Canadian Class Action Charging Illegal creation of Money: First Anniversary
On 15 April 2005, just over a year ago, John Ruiz Dempsey and others filed a class action suit on behalf of the People of Canada alleging that financial institutions are engaged in the illegal creation of money when "granting" loans for which they receive a promissory note and real collateral from the loan-taker. The charge is that the banks illegally pretend to be the owners of money they create and charge interest on as long as the loan is outstanding. My original report on the case, with many comments from readers, is on Health Supreme and is titled Canada: Class Action Accuses Banks of Illegal Creation of Money
Image credit: Ruben van Dijk
Not surprisingly, the defendant banks are demanding that the suit be dismissed as vexatious and without foundation. Madam Justice Garson, the assigned case management judge, prior to becoming a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, seems to have worked for one of the defendant banks, TD Canada Trust. A motion to recuse Justice Garson as partial was decided by ... Justice Garson, prompting John Dempsey to say she violated the maxim "nemo judex in sua causa" or no one shall judge a case in which they are personally involved...
It will be interesting to see how the case continues to evolve, but in any case, it has already done much to raise international awareness of the issue - the illegal creation of money by the banks - also described in G. Edward Griffin's book "The Creature from Jekyll Island". A chapter of "The Creature" is available to readers in Banks and Money - The Mandrake Mechanism.
Here is the communication from John Dempsey marking the first anniversary of his controversial court action...
- - -
The People vs The Banks - First Anniversary
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, April 15, 2006.
Exactly a year ago today, on April 15, 2005, we filed the biggest class action suit in Canada - "The People vs The Banks." This class action created shock waves in the heart of the world's banking business that deals in unlawfully created, non-tangible, non-existent digital money.
The class action involves millions of people in Canada. Despite the mainstream media's continued biased reporting, the news of the class action suit has traveled all over the world. The whole world is watching, waiting to see how the banks and the courts are going to stop John-Ruiz: Dempsey from proceeding with this major lawsuit.
The suit arises from the fact that banks as credit-lenders flourish only because of fraud and deception, breach of contract, deception, unjust enrichment, unlawful conversion and illegal creation of money. The Plaintiff (as well as the other millions of people), the "borrower" is always the source of the principal amount of any alleged loan by virtue of his "promise" to pay (the "promissory note"), from which a negotiable instrument is generated, i.e. "money," pursuant to commonly accepted banking practice which the credit-lender then converts into another form (bank draft, cashier's check) in accordance with their lending policies which is then reissued in the form of a "loan." This "loan" is nothing more than accounting entries on the bank's ledgers, because the financial institutions like the defendant banks, loans nothing of substance, and are forbidden by banking regulations from loaning the bank's cash or assets.
Money simply does not exist. What we call money, the Canadian bank note they call "legal tender" is not money. It has no intrinsic value. It costs two cents to make a five dollar bill as well as it is for a hundred dollar bill. It is money by decree; it is money only because the government says it is money. Worse, in this case, the "money" in question in this lawsuit is the privately created, digital, computer generated money surreptitiously created by the banks and "loaned" to their unsuspecting borrowers with criminal interest at no cost to themselves.
As far as the representative Plaintiff, John-Ruiz: Dempsey is concerned, the People of Canada do not owe the banks any debt or money. It was the other way around. John says: "How can we owe them anything when we never received anything of any value [substance] from these banks?" The money which was assumed to have been credited into the borrower's account was derived from "thin air" - God's money, or money that never belonged to the banks at all. The banks have no legal right to use God's money and pass them on to the unsuspecting borrowers and call it a loan and then start charging usury. This is nothing but pure skullduggery.
"Only God can create something of value out of nothing ... no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction to which Plaintiff [the bank] was a party." Per Justice Mahoney in First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly, 12/07/1968.
In First National Bank above, (more popularly known as the Credit River decision) further stated: "The [bank's] act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not lawful consideration in the eyes of the law to support anything or upon which any lawful right can be built." - Justice Martin V. Mahoney.
The above Minnesota trial court's decision is holding the federal reserve act unconstitutional and void; holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and void; declaring a mortgage acquired by the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the foreclosure and the sheriff's sale to be void. This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and state bonds held by the Federal Reserve, national and state banks to be null and void. This amounts to an emancipation of the nation from personal, national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every American (as well as Canadian) owes it to himself, his country, and to the people of the world for that matter to study this decision very carefully and to understand it, for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.
The above statement by Justice Mahoney also holds true in Canada because there is no law in Canada, whether federal or provincial, that remotely suggests that it is lawful for any bank to create money out of thin air and then use this created money as valuable consideration whereby they could now loan this created money as principal and then charge their unsuspecting victims interest for the rest of their lives! This is legalized slavery.
An earlier decision by the Supreme Court of Canada which dealt with the same issue of lack of consideration per Henry J.: "...I know of no law to oblige me to pay it. When I deliver and execute a note, I am presumed to have received a consideration for it, and I am therefore bound to pay the legal holder or endorsee, but it would be contrary to every equitable, and I may say legal, principle to make me pay in the other case, where I received no value, or did no act from which such may be presumed." Scott v. R. (1878), 2 S.C.R. 349.
The People have a strong case. The only problem is money, and the banks have lots of it. The banks have been known to spend $100,000.00 or more trying to collect a $5,000.00 claim. The banks simply cannot afford to have any precedents. They can afford to pay their highly paid lawyers and perhaps even bribe the judges in order to achieve their evil goals.
Just recently, the banks and The People were compelled to appear before Madam Justice Garson, the assigned case management judge who heard the banks' lawyers argue that the statement of claim should be struck in whole or in part. The banks argue that the People's claim has no merit based on their flimsy arguments that the pleadings are either vexatious, frivolous, scandalous and abuse of process. However they all failed to show why the claims are vexatious, frivolous, scandalous and abuse of process.
John and his team, submitted the truth, that the court has no jurisdiction to hear or decide the case simply because the judge herself is in direct conflict of interest. Prior to Judge Garson becoming a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, she worked for one of the defendant banks, TD Canada Trust. John filed a motion to have Garson recused. This motion was intended to be heard by the Chief Justice himself. Notwithstanding, Garson took it upon herself to decide on the motion to recuse without any notice of hearing being filed which violates the maxim: "nemo judex in sua causa" which means that one cannot be the judge of his/her own cause. Garson saw nothing wrong with that.
During the last hearing on April 6, 2006, John personally served Garson a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. John and others filed this lawsuit against Garson in her personal capacity for interfering with John's personal right of unlimited contract with his principals. The suit also named another judge, Justice James Williams who, without proving any jurisdiction or proof of claim or evidence against John decided to grant an injunction against him from representing other people in court because he is not a member of the BAR or law society. With this writ filed against Garson as a defendant, this judge is now in clear conflict without any excuse.
At the hearing on April 6, John and the others told Garson they will not accept any decision or order made or done while she is in direct conflict of interest and without proper jurisdiction. However, knowing how she made her previous decisions that have no foundation in law or fact, it will not come as a surprise if this judge puts on her blindfold and ignores the law in order to give the banks a great favour. The whole world will have the opportunity to see whether or not the courts deserve the kind of respect they think we owed them. Needless to say, the ball is in their court.
Whatever happens, this is only the beginning. The greatest battle, "The People vs. The Banks" has only begun. This battle will continue until the tables of the money changers have been overturned once more. If God be for us, who can be against us? May God Bless Us All.
Please contact us by email at:
Visit our websites at:
Affidavit of Walker F Todd expert witness for defendants Harshavardhan and Pratima
"... I conclude that Plaintiff and Defendants exchanged reciprocal credits involving money of account and not money of exchange; no lawful money was or probably ever would be disbursed by either side in the covered transactions."