CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE RE: THE BANK OF CANADA

Comments by
Ed Goertzen and Richard Priestman

20/7/09

Hi, Richard:

I have often wondered why knowledgeable people fail to use a “writ of mandamus” to compel governments to do what legislation directs them to do.

Also, since peoples juries are the most fundamental form of democracy, why knowledgeable people do not form such peoples juries to examine and express opinion on existing and proposed legislation.

The purpose of juries is not merely to determine the guilt or innocence of people accused by the state, but also, as exemplified by the Morgenthaler (abortion) case, to overturn bad law.

Possibly, peoples juries could also be used to examine, as would a coroners jury, the administration or mal-administration of the law. All it would take is a venue, with non partisan people willing to hear all sides of a case, (stakeholders) and then give a verdict or make recommendations.

The resultant publicity might even attract attention from the media.

Kind regards,
Ed Goertzen

PS. We use the existing electoral democratic system to elect people, but we have no mechanism or system in place to give opportunity to voters to weigh in on formation of programs, policies and priorities.

21/7/09

Hello Ed:

Thanks for your comments. Are you suggesting that the “constitutional challenge” take the form of a “writ of mandamus”?

May I forward your comments to Bill Krehm?

Richard Priestman

21/7/09

Hi, Richard:

Certainly not to take the place of Mr. Krehms challenge.

I suggest it as an alternate process that may only have publicity value.

Certainly, forward to Mr. Krehm.

Not being a lawyer, I would not know how the writ works. I only know that the writ is an option that may be invoked, but how? I know not. I think that it is invoked by a judge, on request?, and it compels the Crown to obey the law.

Unfortunately, the Crown always has the excuse that the law mostly “allows” it to do some things and does nor compel. Most people do not know that the “governing power” is the power to invoke, or not, the law. It is not all up to the bureaucracy.

It may be worth looking into by someone knowledgeable.

A long time ago I suggested that Connie Fogal make the claim that what the government was about to do, or did was ultra vires, that is, beyond the constitutional power of the Crown to do without legislation. She used the idea to mount a constitutional challenge.

Kind regards,

Ed Goertzen