Familiar Conduct in US Cases

July 16th, 2018

“When you see vast buildings, huge staff and massive budgets, what do you conclude?” asked Sir Humphrey.  Said the Minister; “Bureaucracy?”  “No Minister,” said Humphrey, “you conclude that at the summit there are men of great stature and dignity who hold the world in their hands and tread the earth like princes.” 

The BBC’s Yes Minister was supposed to be a comedy.  It became more of an instruction manual for civil servants.

Massive, meaningless bureaucracy is just that; an endless pushing of paper back and forth, accomplishing nothing, save the enrichment of the bureaucrats at the expense of everyone else.  It’s the conflation of activity with productivity.  After all, the whole point of bureaucracy is the perpetuance of bureaucracy.  And its enrichment.  And its entitlement.  And its enlargement.  And….

The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) was created by the British Government as a Crown Agency, as part of Government’s bureaucracy in the service of business and industry of the Empire, and later of the Commonwealth.

Once created however, a bureaucracy builds its own mythology to justify its own purposes, these being mostly self serving, and gradually displacing the service it was created to provide instead with a burden on the people it was created to serve.  Restoring a bureaucracy to its legal purposes is to challenge inertia, it’s a bit difficult.

We are now in year seven of CSA’s little war against us.  It’s been quite a ride.  The whole thing was -and is- unnecessary, baseless, pointless; a typical bureaucratic outlay of other people’s money.  But its how CSA’s fighting that’s so grating, its their underhand tactics, as though unethical conduct is in the DNA.  And its not just us experiencing it.  The CSA’s approaches in every Courtroom are basically the same.

Consider an entertaining example:  In one of their US Court cases, the CSA was required to attend a Case Management Conference.  That’s normal, these are just glorified conference calls to sort of procedural issues in the case, and they’re attended by the parties’ lawyers and a Court official.  But, if one wants to waste time and money, well, phone calls can be a jolly entertaining tool in a jolly monstrous abuse of legal process. 

In this particular US case, the CSA was ordered in July of last year to attend the phone call.  They did attend, but they strung the thing out to run out of time, so the call ended before the agenda had completed.  It’s called running the clock, and it ensures that nothing further can be done on the litigation until the balance of conference call agenda items have been dealt with.

Naturally, the little guy that CSA was harming pleaded with the Court to reschedule the balance of the call.  The Court agreed, the follow-up call was scheduled for the following month.  Well, so far, so good.  But that one phone call took two months’ time and a needless lot of legal fees.

This is how CSA burns through other people’s money. 

Another interesting facet of CSA’s legal excursions is their flexibility with truth.  Regular readers will recall that CSA makes all sorts of contradictory claims to different audiences, seemingly assuming that nobody will compare the statements they make in one venue with their statements elsewhere.

For example, in one US filing the CSA identifies itself as “a not-for-profit association.”  Note, they swapped “corporation” for “association.”  These are legal terms folks, different laws apply to different legal descriptions.  In another US filing, the CSA is identified as “a not-for-profit corporation,” but that was a different audience of course.  In one filing, the CSA is called “a Canadian corporation,” rather than a not-for-profit.  One of CSA’s filings in the US claimed that they are “a not-for-profit association incorporated on January 21, 1919…”  Well, perhaps that Court will never learn of CSA’s existence prior to their claimed existence.

A quick note for new RestoreCSA readers; The CSA was founded in 1917 by the British Empire, then reporting directly to the Privy Council Office as a Government Agency.  Through a bilateral agreement between Governments, the CSA was patriated to the Dominion of Canada in 1919, exchanging its Royal Charter for a Canadian Government Charter.  It subsequently was permitted to concurrently issue a private registration in order to lease office space in Montreal.  But, you know, perhaps the Court won’t ever hear about that.  Perhaps.

In the interim, we are still awaiting the Federal Court of Appeals Ruling from the March 1 Hearing.  This is the Ruling on whether CSA privately owns electrical laws in Canada and, by precedent, whether laws generally are owned privately and, by consequence, whether Queen’s Printer laws (copywriting legislation) are struck in Canada.  We have no word on this Ruling yet, but when its released you’ll hear about it first on this site.