150. Farewell to the 2014 'Circumstances.'

VIEWS@10676

The more a plot thickens, the more obtuse it becomes. Objectivity is hard come by when the original premise has disappeared. The argument surrounding a legal claim based on a non-compliant contract was gradually lost with Defence's concentration on their counterclaim based on defamation.

Defence motions to withdraw blog content and dismiss the 'Frivolous' claim were court allowable - 'in the circumstances.' Circumstances being the old nag Plaintiff from rural BC, challenging the hierarchy in the Capitol. Over time (starting a court's fifth year now) this original Plaintiff was re-positioned, when Defence became the 'Moving party', forcing this Plaintiff to become the Defendant, as in the the 'non-compliant' Respondent. And, 'BINGO,' after a final cornering, and collusion by his then 'Counsel,' the ultimate dismissal of his claim for recalcitrance for not answering any more questions. Has at long last this Defendant/Respondent, once-upon-a-time Claimant, been silenced?  Will he ever learn?

A number of us battling the all-powerful and staid system have come to realize we are not dealing with truth by fact; if we were, in an actual, democratic, court of law, the language determined in a concisely worded contract would have quickly spoken for itself long ago - either way. However, ploys created to circumvent contractual obligations by leading attention away from 'the issues at hand,' with freshly created alternate 'issues,' like the false scent planted by perpetrators during a hunting expedition created entirely different 'circumstances.' This is what is called 'smart business;' to lead away from actual issues by creating new ones, especially when the actual issues are to be avoided like the plague. 

I will likely find time to explain how my legal circumstances changed by quoting the endorsement texts of the Masters. It will allow indication how through the usage of Words and the oiling of Time, manipulations create new Truths during unfolding Circumstances....

NOTHING is EVER the same. Today's reality is yesterday's lie. Life unfolds.

PS: Just thought to add this: Whatever happens at the appeal date in January, since the Counterclaim was not re-initiated by a certain dead-line date, it is legally off the books. But then - who knows?
Circumstances change :(>

149. Under THE circumstances; WHOSE circumstances?

VIEWS@10664

Since a recent explanation has shed a certain light on what the Master 'meant', there's more depth to discover here. I just failed to 'get it'.  We accept the fact that legalese jargon can baffle even an intelligent SRL, even if it appears to be a simple phrase. So let's have a closer look at:
"Under (or in) the circumstances."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 circumstance |ˈsərkəmˌstans, -stəns|
noun1 (usu. circumstances) a fact or condition connected with or relevant to an event or action: we wanted to marry but circumstances didn't permit.• an event or fact that causes or helps to cause something to happen, typically something undesirable: he was found dead but there were no suspicious circumstances |they were thrown together by circumstance.2 one's state of financial or material welfare: the artists are living in reduced circumstances.PHRASESunder no circumstances never, whatever the situation is or might be: under no circumstances may the child be identified.under (or in) the circumstances given the difficult nature of the situation: given the difficult nature of the situation: she had every right to be angry under the circumstances.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- a fact or condition connected with or relevant to an event or action

MY CIRCUMSTANCES

Based on the above, let's take a look at MY circumstances. 
Well, they have been steadily piling up over these many years. 

My FIRST circumstance was the BC Judge dismissing my claim based on "Lack of Jurisdiction." 
- When I questioned the Honourable Judge, pointing her at the 'OR' clause for filing in BC, stating I fully complied to its factors, I was cut off with: "I have made my decision." *
- When I asked if there was anything else I could do, the Judge stated: 
"You may Appeal my decision' if you so chose." *

 For the readers' information, I have ample proof the Judge erred on both counts.  
 First Count:
1) Check 2005 BCSC 720 (CanLII)'s  SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA case: 
Ingenium Technologies Corporation v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., (New York)
Conclusion 
[110] In summary:
1, This court has jurisdiction over the proceedings;
2. British Columbia is the forum conveniens.

[111] In the result, Ingenium's application is granted. [....] Ingenium is entitled to its costs.

Second Count:
Soon after I had filed my Appeal (in BC'S SUPREME COURT) I received an 'Application to a Judge' from Defence Counsel. It stated: "One may file for an Appeal after a Trial, not after a Hearing. 
Since we had a Hearing, there can not be an Appeal." (some of you will have read this in a previous post)   No matter how I argued it, I could not overcome this 'technicality. '
NOTE: THE RULE OVERRULED THE JUDGE'S ALLOWANCE!
   
There you go then. My 'circumstances' soon saw me realizing that our small town court environment wasn't going to get me anywhere; that filing in the Capitol of our Country 'should' give me a fairer kick at the judicial can! So, that's what I did. As you know, my 'circumstances' grew steadily worse, with my nightmare expanding and continuing.

As a Plaintiff, one sets out as the initiator of matters by filing a claim; like playing chess, white has the first move. Defence follows suit. Well, with every step I took, my 'circumstances' grew worse. Defence with Ottawa Counsel in tow, acknowledged, but then ignored delivery of my Written Questions for Discovery, by filing their Motion heard several months hence to force me to adopt the long form Discovery Plan, or dismiss my "frivolous case." (This after offering to settle out of court for $30,000)  To sum up, at some stage, likely when the Claim Insurance had fulfilled its duty, when both parties where self-representing, we were ordered in to Case Management.
========================================================The above is an entry I wrote, as a draft,  several days ago. Considering its length and possibly the readers' span of attention, I enter it now - as is!  More tomorrow or the next day! In the meantime, Merry tidings of Christian gobbledygook to you! 

HEY! I am a caring individual! I put up with NO SHIT! I am NOT PERFECT, but I CARE about the state of the world and our invasive species thinking we are 'king of the castle'!.  
Mother GAIA is showing us otherwise...    

148. "Under the circumstances" revisited and explained.

VIEWS@ 10536

I recently gained a clearer insight to Master Pierre Roger's December 06, 2012, ENDORSEMENT.

To me (again attending by phone), the session had been a highly puzzling 3 hour Case Conference, with a painstaking wading through Defence Undertakings of new questions to former answers, based on earlier answered questions, based on answers to initial questions...etc!

Relying on their extended, continuing Motion, it was made clear that I, and I alone, was the culprit. A Counter Motion I thought I had filed (many legal technicalities to jump through from this distance) proved 'non-existent'. "I have a lot of paper work Mr. Steen; I am unaware of it."
Oh, the plight of Jurisdictionally handicapped SRLs!

But I can see a bit more 'clearly' now. I'll explain after the following preamble.

The process of Life is made up of 'circumstances.' Every tiniest bit of an individual's perception depends on a variety of ingredients, all of which cumulate to form their own "circumstances."
Simple example:
- When one observes 'anything,' one observes it through one's own perspective, one's own eyes, based on one's own understanding of one's own experiences. This may seem obvious; but then again, it very often is not, since the formulation of 'self' goes back to one's own formation. So it is that each of the many billions of us will carry our own individual's take, simply based on "the circumstances."

Take 'Rule', as a word, or as a concept? In communication, we use words, thinking, when used, they mean the same to everyone. As a concept this may be true, but under differing 'circumstances' they can mean entirely different things.
My close to five years formative life, spent in various internment camps (3-7) in Indonesia, taught me to OBEY THE RULES OR ELSE! One false move > and you were DEAD!

We continue to observe this on a daily basis, and it will get worse! A kid with a toy-gun shot dead, no questions asked. Young adults, unhappy with their own 'circumstances,' looking for better reason and motivation join organizations with clearer defined objectives; objectives that better fulfill their earlier questionable and cloudy 'circumstances.'

Created by our ever growing numbers and demands, our circumstances have become less defined.
Our democratic western systems, purportedly based on fairness, tolerance, equality and justice - encapsulated in our Rules of Civil Procedure - in practice, are proving to be fully hypocritical and false.

ERGO!

Circumstances can come to fruition with the text phrasing of a Master's order.
Circumstances can come about when communications create variable interpretations.
Circumstances can be interpreted by which a party becomes thoroughly confused.
Circumstances can be created whereby a Master's Order speaks louder than a RULE.
Circumstances can occur by which a Master Rules like a Judge.

Circumstances can ultimately lead to an individual's demise! Right or Wrong!

No wonder our legal system continues to be a convoluted, one-side-favouring Chameleonic Innuendo of variable Circumstances.

All the various Circumstances contain their various truths; they are what they are!

In this game of Circumstances, the argument continues!

147. Is there such a JUDGE?

VIEWS@10449

Is there in this vast professed Democracy of ours a Person incapable of ploy and persuasion; an Individuall so dedicated to their profession and its oath of office, who can carry on their duties unhindered by any swaying forces; a Professional of such honourable stature, whose conscience stands above the ego of human frailty?

Does our country have a Judge, impartial under any circumstances; a Judge solely focused on the issues at hand, to determine fact from fiction, game from truth, right from wrong? A Judge who under ALL circumstances upholds the oath of their office to be fair and impartial, determined to unearth the truth of the circumstances, and only based on its facts, order the just outcome? Is there such a Judge?

If, indeed there is such a pillar of our society, would she/he be willing to step forward and lead a forum of mixed talents, made up from other professionals, educators, and yes even some self-representing litigants; a forum that would set out to improve the Provinces Rules of Civil Procedure, and the general allowances for a citizen's access to the Court System? And, additionally, advice that in this age of e-commerce there is a realistic need for uniformity of Rules across the Nation!

The above upgrade would then be presented to the various departments of our Attorneys General who would then be encouraged to implement same. These efforts would be a great first step towards the actual rectification of a system's long overdue inefficiencies, and inequalities. Public systems in a just and true Democracy should serve all its Citizens, not solely its insiders.

This is the twenty-first century; let's enter it!

146. Dear Santa..^...$...#...?...!...>...>

VIEWS@10377 

DEAR SANTA:

Like the sublime intangible myth you are, I am like that perpetual child who continues to seek confirmation his undaunted efforts on earth are not merely for 'naughty or nice.'

Santa, can you please help me find more substance effect to the efforts of so many well-meaning citizens, all of whom seek truth and fairness in their sojourn towards justice.

Please Santa, share a Hot Rum-Toddy with those who are beyond the law, yet considered the Pillars of our Society. Discuss with them badly required improvements to both rules and process. Remind them of their Oaths of Office, and the privileged role they are dedicated to uphold. Suggest to those no longer capable of impartiality, they find less challenging work, or perchance take early retirement. (J)

Santa, you are the closest thing we humans have to a God on Earth. I feel I can trust in you! Please do what you can.

Little Johnny Doe.  

_________________________________________________________

If matters couldn't get more ridiculous, let's write to 'SANTA.' We just know, he will listen; or is he a SHE? Then again, should he/she write back, GOD forbid, who pays for this scam? Would it be BIG BROTHER himself? or is that SISTER? >>> 'Snow Bells Ring, Are You Listening?' 

Master deceit will empty your hearts and pockets.... once again.

But HAIL? Do I detect a tiny glimmer on the horizon called 'HOPE?' Is Rudolph's Red Nose smelling a hint of change? Are the combined forces of the undaunted creating enough dust to stir an irritating cough within the breathing apparatus of the insatiable psychopathic few - the comptrollers of our collective destiny?  

Only TIME will tell. Oh yes, 'TIME,' that elusive dimension that effects us all.

145. Is MADNESS the NEW REALITY?

VIEWS@10336

SLAW – The Reality Disconnect – Blog Post Dr. Julie Macfarlane by nsrlp Posting of Dr. Julie Macfarlane's blog "The Reality Disconnect: How Hierarchical Decision Making is Holding Back Progress on Access to Justice in Canada. http://www.slaw.ca/2014/11/24/the-reality-disconnect-how-hierarchical-decision-making-is-holding-back-progress-on-access-to-justice-in-canada/

_________________________________________________________________

"The Reality Disconnect" reads the heading of the recent NSRLP's Blog entry.

"How Hierarchical Decision Making is Holding Back Progress on Access to Justice in Canada."

The above are all awesome WORDS, configured in sentences.

Living in the woods, as I do, amongst the cedars, alders, fir, arbutus and maples, with perched Eagles squealing high on top of few remaining old growth, local ravens flying routine patterns to see if I've left them a fresh-caught Rat on my offering rock, and the growling sounds of over-wintering male Stellar sea-lions reaching up from the rocks below in the Salish sea, I reflect upon the 'Realities' of others.

I just came back from Vancouver, visiting my established, fortunate 2 sons, their caring wives and recently born granddaughter. But then there are the many thousands homeless, all of whom were someone's baby once. Upon buying a coffee in their 'locale,' a destitute young man is asking for a 'free' coffee.  

As the young employee begins to explain, according to the company's 'protocol' she is not able to set that precedent, I hold up my hand indicating I will gladly buy him his $2.05 coffee. To allow the troubled youth a moment's 'bliss au cafe' is a pittance gesture I will not refuse. It allows me a cheap moment's sense of 'caring.' - I'm in the 'DEVELOPED' world here, for crying out loud! > A Reality Disconnect? NO! IT IS REAL!

MY reality is not HIS reality; their reality is not 'OUR' reality; the developed world indeed. With much effort, I have chosen to live in a place, within a closeness to NATURE > what's left of it. In my third act in life now, I pursue to manage and retain my own 'Reality.' The species is definitely on the brink of serious consequences. We are running amuck, there are clear signs everywhere; no question about it!

THE HUMAN RACE IS A MORPHING SPECIES! Intensely focused on GADGETRY, youth is lost in SELFIES and TEXT MESSAGING; verbal dialogue with those present is absent. All is quiet on the Western Front! I say: EARIE indeed!

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Any time I step outside my own 'REALITY' I glean more about 'OTHER' realities. Connectives with online services require close attention. Anonymity is flourishing. Fact and truth are up for grabs. Deceit is the new reality - get used to it. The need for survival is allowing for every area of thinkable deceit. It seems to be the necessity of a morphing species outgrowing its natural comfort zone. 

Assuming that online contracts are anymore meaningful than a handshake, a wink, or a poke in your side > all is fallacy, a Reality that Disconnects.  

MADNESS IS the new REALITY.

   

144. DRAFT TEXT FOR AN APPEAL HEARING

VIEWS@10242

    ARGUMENT OF APPELLANT

NOTE: The following is a draft of an introductory statement I hope to be allowed. I share it with you,  in case I should not make it to Ottawa, and weaken my stand by, again, attending by telephone)

STEEN: 

"Thank you, your honour for allowing me the opportunity to ‘Argue’ my case from some 5000 km distance. As one in constant search for meaning, as a 75 year old appreciative Canadian Citizen, I “stand on guard for thee.” Myself as a mere citizen; you, your Honour as a "Pillar of our Society.'

In my bodily absence, I beg your no more than 5 minute indulgence.

I understand - and have gleaned to digest, we are NOT here to argue yet to be discussed issues concerning the claim itself – issues, of actual contract related facts. We are here, some 6 years later to ‘argue’ if you will, whether, during this lengthy, meandering process any RULES were broken. 

And if so, who might have broken them?

Having now battled what I mistakenly thought should have been a brief and direct Court case I first filed in 2009, in BC, since the claim deals with the Contractual non-compliance of a website, I am, instead, deeper in debt, and merely wiser to the extent I have been advised that “Courts are not necessarily about Justice.” That RULES can be interpreted subjectively; that matters to issues at hand may proceed in a manner of ‘business,’ and today even by ‘Argument.’ May the best ‘Argument’ win; like in debating class.

This gravely puzzles me, since Dutch-Indonesian born, 4 1/2 years of my youth were spent in Japanese concentration camps, where even the slightest Rule departure could lead to dire consequences. So, all my life, I have always paid special attention with respect to RULES!

I was astonished at the BC Judge’s dismissal of my claim, based on lack of Jurisdiction, when in fact I felt I had ample evidence to validate the secondary “OR” clause for filing in BC.

The JUSTICE OF THE PEACE CODE OF ETHICS, under ‘Conduct’ reads: “Justices of the Peace are subject to ongoing public scrutiny and therefore they must respect and comply with the law and conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

My Blog: ‘The Lonely Road to Justice,’ has had some 10,000 + views now. All my legal knowledge has been gleaned from government posted on-line websites. I have mostly been pre-occupied with questioning the ins and outs of legal procedure. My Blog tries to understand the court’s reasoning, their seemingly obtuse interpretations, rather than clear adherence to defined RULES with their secondary ‘OR’  allowances to their primary Default instructions.

My Blog’s questioning stance, with in time realization there are now hundreds of thousands SRLs having spent their savings, if not lost their homes, to desperately seek a certain ‘Justice,’ only to find they are most-often treated as second class citizens, if not, in fact, merely rudely dismissed. 

Finding myself in those circumstances, has led to my becoming a certain persona non-grata to your apparent self-controlled system.

Although I have been emotional at times, NEVER have I been verbally abusive. 

Every Book has its Cover; every Chapter its beginning; every Argument its Foundation.

My dilemma is as an SRL. With my strongest of opinions lying in the area of strict adherence to the Rules; ESPECIALLY the Rules, as per those sited in my Notice of Appeal. The Rules, as in how I ultimately decided they went beyond the Masters' Orders, since they were, surely, the more superior!  

Today not 5, not 3, but you Your Honour, as a SINGLE ‘Pillar of Our society’ sit in my Judgment. The argument you accept today will depend on your sole and personal assessment and views. 

Like a God, the reasons for judgment are in your hands. You are beyond accountability.

So then the root 'argument' lies in the following:

- Did Mr. Steen fulfill his obligations according to the Rules? He says he more than went beyond the explicit, and defined Rules of Discovery abiding to Master’s orders while going far beyond the relevant issues at hand. 

- Did Defense abide by the rules, or might they perchance have abused any, with their various Motions and continued allowances for additional questions. Defense has NEVER been questioned.

- Why did Mr. Steen have so much trouble filing his Motions? Why were there no public services in place to aid him therewith, as a tax-paying citizen?

- Why did Master Macleod, in his September 20, 2013, ‘Special Appointment’ not allow Mr. Steen’s request for his already outstanding request for an explanation of: ‘What were the circumstances that made the questions relevant?” 

- With Master Macleod’s puzzling answer: ”The Court is not there to give you advice.” 

- Was this citizen not entitled to an answer to a pertinent, relevant question?

-  Instead, the best answer this Plaintiff received was: “Master Roger was supposed to have interpreted that.” 

- No apparent allowances for any verification required - 'in the circumstances.'   

- As a former Partner of the law firm BLG, accepting Defense’s new Counsel Jill Alexander from the self-same BLG, is Master Roger not accountable to a certain conflict of interest, according to the Code of Ethics? 

- Was Mr. Steen’s Counsel Joseph Griffiths with promises to his client to “stop the shenanigans by Defense,” ultimately guilty of collusion with Defense, when he proceeded to consent to allowances for additional questioning by this Plaintiff, during a telephone-conference with Case Management and Defense Counsel, without prior consultation with his client?

OR?

- Are these all misread, erroneous and paranoid interpretations by an elder SRL citizen loosing his mind? 

OR?

- Are they signs showing professionals under oath taking certain liberties with the Rules of Civil Procedure, and their own oaths to their office - because they can? 

- Have professional insiders become the institutionalized comptrollers of our democratic system? 

- Are we becoming corrupt at the core now?

As a determined SRL, and still somewhat proud Canadian, I ask this Court of Justice to seriously consider these questions.