Tim Madden is an economist with expertise on credit and banking. Tim and I are colleagues in lobbying government for public banking, with concentration in the US for state-owned banks (and here). The good news is that structural solutions to our economic controlled demolition are obvious and simple; and explained beautifully by many of America’s brightest historical minds. The bad news is that we’re still mired in oligarchic looting of our economies.
Tim’s following article explains collusion of government and judicial “leadership” to facilitate criminal looting through parasitic credit practices. This four-part article explains the principle and law, details a legal example of criminal looting with “official” collusion, and applies this to our international economy.
Won’t fly in an international court or breach-of-treaty determination
The legal and equitable significance of the foregoing is to make it clear that the necessary defence of Canada and its courts/legal profession cannot and will not stand before an international court or breach-of-treaty determination proceeding.
At the initial level Canada is dead-in-the-water because under ss. 347(7) of the Criminal Code it provided for a scheme of dispensation under which it could, and subsequently did, permit mainstream financial institutions based in Canada to illegally and criminally convert interest-in-fact into pretended principal on the face of registered securities, so as to facilitate the general trade and traffic in securities so falsified. The general mechanism of the scheme was to trivialize the substance of the offence by unlawfully and illegally making criminal prosecutions subject to the selective consent of the provincial Attorneys-General, so as to bring down the full weight of the criminal law on an accused living human while concurrently aiding and encouraging commercial traffic in the same offences by corporate persons.
At the same time, and regardless of the legality or lack thereof of the said dispensation provision, Canada made express contractual agreements with Iceland (and the others) that it would not trivialize any such “enterprise crime” offence (now called “designated offences”) but on the contrary would treat it as racketeering/money-laundering and would seize any proceeds within its jurisdiction.
As such Canada and its private-Crown-owned commercial/civil courts will be compelled to rely upon a genuine and sincere belief in its on-the-record legal justification for its breach of the treaty(ies), being that offences under the criminal law are not fundamentally illegal, and for the reason stated.
Here too, Canada is dead-in-the-water. The Court are “persons” in law and “have the capacity of a natural person”. Because the converse is impossible, the words have to mean that the courts “have the legal capacity of a natural person” and that puts them quasi-technically under the ambit of the Mental Health Act. And of course the living judges are all subject to the Mental Health Acts regardless.
At the risk of accusations of inciting ridicule, and with all due respect to said courts/judges, the stated reasoning of “not fundamentally illegal” is just plain stupid and of itself an utter contempt of the broadly-defined Canadian (and Icelandic) people (as well as a prima facie act of internal treason/sedition/fraud upon the Parliament) . It also falls under the definition of a psychopathic delusion or disorder directly or indirectly provided under the various provincial Mental Health Acts. Sufficient to note that if an inmate at a psychiatric facility expressed a genuine and sincere belief that any potential felonies which they might commit are severely punishable, but not fundamentally illegal, and for the reasons given by the courts in Thomson, then they would not be getting out anytime soon.
The fine point of law is not that the court/judge, as a natural-person-in-law, is necessarily a dangerous psychopath, but rather that if the accusation were to be made, the Mental Health Act would estop (legally prevent) the court from denying the accusation.
Assume that a given judge persistently writes decisions that encourage and accommodate more conventionally-recognized criminal behaviour, and to the point where he or she would be properly seen by colleagues to fall within the ambit of the Mental Health Act. Because of the very nature of many psychopathic delusions and disorders the only reliable evidence would be the decisions/writings themselves, and those writings confirm, and do not contradict, the appearance of the disorder.
Of course there are myriad other more conventional legal and equitable flaws in the courts’ reasoning that will result in an award of damages against them, but the essential point here is that they have allowed themselves to be so manipulated by their financial handlers (Canada’s private banks and financial institutions and associated law firms from which a majority of appellant judges are selected-in-fact) that their published decisions cannot be reconciled with reality without raising the spectre of mental illness. The decision appears to be crazy because it is crazy (not fundamentally sane) - to everyone but bank solicitors and former bank solicitors (i.e., commercial court judges).
Ironically, however, if it were possible to charge the Ontario Court of Appeal as a body for sedition, its decisions in Thomson and in Beer et als. would together estop or preclude the Court from an insanity or diminished capacity defence. There is a clear intent to deprive the legislature of its lawful authority by manifestly unlawful incremental steps. It looks like treason because it is treason.
Four centuries of English law confirm that “The principle of law is clear – the courts… will not enforce a contract that Parliament… has made unlawful” (and certainly where it has made it criminal, racketeering, and international money-laundering (and for very good reasons)).
As a final irony, Iceland especially can recover its damages from Canada under the treaty(ies) or type of treaty (Agreement(s) for the prevention of international money-laundering and the financing of terrorist activities), that was invoked against it (Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001) by Britain in late 2008 to assert jurisdiction over banks based in Iceland. (Note that it is difficult to make a clear distinction between tort and treaty because the fact of the treaties is also a material element of the tort (wrongful act). Once a means of remedy is settled (tort versus treaty) that will not be a problem).
Global financial crisis easily preventable
Regardless of whether Portugal, Iceland, Ireland, Greece and/or Spain, proceed(s) under a treaty or in tort, the fact of proximate causality is obvious and objectively provable. Beginning in 1981 Canada and its civil/commercial courts, secured jointly and severally by the bonds and malpractice insurance of its broadly-defined legal profession, had repeated opportunity backed by moral, lawful, and legal direct responsibility not to allow Her Majesty’s courts to be used as clearinghouses for falsified-in-fact nominal securities.
The 1981 amendment to the criminal law was directly tied to, and intended to replace, the 1939 Act whose preamble spelled out the evil of front-loading and the Act expressly prohibited it:
The cost of any such loan or any part thereof[loan fees] … shall not be compounded or deducted or received in advance.
The criminal amendment under what is now s. 347(1)(b) stipulates, and was intended to stipulate, against precisely the same act:
Every one who receives [including converts] a payment or partial payment of interest [loan fees] at a criminal rate [in advance] is guilty of an indictable offence [a felony].
Through malfeasance of office, and in reckless disregard of the foreseeable consequences, Canada’s private commercial courts wilfully, persistently, unlawfully, and illegally subverted, through both positive action and actionable negligence, any and all laws intended to prevent either the practice of front-loading, or the concealment of same through either or both of false attestations of principal amount on the face of the securities, or the deliberate and fraudulent omission to disclose collateral side-agreements requiring redirection and/or ownership by the nominal creditor of the proceeds in whole in part.
Had Canadian courts simply obeyed the criminal law and done their jobs in good faith, they would have caused a major disruption in the global financial markets by the fact of it. Canada’s privately-owned financial institutions are major players in the global markets and among the leading global exploiters of securities falsified by undisclosed side agreements that convert legally-defined and recognized interest illegally into principal in advance. They issue securities in the international markets that are secured by what the issuers know and admit to be underlying criminal contracts that are expressly tied to international anti-money-laundering treaties.
And that is the undoing of Canada’s only remaining legal or actual defence; that it did what it did because by enforcing the criminal law it would have caused chaos in the domestic and global financial markets. But that is the victims’ whole point in law and in equity (damages). Iceland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland have all had their economies destroyed not only because Canada failed to do what it was legally required to do under its own laws, and in breach of its international treaties also, but more damningly because of the unlawful and illegal means by which it sought to conceal its initial and continuing wrong-doing.
For those of my fellow Canadians who may take my own actions here as a betrayal of Canada, it is critical to bear in mind that Canada has already been illegally seized by its commercial/civil courts which function as private corporations in their own right and as de facto agents of private banks. Canadians need to get their country back from the technically criminal cabal that has plainly seized unlawful and illegal control of it.
In 1981 at the height of the then current global insolvency crisis, the CIBC invited a Mr. Brian Mulroney to join the board of directors of the bank. Two years later Mr. Mulroney stepped down from the bank to run an exceedingly well financed campaign for leadership of the federal Conservative Party. He was elected and became prime minister in September of 1984 and for the next eight years appointed an inordinate number of “corporate, commercial, and financial law specialists” to the appellate courts across the country. In many provinces it is difficult to separate a sitting of the court of appeal from a meeting of former senior bank solicitors – all of whom are personally financially liable on a massive scale for any losses, and whom often reaped personal fortunes from front-loading prior to being appointed judges.
To be clear, this entire brief applies equally to Portugal, Iceland, Ireland, Greece and Spain, the so-called PIIGS nations of the EU (and the rest of the world for that matter). Each of these nations has a separate and distinct action against Canada and its commercial courts in law, in equity, and in contract (treaty), for damages caused directly or indirectly from Canada having fostered and encouraged an environment conductive to the international commercial trade of securities known to have been acquired in the commission of felonies.
Front-loading is not some quaint legal technicality – it is the legal and actual technicality that has driven the fraudulent global financial economy for at least the past 200 years. “I will loan you $100,000 at 30% as long as you agree to give me a negotiable security that claims that I loaned you $130,000 at 6%, and a secret/unregistered side agreement for a $30,000 kick-back to me from the nominal proceeds. It is much easier to defraud and steal from domestic and international financial markets if I can conceal the real terms and underlying risk.” Virtually every high (and low) finance transaction in the world today follows the same model while secretly channelling literally billions in kick-backs to select members (or sectors) of the legal profession.
There are many techniques that financial institutions use to steal from their customers and from society, some more flagrant than others. Front-loading, however, is directly analogous to “the one ring that rules them all”, the master technique that dominates all others in terms of leverage and therefore profitability.
Canada had a clear opportunity to destroy that ring in 1981 but “the will of men failed”, and twenty-five years later the whole global system began to massively unravel. Front-loading is a disease that infects the global financial economy. Canada’s legal system had the cure in 1981 and chose instead to conceal its knowledge of the disease and of the cure from the rest of the world in order to exploit and profit from it.
Now as the rest of the financial world lies in smouldering ruins, one country’s privately-owned banks appear to have miraculously escaped the carnage – and that country is Canada. The mainstream media, effectively owned and operated by those same banks, brag to the rest of the world how superior management is behind Canada’s escape. The reality is that Canada is the central global clearinghouse for the falsified securities that caused the collapse itself. A virtual pyramid-central by reason of its official accommodation of racketeering and other organized crime activities.
Canadian banks criminally skimmed all the gravy and sold the diseased husks into the international markets. It has been a 30-year run, but, as with Dr. Faustus, eventually Hell demands his due.
So when will banker-saturated and controlled Canada be held accountable for its flagrant and self-admittedly criminal activities? The answer according to Canada’s banker/judges is: “When pigs fly!”
Be careful gentlemen. These PIIGS got wings. And teeth.