Rocco Galati

[Burnaby49]

Other than pointing out that I'm a lawyer, a completely content-free post. If the reason you post is to start fights, do it somewhere else.

FOTL sympathisers in general tend to suffer from a particularly unusual condition which I always like to describe as "lawyer envy".

Actually they usually seem to think more highly of notaries than lawyers. Some believe that notaries are superior to judges and can issue the equivalent of court orders. Lowly lawyers like Wes can't do that.

[notorial dissent]

Strange, since in my experience, all the lawyers I've known and worked for either were or could act as notaries. So what does that do to their theories?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Actually they usually seem to think more highly of notaries than lawyers. Some believe that notaries are superior to judges and can issue the equivalent of court orders. Lowly lawyers like Wes can't do that.

Yeah, it's funny that. Footles say lawyers are corrupt, they say judges are corrupt, but notaries, who they place higher on the ladder than lawyers and judges, they love 'em.

[Burnaby49]

Strange, since in my experience, all the lawyers I've known and worked for either were or could act as notaries. So what does that do to their theories?

Here in British Columbia all lawyers are automatically also notaries. The "notaries only" are the non-lawyers who are accepted as members of the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia, Ron Usher's bailwick.

When freemen types give their fanboy accolades about the powers of notaries I think they relate to the non-lawyer notaries, not those corrupt lawyer notaries who got in the back door by becoming servants of the Queen and accepted Titles of Nobility.

[k1w1]

FOTL sympathisers in general tend to suffer from a particularly unusual condition which I always like to describe as "lawyer envy".

Haha. Yeah, pal, you just keep telling yourself that. Lawyers are generally among the most depised professions in society, but you'd call that "lawyer envy", eh. What a laugh.

...so I saw no point in responding.

And yet you did respond... almost immediately. Lol.

It's just a pity you haven't tried to explain how this court case thing with Rocco is a sov-cit scam, or, indeed, any sort of a scam. It seems to be only about a useless and incompetent lawyer in the process of losing a case. I'm certain Wes can confirm that being a useless and incompetent lawyer isn't a scam... in fact, I'm sure he probably says that every time he sends out an invoice.

I'm just curious to know what it is about this useless and incompetent lawyer in particular that makes you so angry...

[Burnaby49]

FOTL sympathisers in general tend to suffer from a particularly unusual condition which I always like to describe as "lawyer envy".

Haha. Yeah, pal, you just keep telling yourself that. Lawyers are generally among the most depised professions in society, but you'd call that "lawyer envy", eh. What a laugh.

...so I saw no point in responding.

And yet you did respond... almost immediately. Lol.

It's just a pity you haven't tried to explain how this court case thing with Rocco is a sov-cit scam, or, indeed, any sort of a scam. It seems to be only about a useless and incompetent lawyer in the process of losing a case. I'm certain Wes can confirm that being a useless and incompetent lawyer isn't a scam... in fact, I'm sure he probably says that every time he sends out an invoice.

I'm just curious to know what it is about this useless and incompetent lawyer in particular that makes you so angry...

You're trying your usual lazy hallmark stunt of pulling a totally bullshit strawman argument out of your ass to try and get a rise out of Quatloos posters. You've posted twice mocking me for my purported belief that this whole COMER lawsuit is a scam and have challenged me to defend that belief. And yet I've never said that I think it is a scam or even hinted that it might be a scam. So, show us anything I've posted that supports your comments regarding your accusations that I believe Rocco and the others are engaged in some criminal activity. That's just you making things up trying to get me to defend a moronic indefensible position that I don't hold. You seem obsessed with scams and fraud.

So, for the record to stop you yammering on and on about at least that aspect of the discussion, I don't believe, and have never believed, nor have I stated, that there is anything at all scam related about the COMER lawsuit. Apart from your fevered imagination about my opinions there is no reason to assume that any of the parties to the lawsuit are not completely sincere in their beliefs as stated in the documents they have submitted to the courts. I accept without reservation that they really honestly, sincerely believe that the Bank of Canada could turn Canada into a full-employment paradise by giving interest free loans to all and sundry and that the Bank does not do so, against the clear wording of federal legislation requiring the Bank to do so, because the Bank of Canada is enslaved to the international Banksters. I have no doubt they believe this and they also believe that they are acting in the public good by advancing this lawsuit. There is absolutely no scam aspect to this lawsuit at all. I have no dispute with your stated position on the case;

It seems to be only about a useless and incompetent lawyer in the process of losing a case.

Is that sufficient for you?

I haven't been posting about this because I want to stop it. The entire case has been so hopeless from the start that it doesn't need any help from me. Galati's statement of claim and other documents are so deficient in all aspects of bringing up any judicial issue that the Federal Court of Canada could consider that this lawsuit was doomed from the day it started. All that I've been doing is standing off to one side and posting about the ongoing trainwreck. Unlike verynewtothis I've been commenting about how the Federal Court of Canada would evaluate the COMER lawsuit based on actual law and the court's rules rather than on my subjective opinion on the issues. I said right from the start it was doomed, not because I'm in the pocket of the international banking cartel but because I can evaluate the legal merits of a statement of claim.

As for being angry, show evidence, apart from your usual unsupported statements, that any of this has angered me. While I've posted on the lawsuit it is essentially a trivial issue that I've followed out of amusement and a general interest of freeman type activities. You guys are nothing more than a retirement hobby.

[rumpelstilzchen]

FOTL sympathisers in general tend to suffer from a particularly unusual condition which I always like to describe as "lawyer envy".

Haha. Yeah, pal, you just keep telling yourself that. Lawyers are generally among the most depised professions in society, but you'd call that "lawyer envy", eh. What a laugh.

You missed my point entirely. My point is that although footles claim to despise lawyers they do their utmost to imitate them. Footles try to "out lawyer" lawyers. Footles criticise lawyers for their documents that contain "legalese" because, for the uninitiated, they can be difficult to understand but then the footle will go out of his way to write documents that look like a lawyer has written them. Well, a lawyer who is on acid, that is. Show me a footle document that is plain and simple, one that does not contain Latin, one that is concise and to the point. They can't write such a document because they believe they are lawyers themselves. In fact many of them claim to understand the law better than all lawyers and judges.

[LordEd]

I've watched COMER because some Freeman minded idiots in another forum kept saying the last decision was a full victory, as opposed to reality where they gained the right to amend their denied claim.

[notorial dissent]

Further to what Burnaby has said, to the best of my belief and recollection the ONLY party who has made the claim that COMER was a scam, is surprisingly K1W1. No one else has made such a claim or statement. There is no reason to think of it in such a fashion, at least if your IQ is somewhere above room temperature.

The reason it is here is for the unintended comedy of a really grossly incompetent and quite frankly stupid Orly Taitz class of lawyer. You can't go to school to get that stupid it has to be a native and genetic, school can only hone such a talent. I, at least. think that Galati has proven himself well in that arena, and also that he cannot read, cannot extrapolate, and cannot think. As well as just generally not knowing what he is going on about.

The fact that he has to a degree been taken up by the Canadian FOOTL crowd is just double deliciousness, in that they are not only dumber, but even more clueless about what they are carrying on about possibly than he is. And all that unintended comedy is just simply there, free for the asking.

I will admit that watching Galati, repeatedly, getting his ass handed to him, even after having been most charitably given a road map in order to find it just adds to the very specialness of the matter.

The truly tragic part in all this, if one can call it that, is that Galati is of that very extra speshul kind of stooopid that will never ever come to understand why he failed, or why he is so very wrong. It has been explained to him repeatedly, and he is quite simply to stupid to get it. Rather like some/most of his adherents who can't seem to come to terms with the idea that you have to pay for what you get, one way or another. Have a nice life.

[k1w1]

Board index < TAX FRAUD PROTESTERS, & SOVEREIGN CITIZEN SCAMS < Sovereign Citizen and Redemption Scams < Canada

Geez, I wonder where I got the idea that this might be or should be about a scam...?

You clowns post this stuff on a website dedicated to "scams" and then turn around and say it's not a scam. Do you even know what a scam is?

[NYGman]

Board index < TAX FRAUD PROTESTERS, & SOVEREIGN CITIZEN SCAMS < Sovereign Citizen and Redemption Scams < Canada

Geez, I wonder where I got the idea that this might be or should be about a scam...?

You clowns post this stuff on a website dedicated to "scams" and then turn around and say it's not a scam. Do you even know what a scam is?

Come on K1w1, that is a bit disingenuous. WE all know that the forum titles are not exclusive, but are inclusive, and is the very type of comment FMOTL make when reading legislation.

[rumpelstilzchen]

You clowns post this stuff on a website dedicated to "scams" and then turn around and say it's not a scam. Do you even know what a scam is?

The only reason this thread was started on Quatloos is because a regular poster (reverendjim) on the FOTL forum at Icke's was complaining on the Icke forum that Quatloos was not discussing the subject. So the thread was specially made for him so that he could come here and discuss with the posters on Quatloos. He didn't come. He shat his pants and ran away.
It seems you can't win. You don't discuss a subject and the result is you attract criticism for not discussing it. You react to that criticism by agreeing to discuss the subject and by doing so that attracts criticism for discussing it on a forum where the title of the forum might not suit.

[notorial dissent]

The scam, if there is one, is with the footies who think they are eventually going to get something for nothing if only Galati wins.

[Burnaby49]

You clowns post this stuff on a website dedicated to "scams" and then turn around and say it's not a scam. Do you even know what a scam is?

The only reason this thread was started on Quatloos is because a regular poster (reverendjim) on the FOTL forum at Icke's was complaining on the Icke forum that Quatloos was not discussing the subject. So the thread was specially made for him so that he could come here and discuss with the posters on Quatloos. He didn't come. He shat his pants and ran away.
It seems you can't win. You don't discuss a subject and the result is you attract criticism for not discussing it. You react to that criticism by agreeing to discuss the subject and by doing so that attracts criticism for discussing it on a forum where the title of the forum might not suit.

Indeed. This is the first post of this discussion;

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.

At that time, as best I can recall, reverendjim was blovating away on ickes how this case was going to shatter the powers of Canadian banks and bring in a new age of free money for everybody. He was also crapping on Quatloos, mocking us for being too stupid to understand the brilliant game-plan of Canada's greatest constitutional expert. With Rocco on the case it was in the bag. I didn't respond because I don't post anywhere but here. So Arayder started this discussion to facilitate an exchange of views.

As I said in my February 15th, 2015 posting;

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

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;

However the good rev decided not to participate but, since there was now a discussion on Galati and COMER, I went with it.

[bmxninja357]

I think the point is not that the case is a scam but that it's being used to justify scamming. I don't believe the case or those who brought it intended for it to be used to justify not pulling your own weight.

So it is relevant in proving no matter the outcome of the case it does not justify being a freeloader.

Peace
Ninj

[notorial dissent]

I am even willing to bet that even though the actual case is beyond DOA, that at some point the non facts and non law of the case will become part of some footl guru's scam to get something for nothing, thus more than adequately justifying its existence here.

[Burnaby49]

The COMER decision has been posted on CANLII and, as expected (at least by me) it is a complete irrecoverable disaster for our intrepid band of Bankster battlers. It is a huge judgment (70 pages on paper) which I'll go into in some depth but I'll give a spoiler right now, the court order;

E. Leave to Amend

[146] The Plaintiffs have asked the Court to consider, as an alternative form of relief, that they be allowed to proceed on the declaratory relief in their Amended Claim, with leave to amend any struck portions with respect to the damages portion of the claim.

[147] As set out above, I do not think that, even for the declaratory relief sought, that the Plaintiffs have been able to raise their claim above a mere request for an advisory opinion. In addition, as further explained above, given that the Plaintiffs have not been able to rectify the fundamental issues I pointed out in my Order of April 24, 2014, and have not suggested any way in which they could be rectified, I see no point in allowing an amendment. Having previously permitted the Plaintiffs such an opportunity, their response convinces me that, for reasons given, they have no scintilla of a cause of action that this Court can or should hear. Without having any real legal interest at stake, the Plaintiffs remain a think tank seeking to have the Court endorse their political and academic viewpoint. Amendments are not going to change this.

ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that
1. The Plaintiffs’ latest Amended Claim is struck in its entirety;
2. Leave to amend is refused;
3. Costs are awarded to the Defendants.

You can find the case here;

Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (“COMER”) v. Canada, 2016 FC 147
http://canlii.ca/t/gnfr0

I'm going to do a cut and paste job on the decision. I can't be bothered to try and wrestle this huge mass of legal verbiage into a narrative. So I'm quoting liberally but also slashing away at what I consider irrelevant parts. If you want an unedited review, read it yourself. Good luck.

The judge starts with a bit of background that gives the basic information on the prior decision.

[3] This litigation was commenced on December 12, 2011, with the filing of the original Statement of Claim, which was amended in minor ways on January 19, 2012 [Original Claim].

[4] On August 9, 2013, the Original Claim was struck out in its entirety by Prothonotary Aalto, without leave to amend. Upon appeal from the decision of the Prothonotary, I struck the Original Claim in its entirety, but with leave to amend, by way of order on April 24, 2014 [Order of April 24, 2014].

[5] Appeal and cross-appeals of my Order of April 24, 2014 were dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal on January 26, 2015. The Plaintiffs filed the Amended Claim on March 26, 2015. The Defendants now move to strike out this Amended Claim.

Then on to the most recent Statement of Claim;

[6] The Plaintiffs’ Amended Claim, while an amended version of the Original Claim, continues to seek a series of declarations relating to three basic assertions, as noted in my previous Order of April 24, 2014: first, that the Bank of Canada Act, RSC, 1985, c B-2 [Bank Act] provides for interest-free loans to the federal, provincial and municipal governments for the purposes of “human capital expenditures,” and the Defendants have failed to fulfill their legal duties to ensure such loans are made, resulting in lower human capital expenditures by governments to the detriment of all Canadians; second, that the Government of Canada uses flawed accounting methods in relation to public finances, thereby understating the benefit of “human capital expenditures” and undermining Parliament’s constitutional role as the guardian of the public purse; and third, that these and other harms are the result of Canadian fiscal and monetary policy being, in part, controlled by private foreign interests through Canada’s involvement in international monetary and financial institutions.

So, what do they want? A lot;

[8] The Amended Claim seeks nine declarations. The first is that ss 18(i) and (j) of the Bank Act require the Minister of Finance [Minister] and the Government of Canada to request, and the Bank of Canada to provide, interest-free loans for the purpose of human capital expenditures to all levels of government (federal, provincial and municipal).

[9] Second, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that the Defendants have not only abdicated their statutory and constitutional duties with respect to ss 18(i) and (j) of the Bank Act, but that they have also, by way of a refusal to request and make interest-free loans under ss 18(i) and (j), caused a negative and destructive impact on Canadians through the disintegration of Canada’s economy, its financial institutions, increases in public debt, a decrease in social services, as well as a widening gap between rich and poor, with the continuing disappearance of the middle class. In the accompanying facts to their Amended Claim, the Plaintiffs use a June 11, 2014 request of the Town of Lakeshore, Ontario as an example of an occasion when the Minister refused a request for an interest-free loan without regard to either the nature of the request or pertinent provisions of the Bank Act. The Plaintiffs say that the Minister’s reasons for refusing the Town of Lakeshore’s request are both financially and economically fallacious and not in accordance with statutory duties.

[10] Third, the Plaintiffs seek a declaration that s 18(m) of the Bank Act, and its administration and operation, is unconstitutional and of no force and effect. They say the Defendants have abdicated their constitutional duties and handed them over to international, private entities whose interests have, in effect, been placed above those of Canadians and the primacy of the Canadian Constitution. The Plaintiffs state that no sovereign government such as Canada should ever borrow money from commercial banks at interest, when it can borrow from its own central bank interest-free, particularly when that central bank, unlike the banks of any other G-8 nation, is publically established, mandated, owned and accountable to Parliament and the Minister, and was created with that purpose as one of its main functions.

[11] Fourth, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that the fact that the minutes of meetings involving the Governor of the Bank of Canada [Governor] and other G-8 central bank governors have been kept secret is ultra vires the Governor, as being contrary to the Bank Act – particularly s 24 – and ought to be considered unconstitutional conduct.

[12] The fifth declaration sought is that, by allowing the Governor to keep the nature and content of international bank meetings secret, by not exercising the authority and duty contained in ss 18(i) and (j) of the Bank Act, and in enacting s 18(m) of the Bank Act, Parliament has abdicated its duties and functions as mandated by ss 91(1)(a), (3), (14), (15), (16), (18), (19), (20) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as s 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Next is the mundane issue of government accounting;

[13] The Plaintiffs’ sixth and seventh declarations involve the manner in which the Minister accounts for public finances, which the Plaintiffs say is conceptually and logically wrong. The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Minister is required to list human capital expenditures — including those related to infrastructure as “assets” rather than “liabilities” in budgetary accounting — as well as all revenues prior to the return of tax credits to individual and corporate tax payers, then subtract tax credits, then subtract total expenditures in order to arrive at an annual “surplus” or “deficit,” as required by s 91(6) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

And on to a brand new argument, not previously made by the plaintiffs, taxation without representation. Shades of the shot heard 'round the world and the Battles of Lexington and Concord! One problem with this. The courts don't like new arguments on appeal and in this case the judge wanted the plaintiffs to put their old arguments in sensible form, not dream up a new batch of gibberish.

[14] The eighth declaration sought is that taxes imposed to pay for the interest on the deficit and the debt to private bankers, both domestic and foreign, are illegal and unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs claim that this is the result of a breach of the constitutional right(s) to “no taxation without representation” which occurs when the Minister fails to disclose anticipated revenues to Parliament before the return of anticipated tax credits, prior to determining whether an anticipated surplus or deficit will be incurred, in the tabling of the budget. This means that a full and proper Parliamentary debate cannot properly take place, thus breaching the right to no taxation without representation under both ss 53 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as the unwritten constitutional imperatives to the same effect. Also, it results in an infringement of the Plaintiffs’ right to vote under s 3 of the Charter, which is tied to the right to no taxation without representation with respect to the Minister’s constitutional violations. The result is a breach of the terms of the Bank Act relating to interest-free loans and the consequent constitutional violations by the Executive of its duty to govern, and its relinquishing of sovereignty and statutory decision-making to private foreign bankers.

[15] The ninth and final declaration sought is that the “privative clause” in s 30.1 of the Bank Act either (a) does not apply to prevent judicial review, by way of action or otherwise, with respect to statutorily or constitutionally ultra vires actions, or to prevent the recovery or damages based on such actions; or (b) if it does prevent judicial review and recovery, is unconstitutional and of no force and effect, as breaching the Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to judicial review and the underlying constitutional imperatives of the rule of law, Constitutionalism and Federalism.

And they sought this relief from the court

[16] Besides the declaratory relief sought, the Plaintiffs also in the Amended Claim request damages in the amount of $10,000.00 each for individual Plaintiff: William Krehm, Anne Emmett, and for ten COMER Steering Committee [Steering Committee] members named in the Amended Claim, for the breach of their constitutional right of “no taxation without representation” and the inseparable infringement of the right to vote due to alleged constitutional breaches by the Minister. Further, the Plaintiffs request the return of the portion of illegal and unconstitutional tax, to be calculated and calibrated at trial, for each of the Plaintiffs and the members of the Steering Committing, consisting of the proportion of taxes to pay interest charges on the deficit, and debt between 2011 and the time of trial, paid by the Plaintiffs and Steering Committee members, due to the statutory and constitutional breaches of the Defendants’ rights in refusing and/or failing to cover deficits in the budget by way of interest-free loans, as well as the breach of their right to no taxation without representation, to be calculated by the compounded interest changes set out in the budget, as a percentage of the budget, calculated as the same percentage paid by the Plaintiffs and Steering Committee members, to be calculated at trial.

But the Crown wasn't going for it;

[17] The Defendants have brought a motion to strike the Amended Claim on the grounds that, inter alia:

1. it fails to comply with the leave to amend granted and fails to remedy the problems identified in the Order of April 24, 2014;

2. it seeks to add parties and new claims that are not permissible by virtue of the leave to amend and the Rules;

3. it fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Defendants, or any one of them;

4. it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;

5. it is an abuse of process of the Court;

6. it fails to disclose facts which would show that the action or inaction of the Defendants, or any one of them, could cause an infringement of the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Charter or the Constitution;

7. the causal link between the alleged action or inaction of the Defendants or any one of them, and the alleged infringement of the Plaintiffs’ rights is too uncertain, speculative and hypothetical to sustain a cause of action;

8. it seeks declaratory relief only available under s 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC, 1985, c F-7 [Federal Courts Act] and in any event such relief is not available to the Plaintiffs;

9. the Plaintiffs are not entitled to seek an advisory opinion from the Court;

10. it seeks to adjudicate matters that are not justiciable;

11. it seeks to impose a fetter on the sovereignty of Parliament and seeks to overrule or disregard the privilege of the House of Commons over its own debates and internal procedures;

12. the Plaintiffs do not have a s 3 Charter right to any particular form of taxation and there is no causal connection, or legitimate expectation between their vote and the presentation of a budget before the House of Commons and resulting legislation;

13. it concerns matters outside the jurisdiction of the Court; and

14. the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the Amended Claim as of right, nor can they meet the necessary requirements for the grant of public interest standing.

After this both parties went into arguments. Essentially their attempts to justify their cases as laid out in the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim and the defense's motion to strike. The defendant's case is given first. I'll cover it very superficially leaving out case citations and details of arguments.

(1) The Test on a Motion to Strike

[22] The Defendants say that the test to strike out a pleading under Rule 221 is whether it is plain and obvious on the facts pleaded that the action cannot succeed: While there is a rule that material facts in a statement of claim should be taken as true when determining whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action, this does not require the court to accept at face value bare assumptions or allegations which may be regarded as scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or legal submissions dressed up as facts:

(2) Reasonable Cause of Action

[23] The Rules require that the pleading of material facts disclose a reasonable cause of action. A pleading must: (i) state facts and not merely conclusions of law; (ii) include material facts; (iii) state facts and not the evidence by which they are to be proved; and (iv) state facts concisely in a summary form: The Plaintiffs’ Amended Claim fails to do this. Its allegations do not provide the necessary elements of each cause of action together with the material facts.

[24] The Amended Claim includes amendments that are not permissible under the Rules: new parties (the Steering Committee members) and a cause of action not grounded in the facts already pleaded (the allegation of a breach of s 3 Charter rights) have been added. The Defendants further argue that the Amended Claim breaches the terms of the permission to amend by failing to cure the problems identified in the Order of April 24, 2014.

This is section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of the members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

The plaintiffs, including some new plaintiffs, are arguing that their rights under section three of the charter have been violated by;

the breach of their constitutional right of “no taxation without representation” and the inseparable infringement of the right to vote under s. 3 of the Charter, as tied to the right and imperative against no taxation without representation, due to the constitutional breaches by the Minister of Finance with respect to the budgetary process

To my mind a very tortuous argument which strains section three past any reasonable limits..

[25] The Defendants say that there is no constitutional duty to present the federal budget in the manner sought by the Plaintiffs. As a result, no breach of the principle of no taxation without representation has occurred.

[26] As the master of its own procedure, Parliament cannot be said to have a duty to legislate. No cause of action can result from failing to enact a law

[28] With respect to the Plaintiffs’ legitimate expectations argument, the Defendants state that it falls under the doctrine of fairness or natural justice, and does not create substantive rights: The only procedure due to a Canadian citizen is that proposed legislation receive three readings in the House of Commons and the Senate and that it receive Royal Assent:. The procedural rights described by the Plaintiffs have never existed:

[29] The Defendants say that the Plaintiffs’ reliance on the Magna Carta does not assist them. While the document holds a seminal place in the development of Canadian constitutional principles, it has been displaced by legislation in both the United Kingdom and Canada. It has no contemporary independent legal significance or weight . . .

[33] COMER, as an unincorporated association, cannot benefit from the protection provided for the electoral rights of citizens provided by s 3 of the Charter. While this protection could apply to the two individual Plaintiffs, provided they are Canadian citizens, neither has plead such a cause of action.

[34] In order for a cause of action to be brought under the Charter, at least a threat of violation of a Charter right must be established: The Amended Claim does not demonstrate a link between the actions of any of the Defendants and the alleged s 3 harms. The Defendants further submit that s 3 has never been interpreted to encompass any rights or legitimate expectations that a claimant’s elected representatives will enact any particular measures or refrain from doing so.

[35] With respect to the Plaintiffs’ damages claim for the return of allegedly unconstitutional taxes, the Defendants assert that no factual support has been brought forward to support such a claim.

[37] The Plaintiffs also make a claim of conspiracy, but again fail to plead the material facts necessary to support such an allegation, such as the identity of the officials engaged in the conduct, the type of agreement entered into, the time the agreement was reached, the lawful or unlawful means that were to be used, and the nature of the intended injury to the Plaintiffs. Other requirements that are missing include an agreement between two or more persons and intent to injure

[38] The Plaintiffs plead that, through s 24 of the Bank Act, Parliament has allowed the impugned actions by the Government of Canada.

(3) Declaratory Relief

This section relates to all the various forms of relief the plaitiffs requested. The Crown of course felt that they were not entitled to any.

[39] The Defendants make a series of submissions in relation to the Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief. First, they say the Federal Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory and coercive remedies only as prescribed in the Federal Courts Act. Section 18 indicates that extraordinary remedies can only be obtained on an application for judicial review under s 18.1. Subsection 18.4(2) allows the Court to direct that an application for judicial review be treated and proceeded with as an action, but does not authorize the Plaintiffs to initiate a request for declaratory or coercive relief in an action.

[40] The requirements for proper judicial review, as set out by s 18.1, include that only someone who is “directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought” may bring an application. The Plaintiffs are not directly affected.

[41] The Plaintiffs’ claim damages for a “return of the portion of illegal and unconstitutional tax.” The Defendants say that it is hard to see how these taxes can be claimed without impugning the legality of the instruments th
t gave rise to their increase.

[42] Second, in order to claim declaratory relief, entitlement must be established. . . . Before the court can issue a declaratory remedy, it must have jurisdiction over the issue at bar, the question before the court must be real and not theoretical, and the person raising it must have a real interest in raising it. The Defendants say that the Plaintiffs have not met any of these requirements.

[43] Third, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to refer matters for an advisory opinion. As determined in the Order of April 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs are asking that the Court declare that their reading of the Bank Act and the Constitution is correct. This is akin to asking the Court for an advisory opinion.

[44] Fourth, declaratory relief necessitates a real dispute between the parties and cannot be issued in response to one that is merely hypothetical: . . . A real dispute is not present here.

[45] Fifth, the Plaintiffs have no real interest or right that has been affected by the interpretation or operation of s 18 of the Bank Act. As noted in the Order of April 24, 2014, despite claiming to be acting for “all other Canadians,” the Plaintiffs have failed to produce a pleading demonstrating how “all other Canadians” have been impacted in a way that constitutes an infringement of an individual or collective right.

Next Judiciability. Google says;

Justiciability refers to the types of matters that the federal courts can adjudicate. If a case is "nonjusticiable." a federal court cannot hear it.

So the Crown is arguing that the court does not have authority to decide on the issues raised by COMER.

(4) Justiciability

[47] The Defendants argue that the Court can, and in this case should, deal with statutory interpretation on a motion to strike: Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc, 2007 FC 837 (CanLII) at para 38. The Defendants state that it is critical to note that s 18 of the Bank Act, which enumerates the business and powers of the Bank of Canada, states that the Bank “may” do what is listed at paragraphs (a) through (p). The Plaintiffs want paragraphs (i) and (j) to be read as imperative: that the Bank of Canada is statutorily required, when necessary, to make interest-free loans for the purposes they define. Such mandatory language is not present and to invoke it borders on absurdity as it would suggest that Parliament did not follow through on its very purpose for creating a Bank of Canada, as set out in the Bank Act’s preamble: to regulate credit and currency in the best interest of the economic life of the Canadian nation.

I'm highlighting this because this is a critical point I made at the beginning of this discussion. The Bank of Canada, through clearly written legislation, has the discretion to allow or refuse interest-free loans. COMER is arguing that the word "may" should be interpreted as "must" but without providing any legal rationale for this interpretation. Essentially it should be interpreted as they want it because they want it.

[48] If the Bank Act is to be read as imperative, the Defendants say that it will become necessary for the Court to detail the occasions when the Government of Canada “must” request loans and the Bank “must” provide them. Without these specifications, any declaration made by the Court will be meaningless, and the courts will not make a declaration where “it will serve little or no purposes”:

[49] The Defendants point out that absent “objective legal criteria,” the Court should decline to hear a matter since such a proceeding would entail significant consideration of policy matters, which are beyond the proper subject matter for judicial review:

[50] In asking for a declaration that the Minister and the Government of Canada be required to request interest-free loans for “human capital” and or “infrastructure” expenditures, the Plaintiffs are not merely seeking an interpretation of the Bank Act; they are seeking a coercive order. Section 18 does not support such a request. The Defendants argue that whether a particular loan should be sought by the Government of Canada and made by the Bank is an inappropriate matter for judicial involvement, both institutionally and constitutionally.

Again a point I made. Whether or not to give interest-free loans is a matter of government policy which is not justicable. Then on to the International Banksters.

[53] Furthermore, the Plaintiffs’ amendments have not addressed the deficiency related to the so-called improper “handing-off” to international institutions. The Defendants suggest that the Plaintiffs want the Court to instigate a grand inquisition in regard to monetary and fiscal matters. This is not the proper role of the Court and there is no such duty on the Defendants.

[54] The allegation of “handing-off” to international institutions is not a legal cause of action and is not justiciable.

[56] The Defendants say that the Amended Claim attacks the way in which Canada develops and implements fiscal and monetary policy, as well as its participation in international economic organizations. It attempts to address abstruse issues relating to the governance of the Bank of Canada and fiscal policy-making – things that are properly the concern of governments, not the judiciary:

[57] The Amended Claim is so broad and general in its parameters that it defies judicial manageability.

(5) Court’s Jurisdiction

[58] The Defendants say that the test for determining if a matter is within the Federal Court’s jurisdiction is stipulated in ITO-International Terminal Operators LTD v Miida Electronics, 1986 CanLII 91 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 752 at 766 [ITO-International]:

1. There must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by Parliament.
2. There must be an existing body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case
3. The law on which the case is based must be “a law of Canada”

[59] As regards the first component of the test, there is no statutory grant for a suit to be brought against the Bank of Canada.

[60] Also, the Court has no jurisdiction over a Minister of the Crown. He or she may not be sued in his or her representative capacity; the Queen is the only proper defendant in an action against the Crown:

[61] The Defendants also say that the second part of the ITO-International jurisdictional test has not been met. It is not fulfilled simply by the fact that an allegedly misused power emanates from a federal statute.

[62] As regards the third portion of the test, s 3 of the Charter is not properly characterized as a “law of Canada” in the s 101 sense.

(6) Standing

[63] As a final issue, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring this claim. Their private rights have not been interfered with, nor have they suffered special damages specific to them from an interference with a public right:

[64] A general disdain for a particular law or governmental action is not enough to meet the standard of “genuine interest” for public interest standing.

Now it was Rocco's turn;

B. Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion

[65] The Plaintiffs assert, to the extent that the Order of April 24, 2014 refused to strike the declaratory relief (the bulk of the Amended Claim), and ruled that it is justiciable, that this motion to strike is an abuse of process because res judicata and issue estoppel apply.

(1) The Test on a Motion to Strike

[67] The Plaintiffs echo the test referenced by the Defendants, asserting that a claim can be struck only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument: . . . Striking cannot be justified by a claim that raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law”: Hunt, above, at para 55.

[68] The novelty of the Amended Claim is not reason in and of itself to strike it. Additionally, matters that are not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be disposed of on a motion to strike: In order for the Defendants to succeed, the Plaintiffs state that a case from the same jurisdiction that squarely deals with, and rejects, the very same issue must be presented: The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking:

This argument;

the Plaintiffs state that a case from the same jurisdiction that squarely deals with, and rejects, the very same issue must be presented

seems to me, on the face of it, to be a very stupid argument. It would mean that the court could never strike any case on a new issue because, being new, there would be no prior case on "the very same issue". Obviously no court would accept an argument like that which would limit their powers for no sensible reason.

(2) Constitutional Claims

[71] Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that legislative omissions can lead to constitutional breaches and that all executive action and inaction must conform to constitutional norms:

[72] With respect to the budgetary issue, the Plaintiffs submit that: (a) contrary to Arsenault, the Defendants misstate the Plaintiffs’ Amended Claim; and (b) that s 3 of the Charter is intrinsically tied to the right of no taxation without representation and/or any other underlying right directly connected to the right to vote.

[73] The Plaintiffs say the Defendants misstate and fail to properly respond to the constitutional question. Two erroneous submissions and assumptions have been made. First, it is not plain and obvious that s 91(6) does not impose a duty, or that it is not arguable: Second, the Defendants have overlooked that the constitutional, primary duty in the budgetary process, is to outline all revenues and expenditures. The Minister of Finance has essentially removed the ability of Parliament to properly review, debate and pass the budget’s expenditures and corresponding tax provisions.

[74] The Plaintiffs’ position is misconstrued by the Defendants as an attempt to argue a right in the Magna Carta. All that is stated, the Plaintiffs argue, is that the right can be traced back to the Magna Carta and is codified by ss 53, 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867. It is submitted that the tort actions, which are founded in this right and the inseparable right to vote under s 3 of the Charter, may be “novel,” but comply with the rules of pleading and the Order of April 24, 2014, while meeting the test for a reasonable cause of action.


(3) Declaratory Relief

[76] On the issue of declaratory relief, the Plaintiffs say that the Defendants’ submissions on the topic are, in any event, misguided and contrary to the jurisprudence. The Plaintiffs argue that the issue has already been decided by my Order of April 24, 2014 and was upheld by the Court of Appeal when it dismissed the Defendants’ cross-appeal. Therefore, the matter constitutes res judicata, issue estoppel and abuse of process.

Another stupid argument. The judge, in his prior decision, decided against the Crown in it's cross-appeal to have the case struck because he thought the plaintiffs should be given another try at submitting a Statement of Claim that made enough sense to be reviewed by the court. Rocco is arguing that this means that the prior decision is now settled law and the new Statement of Claim cannot now be struck by the judge. In Rocco's world the judge, by allowing the plaintiffs another chance, really means they win regardless of whatever nonsense they now chose to file. In real life this is COMERS last shot at it and if the judge wants to strike this time around the prior decision is in no way res judicata or issue estoppel in respect to this one.

(4) Justiciability

[79] As regards the issue of justiciability, noting that the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the constitutionality of legislation has always been a justiciable issue, the Plaintiffs argue that just because the subject-matter at hand deals with socio-economic matters does not make it non-justiciable.

[82] The Plaintiffs assert that the clear test for justiciability is whether there is a “sufficient legal component to warrant the intervention of the judicial branch”: The Amended Claim meets this test. When social policies are alleged to infringe or violate Charter-protected rights, they must be scrutinized; this does not exclude “political questions”: In such cases the question before the court is not whether the policy is sound, but rather whether it violates constitutional rights, which is a totally different question:

[83] The declaratory relief and damages sought in the Amended Claim are, according to the Plaintiffs, grounded in the interpretation of the Bank Act, and the constitutional duties and requirements of the budgetary process. These have not been respected. The Constitution, as a result, is being structurally violated and the Plaintiffs’ rights are being infringed.

(5) Standing

[85] Finally, the Plaintiffs submit that they clearly have standing to bring forward these justiciable issues on the facts pleaded. This standing is personal, but it is also public interest-based and is in line with recent jurisprudence:

[86] The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution does not belong to the federal or provincial governments, but to Canadian citizens (Nova Scotia (AG), above), and that it is a tool for dispute resolution, of which one of the most important goals is to serve well those who make use of it:

[87] The Plaintiffs submit that it is time to revisit the issue of standing with respect to the constitutional validity of statutes and executive actions. In cases like the present one, concerned with the constitutional validity of statutes and/or executive actions by way of declaratory relief, public interest standing is a constitutional right.

So Rocco and the gang want a new constitutional right; the right for any member of the public to sue the government if they don't agree with a government policy or statute. What they are really proposing is a solution to unemployment since every able-bodied Canadian would have to get a law degree and work for the Department of Justice to handle the tidal wave of citizens's lawsuits.

So, both sides have presented their case as best they can and told the judge why the other side are idiots. On to the court's analysis of this mess!

The judge made an extremely detailed analysis with copious volumes of references to, and quotes from, other judgments. So, I'm going to be dong some pruning.

VI. ANALYSIS

[88] Pursuant to my Order of April 24, 2014 (as endorsed by the Federal Court of Appeal on January 6, 2015), the Plaintiffs have now served and filed the Amended Claim and the Defendants have brought a second motion to strike.


A. The Amendments

[90] While the Amended Claim maintains the declaratory relief described in paragraphs 1 to 10 substantially intact from their previous pleading, the Plaintiffs have dropped the allegations that the unlawful actions of the Defendants violate ss 7 and 15 of the Charter. Instead, the Plaintiffs now seek, as part of their declaratory relief, a declaration:
[…]
viii) that taxes imposed to pay for the interest on the deficit and debt to private bankers, both domestic and particularly foreign, are illegal and unconstitutional owing to,

A/ the breach of the constitutional right(s) to no taxation without representation resulting from the Finance Minister’s failure to disclose full anticipated revenues to MPs in Parliament

B/ the infringement of the Plaintiffs’ right to vote, under s. 3 of the Charter, tied to the right to no taxation without representation with respect to the Minister of Finance’s constitutional violations;

C/ breach of the terms of the Bank of Canada Act, with respect to interest-free loans, and the consequent constitutional violations, by the Executive, of its duty to govern, and relinquishing sovereignty and statutory decision-making to private foreign bankers;
[…]
[91] The Plaintiffs have also made it clear that their tort claims are not based upon public misfeasance and/or conspiracy.
[…]

B. Rule 221 – Motion to Strike

[93] As with the previous strike motion, there is no disagreement between the parties as to the basic jurisprudence that governs a motion to strike under Rule 221. Essentially, the test for striking an action is a high one and the Defendants must show that it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action or that there is no reasonable prospect that the claim will succeed.

[94] As I found in my Order of April 24, 2014, this claim remains both novel and ambitious, but this does not mean that it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that it does not give rise to a reasonable cause of action or that there is no reasonable prospect that it will not succeed at trial.

C. Grounds for the Motion

[95] The Defendants have raised a significant number of grounds for striking the Amended Claim. I will deal in turn with those grounds that I feel have substance and relevance.
(1) Budget Presentation and Taxation

[96] As regards the declaratory relief sought in paras 1(a)(vi) to (viii) of the Amended Claim dealing with the presentation of the Federal Budget by the Minister of Finance, that Defendants argue as follows:

12. There is no constitutional duty of presenting the federal budget in the manner sought by the plaintiffs. There is no breach of the principle of “no taxation without representation”.

13. Parliament is master of its procedure. It is well recognized that there is no duty on Parliament to legislate. There is no cause of action for the omission of Parliament to enact any law.

14. The plaintiffs allege that the accounting method used in the budgetary process is a breach of ss. 91(6) Constitution Act, 1867, which grants legislative power over “[t]he census and statistics” to Parliament. This provision will not aid them. Section 91 enumerates the classes of subjects and all matters coming within them to which the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada is granted – it does not impose duties on Parliament or the Government.

[98] It is true, as the Defendants say, that the Plaintiffs take issue with the way the Minister presents the federal budget to Parliament. . . . However, the Plaintiffs provide the facts about how the federal budget is presented to Parliament and say why they think it is inappropriate before they go on to state the legal basis of their claim. And the legal basis of the claim is that the Minister’s accounting methods and practices breach s 91(6) of the Constitution Act, 1867 because they mean the Defendants are not maintaining and presenting accurate statistics, which in turn breaches s 3 of the Charter because, in the end, inaccurate and misleading statistics prevent any meaningful debate on the budget in Parliament. This means in turn that MPs cannot fulfil their representative function and the Plaintiffs (at least the individual Plaintiffs) are therefore being taxed without any real representative input on the budget. This undermines s 3 of the Charter and the guarantees under ss 53 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867. This is my understanding of the Amended Claim on this issue.

[101] The Plaintiffs reiterated the same points clearly in their oral arguments:

The case before you is there is an executive breach of a constitutional requirement by the Minister of Finance with respect to the budget process, and that as a result the legislation that comes out of Parliament breaches the constitutional right to no taxation without representation. Why? The MPs are blindfolded.

The right to vote includes the right to effective representation. If the MPs are blinded by executive constitutional breaches by the Minister of Finance, how does that ensure effective representation?

[N]owhere in the pleadings are we asking Parliament to legislate. We are simply saying that there’s an abdication of executive and parliamentary duty with respect to the budget as pleaded. That is a different matter.

And the failure to act applies equally to the executive as it does to the legislative with respect to constitutional breaches….

And the actual revenues are not presented to Parliament. That is what we have pleaded. That is the fact.

At paragraph 22, I set out the codification of these principles in sections 53, 54, and 90, and then state that by removing and not revealing the true revenues of Parliament, which is the only body which can constitutionally impose tax and thus approve the proposed spending from the speech from the throne, the Minister of Finance is removing the elected MPs’ ability to properly review and debate the budget and pass its expenditure and corresponding taxing provisions through elected representatives of the House of Commons. The ancient constitutional maxim of no taxation without representation was reaffirmed post-Charter by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Education Reference.

[102] It seems to me that these arguments and assertions cannot apply to COMER itself, which has no right to vote. As regards the individual Plaintiffs, even assuming they pay tax, the allegations remain abstract and theoretical. A central allegation – unsupported by facts – is that MPs are voting blind and have been hoodwinked by the Minister of Finance. There are no facts pleaded to support this bald allegation. MPs may well understand the issues raised by the Plaintiffs concerning budgetary accounting practices, but may have decided to accept them. The Plaintiffs are alleging that Parliament is being misled by the Minister, but that the Plaintiffs are not.

[105] There are no facts in the pleadings to suggest that any MPs are “voting blind” or are being misled by the Minister of Finance. Similarly, there are none to establish that Parliament does not monitor and assess the budgetary process, including the way the budget is compiled and presented by the Minister of Finance. The logic of the Amended Claim is that if Parliament is not adopting and acting upon the Plaintiffs’ concerns about the budgetary process then Parliamentarians are blind. This is an unsupported assertion. It is not a fact.

[106] There is nothing more than a bald assertion that the Minister of Finance is “blindfolding” his Parliamentary colleagues and leading them astray to the detriment of the individual Plaintiffs, and, presumably, all Canadians with a right to vote.

[107] Even at an abstract level, this seems far-fetched, to say the least. The Plaintiffs are asking the Court to simply assume that Parliament does not have the wherewithal to understand the way the budget is compiled and presented. The logic here is that, because the budget is not being presented as the Plaintiffs think it ought to be presented, their Parliamentary representatives are being hoodwinked by the Minister of Finance and obviously do not know what they are doing when they pass a budget. This position is presumptive and unsupported by any facts. It remains an abstract debate about how the budget should be presented.

[108] Bald assertions, without supporting facts, are not sufficient to satisfy the rules of pleading. See Rule 174 and accompanying jurisprudence.

[109] There is nothing in the facts as pleaded in the Amended Claim to suggest that Parliament is not fully aware of the criticisms levelled by the Plaintiffs against the Minister of Finance and that parliamentarians are not free to question and debate any budget presented from the perspective of those criticisms. . . . The Plaintiffs can have no right to insist that Parliament should only debate and pass budgets in accordance with the principles and procedures which they approve of and advocate. If the Plaintiffs disagree with the process then, like everyone else, they have access to their own Parliamentary representatives. Hence, in my view, there is no factual basis in the Amended Claim to support an allegation that the Constitution Act, 1867, s 3 of the Charter or any constitutional principle is breached on the principle of no taxation without representation.

[111] The Plaintiffs are not attacking any particular budget legislation that may have had an impact upon them that gives rise to a cause of action in any court of law. They are attacking the Parliamentary process that they say is used to present, debate and pass budget bills into law. They want the Court to interfere, albeit on Constitutional and Charter grounds, with the way Parliament goes about its business. In my view, the jurisprudence is clear that the Court cannot do this.

[114] As far as the Constitution Act, 1867 and s 3 of the Charter are concerned, COMER, as an unincorporated association, has no electoral rights. As regards the individual Plaintiffs, there are no facts pleaded to suggest that they do not have effective representation in Parliament when it comes to budget bills. In Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Saskatchewan), 1991 CanLII 61 (SCC), [1991] 2 SCR 158 at 1836, the Supreme Court of Canada explained what representation means:

Ours is a representative democracy. Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government. Representation comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government as well as the idea of the right to bring one’s grievances and concerns to the attention of one’s government representative…

[115] Representation does not mean that the Plaintiffs have a right to force Parliament to proceed in a way that better suits their view of the appropriate way to present and pass a budget, and they have not pleaded facts to show that any particular budget legislation has negatively impacted a legal right that they enjoy.

[116] There is nothing in the Amended Claim to suggest that the individual Plaintiffs do not enjoy the same meaningful participation in the electoral process as any other Canadian voter. See Figueroa, above, at para 27. The Plaintiffs do not lack effective representation simply because budget bills are not presented and dealt with in accordance with their views of what they should or should not contain, and there is no suggestion that they lack a voice in the deliberations of government because they are unable to bring their grievances and concerns to the attention of the MPs who represent them. In my view, Constitutional and Charter protection cannot mean that individual voters have the right or the expectation that their views on the appropriate presentation and enactment of any particular piece of legislation will be followed by Parliament.

117] In my view, then, those allegations of the Amended Claim that raise the taxation issue and seek relief based upon the Constitution Act, 1867 and s 3 of the Charter, and the principle of no taxation without representation have to be struck because it is plain and obvious that they disclose no reasonable cause of action and have no reasonable prospect of success.

(2) Bank Act Issues

[118] The balance of the Amended Claim deals with alleged breaches of the Bank Act by the Minister of Finance and the Government of Canada. In its essentials, this aspect of the claim has not changed since I reviewed the Plaintiffs’ previous Amended Statement of Claim in April, 2014.

[119] I think it is useful to bear in mind the grounds of the Defendants’ cross-appeal that the Federal Court of Appeal was asked to consider in January, 2015 and which it dismissed:

3. The judge erred in law by finding that had the learned Prothonotary determined s. 18 of the Bank of Canada Act to be a “legislative imperative” that the Claim would then become justiciable;

4. The judge erred in law by finding that even if s. 18 of the Bank of Canada Act is permissive, that this does not dispose of the matter of justiciability;

7. The judge erred in fact and in law by finding that relevant and material facts have actually been pleaded in the Claim in support of the declarations sought that the policies and actions allegedly pursued by the Defendants have not complied with the Bank of Canada Act and the Constitution;
…
[120] It also has to be borne in mind that in my Order of April 24, 2014, I did not say that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed with their Bank Act claims. All I said was that the claims had to be struck in their entirely because, as they stood, they did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and had no prospect of success. The Federal Court of Appeal endorsed this position.

[121] I concluded that the “full import of the Bank Act and what is required of Canada and those Minister and officials who act, or don’t act, in accordance with the Bank Act is at the heart of this dispute” (para 72) and that:

[122] I said the Bank Act claims “could be justiciable and appropriate for consideration by the Court”(emphasis added) because the Plaintiffs do give their account of the socio-economic problems that arise from alleged breaches of the Bank Act and related constitutional principles. I concluded that this provided context for the alleged breaches in the claims because the Court needs to understand the Plaintiffs’ version of what is at stake and what flows from the alleged breaches:

[123] From a res judicata perspective, it has to be borne in mind that the portions of the claim related to the Bank Act were struck under Rule 221. My comments about justiciability – “could be justiciable and appropriate for consideration by the Court,” –not “are justiciable” simply went to Prothonotary Aalto’s findings that they were not justiciable because they involved matters of policy rather than law.

[124] The reason I said the Bank Act claims “could be justiciable and appropriate for consideration by the Court” is because, as drafted, these claims give rise to problems of jurisdiction and justiciability that the Plaintiffs should have the opportunity to resolve by way of amendments. Now that amendments have been made the Court has to decide whether the Plaintiffs have resolved these problems.

[127] So the important issue before me at this juncture is not whether the Court could examine and rule on the legal aspects of the claims; the issue is whether the amendments are sufficient to allow the Court to do this, and whether they overcome the problems I identified that compelled me to strike all of the claims in 2014.

[130] It seems to me that the Plaintiffs have not resolved these problems in the Amended Claim.

[131] The Plaintiffs take a very forceful and wide view on the availability of declaratory relief and the Court’s jurisdiction to grant such relief. The Plaintiffs take the position that any citizen has a constitutional right, subject to frivolous and vexatious or no jurisdiction of the Court, to bring a public interest issue to the Court.

[134] The Plaintiffs appear to be of the view that, as a think-tank, they can simply come to Court and ask the Court to declare that the Minister of Finance and the Government of Canada are required to do certain things under the Bank Act, and that they have abdicated their constitutional duties, and allowed international private entities to trump the interests of Canadians. COMER has no Constitutional or Charter rights to assert and the individual Plaintiffs are no differently situated from any other Canadian and have no demonstrable individual Constitutional and Charter rights to assert.

[135] Having been given the opportunity to amend, there are still no material facts in the Amended Claim that link the impugned legislative scheme embodied in the Bank Act to an effect on themselves as Plaintiffs.

[137] In the present case, the Plaintiffs have not, in their Amended Claim, pleaded facts to demonstrate a “real” issue concerning the relative interests of each party, and the nexus of that real issue to the Plaintiffs and their claim for relief. Although as I pointed out in my Order of April 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs do distinguish between legal issues and policy issues, the legal issues remain theoretical with no real nexus to some interest of the Plaintiffs, other than an interest in having the Court endorse their opinion on the Bank Act issues raised.

[138] The Plaintiffs have not addressed the jurisdictional problems I referred to in paras 85 to 91 of my Order of April 24, 2014 and/or what might generally be referred to as the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain, or its willingness to grant, free-standing requests for declaration.

[139] Apart from the taxation issues which I have concluded are not justiciable for reasons set out above, the Plaintiffs have made little attempt in their amendments to rectify the problems I raised in my Order of April 24, 2014. The declaratory relief related to the Bank Act remains the same. The damages claimed in 1(b)(ii) appear to be based upon s 3 of the Charter and the no taxation without representation principle, which I have found to be non-justiciable.

[142] It seems to me that the Federal Court of Appeal in Mancuso, above, has now made it clear that a claim for a pure declaration must establish through pleading sufficient material facts that the Court has jurisdiction over the claims “and a real as opposed to a theoretical question in respect of which the person raising has an interest.”

[143] I do not wish to denigrate, or even downplay, the Plaintiffs’ concerns about the way that Parliament has dealt with economic and monetary issues. But not all concerns can be translated into legal action that can, or should, be dealt with by a court of law. Rather than supplement their previous ss 7 and 15 Charter claims, and their previous tort claims, the Plaintiffs have abandoned those claims altogether and have now come up with claims based upon s 3 of the Charter and Constitutional guarantees of no taxation without representation. As able as their arguments are, the sudden switch to a new game plan suggests that the Plaintiffs are not able to remove their concerns from the political realm and to characterize them in such a way that they can be dealt with by this Court.

[144] It seems to me, then, that the latest Amended Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and has no prospect of success at trial. It also seems to me that the Plaintiffs are still asking the Court for an advisory opinion in the form of declarations that their view of the way the Bank Act and the Constitution should be read is correct. It also seems to me that they have failed to show a statutory grant of jurisdiction by Parliament that this Court can entertain and rule on their claim as presently constituted, or that they have any specific rights under the legislation which they invoke, or a legal framework for any such rights. As the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out in Operation Dismantle, above, the preventive function of a declaratory judgment must be more than hypothetical and requires “a cognizable threat to a legal interest before the Court will entertain the use of its process as a preventative measure” (para 33). The Court is not here to declare the law generally or to give an advisory opinion. The Court is here to decide and declare contested legal rights. See Gouriet, above, at 501-502.

D. Other issues

[145] The Defendants have raised a number of other issues going to the adequacy and appropriateness of the Amended Claim but, in light of the fundamental problems I have dealt with above, I see no point in going any further with my analysis.

And then the judge dropped the hammer on them. So a complete and utter rout. Galati says he's going to appeal. I don't doubt it but it is pointless. The case has no legal merit at all and the Federal Court of Appeal isn't going to spend seventy pages telling him to get lost. After the FCA rejects his legal brilliance he'll apply for leave to appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada and leave will be denied. That, finally, will be the end of it.

[arayder]

So Rocco and the gang want a new constitutional right; the right for any member of the public to sue the government if they don't agree with a government policy or statute.

As does Psam Frank.

The freeman/sovcit way is to ramp up their desires as rights and then whine that their pseudo-rights are being violated.

If it isn't one of the Crawford crew whining about cops evicting them without freeman correct warrants, it's Canadian freemen claiming they have a right to declare themselves peace officers. Or it's Peter of England saying he has the right to make money/currency out of thin air and that anybody who says otherwise is abusing him.

At times I wonder if these narcissistic twits were raised by adults who showered them with little league soccer participation trophies, told them their scribblings were Picassos and that the world was make just for them.

[notorial dissent]

Burnaby a most heartfelt thank you for taking the hit of wading through that legal opus, and while I enjoy a certain amount of legal technobabel, there are limits. I do think you laid the whole steaming mess out in a nice and understandable fashion so that it makes sense, at least as much as it is ever likely to. I think one of the best bits of unintended comedy was them wanting the gov't to change their accounting method to suit the complainants, since a balanced checkbook or real accounting is a foreign concept to most of the freeman/sovcit/footl crowd as near as I can tell. Silly me, I always thought that if you didn't like the way the gov't was spending money or what they were doing then you and other like minded citizens go to the ballot box and get things changed, silly me.

I will say that I think the judge was far more forbearing that was necessary and really should have come done harder on them for the steaming incoherent mess they had supplied, particularly as it was against direct orders. I can see this to a degree on pro se litigants, but Galati was allegedly a lawyer, although you wouldn't know it from this presentation.

[Burnaby49]

Keep in mind I'm posting this after a night's pubbing so I may not be entirely lucid. I know, what else is new?

Anyhow, what is stunning about this case isn't that the court decided against COMER's arguments, that was a given. It's that they couldn't get past the first absolutely rock-bottom basic hurdle, filing a Statement of Claim acceptable to the court. That's fundamental and should be within the capabilities of any competent lawyer, even a law student. If you can't prepare one that meets the absolute minimum requirements (and the court is very generous about this because they don't want to cut off access to the court) then you should tell your client there is no case and stop proceedings.

But here, with Rocco Galati, a supposedly qualified lawyer and apparently Canada's greatest constitutional expert acting for them, they failed abysmally on their first attempt. And the court patiently explained to them why they failed and gave them a mulligan to try again. But they did just as poor a job the second time around. In other words they couldn't get past the first, and simplest hurdle, of explaining why they had a cause of action that the court could hear. There's no legal failure more basic than that.