Paul Hellyer and COMER

[Fmotlgroupie]

I'd like to diverge on a tangent from a posting of Lee Lai Ping's, and into a rather quaint bit of Canadiana and weirdness.

Mowe quoted a passage of Ms Lee's ( viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9821 ) which I thought was interesting:

"Let The former Canadian of Minister of National Defence to explain to you how the Banking system create the Money out of THIN AIR. ~ YES, you read it right"

Is this just crazy talk? Sure some former ministers might be nuts, but a former minister of defence?

Well, for our non-Canadian readers, and no doubt many fellow Canucks, let me introduce the Hon. Paul Hellyer (born 1923, making him about 91 years old). Paul is an entertaining fellow, and the back of his hockey card might read like this:
-elected to the house in 1949, straight out of university
- appointed to cabinet as Minister of National Defence in 1963, and oversaw the unification of the Army, Navy, and Air Force into the Canadian Forces (always a good topic to get a conversation or riot or something started at the Legion)
-ran for and lost (with respectable support) the Luberal leadership I. 1968 to Trudeau
-he quit the Liberals, tried to start his own party, and subsequently joined ("ratted to", for the Churchillian comparison?) the Conservative party in 1971
-lost his seat in 1972, but still ran for the Conservative leadership in 1976, and lost badly
-re-ratted to the Liberals in 1982, still unable to win a seat
-in 1997 started a fringe party (Canadian Action Party), without any real support

So what are Paul's political convictions? Well, for one he believes In UFOs, and has criticized Stephen Hawking for not assuming ETs would be friendly, and George Bush for planning an intergalactic war. That is enough to get him quoted as an authority on some crazy parts of the web, but nothing Freemanish.

But one of the key planks of the Canadian Action Party was some pretty heterodox macroeconomic theory: http://web.archive.org/web/200512010320 ... ge=English If Hellyer wasn't the source of the copypasta we see from so many freeman types he was at leadt an early propagator of some key frean ideas:
-"banks create money out of thin air"
-"all money is created through debt so we will all inevitably be crushed by interest"
-"government can print all the money it wants so there is never a need for it to borrow money" (or, by TP extension, to tax anyone)

So, unusual (I would say crackpot, but don't have the economic grounding to clearly explain why) economic ideas, but no failure to understand how the legal system works, right?

That's where COMER (the COmmittee on Monetary and Economic Reform) comes in. Hellyer has been a speaker at its gatherings, and it focuses in the same economic notions as Hellyer. COMER and its 100-year old frontman, Bill Krehm, wand Ann Emmet (not sure of role) launched a lawsuit to force the Government of Canada to borrow from the Bank of Canada rather than issuing bonds. Why must it do so? Because the 1930s era legislation governing the BoC says it may and, in the usual Freeman/TP style may means must. Also because its controlled by international banksters, which is apparently a tort of some kind.

The suit was heavily promoted in the Wackadoidle community and had threads on the WFS FORUM, GLP, etc.

Unsurprisingly the suit got bounced (http://canlii.ca/t/g06c4 ) as being non-justiciable (just not something a court can decide on-kind if like "that's not only not right, it's not even wrong"), which is always a fun concept to end up on.

Here's to wondering which of today's politicians will be OPCA gurus in 40 years.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Thanks for exploring and explaining Hellyer, COMER, and that lawsuit, Fmotlgroupie! I have often encountered references to bits of that but never followed the subject enough to understand quite what was going on.

Canadian politicians who take the OPCA route? My nomination is current Toronto mayor Rob Ford. He'll get hooked into Moorish Law/Science and begin promoting that, but with his new twist being ... hmm ... oh how about this, the only "persons" in Canada who are subject to Canadian law are aboriginal peoples, and that any immigrants into Canada are Moors and therefore addressed via ... well, something else.

Hmm. I like that. Mutate Charter, s. 35 to mean only aboriginal persons are citizens of Canada.

SMS Möwe

[LordEd]

Having to learn bank theory to counter this was a bit painful. Fractional reserve banking is complicated, but makes sense. If somebody has better understanding, I'll take it.

1. There is a certain amount of "real" money in existence (don't mix fiat currency theory into this or it gets confusing). This money is not created by "debt" (although this part of my understanding is weaker).
2. Money gets deposited into a bank by many depositors.
3. Generally, money stays in the bank, so only a small amount of "real" money is necessary to service accounts.
4. The bank uses this idea to extend credit to its customers in the form of a loan by increasing the amount in their account. This is balanced by a "loan" amount to be repaid. The GOODF/FMOTL believes this is "creating money out of thin air". Some also believe that by "signing" the loan agreement, they are creating the money by using the signature (which is yes, but not really).
5. If a bank had $10,000 in deposits, it owes $10,000 to its customers. At any given time, all customers could ask for their money, but generally don't (bank run, see It's a Wonderful Life).
6. When a loan of $1,000 occurs, the bank essentially says: I have $10,000 in deposits. I owe $11,000 to my customers, and a customer owes me $1,000.
7. The borrowing customer takes the money, which puts the bank with $9,000 real money, $10,000 owed to depositors, and owed $1,000 from the borrower.
8. When the money is repaid, plus interest, the bank has $10,100 in real money, still owes $10,000 to customers, and is no longer owed anything from borrowers. The GOODF say that they have been paid twice because the signature "created" money. They refuse to acknowledge the idea that the money is essentially "destroyed" by repayment.
9. They also believe the interest can never be repaid because that money doesn't exist. They refuse to acknowledge that bankers need to eat, and that "interest" money would return into the system in the form of wages and expenses.

The COMER group simplifies money in that the government should create interest free loans, which would mean the government's interest expense would be eliminated. It doesn't look at what would happen with unchecked spending and increase of monetary supply. They don't like looking at Zimbabwe either.

[notorial dissent]

LordEd
Minor quibble, #6, if you have $10k in deposits, you have assets(deposits) of $10K(usually counted as cash) and liabilities of $10K to you depositors. If you make a loan of $1k, you still have a $10K liability to your customer for deposits, that doesn't change unless the customers withdraw. You do however have a $1k liability against assets(cash) for the loan made, and a $1K asset as the actual loan itself. What you end up with is $1K less in cash assets, and $1K more in loans receivable, and it all balances out.

The bank had the money to begin with, in the form of cash, and it loaned a part of it out. They therefore had less cash, but also had an asset (of hopefully equal value) the loan to balance it, so that when the books were done, assets equaled liabilities. That is how it is supposed to work. When the loan is (hopefully) repaid, the cash balance is restored to $10K and the liability column is reduced by the $1K of the loan repaid, and profits are increased by the interest and service fees from the loan, which is how the bank oddly enough makes money for itself.

Otherwise, pretty much spot on. The one thing I really dislike is the money "created" / "destroyed" nonsense. It is neither. The money was/is always there and always the same.

[ontobserver]

I've had a FMOTL follower try to explain the whole money is created deal several times. Because we use a fractional reserve banking system, there is a little truth that money gets created by the banks. Basically, their argument goes something like this (I can't remember the exact numbers they use in their examples):

• Someone deposits $1000 in the bank
• Because the bank is only required to hold a fraction (1/9) of their money on reserve, so they can now lend out $9000. That $9000 is was "created" by the bank.
• That $9000 gets deposited back in the bank and another $81000 can be loaned out.

There is a "documentary" that explains the whole warped understanding of the monetary system at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8. While there is a shred of truth to the documentary (at the start), the examples are very contrived to try to make the monetary system look very broken.
For the average FMOTL type, its a pretty easy sell.

[LordEd]

The bank can take its $10,000 and loan out significantly more than that amount PROVIDING it has enough cash on-hand for daily operation.

Bank loans $5,000 cash to customer:

Bank: $5000 cash remaining, $10,000 owed to customers in deposits, $5,000 in loan (as an asset to the bank).

Borrower buys car. Seller deposits money into same bank.

Borrower: $0 + car
Bank: $10,000 cash, $15,000 owed to customers in deposits, $5,000 in loan assets.

The monetary system now actually has more money in the system because of the loan. If all the bank's deposits were owed to the same person, that person would say that have $15,000, even though the bank only holds $10,000 in actual cash.

I believe this is referred to as the "Money Multiplier".

Repay the loan, however, and the monetary system collapses back to the original money amount of $10,000 as the "multiplied" money is scratched from the account counter-balanced by the deletion of the loan.

[Judge Roy Bean]

The convoluted theories espoused by some of the "fractional reserve" crackpots led to dozens, if not hundreds of "no money lent" mortgage elimination schemes, some of which were pay-to-play where borrowers paid some promoter to learn how to do it and wound up either paying a bunch of penalties and attorney's fees or losing their house.

[LordEd]

The COMER thing is popping up in a forum I participate in. Posts similar to this have been seen a few times from the tinfoil hats:

The Bank of Canada and the Government have lost a court case in which The Bank is unconstitution. The entire case has been blockd from publication by the Government. http://www.maxresistance.com/total-news ... tral-bank/

The Supreme court ruling about the power of the private banks in Canada has knocked them off their feet. The ruling allows the Bank of Canada to do what it was set up to do in the first place. And that is create money with no interest on it, that is bypass the chartered banks. This would eliminate roughly $60. billion in interest payments. Of course, printing money equal to the annual increase in GNP would never cause inflation. People who love the inflation fear tactic have not the scientific knowledge of this to refute it. Paul Hellyer's last 10 volumes on this prove it. He has done an amazing education on banking corruption. We know why there is a news blackout on this extremely important topic. MONEY MONEY MONEY

I found this on canlii: http://canlii.ca/t/gg4h9

Can somebody with more legal experience confirm my interpretation? The way I read this is that the court dismissed the claim/amended claim, but overturned the 'no leave to amend' allowing them to try again.

[Fmotlgroupie]

I read it the same way (and that the appeal court confirmed the claim can be amended). Interesting that COMER has hired a prominent lawyer on this!

[Burnaby49]

The COMER thing is popping up in a forum I participate in. Posts similar to this have been seen a few times from the tinfoil hats:

The Bank of Canada and the Government have lost a court case in which The Bank is unconstitution. The entire case has been blockd from publication by the Government. http://www.maxresistance.com/total-news ... tral-bank/

The Supreme court ruling about the power of the private banks in Canada has knocked them off their feet. The ruling allows the Bank of Canada to do what it was set up to do in the first place. And that is create money with no interest on it, that is bypass the chartered banks. This would eliminate roughly $60. billion in interest payments. Of course, printing money equal to the annual increase in GNP would never cause inflation. People who love the inflation fear tactic have not the scientific knowledge of this to refute it. Paul Hellyer's last 10 volumes on this prove it. He has done an amazing education on banking corruption. We know why there is a news blackout on this extremely important topic. MONEY MONEY MONEY

I found this on canlii: http://canlii.ca/t/gg4h9

Can somebody with more legal experience confirm my interpretation? The way I read this is that the court dismissed the claim/amended claim, but overturned the 'no leave to amend' allowing them to try again.

This is correct. The Prothonotary's decision to strike the Statement of Claim without leave to ammend was partly overturned by a decision of Russell, J. of the Federal Court. I can't find that decison on CANLII but it can be found here;

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/dec ... ZXIAAAAAAQ

Since it took me all of 30 seconds to find it on the Federal Court of Canada's website I'm at a loss to see how it can be claimed to have been blacked out by the Bank of Canada and the Federal government because it will destroy the Bank of Canada.

The relevant portion is;

[74] In addition, and as I think the Claim makes clear, the Plaintiffs clearly dispute and challenge certain socio-economic policy decisions that have been taken by the Government and others with respect to the Bank Act. It is also clear that the Plaintiffs would like the Government and others to make policy choices that are more in line with the Plaintiffs’ views of how to interpret and apply the Bank Act. In my view, however, the principal relief sought in this Claim (the declaratory relief) does not require the Court to adjudicate competing policy choices. It requires the Court to assess whether Canada and the Ministers and the officials identified have acted, and continue to act, in accordance with the Bank Act and their constitutional obligations. In other words, there is, in my view, a sufficient legal component to the Claim that will allow the Court to assess Government action against the Bank Act and the Constitution without having to review policy.

[75] The difficult boundary between what a court should and should not decide will arise time and again in a case like the present. However, the issue is not whether the Court should mandate the Government and the Bank to adopt the economic positions espoused and advocated by the Plaintiffs. Nor will the Court be deciding whether a particular policy is “financially or economically fallacious,” although this kind of accusation does appear in the Claim. In my view, the Court is being asked to decide whether particular policies and acts are in accordance with the Bank Act and the Constitution. If justiciability is a matter of “appropriateness,” then the Court is the appropriate forum to decide this kind of issue. In fact, the Court does this all the time. The Supreme Court of Canada has made in clear that the Parliament of Canada and the executive cannot abdicate their functions (see Wheat Board, above) and that the executive and other government actors and institutions are bound by constitutional norms. See Reference re Secession of Quebec, above, and Khadr, above.

[76] So, as regards the declaratory relief sought in this Claim, it is my view that the matters raised could be justiciable and appropriate for consideration by the Court. Should the Plaintiffs stray across the line into policy, they will be controlled by the Court. There is a difference between the Court declaring that the Government or the Governor, or the Minister, should pursue a particular policy and a declaration as to whether the policy or policies they have pursued are compliant with the Bank Act and the Constitution. The facts are pleaded on these issues. Subject to what I have to say about other aspects of the Claim, the Plaintiffs should be allowed to go forward, call their evidence, and attempt to make their case. It cannot be said, in my view, that it is plain and obvious on the facts pleaded that the action cannot succeed as regards this aspect of the Claim. And even if s.18 of the Bank Act is interpreted as purely permissive, that does not decide the issue raised in the Claim that Canada has obviated crucial aspects of the Bank Act and has subverted or abdicated constitutional obligations by making itself subservient to private international institutions.

The Tort Claims
[77] As regards the tort claims of misfeasance in public office and conspiracy, I am entirely in agreement with what Prothonotary Aalto has to say on these matters. These aspects of the Claim should be struck. They are simply not pleaded in accordance with the rules that govern pleadings. However, because I am of the view that the Claim is justiciable, I think the Plaintiffs must be given an opportunity to amend this aspect of their Claim.

The Charter Claims
[78] The Plaintiffs’ Charter claims are novel and fraught with difficulties. The Plaintiffs assert that the ultra vires actions of the Minister and the Bank have breached the rights of all Canadians but, as paragraph 47 of the Claim makes clear, their identification of the rights breached is abstract and unsubstantiated. This kind of pleading is impossible to defend against and manage in legal proceedings because, in its present form, it is little more than abstract debate. The Plaintiffs say they have the evidence and they will produce it at trial, but this does not answer the problem. The Defendants need to know in a much clearer fashion than is presently pleaded, and with the relevant facts, how the asserted rights of the Plaintiffs “and all other Canadians” have been breached. Paragraph 47 as presently drafted supports the Defendants’ position that the Plaintiffs are using legal proceedings to further a policy debate about what is appropriate socio-economic policy for the country as a whole. It would help if the Plaintiffs would plead the facts that support a breach of their rights.

The court concluded;

Conclusions
[99] In my view, this appeal cannot succeed in its entirety. However, given my finding that the allegations of breach of statute and constitutional obligations may be justiciable depending upon whether the Plaintiffs can establish a reasonable cause of action through appropriate amendments, the Plaintiffs should have leave to amend.

[100] In view of my reasons, the following paragraphs of the Claim must be struck in their entirety:
a. Paragraph 1(a)(viii);
b. Paragraph 1(b);
c. Paragraph 41;
d. Paragraph 47;
e. Paragraph 48;
f. Paragraph 49.

[101] If these paragraphs are struck, it is then my view that, in accordance with Rule 221, the entire Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, is scandalous and vexatious, and is an abuse of the process of the Court. However, there is a possibility that these problems could be remedied by appropriate amendments. For this reason, then, the Claim should be struck in its entirety with leave to amend.

So the Federal Court essentially said that COMER's lawsuit is almost certainly scandalous and vexatious, and an abuse of process but the Statement of Claim is such a mess that there is no way to really tell for sure. So all the court did was give COMER another chance to try and submit a Statement of Claim that makes a modicum of sense so the court can toss it out based on the lack of merit in the arguments rather than incomprehension. The Federal Court of Appeal gave deference to the Federal Court judgement and dismissed the Crown's appeal to dump the whole mess. That will happen when COMER submits a new Statement of Claim that the court concludes;

1 - Is still unintelligible and the court tells them they've had a fair chance so get lost. or;

2 - The court can understand it and rules, on it's merits, that it is vexatious and an abuse of process.

Either way the case is past life support and is waiting for last rites.

While COMER seems to take this as an actual major victory agains the evil empire it is just a procedural step that does not in any way support the basis of their lawsuit. Right off the top I can see an obvious reason why at least one part of the original Statement of Claim is fatally flawed;

[9] The causes of action claimed are chiefly concerned with three subsections of the Bank Act:

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;


(m) open accounts in a central bank in any other country or in the Bank for International Settlements, accept deposits from central banks in other countries, the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and any other official international financial organization, act as agent or mandatory, or depository or correspondent for any of those banks or organizations, and pay interest on any of those deposits;

[10] COMER claims that the Bank and other Crown actors have failed to comply with the requirements of subsections 18(i) and (j), which they interpret as requiring the Bank and the Minister of Finance to make interest-free loans for the purpose of municipal, provincial and federal “human capital expenditures”.[4] The only individual case of a rejected loan appears to be the August 18, 2004, decision of the Minister of Finance to refuse a loan to the Town of Lakeshore, Ontario.[5]

Note that the wording is that bank may do what is in (i), (j) and (m), not shall do what is in the section. When "shall" is used in Canadian statures it is a requirement to do something but when "may" is usd the actions are discretionary so the bank is under no legal requirement under the Bank Act to do anything in those subsections. So if this mess makes it to court that part is doomed to failure because whether the Bank of Canada should allow these loans is not law but policy (the reason for the "may", is to allow the Bank flexibility in implimenting policy) and the court will not rule on that.

[LordEd]

Thanks. Should they decide to raise the issue again, I will have the full weight of a burnaby beating stick in hand now.

Since it took me all of 30 seconds to find it on the Federal Court of Canada's website I'm at a loss to see how it can be claimed to have been blacked out by the Bank of Canada and the Federal government because it will destroy the Bank of Canada.

This particular board does not have the shiniest tinfoil hats. One was arguing that the book 1984 has been 'banned' because he couldn't find it for sale on a particular publisher overstock website (despite it being pointed at on amazon within 2 seconds of posting).

COMER was brought up a long time ago and I prefer to target the freeman minded before those ideas take root again.