Rocco Galati

[Jeffrey]

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.

No no, they want the Bank of Canada which is Canada's central bank, think US Federal Reserve, to give interest free loans to the Government.

[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.

No no, they want the Bank of Canada which is Canada's central bank, think US Federal Reserve, to give interest free loans to the Government.

I stand corrected, Jeffery.

[LordEd]

Because printing infinite stacks of money would have no negative effects, would it?

That, and they are so trusting of our politicians to give them this blank cheque...

[notorial dissent]

We know they don't understand the concept of "paying back loans" and now it is pretty obvious that they don't get the actual cost of "free" money. I'd suggest reading about Weimar Germany, but that would be right over their heads for sure.

[Burnaby49]

I'm a pretty sorry excuse for a human being and a very sorry excuse for a Canadian. How can I deny it? Reverendjim himself said so at davidicke.com! So it must be true.

any who try to detract from those facts by saying that the bank act contained the word "may" instead of "shall" is a pretty sorry excuse for a human being. and if they are canadian they are a very sorry excuse for a canadian

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthre ... 668&page=3

It's been a busy day of fratricidal squabbling over at davidicke.com. First felixk told reverendjim that Quatloos has done everything short of providing two hookers and an open bar to induce him to join us here so hustle over to Quatloos and stop clogging up their Menard discussion with his babbling about Galati;

WTF? Your invite has got nothing to do with me. It is all your own doing. It was you who first brought up Rocco Galati off topic in a thread about Rob Menard. You were quite keen to tell the world that the posters at quatloos displayed outstanding ignorance regarding Rocco Galati. You had no reservations about getting into a spat with them about the subject when posting from this forum. You accused quatloos of not providing any solutions, citing Rocco Galati as a case in point. So they created a thread on Rocco Galati especially for you in order that you could show them the error of their ways and for you to do something that you had accused them of not doing: provide a solution, and what do you do? You shit your pants and run away from them. Suddenly you have gone all quiet on a subject that previously you had been pretty vocal about.

Now that you have intimated that you have no desire to communicate with them directly I would ask that you refrain from communicating with them indirectly through this thread. Let us stay on topic.

Reverndjim, as is his wont, answered this by responding to a different question, the one he hears inside his head, the one asking him why Quatloosians are so dimwitted that they can't see the genius, the undeniable rightness of the goals of Canada's greatest constitutional lawyer. Reverendjim's answer is that people like me, who interpret the law as it is clearly written rather than as the Rev and Galati would like it written, are just sorry excuses for human beings;

as for rocco galati, he is the one guy who stood up in a court to try to right a wrong that was done against the canadian people. that wrong was a change in the way the BoC operated that made a managable debt and tax situation unmanagable. those are the facts. and any who try to detract from those facts by saying that the bank act contained the word "may" instead of "shall" is a pretty sorry excuse for a human being. and if they are canadian they are a very sorry excuse for a canadian. the courts being the worst of them all. the politicians threw us under the bus 40 years ago and and the courts shoved us back under while the media looked the other way. those are the facts. and there is nothing else worth saying about it. arayders will just have to be satisfied with that. and i am sure he will read it for himself.

Sadly, for reverendjim, Galati, and all we Canadians the court is just going to do what courts do; Read the law and interpret it as it is written rather than as a davidike.com ranter demands it be interpreted.

But the rev says it is our job to provide solutions, not just empty rhetoric. So perhaps the rev, rather than curse the darkness, could present an amicus brief as a Friend of the Court to point out to the judges their duties as decent responsible human beings rather than as cold hard legal functionaries. Judicial nullification! Obviously it is the court's moral duty to support any loon who comes up with some demented, disastrous belief about monetary theory but really really really believes in it. Print unlimited amounts of new money by requiring the Bank of Canada to grant interest-free loans to anyone who asks for it. What could go wrong? Sure there are some possible inflationary risks to this, like Zimbabwe's 231,000,000% annual inflation rate in the summer of 2008 or that pesky inflation in Germany between 1921 and 1923. You know, the one that had the German mark pegged at 90 marks to the dollar in early 1921 but at 4,210,500,000,000 marks to the dollar in November 1923. So what? Reverdjim will be happy! As the good rev so cogently says;

can't you see where the solution was? of course not. it was for the courts to do the right thing by the canadian people. and that right thing was contained in the act. but the politicians didn't act on it , and the courts didn't, and quatloos seem to be right there kissing the asses of the courts. pretty easy solution eh felix? the courts could have done the right thing by the citizens of this country and by the economy of this country. that was the solution. and if the law ddidn't contain the solutions the politicians should have changed it. fat chance of that.

Fat chance indeed!

Then K1W1 took a "nothing to see here folks" attitude to the various things we've erroneously attributed to Freeman beliefs;

As for Dean Clifford, I’m pretty sure he’s in jail for something to do with weapons and growing cannabis, not because he’s a sovereign guru. And Santos is apparently in trouble with the law presently because he hasn’t paid fines he incurred. It doesn’t matter who you are, you’ll get in trouble for doing those things -- even people who’ve never heard of the sovereign movement will get in trouble with the law for doing those things. Rob Menard is in trouble at the moment because he impersonated a police officer, and that’s something everyone, even ex-police officers, can get in trouble for doing, not just OPCA gurus. The fact these people are considered to be sovereign gurus or whatever is incidental.

When you put it that way there is clearly no connection between a Freeman's beliefs and the crimes he commits. Even if he explicitly says that he did so because he was acting on his Freeman beliefs. All just incidental.

Things then moved over to Menard which is getting off topic but I'm putting it in anyhow to show how you can win arguments by simply reframing the definitions of what you are discussing. K1W1 said;

So for instance, does Menard actually believe his own statements? Is he knowingly deceiving people? Also, if the statement he’s making is so outlandish or patently absurd that not even a fool would be fooled, as it were, then it couldn’t be considered to be fraud or a scam if someone went ahead anyway and participated.

Which brings us to the mind of the participant, and I think we can rest assured that if Rob’s scheme doesn’t work out for any participant, they won‘t be blaming Rob but will rather be decrying the “system” as fraudulent.

So, I’d have to say no, it’s probably not a scam, and even if it is I doubt that either you or I or Rooke could prove it, unless, as I said, Menard confesses or we had some other sort of window into his mind, which we don’t.

If we agree, for the purpose of this discussion, that something which would otherwise be fraud, like offering magic debit cards that pay out ten times as much as you pay for them knowing there is no money to pay out, isn't fraud if it is so "outlandish or patently absurd" that even the village idiot, or Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, wouldn't be fooled by it, then I concede. Under that definition what Menard is doing can't be considered a scam. And I agree completely that nobody with a lick of common sense or a brain in their head would believe that a loser like Menard can magically give them $2,500 for every $250 they give him. But some people are showing interest and Menard may, for a time, get people to buy in. When it inevitably collapses the law, if it gets involved, won't take the position that the suckers were so dumb that they deserved what they got. Nor will it have to, as K1W1 puts it, get a "window into Menard’s mind". The law will win or lose by showing that there was no money to pay out and that Menard, as the instigator of the scheme, knew this.

Yours;
Burnaby49, the Quatloosian Canadian Court Asskisser

[arayder]

The new line used by Menard apologists is that it's all okay as long as the poor folks Bobby has duped went along with the con voluntarily.

This line of BS used most often by Bobby's new sugar daddy, Steve Bates, in effect says there is no such thing as theft by deception and as long as Bobby didn't hold a gun to heads of Lance Thatcher, John Morkunas, the Nanaimo crew and the rest of the folks he's fooled he's free and clear.

[Jeffrey]

This line of BS used most often by Bobby's new sugar daddy, Steve Bates, in effect says there is no such thing as theft by deception and as long as Bobby didn't hold a gun to heads of Lance Thatcher, John Morkunas, the Nanaimo crew and the rest of the folks he's fooled he's free and clear.

Isn't that literally what they accuse the Government of?

[arayder]

Freemen cite the man made nature of human government as they jump to the erroneous conclusion that governments are "fictions" and thus aren't real. Menard didn't think this line up. He heard it said by sovereigns years ago and realized it would play well with freemen wannabes who are still working their way through their childhoods in which ole daddy required that they clean their rooms and mow the lawn.

This notion, of course hasn't stopped freemen from making their own rules up out of thin air. . .like the freeman "requirement" that judges repeat their oaths and that cops have to wear their hats.

Freeman thought employs monstrously bad logic which when twisted in their cult's favor allows them to rip each other off and then pass it off with a wave of the hand.

Freemen want to unseat judges, ignore the law, disregard legislatures. . .but they won't lift a finger when their gurus rip them off and lie to them!

[notorial dissent]

Why does it come as no great, heck any at all, shock that "theft by deception" is alright as long as it is one FOTL screwing another. Somehow the synchronicity just flows? I mean just so FOTL.

[Burnaby49]

I've obtained a copy of COMER's original Statement of Claim and, after reviewing it, I'm stunned by the totally misguided decision of the Prothonotary to strike it without leave to amend! This is a rock solid legally based filing that is going to rock the Canadian financial establishment to its core. It makes a compelling case that the Bank of Canada is deliberately and illegally negating the laws it must obey under federal legislation. The conspiracy theorists must be correct, the reason that nobody has heard of this case is because the Canadian government, panicking at the implications of COMER's impending victory, has secretly banned any press cverage of it.

OK, OK, maybe that's a bit of a stretcher but I have a monetary interest in the outcome. I paid $11.20 to have the Federal Court registry copy this shit and if COMER wins one of its claimed reliefs is a payment of $1.00 to each Canadian. That would cut my loss down to $10.20. We are all sadly corruptible.

It turns out that I'm wrong anyhow. The Federal Court of Canada passed judgment on the merits of some of COMER's claims by saying;

[100] In view of my reasons, the following paragraphs of the Claim must be struck in their entirety:
a. Paragraph 1(a)(viii);
b. Paragraph 1(b);
c. Paragraph 41;
d. Paragraph 47;
e. Paragraph 48;
f. Paragraph 49.

[101] If these paragraphs are struck, it is then my view that, in accordance with Rule 221, the entire Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, is scandalous and vexatious, and is an abuse of the process of the Court. However, there is a possibility that these problems could be remedied by appropriate amendments. For this reason, then, the Claim should be struck in its entirety with leave to amend.

This means that the Federal Court felt that the whole steaming pile was hopeless but, to be fair, the court was allowing COMER a "faint hope" pass to at least attempt to re-write some of its Statement of Claim to try and put it into some kind of shape that the court could actually review. Even so there were parts that even an unbelievably generous Federal Court couldn't gag down because they were so overwhelmingly stupid that they couldn't be salvaged no matter how they were amended. These portions, listed above, were struck without leave to amend. The claim for monetary remedies was one of these. So I don't get the dollar even if COMER wins.

So how to address this mess? First, I'll list what COMER hopes to be granted if it wins, then I'll structure the review based on the Federal Court's three part analysis. I'll end with some general comments.

CLAIM

The Plaintiffs claim:

(a) declarations that:

i) the Minister of Finance, and Government of Canada is required to request, and that the Bank of Canada is statutorily required, when necessary, to make interest-free loans, on the terms set out under s. 18 (i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act, RSC, 1985, c. B-2 (the "Act) for the purposes of "human capital" expenditures and/or municipal/provincial/federal "human capital" and/or infrastructure expenditures;

ii) that the "Government of Canada", the Minister of Finance, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, with the Bank of Canada, AJ have abdicated their statutory and constitutional duties with respect to ss. 18(i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act which subsections read:

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;

B/ and further that the refusal to request and make (interest free) loans under s. 18(i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act has resulted in negative and destructive impact on Canadians by the disintegration of Canada's economy, its financial institutions, increase in public debt, decrease in social services, as well as a widening gap between rich and poor with an continuing disappearance of the middle class;

iii) that s. 18(m) of the Bank of Canada Act, and its administration and operation, is unconstitutional and of no force and effect, in Parliament and the government, including the Defendant Minister of Finance, abdicating their duty to govern, and insofar, as monetary, currency and financial policies, per se, are concerned, and in turn as they effect socio-economic governance, have abdicated their constitutional duty(ies)and handed them over to those international, private entities, whose interests, and directives, are placed above the interests of Canadians, and the primacy of the Constitution of Canada, not only with respect to its specific provisions, but also with respect to the underlying constitutional imperatives, and which provision reads:

Then two pages of gibberish ending with;

(b) damages in the amount of:
i) $ 10, 000.00 per plaintiff; and
ii) should the within action be certified as a class action proceeding,
$1.00 (one dollar) for every Canadian citizen/resident, to be
calculated based on the last population figure published in the last
census, in accordance with s. 91(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867;
which damages are on account of:

iii) the constitutional breaches pleaded in the statement of claim herein;
and
iv) the conspiracy pleaded in the statement of claim herein;

(c) such further declaratory and/or consequential injunctive and/or prerogative order and/or relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court grant; costs of this action and such further or other relief this Court deems just.

The Federal Court broke this down into;

The Claim

[5] The core elements of COMER's Claim can be reduced to three parts:

1. The Bank of Canada (Bank) and Crown refuse to provide interest-free loans for capital expenditures.
2. The Crown uses flawed accounting methods in describing public finances, which provides the rationale for refusing to grant such loans.
3. These and other harms are caused by the Bank being controlled by private foreign interests.

1 - The Bank of Canada (Bank) and Crown refuse to provide interest-free loans for capital expenditures.

To quote the federal court;

[6] . . . . The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that s.18(i) and (j) of the Bank Act require the Minister of Finance [Minister] and the Government to request, and the Bank of Canada [Bank] to provide, interest-free loans for the purpose of such expenditures by all levels of government (federal, provincial and municipal). They further seek declarations that the Minister, the Government and the Bank have abdicated their statutory and constitutional duties by failing to request and make these interest-free loans, and that this has had negative and destructive impact on Canadians through the disintegration of Canada’s economy and its financial institutions, an increase in public debt, a decrease in social services, a widening gap between the rich and the poor and the continuing disappearance of the middle class.

As I pointed out earlier in these posts the cited sections say;

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;

Since the word "may" is used rather than "shall" these section do not require the BOC to provide loans, they only allow the BOC to do this if it so chooses. This is obvious from a simple reading. Shall, in the context of legislation, forces a requirement to do something. May allows choice. The federal government, by using "may" has given the BOC total discretion in this issue and that makes the Bank's decisions a matter of policy rather than law. The Federal Court does not have the jurisdiction to review policy. If COMER's claim makes it to a hearing this part of the claim will be struck on that basis. I'd also note that nowhere in the cited section is there any mention that the loans be interest free. I think COMER just made that part up.

2 - The Crown uses flawed accounting methods in describing public finances, which provides the rationale for refusing to grant such loans.

Again more stupidity. COMER claims that the government somehow has to account for "human capital" and that they incorrectly catagorize tax credits. So government financial accounting violates the Constitutional rights of Canadians.

25. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the Minister's calculation of the public deficit and debt, as calculated and not amortised, is based on fallacious accounting methods, namely with respect to how expenditures directly relating to "human capital" are set out and amortised as "liabilities" as opposed to "assets". The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that expenditures and the capital obtained through those expenditures and the capital obtained through those expenditures with respect to human capital are "assets" and not "liabilities". The Plaintiffs further state that the Minister of Finance's budgetary accounting is also misleading and fallacious in the calculation of "revenues" as excluding tax credits given back on collected/collectable taxes.

26. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that it has been long recognized that investment and expenditure in human capital is the most productive investment and expenditure a government can make. This was amplified and borne out by the phenomenal success and results of the reconstruction of Germany and Japan following World War II, which was realized by a subsequent study by Theodore Shultz, a Nobel Prize Winner, from the University of Chicago, and other noted economists.

28. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that while "human capital" expenditure, on human beings, and human capital expenditures (such as schools, universities, hospitals), while, in Canada, may not have a "marketable" or "sellable" value on the "free", "private" market, this does not mean, as interpreted and calculated by the Defendant Minister of Finance, that it has zero value when calculating assets and liabilities for deficit/debt purposes, nor in the manner in which these capital human expenditures assets are amortised for accounting puiposes in that budgetary process.

30. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that so long as the notion of expenditures on human capital are discarded, a critical intent and purpose of the Bank of Canada Act is rendered impotent, and equally discarded, with the results of statutory and constitutional breach(es) by the Minister of Finance and the Bank of Canada.

32. The Plaintiffs further state, and fact is, that, so long as human capital expenditures are treated strictly as "liability" and "debt", with no corresponding asset value, the government will not be investing in human capital infrastructure, or its own infrastructure for that matter, which is manifested for example, in government paying exorbitant rents on space for such things as Ministerial Departments, such as the Justice Department, as well as the Court themselves, where building or purchasing such assets would, in the long run, reduce those costs to a negligible fraction of the actual rental expenditures which increases the "deficit" and "debt" as (mis)calculated by the current budgetary process. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that such is the case with all sales, rentals, or disposition ("privatization") of human capital infrastructure, including government infrastructure serving Canadians.

They also have some goofy idea about tax credits I'm not going to bother explaining. Their conclusion on these two issues is;

39. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the above "accounting method" used in the budgetary process are not in accordance with accepted accounting practices, are conceptually and logically wrong, and have the effect of perpetually making the real and actual picture of what total "revenues", "total expenditures", and what the annual deficits/surplus" actually is, what the annual "deficit/surplus" actually is, in any given year, and what, as a result the standing national "debt" actually is. Moreover, and more importantly, the Plaintiffs state, and fact is, that such "accounting" methods foreclose any actual or real debate, or consideration, by elected MPs, in Parliament, as the actual financial picture is not available nor disclosed to either Parliamentarians nor the Canadian public. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that such accounting method breaches s. 91(5) of the Constitution Act,1867 and the duty of the Defendant(s) to maintain accurate "statistics".

43. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the "accounting" employed in the budgetary process, and an inaccurate and unavailable "statistic" of the aggregate of tax credits transferred back before calculations of net revenue, as well as the absence of the "asset" value of human capital and expenditures and infrastructure, violates s.91(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867,

Unfortunately the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to to place any judgement on the methods the federal government uses to prepare it's acounts. That is why COMER is attacking this on a Constitutional claim. But the Federal Court isn't going to weigh in with a demand that the Federal government adjust it's accounting methods to include COMER's wacky understanding of "Human Capital".

3 - These and other harms are caused by the Bank being controlled by private foreign interests.

According to COMER shadowy foreign entities actually control the Bank of Canada through the Bank for International Settlements in Basle. These entities run Canada's monetary policy for their own interests without regard for the interests of Canadians. Their evidence for this claim is pure conspiracy theory totally unconnected to reality. Type "bank for international settlements conspiracy " in Google and you'll get a full evenings reading out of the other fruitcakes who also believe this. The Federal Court therefore just struck this portion of the Claim without leave to amend. The Federal Court also struch without leave to ammend these portions of the Statement of Claim;

1 (a) (viii). that the defendants' (officials) are wittingly and/or unwittingly, in varying degrees, Knowledge, and intent, engaged in a conspiracy, along with the BIS, FSB, an IMF, to render impotent the Bank of Canada Act, as well as Canadian sovereignty over financial, monetary, and socio-economic policy, and in fact by-pass the sovereign rule of Canada, through its Parliament, by means of banking and financial systems, which conspiracy and elements of such tortious conduct are set out, in inter alia, Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. [1990] 2 S.CR. 959 namely:

A/ that the Defendants' (officials), including and together with the BIS, engage(d) in an agreement for the use of lawful and unlawful means, and conduct, the predominant purpose of which is to cause injury to the Plaintiffs, and all other Canadians;

B/ that the Defendants' (officials), including and together with the BIS, engage(d), in an agreement, to use unlawful means and conduct, whose predominant purpose and conduct directed at the Plaintiffs, and all other Canadians, is to cause injuiy to the Plaintiffs and all other Canadians, or the Defendants' officials should know, in the circumstances, that injury to the Plaintiffs, and all other Canadians, is likely to, and does result;

1 (b). damages in the amount of:

i) $ 10, 000.00 per plaintiff; and

ii) should the within action be certified as a class action proceeding, $1.00 (one dollar) for every Canadian citizen/resident, to be calculated based on the last population figure published in the last census, in accordance with s. 91(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867;
which damages are on account of:

iii) the constitutional breaches pleaded in the statement of claim herein;

and

iv) the conspiracy pleaded in the statement of claim herein;
such further declaratory and/or consequential injunctive and/or prerogative order and/or relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court grant; costs of this action and such further or other relief this Court deems just.

The Statement of Claim ends with these rousing calls to action;

47. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the ultra vires (in)actions of both the Minister of Finance, and the Bank of Canada, as set out in the within statement of claim, have the result of breaching the rights of the Plaintiffs and all other Canadians, not only statutorily, but also their constitutional rights as follows:

(a) their right to life, liberty, and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter by a reduction, elimination, and/or fatal delay of health care services, education and other human capital expenditures and services;

(b) their right to equality both under ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter, but also the underlying constitutional right to equality, as identified in, inter alia, the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Winner v. S.M. T, (Eastern) Ltd., [1951] S.CR. 887;

(c) the underlying constitutional principle of Federalism;

(d) the expressed provision(s) giving effect to the underlying principles of Federalism, contained in s. 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

(e) the constitutional right that statutes do not be rendered impotent in
Parliament de facto abdicating its duty to govern.

48. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is that as a result of the Defendants (') officials tortious, ultra vires, and unconstitutional conduct, they have suffered damages as set out above, and in reduced services in human capital expenditures and infrastructure, as has every other Canadian citizen/resident.

49. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is that as a result of the Defendants (') officials tortious, ultra vires, and unconstitutional conduct they have also suffered damage to their normative constitutional order by irreparable harm to the constitutional supremacy required and dictated not only by s.52 Constitution Act, 1982, but also by the supremacy required and dictated by its underlying principles.

General Comments

The Statement of Claim is a disorganized mess. The sections seem almost written at random. What it essentially is is a complaint against government policy dressed up as a complaint against some legislation and claimed Constitutional offenses. It is full of preposterous statement which are state to be facts. None of the claims have any chance of succeeding. The only victory that the COMER supporters can claim is that it is being allowed to survive a little longer on life-support before the government pulls the plug.

I assume that COMER is busy trying to re-write it now but I'm not anticipating the results anytime soon. Don't forget the original was drafted by Rocco Galati, Canada's greatest constitutional expert and a lawyer who worked for the Department of Justice! This lawsuit was years in the making and I assume Galati gave it his best shot, feeble and inadequate as it is. So it may be a while before he comes up with an alternative. He'd better get it right next time, the court isn't going to indulge him forever while he flounders through multiple re-writes trying to present something that makes sense.

For those of you (I'm assuming none of you) who wish to read the Statement of claim you can find it here;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/6ablgv0go ... %20SOC.pdf

[arayder]

Here in the U.S. state and federal courts often pass on involving themselves in such issues by saying, in effect, "this is political question which is answered by a vote of the legislature or a referendum of the voters. . .now go away".

[bmxninja357]

Legal scrappers Rocco Galati and Joseph Groia elected Law Society benchershttp://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/gta/2015/05/01/legal-scrappers-rocco-galati-and-joseph-groia-elected-law-society-benchers.html

Peace
ninj

[Hanslune]

Hmmm, sorry I cannot get that link to work

[NYGman]

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/05 ... chers.html

[bmxninja357]

Thanks Nyman.

Am at work so looking things up is challenging at times.

Peace
ninj

[Burnaby49]

The clock is ticking towards midnight on the COMER case. The plaintiffs had a new hearing on Wednesday October 14. Apparently the Crown moved to have the new Statement of Claim struck and judgment has been reserved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... FkC8eX5EH4

I said in an earlier post on the prior Statement of Claim;

It turns out that I'm wrong anyhow. The Federal Court of Canada passed judgment on the merits of some of COMER's claims by saying;

[100] In view of my reasons, the following paragraphs of the Claim must be struck in their entirety:
a. Paragraph 1(a)(viii);
b. Paragraph 1(b);
c. Paragraph 41;
d. Paragraph 47;
e. Paragraph 48;
f. Paragraph 49.

[101] If these paragraphs are struck, it is then my view that, in accordance with Rule 221, the entire Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, is scandalous and vexatious, and is an abuse of the process of the Court. However, there is a possibility that these problems could be remedied by appropriate amendments. For this reason, then, the Claim should be struck in its entirety with leave to amend.

This means that the Federal Court felt that the whole steaming pile was hopeless but, to be fair, the court was allowing COMER a "faint hope" pass to at least attempt to re-write some of its Statement of Claim to try and put it into some kind of shape that the court could actually review. Even so there were parts that even an unbelievably generous Federal Court couldn't gag down because they were so overwhelmingly stupid that they couldn't be salvaged no matter how they were amended. These portions, listed above, were struck without leave to amend.

I'm assuming that the new Statement of Claim was just as much gibberish as the first so this time it will be struck for good.

[Burnaby49]

Bad news on the COMER lawsuit front! Galati and COMER had their hearing and emerged triumphant. The decision was deferred but there was no doubt of their pending victory against the forces that keep insisting that legislation be interpreted as it is written rather than as something entirely different that some insignificant fringe group wants. So close to victory, so close . . . . . . . . . .

Then this;

2015-11-17 Ottawa

Written directions received from the Court:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell dated 17-NOV-2015 directing that TO ALL COUNSEL: "I am working on conmpleting my judgment in this matter. Since our hearing, I note that the Federal Court of Appeal hass issued its decision in Mancuso v. Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227 (Mancuso) which contains some general guidance on the availability of declaratory relief at paras 30-36. It seems to me that I am obliged to take this judgment into account and need your advice on its implications for the present motion. I would appreciate it if both sides could provide me with written submissions on the implications of Mancuso within the next short while. I suggest that the Defendants provide their submissions within 10 days of this Direction and that the Plaintiffs provide theirs within 10 days of receipt of the Defendants' submissions. The Defendants should then let me have any reply within 3 days of receipt of the Plaintiffs' submissions. If this doesn't work for either side, let me have your alternative suggestions" placed on file on 17-NOV-2015 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)

This is the case at issue;

Mancuso v. Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227
http://canlii.ca/t/glt7z

The defendants were;

MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE, AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA

And the issues at trial were pretty much equivalent to ours. Applicants wanting to overthrow a law they don't like and getting their statement of claim struck.

[1] This appeal and cross-appeal arise from a judgment dated July 16, 2014 of the Federal Court striking the appellants’ statement of claim: 2014 FC 708 (CanLII). In brief, the appellants commenced an action challenging the constitutional authority of Parliament to enact a scheme for the regulation of the production and sale of natural health products, including vitamins, and dietary and nutritional food supplements. In the alternative, if the scheme is constitutional, the appellants challenge the statutory authority that authorizes the regulations, and plead various Charter violations and tortious conduct by government officials in the administration and enforcement of the scheme. The appellants seek declarations of invalidity and a stay of the enforcement of the legislation and regulations

.

Just like COMER they appealed this decision to the Federal Court of Appeal and got this;

[2] The Federal Court, per Justice James Russell (the judge) granted the defendants’ motion to strike. The appellants appeal the order striking the statement of claim. Should the Court find that the judge did not strike the claim in its entirety, the respondents have filed a cross-appeal, contending that it was an error not to do so.

[3] For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal.

Oh dear.

Different underlying issue, some squabble about health foods that I'm not going to research, but this part is very similar to our case;

[10] The first paragraph in the judge’s judgment provides that “The Claim is struck in accordance with my reasons pursuant to s. 221 of the Federal Court Rules.” The appellants contend that this should be interpreted as meaning that the claim is struck, subject to the parts of the reasons which allowed some paragraphs to stand. I do not think there is any merit to this argument. The judge intended that the whole claim be struck and the plaintiffs be permitted to file a “fresh as amended statement of claim” that eliminated the defects existing in the pleading before him.

[11] I agree that the judge found certain paragraphs of the claim unobjectionable. He accepted, for example, that the plaintiffs could, in an action in the Federal Court, obtain declarations of invalidity on both constitutional and administrative law grounds along with claims for damages and restitution. He also accepted that the facts pleaded in relation to the general attack on the vires of the scheme might also bear on the claims for individual relief. Further, he accepted that certain paragraphs and subparagraphs of the claim were also unobjectionable (see, for example, subparagraphs 1(a), 1(b), 1(d), and 1(e)(i) and paragraphs 2, 3, and 18).

[12] However, the appellants’ interpretation of the judgment is not supported by its plain language– “the claim is struck.” Further, the judge’s reasons leave no doubt that the judge struck the claim in its entirety. He found that the claim invited a broad ranging policy discussion as to whether, and how, natural health products should be regulated. On multiple occasions he adverted to the inability of the defendants to plead in defence, given the scope or breadth of the assertions and the lack of underlying material facts or particularity, and in addressing costs, the judge characterized the pleading as “very unwieldy and non-compliant.” Given the number of paragraphs and subparagraphs struck and their distribution throughout the claim, the residue would be a disjointed and difficult read and entirely lacking in any material fact.

[13] Although some paragraphs seeking declaratory relief were not mentioned as explicitly being struck, these comments must be read in light of the judge’s extensive consideration of the requirement of a factual matrix as prerequisite to the determination of constitutionality. The judge found that the plaintiffs were seeking to impugn the whole scheme for the classification, inspection and enforcement of food, dietary food supplements and vitamins. He noted that the pleading did not particularize which of the 55,000 natural food products were in issue and made no link between the products and the plaintiffs. He concluded that the pleadings did not provide a factual foundation for such a broad declaration.

I had no doubt before this decision that COMER's lawsuit had no hope of succeeding and this just hammers in the final nail.

[k1w1]

Interesting post by k1w1

Yeah, funny…

Arayder here tries to argue that what these so-called OPCA gurus are doing is fraud by pointing out that some gurus have been arrested. But he then utterly defeats his own argument by stating “admittedly not for fraud”.

Burnaby, you say it’s a fraud because (shock, horror!) people give them money.

I hate to inform you of this at this stage of your life, Burnaby, but people are allowed to spend their money as they see fit, not how you might want them to spend their money, and if they believe giving their money to a so-called guru is best for them then it’s none of your business nor anyone else’s. [Edit: Actually, I didn’t hate doing that at all; someone had to. Lol.]

But if that was all that constitutes committing a fraud, receiving money from people for an idiotology, for a bullshit idea or theory, then the likes of Ray Comfort would have been jailed years ago.

(In case you’re not aware, Ray Comfort is a creationist guru who has made millions of dollars peddling the evangelical creation bullshit; has made millions from deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the scientific facts that support the Theory of Evolution; has made millions and millions of dollars from selling books and DVDs and from giving talks and seminars and from receiving donations given by people who have no reason to believe any of his ill-informed, unproven nonsense. The likes of Menard and Clifford are, quite frankly, rank amateurs when it comes to that sort of business.)

What these jokers do -- i.e. telling people stuff that isn’t true and that they probably don’t even believe themselves -- may be morally despicable in the eyes of some people, but apparently in the Free World it’s perfectly alright to do that sort of thing -- if not morally then at least legally.

Maybe you don’t know the difference between an idea that’s bunk (an idiotology) and something that’s a fraud. I could post again the elements (all of which need to be present) that constitute a fraud or a scam. Being a guru of an idiotology (of whatever stripe) doesn’t fit the criteria.

Anyway, my advice to any so-called OPCA gurus left out there: don’t practice what you preach and you’ll be right as rain… in fact, the courts will actually protect you for expressing an opinion, even if that opinion is demonstrably wrong. And don’t lose any sleep over anyone who does go out and actually practice what you preach to their eventual legal detriment. As Justice Rooke himself says: no one is pulling the wool over their eyes. They ain’t victims.

Oh, and incidentally, if a person breaks the law, their personal beliefs do not make them any more or any less guilty… at least not here in the Free World. That means their personal beliefs are incidental to whatever law they are guilty of offending against. No?

[arayder]

K1W1, it seems to me you only have one argument. . .that freemen gurus aren't really fraudsters because:

1. Their victims should have known better.

and

2. They haven't been convicted of fraud in a court of law.

Then, inexplicable, you go on the describe the gurus doing exactly as fraudsters do. .

. . .telling people stuff that isn’t true and that they probably don’t even believe themselves. . .

I hope we don't have to again go on a multi post goose chase in which you substitute your personal definition of fraud for the one accepted in most of the western world.

[bmxninja357]

Kiwi is right. Legally the gurus are not committing fraud generally. People go to them. Get told what they want to hear. Then give them some money.

Bad advice? Generally.
Morally reprehensible? Often yes.
Illegal? Generally no.

Every multi millionaire religious grifter on the TV would be in jail. Along with the psychics and peddlers of everything from yoga to acupuncture. And many of the medical ones actually harm and/or kill people.

People have a right to spout bs as much as folks have a right to buy it and belive it.

If it is actual legal fraud they would be charged in a court of law. As it stands not even a civil suit will stick but has a far greater chance of success.

My guess is the gurus could get called out by the tax man long before the right to spout bullspit and the right to believe what ever you hear are taken away.

Peace
Ninj