This Simple and very open statement and description of War Criminals that usurped our major governments for last 70 or so years, brings end to political and diplomatic immunities [where this word 'diplomat' completely lost its true meaning... as these so called 'diplomats' were at least spies, or drug traffickers, or simply greedy war and profit hungry creatures..]
Where Now it is completely Legal and legitimate to call these beings George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all aided lawyers, commanders, CIA officials [who acted in concert to perpetrate War against Afghanistan, Iraq and others...] War Criminals... and to call them publicly to answer for their Crimes against Humanity...
Soon, don't be too surprised when you start leaning from MSMedia that many other Countries who suffered from direct attack and occupations from US, GB, Germany and Nato leaders, to raise their legal cases and prosecutions of Clintons, Regan's, Bush'es, and all the way back to WW1... Countries like Yugoslavia, Poland, Vietnam, Nigeria... and many others...
I feel this is the crucial moment in establishing Humanity's Freedom from war and fear mongering politicians and 'leaders' and GB's [meaning: greedy bankers...]... This is the moment where countries took legal means in their own hands and executed major victory against oppression over Humanity...
These verdicts I see more like a open Arrest Warrant for any on these 'people' directly involved in orchestrating wars against other countries citizens and its own citizens...
As well our beloved Abraham Obama just signed executive order to rejoin the International War Court [which G. Bush so 'eloquently' rejected for American citizens... including his own butt...], which gives Obama clear and open hands to Arrest and extradite them to International War Crimes Court in Hague...
Only thing I could ask you, please observe your reactions to these news...
- Are You doubting is this possible?...
- Is it real news, even if does not plays on CNN 24/7?...
- Can you forgive these greedy beings like Bushes, Clintons even they have been your presidents?...
- Can you forgive self for voting for these Criminals, as You simply haven’t been aware, and you haven’t have full truth what has been happening in background, or underground?...
- Can you find enough courage to stop blaming anyone, including self for being 'stupitified' for such long times, for not standing tall in asking your freedom earlier?...
- Can you make a stand now, simply thanking all the unknown and hidden heroes of every walk of life, who gave their life’s, and who stand their truth for all to see?...
- Can you see these events to be the most beautiful things that happening to you?... Ever?...
- Can You admit to self that Today is the day when YOU can claim Your freedom simply by being in joy for what is coming?...
- By simply, not being judgmental toward anyone who brings you good news of true freedom?...
- Can You allow self to forgive Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, simply knowing that they will, and they have to take responsibility for all actions they perpetrated on to many millions of people of the world?...
- Yet Can You remember their actions against self and others, simply by not getting angry, judgmental and revengeful toward these souls?...
Know that Divine Intervention is in play, Know that Father God and Mother God are here with US in full physical form... Know that we have full support and help from our Galactic Brothers and Sisters, all the time?... Know that you do not have to carry any other cross, or burden or bad actions, by getting revengeful toward these 'people'...
Please, see them and their actions as great opportunity to practice your compassion and forgiveness, knowing that they are part of One... One God... One Conciseness...
And only by forgiving these beings, you will give self full freedom to be ready for Your Ascension that awaits us all...
Give it a try... do not be afraid of wonderful news... do not be terrified of pure Truth, even if this is disclosing your most hidden secrets... Be open to all to see who You truly are...
And by giving all others full freedom to disclose self, without judgments and blames, you will give self most cherished gift in the Universe: YOU WILL GIVE SELF TRUE AND UNLIMITED FREEDOM... YOU WILL GIVE SELF GOD GIVEN FREEDOM...
With Love and True Freedom, I AM THAT I AM Predrag Saint Germain
***
FREEDOM PROJECT: SEC Opens Review of J.P. Morgan... IT STARTED... YEPEE...
***
FREEDOM PROJECT: Lawsuit in India to get their Gold back from The Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements ...
***
FREEDOM PROJECT: The $592trillion Ponzi scheme is a time bomb ticking under your house...
***FREEDOM PROJECT: Rebekah Brooks quizzed over political ties at UK hacking hearing ... OBSERVE WORD 'QUIZZED"... IN MY BOOK THIS IS CALLED 'INVESTIGATION & QUESTIONING'...
***Vatican: Owner of world's biggest banks and top companies [Catholic Church Exposed]
5/11/2012
EARTH ALLIES 11.5.12... PRICE OF TRUE FREEDOM?... BECOME FREE BY GIVING OTHERS THEIR OWN FREEDOM...
SEC Opens Review of J.P. Morgan
A German warship in the Battle of Jutland during the First World War. JP Morgan financed the conflict in part with 'war loans'
SEC Opens Review of J.P. Morgan
HIP... HIP... HURRAY...
SEC Opens Review of J.P. Morgan
By JEAN EAGLESHAM
The Securities and Exchange Commission has begun reviewing J.P. Morgan ChaseJPM -9.50% & Co.'s disclosures related to the $2 billion trading loss announced by the company Thursday, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The review is at an early stage and hasn't progressed to the status of a formal investigation, this person said. Such reviews are routine after public companies report unexpected losses that send their stock prices sharply lower.
As a regulator, the SEC oversees J.P. Morgan's disclosures to investors and the New York company's broker-dealer operations. The Federal Reserve regulates the bank holding company of J.P. Morgan, while the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency oversees its main banking unit.
SEC officials are looking at accounting and disclosure issues related to the trading loss, according to a person familiar with the matter. SEC officials will have to decide if they believe the loss was disclosed to investors soon enough, the person said.
There are no firm guidelines on when projected trading losses become "material" to investors and thus must be disclosed. That could make it much harder for the SEC to file civil enforcement charges against J.P. Morgan.
SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro told reporters Friday that is "safe to say that all the regulators are focused on this," Fox Business Network reported.
A spokesman for the SEC declined comment.
Still, news of the bank's trading loss reverberated through Washington, and the fallout is likely to spread as policy makers and pundits claim it is evidence that U.S. megabanks are too big to manage.
J.P. Morgan's black eye will likely hurt the arguments to delay or scale back regulations mandated by the 2010 Dodd-Frank law. The bank had long been seen as one of the more sophisticated, successful banks in the U.S., and Chief Executive James Dimon had taken on something of a leadership role among big bank executives in pushing back against new regulations such as the so-called Volcker rule, which aims to limit risk-taking trading by commercial banks that enjoy government guarantees.
"This regrettable news from J.P. Morgan Chase obviously goes counter to the bank's narrative blaming excessive regulation for the woes of financial institutions," said Rep. Barney Frank, who gave his name to the Dodd-Frank law. "The argument that financial institutions do not need the new rules to help them avoid the irresponsible actions that led to the crisis of 2008 is at least $2 billion harder to make today."
Smaller banks were also quick to heap criticism on their giant rival.
"This is exhibit A" for why risky investment banking and commercial banking can't mix, said Cam Fine, head of the Independent Community Bankers of America, a trade group representing community banks that has been pushing for lawmakers and regulators to limit megabanks. "Policy makers need to stop treating the symptoms and go after the disease … too big to fail," he said.
Jaret Seiberg, a Washington analyst with Guggenheim Securities, warned clients Friday of the higher risk of a whole slew of policies that would hurt big banks, including new laws to break up the banks. He put the odds at one-in-three that Congress or regulators enact measures to separate commercial banking from trading operations.
"For the Volcker rule on proprietary trading, the path to a moderate regulation just got tougher. We still believe the final version will be workable, but the big banks will be unable to turn to Congress for help and the hardliners now have more ammunition to press for a tougher rule that could hurt the profitability" of its market-making unit, he said in a note.
The news puts financial regulators in the spotlight, particularly the Fed, which under Dodd-Frank has primary responsibility for overseeing the nation's largest banks and other financial firms. The Fed recently concluded a round of "stress tests" of the biggest 19 banks, including J.P. Morgan, and concluded that J.P. Morgan could withstand a severe economic shock and keep lending. As a result of the test, the Fed gave the bank the green light to pay out billions in dividend payouts and share buybacks, which Mr. Dimon said in a Thursday night conference call wouldn't be impacted by the loss.
"I would be shocked" if the Fed doesn't stop the capital payouts, said Simon Johnson, former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund and a professor at MIT.
"If Jamie Dimon can't manage risk of this nature, then no one can," Mr. Johnson said, echoing the thought on many minds. "It should shake people up" at the Fed, he said.
At the very least, the J.P. Morgan debacle will up the pressure on regulators to take a tough line with the banks as they finish drafting key regulations and make it harder for lawmakers sympathetic to the banks' arguments to stand up for them.
"The enormous loss J.P. Morgan announced today is just the latest evidence that what banks call 'hedges' are often risky bets that so-called too big to fail banks have no business making," Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said in a statement Thursday night. He said the bank's loss was a "stark reminder of the need for regulators to establish tough, effective standards" as they implement new guidelines "to protect taxpayers from having to cover such high-risk bets."
While the Volcker rule has yet to be finalized, some experts said it likely would not have prohibited the J.P. Morgan trade, since the bank claimed it was designed to reduce its overall risk.
"It seems highly likely that it would've been allowed," since the current proposals all try to preserve the ability of banks to make hedging trades aimed at reducing their risk, said Douglas Elliott, fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank. "Just because J.P. Morgan did an incompetent hedge doesn't mean that anybody's going to try to eliminate hedging," he said.
While the loss will hardly cripple J.P. Morgan, it does ding the reputation of one of the banking industry's most effective defenders. "J.P. Morgan has been one of the industry's best advocates and they do lose some credibility from this," Mr. Elliott said. "That will hurt the industry."
—Victoria McGrane, Kristina Peterson and Kirsten Grind contributed to this article.
- Recap of J.P. Morgan's Conference Call
- J.P. Morgan: A London Whale? He's More of a Shrubbery (4/13/2012)
- Making Waves Against the Whale (4/10/2012)
- 'London Whale' Rattles Debt Market (4/6/2012)
Write to Jean Eaglesham at jean.eaglesham@wsj.com
Thousands of British police join anti-austerity protest
Thousands of British police join anti-austerity protest
By Michael Holden | Reuters
Lawsuit in India to get their Gold back from The Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements
THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2012
Lawsuit in India to get their Gold back from The Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements
GATA has an article up about a lawsuit having been filed in India. The suit is demanding India's gold be brought back into the country from The Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements (Geneva).
It seems there was a law from 1934 saying India had to hole 85% of it's gold in the country, but it has 46% of it outside the country now being held in England and Switzerland. Now, we all know that The Bank of England is a driving force behind the manipulation of Gold and the BIS is a Rothschild's banks and they had sold all kinds of gold a couple of years ago on paper to various countries including India.
What is funny is the Reserve Bank of India did not show up for the hearing for this lawsuit and they have not responded to it. Remember, people in Germany and Switzerland have requested their gold back from the U.S. a couple of months ago. Now we have the country of India who by law is suppose to hold 85% of it's gold in the country but has not.
All of this will likely go on for years, because we all know the gold is not where it is suppose to be for the various countries. If anyone actually believes gold is being safely stored in the U.S., England and Switzerland for other countries and has not been touched or sold off, then I have great tungsten to sell them.
From the article linked above:
A technocrat-turned-public interest litigant, Raghunath Shankar Kelkar, has challenged the Reserve Bank of India's move to deposit abroad 265.49 tonnes of gold out of its total stock of 557.75 tonnes by filing a public interest litigation in the Bombay High Court and has demanded that the precious metal be brought back into the country according to the provisions of the law.
Kelkar, 56, who used to manufacture computers, has filed the petition as he found that
Gartman: ‘Rogue’ Trader Scenario Unlikely in JPMorgan Loss
US NewsPage 1 of 2 | Next Page
Show Entire ArticleGartman: ‘Rogue’ Trader Scenario Unlikely in JPMorgan LossCNBC.com | May 11, 2012 | 06:52 AM EDT
The $2 billion trading loss announced by JPMorgan Chase on Thursday as a result of a failed hedging strategy does not bear the earmarks of coming from only a “rogue” trader, and developments that follow are more likely to get worse for the Wall Street bank rather than better, Dennis Gartman, founder of The Gartman Letter, told CNBC on Friday.
"I operate under the old rule that there is never just one cockroach, when ill news comes out there is usually more ill news to follow,” the famed investor and former floor trader said.
“This clearly isn’t a rogue. This is not the same thing that happened at SocGen, by any stretch of the imagination,” said Gartman, making reference to the 2008 trading losses suffered by French Bank Societe Generale [ GLE-FR 17.21
-0.295 (-1.69%) ] at the hands of a single trader, Jerome Kerviel.
A JPMorgan [ JPM 36.985
While stressing that not all the facts are yet available, Gartman said he believed the failed hedging mechanism appeared more akin to “a proprietary trading operation,” whereby a bank uses its own money rather than its customers’ money to trade stocks, bonds, currencies, and other financial instruments.
Page 1 of 2 | Next Page
Show Entire Article
Mish/ Mike Shedlock – Whale Of A Story : JP Morgan Loses $2 Billion On “Ineffective, Poorly Monitored,Poorly Constructed” Hedging Strategies; Reflections On The Volcker Rule – 11 May 2012
In a special conference call this evening Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan disclosed a “trading loss” of at least $2 billion from a failed hedging strategy.
The strategy “morphed over time” and it was “ineffective, poorly monitored, poorly constructed and all of that,” said Dimon.
Last month, he denied there were any problems, most likely hoping they would go away or he could cover them up. Instead, Dimon went to the confessional.Bloomberg has additional details in JPMorgan has trading loss of at least $2 billion, reputation hit.
The April Wall Street Journal report said a trader in JPMorgan’s Chief Investment Office, nicknamed the ‘London Whale’ had amassed an outsized position that had caused hedge funds to bet against his position. In the bank’s earnings conference call in April, Dimon called the concern “a complete tempest in a teapot.”
Regulators and lawmakers are now likely to push Dimon for more details about the trades. Those details will guide how regulators now view the issue and its impact on the Volcker rule, said Karen Petrou, managing partner of Washington-based Federal Financial Analytics.
Reflections on the Volcker Rule
Interestingly, Dimon says this should not be an excuse to implement the Volcker Rule (a ban on proprietary trading). The problem, he said, was with the execution of the hedging strategy.
That’s his opinion. Here’s mine.
I believe banks should be banks and not hedge funds. I believe “too big to fail” means too big period. And finally I believe this should cost Dimon and the entire board their jobs.
That said, if we would just end fractional reserve lending and the mammoth leverage it allows (and end FDIC insurance right along with it), we would not be discussing this kind of monumental greed coupled with monumental stupidity in the first place.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
www.globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com link to original article
Dee – Mayan Calendar Strangeness – 11 May 2012
Dee nailed it, National Geographic is a major disinformation outlet for the Illiminati, all recognizable print media publications are controlled by the corporate elite. 96% of all media is monopolized, as soon as any publication becomes popular it silently gets purchased so the PTW can stay in control of the message. The same thing is happening on the internet with alternative media, which is why it’s becoming more and more important to learn to go within to source the truth.
Published on May 11, 2012 by Thyalwaysseek
Unprecedented Maya Mural Found, Contradicts 2012 “Doomsday” Myth: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120510-maya-2012-doomsday-cal…
Production of Mayan documentary steeped in intrigue: http://omg.yahoo.com/news/production-mayan-documentary-steeped-intrigue-23010…
Sun May Act As A Lens Producing A Strong Focus Of Photon Energy From Pleiades:
DEE SMITH FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/dee.smith.712
5-6-2012 dark hole spot on Venus very strange looking YTUL 1.wmv :1&feature=plcp
Who Owns What on Television?: http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-television/
www.ascendingstarseed.wordpress.com link to original article
108Morris108 – Ben Fulford Interview – Fukushima, JP Morgan And The Criminal Cabal – All At An End – 11 May 2012
Uploaded on 11 May 2012 by 108morris108
Ben is full of Info – I goofed up recording the video of him – but he is well worth a listen too!
He says Fukushima (and probably Haiti) was caused by Nukes under the sea bed.
108Morris108 – Ben Fulford Interview – Fukushima, JP Morgan And The Criminal Cabal – All At An End – 11 May 2012
Uploaded on 11 May 2012 by 108morris108
Ben is full of Info – I goofed up recording the video of him – but he is well worth a listen too!
He says Fukushima (and probably Haiti) was caused by Nukes under the sea bed.
Stop Picking on Bankers, JPMorgan Chief Says
This lawsuit was brought to my attention by American Kabuki : link to article.This is now a 4 th lawsuit in a row that I am aware of. The first against the FED, IRS etc in the USA. Then the International Branches of the FED in Europe . The Michael Tellinger constitutional case in South-Africa and now this case in Canada that we see. There are more to follow. The net is closing in. The links follow here.
Here is the actual filling proof of the case that I have added as the original link did not do link correct:
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_moreInfo_e.php?T-20...
Here is the PDF link to the case and below the text:
http://sovcom.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/KREHM-Statement-of-Claim-11-10-1...
COURT SEALFEDERAL COURT BETWEENCOMMITTEE FOR MONETARY AND ECONOMIC REFORM (“COMER”), WILLIAM KREHM, AND ANN EMMETT
Plaintiffs- and -DefendantsTO 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, 2011Issued by:Address of local office:Federal Court of Canada180 Queen Street West, Suite 200Toronto, Ontario M5V 3L6TO:
Department of Justice Ontario Regional Office First Canadian Place The Exchange Tower 130 King Street West Suite 3400, Box 36 Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6AND TO:Bank of Canada 234 Wellington St. Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G91. The Plaintiffs claim:(a) declarations that:i) the Minister of Finance, and Government of Canada is required torequest, 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;ii) that the “Government of Canada”, the Minister of Finance, and HerMajesty the Queen in Right of Canada, with the Bank of Canada,A/ have abdicated their statutory and constitutional duties withrespect to ss. 18(i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act whichsubsections 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 poorwith an continuing disappearance of the middle class;
iii) that s. 18(m) of the Bank of Canada Act, and its administration andoperation, is unconstitutional and of no force and effect, inParliament and the government, including the Defendant Minister ofFinance, abdicating their duty to govern, and insofar, as monetary,currency and financial policies, per se, are concerned, and in turn asthey effect socio-economic governance, have abdicated theirconstitutional duty(ies)and handed them over to those international,private entities, whose interests, and directives, are placed above theinterests of Canadians, and the primacy of the Constitution ofCanada, not only with respect to its specific provisions, but also withrespect to the underlying constitutional imperatives, and whichprovision 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;iv) 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:
A/ ultra vires action by the Governor of the Bank of Canada contrary to inter alia, s. 24 of the Act
B/ unconstitutional conduct by the Governor of the Bank of Canada;v) that the Parliament of Canada, in:A/ allowing the Governor of the Bank of Canada to hold secret the nature and content of his meetings with other central bank(ers); and
B/ in not exercising the authority and duty contained in 18(i) and (j) of the Act; and
C/ 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;vi) 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;vii) that the Minister of Finance is required to list, in his budgetaryaccounting, all revenues collected prior 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;
viii) 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:A/ 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;
B/ 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;ix) 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:andB/ 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;(b) damages in the amount of:
i) $10, 000.00 per plaintiff; and
ii) 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:iii) the constitutional breaches pleaded in the statement of claim herein; andiv) the conspiracy pleaded in the statement of claim herein;
(c) such further declaratory and/or consequential injunctive and/or prerogative order and/or relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court grant;
(d) costs of this action and such further or other relief this Court deems just.THE PARTIES2. (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;(b) 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;(c) 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;(d) 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 the Constitution Act, 1982;(e) 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;(f) the Defendant, the Minister of National Revenue, is statutorily responsible for administering the Income 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;(g) 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.THE FACTS3. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that The Bank of Canada was established asCanada’s central bank, in 1934, and nationalized in 1938,with the intended purpose of:(a) Asserting domestic and public control of monetary and economic control and
public policy pursuant to its constitutional sources of jurisdiction contained
in s. 91 and 91 A of the Constitution Act, 1867, namely:
(i) 1A. The Public Debt and Property;… (ii) 3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation; (iii) 4. The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit;… (iv) 14. Currency and Coinage;… (v) 16. Savings Banks;… (vi) 18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes; (vii) 19. Interest; (viii) 20. Legal Tender. and as set out in s. 18 of the Act and its predecessor provisions;(b) to be a vehicle to provide the Federal and Provincial governments interest-free loans for physical infrastructure as well as “human capital” expenditures (education, health, other social services); and(c) maintain sovereign control over credit and currency with the aim to promote the economic interests of Canada in all its aspects.4. The preamble to the Bank of Canada Act, upon its enactment in 1934, as a privatecorporation, and as re-enacted as a Crown corporation in 1938, read as follows:WHEREAS it is desirable to establish a central bank in Canada to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the national monetary unit and to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices and employment, so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action, and generally to promote the economic and financial welfare of the Dominion: Therefore, His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:5. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the current Bank of Canada Act, continuesto reflect a public statutory duty and responsibility, as borne out by the preamble tothe Act, which reads:WHEREAS it is desirable to establish a central bank in Canada to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the national monetary unit and to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices and employment, so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action, and generally to promote the economic and financial welfare of Canada6. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that 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 in the nations in which they operate.7. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that Policies such as interest rates, and other policies set by the Bank of Canada are set in consultation, and at times, but mostly at the direction of the “Financial Stability Board” (“FSB”), established after the 2009 “G-20” London Summit in April, 2009. The FSB is a successor of the “Financial Stability Forum” (“FSF”). The current FSB, like its predecessor, is an international body of central bankers that monitors and makes recommendations about the globalfinancial system. The Board includes all major G-20 major economies, FSF members, and the European Commission. The FSB is based in Basel, Switzerland.8. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the current FSB, like its predecessor FSF, continues to serve the same function. It consists of the major national financial authorities such as Finance Ministers, central bankers, and international financial bodies.9. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the FSF was and is managed by a small secretariat, which secretariat was housed at the “Bank of International Settlements” (“BIS”) in Basel, Switzerland. It was established by the Hague Agreements, in 1930, prior to the creation of the Bank of Canada.10. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the BIS is a so-called inter-governmental organization of central banks which purports to execute financial co-operation and purports to serve as a “bank for central banks”. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the BIS in fact formulates policies and dictates to central banks, including the Bank of Canada.12. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that Canada, through its Bank of Canada, became a member of an expanded BIS in 1974. The Plaintiffs further state, and the fact is, that between 1934 to 1974 the Bank of Canada, and Canada, was completely independent, from international private interests, with respect to its statutory duties under the Bank of Canada Act, as well as its monetary and financial policies reflected in the preamble to the Act, and as it flowed through to its economic and social policies. The Plaintiffs further state, and fact is, 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 in fact, by and large, dictated by private foreign bank and financial interests, contrary to the Act.13. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the BIS is not accountable to any government. It holds annual meetings, which are secret, and provides banking services to central banks, including the Bank of Canada.14. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the BIS is effectively in control of the FSB when it comes to credit, currency, monetary and financial policies for G-20 countries, including Canada, with far-reaching economic and social impact not in the interests of either the Bank, government, nor people of Canada.15. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the meetings of the BIS and FSB, their minutes, their discussions, and deliberations are secret and not available to Parliament, the executive, nor the Canadian public, notwithstanding that the Bank of Canada policies directly emanate, and are directed by these meetings.16. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that in its early and middle existence the Bank of Canada issued (interest-free) loans, pursuant to s. 18 (i) and (j) of the Act, and predecessor statutes, not only to the federal and provincial governments , but also directly to municipal councils. (It also printed money and bought government debt in financing the war efforts in World War II). It stopped doing so in the early 1974 in favour of loans from foreign private banks with interest, with the resulting and detrimental negative effects:
(a) loss of the control of domestic monetary policy, including interest rate policy;(b) loss of control of domestic economic policy insofar as bond raters, from foreign private banks lending to Canada, would insist on the direction of Canada’s domestic economic policy under threat of downgrading Canada’s borrowing/lending worthiness;(c) loss of control over social policies, from foreign private banks lending to Canada would insist on the direction of Canada’s domestic social policies, under threat of downgrading Canada’s borrowing/lending worthiness;(d) loss of investment in human capital and infrastructure expenditures, from foreign private banks lending to Canada who would insist on direction of Canada’s domestic human capital and infrastructure expenditures under threat of downgrading Canada’s borrowing/lending worthiness;(e) a corresponding loss of sovereignty over decision related to banking, monetary policy, economic policy, as well as social policy;(f) as a result, spiralling schism between the rich and the poor in Canada with a continuing removal of the middle class and a corresponding rise in socio-economic crime related to poverty;(g) the bizarre, and absurd result that, while private banks can borrow money from the Bank of Canada, currently, next-to-zero interest (0.25%), Canadian citizens, through the government’s debt to private banks, and foreign private banks holding Canadian bonds and currency, relend at a higher interest rate than they borrow.18. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that this loss of control coincides with the Bank of Canada being a member of the BIS, FSF and FSB, without public scrutiny nor accountability with respect to the actions of the Bank of Canada, at the direction and decisions of foreign, private bodies and interests.19. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that in or about 1974, after Canada’s entry into the expanded BIS, an agreement or directive was reached, at which BIS , where Canada’s (central) Bank of Canada was the only publicly-created and accountable to its Parliament or Legislative body, that the central banks would not be used to create or lend-interest free money, contrary to ss. 18(i) and (j) of the Act, and its original purpose for its creation, but that governments obtain borrowed money from and through the BIS (FSF, FSB, and International Monetary Fund (“IMF”)).20. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that no sovereign government such as Canada, under any circumstances, should borrow money from commercial banks, at interest, when it can, instead, borrow from its own central bank interest-free, particularly when that central bank, unlike any other G-8 nation, is publicly established, mandated, owned, and accountable to Parliament, and the Minister of Finance, and was created with that purpose as one of its main functions.21. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that over the years, Ministers of Finance have had requests to have the Minister make interest free loan requests from the Bank of Canada, which have been refused, examples of which are:
(a) on June 11th, 2004 the Town of Lakeshore, Ontario wrote the Minister of Finance, the Right Honourable Ralph Goodale, on Municipal Council Resolution, requesting such loans be made, which request is a document referred to in the pleadings herein;(b) the Minister of Finance on August 18th, 2004 refused the request and in doing so did not have regard to either the nature of the request, nor the pertinent provisions of the Bank of Canada Act, which response is a document referred to in the pleadings herein.20. In his response, the Minister of Finance gave the following reasons for refusing to
do so:(a) that “…relying on the printing press to finance government expenditures results in inflation…”;(b) “….If the Bank had to borrow the funds that it loaned to the government it would have to pay whatever interest rate prevailed in the market…”(c) “Other nations that have relied extensively on, low-interest credit extended by central banks….have experienced very high inflation…”(d) “It is also inadvisable for the Bank of Canada to issue low-interest loans to provincial or municipal governments. To understand why, let us consider the two approaches that the Bank of Canada could follow if it chose to issue such loans. Suppose that the Bank of Canada did not want to change the totalamount of loans it had outstanding. In this case, the Bank of Canada could rearrange its portfolio of assets to provide some loans to provinces at relatively low interest rates. However, this would reduce the Bank of Canada’s profits. Since the Bank is owned by the Government of Canada, this policy would result in federal taxpayers subsidizing provincial governments.” This has been a consistent response from the government of Canada.21. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the Minister’s reasons for refusing what was requested from the Town of Lakeshore’s Council, is both financially and economically fallacious and not in accordance with his statutory duties under the Bank of Canada Act, nor his constitutional duties as Finance Minister. For example:(a) any (interest-free) loans granted under s. 18 (i) and (j) would have to be repaid within a very short period and therefore would not be “inflationary”;(b) the Bank of Canada does not have to acquire its money from commercial banks to pay back any (interest-free) loans under s. 18 (i) and (j) in that its is statutorily mandated to do so, has done so in that past, and in fact lends money to the commercial banks currently, at almost zero percent (0.25%);(c) that inflation would ensue is simply negated by the fact that currently, the U.S. Federal Reserve has a 0% interest rate while the Bank of Canada has a 0.25% rate with no inflating consequences, above and beyond the fact that, historically, such short-term (interest-free loans) have not, in and by themselves, caused inflation because they have to be repaid the next fiscal year; and(d) on the fact the some Provinces may get more (interest-free) loans than others, this is neither contrary to the underlying constitutional principle of Federalism, nor the explicit terms of s. 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
22. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the Minister’s response is financially and economically fallacious, as witnessed by the current state of affairs, such as the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank (a private central bank) printing currency and “lending” it, to the commercial banks at 0% (interest-free), while the Bank of Canada’s current lending rate is 0.25% (one quarter of one percent), above and beyond the “giving” or “bail-out” of hundreds of billions of dollars by the US and Canadian governments, as well as by the Bank of Canada, to purportedly avert a collapse of the international banking and financial systems.23. The Plaintiffs further state, and the fact is, that this leads to the absurd and ultra vires result that while commercial banks obtain their money, from the Bank of Canada, at the Bank of Canada’s prime leading rate, today at 0.25%, the citizens of Canada, through the government of Canada, pay back the commercial banks, commercial lending rates which are higher than the Bank of Canada’s prime rate, on the “national debt” owed to private commercial banks, accumulated on the annual “deficit” as calculated and set down by the Minister of Finance in the annual budget, and budgetary process.24. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the Minister of Finance’s refusal is purportedly based on the reasoning that such loans would increase the annual deficits and public “debt”.25. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the Minister’s calculation of the public deficit and debt, as calculated and not amortised, is based on fallacious accounting methods, namely with respect to how expenditures directly relating to “human capital” are set out and amortised as “liabilities” as opposed to “assets”. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that expenditures and the capital obtained through those expenditures and the capital obtained through those expenditures with respect to human capital are “assets” and not “liabilities”. The Plaintiffs further state that the Minister of Finance’s budgetary accounting is also misleading and fallacious in the calculation of “revenues” as excluding tax credits given back on collected/collectable taxes.26. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that it has been long recognized that investment and expenditure in human capital is the most productive investment and expenditure a government can make. This was amplified and borne out by the phenomenal success and results of the reconstruction of Germany and Japan following World War II, which was realized by a subsequent study by Theodore Shultz, a Nobel Prize Winner, from the University of Chicago, and other noted economists.27. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the notion and reality of “human capital” with its origins going back to Adam Smith, boil down to:(a) acquired competency and knowledge of individuals, through education and experience, which in turn leads to the ability to perform labour producing economic output;(b) along with this “human capital” attributable to individuals are the capital expenditures to make it possible such as schools, universities, and hospitals, etc;(c) human capital it tied to the qualitative and quantitative progress of any nation;(d) human capital is developed through health, education, and quality of standard of living which in turn translates to government expenditures and investments in schools, universities, hospitals, and other public infrastructures;(e) human capital is always central to any analysis about the welfare, education, healthcare, and retirement of individuals, which in turn is central to a person’s life, liberty, security of the person, as well as their equality within the Canadian state.28. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that while “human capital” expenditure, on human beings, and human capital expenditures (such as schools, universities, hospitals), while, in Canada, may not have a “marketable” or “sellable” value on the “free”, “private” market, this does not mean, as interpreted and calculated by the Defendant Minister of Finance, that it has zero value when calculating assets and liabilities for deficit/debt purposes, nor in the manner in which these capital human expenditures assets are amortised for accounting purposes in that budgetary process.29. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that human capital has been viewed as a means of production through which additional investment yields additional output to the economy of any nation. This investment applies both to government and the private sector investments and expenditures.30. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that so long as the notion of expenditures on human capital are discarded, a critical intent and purpose of the Bank of Canada Act is rendered impotent, and equally discarded, with the results of statutory and constitutional breach(es) by the Minister of Finance and the Bank of Canada.31. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that 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 attempt, and largely succeed, to over-ride governments and constitutional orders in countries, such as Canada, over which they exert financial control.
32. The Plaintiffs further state, and fact is, that, so long as human capital expenditures are treated strictly as “liability” and “debt”, with no corresponding asset value, the government will not be investing in human capital infrastructure, or its own infrastructure for that matter, which is manifested for example, in government paying exorbitant rents on space for such things as Ministerial Departments, such as the Justice Department, as well as the Court themselves, where building or purchasing such assets would, in the long run, reduce those costs to a negligible fraction of the actual rental expenditures which increases the “deficit” and “debt” as (mis)calculated by the current budgetary process. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that such is the case with all sales, rentals, or disposition (“privatization”) of human capital infrastructure, including government infrastructure serving Canadians.33. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that with respect to the private corporate context, a company’s value is routinely calculated as an aggregate of its capital assets and its “goodwill” for accounting, valuation, and income tax purposes. The “goodwill” of the company essentially boils down its “human capital”.34. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the Minister of Finance’s calculation of revenue, expenditures, and surplus/deficit, on an annual basis, is also fallacious and inaccurate by the statutory slight of hand and ultra vires accounting which is effected by means of the Income Tax Act, through “tax credits”. Thus, the annual budget is presented, in simple terms, as follows:
(a) total revenue collected (without setting out total tax credits given back to taxpayers before final payable tax is calculated);(b) minus government expenditures (which includes misamortization of human capital expenditures);(c) equals total surplus/deficit.35. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that on the Minister’s presentation of a budget,
the calculation is, for example, set out as follows:(a) total revenue equals $240 billion;(b) minus total expenditure of $280 billion;(c) equals a $40 billion deficit.When in fact, the real calculation and accounting should read, for example as follows:(a) total revenue collected/collectable:
(i) $340 billion,
(ii) minus $100 billion returned to taxpayers by way of tax credits,for a total of $240 billion in revenues;(b) minus total expenditures of:
(i) $280 billion,
(ii) while not counting nor properly amortizing human capitalexpenditures and assets;(c) equals a deficit of $40 billion.36. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the “deficit” amount of $40 billion, which is added to the annual debt every year, more often than not equals or constitutes the bulk of the “carrying charges” (interest/paid on the debt, to commercial banks, at market rate interest rates), while the Bank of Canada gives that money to commercial banks at the Bank of Canada’s lower lending rate, an amount depravingly lower than what the government pays them back on its annual “debt”.37. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that tax credits do not show up as government revenue, on the one hand, but are simply off-set against tax revenue and then a net figure reported as tax revenue, as out in paragraphs 34 and 35 above.38. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that on the other hand “refundable” tax credits, which are credits whereby monies are remitted to the taxpayer, as opposed to non-refundable tax credits which simply reduce the amount of a taxpayers’ taxable income, on the other hand, show up as “expenditures” or government spending in the budgetary process.39. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the above “accounting method” used in the budgetary process are not in accordance with accepted accounting practices, are conceptually and logically wrong, and have the effect of perpetually making the real and actual picture of what total “revenues”, “total expenditures”, and what the annual deficits/surplus” actually is, what the annual “deficit/surplus” actually is, in any given year, and what, as a result the standing national “debt” actually is. Moreover, and more importantly, the Plaintiffs state, and fact is, that such “accounting” methods foreclose any actual or real debate, or consideration, by elected MPs, in Parliament, as the actual financial picture is not available nor disclosed to either Parliamentarians nor the Canadian public. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that such accounting method breaches s. 91(5) of the Constitution Act,1867 and the duty of the Defendant(s) to maintain accurate “statistics”.40. The Plaintiffs further state, and the fact is, that this “accounting” has, in the past, been heavily criticized by the Auditor General.41. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, 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, inter alia, Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959 namely:A/ 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;B/ 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;42. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the proper accounting and setting out of the budgetary process, including the aggregate amount of taxes collected/collectable which is “given back” to taxpayers, and notably corporate tax payers, through tax credits, would result in the proper accountability and consequential political debate, through the elected MPs in Parliament, on the actual state of Revenues, Expenditures, Surplus/Deficit account, announced, and tabled in Parliament by the Minister of Finance, in his constitutional duty over the budgetary process.43. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the “accounting” employed in the budgetary process, and an inaccurate and unavailable “statistic” of the aggregate of tax credits transferred back before calculations of net revenue, as well as the absence of the “asset” value of human capital and expenditures and infrastructure, violates s.91(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867.44. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the Minister’s statutory and Parliamentary duty over the budgetary process, goes hand in hand with his statutory duty as ultimate authority, with the consent of Governor-in-Council, over the Bank Canada, under s.14 of the Bank of Canada Act, and the authority and duty imposed by s. 18 (i) and (j) , and other duties, which includes the exercise of the statutory duty to ensure interest-free loans to the government of Canada and the Provinces to execute and implement human capital expenditures which expenditures ought to be properly amortized and accounted, along with the proper accounting of tax credits, in the budgetary process, which process is constitutionally mandated, going back to the Magna Carta in the constitutional guarantee that the Crown can only imposes taxes, for the declared proposed expenditures, as set out in the throne speech, upon the consent (over the taxing power) of the House of Commons.45. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, 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 affect 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.46. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that ultimate control and decision(s) under the Bank of Canada Act, are made by the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the Governor in Council, by “government directive” under s. 14 of the Act.47. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the ultra vires (in)actions of both the Minister of Finance, and the Bank of Canada, as set out in the within statement ofclaim, have the result of breaching the rights of the Plaintiffs and all other Canadians, not only statutorily, but also their constitutional rights as follows:(a) their right to life, liberty, and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter by a reduction, elimination, and/or fatal delay of health care services, education and other human capital expenditures and services;(b) their right to equality both under ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter, but also the underlying constitutional right to equality, as identified in, inter alia, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Winner v. S.M.T. (Eastern) Ltd., [1951] S.C.R. 887;(c) the underlying constitutional principle of Federalism;(d) the expressed provision(s) giving effect to the underlying principles of Federalism, contained in s. 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982.(e) the constitutional right that statutes do not be rendered impotent in Parliament de facto abdicating its duty to govern.
48. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is that as a result of the Defendants (’) officials tortious, ultra vires, and unconstitutional conduct, they have suffered damages as set out above, and in reduced services in human capital expenditures and infrastructure, as has every other Canadian citizen/resident.49. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is that as a result of the Defendants (’) officials tortious, ultra vires, and unconstitutional conduct they have also suffered damage to their normative constitutional order by irreparable harm to the constitutional supremacy required and dictated not only by s.52 Constitution Act, 1982, but also by the supremacy required and dictated by its underlying principles.50. The Plaintiffs propose that this action be tried at Toronto.Dated at Toronto this 12th day of December, 2011.
_signed_______________________________
ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Rocco Galati, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.
637 College Street, Suite 203
Toronto, Ontario
M6G 1B5
TEL: (416) 536-7811
FAX: (416) 536-6801
Solicitor for the Plaintiffs