Rocco Galati

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8235
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by Burnaby49 »

I haven't been following COMER much since the disastrous loss at the Federal Court of Canada but I was just over at the World Freeman Society website and found some new posts about it which stated that the February 08 decision dismissing the COMER Statement of Claim without leave to amend has been appealed. Verynewtothis had this to say about it;
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.
I make no effort to replicate his bizarre styling and formatting. You can see it for yourselves here;

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;
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.
Is so wrong that it is essentially meaningless. The decision of April 24, 2014 related to this earlier August 9, 2013 decision;

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;
[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.
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;

"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;
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.
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;
[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.
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,
[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.
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;
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.
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.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8235
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by Burnaby49 »

Dragging himself out from the still-smoldering rubble of his disastrous COMER defeat Canada's Greatest Constitutional Lawyer is back in action! In my local newspaper!

http://vancouversun.com/news/national/b ... law-expert


Although I think it a bit much forcing me to endure his mug at 7:30 in the morning along with my coffee and Bach Partitas.

Image

The British Columbia government is imposing a 15% tax on all land purchases by foreign owners in an attempt to stop the insane increases in the price of Vancouver real estate (my house, bought in 1978 for $70,000 is now worth about $1,200,000 and it is essentially a teardown). Rocco's stepped into the fray claiming that the law is unconstitutional and violates section 15 of the constitution.
EQUALITY RIGHTS

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The paper is a bit too overboard in it's pandering to Rocco. It twice calls him "A prominent expert on Constitutional and tax law . . ." Obviously whoever wrote that comment hasn't paid any attention to the COMER decision where Rocco got his case thrown out without a hearing because of his inability to distinguish between "shall" and "may". If readers recall the big battle, led by Rocco, was to get the Federal Court of Canada to accept the Statement of Claim the plaintiffs filed in the lawsuit. The Statement of Claim is a very basic core document. It says why you are starting a lawsuit, the basis of your lawsuit, and what relief you want. And Rocco and his gang, after two tries, couldn't produce one that was competent enough to be accepted by the court. This is what the Federal court said about the Statement of Claim after the second attempt to put it into some kind of legally understandable shape;
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.
No word about that amongst the fawning comments about Rocco's expertise. And the article goes on about how Galati stopped Judge Nadon from being appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The article doesn't mention how Rocco just started the action and Nadon was blocked for an entirely different reason than the one proposed by Rocco.

The article even give Galati a quote for a comment he didn't make. Under his picture it says;

""I think the tax shows disrespect. Foreign buyers who buy Vancouver properties are not criminals." Says Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati, who is an expert on constitutional and tax law."

However, according to the text of the article, Rocco didn't say that. It was a comment made by Larry Wong, a local lawyer.

All in all a very shoddy job, about what I've come to expect from newspapers nowadays.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
Llwellyn
Pirates Mate
Pirates Mate
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 2:52 am

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by Llwellyn »

Well this one will fail.. As the quoted application is in reference of discrimination.. Discrimination is defined by the laws and rules that govern our country for OUR citizens.. if you are a foreign citizen, those laws do not directly apply to you for protection on taxation and tariff. While in the 'principal' it is generally correct, application, and form are a MUCH different thing. Anyone who is NOT a Canadian citizen, does NOT have the RIGHT to buy land IN Canada, that is an allowed privilege, through the federal and provincial government. Remember that Provincial Law, supersedes federal, just as state law does in the USA.

While it will be interesting, I can see it failing miserably.

Llwellyn
Guardian and Keeper of the Tor
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by notorial dissent »

Maybe he can team up with one of those famed American constitutional lawyers Mario Apuzzo or Orly Taitz and form a constitutional law firm. Just think of all the bad law they could generate. :lol:
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
User avatar
eric
Trivial Observer of Great War
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:44 pm

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by eric »

It appears that Galati et al have a rather over inflated opinion of their own expertise and monetary worth. Too bad not everyone agrees:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... ppointment
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7618
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by wserra »

Llwellyn wrote:Remember that Provincial Law, supersedes federal, just as state law does in the USA.
If that is the case in Canada, it is not in the US. Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution, commonly known as the Supremacy Clause, reads:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
That's as explicit as these things get.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by arayder »

wserra wrote:
Llwellyn wrote:Remember that Provincial Law, supersedes federal, just as state law does in the USA.
If that is the case in Canada, it is not in the US. Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution, commonly known as the Supremacy Clause, reads:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
That's as explicit as these things get.
The Canadian Constitution also has a supremacy clause:

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Maybe our Canadian friends can tell us what is the practical application of the clause?

------------
Coward Clock: It has been 48 days since Robert Menard was challenged to explain his embrace of Orlando false flag theories. So far Bobby has declined.
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7618
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by wserra »

arayder wrote:Maybe our Canadian friends can tell us what is the practical application of the clause?
Oppression of the masses, of course. It's part of the violence inherent in the system.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8235
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by Burnaby49 »

Regarding Wes's question this is what Llwellyn was referring to. The section of the Constitution Act which assigns specific powers to the provinces. Note 92(13) giving control of property and civil rights to the provinces.
EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES

92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

1. Repealed. (48)

2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.

3. The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province.

4. The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.

5. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.

6. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.

7. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.

8. Municipal Institutions in the Province.

9. Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purposes.

10. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:

(a) Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:

(b) Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country:

(c) Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.

11. The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.

12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.

13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.

15. The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section.

16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.
I'm actually writing on this point at the moment for Quatloos which is why I'm aware of it. Michael Millar, in one of his moronic arguments, said in court that the search warrant issued in his tax evasion case was invalid because it was authorized under the Criminal Code of Canada which is federal legislation. Under his intrpretaiton of the world as he'd like it to be this is not constitutional because the Constitution assigns property rights to the provinces so the federal government cannot authorize the seizure of property. This is the kind of stuff I spend my days listening to in court.,

While the American Constitution assigns any rights not defined to the federal government I'm not sure what the situation is here. I've never seen a case on the issue so I assume that the separation of responsibilities is detailed enough that there are no undefined issues. Wes cited the Constitutional provision on treaties;
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Same in Canada, the provinces and the provincial courts cannot override federal treaties. Any issue to do with treaties is the responsibility of the Federal Court of Canada.

Note that, unlike the American states, the Canadian provinces do not have their own constitutions. The federal constitution is all that we've got.

Arayder asked;
The Canadian Constitution also has a supremacy clause:
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Maybe our Canadian friends can tell us what is the practical application of the clause?
It's actually very practical. I see it in application all the time. This gives the Constitution, which is federal legislation, authority over all Canadian laws, including non-federal laws. So the Constitution can be used to overturn provincial or municipal legislation that conflicts with constitutional rights. If this didn't exist the new proposed British Columbia law regarding taxing foreigners could not be challenged on a constitutional basis because, in it's absence, the Constitution could only be applied against federal legislation.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7618
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by wserra »

Burnaby49 wrote:While the American Constitution assigns any rights not defined to the federal government
Actually, in theory it's the opposite, per the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There are those who argue that in practice the Tenth Amendment isn't followed. I wouldn't go that far, but there is no question that the federal govt has gained power beyond what it had 240 years ago. As it arguably should have.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
Bill Lumbergh
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:06 pm
Location: Initech Head Office

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by Bill Lumbergh »

Without digressing into a very boring lecture about federalism and constitutional interpretation, I will simply quote from the leading legal authority known as Wikipedia.

There is such a thing as "federal paramountcy" in Canada, so it is inaccurate to say that provincial law supersedes federal:
In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised.

Nature of the doctrine[edit]
Paramountcy is relevant where there is conflicting federal and provincial legislation. As Major J explained in Rothmans:


11. The doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy dictates that where there is an inconsistency between validly enacted but overlapping provincial and federal legislation, the provincial legislation is inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency....[1]


Claims in paramountcy may arise from two different forms of conflict:[2]

Operational conflict between federal and provincial laws, such that dual compliance is impossible.

Where dual compliance is possible, but the provincial law is incompatible with the purpose of federal legislation, thus frustrating a federal purpose. To determine whether the impugned legislation frustrates a federal purpose, it is necessary to consider the regulatory framework that governs the matter in question. The party seeking to invoke the doctrine of federal paramountcy bears the burden of proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramountcy_(Canada)
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by arayder »

To the point of the discussion we so often have with our freemen brethren federal constitutions (as well as the statutes they empower) are superior to common law.
Llwellyn
Pirates Mate
Pirates Mate
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 2:52 am

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by Llwellyn »

And here is where the 'grey' areas come in.. federal law (both in Canada and the USA) applies to federal boundaries and effects. In the USA.. narcotics defined and bound by Federal Law (marijuana is a narcotic).. YET the STATE may over ride that distinction, and allow the distribution/use/sale.. which is why you now have certain states allowing shops to sell marijuana. Now, Constitutional laws.. are the regulations of the Federal jurisdiction.. in Canada, a Province CAN still over ride .. (not withstanding clause within the constitution).. In essence, the federal laws of both countries are bound and held by the states/provinces. Both can over ride, within their jurisdiction. It is in so much as, the effect of the United Nations.. the UN has a series of 'laws' and 'rules' they expect everyone to follow... but they can not enforce their laws upon members. Even in the UN charter for nations... it directly states that each nations own laws, supersede UN law, within that said nations borders. (Yes, reading all these charters and constitutions, laws, foundations and all included.. takes a LONG freaking time to sort through it all, meaning, I don't have much of a life)

For Rocco, the issue isn't one of a Federal control.. it is a Provincial control, now, does the Provincial action violate the constitution .. is where the final test occurs.

Llwellyn
Guardian and Keeper of the Tor
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by arayder »

Llwellyn wrote:And here is where the 'grey' areas come in.. federal law (both in Canada and the USA) applies to federal boundaries and effects. In the USA.. narcotics defined and bound by Federal Law (marijuana is a narcotic).. YET the STATE may over ride that distinction, and allow the distribution/use/sale.. which is why you now have certain states allowing shops to sell marijuana. . . .
I don't think that is a matter of settled law. The reality is that the Obama administration looks the other way while states develop permissive pot laws. There would a messy battle right now if the feds decided to call the question by arresting pot heads, growers or pot store owners. My guess is Obama is perfectly happy to allow Colorado to be a test case of the efficacy of legal pot.

On the other hand almost as we speak the federal courts are busy striking down state voter ID laws based on the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments. This despite the reality that in the absence of a specific constitutional provision the states are given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy.
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8235
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by Burnaby49 »

arayder wrote:
Llwellyn wrote:And here is where the 'grey' areas come in.. federal law (both in Canada and the USA) applies to federal boundaries and effects. In the USA.. narcotics defined and bound by Federal Law (marijuana is a narcotic).. YET the STATE may over ride that distinction, and allow the distribution/use/sale.. which is why you now have certain states allowing shops to sell marijuana. . . .
I don't think that is a matter of settled law. The reality is that the Obama administration looks the other way while states develop permissive pot laws. There would a messy battle right now if the feds decided to call the question by arresting pot heads, growers or pot store owners. My guess is Obama is perfectly happy to allow Colorado to be a test case of the efficacy of legal pot.

On the other hand almost as we speak the federal courts are busy striking down state voter ID laws based on the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments. This despite the reality that in the absence of a specific constitutional provision the states are given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy.
We're moving too far away from Rocco and too close to politics. Any post with Obama in it is heading into the banned political arena.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7618
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by wserra »

Llwellyn wrote:YET the STATE may over ride that distinction, and allow the distribution/use/sale.. which is why you now have certain states allowing shops to sell marijuana.
Nope. Marijuana is illegal under federal law, regardless of state law. Marijuana dispensaries, legal under state law, have still been raided by the DEA. It's called "dual sovereignty".

Whether the federal law in such instances is (or should be) enforced is a separate issue.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by arayder »

Burnaby49 wrote:We're moving too far away from Rocco and too close to politics. Any post with Obama in it is heading into the banned political arena.
I hear ya' pard.

My think point, the supremacy of federal constitutions, is not dependent on a reference to President Obama.

There have been countless times in which the federal governments of Canada and the U.S. have, for purely political reasons, looked the other way while states or provinces went off on tangents which ran counter to the law of the land.

This is relevant to freemen scams, Galati and our friend Llwellyn's flawed interpretation of constitutional law, because in the end each argument is the same. . . there is no certainty to law.

According to this agrument several states may ignore the equal protection of the 14th amendment and tell black people they can't vote. According to this argument Bobby Menard may claim that section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms means all freemen are due a big government payout. . . .and Galati, the subject of this thread, may proclaim that the Bank of Canada must make loans as he, not the law, prescribes.
Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by Arthur Rubin »

Ignoring marijuana for the moment: (I believe the US status is that it is illegal, regardless of state laws; the President agreed not to prosecute in states where it is "legal" under state law, but the FBI and DoJ do not always acquiesce).

In my opinion, such a tax on foreign ownership of real property would be illegal in the US. The "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment applies to foreigners, and that also overrides any state law to the contrary. At the Federal level, this would be a direct tax and not an income tax, so would have to be apportioned.

States (and the Federal government) can and do have withholding requirements for foreigners selling real property. I believe the Federal government might have higher taxes on the capital gain from sale of real property located in the US, but do not. (US sourced investment income of a foreign taxpayer may have a 30% withholding constituting the entire tax, which is often more than the US rate. However, capital gains reported on the 1040NR are taxed using the same formula as on the 1040.)

I have no opinion as to whether this tax is legal in Canada. As I would like to buy a vacation home in Canada (perhaps near Burnaby?), I would hope it is not upheld.
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8235
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by Burnaby49 »

I have no opinion as to whether this tax is legal in Canada. As I would like to buy a vacation home in Canada (perhaps near Burnaby?), I would hope it is not upheld.
Good luck with that, I couldn't afford to buy a vacation home near Burnaby49. We bought our house in 1978 for $69,500. It is now worth about $1,2000,000 to $1,500,000. It is absolutely nothing special, a two bedroom built in the 50's which will almost certainly be torn down when we finally sell. If we didn't already own it we couldn't afford to buy it. And we're, relatively, much more prosperous now than we were in 1978. You may have read about the insane real estate market in Vancouver, we're living it.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
rommelrommel
Tourist to Quatloosia
Tourist to Quatloosia
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:00 am

Re: Rocco Galati

Post by rommelrommel »

Llwellyn wrote:And here is where the 'grey' areas come in.. federal law (both in Canada and the USA) applies to federal boundaries and effects. In the USA.. narcotics defined and bound by Federal Law (marijuana is a narcotic).. YET the STATE may over ride that distinction, and allow the distribution/use/sale.. which is why you now have certain states allowing shops to sell marijuana. Now, Constitutional laws.. are the regulations of the Federal jurisdiction.. in Canada, a Province CAN still over ride .. (not withstanding clause within the constitution).. In essence, the federal laws of both countries are bound and held by the states/provinces. Both can over ride, within their jurisdiction. It is in so much as, the effect of the United Nations.. the UN has a series of 'laws' and 'rules' they expect everyone to follow... but they can not enforce their laws upon members. Even in the UN charter for nations... it directly states that each nations own laws, supersede UN law, within that said nations borders. (Yes, reading all these charters and constitutions, laws, foundations and all included.. takes a LONG freaking time to sort through it all, meaning, I don't have much of a life)

For Rocco, the issue isn't one of a Federal control.. it is a Provincial control, now, does the Provincial action violate the constitution .. is where the final test occurs.

Llwellyn
Guardian and Keeper of the Tor
I don't think you understand the notwithstanding clause very well. Only certain parts of the charter are subject to the notwithstanding clause. It can be used by the federal government just as much as the provinces. If the province doesn't have authority over the subject being legislated the notwithstanding clause can't be invoked (or won't be successful.) The provinces can't overrule the federal government on any issue that the federal government has authority over.

Your comments about the USA are similarly misleading, the states didn't override anything federal with drug policy. They changed their own laws, and the federal government has generally agreed to stay out of marijuana prosecutions in those states.

As to the UN, well that's another kettle of fish as I don't believe they have made any claims about having much authority over their member nations unless I missed the press release.