Canadians Win Another Round Against the Bank of Canada

“The COMER case in Canada is very significant…Absolutely. This (Canadian model) could catch on with other banks around the world…There are lots of nations looking at this right now.”

Bill Still, Economist
Press for Truth with Dan Dicks
Suing the Bank — What’s Next for the Canadian Money Masters? (video)
Published February 12, 2015


by Jane Gaffin

Every Canadian has a vested interest in COMER (Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform) v the Bank of Canada.

Yet the so-called mainstream media has not mentioned the Federal Court decision of January 26, 2015 that is a ‘good news’ story for all Canadians who are the rightful owners of the Bank of Canada, which is a unique and enviable position in the world where all other central banks are privately-owned.

The judgement delivered from the bench in Toronto was an historic, landmark decision which makes it even more puzzling why Toronto-based constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati, who normally receives wall-to-wall publicity on his constitutional challenges, received no ink or airtime on this particular case.

YouthVoteCanada picked up the slack and produced a video titled A Conversation w/Constitutional Lawyer Rocco Galati who graciously explained the success of the Bank of Canada lawsuit immediately following the ruling.

The upper court upheld the lower court’s decision from April 24, 2014. Yes, there were dismissals of this and dismissals of that and one thing and another. As is normal procedure, the Crown wanted the case dumped as “frivolous”.

However, the Motion was not struck down, which renders this a ‘win’, and the Bank of Canada has 60 days to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is not anticipated that the government will choose to exercise that option but that remains to be seen.

The case is still on the books and is still moving forward as it has since the initial filing on December 12, 2011 when Rocco Galati launched a case on behalf of plaintiffs William Krehm, Ann Emmett and COMER in the federal court against the Queen of England, Minister of Finance, Minister of National Revenue, the Bank of Canada and the Attorney General of Canada.

As per the recent decision, plaintiffs Krehm, Emmett and COMER (Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform) have 60 days from January 26 to refile an Amended Statement of Claim, then presumably advance to trial for a couple more years of legal proceedings.

The Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 to bring Canada out of the Great Depression by injecting debt-free money into infrastructure projects: airports, subway systems, highways, St. Lawrence Seaway, Canadian Health Care System, Canadian Pension System as well as the Trans Canada Highway and setting up hospitals, schools, universities and offering affordable means for students to earn their diplomas without drowning in lifetime debts.

The Bank of Canada made interest-free loans to the municipal, provincial and federal governments, a provision still mandated under the Bank of Canada Act.

The Bank of Canada used to be a government lending institution, creating near interest-free loans that built much of Canada’s infrastructure during the 1950s and 1960s.

Things changed in 1974. At the Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, which doesn’t appear to have settled a transaction since then, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, under influence of fellow Bilderberg attendees, allowed for the function of the Bank of Canada to be dismantled.

Since then, Canada has lost sovereign control over its monetary policies and money supply. Every Canadian has been saddled with government debt at all levels that has risen exponentially over the last 40 years.

This case before the courts revolves around that stifling of the Bank of Canada’s mandate to create money for the public good.

As lifted from Press for Truth, September 10, 2012 (because my computer couldn’t read the fuzzy pdf version), “The Plaintiffs state that the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [a special agency of the United Nations] were all created with the cognizant intent of keeping poorer nations in their place which has now expanded to all nations in that these financial institutions largely succeed in overriding governments and constitutional orders in countries such as Canada over which they exert financial control.”

Further, the Plaintiffs state that the meetings of the Bank of International Settlements and Financial Stability Board (FSB) (successor of FSF), their minutes, their discussions and deliberations are secret and not available nor accountable to Parliament, the executive, nor the Canadian public, notwithstanding that the Bank of Canada policies directly emanate from these meetings.

“These organizations are essentially private, foreign entities controlling Canada’s banking system and socio-economic policies,” they charged.

The Plaintiffs state that the defendants (officials) are unwittingly and/or wittingly, in varying degrees, knowledge and intent engaged in a conspiracy, along with the BIS, FSB, IMF to render impotent the Bank of Canada Act as well as Canadian sovereignty over financial, monetary, and socio-economic policy, and bypass the sovereign rule of Canada through its Parliament by means of banking and financial systems.

Constitutional lawyer Galati reminded that when initially enacted in 1937-38, the Bank could directly provide interest-free loans to the federal, provincial and municipalities for infrastructure and human capital expenditures so long as it didn’t exceed one-third the annual budget and as long as it was repaid within the next fiscal year which governments had no problem doing because no interest was attached to the loans.

“That practice stopped in 1974 when the Bank of Canada joined the gang of bankers over in Europe,” noted Galati.

“The only difference between our Bank and the other banks is our Bank is a public Bank. It is the only Bank that is a public bank in the GA [United Nations General Assembly] countries. The other banks are private banks, including the Federal Reserve in the States. Most people don’t realize that.

“If the Bank of Canada can give (money) to the commercial banks at one quarter of one percent they should be able to give money to the government at least at one quarter of one percent — or zero percent — as the Bank of Canada is mandated to do.”

He added that this legal claim has a lot of basis. “It’s grounded in law. If we get a dishonest judge, she or he will strike parts or all of it. We’ll appeal it. But there’s nothing in this statement of claim that we want the government to fess up to that’s not grounded in solid, legal argument.”

With regards to motions, Galati stated, if the [Bank of Canada] loses on this one they have to file their substantive defense.

They can’t put in the Statement of Defense ‘there’s no reasonable cause of action’. They’ve spent that fuel, he said.

They have to actually justify why they haven’t been giving interest-free loans to the government. They have to justify why the Minutes of these Meetings in Zurich are kept secret. They have to justify why the Minister of Justice is not tabling the true figures of revenue coming in. They have to justify this in law.

“There’s no such thing as a failure when you bring a matter to the courts that’s ripe for adjudication. The failure is in not bringing it forward and raising the issue,” he concluded.



UN Charter Clashes With Free-World Constitutions

by Jane Gaffin

In his inimitable style, outspoken American radio broadcaster Paul Harvey (1918 – 2009) championed love of God and country while railing against such hardcore subjects as Big Brother government.

On September 24, 1993, he went so far as to roll out the sordid facts about the United Nations on his long-standing ABC show The Rest of the Story.

“One would think by listening to all the propaganda about the United Nations that they are some sort of benevolent, peaceful organization,” began Mr. Harvey.

“Never in the history of the United Nations has it stood for anything but killing and violence. They have never kept peace anywhere on this globe. Their sole function is to replace the U.S. military — dissolve all four branches of our armed forces.

“Their allegiance is only to the United Nations Charter which does not recognize the U.S. Constitution. This body is made up almost exclusively of communists and leaders of the bloodiest regimes on this globe.

“Their history and operating agenda is apparent to anyone who takes the time to sincerely and with an open mind, research the facts of this organization, separating truth from myth.

“Bilderberg participants — another group committed to one-world domination — in 1992 called for ‘conditioning the public to accept the idea of a U.N. army that could, by force, impose its will on the internal affairs of any nation.’ “

Too bad more people didn’t heed Mr. Harvey’s wisdom and echo his sentiments before the United Nations and Bilderberg Group succeed in gobbling down the last morsels of freedom, sovereignty and peace, which would have happened sooner except for the unexpected Internet wild card that did wonders for momentarily cooling the overheated jets of the psychopaths.

As Mr. Harvey mentioned, the UN is not an instrument of peace. Wherever one stumbles often across “peace” in the UN Charter, written in classic Orwellian Newspeak, the word literally denotes “war”.

The phrase “human rights” means those the UN deems to qualify, mainly Muslims and Communists.

“Freedom of religion” dictates that only those accepting the state’s One-World religion have “religious freedom”, which ostensibly is based on Islam.

Christians are being slain, along with their concepts of Christianity and God. The state regards anybody who owns a Christian Bible — much less reads it –to be an infidel, who, if not murdered, will be institutionalized as a certifiable nut case. Christianity has to be eradicated to easily sell the masses on the ideology that national constitutions and their Bill of Rights are outmoded folly.

Below, as a companion to Mr. Harvey’s introduction, is an undated article, U.N. Charter Clashes with Constitution, reprinted sometime after 1960 in the Masonic Home Journal.

The account mentions that an effort to make property rights a part of the UN Declaration of Human Rights failed in the United Nations in 1960.

The United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco, California, on June 26, 1945, and ratified two days later by the U.S. Senate. As well, reference is made to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), a special agency also formed in 1945.

Although the Charter article is United States-specific, it relates closely to other sovereign nations, especially in the Western World, where people’s rights and freedoms are protected as natural, God-given, inalienable, and are rooted firmly in British Common Law, the Magna Carta of 1215 and Bill of Rights of 1689.

However, it is through the destruction of morality, spirituality and brainwashing that free-market countries, specifically the U.S., “will drop in our hands like over-ripe fruit,” as Vladimir Lenin, Bolshevik Leader of the Russian Communists, put it.

Even Communist Leader Nikita Khrushchev assured confidently that communism would take over America without firing a shot. (Basically, the world views the U.S. and Canada as a singular “America”.)

The New Order of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany has stood on the world’s threshold in the form of a totalitarian One-World Order society far too long. Yet there is a glimmer of indication that at this late date the political winds may be shifting.

As recently as October, 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin and other outspoken world leaders, disgruntled with the hegemonic United Nations and its United States lapdog dictating how sovereign nations of the world will conduct their domestic affairs, addressed a forum on the subject of New World Order: New Rules or No Rules? (See transcript here.)

And to think it all started because a warped bunch of power-hungry screwballs decided to unilaterally enshrine a destructive One-World Disorder into a damnable U.N. Charter in 1945.

Exactly what constitutes the differences between the U.S. Constitution and the United Nations’ Charter? questioned the writer of the Masonic Home Journal essay.

The Constitution is a concise document; it is very clear in its meaning and specific in its terminology — despite confused interpretations of it on high.

The UN Charter, on the other hand, is so worded that even its framers were not certain about its meaning. Its provisions have been construed in many ways.

The Constitution guarantees certain rights and Freedoms which shall not be abridged. The UN Charter threatens to eliminate such basic rights as trial by jury, a right won in 1215 A.D. by our ancestors.

The Proposed UN Covenant on Human Rights says that Freedom of the press, one of our treasured rights, may be withdrawn “if necessary for the protection of national security, public order, safety, health or morals or the rights of others.”

Article 2 of the Proposed UN Covenant goes on: “Many of the rights ostensibly guaranteed in the covenant, including Freedom of the press, may be withdrawn during an emergency officially proclaimed by the authorities.”

What about Freedom of religion?

To most of us, this is the most vital of all. On this point our Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

What does the UN Covenant say? “Freedom to manifest one’s religion shall be subject only to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”

The question which all Freedom-loving Americans must ask is: Who is to judge whether or not our religion and the way we worship will endanger somebody’s “health and morals?”

The answer is terrifying indeed. Even a brief analysis of the UN Covenants and our own Constitution shows that we cannot live under both at the same time, because they are not in agreement — pious, high-sounding words to the contrary.

If we were to live under the terms of the United Nations, we would have to surrender the sovereignty of the United States. Once that is surrendered, we who love Freedom will have no constitutional safeguards. Neither would any part of the free world.

Remember, the Charter of the United Nations does not recognize as unalienable the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. It purports to grant these rights. What government can grant, it can also take away.

Americans who say they stand for both the United Nations Charter and the United States Constitution, are not familiar with the provisions of these two documents, or they are fooling themselves, or they were trying to fool somebody else.

The UN Charter and the U.S. Constitution are mutually exclusive. In studying the UN Charter, it is important to look beyond the appealing slogans; it is absolutely vital that we know what is meant by “human rights”, “equality”, “social progress” and “freedoms”. And we must analyze carefully the UN’s basic aim of establishing international peace and security in the common interest.

No one will deny that a situation of international peace and security would be ideal. It was toward this end, and with good faith, that America ratified the UN Charter shortly after World War II–without too close an examination of how this was to be accomplished.

Much depends on how such a situation would be brought about, and after that, on how security would be maintained. We need to know whether the methods used would secure Freedom or bondage. We need to understand the difference in the communist concept of “peace” and “security” and our own meaning of the words.

The main principles of the UN Charter appear, on the surface, to be “equal rights” and “fundamental freedoms”. These phrases dominate the preamble and the first two articles of the Charter.

However, close examination shows that these “principles” are not actually bases for action. They are simply to be “respected” to whatever extent is possible, while other and somewhat different principles are applied.

In Article 1, Item 2, the Charter states this as a UN purpose: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”

In America, equal rights have been recognized as a premise of Freedom, not merely a “principle” to be accorded respect when it is convenient to do so.

An unalienable right of man is the right to own private property, but there is no recognition of this right in the UN Charter.

Furthermore, an effort to make property rights a part of the UN Declaration of Human Rights was defeated in the United Nations in 1960. The UN Resolution on Nationalization, adopted in 1952, does not call for prompt and full compensation for nationalization of property and resources.

If property rights were embodied in the UN Charter, then no Marxist could subscribe to it. Karl Marx said, “In all movements, bring to the front, as the leading question in every case, the property question.”

Thus, while communists make the property question foremost in trying to destroy Freedom, patriots must regard it as foremost in trying to save Freedom.

In studying the UN Charter, special attention should be given to what it says about “international peace and security.” This is a phrase we find very frequently in communist propaganda.

The communist conspiracy intends to establish its brand of “international peace and security” in a world dominated by communists.

The methods they use include subversion, agitation and armed force. What methods are open to the UN organization?

The Charter describes several measures which may be taken by the Security Council “to maintain or restore international peace and security” and what contributions to these measures the member nations are expected to make.

The Charter adds that if the Security Council should consider these measures insufficient, “it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

In other words, the UN intends to establish its brand of international peace and security by any means, including armed force. That is what the dictatorships have always advocated. The communists practice their technique, according to the tenets of dialectical materialism. The UN technique is practiced according to the tenets of what might be called dialectical internationalism.

Neither suits Freedom-loving Americans. Our technique for seeking peace should be practiced according to the principles of Freedom and unalienable rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and granted by the Creator.

There are many more Americans who are questioning the motives of the United Nations Charter. And there are many more Americans who have reached the age in life where the future of our country has little meaning to them personally; but they are concerned for their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren.

They want to leave them the heritage they received from their forefathers. They know that, despite those who argue that the United Nations is our “last hope for peace”, a responsible, sovereign and strong United States is the only defense of Freedom in the world.

United States (Democratic) Senator Frank Lausche (who served as an elected senator from Ohio between the years 1957 to 1969) offers one more example of why many people view the United Nations with increasing skepticism:

“UNESCO, an official appendage of the UN, makes the following remarkable statement in one of its publications (The United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization publication No. 356): ‘As long as a child breathes poisoned air of nationalism, education in world mindedness can only produce rather precarious results. It is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should use means to combat family attitudes that favor Jingoism. We shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world peace.’

“It would seem, then,” said Senator Lausche, “that the ‘ideal world’ as envisioned by the UN functionaries may be brought into being at the expense of the family, and influences teaching a child to love his country. All of which may persuade fewer people to love the UN.


Video: The Systematic Elimination Of Private Property

by Jane Gaffin

Private property ownership, the cornerstone of democracy, is the heart of all other rights and freedoms.

Without the right to own private property, other rights and freedoms are worthless: the right to vote, the right to religion, the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to freedom of expression and thought, the right to mobility.

In other words, without the rights to individually own and control personal and real property, the rights to life, liberty, security of person and due process of the law — everything –is surrendered to the autocrats.

Without inalienable rights and freedoms endorsed by a nation’s constitution citizens are reduced to human property owned by the state.

The quickest way to individual ruination is through the nationalization of land and mass people-control which is manipulated by a very few universal powermongers who have more wealth already than they can use in a lifetime but continue demanding that the individual citizen contribute more.

First, the government kleptocrats take all the people’s money from their bank accounts, then all their lands to render them unproductive paupers with no home of one’s own, then make them and their children servants forevermore.

Above and below is the Oathkeeper URL for an insightful 18.5-minute Liberty Northwest News presentation that also can be watched on such places as YouTube or the Ask search engine.

In The Systematic Elimination of Private Property, New Mexico rancher Wayne Price provides testimony to the abuses he and other ranchers have suffered over the last many years at the hands of the United Nations Agenda 21 land-grab movement and the government minions who bear no qualms about carrying out the orders.

Mr. Price, who comes from a long line of heart-breaking experiences fighting government encroachments against his private property rights, gave this interview when he came in support of the Bundy family who were under siege at Bunkerville, Nevada, near Las Vegas, in April, 2014.

As soon as he arrived at the Bundys’ Bunkerville ranch, he realized no national media outlet was covering the government’s unconstitutional attack on U.S. citizens. Mr. Price called Alex Jones at his InfoWars command center in the Texas capital city of Austin, the showcase of Agenda 21 implementation.

The astute Mr. Jones heads up a dominant alternative media source and quickly recognized the federal government’s unprovoked assault on the Bundy-owned ranch and the grazing rights dispute on public lands as Agenda 21 personified.

Perhaps a culmination of reasons spurred Mr. Jones to immediate action. While chomping at the bit to be at the center of action himself, Mr. Jones was otherwise personally committed.

Able to spare a two-man crew, he dispatched journalist extraordinaire David Knight and cameraman Josh Owens who seemed to magically appear in several places at once, covering all bases of action that was beamed back to the Austin command center for worldwide distribution.

It was InfoWars broadcasts that incited the corporate-owned media to move its lazy arses. None of those major media presstitutes had ever heard of, much less mentioned, Agenda 21. Most commentators moronically spewed and spun political-correct rubbish and rhetoric without an iota of comprehension of what they were dealing with for truth.

The exception was Fox Broadcasting. Nevertheless, nobody there ever referred to the situation by its real name, either: Agenda 21.

In the video, Mr. Price speaks of being too traditional at first to accept what was happening to him over the encroachment on his land. He just wanted to “go along to get along” (a.k.a. Agenda 21 jargon).

Eventually, he listened to his son and discovered his problems stemmed from the fraudulent United Nations Agenda 21, an abomination born in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 as an environmental lie.

Agenda 21 is a blueprint for how society will exist and behave in the 21st Century. Regardless of which path is followed in the labyrinthian framework all passages lead to formation of a totalitarian one-world government.

The plot was masterminded by a small coterie of mad global elites under the environmental guise of “saving the planet” for every “endangered” species that are purported to be more important than humans.

Therefore, land-grabbing is high on the list of Agenda 21 implementation.

Mr. Price talks about why one New Mexico rancher was eventually sprung loose from his incarceration in a federal “re-education” gulag while another rancher languishes in what might truly be one of those FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) “re-education” camps.

Due to the Agenda 21 system, farmers and ranchers are being forced off their land in the name of “environmentalism” to give way to the rabid greens’ moneymaking scheme of Rewilding America.

Mr. Price knows what he is talking about. Therefore, I implore you, if you don’t do another blessed thing today, please watch this video presentation by Northwest Liberty News on Oathkeepers or on YouTube or on or wherever you like. You still have a smidgin of free choice remaining.

Every word, every thought presented by the interviewee is absolutely true. He’s lived through Agenda 21, Biodiversity Project (a.k.a. Agenda 21), Wildlife Program (a.k.a. Agenda 21), sustainability (a.k.a Agenda 21), private-public partnership (a.k.a. Agenda 21); Endangered Species (a.k.a. Agenda 21).

It all ties together in a complex lattice work.

Under Agenda 21, people will no longer be allowed to eat red meat, thus no more reason for cattle, thus no more reason for water rights, thus no more reason for farmers and ranchers to live on and own land or have benefits of exercising grazing rights.

Governments everywhere are forcing property owners off the land into high-density “stack’em and pack’em” ghettos.

Please take 18.5 minutes out of your life to listen to this man of the land who has lived this nightmare. You will learn more than you want to know.

Then pass this video on to all your friends, whether you think they will be interested or not. They may think they aren’t interested now. But they soon will be when they discover they, too, are prohibited from owning titled and personal property — not a car or a bike, not even a Smart Phone.

or see:


Agenda 21 Deems Beef “Unsustainable” and “Unaffordable”

by Jane Gaffin

Yukoners better be beefing up the bison herd if they want affordable red meat to eat.

In keeping with the United Nations Agenda 21 protocol that says meat consumption is “not sustainable”, beef is destined to soon become unaffordable for the average consumer, as exemplified in the recent Nevada “line-drawn-in-the-sand” standoff.

This 20-year land-grazing dispute is not about an endangered desert tortoise, unpaid grazing fees on 600,000 acres or which level of government owns the land.

This affair flowed from the Green Machine provisions of re-wilding North America as thrust forward in Agenda 21 that was born at the Rio Earth Summit of 1992.

In the specific Nevada scenario, the authorities were mandated to cleanse the land of cattle and turtles to make room for an underhanded caper to give the Chinese Communist a sweetheart deal to develop a solar/wind farm that needs an ultra-large spread yet can’t generate enough energy to spin a child’s pinwheel.

Under Agenda 21 — the people-control blueprint for architecting the 21st Century — all land would be under government-control. Individuals would lose their constitutional rights to own property which represents the cornerstone of all free societies. Without property rights, other rights and freedoms are worthless.

Loss of property rights and the raising of beef-producing domestic cattle to feed millions of humans each day are just two of numerous Agenda 21 taboos concocted to “save the earth”.

In 1994, the Earth First! green gang posted an Internet message titled Hunt Cows, Not Cougars: “Thats right, shoot cows. They dont run. They cant bite. They dont charge. They dont maul. They produce only two percent of the beef from 70 percent of the public lands. A pound of beef requires 2,000 gallons of water, a pound of wheat…Theres way (too) many of them.”

These Agenda 21 nutbars adopted a doctrine that puts “save the planet” ahead of humanity’s well-being. Wiping out Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions of other earth-dwelling species. Without humans cluttering up the planet, there would be no need for domestic livestock.

In January, 2003, a green sniper shot domestic cattle and horses in rural Alberta, northeast of Edmonton. Some livestock were killed; some injured to the point of having to be destroyed; some, suffering only superficial wounds, survived.

As recently as April 5, 2014, Canadians’ feistier American cousins, who also own free-roaming, grass-fed cattle, were attacked by a horde of muscle-flexing, gun-toting government proselytizers in an unprovoked aggression that saw valuable livestock slaughtered.

In southern Nevada, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, near the Arizona border, 65-year- old Cliven Bundy lives with his wife, Carol, at their homegrown town of Bunkerville. They enjoy their large family of 14 cowboys and cowgirls and 49 grandchildren.

The Bundys are the last ranchers standing. The federal government successfully pressured the other 53 ranchers off their land. Several died of heart attacks in the process.

The federal government wants the Bundys gone, too. The family patriarch, who arms himself with a shirt-pocket-sized constitution, isn’t going anywhere.

The Bundy family and their loyal supporters, including an unorganized civilian militia and Oathkeeper members, dug their bulldog-style heels into the hot desert earth and stood their ground against a government pack who came in pairs and trios in their big, shiny new trucks and SUVs that numbered between 80 to 100.

There were uniformed agents from the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, camo-garbed military, SWAT teams, police, snipers on the hillside and miscellaneous recruits armed with AR-15s, M16s, sidearms, Tasers and attack dogs.

One of the uniformed thugs grabbed a petite woman, who had recently finished cancer treatments, and ground her head into the gravel.

Another ruffian tased Bundy’s son, Ammon. As each of four barbs penetrated his skin, he pulled them out. Blood stained his shirt above his heart.

A taser left his brother David with a large red welt on his swollen neck. He was arrested and taken to a Las Vegas jail, but soon released without any charges laid. He was thrown into the street with a sack lunch to find his own way home.

What this battery of bullies hadn’t counted on was the estimated 1,000-strong cavalry of supporters who came from all over Nevada and the U.S.. Men, women and children, some on foot, others on horseback.

Many are of the Morman faith. Before facing what could culminate into battle, they went down on their knees in prayer.

Then they lined up single file on the opposite side of the barricade. They were mounted on beautiful steeds armed with American, Nevada and “Don’t Tread on Me” flags that waved atop long staffs planted firmly in their stirrups.

Draped from saddles were coiled lassos. They were skilled at twirling rope and could drop a loop over one of those federal hombre’s necks as easily as they could throw a maverick cow.

Some on the line of defense were armed with cowboy-style pistols dangling open-carry from hip holsters. Some were packing high-powered, sheathed rifles. Anybody not armed with guns could hurl rocks, cow turds and epithets.

The pea-brained bureaucrats, knowing zilch about cattle, rounded up and imprisoned some 300 head for auction.

These days, under Agenda 21 terms, this action is called property “forfeiture”. Proceeds help fund BLM’s shenanigans. In the old days, stealing cattle was called “rustling”; rustlers were hanged with rope.

No livestock auction could legally sell the animals unless Bundy signed off the registrations and brands, anyway. As it was, BLM’s promise of goods to be brought to the auction block was worthless. The dead cattle and the ones ultimately released from bondage to the rightful owners could not be sold.

At the relevant time, temperatures were soaring as high as 80 to 90 degrees F. The rustlers disconnected the cattle’s water supply lines, as well as damaging other vital infrastructure.

In further display of animal cruelty, they herded the confused beasts by helicopter across that hot desert until an estimated 132 out of a 1,000-head — worth up to $1,500 each — expired from heat exhaustion or were shot dead by those brave bureaucrats.

Gruesome pictures can be viewed in Info Wars’ April 20th article Bundy Family Unearths BLMs Mass Cattle Grave”.

To kill the two prize, secured Brahma-mix bulls — worth over $2,500 each — would have required an extremely high-powered weapon. The bureaucrats, who had no matador or bull- riding training, claimed the majestic animals were “a safety hazard”.

No joke? When incited, these huge, ornery-tempered bulls charge. A couple of greenhorns would have looked good swinging by the seat of their pants from those horns.

Not only were these thugs killing cattle, they have euthanized hundreds–if not thousands–of “endangered” desert tortoises, the very species the bureaucrats were supposed to be protecting.

Instead, these brilliant boys were environmental wreckers. They rounded up cattle that keep the brush cropped short to prevent brush fires from damaging tortoise habitats, and provide the cow pies for the little dome-shelled creatures’ high-protein diet.

Unbelievably, the corporate-owned news media ignored the whole mess…well, up until the popular alternative media InfoWars blasted the news over live Internet radio and TV and posted a myriad of articles and videos on its website.

From his Austin,Texas-based command center, broadcast dynamo Alex Jones, who comes from a long line of ranchers, immediately recognized the Nevada land dispute as Agenda 21 personified. His hometown, the capital of the Lone Star State, is the epitome of Agenda 21 implementation.

Jones dispatched two sleuths, journalist extraordinaire David Knight and cameraman Josh Owens, on a week’s assignment in Nevada.

In his inimitable style, Jones, and his ace InfoWarriors, blew the lid off the whole fiasco. It was crony capitalists thieving from the Nevada constituents while working in the shadows of the vile Agenda 21 and free-trade agreements.

It seems a Chinese billionaire named Wang Yusuo, the founder of energy giant ENN, teamed up with U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who owns Nevada and its residents, to capitalize on a few little incentives.

One mega deal involved a land-grab 113 miles southeast of Las Vegas that ENN sought to buy for peanuts. The land, appraised at $38.6 million, was for sale to the ChiComs for $4.5 million — less than one-eighth of the land’s assessed value.

Senator Reid, caught red-handed bilking his state and constituents, was sore at the cattlemen and their supporters’ interference. He resorted to demonizing them as “potential terrorists”.

The major news networks eventually showed up on site. Not one outfit mentioned Agenda 21–not even Fox News who gave the best coverage with discussions about constitutional and property rights at issue in the Bundy case.

Around April 12, some high mucky-muck agreed the troops should “stand down”. Nevada Deputies came to give the dudes 30 minutes to release the rest of the impounded cattle and to haul their sorry asses and bruised egos out of the area.

They vamoosed, leaving a trail of earth-defacing litter behind. But the government will no doubt regroup with a fresh crop of hired guns to continue the insanity that could escalate into an unwelcome civil war.

Unfortunately, it might be what has to happen to at least bring attention to and cripple the insidious Agenda 21.



A Knightly News Broadcast

by Jane Gaffin

InfoWars Nightly News video/podcast broadcast of April 16, 2014 is well-worth taking a half hour out of anybody’s time to listen to in its entirety.

In the final five minutes, David Knight, the host with the golden voice, presents an impressive summary of a troublesome subject in which a malfeasant federal government is overthrowing constitutional rights in rapid-fire succession.

This problem is not just happening in America. It is being rolled out in every free society in the world as United Nations Agenda 21 proponents and their Marxist puppets illegally barge into people’s lives to usurp constitutional rights and freedoms for a one-size-fits-all government.

Mr. Knight’s succinct message to his worldwide audience was sparked by a classic Cliven Bundy cattle-grazing saga that came to a head in Nevada in April of this year. The feud culminated over the Bureau of Land Management’s control of land that the federal government has seemingly stolen.

“We have scores of alphabet agencies that write regulations that can shut down your small businesses or even entire industries,” Mr. Knight said.

“They can seize your property without compensation, not using eminent domain, not even giving you a jury trial,” he noted. “They judge the laws to see if you’re guilty of their own laws, then enforce them with their own police forces.”

Interjected into the InfoWars broadcast was a video clip of a ditzy UK talking head, conversing with her supportive male mate on a British network, who believes going to the polls salves all wounds. “That’s why we have elections,” the ditzy dame chirped.

Mr. Knight’s rebuttal to that idiotic statement was that the Bureau of Land Management isn’t on his ballot nor on anybody else’s ballot to be voted for or against.

“It’s not just taxation without representation, it’s regulation without representation,” Mr. Knight said.

What he is leading up to at this point is that the inalienable rights laid out in the Constitution needs to be back where the founders intended for those fundamental principles to be divided rightfully and lawfully among the federal, state and “we the people”.

“The founders were concerned that the power would be consolidated into one place,” continued Mr. Knight.

“That’s why they created a system of checks and balances. Dividing power–not just between the three branches of government [executive, legislative, judicial] but between the federal government, the state governments and the people,” he stated, emphasizing that “The 10th Amendment matters. Enclave clause matters. The Constitution matters.”

Basically, the founders tagged the first nine amendments of the Bill of Rights to reiterate that if they had inadvertently overlooked something, then the 10th Amendment is a final command for the federal government to “forget it; you can’t do that either”!

“We need officials at the state and local levels who will obey the Constitution,” Mr. Knight asserted.

“(Officials) who understand how important it is to have a balance between federal and state governments; who have the backbone to stand up and to do their constitutional duty. That’s the only way we’re going to get control and balance back in our government.”

What Mr. Knight is addressing in his Nightly News broadcast are the real issues surrounding the Bundy case. The situation has nothing to do with any endangered desert tortoise nor whether or not he defaulted on a bogus cattle-grazing fee of a million dollars, which, when examined closer, $200,000 was the more realistic sum, anyway.

Regardless of amount, the BLM never sent an invoice for outstanding fees which he is adamant he will not pay to the federal agency. He doesn’t recognize the feds as the legitimate “stewards” of the lands, as Agenda 21 would call the agency.

The 65-year-old rancher, whose forefathers predate the BLM in that valley back to about 1877, would gladly submit payment to Clark County, Nevada, where he resides and runs his cattle.

“The vilification of the Bundy family is in full force now by the main stream media who are trying to paint Bundy as a lawbreaker, tax evader and label him as part of a Sovereign Citizen Movement, a hot button label that effectively puts a bounty on his head as a ‘terrorist’, as far as law enforcement is concerned,” Mr. Knight concluded his evening broadcast.

The noun “sovereign” he mentions, as in Sovereign Citizen Movement, is another perfectly-good word highjacked under provisions of Agenda 21.

The warm and cozy-sounding Sovereign Citizen Movement has come to denote a bunch of lawless ragtag believers who reject statutes at federal, state or municipal levels while recognizing only common law on which many of free societies’ statutes are based.


The Charter: Dismantling Democracy

by Jane Gaffin

This article was originally published in the Whitehorse Star on April 26, 2002 in recognition of the Canadian Constitution Act’s 20th anniversary.

April 17, 2013 will mark its 31st anniversary and interpretations have grown worse–not better–as the Constitution and its Charter centerpiece continue to age into an obsolescence trumped by politically-correct Marxism under advisement of the United Nations.

These documents are supposed to reign as paramount law of the land until repealed, which would bring on rebellious attention of a tyrannical government in the wings. So, the documents linger at the door, ignored or trounced, dismantled in slow motion, by such government offenders as lawmakers, law enforcers, Crown prosecutors, activist judges, human rights commissions, and the like.


The Charter of Rights and Freedoms–the important centerpiece of the Constitution Act of 1982–has been doing damage to democracy since the brainchild of the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was enacted 20 years ago (1982).

The Charter has removed governance from the hands of elected parliamentarians and placed the power for deciding political policy with nine appointed justices of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Since the majority of laws are not charter-proof, the contentious ones blatantly infringing on civil liberties, like the firearms act and anti-terrorism legislation that are destined to wind up for a constitutional airing in the highest court.

As a result, the Charter has expanded the justice system into the nation’s biggest growth industry.

Anything one may have learned in civics class about fairness, natural justice and legality upheld by the courts is becoming obsolete. Interpretation of the constitution is swinging away from judicial restraint in favour of ruling by politically-correct judicial activism.

Much to the horror of traditionalists, who hold to principles of applying only law that is there and nothing else, judicial activism interprets the constitution as a “living” document. A judge makes up stuff that isn’t there and moves things around that is there to come out with the desired results in the name of “social justice”. (Another term for the societal adjustment which Communist Manifesto author Karl Marx declared “equity” in his crusade to exterminate the middle class.)

Heated arguments rage in both Canada and the United States as to whether a constitution should be treated as an organism or as a legal document.

In one camp are those who believe judges should issue rulings based on the whims of society and the influences of special-interest groups who want to control the lives of others.

In the other camp are those who fear anything short of judges sticking to the law will dismantle democracy and put ordinary citizens at high risk to be judged wrongly or unfairly.

The disagreement has increased the cry for Supreme Court justices to be elected.

In Canada, the Supreme Court justices are essentially hand-picked appointees of the prime minister without further scrutiny; in the United States, justices are appointed by the president but must be confirmed by Congress.

An equal number of sitting Democrats and Republicans has made it difficult for President George Bush to fill 99 vacancies on federal benches with his nominees. The Republican president wants only federal judges who will interpret rather than make the law; the Democrats will only approve judicial activists.

If, however, judges were elected, voters would have to choose them on their political positions and not on their ability to interpret the law. It would open the ugly possibility for judicial corruption.

Even the most principled candidates would need a political agenda and campaign donations. Whoever pays the piper could call the tunes and get the “best justice”–whether it be lawyers, big corporations or good-old-boy political cronies.

Elected judges is not the concern. The real problem is judicial restraint having been trumped by judicial activism.

Earlier this month, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada came to Whitehorse (April 4, 2002) to give a public lecture about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Beverly McLachlin likened the Charter to a “living tree”, a term dating back to 1929 when a spokesman for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council opined that the Canadian Constitution should not be regarded as “frozen” but should be seen as a “living tree”, capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits. In this respect, women were recognized as persons.

Survey polls have indicated about 82 percent of Canadians would like to “canonize” Trudeau for his constitutional centerpiece which they believe provides a unique identity for Canada unlike any other nation has.

A smaller percentage of the population would just as soon have “cannonized” the former prime minister for unraveling 115 years of a perfectly-functional constitution and bequeathing supremacy for policy-making to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Regardless of which camp one sits in, there is no end to discontent swirling around decisions flowing from the Charter, a document signed into law by Trudeau and Queen Elizabeth on April 17, 1982.

Translating broad statements of rights into functional doctrine and finding the right balance have led to an increased recognition of the importance of context, policy and philosophy in judging, said Chief Justice McLachlin.

Judges used to never acknowledge those three words as part of their jobs, she continued. But the Charter has forced judges to acknowledge that before making decisions that affect people’s lives or government policy, judges must have some understanding of the circumstances in context with the problem and the implications of deciding one way or the other.

Traditional decisions can have important policy ramifications and judges now face difficult philosophical issues, she added.

But through this process she hopes Canada can develop a Charter interpretation that will serve the country quite well. Judges have to think about these thing when crafting the rules.

“You can make it fairly definite but you want to keep enough flexibility so that if (big issues) change or it turns out what you’re doing is having problems, you can shift it around.

“The Charter, quite simply, is our ‘made in Canada’ way of dealing with our problems, and, I, for one, think we are fortunate to have it,” she concluded.

Still, the Canadian Constitution can be compared to the U.S. Constitution by virtue that the laws of both countries stem from English common law that evolved from the Magna Carta to become “the Supreme Law of the Land”.

It was only natural that the principles of British common law found their way to British-controlled Canada. By the same token, the English emigrates who sailed across the ocean to establish American colonies also embraced the British legal system they knew and admired.

“Now, judicial usurpation of democratic self-government is not a uniquely Canadian phenomenon,” noted Ian Hunter in a recent “Natioinal Post ” article.

The professor emeritus in the faculty of law, University of Western Ontario, drew on the words of Robert Bork, a former U.S. Appeal Court judge and a Supreme Court nominee. “Our country is being radically altered, step by step, by justices who are not following any law.”

Hunter also enforced his point by quoting an excerpt from a profound dissenting opinion written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, an “originalist” who holds tenaciously to a philosophy that the U.S. Constitution is a legal document.

“What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become justices of the court,” wrote the articulate Scalia, appointed to the Supreme Court bench by former Republican President Ronald Regan in 1987.

“Day by day, case by case, (the court) is busy designing a constitution for a country I do not recognize.”

Two years ago, Scalia took his judicial philosophy to two separate crowds of 500 each on a university campus in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

He was reported to be unpopular because of his refusal to view the Constitution as a “living” document. Altering the Constitution’s meaning just because society changes is “seductive”, he declared.

“The Constitution is not an ‘organism’,” emphasized the justice whose strong stance is to preserve and protect the document’s original meaning.

Judges who don’t adopt an “originalist” or “textualist” approach have no judicial philosophy and are issuing rulings based on the majority view of society at a given time, he said.

It has only been within the past 40 years that U.S. justices like Earl Warren began to see the Constitution as an evolutionary document that could be interpreted differently with the passage of time.

The socialistic notion slipped over into Canada where judges, and much of the public, support the “living” concept, thus allowing the Constitution to say anything one wants it to say.

Scalia is adamant that the Constitution must remain static. “But that doesn’t mean laws cannot change to reflect changes in society,” he suggested.

Meanwhile, many judges treat the Constitution and statutes as if they were written in disappearing ink.

“Activist judges recognize the parts they like, ignore the ones they don’t, and simply re-write the parts they think should be updated or change,” scoffed Thomas Jipping, who deals with legal and democracy matters for the Free Congress Foundation.

Rather than servants to the law, activist judges have set themselves up as masters of the law, he stressed.