With the bars closing at 8 p.m. now, my younger brother has been arriving home consistently earlier in the evenings than has heretofore been the case. Now, 8:30 p.m. is about the latest I can expect him home.
Thus, last evening I was to bed just ahead of 8:40 p.m. in my bid to nap away the latter evening to fortify me for my overnight vigil that sees me working here at my computer once my brother has gone to bed for the night.
My wife was home at the time, and occupying this room for her own amusement (I had been watching some T.V.). When I passed by this room for my use of the bathroom before taking myself to bed, she shrewdly asked quietly, "He's home?'
She knows my routine well by now.
Despite how early it was, I did manage some sleep, but when I was eventually awake enough to be hopefully checking the time ─ was it possible that it was into the midnight hour and my brother had gone to bed? ─ I discovered it to be just 11 p.m.
In resignation I was about to seek an attempt for a bout of further sleep to help pass at least the ensuing hour when I seemed to hear the evidentiary sounds that usually indicate that my brother is readying to call it a night and come upstairs to his bedroom.
And then he did exactly that ─ I was free to rise an hour earlier than is usually the situation for me, for it is rare that he forsakes the T.V. ahead of midnight.
My wife was shut up in this room, so I went downstairs. However, she is very good about yielding possession to me once I am up, so she soon enough vacated the space for my benefit, and I was able to begin work on a few tasks.
Despite the early start here, I was not to return to bed until very close to 5 a.m. And then after a little more sleep, my morning began around 8:30 a.m. when I next found myself awake enough to be curious about the time.
My brother tends to do his laundry on Fridays, and I could hear the machinery at work directly below my bed, so I knew that he was definitely up. However, I do not often venture downstairs until the approach of 10 a.m., and that was the case this morning. There are always things to be done here at my computer first.
My wife was to have to work today at her friend's Thai restaurant, so she rose perhaps around 9:30 a.m. to shower and so forth. She has been under a three-month driving prohibition since 1:17 a.m. March 11, and as a consequence has to use public transport now.
And so around 10:20 a.m. at latest she was out the door into a light rain to seek her bus and begin her commute. Her usual start on Fridays at the restaurant is 11 a.m.
When she had use of her car, she would usually go directly in to Vancouver after she finished work on Fridays, for that was where she usually spends her weekends (such is our sorry marriage). But now that she isn't driving, she has been coming home and not going in to Vancouver until Saturday afternoon or evening.
And then she comes back on Sunday afternoons or early evenings.
As a result, I am expecting her home later today.
I see that it is now a full month since that driving prohibition, so the car she was driving is now eligible to be retrieved ─ it was impounded for a month. Unfortunately for my eldest stepson at the time of my wife's driving prohibition, she was using his car instead of her own ─ her youngest son had gone somewhere in hers at the time.
I have just approached the older lad (26 years old) and learned that he is full aware that the month is up, and their plan is to retrieve his car on Sunday. But it's going to be quite expensive ─ it costs a lot to pay for a month's impounding.
But allow me to return to the morning and 10 a.m. when I joined my brother to watch some T.V. Just as yesterday, I wanted to watch material that I previously downloaded into a USB thumb drive ─ we watch such downloads on T.V. via our Android TV Box.
The video in succession to be watched this morning was long ─ an hour and 31 minutes: Practical Common Law Solutions with Christopher James - Mark Devlin podcast GVP #176.
Actually, it was a static video ─ that is, there was only sound, for all it comprised was the audio from Brit Mark Devlin's podcast interview with Canadian specialist in Common Law, Christopher James.
My brother has sufficient interest in the topic that he did not demur about the length of the audio; however, neither did he request that I pause it whenever he left the room to tend to his laundry. Evidently it was not that fascinating.
Christoper is clearly knowledgeable and very confident about his expertise in this area, but my brother and I are always left knowing nothing.
For example, Christopher expounded constantly of four questions to pose to the police in any unlawful confrontation by them ─ the first three questions applied also to any legal court proceeding.
But he whips through these questions so rapidly, and skimps on any full and clear explanation, that just exactly what the wording needs to be always eludes us, and we are left remembering nothing. In effect, he comes across as spouting such confusing gobbledygook that he may as well be spewing true court legalese ─ it's all way over our heads.
We've watched a number of his videos, and it is always the same. I cannot use a thing that he has ever talked about because I am far too unclear on what the heck is going on.
He talks as if we all already understand his concepts.
Unfortunately, it all seems too damned elitist ─ at least it sure does when he rattles his way through it all with such confusing rapid-fire verbiage.
Most coincidentally while we were 'watching' the podcast interview, the mail arrived and my brother went to the door to collect it. He then dropped off a fairly thick envelop to me. In so doing, he wondered aloud just what it was that I must have done ─ the envelope was from the British Columbia Ministry of Attorney General, and I was addressed by my full name (i.e., including my full two middle names) in all capital letters.
As Christopher James would say, the envelope was addressed to the fiction of who I am.
I resisted opening the envelope for some while ─ by then, we were early into an episode of Supergirl. I had been finding that my concentration was just not there for the show because I could not dismiss my curiosity about the contents of the envelope.
What it was proved to be was a Juror Summons (Criminal) to the Supreme Court of British Columbia stating that I am to appear at 8:45 a.m. on Sunday, May 23 in New Westminster. I was further advised that the time could be changed in the interim; but if I did not receive any such notice of change, then I was to proceed according to the present direction.
I realize that a criminal case could carry on for days; and for me to get in to New Westminster, I would need to travel there via SkyTrain ─ which mode I detest. (I live in Surrey.)
Finally, the ultimate imposition that I would not suffer would have been the wearing of a face mask all day in court. I will wear one for 15 - 20 minutes once or twice a week when I am in a store to shop, but that is all I am prepared to do. I will not be muzzled all day long with a harmful face diaper ─ I absolutely refuse.
So I was going to research to see how refusing to comply with the face mask mandate might play out; or how I might be able to avoid this "duty" through any Common Law means.
And then I discovered my out listed along with the usual exemptions that were enumerated there in the documents (which were comprised by six legal-sized pages, all of which were fully printed on both sides).
My Juror Certification Form (which has an actual barcode) states this:
You have 10 days from the time you receive this summons to respond,
either online at www.jurysummons.gov.bc.ca
or by returning this completed certification form in the envelope provided.I, the undersigned, certify that (Check one box only):
⬜ I am not disqualified from serving as a juror for any of the reasons listed on the back of this form, and confirm I will attend;
or
⬜ I am disqualified from serving as a juror under section 3(1), subsection ( ) or section 4, subsection ( ) as listed on the back of this form;
or
⬜ I am over 65 years and do not want to serve on jury duty.
Well, I'm 71 years old. I most emphatically will not be participating. They can stuff their face masks.
And having said that, I have just now gone online and excused myself from attendance:
Excusal Approved
You have been successfully excused from your jury service with the reason being:
AGE 65 AND OVER (ONE TIME REQUEST)
You no longer need to report to the court on your Reporting Date.
So that takes care of that!
And I see that it is just after 7:30 p.m. ─ time for a beer and some T.V. before my brother gets home from wherever he went to drink this afternoon.
No comments:
Post a Comment