Praying for a miracle

The money-power isn’t afraid of a virus – it is afraid, and quite properly terrified, of a meaningful and competent audit.

To appreciate the role of language, try to imagine our current reality if from the beginning the nominal COVID virus had been called the Misdirection virus or the Shell-game virus.

If you truly want to understand the nominal COVID phenomenon, start by reading your mortgage. []

Here is one of at least a dozen scandalously criminal provisions in a typical nominal mortgage security prepared by solicitors for a major Canada-based multinational financial institution (and the same in substance as with all the other banks):

NOTWITHSTANDING the provisions of any Statute [any lawful Act of Parliament, including the criminal law]… this contract [and security] shall remain in full force and effect.


To cut to the chase, that is a direct order and instruction, originating from the mind of a senior financial solicitor and member of the BAR, to the judges of Her Majesty’s Courts, that they are to wholly disregard the laws of the Crown (the laws of Canada).


And the judges of Her Majesty’s Courts are in fact knowingly obeying those orders, and in additional direct and positive dereliction of duty.

Judicial notice shall be taken of all Acts of Parliament, public or private, without being specially pleaded. R.S., c. E-10, s. 18., (federal / Canada Evidence Act).


All of which duties are a manifestation of the foundational relationship and limitations defined by and as English Law:

The principle of law is clear. The courts, which exercise the judicial power of the Crown, will not enforce a contract that Parliament, which exercises the legislative power of the Crown, has made unlawful. In the words of Lord Mansfield in Holman v. Johnson [1775]:

“The principle of public policy is this: Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act.”[1]


It is because in 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ratified the unanimous decision of a panel of a gang of appointed former-bank-lawyers calling themselves the Ontario Court of Appeal, that criminal and racketeering offences committed by financial corporations are not illegal because the criminal law only states that offenders will be severely punished but does not otherwise directly state: Don’t do it.


And, critically, because all of the co-offenders and the criminal / racketeering arrangement itself, including falsification of securities and conversion / laundering of the proceeds, had been counselled and aided and abetted by Members of the Bar Association.

“[T]here is no doubt that the corporate plaintiff [directly funded / reinsured by the CIBC / Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce] committed an offence under s. 347(1)(a) by entering into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate” [also via front-loading ($45,000 converted-in-advance) contrary to s. 347(1)(b), (and also forgery / falsified-securities and money-laundering) to conceal it] [and] “The parties…acted on the advice of their solicitors” [described elsewhere by the trial judge as “two leading Toronto law firms”].


If a commercial contract is lawful and legal, then the bank / banker, for example, is an anticipated principal party to the (anticipated subsequent) agreement, and the client of the bank’s solicitor(s) who prepare(s) the contracts and securities (for the nominal-borrower’s signature) and chooses the wording. And the bank and its solicitors have solicitor-client privilege.

But if the facts, as here and as so found, establish that the agreement is contrary to the criminal law, and such criminal law is, as here, a designated racketeering / organised-crime and money-laundering offence, then the actual and legal status of the man or woman who was previously the solicitor flips – and they and their BAR association become the principal offender and ringleader of the resulting criminal organization.

Section 462.3(c) (counsel to commit an enterprise-crime / designated offence):

enterprise crime offence [now [post-2001]] called a “designated offence”]” means

(c) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit, being an accessory after the fact in relation to, or any counselling in relation to, an offence referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (b.1) [e.g. ss. 462.3(a)(xiii.1) (s. 347)(criminal interest rate)].

Technically the solicitor and the BAR association are the ringleaders in law, and the bank / banker is both a co-party to the solicitors’ offences, and bagman or holding-vessel for the resulting proceeds of crime.


Then to tie-up the loose-ends, the former bank-lawyers, many of whom had been directly appointed as judges by a former bank-director (Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, formerly of the same CIBC (co-offender in this case) spelled-out the real object of their sedition against the laws of Canada. Henceforth the nominal Crown Courts have the self-declared power to enforce criminal / organised-crime contracts in favour of banks and other designated friends of the Crown – and against the little people – depending on the former-bank-lawyers’ personal opinion of:

The serious consequences of invalidating the [criminal] contract, the social utility of those consequences, and a determination of the class of persons for whom the [criminal] prohibition was enacted…


It is because a decade earlier in 1981 the government / Crown-in-right-of-Canada unlawfully and illegally revived the long-outlawed and criminal practice of non obstante or the giving of permission to friends of the Crown to violate the (civil) law, and then extended it into the criminal-law-realm so that its banker friends would be able to systematically violate the then (soon to be) new anti-money-laundering law under the Criminal Code:

Senator Buckwold: Then….the bank, theoretically, could be prosecuted for [money-laundering / receiving or converting interest-in-advance]

Mr. Wong…theoretically, yes. That is one of the reasons this section is unusual, in that it requires the consent of the Attorney General before [criminal] prosecutions are initiated, thus preventing the application of the section to [criminal] commercial practices to which it was not intended [by the bankers and other controllers of the money / credit system] that it apply. It then becomes a question of the Attorney General’s discretion. (Select Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce) (SSCBTC) transcripts; 4-11-1980 [November 4, 1980], 24:28)


The private financial system in Canada at the time (late-1970’s and early-1980’s) was all but officially insolvent and bankrupt, and the only way out was to massively cook-their-books by illegally capitalizing and cross-leveraging interest in advance (already illegal under GAAP).

But they regardless didn’t think it through very far and (at best) failed to realize that, even if the AG decides not to prosecute, the violation-in-fact of the new criminal law against interest-in-advance (or ex-temporal fraud – a fraud against time) is an automatic strict-liability offence against the separate anti-racketeering and anti-money-laundering sections of the domestic criminal law, and under the international anti-organized-crime-and-anti-money-laundering treaties to which Canada is a contracting state party.

It is a recognised principle of international customary law that a state may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform its international obligations. (Zingre v. The Queen et al. [1981] 2 SCR 392) [Otherwise any nation could get out of any treaty obligation by merely enacting a contrary domestic statute].

And here again, it also automatically and overwhelmingly criminalized the BAR Associations and all of their members worldwide. And all member-institutions / banks of the world’s tightly-interconnected private financial exchange / money-laundering-in-fact systems such as Visa International, MasterCard International, Amex, SWIFT, and EuroClear, etc., and all of their solicitors, and all of whom knowingly and admittedly trafficked in fact in, and further leveraged, the resulting proceeds-of-crime irrespective of whether the AG later chooses to prosecute any or all of them domestically for the initial / triggering offences. It’s an offence-in-fact and an offence-in-law – it’s not just a technicality.

Ground-Zero for the monumental global cross-criminalization double-whammy was the de facto separate city-state called The City of London – henceforth officially confirmed or recognized-in-law also, as the Global Ringleader and Mother-of-all-criminal-organizations.


That is why in 1990 the controlling-minds / members of the BAR Association quietly deposed the Crown in right of Canada, and de facto installed an imposter in its place.

That is why today these members of the BAR are metaphorically b*tch-slapping Her Majesty in public and in broad-daylight, and then just as brazenly registering their sedition and treason at the Crown’s own Land Title Offices (to also rub Her Majesty’s nose in it) while everyone material keeps their bleeping mouths shut about it – or else.

Today there isn’t a mortgage in the world that is worth the proverbial paper it is printed-on – except as evidence in criminal jurisdiction of the mind-boggling number of criminal and racketeering offences being committed by the ringleaders and authors-in-fact of the racketeering and money-laundering instruments.

Here again, it is not just a technicality – the principal activity in fact of the members-in-fact of the global BAR associations is the falsification of financial securities and the concurrent / subsequent trafficking-therein.

That is why the coherence of nominal disclaimers and contingencies in the nominal securities has continued to deteriorate to the point where they appear to have been drafted by cartoon-villains like Dr. Evil:

4.3 If the Interest Rate stipulated herein [7.75%] would, except for this clause, be a criminal rate [greater than 60% p.a.] or void for uncertainty or unenforceable for any other reason, then the interest rate chargeable on the credit advanced or secured by this mortgage will be ONE (1.00%) percent per annum less than the rate which would be a criminal interest rate calculated in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practices and principles [i.e., 60% – 1% = 59% per annum[2]].

In plain English, the clause / disclaimer provides that the bank has complied with federal securities law by declaring that the actual or net amount advanced to the issuer of the mortgage (nominal borrower) is $2.1 million, and that the rate of interest defined by the stipulated payments is 7.75% per annum.

Provided, however, that if it should be discovered or raised as an issue that the bank’s declaration is false (which it is on both counts – and flagrantly so), then the rate of interest is amended and increased to 59% per annum and applied against the amount secured regardless of the amount actually advanced (zero as and when executed and converted).

In terms of its essential and material legal elements, it is the same as a bill of lading that declares that the containers / goods carried under it contain flour and sugar, provided however that if it should be discovered or raised as an issue that the containers in fact contain cocaine and heroin, then a certain chemical shall be added so as to change the chemical structure to something that is not illegal! This kind of at least egregious and profoundly-dangerous incompetence has infected and saturated the entire financial and legal worlds.

It is how and why Madoff Investments, for example, was able to run a naked-Ponzi-scheme in broad daylight for 25 years. Nobody noticed because it is all a Ponzi scheme.

Otherwise, the only thing missing from the disclaimer in the sworn and registered security is that it would be more consistent with reality were it to be written in crayon, and acknowledged as having originated from the games-room of a psychiatric facility.

Note, however, that there is in fact one exceptionally lucid and coherent construction among the otherwise gibberish, and that is:

4.3 If the Interest Rate stipulated herein would,… be unenforceable for any… reason, then the interest rate chargeable on the creditsecured by this mortgage will be… 59% per annum].

Crazy like a fox.

It had been slowly but relentlessly unravelling for forty years, but by 2019 (at the latest) it was obvious to all concerned in and out of Canada that:

OMG! – We’re going to lose everything and we’re all going to jail forever!!!!! We need a miracle – because the only thing that can save us now would be a virus and pandemic that we also need to complete our global deposition of lawful authority everywhere!

Funny how that works. Whenever the money-power needs a miracle – it gets a miracle.

“Is this real world – or exercise?” How many times can you go to the same well before it finally runs dry?

I think we’re about to find out.

Whether COVID is a false pretence or a true pretence – it remains a pretence.

The attached pdf’s (or on the website) are (1) Calculation Fraud / The Rate is Nominal The Fraud is real (High School version) for those with a high school level education, (2) The psy-op goes on, an extended / historically-detailed version for those with a university education or equivalent, (3) What Happened to the $10 Trillion?, to demonstrate the role and process of the nominal Courts (mostly former-bank-lawyers), and (4) POP QUIZ on Credit/Charge-cards, to demonstrate how viciously and systematically the entrenched-money-power systematically lies about everything.

Also: NOTICE OF ABATEMENT for a summary of rampant mortgage fraud.

For greater certainty, but not so as to limit the generality of the foregoing:





  1. Snell v. Unity Finance, Court of Appeal, [1963] 3 All E.R., pp. 50-61, at p. 59.

  2. Technically the clause stipulates for 59.4% per annum because “ONE (1.00%) percent less” than 60% is 0.6% and not 1%, but the bank’s solicitors likely intended 59%. Basically, the clause provides that if the declared interest rate [of 7.75%] turns out to be false, then the nominal borrower agrees to amend the contract to increase the interest rate to 59% on the amount secured, regardless of how much is actually advanced. The clause also demonstrates that the solicitor who provided for it does not have an understanding of even junior-high-school-level mathematics.