Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[makindemoku]

As a philosophy graduate which job can I apply for in canada

 

[Balwindersingh]

Now what to do? Is there any hope left in tim case? Tim should come forward for his views or should give up as whole judiciary, ministry is opposing his case.

 

[IMRANKHANJADOON]

Hello Sir,
Do You have a Right of Appeal In Federal Court of Canada,when you are going to Lodge an Appeal.
Can I as a Non Litigant join you for an Appeal.Could you please ask Mr TIM .
Please respond me as soon as you can,because if Mr TIM allow me to join,I am quite sure a lot of Non Litigant Applicants will ready to join.

Regards

IMRAN KHAN JADOON
EMAIL: imrankhanjadoonca@hotmail.com

 

[warmest]

So, we will have to wait for a maximum of another 17 (7+7+3) days to know the court's decision officially.
7 days for Mr. Galati to either confirm the questions already submitted, or provide any modifications in writing
7 days for the Respondent to provide a written response on receiving Mr. Galati's response
3 days for any reply from Mr. Galati on receiving the Respondent's response

I think it will be much earlier as both the parties are not going to take long to respond to each other's questions. Mr Galati questions are already submitted and if the REspondent(CIC) has also kept response ready (which i assume they must have), this exchange of information will be closed in 1 week.

So far, the submission of Mr. Galati by 3 February 2016 (by taking about 9 days from 26 January 2016) and the response of the Respondent by 9 February 2016 (by taking about 6 days from 3 February 2016) were more or less following the timeline outlined by the Honourable Justice James Russell. Now, the 3 days time period has started for any reply from Mr. Galati on receiving the Respondent's response. After this, we will have to wait and see of how long Honourable Justice James Russell will take to decide on whether to certify any question or not. If he certifies at least one question, then the case will move from the Federal Court to the Federal Court of Appeal. If no question is certified, then that is the end of the road. Fingers crossed!

Here are the latest updates for:

1. Young Mi Back v. MCI http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=IMM-1-13

[color=blue]-	2016-02-09	Toronto	Letter from Respondent, cc'ed Applicant, dated 08-FEB-2016 further to the Applicant's proposed questions for certification, pursuant to written directions (Russell J.) dated January 29, 2016 (ID 88), including the Respondent's submissions on questions for certification. received on 09-FEB-2016
-	2016-02-08	Ottawa	Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 08-FEB-2016 re: Applicants' further questions for certification (Doc#42) sent to Court for disposition
42	2016-02-03	Ottawa	Applicant's Certification of Issues Pursuant to S. 74(d) of IRPA to be certified for appeal filed on 03-FEB-2016
41	2016-02-03	Ottawa	Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Rocco Galati confirming service of document 40 upon Respondent by e-mail on 03-FEB-2016 filed on 03-FEB-2016
40	2016-02-01	Ottawa	****** CANCELLED ****** .. filed on 01-FEB-2016
-	2016-01-26	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from R. Galati (A's counsel) & M. Anderson, C.J. Jubenville, J.E. Clarke (R's counsels) with respect to Direction ID 88 placed on file on 26-JAN-2016
-	2016-01-26	Ottawa	Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell dated 26-JAN-2016 directing "To counsel: As agreed on September 2, 2015, I am providing counsel with a draft of my decision. The decision itself will not change but I have left room for possible questions for certification. I already have the written questions that Mr. Galati provided on September 2, 2015 but he may wish to modify these in some way. I suggest that Mr. Galati either confirm the questions already submitted, or provide any modifications in writing within 7 days of this direction and that the Respondent provide a written response within 7 days of receiving them. Any reply from Mr. Galati should be submitted within 3 days of receiving the Respondent's response. If this is a problem for either side, please let me know." received on 26-JAN-2016 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)[/color]

2. Haiyan Gong v. MCI http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=IMM-6828-12

[color=blue]-	2016-02-09	Toronto	Letter from Respondent, cc'ed Applicant, dated 08-FEB-2016 further to the Applicant's proposed questions for certification, pursuant to written directions (Russell J.) dated January 29, 2016 (ID 88), including the Respondent's submissions on questions for certification. received on 09-FEB-2016
-	2016-02-08	Ottawa	Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 08-FEB-2016 re: Applicants' further questions for certification (Doc#32) sent to Court for disposition
33	2016-02-03	Ottawa	Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Rocco Galati confirming service of document 32 upon Respondent by e-mail on 02-FEB-2016 filed on 03-FEB-2016
32	2016-02-03	Ottawa	Applicant's Certification of Issues pursuant to S. 74(d) of IRPA for Appeal filed on 03-FEB-2016
-	2016-01-26	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from R. Galati (A's counsel) & M. Anderson, C.J. Jubenville, J.E. Clark (R's counsel) with respect to the Direction of the Court - ID 64 placed on file on 26-JAN-2016
-	2016-01-26	Ottawa	Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell dated 26-JAN-2016 directing "To counsel: As agreed on September 2, 2015, I am providing counsel with a draft of my decision. The decision itself will not change but I have left room for possible questions for certification. I already have the written questions that Mr. Galati provided on September 2, 2015 but he may wish to modify these in some way. I suggest that Mr. Galati either confirm the questions already submitted, or provide any modifications in writing within 7 days of this direction and that the Respondent provide a written response within 7 days of receiving them. Any reply from Mr. Galati should be submitted within 3 days of receiving the Respondent's response. If this is a problem for either side, please let me know." received on 26-JAN-2016 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)[/color]

 

[Balwindersingh]

Now warmest sir, what is the use of all this when tim has clearly told .we lost. who has now time after losing more than 11 yrs of wait? suppose the matter goes to higher couet it will again waste 2 ,3 yrs. and again there is no garranty of win ,when people sitting on responsible posts took the matter of justice to innocent persons very casualy. God will never forgive them just like those conservative who created this mess and now these liberals are also doing the same thingh. you will see these people will also meet the same fate like conservatives. Right

 

[warmest]

Now warmest sir, what is the use of all this when tim has clearly told .we lost. who has now time after losing more than 11 yrs of wait? suppose the matter goes to higher couet it will again waste 2 ,3 yrs. and again there is no garranty of win ,when people sitting on responsible posts took the matter of justice to innocent persons very casualy. God will never forgive them just like those conservative who created this mess and now these liberals are also doing the same thingh. you will see these people will also meet the same fate like conservatives. Right

What is your point? Are you telling me or are you asking me? Have clarity and think at least twice (if possible, many more times) before you post any message anywhere. If at all you are replying to anybody's message, first ensure that you understand what is being said by that person and then be extremely cautious in what you post. Otherwise, you may sound bullshit. Hope this makes sense to you. ???

 

[Balwindersingh]

Hello Warmest sir , If you are not interested to feel the facts and possible outcome of litigation , then dont try to confuse the public with your false statements. only for the sake of posting here you want to misguide the innocent litigants , pl keep yourself aside.

 

[warmest]

Court Slams 'Gonzo Logic' Of Lawyers Seeking Money For Harper Judge Battle
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/09/court-slams-gonzo-logic-in-nixing-money-claim-over-harper-judge-battle_n_9195328.html

 

[Jatt_warrior]

Now warmest sir, what is the use of all this when tim has clearly told .we lost. who has now time after losing more than 11 yrs of wait? suppose the matter goes to higher couet it will again waste 2 ,3 yrs. and again there is no garranty of win ,when people sitting on responsible posts took the matter of justice to innocent persons very casualy. God will never forgive them just like those conservative who created this mess and now these liberals are also doing the same thingh. you will see these people will also meet the same fate like conservatives. Right

Balwinder i repsect your feelings. Atleast we can vent our frustation in this forum.

This new government is no less corrupt than the past conservative Government. Against the Questions sent for ceritifcation by Rocco Galati, DOJ has replied by countering that none of the Questions qualify for Federal Court of Appeal. Forget about Federal court of appeal, they want to kill our litigatin at this stage only.

Tim's REply Yesterday:

Please find attached DoJ's arguments against certification of a question -- absent which no appeal may be filed. I expect Mr. Galati to file his reply. Regards, Tim

Let's not forget that this government is also from same "lot of people" who are unethical and Immoral.

 

[eb_babak]

QUOTE FROM

eb_babak
1
When justice Russell declined to deal with our case objectively, at the start (introduction) of reason for judgement, I read he quoted:
"A. Legislative Amendments

Legislative amendment to Act have eliminated the legal obligation of
and Immigration Canada [CIC] to process every FSW application and request received. The
amendments, made by way of Bill C-50, also empowered the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration [Minister] to implement Ministerial Instructions in regards to processing priorities
'and requests in accordance with the Government of Canada's immigration goals, including
reduced application processing times, and greater overall efficiency."

The question came to my mind right away after seeing this, was whether CIC had the legal obligation to process every FSW received before the amendment?
If so, at the time people had applied the amendment was not in effect (the fact that CIC requested processing fee at the time of application confirms so).
Now if the amendment has become retroactive, that wound not relieve the government from the burden of processing the applications which were filed before the amendment came to effect, retroactively or otherwise.. No matter how retroactive the 'law maker' make his law, the legal obligation will remain valid as the applications have been filed under the promise of process. Notwithstanding with the fact that the Canadian law could not apply to non-Canadian as in another case Judge has used it as a reason to reject the application of Charter or Rights to FSW applicants to non-residents.

If I read this correctly, and if CIC had legal obligation to process the applications before Bill C-50 came into effect , then both the retroactivity of the law is bogus and government (in its best chance) should pay millions of dollars in being dishonest, false advertising, fraud and deception for accepting and keeping processing fee with the intention of not processing the application(while under legal obligation). C-38 and C-50 , clearly show that government was not bound to process the application.
If there was no such an obligation at first place, then no pressing fee should have been requested until the file was going to get processed.

This is critical matter (and a winning argument) which has been overlooked.
I am all for the appeal if any questions get certified but I doubt that Canadian justice system is prepared or capable of being Independent from political and social trend. A court with international jurisdiction should be the way to go. Canada is owing each and every FSW applicant, big compensation for the the financial and mental damage it had inflicted mentally and financially by false advertising with the intention of abuse or process. Whether the intention of abuse was there at first place or has been inserted later by introducing unilateral amendment which wiped out government's obligation retroactively. This, as far as my personal view goes, is not allowed under common law of any society. One can not commit himself and then decide to uncommitt himself without being held responsible. Somebody should teach this 'civilized' nation that they can not play with people's life and then retroactively offload its responsibility by approving something which is politically motivated.
QUOTE FROM
eb_babak
2

In my view, the judge was just looking into his pension when ruling, nothing else
Judge has ignored the condition that the parliament has authorized Jason kenney to implement his personal agenda, impacting so many people, hiding it in budget bill.
Anyways, appeal should be a way to go based on Tim's take on this.
Furthermore, a petition should be signed by Canadian resident friends and family members of those who have impacted and given to the parliament
A letter with as many signature as possible should be sent to minister of immigration
And finally,
We should find somebody in a national newspaper to write about this unjust justice and expose how liberals have followed the footsteps of Conservatives.
The main reason this so-called judge tossed around the case and eventually shot it dead was that we did not raise our voice. Judges listen to socity's pulse before ruling.

Humbly Request / Comments from Imran Khan Jadoon!
In respect of all litigants and non litigants Canadian backlog applicants all over the world.
It will be stupid mistake if we all including my self ( Non-Litigant) still looking for favor or positive Decision from Justice Russel,I think we all live in the heaven of stupids.

BEFORE ITS TOO LATE

I request all of you to coordinate and make a group of applicants
( litigants & non litigants) all over the world and lodge an appeal before

INTERNATIONAL COUT OF JUSTICE HAGUE NETHERLAND.

We should all contribute 100 Canadian dollars from each applicant,deposit and hand over that amount to reliable person e.g eb_babak , Warmest, Hamid 22 ,Jatt- Warrior, hire a Lawyer and lodge an Appeal.

In addition to my self a lot of personnel from Pakistan,Indian ,Sri lanka ,European Arab Countries ready to join our group.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT

I request all of you to please do some thing for your children who are at one time were kids and now they are Young Boys & Girls.

DON,T THING

We are Pakistanis,we are Indians,we are Arabs,we are Europeans.

THINK ABOUT

We are one United group,we have one Cause.

CANADA IS OUR HOME
WE LOVE CANADA
GOD BLESS CANADA

Regards

IMRAN KHAN JADOON
EAMIL: imrankhanjadoonca@hotmail.com

I have communicated to my MP (my brother's case is among Tim's litigants) and eventually MP's office called me and told me that CIC advises my brother to re-apply. Which I laughed at. Re-apply and fall into another trap called express-entry?
They told me that I can directly write to the office of minister of immigration which I intend to do. Nothing I expected as outcome but at least I speak directly to his office. I know many of you reside outside of Canada, but if you have family, friends or anyone who is Canadian resident I can draft a letter / petition and send to his office. He needs to answer.
About my proposal of going to international court, I will do some research. Personally I am willing to participate financially to hold government responsible for turning its back to its promise of processing the applications filed before they cancelled the applications.
regarding what Tim is doing, trying to certify the questions, though I have faith in him, I have no faith to government and judiciary system's independence in Canada. So the only way I see we can succeed is to start looking for damages.
What I have mentioned about responsibility of CIC to process the applications is key point. We should write to office of minister of immigration and I am willing to do it. We should consult with a lawyer on ground of suing government for breach of its undertaking and false advertising and deception and more importantly we should act together.

 

[IMRANKHANJADOON]

Hello ,
eb_babak


QUOTE FROM YOUR STATEMENT

I have communicated to my MP (my brother's case is among Tim's litigants) and eventually MP's office called me and told me that CIC advises my brother to re-apply. Which I laughed at. Re-apply and fall into another trap called express-entry?
They told me that I can directly write to the office of minister of immigration which I intend to do. Nothing I expected as outcome but at least I speak directly to his office. I know many of you reside outside of Canada, but if you have family, friends or anyone who is Canadian resident I can draft a letter / petition and send to his office. He needs to answer.
About my proposal of going to international court, I will do some research. Personally I am willing to participate financially to hold government responsible for turning its back to its promise of processing the applications filed before they cancelled the applications.
regarding what Tim is doing, trying to certify the questions, though I have faith in him, I have no faith to government and judiciary system's independence in Canada. So the only way I see we can succeed is to start looking for damages.
What I have mentioned about responsibility of CIC to process the applications is key point. We should write to office of minister of immigration and I am willing to do it. We should consult with a lawyer on ground of suing government for breach of its undertaking and false advertising and deception and more importantly we should act together.


This is Imran Khan Jadoon ,i think we should all( you, me all of us) coordinate each other ,make a list of Litigants Non Litigants with their File numbers,make a draft letter in the shape of Petition and send to him. we need more and more File members so that we can exert pressure on them .
At this point I am ready and show my willing for the above mention cause.

GOD BLESS ALL OF US
GOD BLESS CANADA

 

[warmest]

So far, the submission of Mr. Galati by 3 February 2016 (by taking about 9 days from 26 January 2016) and the response of the Respondent by 9 February 2016 (by taking about 6 days from 3 February 2016) were more or less following the timeline outlined by the Honourable Justice James Russell. Now, the 3 days time period has started for any reply from Mr. Galati on receiving the Respondent's response. After this, we will have to wait and see of how long Honourable Justice James Russell will take to decide on whether to certify any question or not. If he certifies at least one question, then the case will move from the Federal Court to the Federal Court of Appeal. If no question is certified, then that is the end of the road. Fingers crossed!

Here are the latest updates for:

1. Young Mi Back v. MCI http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=IMM-1-13

[color=blue]-	2016-02-09	Toronto	Letter from Respondent, cc'ed Applicant, dated 08-FEB-2016 further to the Applicant's proposed questions for certification, pursuant to written directions (Russell J.) dated January 29, 2016 (ID 88), including the Respondent's submissions on questions for certification. received on 09-FEB-2016
-	2016-02-08	Ottawa	Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 08-FEB-2016 re: Applicants' further questions for certification (Doc#42) sent to Court for disposition
42	2016-02-03	Ottawa	Applicant's Certification of Issues Pursuant to S. 74(d) of IRPA to be certified for appeal filed on 03-FEB-2016
41	2016-02-03	Ottawa	Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Rocco Galati confirming service of document 40 upon Respondent by e-mail on 03-FEB-2016 filed on 03-FEB-2016
40	2016-02-01	Ottawa	****** CANCELLED ****** .. filed on 01-FEB-2016
-	2016-01-26	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from R. Galati (A's counsel) & M. Anderson, C.J. Jubenville, J.E. Clarke (R's counsels) with respect to Direction ID 88 placed on file on 26-JAN-2016
-	2016-01-26	Ottawa	Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell dated 26-JAN-2016 directing "To counsel: As agreed on September 2, 2015, I am providing counsel with a draft of my decision. The decision itself will not change but I have left room for possible questions for certification. I already have the written questions that Mr. Galati provided on September 2, 2015 but he may wish to modify these in some way. I suggest that Mr. Galati either confirm the questions already submitted, or provide any modifications in writing within 7 days of this direction and that the Respondent provide a written response within 7 days of receiving them. Any reply from Mr. Galati should be submitted within 3 days of receiving the Respondent's response. If this is a problem for either side, please let me know." received on 26-JAN-2016 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)[/color]

2. Haiyan Gong v. MCI http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=IMM-6828-12

[color=blue]-	2016-02-09	Toronto	Letter from Respondent, cc'ed Applicant, dated 08-FEB-2016 further to the Applicant's proposed questions for certification, pursuant to written directions (Russell J.) dated January 29, 2016 (ID 88), including the Respondent's submissions on questions for certification. received on 09-FEB-2016
-	2016-02-08	Ottawa	Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 08-FEB-2016 re: Applicants' further questions for certification (Doc#32) sent to Court for disposition
33	2016-02-03	Ottawa	Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Rocco Galati confirming service of document 32 upon Respondent by e-mail on 02-FEB-2016 filed on 03-FEB-2016
32	2016-02-03	Ottawa	Applicant's Certification of Issues pursuant to S. 74(d) of IRPA for Appeal filed on 03-FEB-2016
-	2016-01-26	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from R. Galati (A's counsel) & M. Anderson, C.J. Jubenville, J.E. Clark (R's counsel) with respect to the Direction of the Court - ID 64 placed on file on 26-JAN-2016
-	2016-01-26	Ottawa	Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell dated 26-JAN-2016 directing "To counsel: As agreed on September 2, 2015, I am providing counsel with a draft of my decision. The decision itself will not change but I have left room for possible questions for certification. I already have the written questions that Mr. Galati provided on September 2, 2015 but he may wish to modify these in some way. I suggest that Mr. Galati either confirm the questions already submitted, or provide any modifications in writing within 7 days of this direction and that the Respondent provide a written response within 7 days of receiving them. Any reply from Mr. Galati should be submitted within 3 days of receiving the Respondent's response. If this is a problem for either side, please let me know." received on 26-JAN-2016 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)[/color]

Here are the latest updates for:

1. Young Mi Back v. MCI http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=IMM-1-13

[color=blue]-	2016-02-12	Toronto	Letter from respondent dated 12-FEB-2016 Request that this be brought to attention of Russell J. Response to Applicant's 11-Feb-2016 reply submissions. received on 12-FEB-2016
-	2016-02-11	Toronto	Letter from Appellant dated 11-FEB-2016 reply submissions on the appellant's questions for certification with proof of service upon Respondent on 11-FEB-2016 received on 11-FEB-2016[/color]

2. Haiyan Gong v. MCI http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=IMM-6828-12

[color=blue]-	2016-02-12	Toronto	Letter from respondent dated 12-FEB-2016 Request that letter be placed before Russell J. In response to 11-Feb-2016 reply submissions by applicant and assertions. received on 12-FEB-2016
-	2016-02-11	Toronto	Letter from Applicant dated 11-FEB-2016 reply submissions on the appellant's proposed questions for certification with proof of service upon Respondent on 11-FEB-2016 received on 11-FEB-2016[/color]

 

[eb_babak]

We applicants do not want to attribute any motive to the decision of Honourable Justice James Russell. Even at this time of our adversity, we still continue to hold the Canadian system, judges and government in high esteem. We loved Canada and hence made the application for permanent residency more than 10 years ago. Even now, our love for Canada has not diminished at all. Come what may, we will still love Canada for what it stands for, irrespective of how our prayers get answered.

We trust our lawyers. We are sure they will take care of our interests. I personally do not believe in getting onto streets to fight anyone. I have full faith in God and I know God will take care of all of us.

Good luck with that

 

[eb_babak]

Hello ,
eb_babak


QUOTE FROM YOUR STATEMENT

I have communicated to my MP (my brother's case is among Tim's litigants) and eventually MP's office called me and told me that CIC advises my brother to re-apply. Which I laughed at. Re-apply and fall into another trap called express-entry?
They told me that I can directly write to the office of minister of immigration which I intend to do. Nothing I expected as outcome but at least I speak directly to his office. I know many of you reside outside of Canada, but if you have family, friends or anyone who is Canadian resident I can draft a letter / petition and send to his office. He needs to answer.
About my proposal of going to international court, I will do some research. Personally I am willing to participate financially to hold government responsible for turning its back to its promise of processing the applications filed before they cancelled the applications.
regarding what Tim is doing, trying to certify the questions, though I have faith in him, I have no faith to government and judiciary system's independence in Canada. So the only way I see we can succeed is to start looking for damages.
What I have mentioned about responsibility of CIC to process the applications is key point. We should write to office of minister of immigration and I am willing to do it. We should consult with a lawyer on ground of suing government for breach of its undertaking and false advertising and deception and more importantly we should act together.


This is Imran Khan Jadoon ,i think we should all( you, me all of us) coordinate each other ,make a list of Litigants Non Litigants with their File numbers,make a draft letter in the shape of Petition and send to him. we need more and more File members so that we can exert pressure on them .
At this point I am ready and show my willing for the above mention cause.

GOD BLESS ALL OF US
GOD BLESS CANADA

Hi Mr. Khan,
will be working on a letter (which I need to take my time to draft it carefully, considering that I am not a lawyer, and then share it here or on the facebook page I had opened for this purpose few months ago and then we can take it from there. I will keep people posted when I have something drafted.
Thanks for being contributive.
To answer those of you who still have faith to Canadian system, I have no comment. The system has proven itself not working for our cause since 2012 and though I support Mr. Leahy taking this to court of appeal, I do not want to sit and wait for another couple of years to hear ney response. If minister of immigration take the matter in his hand and have enough input from people regarding the unjust legislation of Jason Kenney in 2012 and feel the possibility of government being subject to paying financial damage, he may do something about it otherwise merely relying of judiciary system, considering that judges take the plus of Canadian public, which is anti-immigrant, they will find their way to dash out any argument our lawyer will put in front of them. Have been there and seen that.

 

[eb_babak]

Court Slams 'Gonzo Logic' Of Lawyers Seeking Money For Harper Judge Battle

I have responded to this on a facebook page to the article. Court slams....
Well court indeed slammed itself.
Mr. Galati has justifiably taken the matter to the court on his own initiative to protect the interest of public and prevented another corrupt appointment by a corrupt government. Now he has won the case and on top of it court has admitted that he is entitled for his costs and then awarded him with $5k?
The cheapest lawyer (which Mr. Galati is far away from it) charges $400 an hour plus tax to do nothing for you. Now what we see in this so called slam, is that court has fooled itself telling the lawyer that he has done 12 hours of a paralegal work on this very challenging case.
It just furthers the fact that government and the judiciary system are in bed together. Shame.