Bank of Canada Lawsuit

[GostHacked]

This story seems to be flying under the radar of the MSM. I wonder why.

http://www.comer.org/content/Appeal2.htm

The Betrayal of Canadians

Our governments have given over their powers to private banks. The citizen’s lawsuit challenges this transfer of use and power. No Canadian political party sitting in our government acknowledges the legitimacy of this lawsuit let alone joins us in it, choosing instead complicity in this treason. Some say they are just ignorant. On the other hand, Rosemary Brown said, “Silence can be golden. But sometimes, it’s just plain yellow.” (Rosemary Brown was the first black woman member of a provincial legislature, in BC.)

This lawsuit is one kind of step for citizens to gain back our power. Our government is taking every possible step it can using our own tax dollar to fight us every inch of the way. They are acting to keep us “slaves of the bankers,” and making us “pay the cost of our (own) slavery.”

In 1938, the Bank of Canada was nationalized. It is empowered to regulate credit and currency in the best interest of the economic life of Canada. Until 1974 it did that as government obtained from the Bank of Canada some of the money it needed (25 to 50%) to run the country at low or no interest rates rather than borrowing all from private banks at much higher rates of interest.

The government used the Bank of Canada to help finance WW2, build the Trans-Canada Highway and the St. Lawrence Seaway, finance social programs like the Canada Pension plan, Medicare – all without undue debt or inflation.

The Bank of Canada is the only “public” central bank created by statute and accountable to the legislative and executive branches to be found in any of the G-8 nations. All other central banks are “private” banks and are not directly created nor governed by legislation nor directly accountable nor reportable to the legislative or executive branches of the governments of the nations in which they operate.

I think this dispels the notion that Canada has a sound monetary policy and that our economy is stable. I kept asking questions as to who or what a nation would be in debt to. I think this starts to clear some of that up.

Edited March 5, 2015 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

Quite a poorly written article. The first few paragraphs are not clear, which is unfortunate because the subject is so dense and difficult that only crystal clear communication and objectivity could help bringing light to it.

It's an appeal of some kind on a court decision on some kind of case to bring change to our national banking laws. But they don't do a good job of explaining what the original case was. The appeal is based on a few points including:

"that justiciability is a doctrine that is normally and properly invoked where the Court essentially does not have the expertise, or is incapable, at the end of the day, to come to a judicial determination of the issue because it is beyond the scope of what a Court does;"

How is that for a mouthful ?

We've visited this topic in the past, and while I agree that we need more national dialogue on such topics - COMER (the group involved) is clearly not the ones to help us. I would appreciate any MLW member who can objectively explain the status quo and the points being made by COMER to put up their hand and help with this.

[Michael Hardner]

Here's another article. I haven't read it, I'll do so later:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-case-to-reinstate-the-bank-of-canada/5430132

It also explains why this is news in 2015, which I don't think the first link did but honestly I didn't get past the first few paragraphs.

[TimG]

We've visited this topic in the past, and while I agree that we need more national dialogue on such topics - COMER (the group involved) is clearly not the ones to help us. I would appreciate any MLW member who can objectively explain the status quo and the points being made by COMER to put up their hand and help with this.

I believe COMER is nothing more than "freemen of the land" conspiracy nonsense. I noticed that no one seems to have posted the actual text of the court judgement but as far as I can tell they are claiming victory because the government's motion that the suit should immediately dismissed was rejected. It does not mean they have been vindicated on any part of their claim.

Edit: here are the actual judgements. If you want objective analysis start there:

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/62535/index.do?r=AAAAAQAFQ09NRVIAAAAAAQ

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/72554/index.do?r=AAAAAQAFQ09NRVIAAAAAAQ

They lost the first case so badly they were not allowed to refile with different claims. In the second case they won the right to refile with amended claims but their initial loss was upheld. Not much of a victory.

Edited March 5, 2015 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The second article I posted a link to seems to be a sympathetic source however it's a much clearer encapsulation of the issues at hand. I'll continue later, this is a weighty topic.

[GostHacked]

From what I understand is the Bank of Canada has not been adhering to constitutional articles that govern how the Bank of Canada should operate. It's not playing by the constitutional rules.

From Tim Gs article.

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/72554/index.do?r=AAAAAQAFQ09NRVIAAAAAAQ

[3] The Plaintiffs brought a novel proposed class action proceeding alleging that the Defendants have acted in ways that are unlawful, unconstitutional and tortious in their handling of monetary and budgetary policy and administration in Canada. In their Claim, the Plaintiffs sought a number of declarations that the Defendants are required by the Constitution and the Bank of Canada Act, RSC, 1985, c B-2 [bank Act] to take, or refrain from, certain actions relating to their handling of fiscal and monetary matters, described further below. They also sought a declaration that the Defendants, along with certain international monetary and financial institutions, have “engaged in a conspiracy… to render impotent the Bank Act, as well as Canadian sovereignty over financial, monetary, and socio-economic policy…,” with injurious consequences to the Defendants and all Canadians. On the basis of this alleged tortious conduct, Charter breaches, as well as alleged breaches of the Constitution, the Plaintiffs sought damages in the amount of $10,000 for each Plaintiff and, should the action be certified as a class action proceeding, $1.00 for “every Canadian citizen/resident” as determined by the last census.

I'll make note of the bail outs that were not a bail out. CBIC settled lawsuits for banking practices. Royal Bank of Canada caught up in LIBOR.

[5] The nine declarations sought in the Claim relate to three basic assertions: first, that the Bank Act provides for interest-free loans to the federal and provincial, as well as municipal, governments for the purposes of “human capital expenditures,” and the Defendants have failed to fulfill their legal duties to ensure such loans are made, resulting in lower human capital expenditures by governments to the detriment of all Canadians; second, that the government of Canada [Government] uses flawed accounting methods in describing public finances, thereby understating the benefits of human capital expenditures and undermining Parliament’s constitutional role as the guardian of the public purse; and third, that these and other harms are the result of the fact that Canadian fiscal and monetary policy is being controlled by private foreign interests through Canada’s involvement in international monetary and financial institutions.

This lawyer in Toronto was the only one to challenge a Quebec court nomination which the laws state the person being nominated needed to be a current working lawyer. The man was not and the nomination was blocked. It was not constitutional, and if it was not challenged, an illegal court judge would have been appointed. On the surface that might not mean much, but if a judge is there illegally then whatever he/she rules on can be considered null and void.

This case is about 2 years in the making from what I understand (Bank of Canada).

All in all it is showing that there is a lot of foreign control within our monetary and banking systems. That should not be the case.

[GostHacked]

The banking system seems to have been privatized, which is not constitutionally sound.

[GostHacked]

The crux here seems to be in how the Bank of Canada operates.

It is lending money to the government at interest (constitution states the money is lent out at no interest)

Domestic and foreign private banks have influence/control over how the BoC enacts the constitutionally mandated monetary policy.

- money is lent at interest guaranteeing long term perpetually increasing debt of a nation.

Where does this money go if it does not go back into Canada's pocket?

Edited March 5, 2015 by GostHacked

[TimG]

The banking system seems to have been privatized, which is not constitutionally sound.

"freemen" argue that income taxes violate their rights. they get laughed out of court. the banking system has always been private. central banks exist to make it stable.

[TimG]

It is lending money to the government at interest (constitution states the money is lent out at no interest)

Show me the exact line in the BNA act that says that.

Domestic and foreign private banks have influence/control over how the BoC enacts the constitutionally mandated monetary policy.

Nonsense. The banks only buy bonds with savings deposited by Canadians. The ultimate holder and beneficiary of these bonds are every Canadians who has a retirement plan (pension, mutual fund or GIC).

[GostHacked]

"freemen" argue that income taxes violate their rights. they get laughed out of court. the banking system has always been private. central banks exist to make it stable.

Red Herring.

This lawsuit specifically deals with the BoC's practices and that they no longer follow their constitutional mandate. Something that was changed long before most of us were born.

[TimG]

This lawsuit specifically deals with the BoC's practices and that they no longer follow their constitutional mandate. Something that was changed long before most of us were born.

Well, until you provide a link to the exact line in the constitution that stipulates what you claim, I will assume it is nothing more than the ravings of a conspiracy theorist. Edited March 6, 2015 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Well, until you provide a link to the exact line in the constitution that stipulates what you claim, I will assume it is nothing more than the ravings of a conspiracy theorist.

That's what some of you said about me before. But events keep proving my point. The conspiracy is that this is not getting reported like it should. I know if it ain't on Fox or CNN it's crazy tin-foil hat talk.

Rocco Galati is a constitutional lawyer and has been trusted into the spotlight over cases like Kadr. If the BoC is not following it's original constitutional mandate, then what is it doing? Why has Galati got major press for the terror case, but no press for this case? This seems way more important to me as it key to our nation's financial/economic situations. And if our economy is not sound, what does that mean for our nation?

[TimG]

That's what some of you said about me before. But events keep proving my point. The conspiracy is that this is not getting reported like it should. I know if it ain't on Fox or CNN it's crazy tin-foil hat talk.

It is nonsense because the claim makes no sense. If the constitution was written that way then all that says is the constitution is wrong and it needs to be amended by someone who actually understands how the banking system actually works. That is why I suspect this is a ridiculous interpretation of the wording rather than a literal reading. BTW - I searched for the words in question and found nothing which leads me to believe the entire suit is complete BS.

Rocco Galati is a constitutional lawyer and has been trusted into the spotlight over cases like Kadr.

So? Not ever case a lawyer takes on has equal merit. This guy seems to like losing causes.

Why has Galati got major press for the terror case, but no press for this case?

Because this case is about a group of loons making claims that make no sense to people who understand how the banking system is supposed to work.

But as I said: point us to the exact words in the constitution that are in question and we can discuss the substance of the suit. I personally don't believe the words exist so the onus is on you to produce them.

Edited March 6, 2015 by TimG

[Bob Macadoo]

It is nonsense because the claim makes no sense. If the constitution was written ....

Do we mean the Bank of Canada's constitution (ie. The document articling it's creation)? If so such a constitution could've easily been amended over the years with tucked away bills in the background......thereby stripping historical mandates in the silent of night.

[TimG]

Do we mean the Bank of Canada's constitution (ie. The document articling it's creation)? If so such a constitution could've easily been amended over the years with tucked away bills in the background......thereby stripping historical mandates in the silent of night.

The concept of interest free loans might make sense when the currency was limited by the reserves of gold, however, once the gold standard was dropped such provisions would have to be dropped as well.

[Bob Macadoo]

The concept of interest free loans might make sense when the currency was limited by the reserves of gold, however, once the gold standard was dropped such provisions would have to be dropped as well.

This is what I was thinking as well. Without the backing of gold the only "worth" money has is its ability to accumulate interest.....which overall doesn't mean much.

[TimG]

This is what I was thinking as well. Without the backing of gold the only "worth" money has is its ability to accumulate interest.....which overall doesn't mean much.

The primary job of the Bank of Canada is to manage the money supply and ensure it is large enough to meet the needs of the economy without making so large it leads to inflation. Making the government borrow money like any private player is the best way to ensure that the government does not suffocate the private sector.

If you think about it: if the government borrowed money at 0% it would be able to re-lend to private players at the same rate which would mean interest policies of the BoC would be irrelevant. That I why I think the lawsuit is nonsense.

Edited March 6, 2015 by TimG

[CPCFTW]

BoC lends to banks not the government. Also most of its assets are Canadian government bonds, which means they are reducing the government's borrowing costs. Any profits the BoC makes would flow to shareholders equity which is then paid as a dividends to the government of Canada.

[GostHacked]

The primary job of the Bank of Canada is to manage the money supply and ensure it is large enough to meet the needs of the economy without making so large it leads to inflation. Making the government borrow money like any private player is the best way to ensure that the government does not suffocate the private sector.

If you think about it: if the government borrowed money at 0% it would be able to re-lend to private players at the same rate which would mean interest policies of the BoC would be irrelevant. That I why I think the lawsuit is nonsense.

You are describing perpetual debt. That is what we have.

[TimG]

You are describing perpetual debt. That is what we have.

Any debt that someone has is an asset for someone else. Your ability to retire depends on someone else taking on debt. Edited March 8, 2015 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Any debt that someone has is an asset for someone else. Your ability to retire depends on someone else taking on debt.

Who is in debt so I can retire properly?

[TimG]

Who is in debt so I can retire properly?

If you have savings in GICs or bonds and you are getting interest directly from someone who has borrowed the money. If you invest in equities then you are making money from customers and businesses buy the products/services sold which are often purchased by businesses and consumers that take on debt.

[GostHacked]

If you have savings in GICs or bonds and you are getting interest directly from someone who has borrowed the money. If you invest in equities then you are making money from customers and businesses buy the products/services sold which are often purchased by businesses and consumers that take on debt.

Still not very clear.

[TimG]

Still not very clear.

Banks earn the money to pay the interest on GICs by lending the money.

If no one wanted borrow you would not be able to get interest.

Bonds are a case where you directly loan your savings to someone taking on debt and paying you interest.

If no one issued bonds you could not save money that way.

If you own stock in a car company that company only makes a profit if enough consumers take on debt in order to buy new cars.

If a company does not make a profit you can't money from stocks.

Edited March 9, 2015 by TimG