So, time for a ride on the express train to Crazytown. Sir Miracle is the driver and Glenn Bogue, a Toronto lawyer, is the fireman. This is the Statement of Claim I've been coy about providing. I figured I'd make you all wade through those two background posts before I got to it;
http://www.mediafire.com/download/vohd0 ... anned).pdf
The Statement of Claim starts with a bang; demanding declarations from the Crown in Right of Canada, the Attorney General of Canada. the Province of Ontario and the Attorney General of Ontario that;
- all of the court decisions against him over the past decade or so are quashed and are null and void. This is because Sir andrew miracle is a sentient, living being (as opposed to a corporate number) who is a Domestic Sovereign. His status is based on WHO he is, not where he is, and therefore the decisions of Ontario courts are not binding without his consent and he does not consent.
- Chief Rock Sino General's favorite treaty, the legendary and non-existent Two Row Wampum Treaty overrides the Indian Act.
- All of Canada (except, for some reason, those portions south of the 49th parallel which include Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and most of the Maritimes) belongs to the natives and that the cities and towns of Canada are actually reservations put aside for we non-natives to live in.
- All of the land that Sir Miracle claims he owns are actually owned by him.
- That the Bank of Canada and its actions are unconstitutional and ultra vires Parliament.
- Sir Miracle can start up his own bank.
and, the only one that at least makes some legal sense in that it is an action in law that can be addressed by a court, an injunction banning the defendants from selling the reserve land that Sir Miracle claims that he owns and which he has irrecoverably lost since he never had any right to it in the first place.
Hands up those of you that think that the Queen is going to sign that declaration.
The oddest part of all this, at least as far as I'm concerned, is that this steaming pile of horse manure was filed by an accredited practicing lawyer. And it gets worse. This paragraph explains why this action was noted in the COMER Federal court file as being a related case;
VI) that the actions of The Bank of Canada in dealing with private central banks is a violation of Natural Justice, and further are both ultra vires Parliament and unconstitutional, on the same grounds as set forth in the Claim made in Comer, William Krehm and Ann Emmett v. Her Majesty the Queen et. al. (Federal Court No. T 2010-11) attached hereto as Appendix A and incorporated herein by reference, and the declarations sought therein are sought here as well.
I have no idea why that is in the Statement of Claim and we already know how the COMER lawsuit worked out. So if Sir Miracle wants the "declarations" sought there to apply here then the lawsut can stop right now with an order from the Federal Court to strike this Statement of Claim without leave to amend. Which, in the end, is what is going to happen anyhow.
This takes us to the bottom of page two then yet more demands against The Royal Bank of Canada, The Minister of National Revenue, the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario, HSBC and its central bank affiliates located on Turtle Island (North and South America):
4. Damages for:
I) fraud in entering native land and enforcing contracts without consideration,
II) unconstitutionally usurping the power to regulate money from The (Public) Bank of Canada;
In the amount of the total debt created by computer and/or mere bank entry, and saddled onto property on Turtle Island since 1974, which sum shall be calculated before trial.
5. Damages for:
I) illegally extracting $91.000 from plaintiff's ABC account by Revenue Canada In 2013-14, and $285,000 (plus rare bills and jewellery) from TD Canada Trust, CIBC, Scotia Bank and BMO, and from his home in 1981.
Ill) tortuously stopping gas suppliers from delivering to Sir miracle's gas station in 1981, in an amount to be determined at trial or prior thereto.
So Sir Miracle has some tax problems. Problems significant enough that the Canada Revenue Agency has scooped his various bank accounts.
Part 3 brings another player into the game;
6. The Plaintiffs Sir andrew miracle, and zane bell are living, sentient beings who claim from the defendants Blaney, McMurtry LLP. the Algonquins of Ontario, the Queen of England, the Crown in Right of Canada and the Crown in Right of Ontario:
Zane Bell? Who the hell's he? Sir Miracle says he's this guy;
12. zane bell is Grand Chief of the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation,
whose family is traceable to 1608, but whose DNA goes back 30,000 years.
He must be an important guy if he's a Grand Chief of an indigenous nation but I can't say that I've ever heard of him or the nation he leads. So time for a bit of research. Zane has a linkedin page;
https://ca.linkedin.com/in/chief-zane-bell-03810619
The nation has its own Facebook page, apparently started a month and a half ago. And a flag!
https://www.facebook.com/Anishinabek-So ... 135973433/
A corporate headquarters;
http://www.datalog.co.uk/browse/detail. ... orporation
This is their website, although not much on it;
http://www.anishinabeksolutreanmetis.com/
And, best of all, you can get a lifetime member in the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation for the bargain price of $55!
http://www.anishinabeksolutreanmetis.co ... main__.pdf
Which gets you this spiffy membership card (substitute your picture for the bear. Unless you prefer the bear);
and they are swamped with applications!
Current : We are using our Historic name the Tribe of the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation © to recognize our ancestors. Currently our membership process is getting large numbers of "membership to the tribe" applications. It is slowing down our printing process so have be patience if your Tribal membership card is slow in getting to you.
And the nation isn't just a batch of empty internet websites. They have a boots on the ground presence signing international treaties, they are the founding signatory of an new intergoverment treaty, and it's a member of the United Nations;
I believe we are the First Tribal Nation in Canada to submit Treaty Negotiations through Article 102 of the United Nations Charter. Our Tribal Nation is now Adopting Status and Non Status Inuit and Metis into our Nation, per the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration of the Right of Indigenous People.
We have also signed numerous Treaties around the World and are the founding signatory the The native Nations Intergovernmental Alliance Treaty, soon also to be submitted to the United Nations under Article 102.
This is Article 102;
Article 102
1 - Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.
2 - No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.
Since only members of the United Nations can submit treaties to it for registration under Section 102 the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation must be a member. Otherwise all of those comments would be just empty blather and bullshit.
However I'm having some difficulty finding any information on the native Nations Intergovernmental Alliance Treaty. The only hits I get on Google are for the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation related websites. Nothing from other signatories. Must be a problem with Google's algorithms.
Anyhow back to Sir Miracle and Bell's joint complaint against Blaney, McMurtry LLP. the Algonquins of Ontario, the Queen of England, the Crown in Right of Canada and the Crown in Right of Ontario
a) damages for colluding in a plan to pass a Referendum on Feb. 291 2016 to sell native land belonging to all native peoples of Turtle Island in community, or to self those lands without the participation of all Algonquin tribe members and without the consent of other (non-surrendered) tribes occupying the Referendum land going back 30,000 years, in an amount to be determined at trial or prior thereto;
b) an interim, interlocutory and permanent injunction restraining the defendants The Crown in Right of Canada. their officers and employees, and Blaney McMurtry or any of their partners, lawyers or employees, and The Algonquin of Ontario from conducting the Feb. 29, 2016 Referendum until the issues raised in this proceeding are resolved
and that's it for Zane Bell's part of the lawsuit. I'm assuming he's miffed because the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation wasn't invited to participate in the referendum.
After this Sir Miracle has a few more vague complaints against various parties and wants "Punitive Damages against each defendant in an amount to be determined at trial." Good luck with that! It presupposes that there actually will be a trial instead of what is going to happen, this steaming pile being struck without leave to amend. As we've noted Sir Miracle really doesn't have a very good track record at trials. After this a bit of a story about the parties to the action and the "facts" from Sir Miracle which are just his side of the story about his past litigation.
Then, on page 5, the real crazy starts. Keep in mind that no matter how insane this Statement of Claim might be the portion that I've reviewed so far has a connection to the past Sir Miracle litigation. Even his COMER nonsense can be considered a response to his grievance about losing his businesses. Not the next part. It is an entirely unrelated lawsuit by individuals who have not been mentioned in any prior lawsuit or documents relating to Sir Miracle's land issues or anything else to do with him. Essentially the Statement of Claim includes two separate lawsuits which in no way relate to each other. The next part involves two mothers suing the Alberta and Ontario governments for apprehending their ten children and placing them in care.
A full, or at least fuller disclosure from me. I had no idea whatever that this was in the Statement of Claim when I picked it up at the Federal Court registry. I had assumed that the Claim related only to Sir Miracle's issues with his prior jurisprudence about his gas station and related businesses which I'd already checked out in CanLII. The child apprehension story came right out of left field. And, bizarrely, I already knew the backstory to it from researching an entirely different issue. The story is covered in two court judgments. The first involved seven children who were taken from their two mothers under an emergency apprehension without a court order and who were later put under a Permanent Guardianship Order. The second case covered three more children taken from the same mothers. I have the cases and one starts with this;
Restriction on Publication: Identification Ban
– See the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, section 126.2. No one may publish the name or photograph of a child, or of the child’s parent or guardian, in a manner that reveals that the child is receiving, or has received, intervention services. NOTE: This judgment is intended to comply with the restriction so that it may be published.
And the other this;
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT
In other word exactly the same publication ban issue that caused considerable dispute on this discussion;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10814
So, as I did in the Boisjoli discussion, I'm not going to "publish the name or photograph of a child, or of the child’s parent or guardian". Nor will I link to the two cases, or give information in them which is not included in the Statement of Claim. Hence the redactions. Lots of redactions.
So on to part 2 of the Statment of Claim;
36. The Plaintiffs . . . . . . are living, sentient beings who claim from the defendants The Provinces of Ontario and Alberta (and their Attorneys General), The Attorney General of Canada, The Crown in Right of Canada and The Queen of England as follows:
37. Declarations that:
a) the Plaintiffs bore children as surrogates to a Treaty non-band card carrying Mohawk, and accordingly the children, as original natives to North America, are exempt from the laws of Canada;
b) the Treaties that existed prior to the Constitution Act of 1867 bind Canada and its provinces, especially as reinforced by S. 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, and that agents of both the federal and provincial governments (cited above} breached those treaties when they entered lands belonging to natives, forced them off the reserve as non-number carrying band members and snatched these 1O children.
38. An interim, interlocutory and permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their officers and employees from any and all detention actions of these 10 children.
39. Damages against The Crown in Right of Canada, the Provinces of Ontario and Alberta for the pain and suffering as a result of the breach of contract (Treaties) in the amount of $15 million.
40. Damages in tort for:
a) negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress in the amount of $15 million;
b) breach of plaintiffs constitutional rights provided for by ss. 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 24, 25, 26 and 35 of The Constitution Act of 1982.
c) damages specifically against R. Donald Miralce for wilfully (and maliciously) directing Mohawk members in Ontario and Alberta not to help this family, in an amount to be determined at trial or prior thereto.
Now for the somewhat unconventional family relationship. I'll give my own names for the parties in quotation marks where the document is blacked out;
The Plaintiffs
45. "Mom1" is the mother of 7 children born as surrogate to "Father" a Treaty Status Mohawk. a non-band card carrying, living, sentient being.
46. "Mom2" is the mother of 3 children born as surrogate to Father, a Treaty Status Mohawk, and non-band card carrying, living, sentient being.
47. These two women are referred to as 'the mothers' who stand on the Mohawk Dad's Treaty-secured right to raise his children according to Mohawk tradition.
48. "Wife" is a living, sentient being who is married to Father and is a caregiver to the children.
49. "Offside" is a living, sentient being who is married to Mom2 and is a caregiver to the children.
So you essentially have two women acting as a breeding farm for a guy who isn't married to either of them and is in fact married to a third woman who supposedly helps care for her husband's brood by Mom1 and Mom2. Mom2 has a husband who has apparently not fathered any children but, like Wife, supposedly helps care for the children.
I used the word "supposedly" because all ten children have been removed from the mothers and placed in foster care. Three of the children were apprehended immediately at birth. This does not indicate an acceptable level of care. However that's not how the mothers see it, everything was going great until various governments retaliated against them for stopping the pillaging of Indian land;
52. The native peoples with whom this extended family resided were the same natives who participated in the refusal of natives to allow an Oil pipeline across their land by the Harper government.
53. In retaliation. on Nov. s. 2011, five children of Mom1 and two children of Mom2 were taken by the Alberta governmental authorities without an apprehension order or a warrant, or any other grounds (and in contravention of S.19(2) of the Alberta mandate entitled 'Child, Youth, Family Enhancement Act'),
However the government framed it differently;
57. On Feb. 27, 2013, in a closed door •terrorist" trial, Justice O'Gorman made the children wards of the state on the grounds of 'medical neglect'. The children have since been denied access to their natural caregivers and native culture.
As an aside, and entirely unrelated to any of this, I like that paragraph 52 comment "by the Harper government". Stephen Harper, once head of the Conservative party, was our prime minister for a decade. He got kicked out last fall. He was personally very unpopular. I'm a lifelong Conservative and I voted against him in the last election. Two things made me vehemently anti-Harper. The first was significant. He ended what was called the "long form" census.
During the census — done every five years — most Canadian households get an eight-question form. However, a longer, more detailed, 61-question form was distributed to one-in-five households.
With questions on everything from income, cultural heritage, education, work habits, even details of where people live, it gave researchers a rich source of data to build an understanding of Canadian society.
The data was used in myriad ways, planning everything from public health to transit and rural development.
“The use is almost never-ending,” Ian McKinnon, chairperson of the National Statistics Council, the senior advisory body to the chief statistician at Statistics Canada told the Star.
Yet in 2010 that lengthy census form was scrapped by the Conservatives, who said its questions were intrusive, even though the data is kept confidential.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015 ... ensus.html
There was absolutely no reasoned basis for this decision. The long form was critical for the government and all Canadians to get a grasp on demographic and cultural trends. Businesses relied on it, academics relied on it, everybody relied on it. And Harper killed it just to suck up to his extreme right-wing base. There was an uproar but Harper had become His Majesty King Stephen the First by this time and just said, essentially, Don't like it? Screw you. After the Liberals got a majority in the recent election their first legislative act was to restore the long form.
The other thing that really irked me was "The Harper Government." Once Harper was in power he ordered that all announcements made by federal government departments no longer be issued under the name of the Government of Canada but under the title "The Harper Government". So I'd go to the Canada Revenue Agency website and find that a release about depreciation rates or some other technical stuff was being done by the Harper Government, as if we'd voted him dictator and it wasn't the government of Canada any more. A trivial issue but it enraged me every time I saw it and was entirely typical of how he operated. He antagonized people over petty mean-spirited issues that gave him no political advantage. So I thought it a nice touch by the Plaintiffs to refer to the Harper government rather than the Government of Canada in their pleadings.
Anyhow the plaintiffs spend a few pages giving their side of the story. All of it related to their children being taken from them. Then on to their demanded redress;
PART SIX
63. The Plaintiffs are living, sentient beings, who claim from the defendants the Queen of England, the Crown in Right of Canada and HSBC (and its affiliate central banks) the following Damages for.
a) tortious infliction of emotional distress resulting from the rape and murder of native people and in treating natives as less than human:
b) theft of natives' Identity as Domestic Sovereigns;
c) rents due to natives for all the construction on native soils.
In the amount of $2 Quadrillion.
You will note that none of the injuries claimed in paragraph 63 relate to anything to do with the preceding portion of the Statement of Claim regarding the child apprehension issues.
The Statement of Claim ends with a wrap-up of the entire document.
68. The plaintiffs in this case are the unfortunate fodder of an international attempt
to use the government apparatus to;
a) strip successful native business leaders (Sir miracle) of their possessions;
b) strip treaty mothers (Mom1 and Mom2) of their offspring;
c) strip indigenous tribes (like Zane bell's Metis) of their land.
69. The rest of the populace of Canada is labouring under a numbered 'social security' system, and too much artificially-created, non-gold backed debt to overcome the web now descending on this planet's five billion native peoples.
70. It's now up to the Federal Court to lead the way out.
All this signed by Glenn Bogue, their lawyer. Now a comment from me on jurisdiction. All of the Sir Miracle litigation and all of the litigation in respect to the removal of the children was done under provincial law. However the Federal Court of Canada can only review issues covered by Federal legislation. And only a limited range of Federal Legislation at that. Specifically;
The Federal Court cannot hear any case unless a federal statute confers jurisdiction on the Court to hear cases of that type.
Some examples of the sort of cases heard by the Federal Court are:[3]
· judicial review of immigration decisions,
· judicial review of Veterans Review and Appeal Board of Canada decisions,
· intellectual property disputes,
· cases involving admiralty (maritime) law,
· various aboriginal law matters, and
· claims against the Queen in Right of Canada.
These instances of jurisdiction may either be exclusive or concurrent with provincial superior courts, depending on the statute. The Court has the authority to judicially review decisions made by most federal boards, commissions, and administrative tribunals, and to resolve lawsuits by or against the federal government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_(Canada)
This means that the Federal Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear anything included in this Statement of Claim. If the mothers want their children back they have to go to the courts in the provinces that apprehended them in the first place. All of Sir Miracles prior jurisprudence was in respect to Ontario provincial legislation and he has exhausted all of his possible legal recourse in respect to his land issues. So the plaintiffs have tossed in this last-chance shot at the Federal Court, filled it full of Freeman gibberish, and tried to dress it up as an issue between them and the federal government in respect to aboriginal rights;
63. The Plaintiffs are living, sentient beings, who claim from the defendants the Queen of England, the Crown in Right of Canada and HSBC (and its affiliate central banks) the following Damages for.
a) tortious infliction of emotional distress resulting from the rape and murder of native people and in treating natives as less than human:
b) theft of natives' Identity as Domestic Sovereigns;
c) rents due to natives for all the construction on native soils.
They are hoping to find an area which might fall under the Federal Court's jurisdiction. But they've given no facts to serve as the basis for these claims. The Federal Court really has only one option here, to strike without leave to amend. This Statement of Claim is just too poorly done to serve as a basis to continue the action.
So Glenn Bogue also tried some other approaches outside of the Statement of Claim. He initially tried to get an extremely rushed
ex parte hearing, apparently without even telling the defendants that they were being sued. This would have given him every lawyer's dream case, an uncontested lawsuit. This is the definition of an ex parte hearing;
Ex parte is a latin legal term meaning "from (by or for) [the/a] party". An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present. In Australian, Canadian, U.K., South African, Indian and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties. It is also used more loosely to refer to improper unilateral contacts with a court, arbitrator or represented party without notice to the other party or counsel for that party.
Here is the sequence of events on his
ex parte bid;
2016-02-02
Ottawa
Oral directions received from the Court: Mireille Tabib, Prothonotary dated 02-FEB-2016 directing that "The Court does not authorize the motion being heard on less than 3 days notice as the Court is not satisfied with the urgency of the motion." placed on file on 02-FEB-2016
2016-02-05
Ottawa
Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 05-FEB-2016 re: Motion Record (Ex Parte) on behalf of the Plaintiffs sent to Court for Direction.
Didn't work;
2016-02-09
Ottawa
Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Madam Justice Roussel dated 09-FEB-2016 directing that "Upon review of the motion, the Court is not satisfied that the motion should proceed on an ex parte basis. A motion record prepared in accordance with the Federal Courts Rules shall be served on the Respondents and filed with the Court with valid proof of service. The motion shall be made returnable at a date and time thereafter." placed on file on 09-FEB-2016 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
So he tried something else. This;
2016-02-18
Ottawa
Letter from counsel for the Director of Child and Family Services (Calgary) dated 18-FEB-2016 "I act as counsel for the Director of Child and Family Services in Calgary (the "Director). We received an e-mail from Glenn Bogue, counsel for the Plaintiffs in the above noted matter, this morning stating that a Petition for Habeus Corpus is set for this coming Tuesday February 23, 2016 in Federal Court. We understand the Petition is in relation to children who are the subject of Permanent Guardianship Orders with the Director granted by the Provincial Court of Alberta and upheld by the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta. We understand from Mr. Bogue that a Statement of Claim has been filed. We have asked Mr. Bogue to properly serve our office with a copy of the application. As far as we are aware, the Director has not received any application materials or proper notice of the application. Mr. Bogue has also indicated to us that he is mailing the Statement of Claim for service on the Solicitor General of Alberta. As are as we are aware, the Statement of Claim has not been previously served..." received on 18-FEB-2016
In other words Bogue is claiming that children are illegally detained prisoners of the state and he is petioning for their release on a Habeus Corpus basis entirely unrelated to the Statement of Claim. However Bogue just pulled that February 23rd date for the Habeus Corpus hearing out of his ass and there was no scheduled hearing or request by Bogue to the Federal Court to hold one.
2016-02-19
Ottawa
Memorandum to file from Marc Medas dated 19-FEB-2016 I spoke with Michelle Lee, counsel for the Director of Child and Family Services in Calgary to inform her that no Habeus Corpus hearing is scheduled for Tuesday February 23, 2016 at the Federal Court.. placed on file.
So now we head to the smackdown;
2016-02-29
Ottawa
Letter from Defendant, Robert Reynolds, dated 29-FEB-2016 re: seeking case management and bringing an early motion to strike received on 29-FEB-2016
And they had no problem getting it;
2016-03-04
Ottawa
Order dated 04-MAR-2016 rendered by Mireille Tabib, Prothonotary Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Letter from the Defendants dated 01-MAR-2016 Result: THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. This proceeding shall continue as a specially managed proceeding. 2. The deadlines for filing statements of defence are suspended pending further order of the Case Management Judge. 3. The parties shall, no later than 14 days following the date of an order designating a Case Management Judge, having discussed with each other, file submissions as to a proposed schedule for filing and briefing preliminary motions to strike and counsel's mutual dates of availability to participate in a case management telephone conference to discuss and fix a schedule. Filed on 04-MAR-2016 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1294 page(s) 434 - 435 Interlocutory Decision
Note this part;
3. The parties shall, no later than 14 days following the date of an order designating a Case Management Judge, having discussed with each other, file submissions as to a proposed schedule for filing and briefing preliminary motions to strike
This is a description of Specially Managed Proceedings under Federal court rules;
Specially Managed Proceedings
The case management rules or the rules governing “Specially Managed Proceedings” are contained in rules 383 through 385. Rule 383 empowers the Chief Justice of the Federal Court to appoint a judge or prothonotary to act as a case management judge or to appoint a prothonotary to assist in the management of a proceeding. It is noteworthy that a prothonotary may be either a case management judge or may simply be appointed to assist the case management judge. Rule 383.1 similarly empowers the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal to appoint a judge as a case management judge in a proceeding.
Rule 384 provides that the court may at any time order that a proceeding continue as a specially managed proceeding. The rule provides no indicia of the circumstances in which the court should so order or the factors that the court ought to take into account in making such an order. The case law also provides little guidance on this issue.
The last nine pages of the Statement of Claim is a copy of the December 12, 2011 doomed Statement of Claim by COMER, William Krehm, and Anne Emmett trying to make the federal government of Canada give free money to anyone that wants it. We've covered that disasterous lawsuit in depth here;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10450
As an aside I'm trying to figure out how much we'll have to cough up if those two mothers win their lawsuit. Specifically what the hell is $2 Quadrillion. Turns out it depends on where you are (from Wikipedia).
Quadrillion may mean either of the two numbers (see long and short scales for more detail):
1,000,000,000,000,000 (one thousand million million; 10 to the 15th power for all short scale countries
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (one million million million million; 10 to the 24th power for all long scale countries
So, what are we facing here, long or short?
The long and short scales are two of several large-number naming systems for integer powers of ten, that use the same words with different meanings:
Long scale
Every new term greater than million is one million times larger than the previous term. Thus, billion means a million millions (1012), trillion means a million billions (1018), and so on.[1][2]
Short scale
Every new term greater than million is one thousand times larger than the previous term. Thus, billion means a thousand millions (109), trillion means a thousand billions (1012), and so on.[1][2]
For integers less than a thousand million (less than 10 to the 9th power) the two scales are identical. From a thousand million up (greater than 10 to the ninth power) the two scales diverge, using the same words for different numbers; this can cause misunderstanding.
Wikipedia has a helpful list of which countries use which scale but Canada's not in it because we use both. Short scale in English speaking provinces and long scale in Quebec. So if they win in Quebec it's 10 to the 24th power and we're really screwed. Not that we can pay $2,000,000,000,000,000 either.
