This decision just out;
Ali v. Ford, 2014 ONSC 6665
http://canlii.ca/t/gf9nt
Rob Ford (mayor for another two weeks) is the colourful character you have all no doubt heard about. Ali was suing Ford, and the City of Toronto, for $60,000,0000 based on a little misunderstanding;
[2] The plaintiff claims “SIXTY MILLION United States Bank Notes (in lieu of lawful money)” as specified in his “Fee Schedule” for violations of his rights. He claims alternatively, “the equivalent amount in Canadian Bank Notes (in lieu of lawful money), or the equivalent in lawful silver dollars in accordance with the Coinage Act of 1792”.
[3] The claim seems to flow from the attendance at the plaintiff’s home of police officers in December 2013. The visit from the police, who were accompanied by a nurse, seems to have been prompted by a letter entitled “Warning to All Police Personnel, Government Agents and any other Public Servants” dated December 7, 2014 that the plaintiff sent to the police and others. According to the plaintiff’s “Affidavit of Fact”, his letter was accompanied by his fee schedule which, apparently, purported to entitle the plaintiff to fees from the defendants.
Unfortunately Ali had some confusion about jurisdiction and where he was actually located when he filed his complaint;
He got very snippy about how he was to be properly addressed by the court[4] It is apparent that the plaintiff has obtained US litigation material on which he relies. His “Affidavit of Fact” recites that the plaintiff sent his warning letter to the US Attorney General among others. The Affidavit recites portions of the US Constitution, US statutes and US case law none of which is of any relevancy here.
Unfortunately the Canadian court wasn't entirely onside with Ali's personal take on the laws of the land (Canada Ali, Canada. That's where you are! So don't sue for damages in American dollars). And of course no Canadian case, on any topic whatever, is now complete without citing Meads;[6] Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the statement of claim provide:
9. I, Azaan Ali, demand this Court view this Claimant (in my proper Person) as a Moorish American National (Natural Born Citizen of the Land) and not as a (brand) NEGRO, BLACKMAN (person), COLORED, AFRICA-AMERICAN, or any other SLAVE TITLE or ‘nom de guerre’ imposed upon me for misrepresentations ‘Actions’ or other acts of ‘Misprision’ that a misdirected society may “believe” to be true.
10. I, Azaan Ali, do not, under any condition or circumstance, by threat, duress or coercion, waive any rights Unalienable or Secured by the Constitution or Treaty, and, hereby requests this court, Federal Court of Canada fulfill their obligation to preserve the rights of the Claimant (A Moorish American) and carry out their Judicial Duty in ‘Good Faith’ by ordering Respondents to be brought before the Law to answer for their criminal and unjust actions.
[7] It would not be impossible for the plaintiff to plead a cause of action arising out of alleged improper conduct by the police. However, whatever legal rights the plaintiff may have, they are not the rights that he asserts. The plaintiff has bought into a misguided process by which some unscrupulous litigants and their supporters have tried to assert rights where none exist and entangle government officials and the courts in lengthy and expensive processes to unravel the confusion that they sow.
[8] Whether the court is dealing with Mr. Ali in his natural person or otherwise; regardless of whether he asserts to be a naturally born citizen of the land or a citizen of Canada or otherwise; regardless of his ethnicity; regardless of US doctrines of law and US constitutional theories; all persons are equal before our courts. All have equal rights to the application of the law in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada’s democratic history.
[9] But no one has the right to create his or her own legal order whether in good faith or as a tactic to try to tie up the courts and government officials. While I want very much to be respectful to the plaintiff and accord him the dignity before the courts that he deserves (as all who appear before our courts deserve) I cannot dignify his assertions by treating them as legal arguments deserving of respectful counter-argument. The reasons underlying the court’s clear rejection of these types of arguments are made most definitively in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII). If the plaintiff wishes to assert his legal rights in a manner which will be heard and responded to on the merits, he must stop his reliance on abusive theories and seek legal advice as to his true rights and obligations as a member of Canadian society.
The not unexpected conclusion;
[11] The plaintiff's action is properly characterized to be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process as described in Gao No. 2, supra, and the cases cited therein. The action therefore is dismissed.