Rocco Galati

[arayder]

This thread is started in order to facilitate a discussion of Rocco Galati and issues arising from his various activities.

All are invited to post on the thread, in particular reverendjim.

[Jeffrey]

What's this Rocco Galati thing?

[arayder]

What's this Rocco Galati thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocco_Galati

reverendjim has gotten a chumby over Galati and insists upon highjacking threads on other forums demanding that Galati be the topic of discussion. He has taken to posting parts of Quatloos threads over on the Ickes forum and calling posters here names because we haven't taken Galati on as a subject, even in the middle of threads that have nothing to do with Galati.

My invite was given in the hopes that using this thread as an outlet for his Galati-ardor reverendjim will allow forum members here and elsewhere to carry on discussions without the constant prattle about Galati.

At his point I humbly yield the floor to reverendjim. . .

[Jeffrey]

I can't figure out what Rocco's position is.

[arayder]

I believe this may be what the rev is all excited about:

http://www.socred.org/blogs/view/the-ca ... -of-canada

But I said I was yielding to the rev, so I won't say anymore for a while and eagerly await a reply from his holiness. . .

[Jeffrey]

Should we point out the mistakes in Galati's theories or?

[Burnaby49]

To quote from Arayder's link;

There is a very interesting legal case that is playing out in Canada at the moment. William Krehm, Anne Emmett, and Comer (The Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform: http://www.comer.org/) filed a lawsuit on December 12th, 2011, in Federal Court to try to force a restoration of the Bank of Canada to its mandated purposes. In essence, they want the Bank of Canada to provide interest-free loans to the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, as provided for in the Bank of Canada Act. This money would be used to finance public expenditures whenever there is a budgetary deficit. Apparently, the federal government used to borrow interest-free (to at least some extent) from the Bank of Canada up until 1974. At present, governments borrow all of the necessary money (apart from any bonds they may sell to the public) from private banks at the going rate of interest. Canadians are economically burdened with the resultant debt-servicing charges because the Bank of Canada does not make use of its prerogatives in the interests of the Canadian public. The case is being prosecuted by Rocco Galati, who is widely considered to be Canada's top constitutional lawyer.

Rocco Galati is "widely considered" to be Canada's top constitutional lawyer? I'd bet that's news to the members of Canada's legal community who don't see Galati's face peering back out of the bathroom mirror at them every morning. Keep in mind that Galati is the lawyer handling this case and yet the Statement of Claim, the critical document that tell the court what the lawsuit is all about and why the plaintiff is deserving of relief, was so badly drafted, so botched up, that both a prothonotary and a judge of the Federal court of Canada threw it out because it was just incomprehensible gibberish. Does this sound like the work of even a marginally competent lawyer? I'm curious about how bad a train wreck that Statement of Claim actually was so I think I'll head down to the Federal Court registry next week and see if I can pick up a copy.

The factual part of this quote seems correct. Galati and reverendjim are obsessed about their claimed "requirement" that is imposed on the Bank of Canada (BOC) to provide interest free loans to any level of government in Canada that asks for them. We've seen how unlimited freely available funds worked for Greece. Printing money because governments want it is a recipe for disaster. However Canada's top constitutional lawyer apparently thinks this will give unlimited prosperity for all. The legislation that Galati claims supports his position reads (from the prothonotary's decision);

Statutory claims

Bank Act Claims

[9] The causes of action claimed are chiefly concerned with three subsections of the Bank Act:

18. The Bank may

(i) make loans or advances for periods not exceeding six months to the Government of Canada or the government of a province on taking security in readily marketable securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any province;

(j) make loans to the Government of Canada or the government of any province, but such loans outstanding at any one time shall not, in the case of the Government of Canada, exceed one-third of the estimated revenue of the Government of Canada for its fiscal year, and shall not, in the case of a provincial government, exceed one-fourth of that government’s estimated revenue for its fiscal year, and such loans shall be repaid before the end of the first quarter after the end of the fiscal year of the government that has contracted the loan;

. . .

(m) open accounts in a central bank in any other country or in the Bank for International Settlements, accept deposits from central banks in other countries, the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and any other official international financial organization, act as agent or mandatory, or depository or correspondent for any of those banks or organizations, and pay interest on any of those deposits;

[10] COMER claims that the Bank and other Crown actors have failed to comply with the requirements of subsections 18(i) and (j), which they interpret as requiring the Bank and the Minister of Finance to make interest-free loans for the purpose of municipal, provincial and federal “human capital expenditures”.[4] The only individual case of a rejected loan appears to be the August 18, 2004, decision of the Minister of Finance to refuse a loan to the Town of Lakeshore, Ontario.[5]

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/dec ... ZXIAAAAAAQ

Note the word "may" in the legislation. This was a deliberate choice by the Parliament of Canada when drafting the legislation. The Bank of Canada was founded in 1934 as a reaction to the financial disaster of the great depression. The Canadian government was trying to find a way out and thought a central bank, given discretion to run monetary policy outside of government meddling, might be able to do something, anything, to relieve the crisis. This of course required that the BOC have the discretion to run monetary policy as it saw fit without being hemmed in by straightjacket legislation. So Parliament gave the BOC the discretion to chose whether or not to make loans under this section by using "may". Had Parliament wanted to require the BOC to make these loans it would have used the word "shall". Using "may" turns this section into an implement of policy and the Federal Court will not rule on policy. So, even if Galati can cough up a Statement of Claim that makes sense the Federal Court will still not hear it because ruling on policy is outside of its jurisdiction.

In short there has been no abuse of the legislation. "May" gives the BOC the legal right to allow or deny these loans and they have chosen to deny. I'm not even sure if deny is the right word. This might be a dead issue outside of Galati's legal theories because it seems that no level of government has asked for one except for the single example cited by the prothonotary. Apart from COMER's lawsuit I'm not aware that this is in any way a live issue.

[Jeffrey]

Well how's this as a provisional response to Jim. Since what Galati wants is a change in fiscal policy then the correct way to go about that, in a parliamentary democracy as Canada is, would be to vote people into office who would support using the BoC to give interest free loans to the government itself.

Of course that would mean a return to double digit rates of inflation in Canada so good luck convincing a majority of Canadians of that.

http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates ... anada.aspx

[Jeffrey]

Interesting post by k1w1

Except the sovereign movement is not a scam -- and the same with the sovereign-type de-tax schemes -- which apparently is a point that has completely got past burnaby49, arseraider and the other half-witted clowns who frequent that particular thread at Quatloos. If it was a scam, the great Justice Rooke would be throwing OPCA “gurus” into an earthly prison instead of furrowing his brow in frustration and laughably condemning them to an ancient Roman poet’s version of hell. Ha! Talk about a Comedy alright!

Fact is, people become part of the sovereign movement of their own free will; they know exactly what's happening and are utterly wilful of they are doing. It's no more illegal being either a sovereign "guru" or a follower of the sovereign movement than it is being a religious guru or follower, and people are just as entitled to give their money to someone like Rob Menard for something they believe has value for them as they are giving their money to some television evangelist for the same reason -- or for that matter to a charity organisation. If people want to do that with their own money that’s their business, not anyone else’s. Just because you and your frustrated mates at Quatloos might not like what they’re saying or doing doesn’t make it a scam, regardless of how hard you might try to convince yourselves and everyone else that it is. It’s not a scam so much as a belief.

Yep, there's nothing anyone -- not the judiciary nor those clowns at Quatloos -- can do to stop people like Menard from preaching whatever shit they like about the law and nothing they can do to prevent other people taking that shit into court in litigation. These people are simply exercising their rights to a freedom of conscience, a freedom of expression and a freedom of association, and quite frankly I think it’s funny as all the circles of hell that the courts are obliged to protect those rights for them.

Unfortunately the sovereign movement IS a scam, i.e. an attempt to make money by deceiving others. A few examples to prove the point. Menard has made good money off Freeman seminars, DVDs and related schemes. In order to convince people to give him money in exchange for the advice he had to lie to them about the efficacy of those strategies. Thus we have over a decade of Menard lying about winning arguments with cops and judges yet when the followers try the same advice they end up in jail (see Nanaimo peace officers).

Dean Clifford, same thing. Made huge money off the Freeman information, DVD's, $150 to $400 for weekend seminars, $15 website subscription fees, fees for personal sessions etc. How'd he get people to give him money? By lying about whether the information worked or not. In the 15 years Dean has been active he has never won in court. On the contrary he has lost every time and suffered substantial financial losses. If he had been honest and told his customers that the information he sold did not work in the real world, nobody would ever have paid him a dime.

[arayder]

It appears reverendjim has seen his shadow and there will be six more weeks of hiding at Ickes.

[Jeffrey]

Galati seems to rely on some pseudo-history for his claims.

In the court transcripts provided by COMER:

http://www.comer.org/archives/2013/COMER_March2013.pdf

He makes the following argument to the court roughly paraphrased, that Bank of Canada stopped making low interest loans in 1974 due to a global banker conspiracy at the Basel Committee.

This theory has a number of problems. For starters Galati doesn't seem to present any evidence that supports his magic date of 1974, some rough initial research indicates he seems to be the originator of that claim. On the other hand it conflicts with his Basel conspiracy theory since the first Basel accords weren't published until 1988, well after his magic 1974 date. Furthermore, the Basel accords were for private banks and dealt with capital reserve requirements, they did not deal with whether or not central or government banks should provide loans to the Government as opposed to issuing bonds or alternate methods.

There even appears to be some Wikipedia edit wars over the 1974 date and Galati's claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =643530935

Apparently the proposal was pitched to the Green Party in 2012 and got shot down with the following comment (emphasis added by myself):

https://www.greenparty.ca/en/convention ... ns/g12-p13

The GPC Shadow Cabinet believes that this is not a fiscally responsible policy. The Bank of Canada already lends at no interest to the government but when it determines that such lending would be inflationary, it requires the government to borrow on private markets. This resolution would undermine the ability of the Bank of Canada to carry out its mandate to control inflation. This approach to government borrowing is essentially the same as was used in Argentina, leading to chronic hyper inflation at great social cost.

This resolution is at odds with full cost accounting principles by suggesting that no cost borrowing is a viable financial solution with no attendant consequences. The GPC Shadow Cabinet believes there is no such ‘free lunch’ and that the only viable way to achieve a reduction in national debt and interest burden is by ensuring that total revenues exceed total expenditures.

[notorial dissent]

I hate to break it to the COMER crew, but their inability to actually read plain English seems to be seriously in question. There is nothing in the law they are basing this on that says the BOC has to loan money to anyone at interest or otherwise, the plain text of the law says otherwise. Further if no one is requesting a loan then there is no way the BOC can make them do so, so again their logic fails. They have nothing to base their claims on, except possibly the inability to read and comprehend their own language. Even for the fruitloop brigade this is going some.

The other question I have is why they want to go back to something, that hasn't been happening in years, in the first place, I just don't see, or have flat out missed, their rationale for that particular action, usually they at least have some dippity do reason for such nonsense.

I'm even more surprised at this as the usual sovrun/FOTL types are generally very anti-central bank, so this makes even less sense in that respect.

[littleFred]

... I just don't see, or have flat out missed, their rationale for that particular action, usually they at least have some dippity do reason for such nonsense.

It looks to me like: "Free money! Give us free money!"

It's indirect, but if the government can get loads of free money from the BoC, the government can then hand this out (as long-term zero interest loans) to any freeloaders.

[notorial dissent]

I can see that as a possible end game, but there is again the logistics problem that that is not what BOC was chartered for or the type of loans it was authorized to make. FOTL flights of fancy I would say.

[wserra]

Does Canada have the equivalent of the U.S. FRCvP 12(b)(6): "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"? If not, you should. If so, why is this joke of a lawsuit still hanging around?

[arayder]

I hate to break it to the COMER crew, but their inability to actually read plain English seems to be seriously in question.

There are some thought process problems too.

One of the fantasies being passed around freeman cult is the idea that Meads v Meads isn't law because it calls freeman gurus frauds and since fraud is illegal Canada should be throwing the gurus in jail. Since the gurus aren't being jailed for fraud Meads isn't real. To self-deluding freemen this means the courts aren't real and case law isn't real. This means, to some freemen, that the law isn't real.

I will leave it to readers to work their way through this turd pile of faulty logic.

This freeman fantasy ignores the reality that Meads has been cited in the successful prosecution of several freemen and that many gurus are in jail, or on the run from the law, or being prosecuted (admittedly not for fraud).

It seems freemen can talk themselves into anything.

[Fmotlgroupie]

Does Canada have the equivalent of the U.S. FRCvP 12(b)(6): "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"? If not, you should. If so, why is this joke of a lawsuit still hanging around?

I don't know if there's a specific rule but the (unreported) prothonotary's decision to strike the claim without leave to amend, and the court's subsequent decision to allow leave to amend, focused on the issue of whether the claim was "justiciable", which I think is the same idea. The court's current conclusion is that it's likely not justiciable, but it's conceivable it could be and so it should go to trial.

On an un related note, the Canadian court system is clogged up beyond any recognition. No one can figure out why.

[Fmotlgroupie]

As a general comment, Galati isn't the plaintiff, he's just the lawyer. I'd never heard of him until he sued the government over the Supreme Court (successfully I had thought). A better look at that case shows that the court rejected Galati's argument and ruled against Justice Nadon on other grounds. A browse through CANLII shows that the first five rulings I found on Galati's cases all came down against him, mostly on points of law rather than facts.

Galati seems to be a lawyer who is happy to take a frivolous, hopeless case and argue it in court. I don't know if he's a good lawyer but he persuaded the court to give this heap of garbage a second shot, which is a big victory for COMER over common sense (and the dignity and resources of the federal court system) so a job well done for Galati!

Bottom line, he's a lawyer not his client.

[arayder]

Lacking any sense of practicality the freemen and freemen-lites who think requiring private banks to give the Canadian government no interest loans have failed to consider a few straightforward matters.

There is no doubt that saving the Canadian tax payer the expense of interest on the loans would be a good thing.

But, I'd ask what bank would want to loan part of its capital to the government when that same capital could be generating income in the form of interest on loans issued to businesses?

From a very freeman point of view how would forcing a bank to loan the government money at no interest be any different that stealing money from the bank since it loses money by being forced to give the no interest loan.

Freemen and freemen-lites don't seem to have considered what might happen to the banking industry and capital markets in the event of a government spending spree generated by free money. Not that freemen are known for building businesses, but one has to ask if the jabbering Ickes freemen have considered that should their idea get adopted and they ever got off their couches to try to build a business on loaned money the banks might be forced to charge high interest rates. . .or worse yet, not have any money to loan.

And what's to stop a government from driving a bank under by insisting on a series of interest free loans? Suppose bank investors contribute to a political party different from the party in power which decides to punish the bank by forcing it to loan them money at no interest.

Suppose a political party in power uses the no-inerest loan hammer to extort contributions from banks by assuring that the bank will not be required to issue no interest loans to the government?

The unread, unthinking freeman politically correct crew doesn't seem to have considered these practical questions.

[Burnaby49]

Does Canada have the equivalent of the U.S. FRCvP 12(b)(6): "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"? If not, you should. If so, why is this joke of a lawsuit still hanging around?

I don't know if there's a specific rule but the (unreported) prothonotary's decision to strike the claim without leave to amend, and the court's subsequent decision to allow leave to amend, focused on the issue of whether the claim was "justiciable", which I think is the same idea. The court's current conclusion is that it's likely not justiciable, but it's conceivable it could be and so it should go to trial.

On an un related note, the Canadian court system is clogged up beyond any recognition. No one can figure out why.

Not quite correct as I read it. The Federal Court did not say it should "go to trial" on the off chance it just might be justicable, they just allowed COMER another shot at trying to write the basic document, a Statement of Claim that makes some kind of sense as to what COMER's arguments are. All the Statement of Claim is is a document the court reviews to try and figure out why someone is filing a lawsuit against another party and why they think they have a case.

As Wikipedia says about a Cause of Action (same thing as Statement of Claim;)

In the law, a cause of action is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party.[1] The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit (such as breach of contract, battery, or false imprisonment). The legal document which carries a claim is often called a Statement of Claim in English law, or a Complaint in U.S. federal practice and in many U.S. states. It can be any communication notifying the party to whom it is addressed of an alleged fault which resulted in damages, often expressed in amount of money the receiving party should pay/reimburse.

To pursue a cause of action, a plaintiff pleads or alleges facts in a complaint, the pleading that initiates a lawsuit. A cause of action generally encompasses both the legal theory (the legal wrong the plaintiff claims to have suffered) and the remedy (the relief a court is asked to grant). Often the facts or circumstances that entitle a person to seek judicial relief may create multiple causes of action. Although it is fairly straightforward to file a Statement of Claim in most jurisdictions, If it is not done properly, then the filing party may lose his case due to simple technicalities.

So the court has made no comment on whether COMER has a justicable case. COMER has just been allowed a second kick at the can to do something any lawyer with the slightest competence should be able to do, explain why his client is filing a lawsuit and outline the legal basis supporting the claim. There are only two possible outcomes to this;

1 - The new Statement of Claim will also be gibberish. Since I can't see the court allowing Galati a third shot at it the Statement will be stricken without leave to amend exactly as the prothonotary originally decided.

2 - If COMER is able to file a Statement of Claim the court can figure out it will be reviewed on the merits which means that it will be tossed for being vexatious, scandalous, and an abuse of process.

Galati's supporters consider the number of lawsuits he's filed and lost as an proof of his great abilities as a constitutional lawyer. It's like saying John Bell Hood was a great General because he destroyed his army by throwing it into so many losing battles.

The only case that Galati has "won" in any sense was his lawsuit against Nandon's appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is what his followers consider as proof that he is Canada's greatest constitutional lawyer. They do this by ignoring that Galati only initiated the lawsuit and that Nandon was rejected for reasons that were entirely different than those argued by Galati.