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.

*******

Advertisements

Canadian Banks: They Are Now Legalized Bandidos

by Jane Gaffin

Government documents are masterminded by professional con-artist word jockeys who intentionally frustrate the general public’s comprehension with Orwellian Doublespeak.

I faced this dilemma when trying to make sense out of the rosy-sounding “Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity, an Economic Action Plan 2013” that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tabled in the House of Commons on March 21. http://www.budget.gc.ca/2013/doc/plan/budget2013-eng.pdf.

The 433 pages of verbiage calls for implementing a comprehensive risk management framework for Canada’s systemically important banks in the “unlikely” event that “one of” the banks “becomes non-viable”.

I would have simplified the last part to read: “…in the ‘given’ event that the banks ‘crash’”, which is evidently the expected outcome.

The signs are hovering all around Canada as banks of the Western World grapple with financial disasters. After the bankruptcies, the six big U.S. central banks that created the shambles step over the rubble with a “Hi, we’re here to bail you out”.

Only the Economic Action Plan doesn’t mention the passé term “bail out”. Instead, it discusses “bail in”, the current bureaucratic cover-up for robbing customer accounts!

“The Government proposes to implement a ‘bail-in’ regime for systemically important banks…This will reduce risks for taxpayers. The Government will consult stakeholders on how best to implement a ‘bail-in’ regime in Canada.”

What’s the difference between “account holders” and “taxpayers”? Not much, except the government can extort bank accounts faster than it can taxes.

As the “legal right” for banks to burglarize customers’ deposits becomes standard practice in the Western World, the institutions don’t bother any more to cloak their chutzpah with lame excuses about inflation, unpaid debts, bad business decisions and international investment bungles.

Dollar Vigilante financial analyst Jeff Berwick’s interpretation is that: “…this government-guaranteed ability to raid deposits will make the banks act more recklessly and also guarantee that the deposits will be raided.”

Why would banks earning billions of dollars in profits every year and rewarding top brass with million-dollar annual bonuses need either “bail outs” or “bail ins”?

I suspect it’s a protective shield should the Canadian banks lose playing risky gambling games, or if the Bank of International Settlements reneges on debts because too much funny money is circulating in the artificial marketplace, exacerbated by the BitCoin.

Another factor is that some 20 years ago the United Nations decided everybody should be afforded the dignity of owning a house. Interest rates were low. And banks were forced to hold mortgages and approve loans even when the jobless, debt-ridden borrower obviously couldn’t repay.

Another interesting tidbit from the Economic Plan says: “Canada’s large banks are a source of strength for the Canadian economy. Our large banks have become increasingly successful in international markets…” (page 144).

Indeed, the banks have been endowed with a large digital money supply (they want more) to compete with the Big Boys in the high-stake global financial markets, especially gambling on corrupt derivatives, a perfect place to lose both their shirt and shorts.

No amount of resources will stop the global central bank vultures from quickly picking Canada’s carcass too clean to even do an autopsy. Doesn’t matter. The account holders are on the line to provide a full “bail in” rescue.

Mr. Berwick stressed that fact in his article titled “Canadian Deposits As Safe As Cypriot Deposits” http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2013/4/1/canadian-deposits-as-safe-as-cypriot-deposits.html: “The big banks in Canada will get to take on enormous risks in pursuit of greater profits for themselves without having to worry about their losses.”

He further cautioned that: “After all, any losses will now be covered by the bank customers money that they put in there with the crazy notion that it would be safe from theft.”

Another Economic Plan nugget states: “The Government also recognizes the need to manage the risks associated with… those banks whose distress or failure could cause a disruption to the financial system and, in turn, negative impacts on the economy.

“This requires strong prudential oversight and a robust set of options for resolving these institutions without the use of taxpayer funds…”

A while back, economist Mark Carney, an international superstar and outgoing Bank of Canada governor, rang alarm bells over extreme individual household debt, the kind that banks lured low-income people into with easy credit.

Economists have harped about the more than 10 years that household spending has exceeded disposable income, leaving consumers so far in hock they can’t repay loans, and the “too-big-to-fail” banks are overextended with risky loans.

In my not-so-humble opinion, the banks are culpable for their own misdeeds. But it’s the no-fault customers who are penalized with mopping up the mess.

The debt build-up “is going to end in tears”, Chief TD economist Craig Alexander once predicted. http://www.thedailybell.com/28905/As-Canada-Collapses-Do-We-Need-to-Ask-Why

News Flash! It’s going to end in a lot worse than tears.

The best two-step method for freezing society dead in its tracks and destroying the middle class is to first seize all the people’s money and safety deposit boxes, then confiscate their real property, most of which the banks own.

Canada has cunningly provided an Economic Plan that is a dead-ringer for establishing the United Nations’ dream of a totalitarian nightmare. The mass population will be instantly paralyzed serfs put at the mercy of complete government control.

Carney’s legacy, before accepting his new role as Bank of England’s governor on June 1, was to order the banks to rein in student loans, auto loans, credit card debts, mortgages and anything else on the books.

Obviously, he meant by hook or by crook. Yet most bank managers and frontline employees seem unaware–or do not want to reveal–that new strategically-located theft departments were set up covertly more than a year ago.

It is hard to get one’s mind wrapped around the possibility of a bank failure since Canada’s banking system is the darling of the world.

Its top rating appears to be attributable to regulation by a federal government that also controls an endless supply of taxpayers’ dollars and is the proud owner of a printing press. It also operates a sophisticated computer system, designed to divvy out digital dollars and run hacker software to commit larceny without leaving telltale fingerprints.

The only logical reason I can figure for an anticipated bank failure here would be by rogue design.

For many years, Canada’s five major banks have yearned to merge capital into two mega-banks. So far, administrations have rejected the request. Something to do with prudence and a pesky Bank Act.

Regardless of what is currently transpiring behind closed doors in Ottawa, Canadians, raised on ideals that banks are honest, are far from ready to accept the thought that they may be dealing with a bunch of bandidos.

However, many Canadians and Americans, already stung with account seizures and daily withdrawal restrictions, have turned to credit unions.

I can’t vouch for credit unions, but a knowing senior teller once advised me: “If you don’t want banks seizing your money don’t leave money in your accounts.”

It is still in vogue, however, that if customers catch a “careless” or “manipulated” mistake and complain loudly, the banks usually will reimburse the account so not to draw attention to the truth.

Nevertheless, banks prey on negligent customers who have come to depend entirely on direct deposits, automatic payments, credit and debit card transactions. Customers who don’t keep ATM and debit card receipts, don’t review monthly credit card and bank statements, and don’t reconcile personal records are particularly vulnerable to surprise thefts.

Gerald Celente, a New York-based Trends Forecaster and gold broker who’s been fleeced by financial institutions to the tune of six figures, keeps reiterating: “If your money is not in your pocket, you don’t own it.”

*******