Galati wasn’t even born in Canada. This makes him a foreigner trying to change the laws for the benefit of other foreigners. He’ll never be a Canadian, except in a civic sense, and even that is questionable.
Note: at 3:30, Galati claims this is about stripping rights of CANADIAN born people. But in court, he tries to claim his immigrant status for private interest standing. Nice bait-and-switch.
1. Islam, Terrorism, Religious Violence
Check this series for more information on the religion of peace. Tolerance of intolerance is being forced on the unwilling public. Included are efforts to crack down on free speech, under the guise of “religious tolerance”. What isn’t discussed as much are the enablers, whether they are lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, of members of the media.
2. Galati A Professional Agitator/Disruptor?
Rocco Galati started his career as a tax litigator for the Department of Justice, but soon decided to switch sides: He devoted himself, he says, to “cases against the government.”
“You need a lawyer when the government’s after you. Private disputes you should be able to settle. But the government’s a machine,” he said. “Often there’s little room for negotiation. It’s all or nothing.”
The Toronto lawyer, known for his florid, over-the-top language, has carved a reputation for being a thorn in the side of the federal government. He stuck it to the government when he successfully challenged the appointment of Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada. Now, he’s at it again with a court challenge against changes to the Citizenship Act that allow the government to revoke the Canadian citizenship of dual citizens convicted of terrorism or treason.
Last month, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander called Mr. Galati a “disgraced, ideological former lawyer of the Khadr family.” Mr. Galati once represented Abdurahman Khadr, the older brother of convicted war criminal Omar Khadr.
Mr. Galati insists he is not driven by ideology or politics (“I sued the Liberal government more than I can count,” he said), and denounced Mr. Alexander for resorting to mudslinging. “Instead of trying to deal with the message, he tries to denigrate the messenger.”
Over the course of a 45-minute chat this week, Mr. Galati called the war on terror “phoney,” said judicial appointments aren’t based on merit but who you know, and suggested that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is likely listening in on his calls.
The government, he said, is a “machine” that doesn’t care for the little guy.
The son of a construction worker, the Italian-born Mr. Galati, 55, has spent more than two decades of defending terror suspects and other individuals pegged for deportation.
That was a 2015 article from the National Post, which spells out pretty well the situation with Rocco Galati. He considers himself an opponent of the government.
3. Galati Fighting For Terrorists’ Rights
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2001 CanLII 22177 (FCA)
This was an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals as to whether suspected terrorists can be detained on “security certificates”, and what were the terms.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2003 FC 928 (CanLII),  1 FCR 493
A very interesting technique: Stall for as long as possible using various tactics, then claim your rights are violated when everything is delayed unreasonably. Seems designed to weaponize the rules.
Harkat (Re), 2003 FCT 759 (CanLII),  4 FC 1020
This challenge was to prevent a suspected terrorist from being removed from Canada. He was found to be ineligible to stay as a refugee.
In December 2003, Galati claimed he would no longer be taking terrorism cases because he was threatened. Spoiler: he still takes them. There seemed to be no moral issue with doing this line of work, however.
In 2004, Galati and Abdurahman Khadr (Omar Khadr’s older brother), held a press conference. Galati had secured Khadr’s release form Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Khadr admits that stories he previously told were completely made up.
R. v. Ghany, 2006 CanLII 24454 (ON SC)
In 2006, Galati launched a constitutional challenge to make it mandatory that all (Ontario) terrorism cases be heard in Ontario Superior Court, as opposed to the Lower Court. Galati reasoned that this would make it easier for accused terrorists to be bail.
Horrace v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 114 (CanLII)
Galati represented a Liberian man who tried to claim asylum, and failed twice. He was under investigation for terrorism/subversion back home, and there were serious safety concerns. Galati attempted to secure permanent resident status but failed.
Galati v. Canada (Gov General), 2015 FC 91 (CanLII),  4 FCR 3
This challenge was against Harper’s Bill C-24. That bill would have seen foreigners who obtain Canadian citizeship have it stripped away if they were convicted of terrorism or treason. Galati claimed as an Italian born he would be theoretically vulnerable (as a way to gain private interest standing).
Galati v. Canada (Governor General), (A-52-15)
Galati lost his challenge to let dual national terrorists keep their Canadian citizenship. He appealed that ruling, however, the election of Justin Trudeau made this a non issue.
One thing that needs to be pointed out: it’s not like Galati was hard up for money, or that it was a single mistake. He has been doing this for many years.
4. Galati Billed $800/Hour For Nadon Case
Galati v. Harper, 2014 FC 1088 (CanLII)
Galati v. Harper, 2016 FCA 39 (CanLII)
Rocco Galati, et al. v. Right Honourable Stephen Harper, et al., 2016 CanLII 47514 (SCC)
Think that it was ideological that Galati challenged a judicial appointment? Not really. He tried to claim a fee of $800 per hour for his work. This is a excessive, as ruled the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the appeal. So much for principles.
5. Mainville Reference: Quebec Court Of Appeal
Galati apparently wasn’t content with meddling in selection for the Supreme Court of Canada. He also tried to interfere with the selection of a Justice to the Quebec Court of Appeal. This time though, he failed.
6. Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.
The Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. (“CRC”) was incorporated, in Ontario, in November, 2004. From 2004 to 2013, it non-publicly, except to lawyers, operated in its development, in assisting and procuring legal counsel, with respect to constitutional cases, where counsel and/or their client, lacked the funds and/or expertise to mount, argue, or appeal a constitutional issue or case. Since 2013 it has, as co-Applicant, also initiated litigation in such cases as the “Nadon Reference” case, the “Mainville Reference” case, the challenge to the new Citizenship Act (Bill C-24).
Pretty strange that THESE are the cases that are first promoted on the main page of the website. Aren’t there better causes than convicted terrorists?
The CRC is structurally organized as follows:
It consists of one (1) Corporate Director.
It further consists of the following Operational Directors:
Rocco Galati, B.A.(McGill), LL.B., LL.M. (Osgoode)
Executive Director (Founder) and Director of Tax and other Civil Litigation
Paul Slansky, B.A., LL.B (Michigan)., J.D. (Detroit)
Operational Director, (Quasi) Criminal Litigation
Amina Sherazee, B.A., LL.B (Windsor)., LL.M. (Candidate)
Operational Director, Immigration, Human Rights, and Women’s Litigation
Manuel Azevedo, L.L.B. (Osgoode), LL.M. (LSE)
Operational Director, Administrative Law Litigation
From 2004 until 2013, it apparently operated as some secret organization to get counsel and funds for constitutional cases. Considering the cases they view as “worthwhile” it’s not surprising that it would be operated secretly.
7. Terrorist Lawyer Manuel Azevedo, Bill C-24
When Galati challenged Bill C-24 (stripping citizenship rights from dual national terrorists), Manuel Azevedo was an Applicant along side him. Azevdo was born in Portugal, not Canada, making him another foreigner trying to rewrite Canadian laws. Azevedo is also a Director at the Constitutional Rights Centre.
8. Terrorist Lawyer Paul Slansky: CRC Director
Who does Galati have as Directors in his organization? One is Paul Slansky, who also takes terrorism cases.
R. v. Ahmad, 2009 CanLII 84772 (ON SC)
R. v. Ahmad, 2009 CanLII 84774 (ON SC)
R. v. Ahmad, 2009 CanLII 84776 (ON SC)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1211 (CanLII)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1217 (CanLII)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1258 (CanLII)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1273 (CanLII)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1303 (CanLII)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1368 (CanLII)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1373 (CanLII)
R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 4143 (CanLII)
Just a few of the rulings that Paul Slansky has had. In the article above, the Courts have found that Slansky acts in an abusive and frivolous manner, wasting time and driving up court costs. He would merit a separate article for himself. Also see an instance of Slansky forced to defend his own conduct.
Why would Galati partner with such a person? Could be that they ideologically agree when it comes to the rights of terrorists.
9. Galati/COMER V. Bank Of Canada
The COMER case was previously covered on the site, and is actually a worthwhile cause. It ran from 2011 until 2017, when the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an appeal. The International Banking Cartel bleeds us dry. In retrospect, however, a cynic might wonder if it was rigged from the start, given there is no justification whatsoever for doing this.
10. Not Who You Think They Are
Considering the history that the Constitutional Rights Centre Directors have defending terrorist rights. Why would sensible, intelligent people choose that as a cause to take on? Why would they try to intervene in judicial appointments?
Do they internally agree with the cases they’ve taken on, or is there some other agenda? It can’t (entirely) be about the money, as there are easier ways to get paid.
And the current case with Vaccine Choice Canada?
VCC Statement Of Claim
With the filing of the challenge in Ontario Superior Court, Rocco Galati has obtained somewhat of a cult following. The Statement of Claim is 191 pages, very repetitive, and contains a lot of argument and evidence, which it shouldn’t. 3 months later (and counting), no defense filed. However, people should know what he really stands for. This is not to question his ability or skill as a lawyer, but rather his priorities.