加拿大华人论坛 加拿大留学移民About Tim: Assessed (before 329 or not, that is the only question).

在加拿大

Why don't you guys read the recent emails from Tim?What is the seperate caus for his new proceedings?Anything differentiate before or after June 14, or assessed (open file per his word)or not assessed before March 29th? Wake up... to the 1000+litigants, 329 is the only creteria.

评论
回复: About Tim: Assessed (before 329 or not, that is the only question).如果他真的这样认为，那就应该主动在一月参加87.4的开庭，而不是今天说的要撤退 如果他认为329是唯一的拦路虎，解决这个拦路虎的唯一办法是打87.4违宪的官司 你们ME的，614后加入的，如果相信TIM认为329是唯一解决问题的办法，那就耐心等2014到2015吧. 大家自己为自己的官司努力。 我的立场是pre614

评论
​ 超赞 赏 T thomaswang1 0$(VIP 0) 1552012-12-27#3 回复: About Tim: Assessed (before 329 or not, that is the only question).支持MOI!!!

评论
回复: About Tim: Assessed (before 329 or not, that is the only question).--------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Tim Leahy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 2:03 AMCc: 赵立新Subject: Re: where we're goingWait a little longer. Many in the litigation group have been waiting since 2004. Six months isn't that long. If Richard wins his case, your file will be re-opened, too. So, I really don't see what the rush is. In January, I expect to file to additional litigation: our own class-action and damages for the open files. If both get off the ground, CIC might be willing to settle. If they don't and Richard wins, you win. So, please stop this incessant pestering. I really do not understand why your group believes themselves to be superior to everyone else. You're not. You just have one additional argument.

评论
回复: About Tim: Assessed (before 329 or not, that is the only question).please stop this incessant pestering Tim竟然用了这么严重的词。 红色部分很好啊，our own class-action和damages for the open files，一点都不矛盾，并且后者对前者有利 Our own class action，这个我一个多星期前就知道了，当时我就感到很兴奋了------这就是走上了正轨

评论
​ 超赞 赏 M Milky MonkeyModerator 0$(VIP 0) 2722012-12-27#6 回复: About Tim: Assessed (before 329 or not, that is the only question).--------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Tim Leahy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:35 PMSubject: Re: ME groupI am sorry but you are both entirely wrong. If s. 87.4 is lawful, your files are closed, period.I asked Lawrence and Rocco Galatti which of the two lead cases to choose, and they both said Datta because had applied before the Liang decision, allowing me to rely also on the Agreement. Because all of you joined after that decision, I would not be able to rely on it.If s. 87.4 is struck down, your files go to the head of the queue. I cannot conceive of the Court ordering CIC to issue your visas (for whatever reason) if it upholds s. 87.4.I have decided to file actions for damages for all our litigants whose files had been assessed before March 29th because I do not have to deal with 87.4 for those cases. Next up will be the ME'd files for all the reasons you cited. At that point, I will have to overcome s. 87.4(5), which bars the closed files from seeking redress for the closing of the files. So, please do not think that I am just ignoring you.The reality is that no decision on any issue will come out of the Federal Court before the ruling arising from the January hearing. So, just be patient, please.Regards,Tim

评论
回复: About Tim: Assessed (before 329 or not, that is the only question).I am sorry but you are both entirely wrong. If s. 87.4 is lawful, your files are closed, period. 这一句话没什么问题，pre614的案子close了问题不大。我一直以来发帖的焦点是87.4（2），不是87.4（1），我们pre614的焦点不是有没有被close，而是87.4（2）无效 whose files had been assessed before March 29th because I do not have to deal with 87.4 for those cases. 这个更没有什么好激动的，我真不明白TIM为329前打分的那35个人索赔有什么不利的，我完全支持。

评论
​ 超赞 赏 M Milky MonkeyModerator 0$(VIP 0) 2722012-12-27#8 回复: About Tim: Assessed (before 329 or not, that is the only question).Question is - what specific action TIM is going to take on behalf of the pre-614? If the judge is going to separate the sub-group, OK, then let's wait for the judge.

评论
回复: About Tim: Assessed (before 329 or not, that is the only question).TIM不需要有任何举措，不需要花一分钟让pre614被剥离，我也不会对他提出这样荒谬的建议。 至于pre614如何被剥离，我不在论坛说，呵呵，我也不想再为这个所谓的pre614, post614浪费时间。

评论
​TIM不需要有任何举措，不需要花一分钟让pre614被剥离，我也不会对他提出这样荒谬的建议。 至于pre614如何被剥离，我不在论坛说，呵呵，我也不想再为这个所谓的pre614, post614浪费时间。点击展开...

评论
回复: About Tim: Assessed (before 329 or not, that is the only question).对呀，是法官来剥离，不是TIM来做这个 法官如何剥离，我不关心，我也不想讨论。 你们要想 知道，自己去上加拿大联邦法庭的网站去搜索判决书吧 总而言之，我对现在TIM处理案子的方法感到比较满意了。

评论
​ 超赞 赏 M Milky MonkeyModerator 0$(VIP 0) 2722012-12-27#12 回复: About Tim: Assessed (before 329 or not, that is the only question).5、从诉讼程序传统来看，两大法系也存在一些传统的差别，如大陆法系倾向于职权主义，即法官在诉讼中起积极的作用，英美法系倾向于当事人主义，即控辩双方对抗式辩论，法官的作用是消极中立的。两大法系在法律历史传统方面或者也可以说是它们两者在宏观方面的差别： 1、从法律渊源传统来看，大陆法系具有制定法的传统，制定法为其主要法律渊源，判例一般不被作为正式法律渊源（除行政案件外），对法院审判无约束力；而英美法系具有判例传统，判例法为其正式法律渊源，即上级法院的判例对下级法院在审理类似案件时有约束力。 2、从法典编纂传统来看，大陆法系的一些基本法律一般采用系统的法典形式。而英美法系一般不倾向法典形式，其制定法一般是单行的法律和法规。当代英美法系虽然学习借鉴了大陆法系制定法传统，但也大都是对其判例的汇集和修订。 3、从法律结构传统来看，大陆法系的基本结构在公法和私法的分类基础上建立的，传统意义上的公法指宪法、行政法、刑法以及诉讼法；私法主要是指民法和商法，英美法系的基本结构是在普通法和衡平法的分类基础上建立的。从历史上看，普通法代表立法机关（协会）的法律，衡平法主要代表审判机关（法官）的法律（判例法），衡平法是对普通法的补充规则。 4、从法律适用传统来看，大陆法系的法官在确定事实以后首先考虑制定法的规定，而且十分重视法律解释，以求制定法的完整性和适用性；英美法系法官在确定事实之后，首先考虑的是以往类似案件的判例，将本案与判例加以比较，从中找到本案的法律规则或原则，这种判例运用方法又称为“区别技术”。 5、从诉讼程序传统来看，两大法系也存在一些传统的差别，如大陆法系倾向于职权主义，即法官在诉讼中起积极的作用，英美法系倾向于当事人主义，即控辩双方对抗式辩论，法官的作用是消极中立的。

  ·中文新闻 2024 年美国大选结果：特朗普获胜可能会让澳大利亚经济损失
·中文新闻 2024 年美国大选结果：特朗普是新的罗纳德·里根 - 没有美德