Bank of Canada legal Case for Interest Free Loans. Scamming Canadians Since 1974

Bank of Canada legal Case for Interest Free Loans. Scamming Canadians Since 1974

maxresdefault

 

Canadian constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati  his legal case against his government and its abandonment of the Bank Of Canada (the rough equivalent of America’s Federal Reserve) to pay for government projects. The organization was incorporated in 1934 to allow the government to borrow money interest free for such things as public works projects and national healthcare. Galati says that from its inception, this is what it did and it worked very well. However, in 1974, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was convinced that money for government projects should henceforth be borrowed from the Bank Of International Settlements, a private consortium based in Europe. Although he was told that this would stabilize world financial markets, Galati described the resulting situation as “being enslaved to international loan sharks.”

Galati reminded US that this is not simply a Canadian issue, as it concerns most western democracies giving up economic control to private interests who are not answerable to any government, and that this situation has gotten much worse since the end of WWII. There are only a few countries who have bypassed this system for varying reasons, including China, India, Argentina, and Iceland. Galati says the yearly interest owed on loans to the Canadian Government exceeds the national military budget and “the healthcare budgets of several provinces,” to the tune of up to 40 billion Canadian dollars annually. In his legal case, Galati hopes to cast a spotlight on this issue and show how the situation is “a focused and indisputable case of how private interest can take away your government’s power.”

The Case to “Reinstate” the Bank of Canada

There is a very interesting legal case that is playing out in Canada at the moment. William Krehm, Anne Emmett, and Comer (The Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform: http://www.comer.org/) filed a lawsuit on December 12th, 2011, in Federal Court to try to force a restoration of the Bank of Canada to its mandated purposes. In essence, they want the Bank of Canada to provide interest-free loans to the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, as provided for in the Bank of Canada Act. This money would be used to finance public expenditures whenever there is a budgetary deficit. Apparently, the federal government used to borrow interest-free (to at least some extent) from the Bank of Canada up until 1974. At present, governments borrow all of the necessary money (apart from any bonds they may sell to the public) from private banks at the going rate of interest. Canadians are economically burdened with the resultant debt-servicing charges because the Bank of Canada does not make use of its prerogatives in the interests of the Canadian public. The case is being prosecuted by Rocco Galati, who is widely considered to be Canada’s top constitutional lawyer.

     The nature of the lawsuit has been explained on www.pressfortruth.ca in the following terms:

“TWO CANADIANS AND A CANADIAN ECONOMIC THINK TANK CONFRONT THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL POWERS IN THE CANADIAN FEDERAL COURT. THE CANADIANS PLEAD FOR DECLARATIONS THAT WOULD 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.” http://pressfortruth.ca/top-stories/case-reinstate-bank-canada/

 

     On the 26th of January, 2015, the latest appeal on behalf of the Crown to have the case dismissed was rejected by three judges in Federal Court in Toronto. The Federal government now has 60 days to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Cf. http://pressfortruth.ca/top-stories/update-bank-canada-vs-comer/. Interestingly enough, both the case itself and the various developments that have occured are not being covered at all by the mainstream media. While Mr. Galati’s other cases have regularly received wall-to-wall coverage across the country, this particular case, which he believes is probably his most important case to date, has so far been ignored. When questioned about this, Mr. Galati said that he has a firm basis for believing that the Canadian government has requested or ordered that the mainstream media not cover the case (he could not divulge his sources), and that, in his opinion, the government does control the media to a certain extent and on certain limited issues. He also added that he does not believe that we in Canada are living in a democracy. In fact, as far back as 1999, he has been on record as claiming that we have entered a ‘quiet dictatorship.’

     As far as its merits are concerned, Mr. Galati said that the case is on solid legal and constitutional grounds and his clients should win. Whether they will win or not is another question. As Mr. Galati has acknowledged: “Not all meritorious cases in our judicial system win”.

 

    From a Social Credit perspective, saving the taxpayer large sums of money and/or preserving the country from an increase in public indebtedness via the issuance of interest-free money from the Bank of Canada is certainly a good thing.[1] However, such a reform of the system does not address the fundamental problem with the present financial and economic orders: the chronic lack of consumer buying power. The macroeconomic gap between prices and incomes, which is primarily caused by how real capital (machines and equipment) are financed and how their costs are then accounted for under existing conventions, is THE issue which needs to be addressed. In the main, the present system deals with the gap by filling it with additional debt-money from the private banking system in the form of public, corporate, and consumer debts. In lieu of these palliatives, a Social Credit system would fill the gap with ‘debt-free’ money and distribute it to consumers, directly through a National Dividend, and indirectly through a National Discount on retail prices. It is critical that the individual, the common consumer, be the prime beneficiary of any monetary reform and that he be accorded full control of credit-policy within the context of a properly functioning financial system.

      In connection with this particular lawsuit and as a further clarification of the point just made, I should also mention that granting the government the right to fill the gap according to its policy-objectives (i.e., employing people to work on public production), or, more broadly, granting it or the state the sole right to control the whole money supply, is thoroughly incompatible with Social Credit’s underlying social and political philosophy. Institutions exist to serve the interests of individuals, not the other way around. That is, individual consumers must control financial policy, not the government, the state, or the private banks. There is no point in “restoring the right to create and issue money to the state” if the state is then going to control the purposes for which producer and consumer credit are to be issued. This is the great trap of which certain monetary reformers, who are rightly concerned about the hegemony of private banking, are blissfully unaware. If, God forbid, such reformers get their way, and the state were to obtain total monopoly control over the money supply, I think they will find to their horror that the same people who levy a great deal of control over the private and partially decentralized monetary system will be in complete control of the state system.

     Monopoly is the name of the game; let us not be ‘useful idiots’.

The lawyer best known for stopping the Supreme Court appointment of Judge Marc Nadon has turned his sights on the Bank of Canada.

Rocco Galati has taken on a case for a group called the Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform, or COMER, which wants the central bank to return to the practice of lending federal and provincial governments interest-free money for infrastructure.

“They felt it was important in the face of the financial sector meltdown in 2008, the banking meltdown, and the drastic reduction and elimination of human capital infrastructure such as health care, universities and basically the stuff that the Bank of Canada from 1938 to 1974 funded,” Galati said in an interview with CBC’s The Exchange with Amanda Lang.

His clients have been dismissed as conspiracy theorists, but Galati argues the law is there to support their case.

The Bank of Canada was set up in 1935 in the wake of the Great Depression to provide a means for settling international accounts and to provide interest-free loans to government to finance infrastructure investments.

History of infrastructure funding

Projects like the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Trans-Canada highway were funded in this way, and the central bank also underwrote Canada’s Second World War effort as well as the building of hospitals and universities.

But in 1974, the central bank stopped providing interest-free loans to government so it could join the Bank for International Settlements, a kind of central bank of central banks.

Galati argues that from then on private banks became government’s lender, contravening the act that established the central bank.

He has launched legal action, beginning in 2011, to rule on the constitutionality of the central bank’s current role. His argument is that private banks are dictating the terms of Canadian debt, usurping the role of the Bank of Canada.

Is government bound by original act?

“My hope is that the court declare that the government is bound by the legislation and cannot simply hand over that decision-making to foreign private bankers,” Galati said.

“What the government then does is up to the government, but they can’t simply arbitrarily say ‘no never again’ when the law is there and the history of the reason for creating the Bank of Canada is there.”

The Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform takes the view that having the Bank of Canada provide funding would eliminate interest payments on the national debt — a huge burden for the Canadian taxpayer.

Galati agrees the case is a strange and quixotic one, but he’s built a career on holding the government to the law.

“It wasn’t arcane for me, it’s in the law,” he said.

And he acknowledged it will probably earn him few friends. He’ll never be made a judge or even sit on a law faculty. And it will be a long fight.

“Well, most struggles to enforce the law are. I mean, often, I’ve had cases that have gone 12 years, successfully at the end of the day, because the government simply wants to ignore the law,” he said.

“That’s the system we have, and when they do, the only people that can force them to abide by the law are the courts.”

Marc Nadon case

Last year when Prime Minister Stephen Harper nominated Nadon to the Supreme Court, Galati stepped in, saying the move broke the rules. Few expected him to win. But in a surprise decision, he did.

“I saw an attempt to pervert and subvert our independent judiciary, which is the last bastion of balancing the rights of the citizens against the rights of the government and making sure that the government doesn’t turn into a dictatorship,” he said. “If you can stack the court and corrupt the judiciary, well, that’s it.”

Galati said he believes Parliament has become ineffective in checking the power of government and the courts are the only recourse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocco_Galati

If this case is won this will change the way we all get $$

Spread the love

Leave a Reply