IMRANKHANJADOON said:
HELLO WARMEST ,
QUOTE BELOW
The new government's cabinet that also includes the ministers for Immigration (Hon. John McCallum) and Justice (Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould) might have taken (or will take) a call on our case when it was (or is) brought to it's notice. They will cross the bridge when they come to it. Who knows, the new government might readily agree to honour that agreement and might inform the court well in advance even before the judge decides to announce the date of his judgement. Anything is possible.
VERY VALUABLE NEWS GOOD
QUOTE BELOW
Hence I request you to be optimistic and not pass any adverse comments on the new Liberal government of Justin Trudeau which is doing wonderfully well until now. If not, at least be with an open mind without any bias.
HUMBLY REQUEST EXCELLENT
YOU HAVE HAVE VERY EXCELLENT VIEWS ,ONE SHOULD LEARN FROM YOU.
PLEASE MENTION YOUR NAME
I LIKE YOUR OPINION & ADVISES
BUT WE SHOULD ALSO PREPARE AND MAKE GROUP OF NON LITIGANTS HOW ARE READY TO USE THE REFERENCE OF 1300 LITIGANTS IF JUSTICE RUSSEL ONLY GIVE DECISION IN FAVOR OF 1300 LITIGANTS AND NOT TERMINATE 87.4 SECTION THEN WELL DEFINITELY MOVE TO FEDERAL COURT.
I WILL SAY THIS
HOPE FOR THE BEST AND PRAY TO GOD / ALL MIGHTY ALLAH FOR GIVE DECISION IN OUR FAVOR ALSO,AND WE ALL SETTLE IN CANADA WITH OUR FAMILIES. AMEEN
GOD BLESS YOU
GOD BLESS CANADA
IMRANKHANJADOON said:
HELLO SIR YOU ARE QUITE RIGHT WE ALL EXHAUSTED PLUS FAMILIES ALSO SUFFER MENTAL.BUT WE DON,T HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE .
IF JUSTICE RUSSEL ONLY GIVE DECISION IN FAVOR OF 1300 LITIGANTS AND IF WE STILL NOT AGREE TO SUE BY USING THE REFERENCE THEN IT WILL BE OUR UTMOST BAD LUCK.
PRAY TO ALMIGHTY ALL GOD TO GIVE DECISION ALSO IN OUR FAVOR.
AMEEN
REGARDS
IMRAN KHAN JADOON
Dear IMRANKHANJADOON,
Thanks for your compliments.
I am sorry, I cannot reveal my identity in an online discussion board or blog, especially in a lawsuit thread like this when I have sued a government. I will only reveal when there is a real need for me.
I see you are posting all of your messages in all capital letters. Writing in all caps is like 'shouting'. It is also difficult to read. So, please lay off the caps-lock key.
I would like to once again repeat what I have said many times before in this thread on why the non-litigants and ex-litigants should not waste their time waiting for the decision of Justice Russell, because that case is only about enforcing the February 2012 agreement and not about the (il)legality of Section 87.4 of Bill-38. Hence, the non-litigants and ex-litigants cannot use the decision of Justice Russell as a reference for their future litigation.
"
Regarding the mandamus litigation of Tim Leahy, please understand that if Justice Russell rules in favour of litigants it will only benefit those 1300 (750+550) litigants. Since it is not a class action lawsuit, it will not benefit the applicants (non-litigants and ex-litigants) of the remaining ~78700 flies that were closed by Section 87.4 of Bill-38. Moreover, the only issue/consideration before Justice Russell would be about whether or not to enforce the February 2012 agreement that was made between the government and the litigants. Justice Russell, in this case, is not expected to dwell upon the (il)legality of the passage of Section 87.4 of Bill-38 because this case was filed even before the bill was tabled in parliament.
The non-litigants and ex-litigants can either expect the new government on its own to revoke Section 87.4 of Bill-38 or file a fresh litigation seeking direction from court for its revocation. For the former to happen, no effort is required from the non-litigants and ex-litigants. But if the government does not do it on its own in the next couple of months, then the non-litigants and ex-litigants will have to either influence the government by mounting pressure through lobbying or file a fresh litigation. To do both of these if the government does not revoke on its own, the non-litigants and ex-litigants should first form a strong group and then approach a legal expert or lobbying group in Canada to take things forward.
From my understanding of the present situation of the non-litigants and ex-litigants and the recent positive political developments in Canada, I would advise the non-litigants and ex-litigants to first form a big group here in this board (either in this thread or by forming a new thread) and then discuss and decide on the next course of action of either contacting a legal expert or a lobbying group in Canada. I assure you all of my help at every stage of this process. I am sure other litigant boarders here will also chip in whenever needed and where ever necessary. You can be assured of our support."
Even if Justice Russell rules against the litigants, Tim Leahy has assured that he will appeal in higher courts and hence there is no possibility of the litigants joining hands with the non-litigants and ex-litigants in the future, as they are firmly rooted on two entirely different grounds seeking two entirely different reliefs. So, it is now up to the non-litigants and ex-litigants to decide whether or not to come together as a group to take things forward. Simply waiting to know the fate of the litigation of the litigants or expecting the litigants to join them in the future will not really help the non-litigants and ex-litigants. Hope this clears the air for the non-litigants and ex-litigants and helps them to swiftly get into solid action, if at all they are genuinely seeking any relief.
