Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses Constitutional Bank of Canada Case, Claiming It Is a Political Matter

Source: http://www.comer.org/content/SupremeCourtDecision_4May17.htm

Toronto, May 31, 2017 – After nearly 5.5 years of contentious litigation between the Committee On Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) and the Government of Canada involving three separate Federal Court and two additional Federal Court of Appeal hearings resulting in contrary decisions, on May 4, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed COMER’s “leave” (permission to appeal) application from the second judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal.

Following established practice, the federal Supreme Court does not issue reasons when it dismisses a leave application. The dismissal by the Supreme Court of the Leave application, means only that the Court does not want to hear the appeal. The jurisprudence on this is clear: it does not mean that the lower court decisions are correct in law. The possible reasons for the Supreme Court not wanting to hear the case are many and various, including the washing of their hands or “deference” to the political process – hence, this is why reasons are not issued by the Supreme Court in leave dismissals.

We believe that the case has ample legal merit, and should have proceeded to trial. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to refuse leave on a given issue multiple times, finally to grant leave, hear the appeal and the case then succeeds. The Supreme Court controls its own agenda, both in its timing and on the merits of issues it will or will not hear. (Annually, fewer than 8–10% of all cases filed are granted permission and heard at the Supreme Court of Canada.)

It should be noted that throughout this arduous and expensive legal process, the substance of this lawsuit initiated in the public interest has not been addressed. The matters raised by the lawsuit are summarized in the original news release (.pdf) issued on December 19, 2011.)

While COMER is disappointed in the Supreme Court’s failure to comply with its perceived duty to the plaintiffs and to the citizens of Canada under the Constitution and the Bank of Canada Act, two things are undeniable:

Through this long judicial odyssey, public knowledge, awareness and consciousness of the vital issues have been raised immeasurably, not only in Canada, but abroad. We know this from the significant feedback and informed commentary COMER and its legal counsel have received.
The current Supreme Court dismissal is not the end of the struggle over these critical issues!

The proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank makes crystal clear the urgent need to now concentrate efforts within the political arena. In its arguments, the Crown has contended that the Government’s decision to drastically reduce its borrowing from the Bank of Canada was made by the people of Canada through the political process although the changes made were never debated publically nor in Parliament. This failure of the political process has led to the exponential growth of Canada’s debt incurred by all three levels of government due to accumulated deficits and compounded interest charges as well as to significant fiscal restraints on funding government programmes and infrastructure expenditures.

A press conference was held on June 3, 2017, at the Law Offices of Rocco Galati.

Related Information

Background: Two individual Canadians and COMER have confronted the global financial powers in the Canadian federal court. In early August 2013, the case was struck.

Information about this case is available on the Federal Court website. Search for court number T-2010-11.

Notice of hearing at the Federal Court on December 7, 2016
Decision of Federal Court, February 8, 2016, and filed appeal. (below)
Litigation Update, October 14, 2015 (here)
Litigation Update, May 13, 2015 (here)
Amended Statement of Claim, March 26, 2015 (here)
Appeal Update, January 26, 2015 (below)
Decision, April 24, 2014 (here)
Motion to Appeal, April 24, 2014 (here)
Appeal, December 10, 2013 (below)
Press Release, December 2011 (here)
Amended Court Filing, Jan. 2012 (here)
Proceedings, December 5, 2012 (here)

Decision of Federal Court, February 8, 2016

Source: http://www.comer.org/content/FederalCourt_8Feb2016.htm

On February 8, 2016, Justice Russell of the Federal Court, after having his decision of April 24, 2014, upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal on January 26, 2015, made a decision on the government’s second motion to strike after COMER filed its amended statement of claim on March 26, 2015.

In the latest decision of February 8, 2016, Justice Russell, in law, inexplicably reversed himself from the earlier decision. In his earlier decision he had refused to strike large portions of the claim, most notably the facts going to the declaratory relief sought as to the Bank of Canada and the constitutional issues.

He further blatantly erred in deciding that Declaratory relief cannot be sought as stand-alone relief, in the absence of a cause of action, which is contrary to Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence which was cited and read to the Court.

Moreover, because the Federal Court of Appeal had upheld his decision of April 24, 2014, in reversing his earlier decision, he effectively overturned the Federal court of Appeal’s decision upholding his earlier decision, which is contrary to law.

On March 3, 2016, COMER filed an appeal, to the Federal Court of Appeal, from the decision of Justice Russell, dated February 8, 2016.

If redress is not had at the Federal Court of Appeal, COMER is committed to then taking the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Rocco Galati, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Federal Court of Appeal Decision — January 26, 2015

Source: http://www.comer.org/content/Appeal3.htm

On April 24, 2014, we were, in the main, successful in our appeal before Justice Russell. We appealed, to the Federal Court of Appeal, on two minor points. The government cross-appealed on the ruling that we can proceed with the bulk of COMER’s action.

On January 26, 2015, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed our Appeal (on two minor points).

More importantly, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the government’s cross-appeal claiming that the Federal Court could not entertain the lawsuit.

Since the Federal Court of Appeal fully upheld the decision of Justice Russell dated April 24, 2014, Justice Russell’s decision stands. I refer everyone to my summary of that decision on COMER’s website.

What that means is that we are entitled to proceed with our action, subject to me drafting and filing an amended Statement of Claim with the Federal Court, which will be done shortly.

In short, and in summary, the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is a victory for COMER to proceed. (While the government can seek leave of the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, to date no such indication has been conveyed. The government has until March 29, 2015, to do so).

Rocco Galati, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Report of an Appeal of an August 2013 Interim Order in the Lawsuit Respecting the Bank of Canada

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

Comments by Connie Fogal aided by Ann Emmett, the Statement of Claim, and Rocco Galati’s August 2013 report

The Court

On December 10, 2013, Bill Krehm, Ann Emmett and COMER were in court again defending the right of Canadians to the use of our Bank of Canada in the interest of Canada and Canadians, not private banks and bankers.

The December 10, 2013, court appearance involved argument by their lawyer Rocco Galati appealing against the order August 9, 2013, of Prothonotary Aalto (a Justice of the Federal Court) who struck COMER’s claim against the Bank of Canada and Minister of Finance.

Using our own tax dollars against us the Government of Canada had brought forward the motion to strike the case, i.e., knock it out of court, dismiss the case. Prothonotary Aalto did so because he said it was not “justiciable.”

On December 10, 2013, Rocco Galati presented the defence of our right to continue the case including the points he set out in his August 2013 report. He pointed out the legal errors in the August order that struck our case:

that justiciability is a doctrine that is normally and properly invoked where the Court essentially does not have the expertise, or is incapable, at the end of the day, to come to a judicial determination of the issue because it is beyond the scope of what a Court does;
that in this case invoking the doctrine of justiciability lacks logic, is devoid of cogency, and is reverse circular reasoning. To do so is contrary to the avalanche of jurisprudence;
that Prothonotary Aalto’s decision that the claim was not justiciable because the case deals with “policy-ridden” socio-economic issues ignores the fact that this case would not be the first time the Courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, dealt with policy-ridden socio-economic issue(s) which contravene statute and the Constitution;
that on a motion to strike, the Court is not allowed, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, to come to any (final) conclusions with respect to the merits of the case, including interpreting any statutory provisions in issue;
that Prothonotary Aalto’s decision ignores the clear Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisprudence that statutory interpretation, particularly in the face of a constitutional challenge, should be determined by the trial judge, after evidence in a trial, not by a motions judge on a motion to strike, just based on the pleadings;
that the Court’s decision rests on a flawed statutory interpretation of the word “may” in section 18 of the Bank of Canada Act which interpretation is one of the crux issues in dispute and which interpretation jurisprudence does not allow him to make;
that the Federal Court decision is devoid of any logic, but for its absurd reverse circular reasoning, because, by deciding these substantive issue(s), which the Court did not have the jurisdiction to do on a motion to strike, proved that the issue(s) are justiciable. But the Court, in essence, ruled that the issue(s) are not justiciable because if he were the trial judge, he would decide them against the plaintiffs…which is not his function on a motion to strike.

The government lawyer argued in defence of Prothonotary Aalto’s decision.

The judge at the December 10, 2013, appeal reserved his decision. It is likely that whoever loses this round will appeal again to the next court level on this issue of whether we have a right to proceed.

The Citizens

The court was once again overflowing with ordinary citizens, including members of COMER, university students, and members of the Occupy Movement. The room was too small to hold everyone. At first the court staff refused to arrange for a change of rooms between judges to better accommodate the crowd. The staff administration was demanding on threat of security action that those without seats in this too small room leave. There was verbal resistance. A few went out, but returned once one small woman stood up adamantly urging all present to stay put until a proper room was provided. We did, and it worked. Lo and behold, it was possible after all to move the judges to accommodate us in the larger room.

Ann Emmett called it invigorating drama bringing us together in an extraordinary way creating a sense of community amongst this gathering of citizens. Even so, there was still insufficient room for all of us. Those still without seats remained in the foyer even though they could not hear the proceedings. In this way they were still with us, a part of the proceedings.

Ann opined that the day ended on a high note of conviviality with picture taking and lunch together.

We were a varied group from 100-year-old Bill Krehm and 90-year-old Paul Hellyer, (among other long term monetary reformers), through those of middle age, down to youths including a 19-year-old student, Patrick Cryon. We came from all across Canada.

Ann has been working hard teaching, holding discussions, communicating, including with young people and the Occupy Movement. She said, “The rapport and respect between the many young people and the older generations at this hearing was impressive. The youth expressed their admiration, gratitude and appreciation that their elders were still fighting a good fight setting a great example. A sense of hope pervaded the atmosphere. They were aware the case might fail, but that the cause was just, and this had to be done. Success would come in some way. There was real hope for the future in the air.”

She continued, “For their part, the long term monetary reformers were encouraged by the commitment and articulateness of the youth who are working hard to inform themselves and understand the issue. It was encouraging to see that the young are so willing and able to take up the struggle. It is happening!!!!!”

Ann felt that, “Whatever the outcome of this December 10, 2013, hearing, there was a feeling among the audience that we came away winners, stronger together and more committed than ever, inspired and determined to carry on.”

Relevant Quotations

“If you will not fight what is right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.” – Sir Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough money to buy it back again. However, take that power away from them and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.” – Sir Josiah Stamp, a director of the Bank of England, 1920s

“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes.… Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” – Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815

“Once a nation parts with control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation’s laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.” – Mackenzie King, Canada’s 10th Prime Minister, 1938

“Give me control of the nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.” – Mayer Amshel Bauer Rothschild

“The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank…sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity of the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.” – Carroll Quigley, Historian, Tragedy and Hope, p. 324

“The very idea of a government that can create money for itself allowing private banks to create money that the government then borrows and pays interest on is so preposterous that it staggers the imagination.” – William F. Hixson, It’s Your Money

The Betrayal of Canadians

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

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

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

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

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

In the 70s, Canada joined the Basel Committee of G-10 countries at the Bank for International Settlements, ceased its use of the Bank of Canada for Canadians except for about 5% of its needs, and instead now borrows from private banks at compound interest. Instead of today being able to operate at an estimated surplus of $C13 billion, Canadians have paid over one trillion Canadian dollars in interest on the national debt to private bankers which debt is used to justify the demolition of services to citizens.

Post 1974 our government added s18(m) to the Bank of Canada Act. That action is a core challenge in the lawsuit. That s18 (m) is the facilitating mechanism that hands over our Bank of Canada to the Bank of International Settlements providing for the use and operation of our Bank of Canada for the benefit of foreign financial institutions rather than our citizens. That section 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 mandatory, or depository or correspondent for any of those banks or organizations, and pay interest on any of those deposits;

That section throws us to the lions of the international finance world who are currently destabilizing nations everywhere with crippling austerity demands. We are on their “hit” list and our governments and Parliament are complicit in that betrayal. One can explain it in the Quigley terms of their being “cooperative politicians (expecting) subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”

Declarations Sought

This current lawsuit respecting the Bank of Canada seeks many declarations including that:

the Minister of Finance, and the government of Canada are required to request, and 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 for the purposes of “human capital” expenditures and/or municipal/provincial/federal “human capital” and/or infrastructures expenditures (i.e., support of education and health, utilities, roads, bridges);
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 s. 18 (i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act to make loans or advances to the Government of Canada or the government of a province in readily marketable securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any province, and further,
- (B) 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 widening the gap between rich and poor with a continuing disappearance of the middle class.
the Parliament of Canada has unconstitutionally abdicated its duty and function as mandated under the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Constitution Act, 1982. in: allowing the Governor of the Bank of Canada to hold secret the nature and content of his meetings with other central bankers, in not exercising the authority and duty contained in 18 (i) and (j) of the Act, and in enacting s 18 (m) of the Bank of Canada Act.
that s. 18 (m) of the Bank of Canada Act and its administration and operation is unconstitutional and of no force and effect as Parliament and the government have abdicated their constitutional duties and handed them over to international private entities, whose interests and directives are placed above the interests of Canadians, and the primacy of the Constitution of Canada and constitutional imperatives.
that the defendants’(officials) are wittingly and/or unwittingly, in varying degrees, knowledge, and intent, engaged in a conspiracy, along with the Bank for International Settlements, the Financial Stability Board, and International Monetary Fund 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…causing injury to Canadians.…

Other Facts to be Established as Findings of Facts in the Lawsuit

The current Bank of Canada Act continues to reflect a public statutory duty and responsibility, as borne out by the preamble to the Act.
Now, policies such as interest rates and others set by the Bank of Canada are made in consultation with but mostly at the direction of the Financial Stability Board which is an international body of central bankers that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system. The Board includes all major G-20 major economies, financial Stability forum members (FSB), and the European Commission. The FSB is based in Basel, Switzerland.
The current FSB consists of the major national financial authorities such as Finance Ministers, central bankers, and international financial bodies.
The BIS formulates policies and dictates to central banks, including the Bank of Canada.
Canada, through its Bank of Canada, became a member of an expanded BIS in 1974.
Between 1934 to 1974 the Bank of Canada and Canada were completely independent from international private interests with respect to statutory duties under the Bank of Canada Act, as well as monetary and financial policies reflected in the preamble to the Act, and as it flowed through its economic and social policies.
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 bank and financial interests, contrary to the Act.
The BIS is not accountable to any government. It holds secret annual meetings the deliberations and discussions of which are not available to Parliament, the executive nor the Canadian public, notwithstanding that the Bank of Canada policies now directly emanate from and are directed by these meetings.
On or about 1974, after Canada’s entry into the expanded BIS, an agreement or directive was reached that the central banks (including our Bank of Canada despite its being the only publicly created and accountable to Parliament central bank) would not be used to create or lend interest free money (contrary to s. 18 (i) and (j) of the Act and the original purpose for its creation) but that governments must obtain borrowed money from and through the BIS (FSF, FSB and IMF).
Over the years since 1974 Canadian Ministers of Finance have had requests to make interest free loans from the Bank of Canada to the Provinces and to municipalities to fund infrastructure and other social needs which the Ministers have consistently refused to do citing unjustified excuses about inflation and deficits and debt, but never the truth about the deal with the BIS.
It has long been established that investment in human capital such as education and health is the most productive investment and expenditure a government can make.
The BIS, FSF, FSB and 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 succeed in overriding governments and constitutional orders in countries such as Canada over which they assert financial control.

Iceland

The citizens of Iceland have defied the power of the global bankers, refused to be caught in the impoverishing demands of the global elite for austerity measures, have jailed bankers guilty of theft of the commons, removed the politicians who would have betrayed them, and are creating a way to govern themselves and control their own money.

Canadians

The Canadians participating in this lawsuit are carrying the torch for Canada. You can too. Your presence at the next court appearance will help, as can your dollars. Send a donation, payable to “COMER lawsuit,” to 83 Oakwood Avenue, Toronto ON, Canada, M6H 2V9.

This is “the only game in our town.” See you in Court!

Related: Constitutional Bank Of Canada Case Docs - docs listed above are found on this page.

Tags: Law-Case, Canada, CentralBanking, BIS

This page may have a talk page ?.