do not agree with Mr. Steen when he says the judge provided him with erroneous legal advice. In my view, the judge found Mr. Steen had filed his action in the incorrect registry and as such he had not complied with the Small Claims Rules. In the result, she dismissed his claim, concluding the Provincial Court of British Columbia did not have jurisdiction to hear it. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the judge explained to Mr. Steen:

"If you wish to appeal my decision, then you’re certainly welcome to do that, but I can’t tell you how to do that."

[10] In my opinion, the judge was not giving Mr. Steen legal advice, nor was she telling him what he should do.

[11] Mr. Steen did appeal from the Provincial Court judge’s decision, but as I have already noted, he abandoned that appeal. That occurred about six years ago. While my function today is not that of an appellate court, I will note that the time for determining whether the Provincial Court judge erred when she rendered her decision in May 2010 has long since passed.

[12] I understand that Mr. Steen may be frustrated and disillusioned with his attempts to pursue his original civil claim against the corporate defendant. He initiated that claim in British Columbia, but it was dismissed because the../

Steen v. British Columbia (Justice) .......Page 4

court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. His subsequent attempt to pursue the claim in Ontario was also unsuccessful. Be that as it may, 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.

[13] For all of these reasons, I am ordering, pursuant to Rule 9-5(1), that Mr. Steen’s notice of civil claim be struck out and that his action be dismissed.

[6] The order in question was made on February 12, 2016 and entered February 18, 2016. Mr. Steen did not file his notice of appeal until July 11, 2016.

Law

[7] Section 14(1) of the Court of Appeal Act provides:

14 (1) The time limit for bringing an appeal or an application for leave to

appeal is

(a) 30 days, commencing on the day after the order appealed from is pronounced, or

(b) if another enactment specifies a different period, that different period.

[8] The time limit to appeal therefore runs from the date an order or ruling was pronounced, even if written reasons are to follow: Romfo v. 1216393 Ontario Inc., 2008 BCCA 106 at para. 23.

[9] However, s. 10 provides that a justice may extend or shorten the time within which an appeal may be brought:

10 (1) A justice may extend or shorten the time within which an appeal to the court or application for leave to appeal may be brought.

(2) In an appeal or other matter before the court, a justice may do one or more of the following:
.....

(d) extend or shorten the time provided in this Act or the rules or in an order extending or shortening time, for the doing of an act or taking of a proceeding;

Steen v. British Columbia (Justice) ........ Page 5

[10] The criteria for an extension of time to begin an appeal were set out in Davies v. C.I.B.C. (1987), 15 B.C.L.R. (2d) 256 at 259-260 (C.A.) and may be summarized as follows:

1) Was there a bona fide intention to appeal?
2) When were the respondents informed of the intention?
3) Would the respondents be unduly prejudiced by an extension of time?
4) Is there merit in the appeal?
5) Is it in the interest of justice that an extension be granted?

[11] The interests of justice may be the decisive factor: First Majestic Silver Corp. v. Santos, 2014 BCCA 214 at para. 57.

[12] The burden is with the applicant to demonstrate that the criteria are met: Kedia International Inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2008 BCCA 305 at para. 8.

Discussion

[13] Mr. Steen filed his notice of appeal four months after the expiration of the appeal period.

[14] It is evident from his affidavit evidence that this delay was the result of
Mr. Steen’s misapprehension that he had 30 days from the date of receiving written reasons for judgment to file his appeal, rather than 30 days from the date of the order. He says that he received written reasons on June 1, 2016, and then discovered that the time limit had expired.

[15] I accept that Mr. Steen likely had a bona fide intention to appeal the February 12 order, and that the delay was caused by his erroneous understanding of the law. It is unclear whether the respondent was informed of Mr. Steen’s intention to appeal. The delay in this case is relatively short, and it is unlikely that the respondent has been significantly prejudiced by that delay. The respondent concedes that this../

Steen v. British Columbia (Justice) .... Page 6

application falls to be determined on the basis of the merits (or lack thereof) of the appeal itself. Thus, the threshold question on this application is whether the appeal is doomed to fail, or whether it can be said confidently that the appeal is without merit: Stewart v. Postnikoff, 2014 BCCA 292 at para. 6 (Goepel J.A. in Chambers). This principle applies even where the other Davies factors are met: Stewart.

[16] In my view, the chambers judge correctly stated Mr. Steen’s underlying complaint in para. 8 of the reasons. In his affidavit, Mr. Steen says, “I hold the Ministry responsible for a BC Judge’s erroneous dismissal (based on ‘lack of Jurisdiction’), regarding a web-based claim I previously filed in Courtenay, BC, Registry”.

[17] Mr. Steen’s remedy against a Provincial Court judge’s decision is by way of appeal. He cannot sue a judge personally for a decision he asserts is wrong.

[18] Judicial immunity, inherited through the common law of England, prevents an action from being maintained against a superior court justice in relation to acts or omissions occurring in the performance of his or her judicial duties: Morier and Boily v. Rivard, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 716 at 737-740.

[19] That immunity is conferred on judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia through s. 3(1) of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 443, which states:
The Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice and judges have all the powers, rights, incidents, privileges and immunities of a judge of a superior court of record, and all other powers, rights, incidents, privileges and immunities that on March 29, 1870, were vested in the Chief Justice and the other justices of the court.
See also: Hill v. British Columbia (1997), 36 B.C.L.R. (3d) 211 at para. 22.

[20] The same immunity that protects judges of the Supreme Court is extended by statute to judges of the Provincial Court through s. 42 of the Provincial Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 379:

Steen v. British Columbia (Justice) Page 7

42. Judges and justices have, for things done or not done by them in their official capacity, the same immunities from civil liability as judges of the Supreme Court have for the things done or not done by them in their capacity as judges of the Supreme Court.
See also: Hill at para. 22.

[21] There is no cause of action available to Mr. Steen in a suit against the Crown for an allegedly erroneous decision of a Provincial Court judge. It follows that there is no merit to the appeal of the decision dismissing Mr. Steen’s claim as disclosing no cause of action.

[22] Because Mr. Steen’s proposed appeal is without merit, it would not be in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time to commence the appeal.

Disposition

[23] The application to extend the time to file an appeal is dismissed.

“The Honourable Madam Justice Garson”

Saturday, 30 July 2016

255. When the Impossible is Necessary: 3

VIEWS@16538

Not knowing when I would be hearing my 'Judgment' from Justice Garson, who withheld it with intentions to check with the file and Justice Gauls dismissal, having had a number of email exchanges with the Assistant AG, Mr. Sandstrom, I sent him the following email on July 27th:

ATTENTION KURT J.W.SANDSTROM

FOR THE RECORD:

February 12, 2016, Victoria Court: J. Van Camp, representing the AG, to Justice Gaul:

[Page 23/Line 41]: Counsel Van Camp: “So the…the facts aren’t really in dispute….”

…….

[P.24/Line 10] Counsel “ So he’s bringing a claim because a judge got something wrong ….[..]

[L.13] Court J.Gaul: "The judge got something wrong as---are you acknowledging they got it wrong?”

Counsel: “That’s what he — no not at all.”

Court: 'So allegedly got it wrong?'

Counsel: "Well, that’s what he’s alleging. That’s correct.”

Court: “Okay.”

Mr. Sandstrom:

In anticipation of receiving your Ministry’s Justice Garson judgment decision to my September 09, 2016 appeal date filing efforts at my Vancouver Appeal Court appearance on July 22 -

this email communication is to establish my present status and perspective of the claim against your Ministry.

1) I initially filed my claim against your Ministry of Justice on November 03, 2015, in Victoria for a November 17 hearing;

- I DID NOT SERVE YOUR OFFICE! (you were aware of it and used its materials as if served.)

2) Registry allowed, and I managed to postpone same, on the basis I had NOT served your office.

Although at times they may be UN-informed about your upper administrative motives, they

otherwise appear conscientious and particular about the process of proper filing.

3) I then correctly set a new date for February 12/ 2016. I served your office with a Notice of Application, and a February 4 (Courtenay Registry) witnessed Affidavit. These docs were Xpress post delivered to your offices on February 05, 2016

4) On February 05, I received first email contact from your counsel J. Van Camp. It included a Requisition to the Registrar with the effort to shut me down before the Trial date on the 12th.

6) The Registrar did not oblige and the Feb 12th Hearing occurred

7) Prior to leaving my Hornby home on the 11th, I had a telephone call from your Registry asking if I perchance knew who would be representing your office the next day?

8) Counsel Van Camp served me your party’s APPLICATION RESPONSE in front of the Court room on the 12th.

9) The Hearing/ Trial/ In Chambers Application session was repetitive, with confusion about dates, filing, serving, differing documents erroneously attributed to myself. There was much talk about yet unused dismissal tactics.

10) Why did your office and Counsel use unserved documents from the November 04, 2015, filing? Although never referred to, Justice Gaul had the correct files.

11) Ordered by your office, both your employee Counsel and Justice summarily dismissed my claim with no references to any Plaintiff’s detailed facts. In any other court environment such a scenario would be considered collusion and not allowed.

12) It was made clear however, and the transcript will verify this, Counsel Van Camp was to write up the details of the dismissal and deliver same for Justice Gaul’s approval, prior to serving myself. I have learned these to be the detailed “Written Reasons for Judgment.”

13) Awaiting same, in order that I might interpret my appeal, I received a June 14th Counsel request for payment with the self-same oral REASONS FOR JUDGMENT dated February 12th.

14) You are aware and likely in control of these procedures.

15) It is more than apparent to me your Ministry has no intentions of administering proper process based on my presented facts and a Canadian citizen allowable due process. It appears to me you are intent on eliminating this litigant's efforts at any costs.

16) Should I not imminently hear from your office, and be given valid, legally acceptable, reasons for having stifled my Victoria Trial and appeal, I shall venture to take these issues beyond the province.

Sincerely,

evert-jan steen

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

I was contacted by telephone yesterday, July 29th, by the Vancouver Registry. I was informed my 'Judgment' would be available on August 03, 2016. If I wanted an email version sent me, I could send them a forwarding email address.

I much appreciated the call, and thanked the caller. Although it was made clear at the end of the court session on the 22nd what my Self-Reprenting email address was, I suppose protocol with its automatic reply required my asking for the transaction thusly.

I have now also sent above letter to Madame Suzanne Anton (AG for BC) and Madame Christy Clark (Premier of BC) For what it is worth, the very top echelon is now aware that unless I am allowed an Appeal, I will go beyond the province.

August 03, is this coming Wednesday!

I shall see what I shall see.....and It will be what it will be....

Wednesday, 27 July 2016

254. Sometimes the Impossible is Necessary (2)

VIEWS@16433

The board posted docket Case # 6 stated my purpose as:
'seeking permission to extend the date for filing an appeal. '

Having served the AG/ Ministry of Justice my Motion/ Notice of Appeal, and Affidavit and having received acknowledgement of service of same, as well as Mr. Van Camp's court available dates for a September Appeal date, I had anticipated to set a firm date for September 09, 2016.

I was looking forward to a three justice panel! WELL.......It looks like it is not to be.

So, based on my last Friday's Vancouver July 22, In-Chambers, Court attendance, with Justice Madame Garson presiding and AG Counsel Mr.Johnny Van Camp attending by telephone, ensuring Justice Garson got the AG's position LOUD and CLEAR. Collusion is blatantly apparent in every step.

As I have already indicated:
I NEVER received ANY FACT BASED 'WRITTEN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT!'

Why not? Because my facts would prove that I am right and they are WRONG!

With some 5 other cases ahead of me, my claim was again left for last with no one else, but two clerks and myself in the courtroom. Once I had been identified, Mr. Van Camp was brought in by telephone. (I should have known) At some point Defence Counsel Van Camp states: "He has no claim, My Lady!"

Justice Garson decided to withhold her Judgment, and will check Justice Gaul's/ Mr. Van Camp/ Ministry of Justice ordered 'Reasons for dismissal.'

Whatever is occurring here, it is a well-oiled SET UP!
All is directed to show to be a costly WASTE OF TIME.
IT IS AS IF THEY ARE SETTING OUT TO PROVE THAT ALL OF MY EFFORTS ARE INDEED AN ABUSE OF COURT TIME!

THE SCENARIO IS SINISTER, AND MORE THAN A LITTLE SCARING - TO SAY THE LEAST! It makes me shiver! The lot have clearly sold their consciences.

REMEMBER NOW! THESE ARE OUR MOST NOBLE, HONOURABLE, IMPARTIAL, WELL-EDUCATED CITIZENS, DRAWING THEIR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR PAY-CHECKS EACH YEAR!

THINK OF IT? These are the very finest, most noble citizens a Democracy can produce!

No wonder THE WORLD is in turmoil!

The Lords and My Ladies of JUSTICE (Hah!) are cutting this Self-Representing Litigant off at the Pass! He shall be stopped at any price!

So it is time to step this effort up, and in to a higher gear!

I have come full-circle with these local plebeians.

- MAKING A HYPOCRISY OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

SHAME ON THE LOT OF THEM.

THEY ARE A FARCE IN OUR SOCIETY!

Saturday, 16 July 2016

253. When the Impossible is Necessary!

VIEWS@16327

The Title phrase is brilliant! It is NOT mine! Reflecting on my efforts with the legal system, I now feel I have a better response to a family member asking me if I had heard of the name Don Quixote? Suggesting I am the romantic fool, tilting at windmills while pursuing the Impossible Dream.

And 'YES' our world is much more cruel, than it is just. We have discussed 'Justice' is rare and most often 'purchased.' Still there are those like myself who are driven to question hatred, in-equality, and injustice. If it ain't there, why not just state and show it, like the Dictators rule.

Why keep pretending? THAT's what's going on in the world now. The masses are breaking down. They finally want to stop pretending by rallying to face the TRUTH! IN-justice is REAL! Hatred and discrimination is REAL! APARTHEID is REAL! Mankind is NOT above other creatures.
Lions and Zebras only co-exist, until the lions feel hunger! Then the Zebra becomes alert, packs, and runs.

Coexistence works so long there is plenty - for everyone; NOT when few usurp power and leave the spoils for the majority to fight over.

So, YES, I am now Appealing. I wasn't fully certain. It always takes me some time to ruminate on whether to quit or proceed. Ultimately I realized I have ONE more opportunity, one more proceeding, and by appealing I will have the luxury of doing this in front of THREE Judges. So rather than throwing in the towel, I am throwing down the gauntlet.

With the requirement for proper filing, which itself is a trip, I have come to recognize that Registries and their Staff are nice and considerate folk. However their jobs are not being threatened by my actions; it is the lawyers and Judges who are feeling we, as self-reprisenting litigants are poking our noses in their private, legal world. We are the ones that are asking questions? Why is a judge allowed to err and dismiss your case, when you know you have a legitimate case?

And since a Judge can willy/nilly do as they please, immune from reproach, by being beyond reproach, are they then beyond the law ? Is NO_ONE responsible? Surely this is not democratic?This is not fair? This is not JUST? This is not JUSTICE according to the Rules?

SOME-body must be held responsible? If not, NOTHING is making sense and all is a farce!

So I am holding the Ministry of Justice/ AG office responsible, since they ultimately hire, pay and oversee the Judges' actions and behaviour.
Whatever they allow to pass as 'JUSTICE' is the reflection of our democratic legal system!

So, to inform you, I have to date NO issues with Administration; they have been fully helpful and particular to help me get my docs, if not RIGHT, at least administratively correct and acceptable.

I thank them all for that, and as such need to voice: "My Access to Justice" has been just fine!
(although I would personally rephrase it and state: "My access to the Legal Administration has been just fine!)

On July 22, in Vancouver, I will be setting down a September Court date for the Appeal. (This is when Defence Counsel has indicated to me he will be available.)

I shall keep you informed of matters as they develop.