LISTEN: Case Against Bank of Canada - Galati

LISTEN: Case Against Bank of Canada - Galati

Postby Oscar » Sat Apr 18, 2015 1:59 pm

MUST LISTEN: The case against Bank of Canada – Rocco Galati

[ ... 666703865/ ]

The Exchange with Amanda Lang | May 7, 2015 | 18:40

Interview with Constitutional lawyer, Rocco Galati, who is taking forward a case against the Bank of Canada and Government of Canada on behalf of a small economic think tank, the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform, (COMER).

The Interview provides insight into what has transpired historically regarding the Bank of Canada, the only Central Bank in the G7 which is a Public Bank, and describes this history up to the present case from a legal, constitutional, economic, and political perspective, aimed at clarifying the meaning of the case for the public and in regard to the public good.

"COMER contends the Bank of Canada, a publicly-owned national financial institution created in the Great Depression, is mandated to provide debt-free support for public projects undertaken by federal, provincial and city governments. Not doing so has deprived Canadians of the benefits of larger infrastructure investments, COMER alleges.

"Among other arguments in its court submission, the group alleges Canada ceded its sovereign ability to conduct independent monetary policy to the “secret” deliberations and control of private foreign bankers. This unconstitutional move, COMER argues, was a result of Ottawa’s decision to join several multinational financial organizations, particularly the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)" [ ... iness.html ]

= = = = =

Rocco Galati in Court to Challenge How Bank of Canada Does Business

[ ... iness.html ]

By Les Whittington, Ottawa Bureau reporter, Toronto Star, March 24, 2015


Of the current case, Galati says, “It impacts the entire country in a profound way, right down to the bone of our economics and the history of the way we’ve maintained and lost, through illegal action, our independent monetary policy. It’s huge.”

The federal government tried to quash the case on the grounds it was frivolous and the alleged infringement of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights was “too uncertain, speculative and hypothetical.”

And judges noted COMER’s contention that the Bank of Canada has a mandate to provide interest-free loans to governments in Canada hinges on the interpretation of a sentence in the bank’s enabling legislation saying it “may” provide such loans.

But the courts have said Galati can proceed with an amended statement of claim.

“We have no comments on a matter that is before the courts,” the Bank of Canada stated.

But on its website, the Bank of Canada explains why it doesn’t “print money to repay the national debt or to finance government programs.” Doing so, it says, “would reduce the value of our money, raise interest rates, and undermine the growth of the economy.”

Ann Emmett, a former teacher who now chairs COMER, said she “absolutely” believes foreign banks are controlling the Bank of Canada’s actions.

“I have to tell you that the lawsuit has sparked interest around the world,” Emmett added. “They are not going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle.”

The lawsuit also alleges the federal finance minister is depriving MPs of their right to properly vet government spending by inappropriately calculating available financial resources.

The original COMER case indicated an intention to make it a class action suit, with $1 in damages for each Canadian. But it’s unclear if that part of the claim will stand.
Site Admin
Posts: 8698
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: LISTEN: Case Against Bank of Canada - Galati

Postby Oscar » Fri May 08, 2015 10:18 am

DOBBIN: Liberate the Bank of Canada, Intrepid Think Tank Urges

[ ... of-Canada/ ]

Canadians have been fleeced for billions, but no traction in media for complex banking case.

By Murray Dobbin, April 18, 2015

"Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation." -- William Lyon Mackenzie King, prime minister of Canada, 1935

You know the old aphorism -- "If a tree falls in the forest...?" Well, how about this one: If citizens win a significant victory in court against an autocratic government involving the fleecing of Canadians of billions of their hard-earned tax dollars and no one in the media actually covers it, did it really happen?

That might well be the question being asked over at the Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) a very small and low-budget Toronto think tank. [ ] With their lawyer Rocco Galati (of Supreme Court fame in the Marc Nadon case), they have been steadily winning court battles initiated in 2011 that would oblige the Bank of Canada to return to its pre-1974 practice of lending the government money virtually interest free. But the mainstream media has boycotted the story. Galati believes the Harper government has done some serious arm-twisting to keep the story buried.

The good folks at COMER have for years -- decades, actually -- been trying to get people to pay attention to what is far and away the biggest, most outrageous fraud ever perpetrated on the Canadian people. I am speaking here of the fact that instead of the Canadian government borrowing money from its own bank, our bank -- the Bank of Canada -- it has, since 1974 chosen instead to borrow exclusively from private international and domestic financial institutions providing them with enormous, absolutely risk free profits for almost four decades.

The result, according to economist Ellen Brown: "By 2012, the government had paid C$1 trillion in interest -- twice its national debt. Interest on the debt is now the government's single largest budget expenditure -- larger than health care, senior entitlements or national defense." While some of that interest was paid to holders of Canada Savings Bonds, the vast majority was paid to private lenders. In the early 1990s, at the height of the media's deficit hysteria and rhetorical nonsense about hitting a "debt wall," 91 per cent of the $423 billion debt was due to interest charges. Our real debt -- revenue minus expenditures -- was just $37 billion.


[ ... of-Canada/ ]
Site Admin
Posts: 8698
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

LISTEN: Case Against Bank of Canada - Galati

Postby Oscar » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:52 am

LISTEN: Bank of Canada Scam Court Case: Rocco Galetti Interview – February 15, 2016 – Part 1 and 2 on 2 videos (Background below . . . )

[ ... interview/ ]

February 28, 2016 Banking, Canada, In the News, MoneyBank of Canada, BoC, COMER, Rocco Galati 

Bank of Canada – Interview with Rocco Galati Constitutional Lawyer in Class Action Suit - Parts 1 & 2

beginning at 25:30 part 1:

“this is an issue of the government ignoring the law, the statute and the constitution and allowing foreign private entities to control our banking policy…the ramifications and issues are huge…how a government can give away the store, as it were, to private foreign entities…literally speaking we are being enslaved, there is no two ways about it, being enslaved to… international loan sharks”

Coast to Coast Interview Feb. 15, 2016


COMER — Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform

[ ]

The Case to “Reinstate” the Bank of Canada
[ ... da/5430132 ]

= = = = =

Decision of Federal Court, February 8, 2016

[ ]

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.

= = = = = =

Bank of Canada Lawsuit

[ ... da-lawsuit ]

By: Joyce Nelson Society Jan-Feb-2016 -Vol 26- No1

Posted on January 11, 2016

One of the most important legal cases in Canadian history is slowly inching its way towards trial. Launched in 2011 by the Toronto-based Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER), the lawsuit would require the publicly-owned Bank of Canada to return to its pre-1974 mandate and practice of lending interest-free money to federal, provincial, and municipal governments for infrastructure and healthcare spending.

Renowned constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati has taken on the case for COMER, and he considers it his most important case to date.

On October 14, a Federal Court judge cleared away yet another legal roadblock thrown in the lawsuit’s path. The federal government has tried to quash the case as frivolous and “hypothetical,” but the courts keep allowing it to proceed. As Galati maintains, “The case is on solid legal and constitutional grounds.”

When asked after the October procedural hearing why Canadians should care about the case, Galati quickly responded: “Because they’re paying $30 or $40 billion a year in useless interest. Since ’74, more than a trillion to fraudsters, that’s why they should care.” (COMER says the figures are closer to $60 billion per year, and $2 trillion since 1974.)

The Fraudsters

Created during the Great Depression, the Bank of Canada funded a wide range of public infrastructure projects from 1938 to 1974, without our governments incurring private debt. Projects like the Trans-Canada highway system, the St. Lawrence Seaway, universities, and hospitals were all funded by interest-free loans from the Bank of Canada.

But in 1974, the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau was quietly seduced into joining the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) – the powerful private Swiss bank which oversees (private) central banks across the planet. The BIS insisted on a crucial change in Canada.

According to The Tyee (April 17, 2015), in 1974 the BIS’s new Basel Committee – supposedly in order to establish global financial “stability” – encouraged governments “to borrow from private lenders and end the practice of borrowing interest-free from their own central banks. The rationale was thin from the start. Central bank borrowing was and is no more inflationary than borrowing through the private banks. The only difference was that private banks were given the legal right to fleece Canadians.”

And that’s exactly what “the fraudsters” did. After 1974, the Bank of Canada stopped lending to federal and provincial governments and forced them to borrow from private and foreign lenders at compound interest rates – resulting in huge deficits and debts ever since. Just paying off the accumulated compound interest – called “servicing the debt” – is a significant part of every provincial and federal budget. In Ontario, for example, debt-servicing charges amounted to some $11.4 billion for 2015.

What is key to the COMER lawsuit is that the Bank of Canada is still a public central bank (the only one left among G7 countries). Their lawsuit seeks 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 the municipal, provincial, and federal governments for ‘human capital’ expenditures (education, health, other social services) and/or infrastructure expenditures.”

Deliberate Obfuscation

In February 2015, Rocco Galati stated publicly: “I have a firm basis to believe that the [federal] government has requested or ordered the mainstream media not to cover this [COMER] case.” Subsequently, the Toronto Star and the CBC both gave the lawsuit some coverage last spring and there was good coverage in alternative media. But given the importance of infrastructure-spending in the recent federal election campaign, it’s amazing (and sad) that the COMER lawsuit was so ignored, even by the political parties – especially the NDP.

With the Harper government touting its ten-year, $14 billion Building Canada Fund, and the Liberal Party of Justin Trudeau promising to double that amount of funding by running three years of deficits, the NDP led by Tom Mulcair pledged to balance the budget. The NDP could have explained and championed the COMER lawsuit and even possibly utilized it to somehow justify the balanced-budget promise – a platform plank that likely cost it the election.

In August, Justin Trudeau spoke vaguely about financing infrastructure spending with a new bank. As a COMER litigant wrote in their newsletter, “During the recent federal election, Trudeau floated an interesting plank about creating an infrastructure bank. My first response was ‘You already have one. The Bank of Canada.’ My second question was, ‘Public or private?’ Again we see both the colossal ignorance and deliberate obfuscation of money issues in this country by our leadership.”

A Liberal Party Backgrounder explained, “We will establish the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) to provide low-cost financing to build new infrastructure projects. This new CIB will work in partnership with other orders of governments and Canada’s financial community, so that the federal government can use its strong credit rating and lending authority to make it easier – and more affordable – for municipalities to finance the broad range of infrastructure projects their communities need … Canada has become a global leader in infrastructure financing and we will work with the private sector and pools of capital that choose for themselves to invest in Canadian infrastructure projects.”

It’s those “pools of capital” – including Wall Street titans like Goldman Sachs – that are set to profit handsomely from Canada’s new infrastructure lending and spending spree.

In a cynical move, the Liberal Backgrounder doesn’t mention the interest-free loans of the past, but it does cite their results in order to tout the Liberal Party’s “transformative investment plan” for Canada: “A large part of Canada’s 20th century prosperity was made possible by nation-building projects – projects that without leadership from the government of Canada would not have been possible … the St. Lawrence Seaway served as a foundation for prosperity in Quebec and Ontario; the TransCanada Highway links Canadians from coast to coast; and our electricity projects, pipelines, airports and canals have made it possible to develop our natural resources, power our cities, and connect with each other and the world.”

Pools of Capital

Enthused about Justin Trudeau’s victory and his infrastructure campaign platform, Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times (October 23, 2015), “We’re living in a world awash with savings that the private sector doesn’t want to invest and is eager to lend to governments at very low interest rates. It’s obviously a good idea to borrow at those low, low rates … . Let’s hope then, that Mr. Trudeau stays with the program. He has an opportunity to show the world what truly responsible fiscal policy looks like.”

Of course, borrowing from the Bank of Canada at NO interest rates would be even more fiscally responsible, and would keep policy decisions out of the hands of foreign lenders.


Joyce Nelson is an award-winning freelance writer/researcher and the author of five books.

= = = = =

In Response to the 2016 Government of Canada Budget.

[ [ ... &sid=18555 ]

Press release by the Canadian Action Party 23rd March 2016.

At the Canadian Action Party we applaud the baby steps being taken by the current Government of Canada to create a real and thriving economy in Canada, and to invest in the future of our great country.

However in his opening remarks the Finance Minister said this about the Canadian people and their past ability to get things done:

“In the post-war years, Canadians built the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Trans-Canada Highway. They constructed new airports, subways, pipelines, and communication networks. They created new colleges and universities, and parents sent their children to those institutions in record numbers.

These investments made the workforce skilled and educated. They connected communities. They improved access to markets. They made the flow of people, goods, and services faster and cheaper. The economy grew rapidly. Canadians prospered. Hope and hard work were rewarded.”

What he did not say was that all this and much more that he omitted such as our Health Care system, CPP, OAS and our very considerable part in WW2, were all financed by the Bank of Canada, a bank owned by the Canadian people and mandated in 1935 to finance Canada’s needs. This bank was used as mandated until 1974 when our national debt, basically owed to ourselves was about $22 billion. Today our national debt stands at close to $1 trillion and rising.

Mr Morneau went on to say:

“However, to shape the future, we must invest in the future. We must do for our children and our grandchildren what our parents and our grandparents did for us. Fortunately, circumstances for investment are ideal. Wise management of the nation’s finances back in the 1990s restored Canada’s fiscal health, giving us a debt-to-GDP ratio today that is by far the lowest of any G7 country. At the same time, our interest rates have never been lower, so we can borrow on excellent terms, as governments are being urged to do by everyone from the OECD to the IMF to the G20….”

We totally agree that we must invest in the future and the wisdom shown by our parents and grandparents in providing us with the means to prosper and build a better life for our children and grandchildren should not be ignored. They gave us the Bank of Canada and showed us that using it as designed will bring us nothing but benefit.

With the Bank of Canada we are free from the urgings of the OECD, IMF, BIS the G20 and the World Bank to go further into debt to them in one way or another because that is exactly what they want.

To not use the Bank of Canada as mandated by the Bank of Canada Act at any time. but specially now at this our time of great need to rebuild Canada, is in our view not only very short-sighted, uneconomically sound and indeed fiscally irresponsible, but also verging on treason towards our current and future generations.

We have been told that this government does not support the use of the Bank of Canada to do anything more than set interest rates and be a simple watchdog for the inflation being caused by borrowing from international banks and investors, and we cannot and will not agree with this concept, held we might say since 1974 by all the governments of Canada; therefore in light of this government’s intention to increase Canada’s national debt to private entities we ask this simple question:

When it comes to the finances of Canada where is the real change that this government is proposing? …we do not see it, nor do we see sunny ways and days ahead.

“What is physically possible, desirable and morally right, we can make it financially possible through the Bank of Canada.”

Jeremy Arney
Interim Leader of the Canadian Action Party
[ ]

= = = = = =

Posted with permission . . . .

From: Stephanie Mc Dowall
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 1:11 PM
Cc: ; ; Sheila Malcolmson ;
Subject: Canadian Budget 2016/Bank of Canada

I agree 100% with Jeremy Arney. We should be using the Bank of Canada like we did prior to 1974. This bank financed Canada’s rail line across our Country, financed Canada’s military during WW II not to mention a host of other Canadian projects Arney mentions below.
What possessed Pierre Trudeau to change how we use the Bank of Canada I will never understand. However, I expect he was under a great deal of pressure from the U.S. and other international players such as the banks. He & his family were also likely threatened. Pierre Trudeau was not a stupid man.

Justin would know the answers but he will stay silent. He must.

I can foresee the Government of Canada getting rid of the Bank of Canada entirely rather than being pressured to use it the way it is mandated to be used.

Don’t you dare !

There is very real fear here on the part of Canada’s Leaders and Parliamentarians. Why do you suppose this is? I can guess.

Stephanie McDowall,
Nanaimo, B.C.
Site Admin
Posts: 8698
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: LISTEN: Case Against Bank of Canada - Galati

Postby Oscar » Fri Jun 12, 2020 8:35 pm

Bleak post-pandemic future looms as government keeps borrowing from private banks instead of Bank of Canada

[ ... -borrowing ]

Ed Finn June 12, 2020

Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, recently estimated that the federal deficit incurred from funding pandemic virus relief measures -- now about $260 billion -- could soar as high as $900 billion by this time next year unless curbed long before then.

"Temporary measures…will have to be temporary," he cautioned, adding that if they are maintained at the current high rate of 12 per cent of GDP (going into 2021), the country will be sliding down a dangerous fiscal path that would be unsustainable.

He did not explain that the main reason for such a looming fiscal catastrophe is that these billions of dollars are being borrowed from the private banks at relatively high interest rates.

A similar steep rise in federal government spending occurred after the end of the Second World War. That's when several huge construction projects were undertaken, including the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway, and the construction of modern airports and seaports. Major social programs were also provided or improved at that time.

If such a massive and costly expansion of services and infrastructure were to be launched today, our federal government would incur costs running into many billions of dollars, as it now does for its pandemic relief spending. Back in the post-war period, however, the total cost of all these economic and social projects resulted in barely a minimal increase in the federal debt.

Why? Because the federal government didn't borrow money from the private banks at that time, as it does today. All the funding came from the Bank of Canada in the form of interest-free "loans" that were "repaid" to the Bank of Canada. The government thus avoided large debts and deficits for public infrastructure projects.

The Bank of Canada Act, passed in 1934, gives our publicly owned central bank the power to make such near-zero interest loans to Canadian governments for infrastructure and healthcare expenditures.

MORE . . . . . .
Site Admin
Posts: 8698
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest