STAT-VIEWS@18,598
Leaving any 'conscience' out of it for the moment, let us turn hands-on 'practical' for a moment and look to see how Rules and 'Accountability' relate to various other areas in a purportedly organized society - I mean areas outside the haloed premises of a courthouse.
Certain behaviours, or the lack of them, could take you IN to a court environment, but would have to be initiated
prior to be taken 'in to' that 'Just' Court scenario.
Most simply, let's find ourselves driving a vehicle on a highway approaching a traffic light. We know that GREEN means 'GO' - no problem. Alert, assessing the complete circumstances, we merrily go through the lights, and proceed. "Have a good day, eh?"
But 'WHOOPS,' as we near the intersection, the lights suddenly change to ORANGE!
Being a seasoned driver, we 'KNOW' this means that imminently the ORANGE will change to bright RED; that we literally have been given nano-seconds to decide whether to slow down to a STOP (in front of the white line on the road with the changing traffic lights in clear view ahead of us) or -----boot it, and beat the RED!
Guess what? With absolutely no traffic anywhere in sight (remember, we are on the open highway), we BOOT it - with the lights turning RED, we notice, just as we reach the 'In the Clear' of the opposite side. "Woosh" ...... we did it! ..... So we think ...
However! We have thought too quickly, because a man in a well-known UNIFORM, some several hundred yards ahead of us, has stepped from behind a bunch of highway growth, and beckons us to pull over!
Long story short, with NO argument and reasonings acceptable:
"You drove through a RED light; here's your $200. traffic ticket! Pay it, or see you in Court! Have a nice day- eh! " ........
Stunned, we drive on.
You show up in Court; you argue your point; no pictures or factual proof of evidence of any particulars can be shown. It's your word against the 'Officer of the Law.' Your conscience is clear! Had you stopped, as the lights turned RED, you would have come to a skidding halt, driving fast, but well below the allowable 110 KM speed limits of this highway.
Yet, you are held 'ACCOUNTABLE!' It's your word against the Officer's! And you are found "Guilty as charged!" And fined the $200.00 + of course the time and costs it took you to bother to show up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CUT TO AN 'IN-CHAMBERS' SUPREME COURT SESSION! Please understand, this is NOT your every day, overflowing-making-money-for-the-gov type of session; this is the Province's SUPREME COURT in which the SRL claimant has 'bothered' to challenge this 'Ministry of Justice' to explain the order judgment on a provable Rule MISTAKE made by one of its highest ranking officers, a fellow Judge! Since the Judge is UN-accountable in their daily services, WHO IS? Where does the RED light come in here? Surely SOME-one must be held responsible?!
In Attendance:
A Supreme Court Judge (On the Provincial Ministry's payroll @ circa $300,000 annually) ; the Ministry's representing Defence Counsel (Also on the Ministry's payroll @ circa $100,000 (?) annually); and little old me @ $17,000 basic old-age pension)
Without even looking to discuss the details, all based on FACTS and RULES I presented, the answer is:
Def Counsel: "Just because the Judge erred in her dismissal of her claim does not mean he is entitled to any compensation!"
Judge: "You mean,
allegedly erred!"
Even though in, what I 'thought' I was attending was a Summary Trial, in which there is no need for any explicit, additional dialogue, since all has been presented in WRITTEN form, I am asked at the outset of the session:
Court: "I have read your materials.....so what is it you would like me to do for you today, Sir"
Although all of that as well, is clearly down on BLACK AND WHITE, written by this claimant, there is NEVER any referral to ANY of the WRITTEN text. Instead we get:
Discussed between 2 Men, both in their Official capacities, both in the employment of a single and same Ministry of 'Justice,' a claim which is now Justly considered an 'abuse of the court process.'
Result being: I am readily DISMISSED!
More than somewhat baffled, so that I might actually understand this process, I ask for, and am promised to receive, a specific and detailed WRITTEN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - ordered by the judge to be written by same Defence Counsel and shown same Judge, prior to being supplied to myelf.
Selfsame WRITTEN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ARE
NEVER SENT ME!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparing above 2 scenarios:
Can the reader make any 'SENSE' of 'ANYTHING?'
Any even subliminal NEVER ENDING FLASHING RED LIGHTS DRIVING YOU INSANE YET?
GO FIGURE! ...........
Well, the system is called Democracy! Collusion is in full Bloom in the Justice Department!
"WHOA Canada, our Chrome and Naive Land....."
Keep counting sheep before you go to sleep at night; but have a nice day - EH!
