ishgooda
Sat, 30 Oct 1999 05:28:07 -0700
And now:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Connie Fogal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: AppealCourtNanooseMonday Comments: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Monday November 1,1999 Citizens will ask the BC Court of Appeal for the right to Appeal the decision of Justice Bauman pronounced in the BCSupreme Court September 20th 1999 in Vancouver BC. Justice Bauman refused to stop the transfer of title of BC land called Nanoose Bay to the federal government in the process of expropriation of provincial land by the federal government.The application for leave to appeal the Bauman decision will be made in the Court House at 800 Smythe St., Vancouver BC at 9:30 A.M. Monday November 1,1999 Ask at information counter for room number Background: On September 20th 1999 Justice Bauman in hte BCSC refused to issue an order preventing the registration of the transfer of BC lands in Nanoose Bay to the federal government. The expropriation by the federal government of BC provincial lands in effect is for the purpose of accommodating the US navy's demands, contrary to the express position of the people of BC and the BC government .The US navy has been functioning in Canadian waters by agreement for years using the Nanoose Bay waters as a testing range. The US government and the US navy refused to either confirm or deny their intentions re nuclear capacities in Canadian waters. When the lease came up for renewal, among other political issues, the provincial government said no renewal unless there is a commitment that there will be no nuclear powered vessels or devices etc in the waters of Nanoose Bay. The US refused to disclose their intentions and practice. The BC government said no lease. The federal government stepped in and said we will expropriate the land and waters in order to accommodate the US interest and needs. In Canada there is a very clear division of power on some issues between the federal government and the province. Property is provincial . Defence is Federal. The feds say they can take the land because they are doing so for defence purposes. (They do not say who it is they are defending against or who is attacking us, or who is the potential threat) Nanoose Bay has already been defined as provincial property in a previous Supreme Court of Canada ruling. These are some of the points in issue. Politics: At the core of it all , the citizens say these matters go to the heart of citizen rights in a democracy. These major decisions are treated as games of marbles played by our leaders (who, by the way, are only there because we put them there.) Our decision makers are doing the bidding of masters other than the citizens of Canada. We say we have a constitution that says the decision makers have gone too far. They are throwing out our entitlements, which our constitution says they cannot do. We realize we are in a tough struggle. There is the overall issue of globalization which is the destruction of nation states and sovereignty and democracy. Nanoose Bay expropriation is one manifestation of this submission to the NWO. The feds are determined to submit to the NWO and in fact have thrown us very far down that road already, almost to the point of no return generally for the nation via NAFTA , FTA, MAI as it was and now is via current plans re FTAA etc. We have to use every approach possible to defend ourselves. Fighting the expropriation of Nanoose is a part of the effort to protect ourselves . The principles are the same. Law: After the BC Supreme Court refused to prevent the registration of the transfer of title to the federal government,the plaintiffs in action number A992161, namely, the Human Rights Institute of Canada, His Eminence Archbishop Lazar Puhalo of the Ukrainian Orthodox Archdiocese of Canada, Citizens Concerned About Free trade, the Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee, Connie Fogal and Rosemarie Larsson instructed their lawyers to appeal this decision. These same plaintiffs have two actions ongoing re the Nanoose Bay expropriation: one in the Federal Court of Canada and one in the Supreme Court of BC. The reasons we are in both are: 1. To cover our bases and backside. One argument for the feds is to say we are in the wrong court whichever one we chose. 2. WE have to be in the federal court for matters dealing with cabinet issues, but we can raise other issues in the Supreme Court like trespass and nuisance that we cannot raise in the federal court. Issues of constitutional authority and breach of international law we have raised in both courts. Why do it this way? In the short term we are inching our way forward in our defence. Part of that path is through the B.C. court system. Very few types of court actions in the BC Supreme Court system have an automatic right to appeal. Every action must justify why an appeal should be heard.We have to be able to show that serious issues at law ,not just fact,arise. In effect we have to ask for permission to go before the BCCourt of Appeal, i.e., we have to ask for Leave to Appeal. That is what we are doing on Monday November 1,1999. At this stage we are still only dealing with the request for interim injunctions to put everything on hold while we wait to get on to the full hearing on all the major constitutional issues, way down the road. In the Federal court we do not have to ask for Leave to Appeal. We will be in the Federal Court of appeal sometime soon appealing the decision of Madame Justice Reed for refusing to grant the injunction to stop the expropriation in the interim. In our on going case at the Federal Court level action number T-1463-99, the same plaintiffs as above will be in court November 29,1999 asking the federal court at 700 West Georgia St Vancouver BC to order the federal government to produce certain documents we need which it has refused to produce so far. It is the same battle the Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee had in its MAI lawsuit. The MAI lawsuit by the Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee proceeds in the Federal Court of appeal probably in December 1999 or January 2000. Why should you participate in these lawsuits however you can, either by attending court if you live close enough, or contributing financially, or spreading the word? Because these lawsuits are a concrete specific action you can do in effort to defend yourself rather than sitting back lamenting the betrayal of us by (a)our elected people who have adopted the NWO agenda and (b)those powerful senior administrators employed by our tax dollar but who no longer serve the public good . Why should you attend if possible? 1) It makes a difference to the Court. 2) It makes a difference to all of us in building our strength and determination. 3) It is clear no one is going to defend us but ourselves!!! To contribute to these lawsuits re Nanoose send your cheque to Harry Rankin Nanoose C/0 Fogal Law Office 401- 207 West Hastings St Vancouver BC., V6B1H7. Unfortunately we cannot issue tax receipts. But 100% of the money goes toward the lawsuits. We have no rent or staff or directors to pay. To get a tax receipt and have 90% of your donation come to the Nanoose fund, send your contribution in the name of the Canadian Action Party to the Canadian Action Party at 99 Atlantic Ave., Suite 302 Toronto , Ontario, M6K3J8. Designate it as a donation to the Nanoose fund . Our lawsuits will receive 90%. CAP will keep 10% for administrative costs. You will receive a tax receipt from the CAP and a confirming letter from me, Connie Fogal, that our Nanoose lawsuits have received the funds. In summary, on Monday November 1,1999 at 9:30 A.M. our lawyers will be in the BC Court of Appeal in Vancouver BC asking for the opportunity to go before the BC Court of appeal to appeal the decision of Mr Justice Bauman. Come if you can. Yours truly, Connie Fogal, Plaintiff DEFENCE of CANADIAN LIBERTY COMMITTEE/LE COMITÉ de la LIBERTÉ CANADIENNE C/0 CONSTANCE FOGAL LAW OFFICE, #401 -207 West Hastings St., Vancouver, B.C. V6B1H7 Tel: (604)687-0588; fax: (604) 872 -1504 or (604) 688-0550;cellular(604) 202 7334; E-MAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED]; www.canadianliberty.bc.ca “The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled” Supreme Court of Canada A.G. of Nova Scotia and A.G. of Canada, S.C.R. 1951 pp 32 Reprinted under the Fair Use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&