Canadian Greenbackers Sue Canadian Government and Bank of Canada

An interesting development – an organization known as the COMER (Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform) is suing the Government of Canada for not living up to it’s duty to not print enough money for everyone in the country to satisfy all of their possible desires…. We will keep tabs on the progress of this lawsuit.

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

For a full discussion of the Greenback Movement and it’s current leader – check out Gary North’s demolishing of Ellen Brown and her book “Web of Debt”

 

The press release follows below:

_____________________________________

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

TWO CANADIANS AND A CANADIAN ECONOMIC THINK TANK CONFRONT THE GLOBALFINANCIAL 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.
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.
ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Rocco Galati, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.
637 College Street
Suite 203
Toronto ON  M6G 1B5
TEL:                416-536-7811
FAX:    416-536-6801
———————————————————————————————-
COURT SEALCourt 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 (telephone             613-992-4238      ) 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;

  1. 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;

  1. 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;
  2. 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;

  1. 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;
  2. 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 the Constitution Act, 1867;
  3. 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;
  1. 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;

  1. 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 the Constitution 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
  1. (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;
  1. 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;
  2. 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;
  3. 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 theConstitution Act, 1982;
  4. 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;
  5. 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;
  1. 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.

34 Responses to “Canadian Greenbackers Sue Canadian Government and Bank of Canada”

  1. Alex Free says:

    If you want a free market economy you have to go to places like rural Afghanistan, or Somalia…where there are no rules…free markets are anarchy…I'd like the altruist notion to be true, but certainly that won't happen in a world with large economic gradients.

    Just look at a small taste of deregulation…the 40%+ loss in economic values precipitated by so called 'free market' initiatives that crashed the economy in 2008…

    Maybe we should start looking at free market medicine?…bend over and cough!

  2. Jerry says:

    "I am all for a free market except as it relates to who controls the creation of money."

    You DON'T believe in free market mking statements like that.

  3. @zanedcohen says:

    I would challenge anyone one to sit down with the lawyer putting forth this lawsuit to go toe to toe with him on this issue. I gaurantee you would be silenced quickly. _The Bank of Canada is not the only solution it is simply a present solution in order to get out of the grip of the private banking cartels grip which is impverishing our nation and the world. If the Libertarians and anarchists on this site would stop thinking that only their position is the viable position and start listening to those who have alternate viable ideas that can mesh with yours then perhaps we could, once and for all, take down the IMF, World Bank, BIS etc. _Instead I rarely see any intellectual vigour, only ad hominem attacks or people, in this case, saying, "Well I took a quick glimpse of the bank of canada act and in that 5 minutes I couldn't find a thing." Wow…really? _As well, I love the idea that because Gary North (the present day Jesus of the Libertarian movement) wrote a rebuttal of ellen Brown's positions that her position is now somehow destroyed. Perhaps you should read her rebuttal of his rebuttal. I have read both. Gary's perspectives are not a destruction of her positions. Quite the opposite. He has presuppositions that differ from her and they are arguing from different starting points. _Another perspective Libertarians should read is that of Stephen Zarlenga. I would LOVE to see Gary North take him on. Stephen gives one of the most in depth exhaustive historical accounts of 'Money' out of any writing in our present history. Broaden the scope of your research.

    • Redmond says:

      Hi Zane

      I would be happy to discuss this with the lawyer, I'll interview him for my podcast, want to put me in touch with him?

      It comes down to this Zane, why do you trust the same politicians who gave us the present system to improve upon it in any meaningful way?

      The Bank of Canada was created in order to silence criticisms from the Greenbackers of the day, the Social Credit movement from out west. You already have your Nationalized central bank with a government monopoly on the production of money, why aren't you happy with it?

      Brown and the Greenbackers favour the ecoomics of National Socialism, that is why we oppose her and her ideas.

      Quoting Ellen

      The German people were in such desperate straits that they relinquished control of the country to a dictator, and in this they obviously deviated from the "American system," which presupposed a democratically-governed Commonwealth. But autocratic authority did give Adolf Hitler something the American Greenbackers could only dream about–total control of the economy. He was able to test their theories, and he proved that they worked.

      As for Gary North he is no "jesus" I don't know why you would think that, he did fully rebut Ellen Brown however, I have not seen her respond to his last post. Please link to it if you wish.

      As Gary points out the Greenbacker movement has a long history that comes from the socialist left, and in fact it can be argued that Keynesianism is the theories of Social Credit – especially given that Keynes lauded the theories of one of the founders of the social credit movement, Major Douglas.

      I for one am tired of of the ghost of keynes rattling his chains.

      • @zanedcohen says:

        Redmond, I can put you in contact with the COMER group. Are you able to message me privately or is there a way I can contact you directly? I may also be able to set up an interview between you and Ellen Brown if you like. Based on her comments regarding Gary I am not sure if she cares to debate with the Libertarian any longer but we can always ask. Or if you wish to speak with Stephen Zarlenga I may be able to make that connection for you as well.

        I do not want to publicize their private contact information.

        I appreciate your response so let me ask the same question back to you, "Why do you trust people?" People do not change because they are not a politician. Every economic system whether it be run by a government or by a free market will always be subject to people. Every system is vulnerable to corruption because people are prone to corruption.

        One of Ellen's responses:
        http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article24559.html

        Another response with a link to her rebuttal of his 31 points
        http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/questions-and-answ

        The Bank of Canada was originally intended for ulterior purposes that Gerald Gratten McGeer fought to thrwart. He won the battle and ensured the people of Canada would own the BoC instead of it acting like the Federal Reserve.

        As of 1974 the Bank of Canada no longer creates our money supply in Canada. It is the private banks, namely the Royal Bank, TD, CIBC etc. who ascribe to the Basel Accord and are part of the globalized banking system. If it did we would have a marginal national debt that would be rolled over year after year or simply wiped out. The lawsuit against the BoC hopes to remedy this situation.

        • "People do not change because they are not a politician. Every economic system whether it be run by a government or by a free market will always be subject to people. Every system is vulnerable to corruption because people are prone to corruption. "

          Unbelievably wrong. What you, Ms. Ellen Brown, and the rest of the greenbackers don't understand is the very nature of the state. The definition of the state is the institution that declares and exercises the monopoly power of force over a given geographical area. No other institution, whether it be a church, private business, or home, exercises this authority.

          What Redmond, myself, and others of libertarian or Austrian school persuasion want is for the market to be free for any private producer of money to enter the marketplace. In other words, there should not be one monopoly producer that prevents all competition through violent suppression, which is exactly what the state is and does.

          Saying that all people are corruptible completely misses and obfuscates the issue. In a free society and free market, a business deemed "corrupt" (whatever that means in the private sense) can be boycotted and ignored. The state faces no competition. It acts through violent predation. It is the institution that you want to control what Murray Rothbard called "the lifeblood of the economy" which is money.

          How you and your fellow greenbackers can't see the danger in such a state of affairs shows one of two things: either you are ignorant of basic economics and the problems which plague fiat economies, or you truly do wish for people to be violently suppressed from entering the market for money production. Take your pick.

          • @zanedcohen says:

            Good morning James, hope all is well. You spout the usual libertarian rhetoric, which is fine, as you hold to Libertarian presuppositions. Sadly, your idealogy, that stresses a free market somehow will be devoid of corruption because people will simply boycott a corrupt business, is naivety. Within a free market, the smartest and most business savvy and/or the most unethical and corrupt people will always dominate the market and literally become the ones who will 'control' the money supply; thus, the goods and services of a nation. If you believe in altruistic behaviour then surely you may be right. If you believe that people are inherently inclined for selflessness and actions that have no selfish motivation then you may be right. If you believe that people will always do the right thing and not support a corrupt wealthy business owner who will cut them in on the deal then perhaps you are right. Do you actually believe that? Not if you read Mises writings you do not.

            I am all for a free market except as it relates to who controls the creation of money. We need nomisma, not commodity based currency. Law needs to establish at least one form of currency in order to protect the less fortunate from the whims of the fortunate. Feel free to create a free market currency that is at least subject to law, which will make it nomisma, and that is not based on it's commodity or inherent value. As long as it is law based who cares whether it is created by a 'bank', a treasury, or a government. What matters is that usury/compounded interest are made unlawful in practice. I am completely against usury, aka compounded interest, which is something that the Libertarian monetary idealogy is built upon. Compounded interest has always, and will continue to rape the individual, a town, city, state, country of it's wealth and put it into the hands of a few. With nomisma, and a law against usury/compounded interest, and the proper oversight of nomisma, a country will not be subject to the erratic forces of inflation and deflation.

            I am not pro big government. I am all for volunteerism. I am pro non-aggression and the golden rule. I herald freedom and liberty but I do not close out my thoughts to the reality that all people are prone to corruption. I do not hold out for some utopian ideal that preaches, "If we can just have a completely free market then all people will suddenly start to function without corruption. And if some people become corrupt they will be found out and stopped." Really?

            Ellen Brown, Stephen Zarlenga, Marc Armstrong, Bill Still (and many others) all have excellent ideas that are worth pondering. Whether you agree with everything they say is irrelevent. They have much to say that if you would listen, you would find commonality and friends to fight against the present corrupt governments, corporations and corrupt wealthy elitists.

            In the same manner that I respect many positions of the Libertarian idealogy, open your thoughts up to other people who may have differing perspectives. I am confident we will find an answer that will benefit humanity much better than our present system.

          • "I am all for volunteerism. I am pro non-aggression and the golden rule."

            No, no you are not. You advocate violence and aggression in the maintenance of money. There is no point in reaching a consensus with those who advocate for violence and coercion. Doing so throws morality out the window.

            You keep bringing up this point of corruption which means absolutely nothing in the context of a private setting. If a businessman is corrupt, no one forces you to patronize him. This incredibly simple point seems to be lost on you which speaks volumes of your own critical thinking skills.

            I never said people would always behave altruistically. In this case, you and your fellow advocates of greenbackerism are not behaving altruistic in any way shape or form. You are preaching the gospel of violence in monetary affairs. Regardless of the kind of benefit you believe society would enjoy under purely state-controlled money, the fact remains that it takes a coercive regime to maintain such a state of affairs. The core of your philosophy is violent suppression- not some selfless desire to help out the less-privileged. Not a word you speak or type changes this truth.

            The idea that interest can be gotten rid of without detrimental impact on society's various structure of productions and process of capital accumulation is so childish it doesn't warrant much comment besides pointing out that interest is merely a reflection of time preferences among the public under a purely free market setting. Again, that this simple fact can't be fathomed by you shows a lack of perceiving reality as it is.

            I used to endeavor to teach others the errors of their thinking. With comments such as yours pouring out of every crevice of so-called informed opinion in the media, press, and academia, I can't take it seriously anymore. Your position on money is simplistic, destructive, and morally wrong.

            Even worse than your endorsement of violent suppression is the notion that somehow public officials controlling money are exempt from the selfish desires of everyone else. People who believe in such a fantasy are more pathetic than children who believe Santa Clause visits millions of households on Christmas Eve. Children have the excuse of less-developed minds. You don't.

          • @zanedcohen says:

            LOL. Alright then. Another person who claims a Libertarian idealogy who espouses a moral highground because they believe in altruism. I thought this was actually going to be an intellectual dialogue.

            I have not met a Libertarian or free market advocate who can explain to me how compounded interest/usury can be sustained. To use your terminology (and only because you used such ad hominem attacks), compounded interest is your tooth fairy belief.

            I also find it interesting how you don't ask me clarifying questions regarding my perspectives. Instead you just label my perspectives with your own pre-conceived notions. Again, another common trait to people who are fundamentalist in attitude vs open to dialogue.

            If I believe in volunteerism then it would only establish that people can opt out of any and all government offered programs, taxation, monetary systems etc.

            And again you use a language I never used, namely, 'state controlled money'. That is your misinterpretation of my perspective. It is you committing eisegesis. I expressed that the free market can create its own money that must adhere to laws that govern it's use. My one example was that of usury being outlawed. This makes it nomisma but it is still created by the free market. Money is a medium of exchange not a commodity and the idea that it can be treated as a commodity is distorting its function. Money 'represents' a good or service; it is not a good and/or service.

            The extreme language you are using will only serve to divide people, to frighten, and give the impression that you are trying to gain control of a conversation. 'Violent Suppression'; 'Coercive Regime'; 'pathetic'; 'state-controlled' are the terms you use that I am highlighting.

            At one point I was excited reading Human Action and then I met many within the Libertarian movement who treat Mises perspectives like a religion, with the same type of dogmatic opinions as religious fanatics. If your perspectives are so perfect and without fault why do you gravitate towards such inane responses that only divide. If your beliefs are so 'true' why do you find it necessary to attack others in such an almost abusive manner? Interesting responses on your part anyway.

            I do not believe in altruism. In order for a pure free market to exist one must adhere to an altruisitc ideology. Namely, all people must be willing to forego corruption for the benefit of humanity. This will never happen. The disregard of this simple reality is one of the main problems with the free market ideology. It does not mean we should not attempt a free market system. It just means we need to realize it will not be perfect and will face the same problems as any other system that exists, namely, corruption.

            To Jerry, I do like the idea of a combined system that allows for laws that govern a free market. If we have laws we will always need people to enforce the consequences of breaking a moral law. You are correct that my argued system would not be the utopian free market. It would be a realistic free market, a market free to the extent it can be.

            And as stated earlier but avoided by James, whoever controls the resources, land and/or the creation of money becomes the 'government'. Now please understand, I use the actual etymology of the term government, κυβερνισμÏŒς, which means to lead, steer and guide. I am not using the fear mongered term often expressed by many people within a certain movement.

            Anyway, James, hope your evening goes well. No need for any of us to pour so much negative emotion into this. I thoroughly enjoy dialogue, especially when people disagree with my point of view. If someone can show me where my flaws lie in my perspectives, with logic and reason I adapt my perspective.

            If you view people with different views then you as immoral, evil and the enemy then how can anyone every have an actual discussion with you? I am sure that if we were in person it probably would be different.

          • Redmond says:

            "I have not met a Libertarian or free market advocate who can explain to me how compounded interest/usury can be sustained."

            There are plenty.

            We will be publishing an article on that tomorrow.

          • Redmond says:

            "I do not believe in altruism. In order for a pure free market to exist one must adhere to an altruisitc ideology. Namely, all people must be willing to forego corruption for the benefit of humanity. This will never happen."

            this is a straw man Zane, and you should know better.

            I don't know one Austro-Libertarian who thinks that a free market would require people to behave "altruistically" for the benefit of humanity.

            I still wonder what makes you think that the Governing classes would act "altruistically" for the benefit of humanity if they had the ability to create unlimited fiat currency out of thin air.

          • @zanedcohen says:

            Redmond! You came back! Glad to have you back in the conversation. I will do my best to respond to your thoughts tomorrow. I look forward to reading the write up on compounded interest.

            As a quick response to your last point: I wholeheartedly believe that the governing classes will not act altruistically as I do not believe that altruism exists.

            But the Austro-Libertarian must if they believe that a free market can exist devoid of corruption. I do not consider this a straw man. It is addressing a logical flaw in the free market ideology.

            Please understand, i believe corruption to be the flaw in every system. It is not exclusive to free markets or Libertarianism.

            As well, money would not be created out of thin air. It would be created in balance with the resources (good and services) of a nation, province, city, town and individual. Money represents goods and services, it is not a good/service. Zimbabwe and Germany are not examples of how nomisma works. They are examples how corrupt people function or how corrupt people implode a nation with immoral decisions.

            Hitler pulled the nation out of poverty. If you think otherwise then you are ignoring historical evidence. I am Jewish and even as a Jew I acknowledge it was bankers and speculators that caused hyperinflation and it was the government that stopped their criminal activities. Rather then regurgitate Stephen Zarlenga I will add a link to his paper:
            http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/engl

            The fact that Gary focused so much on the Hitler example is poor form. It is simply an appeal to people's emotions. It establishes that no one can say that Hitler did anything right because he committed horrendous acts. I won't delve into the argument simply because everyone will call me an anti-Semite even though I am Jewish.

          • Redmond says:

            “But the Austro-Libertarian must if they believe that a free market can exist devoid of corruption. I do not consider this a straw man. It is addressing a logical flaw in the free market ideology. “

            Again Zane, this is a straw man. And you must separate “Austrian” Economics from Libertarianism – they are two different things. Economics is a value free science, Libertarianism is a political philosophy. The conclusions drawn from the Austrian School do lead one to consider Libertarianism as a superior political philosophy in my opinion.

            I don’t know one Economist of the Austrian School or from any other free market school of economics who thinks that a free market can exist devoid of corruption. In a market where goods and services are exchanged under rule of law, contract and voluntarily, the opportunity for corruption and theft is minimized.

            If I contract with a company to provide me with goods and services and they do not fulfill their end of the bargain, I simply do not use them again, or I use courts or other means for restitution.

            In Canada, if the Government does not provide me with the healthcare I need there is no avenue available for me to rectify the situation, I simply have to die on a waiting list, etc. etc.

            You seem to think that a free market has no “rules” nothing could be further from the truth.

            The State that you would like to control the money supply has no contract that it engages in with the ruled populace – it is above the law – that is the problem with it.

            “As well, money would not be created out of thin air. It would be created in balance with the resources (good and services) of a nation, province, city, town and individual. Money represents goods and services, it is not a good/service.”

            So by what magical method would this money be created and how would the “balance” be determined? Why would anyone trust the state to maintain the proper balance? Would the production of private money be outlawed?

            “Zimbabwe and Germany are not examples of how nomisma works. They are examples how corrupt people function or how corrupt people implode a nation with immoral decisions.”

            These examples represent the dangers of a government that is above the rule of law and uses its monopoly in money production to its own advantage.

            “Hitler pulled the nation out of poverty.”

            Hitler created a Nation that was building its economy for one reason – war. It was a charade that would have destroyed itself over the long run much as the Soviet Economy destroyed itself. National Socialism, any kind of Socialism does not work.

            Please do some research. I can send you links if you like.

            “I acknowledge it was bankers and speculators that caused hyperinflation and it was the government that stopped their criminal activities.”

            I don’t know what bankers and speculators have to do with Jews, but the hyperinflation of Germany was caused by the politicians and the terms of the Versaille treaty, not bankers.

            “The fact that Gary focused so much on the Hitler example is poor form. It is simply an appeal to people's emotions. It establishes that no one can say that Hitler did anything right because he committed horrendous acts. I won't delve into the argument simply because everyone will call me an anti-Semite even though I am Jewish.”

            No it is completely legitimate to use Hitler, as he was an Economic Socialist. His Economic policies were separated by 2 degrees from those of the soviets. And quit it with the “I am a Jew” bit, it is completely beside the point.

            And please note what Ellen Brown focused on – you keep dodging this point, but it is the key point. She wants the government to have total control of the Economy.
            Quoting her again, and I’ll take out Hitler to make the point a bit clearer:

            But autocratic authority did give Pierre Elliot Trudeau something the American Greenbackers could only dream about–total control of the economy.

            That is what ellen Brown Dreams of – Total Central Control of the economy, AKA soclialism or communism.

            The Fact that you can’t see that is disturbing to say the least.

          • Redmond says:

            "Ellen Brown"

            Economic National Socialist – her policies would be horrible.

            "Stephen Zarlenga"

            How exactly is government controlled money more stable? The government is responsible for destroying the money it controls without fail throughout history.

            Marc Armstrong

            Public Banking is great, just don't force me to use it. I know Brown goes on about how amazing North Dakota is – North Dakota may just be lucky to have Politicians and an electorate who aren't interested in spending more than they should – good for them.

            "Bill Still"

            Bill is incredibly confused – I heard him say "Money should be ubiquitous and valueless" – Hey Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany, etc etc. have money that is ubiquitous and valueless, ask them how that is working out.

            Right in Money Masters he says that Ceasar made money plentiful and that is why he is loved, but then in the next line he says that after Ceasers death "debased coin" was a bad thing – those are both the same thing.

            Basically he doesn't want private banks to engage in fractional reserve, but it is ok for the government do engage in it.

        • Redmond says:

          "Redmond, I can put you in contact with the COMER group."

          contact@mises.ca

          "I appreciate your response so let me ask the same question back to you, "Why do you trust people?""

          I don't, that is why I don't want an organization that claims the right to judge itself responsible for manipulating our entire economy. For some reason you do,

          Power should be decentralized to the greatest extent possible – in terms of economic central planning you want it decentralized to the national level, I want there to be as little economic central planning as possible and economic decisions decentralized as close to the level of the individual as possible.

          Ellen Brown, and apparently you, would like the federal government to have total control of economic planning in canada – that would be a nightmare.

          Quoting Ellen again – do you agree with this statement?

          But autocratic authority did give Adolf Hitler something the American Greenbackers could only dream about–total control of the economy.

          I read Ellens Responses – she largely agrees with Gary or cites wikipedia. not much of a rebuttal – sounds like she changed her book based on Gary's criticisms.

          "He won the battle and ensured the people of Canada would own the BoC instead of it acting like the Federal Reserve."

          Doesn;t look like he won anything, given that the BoC acts just like the Fed, or every other central Bank, exactly why we should abolish ours – I don't understand why you don't get that.

          The "Private Banks" are heavily regulated by the government – they are effectively arms of the government and do it's bidding.

          Other countries that "print their own money" have no shortage of horror stories of massive debts and hyperinflation – it is no solution if there are no limits put on the government to spend.

          Canada is no different.

          Abolish the BoC.

  4. The Mad Ape says:

    Fiat money is a tool of the fascist global financial dictatorship. The ideal system would be dollars created with no debt (interest free) with government controlling the amount of fiat in circulation – see Bill Still video The Secret of Oz – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U71-KsDArFM.

    However where Bill Still goes wrong is that politicians can not control themselves and will spend like drunken sailors at a whore house. In order for inflation to be kept in check the paper has to be backed by a commodity – gold being the historical choice.

    Until the evil that permeates the financial sector is removed expect a continuation of debt slavery, loss of freedom, more wars as the NWO's Fear-based model of economics continues onward.

    Fact is Central banks are a plank in the communist manifesto and ensure the slavery of humanity while putting trillions in the pockets of a select few globalist scumbags. A bullet is too good for this lot. They need to rot in a rat-invested prison until their dying breath and I hope they live a long unhealthy life!

  5. Terry Black says:

    I am behind and support this law suit! God Bless you!

    We should not have to be dealing with Foreign Central Banks, especially those run by the Rothschild clan!
    Not unless you enjoy being a slave and serf to Globalism and dictator style "One World Government", which is the ultimate goal of the Rothschild Central Banks!

    Terry Black

  6. saanichtonian says:

    To understand monetary history is to look back to the Bank of Canada, and it's emergence as a 'public utility' in 1938. it gave the govenment the right to 'borrow' money from it at virtually no interest, and any interest was repaid to the BoC (ie. 'we the people'). There was still borrowing from private banks, although the BoC at times was creating in excess of 50% of total currency and credit.This figure is now at about 2%.

    Without the need to repay private banks the usurous compounded rates of interest, the taxes paid went much further than now. Canada was able to fund itself more effectively, through WWII, and after, with the creation of the socalized medical system, TraqnsCanada highway, St. Lawrence Seaway, other public infrastructure.

    Fast forward to about 1974. Canada makes a deal to borrow our currency from private banks, instead of the Bank of Canada. At that time, the federal debt was $18B.

    Fast forward again to the 1993 Report of the Auditor General of Canada (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_199312_05_e_5944.html#0.2.L39QK2.DVW2PL.2FGQFE.OAl), specifically chapter 5

    "5.41 The cost of borrowing is the third area that affects the annual deficit. In 1991-92, the interest on the debt was $41 billion. This cost of borrowing and its compounding effect have a significant impact on Canada's annual deficits. From Confederation up to 1991-92, the federal government accumulated a net debt of $423 billion. Of this, $37 billion represents the accumulated shortfall in meeting the cost of government programs since Confederation. The remainder, $386 billion, represents the amount the government has borrowed to service the debt created by previous annual shortfalls."

    So, over 10 times the shortfall is required to pay back this loans, when the BoC could have created the credit at virtually no interest. They didn't.

    Why not?

    My favorite line though is:
    "5.14 Experts will, of course, realize that there are complexities we did not touch on, but we hope that they will agree that there are significant barriers to dealing with them until there is a better and more widespread level of understanding."

    So…from 1974 till 1992, the amount borrowed to meet shortfalls in funding roughly doubled the debt to 37B, but the interest (and interest on interest) is what added massive amounts.This tax money paid to the private banks is not spent for the benefit of any canadian, nor does it pay down debt.

    What sovereign nation in it's right mind would borrow it's own currency from private banks at compound interest when it has the right, and I would argue duty, to create the currency?

    "Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nations laws.
    Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation.
    Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred
    responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile."

    William_Lyon_Mackenzie_King
    (1874-1950) Prime Minister of Canada

    • Redmond says:

      saanichtonian – the point you and everyone else who supports the pre 1974 B of C fails to note is that Canada did perfectly well WITHOUT a Bank of Canada from our founding in 1867 until 1935.

      During the Great Depression 9 000 banks failed in the USA and not one in Canada.

      No Central Bank and less regulations.

      as for our "socalized medical system" it is a failure that is draining the lifeblood from our country…

      More on that in the future.

      • saanichtonian says:

        Hi Redmond

        To some extent, I agree with the ideas you speak of (saw your interview with Jeff Berwick)…then there are the realities of a Canadian population that does not seem to realize there is any problem with the present system.

        To introduce an anarchistic currency system without a few steps in between would tend to make Joe&Jane Sixpack a little nervous. It might take moving back through a gov currency before people are up to speed with the concepts of credit creation without usury. My mind is open and I enjoy the conversation.

        As to the medical system, hey, if there is competition in offering medical insurance, could be good. If i choose not to get insurance, also good.

        I I know at this point, (and I have been looking at this stuff for a few years) is that what we have will and must change, and to have it change for the better would be darned nice.

        i will echo your 'More in the future'.

        • Diogenes says:

          counterfeiting is counterfeiting, even when the BoC does it. There is no such thing as "free money", wealth does not come from the sky. Costs will be paid later and by everyone.

      • ROK says:

        Stab in the dark here…You make in excess of 70K a year…?

    • Alex says:

      When the government spends $1, the public must be taxed $1 (in present value terms) to pay for it. The only question is who gets taxed. The taxes may be raised explicitly (income taxes, HST, etc.) from the current population or raised from the future population by borrowing. If the government borrows the $1, the future population pays the tax either by explicit taxes or through inflation. The inflation method occurs by the Bank of Canada purchasing $1 (in present value terms) of government bonds with new money created out of thin air. This new money bids for goods and services and raises prices. The people who effectively pay for the $1 of government spending (who pay the tax) in this case are those who suffer from the inflation (those on fixed money incomes, those purchasers of bonds who did not anticipate the inflation, etc.)

      Those who advocate the government to pay for their spending by money creation are arguing for those who would suffer from the ensuing price inflation to pay for all the government spending. This neglects the harm done to economic production that increasing inflation creates.

  7. michael says:

    Marvellous!

    We Canadians are in the same boat as the US (and similarly in all the "Commonwealth" countries)where their monetary system was usurped in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act.
    The control here was given over to the European banks just like the US. over a period of time by many of our politicians and their sponsors. I think the final blow came under the Mulroney criminal tenure when the deficit started to skyrocket.
    It is time to take back our country and its resources from the corrupt government and its banking buddies, from the Masons in City of London, the Crown Corporation and their master, the Vatican.
    Taking back control of the money is like Maier Rothchilds said, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws"! If we could regain the control of our money from this global mafia, we could enforce the laws and perhaps jail some of this rot. Gees what a thought! Bravo Rocco!

  8. Karl says:

    I saw a video on youtube titled Canada's Monetary System (or something very close to that), which describes how the BoC can create money, interest free, and that we are paying bankers billions per year when we really shouldn't have to. I (similarly to Ohhh Henry) looked for myself to see if there was such a claim and don't remember finding one. It would be nice to screw the bankers that are basically stealing our money by entirely repaying our obligations to them with interest free money from the BoC, but such a move I'm afraid would be extremely inflationary and would set an extremely bad precedent for politicians who will doubtlessly quadruple deficits on every level immediately upon the BoC (essentially) bailing out their already gigantic and unsustainable debts.

    If you would like to kill any value that the Canadian dollar has left, then COMER might give you your wish. All I can say is buy gold (silver), guns and non-perishable food items.

    Keep your eyes peeled, very interesting.

    • Chris says:

      How much more inflationary could it be to retire the bankers wit a zero interest loan – the Government of Canada – like many other governments around the world – are running the largest Ponzi schemes today. Read some history about how prosperous we have been in the past when governments controlled the amount of money in circulation along with the interest rates for loans.

      • DereKB says:

        That last time it was tried full scale was under Lincoln's "Debt Free Money" (i.e. fiat currency literally controlled by the congress). It wiped out an entire generation of savings…..

        • Penny says:

          From 1934 until starting in 1972/4, the Bank of Canada financed many major projects, including WW2, St. Lawrence Seaway, Medicare, interest free.. I am old enough to remember the "creating" money function which the IMF and the bond raters forced us to abandon, to our everlasting detriment. It was not inflationary, and the deficit from Confederation to 1974 ws $18B. In 3 years it jumped to around $555B because of compound interest charged by the private banks. This "creating $ function does seem to have been scrubbed from most articles on the Bank of Canada, and inded, even a BoC employee I emailed seemd either unaware of it or wanted to bury it. You have to go beyond page one of Gogle.

          • Diogenes says:

            you are deranged. Always and everywhere, the term "inflation" means the increasing of the money supply. And that is exactly what the BoC was doing and you admit it as well. And it is absurd to think this huge new sums of money flowing into the economy will not raise commodity prices or lead to malinvested asset bubbles even though that is precisely what happens. Where else does the money go? Disappear into the ether? Counterfeiting is counterfeiting, regardless if it's someone doing it in the basement or at the BoC. If you think money is "for free" why not just abandon all taxes and finance everything by creating money? What need for Canadians to work? They can just print a salary for every one.

        • ROK says:

          You have savings?

  9. Ohhh Henry says:

    Not sure what the Greenbackers are on about, except that they apparently wish money to be printed whenever needed by politicians for municipal welfare programs, instead of being printed whenever needed by banks for the purposes of bailouts and "stimulus". But I think that they misunderstand the food chain, namely: (1) CFR/Wall St/Pentagon, (2) federal politicians and cronies, (3) provincial politicians and cronies, (4) municipal politicians and cronies, (5) everyone else i.e. human krill.

    I had a quick skim through the Bank of Canada Act and frankly I couldn't find anything in it that says that it must do anything at all for the benefit of anyone, least of all the Canadian people. The most I could find was a paragraph saying that it "may" do such-and-such to promote stability of the financial system, but that is all. That, and the fact that anyone in a conflict of interest must apparently take a 3 month vacation before taking up duties at the bank which benefited from their decisions while at the BoC.

    It seems that the BoC Act (like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) is not worth the paper it's printed on, except as a kind of memo written to politicians and bankers inviting them to a party in your wallet. Presumably they were both written with so much leeway and slackness to prevent the government or BofC from losing lawsuits such as the one just launched. Not that I have any sympathy with the Greenbackers, except for agreeing with them that the very last thing that the Bank of Canada has anything to do with is the financial wellbeing of the people of Canada.

    • karim says:

      I didn't know canada had a pentagon

      • Fullblad says:

        If, as you so much as admit with your post, you have little understanding of how Canada's money (monetary) system functions, why make the long winded cynical response? I invite you to educate yourself as to how the fractional reserve ponzi scheme actually works ( new debts must be continually expanding or the scheme crashes) . Take a view of Canadian produced "Money as Debt". It's on youtube, is in cartoon form and is fairly easy to understand if you have half a brain. As I can tell you have a full working brain, it only needs a little input to understand how the Canadian people have been delivered ( by our Federally elected) to work for and pay unto the nth generation the banking class. The bankers have gained the right to legally counterfeit Canada's money by practically any quantity they wish! FYI, it's not just Canada, but this intolerable swindle has been foisted on almost all of the rest of the world also. To further your education on matters monetary I would suggest viewing "The Secret of Oz", also on youtube. Yes the child's tale is not about what it seems. The "Secret" gives a historical view of the fight down through the ages between the banking class and the people to have the ultimate power in society, the control over who issues our money and in what quantity. Now do you understand what all the fuss is about?

        • Hi Fullblad,

          I happen to have seen both those videos and even own one of them and can state categorically that while some of the history and theory presented in those films may be compelling, they are far from accurate. I’ve also debated Bill Still (creator of Money Masters as well as Secret of Oz) on the merits of his ideas and it is quite clear that his understanding of history and economics is very lacking. You can listen to the debate yourself on episode 48 of the Ed & Ethan show (see Youtube).

          Austrian scholars have been chronicling the history of central banks for far longer, and in far greater depth than any of the Greenbackers (Still, Brown and Zarlenga). If you’re interested there is the documentary Money, Banking & The Federal Reserve that you can watch, as well as dozens of books. Likewise, you could also simply read the Fed’s own technical manuals that available for free online. I also presented a quite comprehensive history of the founding of the Bank of Canada titled “The Birth and Death of the Bank of Canada” at our monetary policy conference back in October, 2011, which I highly suggest every Canadian interested in our central bank watch.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.