I make no effort to replicate his bizarre styling and formatting. You can see it for yourselves here;On February 8, 2016, Justice Russell of the Federal Court, after having his decision of April 24, 2014, upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal on January 26, 2015, made a decision on the government’s second motion to strike after COMER filed its amended statement of claim on March 26, 2015.
In the latest decision of February 8, 2016, Justice Russell, in law, inexplicably reversed himself from the earlier decision. In his earlier decision he had refused to strike large portions of the claim, most notably the facts going to the declaratory relief sought as to the Bank of Canada and the constitutional issues.
He further blatantly erred in deciding that Declaratory relief cannot be sought as stand-alone relief, in the absence of a cause of action, which is contrary to Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence which was cited and read to the Court.
Moreover, because the Federal Court of Appeal had upheld his decision of April 24, 2014, in reversing his earlier decision, he effectively overturned the Federal court of Appeal’s decision upholding his earlier decision, which is contrary to law.
http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/vnt ... ?start=210
Veynewtothis doesn't have even the slightest understanding of how court procedures, or even courts in general, work. His statement;
Is so wrong that it is essentially meaningless. The decision of April 24, 2014 related to this earlier August 9, 2013 decision;Moreover, because the Federal Court of Appeal had upheld his decision of April 24, 2014, in reversing his earlier decision, he effectively overturned the Federal court of Appeal’s decision upholding his earlier decision, which is contrary to law.
Committee For Monetary v. Canada, 2013 FC 855
http://canlii.ca/t/g06c4
In which prothonotary Aalto struck COMER's original claim without leave to amend because;
COMER appealed this to the Federal Court and big-hearted judge Russell reversed the prothonotary's decision and, while not allowing the case to go forward, allowed COMER another chance to try and cough up a Statement of Claim that made some sense, legally speaking. The Statement that Russell and the prothonotary had reviewed was essentially gibberish but Russell thought there might be a glimmer of a potential triable claim in it somewhere if a competent lawyer took over the writing. So Russell allowed COMER another shot at drafting a Statement of Claim. As Russell said;[70] In the end result, I am not persuaded that the Claim is justiciable. The Claim focuses on matters such as the Minister’s decision being “financially and economically fallacious” (para. 21); that Provinces are getting more interest-free loans than others (para. 21 (d); decisions are based on “the reasoning that such loans would increase annual deficits” (para. 24); “it is long recognized that investment and expenditure in human capital is the most productive investment and expenditure a government can make etc. These few examples from the Claim, of which there are many more, resonate with policy making implications not legal considerations.
"I struck the Original Claim in its entirety, but with leave to amend, by way of order on April 24, 2014"
So this statement by verynewtothis is completely wrong;
The phrase "I struck the Original Claim in its entirety" meant exactly that. Judge Russell, like prothonotary Aalto, struck the whole mess but gave them a faint hope second chance. The Crown appealed this to the Federal Court of Appeal on the basis that the judge should not have given leave to amend. The FCA supported Russell's decision;In his earlier decision he had refused to strike large portions of the claim, most notably the facts going to the declaratory relief sought as to the Bank of Canada and the constitutional issues.
Verynewtothis seems to think that this ordered Judge Russell to let Galati's Statement of Claim be entered as an acceptable document and the case be heard. To anyone with reading abilities and an IQ at room temperature or above it states clearly that the Federal Court of Appeal ageed with Judge Russell's decision to allow COMER another shot at making a acceptable Statement of Claim, nothing more. It was Judge Russell's responsibility to review the revised Statement of Claim and he did. And, as he said,[3] After conducting his de novo reconsideration of the issues on the basis of this understanding of the test in Rule 221, the Judge concluded that the Amended Statement of Claim should be struck in its entirety. However, he granted leave to amend.
[4] This Court may only interfere with the decision of the Judge if it was arrived at on a wrong basis or was plainly wrong: see Z.I. Pompey Industrie v. ECU-Line N.V., at para 18 [2003] 1 S.C.R. 450, 2003 SCC 27 (CanLII). This standard of review requires us to afford deference to the Judge’s decision.
[5] Notwithstanding the able arguments of counsel, we have not been persuaded that the Judge made any error that would warrant our intervention in either the appeal or the cross-appeal. Accordingly, the appeal and the cross-appeal will be dismissed without costs. The Appellants are granted 60 days from the date hereafter to make amendments to the Amended Statement of Claim.
So Judge Russell gave them a second chance but they blew it. In this case two strikes and they were out. So if Rocco, as verynewtothis seems to think, is appealing the February 8th decision on the basis that;[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.
Then Rocco knows even less about law than I do. Judge Russell neither overturned his prior decision nor did he overturn the Federal court of Appeal's decision. He let Rocco and the gang do exactly what he'd allowed them to do in his original decision and they failed abysmally. As they will on their new appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal.Moreover, because the Federal Court of Appeal had upheld his decision of April 24, 2014, in reversing his earlier decision, he effectively overturned the Federal court of Appeal’s decision upholding his earlier decision, which is contrary to law.
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!