加拿大华人论坛 加拿大留学移民Question for Tim-damage action is based on the fact that FSW applications

在加拿大

以下是转发的邮件：日期: December 25, 2012 11:17:44 AM GMT+08:00收件人: Tim Leahy <[email protected]>, Leahy Tim <[email protected]>主题: 回复： The next steps in the FSW litigationI believe your damage action is based on the fact that FSW applications covered in your litigation were unreasonably delayed, which is the merit of your winning June 14 judgment.  Even if 87.4(5) is valid before the January 14 hearing, 87.4(5) bars damages due to the termination under 87.4 itself, not the delay that you have been arguing since last November.  Therefore, why the damage action has any bearing with the termination?Finally, I expect to move into Phase II for the litigants whose files were not closed when I file actions for damages for them.  DoJ will counter a month later with a motion asking the Court to dismiss the litigation.  If it declines to do so, we can do the same for the closed files.  However, because s. 87.4(5) denies access to the Court for those whose files 87.4 closed, I do not want that issue to colour the outcome of the expected motion-to-dismiss.  If we win on that issue, we can deal with the second one.

评论
回复: Question for TimGood point!.........although I assume Tim can not directly answer it. It is very valid to ask Tim on this question before any newcomer join the everlasting group.

评论
回复: Question for TimHighlightedTherefore, following Justice Barnes' words, I will file a new court case on January 2nd, asking that the Court enforce the Agreement. On January 8th, I will file a motion asking that the case be turned into a class-action exclusively for those who are a part of the Emam contingent. Therefore, our group will close on January 5th.Good point!.........although I assume Tim can not directly answer it. It is very valid to ask Tim on this question before any newcomer join the everlasting group.点击展开...

评论
回复: Question for Tim-damage action is based on the fact that FSW applicationsMOI, have an answer on this?以下是转发的邮件：日期: December 25, 2012 11:17:44 AM GMT+08:00收件人: Tim Leahy <[email protected]>, Leahy Tim <[email protected]>主题: 回复： The next steps in the FSW litigationI believe your damage action is based on the fact that FSW applications covered in your litigation were unreasonably delayed, which is the merit of your winning June 14 judgment.  Even if 87.4(5) is valid before the January 14 hearing, 87.4(5) bars damages due to the termination under 87.4 itself, not the delay that you have been arguing since last November.  Therefore, why the damage action has any bearing with the termination?Finally, I expect to move into Phase II for the litigants whose files were not closed when I file actions for damages for them.  DoJ will counter a month later with a motion asking the Court to dismiss the litigation.  If it declines to do so, we can do the same for the closed files.  However, because s. 87.4(5) denies access to the Court for those whose files 87.4 closed, I do not want that issue to colour the outcome of the expected motion-to-dismiss.  If we win on that issue, we can deal with the second one.点击展开...

评论
回复: Question for Tim-damage action is based on the fact that FSW applications你的问题很有趣哈，如果我是TIM收到这封邮件会马上大笑起来。 87.4（5）禁止所有被87.4（1）终止的案子的人向加拿大提出金钱赔偿。这么清楚无误的表达，你为什么还问why the damage action has any bearing with the termination？ 有87.4（1）这个鸡，所以有87.4（5）这个蛋。首先把你的案子一刀切，其次禁止你就这个termination提出索赔，这里面有啥问题呢？这里的道理比1+1+=2难些吗？

评论
​你的问题很有趣哈，如果我是TIM收到这封邮件会马上大笑起来。 87.4（5）禁止所有被87.4（1）终止的案子的人向加拿大提出金钱赔偿。这么清楚无误的表达，你为什么还问why the damage action has any bearing with the termination？ 有87.4（1）这个鸡，所以有87.4（5）这个蛋。首先把你的案子一刀切，其次禁止你就这个termination提出索赔，这里面有啥问题呢？这里的道理比1+1+=2难些吗？点击展开...

评论
回复: Question for Tim-damage action is based on the fact that FSW applicationsThis proves you didn't get the question: 其次禁止你就这个termination提出索赔TIM won't laugh because he knows the logic. Easy example, if you and I settled a contract dispute, I will not have any claim in connection with this contract dispute. And the second day, you injured me by stabbing me, I don't have claim against you?(5) No person has a right of recourse or indemnity against Her Majesty in connection with an application that is terminated under subsection (1).Easy argument damage claim is based on the delay (before the termination), not the termination itself.点击展开...

评论
回复: Question for Tim-damage action is based on the fact that FSW applications对呀，已经禁止你提出索赔，你还要发起索赔，那该怎么做呢？当然是首先推翻这个不平等的法律87.4（5）对不？ 你不首先推翻87.4（5），有什么资格什么权利发起索赔？ delay再怎么被614判决不合理，它现在用87.4来让之前的不合理一笔勾销，有问题吗？ 现在到法院去申冤delay不合理，要索赔，没人理睬你，因为87.4已经是法律了，无论那些案子有没有delay，现在全部一笔勾销了。 如果你认为TIM有本事发起索赔，故意不这样做，那为什么别的律师也不发起索赔呢？因为加拿大律师全部是笨蛋吗？

评论
​对呀，已经禁止你提出索赔，你还要发起索赔，那该怎么做呢？当然是首先推翻这个不平等的法律87.4（5）对不？ 你不首先推翻87.4（5），有什么资格什么权利发起索赔？ delay再怎么被614判决不合理，它现在用87.4来让之前的不合理一笔勾销，有问题吗？ 现在到法院去申冤delay不合理，要索赔，没人理睬你，因为87.4已经是法律了，无论那些案子有没有delay，现在全部一笔勾销了。 如果你认为TIM有本事发起索赔，故意不这样做，那为什么别的律师也不发起索赔呢？因为加拿大律师全部是笨蛋吗？点击展开...

评论
回复: Question for Tim-damage action is based on the fact that FSW applicationsThis proves you didn't get the question: 其次禁止你就这个termination提出索赔

评论
回复: Question for Tim-damage action is based on the fact that FSW applications87.4是一部恶法，用法律的形式保证移民部干坏事，并且把之前法院认定的坏事全部一笔勾销 既然是法律，无论是不是恶法，它就有绝对的权威。rule of law，就是这个道理。立法通过了，任何人都不得破例，就是这个简单的道理

评论
​ 超赞 赏 L Les Paradis 0$(VIP 0) 3,7882012-12-27#12 回复: Question for Tim-damage action is based on the fact that FSW applications好啊，你认为我不懂你的问题就别问我了。去找懂你的人问去吧。

评论
​You are correct that Canadian lawyers are all stupid点击展开... 很好啊，这就结了啊，把律师都炒掉吧。去告TIM也行，找个中国的律师或者你认为不是笨蛋的律师去告移民部，顺带把TIM也一起告了

评论
​很好啊，这就结了啊，把律师都炒掉吧。去告TIM也行，找个中国的律师或者你认为不是笨蛋的律师去告移民部，顺带把TIM也一起告了点击展开...

评论
回复: Question for Tim-damage action is based on the fact that FSW applicationsBTW, that's your conclusion点击展开... 当然是我的结论，我的手打出来的字不是我的结论是谁的结论？

评论
​ 超赞 赏 我 我是流氓我怕谁 0$(VIP 0) 1672012-12-27#16 回复: Question for Tim-damage action is based on the fact that FSW applications哈哈... Milky适当的用"引用"来发言是正确的, 这样的话这个言论以后就不能修改了, 减少了神算子以后吹牛的资本.

评论
回复: Question for Tim-damage action is based on the fact that FSW applications哈哈... Milky适当的用"引用"来发言是正确的, 这样的话这个言论以后就不能修改了, 减少了神算子以后吹牛的资本.点击展开... 引用也要有引用的格式，最好多重引用，以便所有引用过来的帖子上面都有我的ID 谢谢你们把我的帖子引用，让我不能修改，我的预测的确有不少失败的，但是我完全不担心被顶起来

评论
​引用也要有引用的格式，Milky Monkey不会多重引用，他上面引用的格式不正确 谢谢你们把我的帖子引用，让我不能修改，我的预测的确有不少失败的，但是我完全不担心被顶起来点击展开...

评论
回复: Question for Tim-damage action is based on the fact that FSW applicationsFYI - Tim is on the same page with me.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim LeahySent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:41 PMc: 赵立新Subject: Re: don't panic, pleaseYou're correct: Phase II is independent of the 87.4 issue. The problem is that I did not want to launch it until the motion was decided.

评论
回复: Question for Tim-damage action is based on the fact that FSW applications以下是转发的邮件： 日期: December 25, 2012 11:17:44 AM GMT+08:00收件人: Tim Leahy <[email protected]>, Leahy Tim <[email protected]>主题: 回复： The next steps in the FSW litigation I believe your damage action is based on the fact that FSW applications covered in your litigation were unreasonably delayed, which is the merit of your winning June 14 judgment. Even if 87.4(5) is valid before the January 14 hearing, 87.4(5) bars damages due to the termination under 87.4 itself, not the delay that you have been arguing since last November. Therefore, why the damage action has any bearing with the termination? Finally, I expect to move into Phase II for the litigants whose files were not closed when I file actions for damages for them. DoJ will counter a month later with a motion asking the Court to dismiss the litigation. If it declines to do so, we can do the same for the closed files. However, because s. 87.4(5) denies access to the Court for those whose files 87.4 closed, I do not want that issue to colour the outcome of the expected motion-to-dismiss. If we win on that issue, we can deal with the second one.点击展开... 谢谢Milky 提问，我想肯定TIM组有什么疑问，但我没看明白是什么问题？MOI的汉语回答，我觉的他说的有道理。

  ·中文新闻 被取消测试揭幕战的内森·麦克斯威尼（Nathan McSweeney）在节礼日
·中文新闻 闷闷不乐的安德鲁王子对自己的失宠感到非常厌倦，以至于他“