Canadians win another round against the Bank of Canada
By Jane Gaffin
web posted February 16, 2015
Every Canadian has a vested interest in COMER (Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform) v the Bank of Canada.
Yet the so-called mainstream media has not mentioned the Federal Court decision of January 26, 2015 that is a ‘good news' story for all Canadians who are the rightful owners of the Bank of Canada, which is a unique and enviable position in the world where all other central banks are privately-owned.
The judgement delivered from the bench in Toronto was an historic, landmark decision which makes it even more puzzling why Toronto-based constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati, who normally receives wall-to-wall publicity on his constitutional challenges, received no ink or airtime on this particular case.
YouthVoteCanada picked up the slack and produced a video titled A Conversation w/Constitutional Lawyer Rocco Galati who graciously explained the success of the Bank of Canada lawsuit immediately following the ruling.
The upper court upheld the lower court's decision from April 24, 2014. Yes, there were dismissals of this and dismissals of that and one thing and another. As is normal procedure, the Crown wanted the case dumped as "frivolous".
However, the Motion was not struck down, which renders this a ‘win', and the Bank of Canada has 60 days to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is not anticipated that the government will choose to exercise that option but that remains to be seen.
The case is still on the books and is still moving forward as it has since the initial filing on December 12, 2011 when Rocco Galati launched a case on behalf of plaintiffs William Krehm, Ann Emmett and COMER in the federal court against the Queen of England, Minister of Finance, Minister of National Revenue, the Bank of Canada and the Attorney General of Canada.
As per the recent decision, plaintiffs Krehm, Emmett and COMER have 60 days from January 26 to refile an Amended Statement of Claim, then presumably advance to trial for a couple more years of legal proceedings.
The Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 to bring Canada out of the Great Depression by injecting debt-free money into infrastructure projects: airports, subway systems, highways, St. Lawrence Seaway, Canadian Health Care System, Canadian Pension System as well as the Trans Canada Highway and setting up hospitals, schools, universities and offering affordable means for students to earn their diplomas without drowning in lifetime debts.
The Bank of Canada made interest-free loans to the municipal, provincial and federal governments, a provision still mandated under the Bank of Canada Act.
The Bank of Canada used to be a government lending institution, creating near interest free loans that built much of Canada's infrastructure during the 1950s and 1960s.
Things changed in 1974. At the Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, which doesn't appear to have settled a transaction since then, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, under influence of fellow Bilderberg attendees, allowed for the function of the Bank of Canada to be dismantled.
Since then, Canada has lost sovereign control over its monetary policies and money supply. Every Canadian has been saddled with government debt at all levels that has risen exponentially over the last 40 years.
This case before the courts revolves around that stifling of the Bank of Canada's mandate to create money for the public good.
As lifted from Press for Truth, September 10, 2012 (because my computer couldn't read the fuzzy pdf version), "The Plaintiffs state that the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [a special agency of the United Nations] 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 overriding governments and constitutional orders in countries such as Canada over which they exert financial control."
Further, the Plaintiffs state that the meetings of the Bank of International Settlements 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," they charged.
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.
Constitutional lawyer Galati reminded that when initially enacted in 1937-38, the Bank could directly provide interest-free loans to the federal, provincial and municipalities for infrastructure and human capital expenditures so long as it didn't exceed one-third the annual budget and as long as it was repaid within the next fiscal year which governments had no problem doing because no interest was attached to the loans.
"That practice stopped in 1974 when the Bank of Canada joined the gang of bankers over in Europe," noted Galati.
"The only difference between our Bank and the other banks is our Bank is a public Bank. It is the only Bank that is a public bank in the GA [United Nations General Assembly] countries. The other banks are private banks, including the Federal Reserve in the States. Most people don't realize that.
"If the Bank of Canada can give (money) to the commercial banks at one quarter of one percent they should be able to give money to the government at least at one quarter of one percent -- or zero percent -- as the Bank of Canada is mandated to do."
He added that this legal claim has a lot of basis. "It's grounded in law. If we get a dishonest judge, she or he will strike parts or all of it. We'll appeal it. But there's nothing in this statement of claim that we want the government to fess up to that's not grounded in solid, legal argument."
With regards to motions, Galati stated, if the [Bank of Canada] loses on this one they have to file their substantive defense.
They can't put in the Statement of Defense ‘there's no reasonable cause of action'. They've spent that fuel, he said.
"They have to actually justify why they haven't been giving interest-free loans to the government. They have to justify why the Minutes of these Meetings in Zurich are kept secret. They have to justify why the Minister of Justice is not tabling the true figures of revenue coming in. They have to justify this in law.
"There's no such thing as a failure when you bring a matter to the courts that's ripe for adjudication. The failure is in not bringing it forward and raising the issue," he concluded. 
Jane Gaffin is a freelance writer living in Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. She can be contacted at janegaffin@northwestel.net or visit her at www.janegaffin.wordpress.com.