BETWEEN:
and
ORDER
[1]
The appellant appeals an order
of Southcott, J. of the Federal Court (2016 FC 93) wherein, amongst other
relief, he allowed to stand part only of the appellant’s Statement of Claim
filed in that Court (T-1557-15);
[2]
The respondent has filed a
Notice of cross-appeal alleging that the appellant’s Statement of Claim should
have been struck in its entirety;
[3]
Most recently, the appellant sent
to the Registry a letter accompanied by a “Notice of Motion to request an oral
hearing”;
[4]
The motion is for:
To request that the Justices of
the Federal Court of Appeal notify William Brooks (Brooks), the Commissioner of
Federal Judicial Affairs and Bob Paulson (Paulson), the Commissioner of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), that they should finally uphold the law
and the mandates of their offices before HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN (CROWN) is subject to lawsuits in the United States of
America (USA) and Canada. The actions in the Federal Court (File No. T-1557-15)
by William Pentney QC, the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Prothonotary
Richard Morneau and Justice Richard Southcott have caused the CROWN to lose the right to claim
sovereign immunity in the USA in defense of certain actions that the Amos Clan
plans to put before courts of law in the USA and Canada”.
[5]
By letter dated May 5, 2016,
the respondent asks that a case management Judge be assigned to this file, otherwise
“there will be considerable procedural difficulties that will prevent the
Appeal from proceeding in the most expeditious and least expensive manner”;
[6]
In his Notice of Appeal of
Southcott J.’s Order, the appellant seeks the following relief:
1)
That the ORDERS of MR. PROTHONOTARY
RICHARD MORNEAU and MR. JUSTICE
RICHARD F. SOUTHCOTT be revoked; and
2)
The Defendant/Respondent be
found in Default; and
3)
Award the Plaintiff/Appellant
eleven million dollars ($11,000,000.00) in the form of relief plus the costs.
[7]
On appeal to this Court, the
best that the appellant can hope for is that his Statement of Claim be
reinstated to its original form and content and the matter returned to the
Federal Court for continuation of the proceeding on the merits - all of this, of
course, if it were decided that the respondent’s cross-appeal should be
dismissed;
All this raises a question as to the relevance of the
proposed Notice of Motion.
THIS SAID, IT IS
ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
a)
The request for an oral hearing
of the appellant’s Notice of Motion (undated and unsigned) is denied;
b)
If the appellant insists on
presenting his Motion, it shall be duly served and filed in Form 369 in
accordance with the Federal Courts Rules
SOR/98-106 (the Rules);
c)
The appellant shall, in the
next 10 days (no later than May 26, 2016) serve and file his proposal as
to the contents of the Appeal Book unless he agrees with the respondent’s
proposal contained in a letter dated March 3, 2016;
d)
If the parties disagree, the
appellant shall, no later than June 10, 2016, serve and file a proper
Notice of Motion under Rule 369 to request that the Court determine the
contents of the Appeal Book;
e)
These timelines and the
prescriptions of the Rules shall be followed or this appeal could be dismissed
without any further delay;
f)
The request to have this case
managed by a Judge is denied.
No comments:
Post a Comment