Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bank of Canada Challenged in Legal Action
12-21-2011, 01:34 AM,
#1
Bank of Canada Challenged in Legal Action
" Restore the Use of the Bank of Canada for Canadians"


Global Research, December 20, 2011

PRESS RELEASE TORONTO, ON., CANADA- 19/12/2011

ECONOMIC THINK TANK CONFRONTS THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL POWERS IN CANADIAN FEDERAL COURT.

RESTORE THE USE OF THE BANK OF CANADA FOR THE BENEFIT OF CANADIANS AND REMOVE IT FROM THE CONTROL OF INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE ENTITIES WHOSE INTERESTS AND DIRECTIVES ARE PLACED ABOVE THE INTEREST OF CANADIANS AND THE PRIMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

Canadian constitutional lawyer, Rocco Galati, on behalf of Canadians William Krehm, and Ann Emmett, and COMER (Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform) on December 12th, 2011 filed an action in Federal Court, to restore the use of the Bank of Canada to its original purpose, by exercising its public statutory duty and responsibility. That purpose includes making interest free loans to municipal/provincial/federal governments for “human capital” expenditures (education, health, other social services) and /or infrastructure expenditures.

The action also constitutionally challenges the government’s fallacious accounting methods in its tabling of the budget by not calculating nor revealing the true and total revenues of the nation before transferring back “tax credits” to corporations and other taxpayers.

The Plaintiffs state that since 1974 there has been a gradual but sure slide into the reality that the Bank of Canada and Canada’s monetary and financial policy are dictated by private foreign banks and financial interests contrary to the Bank of Canada Act.

The Plaintiffs state that the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) 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 over-riding governments and constitutional orders in countries such as Canada over which they exert financial control.

The Plaintiffs state that the meetings of the BIS 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.

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.

A press conference will be held on Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. to answer any questions the media may have of the Plaintiffs at: 637 College Street, Suite 203, Toronto, Ontario.

See also http://www.comer.org/index.htm
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply
12-21-2011, 03:09 AM,
#2
RE: Bank of Canada Challenged in Legal Action
Awesome. I'll be following this closely.
[Image: randquote.png]
Reply
12-31-2011, 09:14 AM,
#3
RE: Bank of Canada Challenged in Legal Action




Here's a little research of my own on the Bank of Canada.

Crown Corporation Ownership :: Case Study - Royal Ownership of The Bank of Canada
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=39628

In short the rules/laws/statutes of accountability, transparency, responsibility and ownership of the Bank of Canada need to be rewritten in large part; along with agreements to the BIS/IMF and other international economic trade treaties which are too many to list.

More information on Canadian/International trade agreements current and pending, including Canada's WTO member agreement established in 1995.. here's a fairly comprehensive listing:

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/index.aspx?lang=eng&menu_id=57&view=d

This is a civil suit The claimants are suing for money and the Comer case is weak, being full of holes.

Their stated case is for sovereignty, increased government spending, interest free loans and a change in policy to increase the lending from the vehicle of the Bank of Canada.

Quote:Call for Renaisssance of the Bank of Canada

We civil society organizations who work for public welfare in Canada, depending heavily on dedicated volunteers, are constantly frustrated in our efforts to obtain government funding to meet urgent human and environmental needs. We are repeatedly informed that there is never enough money available, and that now we are entering a period of inescapable austerity required to overcome growing public debts. We are told that public funds – essential for infrastructure repair, for health and medical care, for education, for poverty reduction, for social justice, and for environmental protection – not only cannot be increased despite urgent unmet needs, but must be cut, and public assets for providing public services, must be privatized.

We are deeply concerned about government deficits and debt, and also about the heavy personal debts borne by Canadian citizens. Indeed we believe that governmental and personal debt should be taken far more seriously, and dealt with by far more radical means than the usual austerity programs involving cuts to social programs and privatization. Such measures have already been experienced as profoundly unjust. They shift debt burdens to individual Canadian citizens, especially to the most needy, bankrupting and impoverishing many.

Meanwhile, we see that wealthy individuals and corporations receive tax cuts they do not need, and that they often use tax havens to escape such taxes as they do owe. Lowering taxes for the rich is regularly justified by the argument that they invest their savings to create employment, but we see little evidence to support this claim. We see further that our federal government makes billions available for a controversial war, for expensive, inappropriate new weapon systems, and for unnecessary new prisons, while poverty and environmental damage continue to increase. A just tax system, wisely spent, could go a long way toward promoting the human and environmental welfare to which we are committed. But changes in our tax system are not enough to deal adequately with our debt problems.

Crucial to our governmental debt problems is the fact that our governments at all levels borrow from private banks and from other private money-lenders, and pay interest on these debts. Each year governments across Canada presently pay some $60 billion in interest on their debts, and as these debts increase, with interest rates probably rising, this enormous annual burden for taxpayers will increase. But this interest expense is not necessary.

Through our publicly owned Bank of Canada, which was established in 1935, the federal government has the power to borrow money in huge quantities essentially interest-free, and to make such funds available not only for its own use, but also for provincial and municipal expenditures. Such borrowing helped Canada to get out of the Great Depression, and to finance its participation in World War II. Continuance of this practice until about 1975 played a key role in creating Canada's post-war prosperity and in making possible its social programs.

As federal governments, which control the Bank of Canada, increasingly catered to the private commercial banks, this practice greatly declined. Governments at all levels throughout Canada increasingly had to resort to borrowing from the private banks and other private moneylenders, including foreign sources. Moreover, the Bank of Canada in the late 1970s began raising interest rates as its primary tool for fighting inflation, driving the economy into recession in the early 1980s and again in the early 1990s. These changes from the original mandate of the Bank of Canada, combined with tax reductions for the wealthy, rapidly increased the debts of governments at all levels, and served as an alibi for implementing major cuts to social programs. Following some recent federal government economic stimulus in the current recession, the stage is now set for even more devastating cuts to our valued public services.

In line with policies pursued through the Bank of Canada during its first four decades, our federal government could revive the powers of the Bank of Canada to replace gradually interest bearing debt carried by governments at all levels with interest-free debt, and could make available interest-free loans for new projects. This change in monetary policy, combined with changes in tax policy, would make available each year tens of billions of dollars urgently needed for actions, which can only be taken by governments, to protect our environment from such dire threats as global warming, to rebuild and to improve our public infrastructure, and to strengthen social programs meeting human needs – notably medical care. Through such interest-free loans for infrastructure, for example, our governments, instead of paying for interest that could double or triple their investment expenses, could be paying only for the principal, thus freeing tax income for other programs. Moreover, government-funded construction would create jobs, stimulate additional economic activity, and significantly increase tax receipts.

Those who oppose the revival of this monetary policy invariably charge that it would be inflationary, even though it was managed in the past without significant inflation. As the government through the Bank of Canada creates growing quantities of our money supply, the power of private banks to create money needs to be restrained, as was possible until 1991, when the reserve requirement for the private banks was surreptitiously removed from the Bank Act. This provision to the Bank Act needs to be restored to prevent inflation, as can readily be done.

Therefore, we Canadian civil society organizations, who work for public welfare, call on our federal government to revive the powers of the Bank of Canada to provide funding to all levels of government in Canada, largely with interest-free loans, as was done between 1935 and 1975 with very low inflation, enabling our nation to break out of the Great Depression, to fulfill extraordinary responsibilities during World War II, and to prosper while building our infrastructure and highly valued social programs during some thirty post-war years. We Canadians now urgently need a renaissance of these powers of our Bank of Canada.

Endorse the Call

• • • ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR SUPPORTING THIS “CALL” • • •

Note: Our understanding of what is meant by "civil society organizations" will be interpreted broadly to include not only non-governmental organizations working for such causes as social justice, environmental protection, health and medical care, improvement of education, poverty reduction, and peace, here in Canada and abroad, but also to include unions, whether private or public sector, religious organizations, and even municipal councils, provincial governments and political parties. Through unifying our many voices in the "Call", all of us are strengthened in efforts to pressure our federal government to implement the urgently needed changes in monetary policy. We encourage each endorsing organization to post its support for the "Call" on its own website, with a link to the COMER website. Indeed we would be happy to have any other endorsing organizations, especially those at the national level, also to list all endorsers. The more visible the "Call" becomes, the more effective it can be.
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=39628

Here's the actual civil claim:

Code:
Statement of Claim - Bank of Canada Court Challenge

December 20th, 2011

Court File No.:T-2010-11



FEDERAL COURT

B E T W E E N:

COMMITTEE FOR MONETARY AND ECONOMIC REFORM (“COMER”), WILLIAM KREHM, AND ANN EMMETT

Plaintiffs

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, THE MINISTER OF FINANCE,

THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, THE BANK OF CANADA,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Defendants
STATEMENT OF CLAIM

(Pursuant to s.17 (1) and (5)(b) Federal Courts Act,

and s.24(1) and 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982)

(Filed this 12th day of December, 2011)
TO THE DEFENDANT:

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the Applicant. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or a solicitor acting for you are required to prepare a statement of defence in Form 171B prescribed by the Federal Courts Rules, serve it on the applicant’s solicitor or, where the applicant does not have a solicitor, serve it on the applicant, and file it, with proof of service, at a local office of this Court, WITHIN 30 DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served within Canada.

Copies of the Federal Courts Rules, information concerning the local offices of the Court and other necessary information may be obtained on request to the Administrator of this Court at Ottawa (telephone613-992-4238) or at any local office.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, judgment may be given against you in your absence and without further notice to you.

Date: December 12th, 2011 Issued by:



Address of local office:

Federal Court of Canada

180 Queen Street West, Suite 200

Toronto, Ontario M5V 3L6

TO: Department of Justice

Ontario Regional Office

First Canadian Place

The Exchange Tower

130 King Street West

Suite 3400, Box 36

Toronto, Ontario

M5X 1K6

AND TO: Bank of Canada

234 Wellington St.

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0G9
CLAIM

   1.

      The Plaintiffs claim:

   1.

      declarations that:

   1.

      the Minister of Finance, and Government of Canada is required to request, and that the Bank of Canada is statutorily required, when necessary, to make interest-free loans, on the terms set out under s.18 (i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act, RSC, 1985, c. B-2 (the “Act”) for the purposes of “human capital” expenditures and/or municipal/provincial/federal “human capital” and/or infrastructure expenditures;
   2.

      that the “Government of Canada”, the Minister of Finance, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, with the Bank of Canada,

A/ have abdicated their statutory and constitutional duties with respect to ss. 18(i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act which subsections read:

18. The Bank may



(i) make loans or advances for periods not exceeding six months to the Government of Canada or the government of a province on taking security in readily marketable securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any province;

(j) make loans to the Government of Canada or the government of any province, but such loans outstanding at any one time shall not, in the case of the Government of Canada, exceed one-third of the estimated revenue of the Government of Canada for its fiscal year, and shall not, in the case of a provincial government, exceed one-fourth of that government's estimated revenue for its fiscal year, and such loans shall be repaid before the end of the first quarter after the end of the fiscal year of the government that has contracted the loan;

B/ and further that the refusal to request and make (interest free) loans under s. 18(i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act has resulted in negative and destructive impact on Canadians by the disintegration of Canada’s economy, its financial institutions, increase in public debt, decrease in social services, as well as a widening gap between rich and poor with an continuing disappearance of the middle class;

   3.

      that s. 18(m) of the Bank of Canada Act, and its administration and operation, is unconstitutional and of no force and effect, in Parliament and the government, including the Defendant Minister of Finance, abdicating their duty to govern, and insofar, as monetary, currency and financial policies,per se, are concerned, and in turn as they effect socio-economic governance, have abdicated their constitutional duty(ies)and handed them over to those international, private entities, whose interests, and directives, are placed above the interests of Canadians, and the primacy of the Constitution of Canada, not only with respect to its specific provisions, but also with respect to the underlying constitutional imperatives, and which provision reads:

(m) open accounts in a central bank in any other country or in the Bank for International Settlements, accept deposits from central banks in other countries, the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and any other official international financial organization, act as agent or mandatary, or depository or correspondent for any of those banks or organizations, and pay interest on any of those deposits;

   4.

      that the maintaining of minutes of meetings by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, with other central bank “governors” from other states and federation(s), as secret and not open to parliamentary and public view and scrutiny, constitutes:
         1.

            ultra vires action by the Governor of the Bank of Canada contrary to inter alia, s. 24 of the Act;
         2.

            unconstitutional conduct by the Governor of the Bank of Canada;
   5.

      that the Parliament of Canada, in:
         1.

            allowing the Governor of the Bank of Canada to hold secret the nature and content of his meetings with other central bank(ers); and
         2.

            in not exercising the authority and duty contained in 18(i) and (j) of the Act; and
         3.

            enacting s. 18(m) of the Bank of Canada Act;

has unconstitutionally abdicated its duty and function as mandated by ss. 91 (1a), (3), (14), (15), (16), (18), (19) and (20) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as s. 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982;

   6.

      that the Minister of Finance is required to list expenditures(s) on “human capital”, including infrastructural capital expenditures relating to “human capital”, as an “asset” and not a “liability” with respect to budgetary accounting;
   7.

      that the Minister of Finance is required to list, in his budgetary accounting, all revenues collectedprior to the return of “tax credits” to individuals, and moreover, corporate taxpayers, with tax credits subtracted from the total revenue due, before subtracting total expenditures from total revenue, and arriving at either a budgetary “surplus” or “deficit” as required, inter alia, by s. 91(5) of theConstitution Act, 1867;
   8.

      that the defendants’ (officials) are wittingly and/or unwittingly, in varying degrees, knowledge, and intent, engaged in a conspiracy, along with the BIS, FSB, an IMF, to render impotent the Bank of Canada Act, as well as Canadian sovereignty over financial, monetary, and socio-economic policy, and in fact by-pass the sovereign rule of Canada, through its Parliament, by means of banking and financial systems, which conspiracy and elements of such tortious conduct are set out, in inter alia,Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959 namely:

         1.

            that the Defendants’ (officials), including and together with the BIS, engage(d) in an agreement for the use of lawful and unlawful means, and conduct, the predominant purpose of which is to cause injury to the Plaintiffs, and all other Canadians;
         2.

            that the Defendants’ (officials), including and together with the BIS, engage(d), in an agreement, to use unlawful means and conduct, whose predominant purpose and conduct directed at the Plaintiffs, and all other Canadians, is to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and all other Canadians, or the Defendants’ officials should know, in the circumstances, that injury to the Plaintiffs, and all other Canadians, is likely to, and does result;



   9.

      that the privative clause in s. 30.1 of the Bank of Canada Act,

A/ does not apply to the seeking of “judicial review”, by way of action or otherwise, of declaratory relief with respect to any statutory or constitutional ultra vires action and/or section of the Act, by way of declaratory relief, or any other prerogative remedy, available to hear and determine the statutory and/or constitutional limits or actions under the Act, in accordance with, inter alia, in Supreme Court of Canada’s pronouncement in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick [2008] 1 SCR 190, nor does it apply to seeking damages for ultra vires or unconstitutional damages:and

B/ if s.30.1 of the Bank of Canada Act is interpreted to so apply as a privative clause, then it is unconstitutional and of no force and effect for breaching the Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to judicial review, as well as breaching the underlying constitutional imperatives of Rule of Law, Constitutionalism, and Federalism;

   2.

      damages in the amount of:
               1.

                  $10, 000.00 per plaintiff; and
               2.

                  should the within action be certified as a class action proceeding, $1.00 (one dollar) for every Canadian citizen/resident, to be calculated based on the last population figure published in the last census, in accordance with s. 91(5) of theConstitution Act, 1867;

which damages are on account of:

               1.

                  the constitutional breaches pleaded in the statement of claim herein; and
               2.

                  the conspiracy pleaded in the statement of claim herein;
   1.

      such further declaratory and/or consequential injunctive and/or prerogative order and/or relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court grant;
   2.

      costs of this action and such further or other relief this Court deems just.

THE PARTIES

   2.

      (a) the Plaintiff, Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (hereinafter “COMER”) historically to date is an international economic “think-tank”, based in Toronto, and was established in 1970, dedicating itself to the monetary and economic reform policies of Canada and conducts research, analysis, and publication(s) on these issues. For the past 23 years it has published a monthly publication entitled COMER with articles and analysis from various authors including some of its own committee members. Its committee members have consisted of economists, academics, and published authors expert in their respective fields;

   2.

      the Plaintiff, William Krehm, is and has been a member of COMER, since its inception, and has devoted much of his life to the study, research, analysis and writing on economic, monetary, and social reform, and is a published author on economic and monetary reform, included various articles, papers, as well as books as recent as 2010;
   3.

      the Plaintiff, Ann Emmett, is a member of COMER, and has devoted much of her life to the study, research, analysis and writing on economic, monetary, and social reform, and is a published author on economic and monetary reform, included various articles, and papers, as recent as 2010;
   4.

      the Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen, is statutorily and constitutionally liable for the acts and omissions of her officials pursuant to s. 17 of the Federal Courts Act as well as s. 24(1) and 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
   5.

      the Defendant, the Minister of Finance, is statutorily and ultimately, with the consent of Governor-in-Council, responsible for overseeing both the Bank of Canada, as well as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, pursuant s.14 of the Bank of Canada Act, and the Minister of Finance is also, constitutionally, responsible for setting out the budgetary process, and expenditures for each session of Parliament, upon the appropriation request, through the taxing power, of Her Majesty the Queen, as set out in Her Parliamentary throne speech delivered by the Governor General for that purpose;
   6.

      the Defendant, the Minister of National Revenue, is statutorily responsible for administering theIncome Tax Act, and other Federal taxing statutes related to the collection of revenue through,inter alia, the taxing power, under s. 91(3) of the Constitution Act, 1867;

   2.

      the Defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, is, constitutionally, the Chief Legal Officer, responsible for and defending the integrity of all legislation, as well as responding to declaratory relief with respect to legislation, including with respect to its constitutionality and required to be named as a Defendant in any action for declaratory relief.
http://actionparty.ca/news/monetary-reform/statement-of-claim-bank-of-canada-court-challenge-/

So, in summary, we'll get a dollar each if successful. Payable to Canadians to members of COMER (approximately 32,000 by my math since there are about 32 Million Canadian Citizens) at $10K apeice. This will be collected on the behalf by 2 named representatives, namely WILLIAM KREHM and ANN EMMETT who stand to gain/disperse ~$32 Million.

Not only is this unilateral but a disproportionate claim since we, as Canadian Citizens, pay ~$170 Million EVERY DAY on interest alone to private banks on ONLY the federal interest payments.

If there is a settlement made does that mean that any future claims on ill gotten usurous federal funding are redundant since the BoC cannot be retired for the same civil crimes? If so COMER is doing a great disservice to Canadians, whether they win or not as it sets legal precedent with their half-baked claim.

Although I agree with some of it, it's more bad than good, if it wins and pays out to these individuals in a precedent setting class action claim against the Bank of Canada. It's good that people are paying more attention to it though, so as a publicity stunt this is all good. Get people to start thinking.

Nice catches by COMER in pointing out the interest bearing deposits allowed for UN appendages and foreign banks, obfuscated accounting practices and the special crown corporation disclosure exemptions audit and accountability the BoC is granted.

Related Torrent:

Oh Canada - Our Bought and Sold Out Land
http://concen.org/tracker/torrents-details.php?id=9794
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Rainbow End of Bank Foreclosures 4 Clear Title Holders ZeroCenter 9 3,190 05-25-2014, 10:41 PM
Last Post: ZeroCenter
  Frontrunning the stock market - legal theft of billions a year stiffy 0 610 04-11-2014, 05:24 AM
Last Post: stiffy
  'Dollar valueless, about to crash' - World Bank whistleblower SiLVa 11 2,724 04-07-2014, 10:52 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
  World Bank Accused Of Destroying Small Farms for Land Grabs mexika 0 602 04-03-2014, 06:26 PM
Last Post: mexika
Bug TruthJihad Interviews World Bank Whistleblowing Lawyer CharliePrime 0 754 11-25-2013, 08:50 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
  Bank Run in Canada? stiffy 8 1,755 04-11-2013, 11:16 PM
Last Post: stiffy
  CYPRUS : BANK RUNS HAVE STARTED ! shortwave 22 3,818 04-02-2013, 09:17 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
Information Wow That Was Fast! Libyan Rebels Have Already Established A New Central Bank Of Libya Nokturnal 37 10,940 11-24-2012, 06:30 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Keiser Report: Anti-Bank Currency icosaface 1 775 04-08-2012, 11:37 AM
Last Post: Zammo
Information Top U.S. Treasury Official In Europe For Talks On Sanctioning Iranian Central Bank FastTadpole 0 716 10-27-2011, 09:45 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)