Changin’ the rules.
Whenever we’re caught.
The law is the law.
Except when it’s not.
Makin’ judges from lawyers.
And what’ve you got?
The law is the law.
Except when it’s not.
THE NORMALIZATION OF FRAUD AND FORGERY
Habitual Accounting Fraud and
Document / Securities Falsification to conceal it
by Timothy Paul Madden, forensic-financial-economist, and historian of equity, law, and policy.
Introduction 3
Macro-Chronology 4
1694 (founding of privately-owned Bank of England) – 1980 4
1980/81 7
January 1981 8
1981 to 1989 9
1989/90 9
The social utility of administrative-apartheid 10
Anything goes – the consequences-in-practice 11
Interim summary 14
Constructive and actual coup d’état 15
Long term racketeering operation 20
1990-forward (post-ratification of Thomson by S.C.C.) 21
Full-blown racketeering / Racketeering-on-steroids 23
Concealed $1 Trillion front-loaded onto credit/charge-cards every 18 months 25
Trafficking in false receipts 26
Deposits Practice and estoppel 28
Money-lending became credit-reinsurance became game-of-chance 30
Game-of-Chance Offer Letter 31
Introduction
For over 2000 years, since at least pre-ancient-Roman times, the balance of humanity has proved unable to protect itself from the multi-faceted fraud in the following form of terms from a banker or other nominal creditor:
Condition 1: I will loan you $100,000 at 10% per annum, provided that you agree to give me a security claiming that I have loaned you $200,000 at 5%.
More generally, “I will loan you a certain amount at a certain rate of interest, provided that you agree to falsify the security to claim that I have loaned you a greater amount, and at a lower rate, than in fact.”
First, while most anyone else can see its obviously criminal and profoundly dangerous substance, bankers, lawyers, and judges have near-pathologically failed to do so. In the western world especially, most judges are former-bank-lawyers (self-styled “commercial, corporate and financial law specialists”) who are themselves directly appointed by former-bank-lawyers / solicitors, most of whom (on both sides) had spent their legal careers falsifying financial securities and making personal fortunes via fees and percentage kick-backs for so doing.
Second, that financial-fraud-device will of itself eventually channel all the wealth of the world to the possessor-class that substantively owns the private global banking system. And its pace increases exponentially with the relative amount by which the securities are falsified. It would happen very quickly and obviously with the above 50% coefficient-of-fraud, but it is no less certain – and achieved and maintained much more quietly – with an average 5% coefficient-of-fraud – it just takes a little longer – a few more roll-overs or iterations of the process.
Now assume that the same people propose the following cure or remedy to it:
Condition 2: To compensate for the fraudulent juicing of the bank’s balance sheet, you must also agree to pay the bank a $100,000 nominal loan fee via nominal deduction or by a cheque / check effectively drawn against the falsified / inflated security balance so as to give the bank an additional $100,000 of immediate and unearned income in contravention of all the domestic and international accounting laws against it. We are going to remedy and balance (compound-in-fact) the $100,000 fraud against the bank’s balance sheet with an additional $100,000 fraud against its income statement.
Here also, the fraud against the banks’ collective income statements will of itself eventually channel all of the wealth to the possessor-class, and this component also increases not just exponentially but cross-exponentially with both the coefficient-of-fraud and the stated (misrepresented) interest rate.
In Canada that double-whammy extortion and cross-leveraged accounting fraud had been for generations slowly but surely transferring or rolling-over the wealth created by the people into the accounts of the possessor class. The unearned-encroachment was constant, and more or less calibrated to just keep pace with ever-increasing production gains from technology, as long as banks were not allowed to be in the real-estate financing (credit-reinsurance) business, and as long as the maximum rate of interest was restricted to 7% per annum under the Bank Act.
Both of these critical restraints were removed in 1968 from this already profoundly criminal, but quasi / relatively stable, system. The banks and bankers, and the entrenched-money-power who own them, have never looked back.
THE NORMALIZATION OF FRAUD AND FORGERY
Habitual Accounting Fraud and
Document / Securities Falsification to conceal it
Macro-Chronology
1694 (founding of privately-owned Bank of England) – 1980
Broadly-defined English-law and equity fights ongoing battle with entrenched-money-interests to prevent leveraged-double-counting by nominal creditors. The evil / wrongful practice is a combination-form of accounting-fraud and securities-falsification / forgery-in-law called front-loading and it is used to accommodate (and conceal) a creditor’s demand to be paid twice for the same essential thing – once for the money loaned – and once / again for their deemed or pretended agreement to make the loan – a de facto coercion-and-extortion-fee.
A 5% bonus or loan-fee, on a mortgage for example, puts (1) a 5%-inflated asset on the lender’s balance sheet, plus (2) an instant 5% unearned interest in the lender’s pocket up front, and then (3) up to 30-years of more interest upon it, and then (4) payment-again or re-payment of the same fee again as pretended principal. A 5% loan fee (double-counting-fee) can easily leverage the total money-cost of a mortgage by 50% over 30 years.
What makes it especially insidious and systemically dangerous is that it is not possible to tell from the face of a security whether or by how much it has been front-loaded and falsified. Nominal creditors virtually always stipulate that the front-loading be executed or completed via rebates and kick-backs under unregistered side-agreements.
For literally thousands of years (since pre-ancient-Roman times), when applied to money-lending (in terms of scale) it is merely wrongful and unjust enrichment (leveraged-double-counting). But when applied, in the relatively modern era, to the purported advancing of credit (which is credit-reinsurance-in-fact (more on this below)), it provides for massive double / cross-leverage, commensurately massive / accelerated unjust-enrichment, and the concurrent hyper-inflation of bank assets and liabilities. That is why, either way, it is and always has been wrongful, and always illegal (as accounting-fraud) under GAAP and IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards).
“A man shall not have interest for his money and a collateral advantage besides for the loan of it…” – Jennings v. Ward [1705] 2 Vern. 520, 18 R.C. 365
Every benefit taken indirectly by a creditor, for the granting of which no impulsive cause appears but the money lent, will be voided as extorted. (Principles of equity: Kames, Henry Home, Lord, 1696-1782).
[A] stipulation capitalising interest, turning it into principal and charging interest upon it, however formally expressed, was not allowed to prevail. [and] A stipulation that [a lender]… should be paid a commission…was always defeated; – Mainland v. Upjohn, [1889] Chancery Division [Vol. XLI] 126.
MP Mr. WHITE: …Not only have borrowers to pay large [concealed and cross-leveraged] commissions to the agents of these loan societies, many of whom are lawyers, but [the “double machinery” of] high rates of interest as well. (Hansard, Canada, House of Commons, March 31, 1880 p. 968 re: s. 6 of the federal Interest Act / securities law).
MP Mr. LAYLOR: It seems to me that we overlook the greatest evil there is in money lending as it is usually carried on, when we confine ourselves to the question of interest. It is not a question of interest, but of the [concealed and cross-leveraged] bonus [double-counting fee] that is charged, that we must provide against. (Hansard, Canadian House of Commons ((1898) re: (what is now) s. 4 of the federal Interest Act / securities law).
Whereas it has become the common practice for money-lenders to make charges against borrowers claimed as discount [i.e., concealed interest-in-advance falsely claimed as investment of principal], deduction from an advance, [i.e., concealed interest-in-advance falsely claimed as investment of principal] commission [i.e., concealed interest-in-advance falsely claimed as investment of principal], brokerage, chattel mortgage and recording fees [i.e., concealed interest-in-advance falsely claimed as investment of principal], fines and penalties, or for inquiries, defaults or renewals, which, in truth and substance are, in whole or in part, compensation for the use of money loaned or from the acceptance of risk of loss [i.e., concealed interest-in-advance] or are so mixed with such compensation as to be indistinguishable therefrom and are, in some cases, charges primarily payable by the lender [i.e., in respect of expenditures incurred by and for the benefit of the nominal creditor] but required to be paid by the borrowers; and whereas the result of these practices is to add to the cost of the loan without increasing the nominal rate of interest charged [i.e., to falsify and misstate the amount invested and real rate and amount of interest] so that the provisions of the law relating to interest and usury have been rendered ineffective: [Preamble to Small Loans Act of 1939]
Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, enact as follows:-
…
6.(2) The cost of any such loan[1] or any part thereof … shall not be compounded or deducted or received in advance.[2]
The most insidious aspect in practice, however, is that the direct (misrepresentation) fraud against the borrower functions as a kind of socio-financial misdirection or red herring. There are in fact (at least) six primary frauds achieved and facilitated by front-loading:
- Interest rate disclosure / declaration fraud,
- Accounting / GAAP / IFRS fraud,[3] or ex temporal fraud (fraud against time),
- Third-party Unsecured / Subordinated creditor fraud,
- Taxation (Income versus capital gain) fraud,
- Regulatory-capital fraud, and
- Financial-market fraud.
Of these, by far the single most significant is financial-market fraud where all of the others are in effect cross-leveraged, one-against-the-other(s), and where the total financial fraud is vastly greater than the mere sum-of-its-parts.
From the federal Canada Interest Act (securities law) of 1880 to 1980 the general modus operandi of the system in this respect had been to focus exclusively on the real-interest-rate-disclosure-fraud aspect to the borrower while implying that they had constructively contracted out of (or agreed to waive) the laws against it by agreeing to the lender’s terms (which is legally absurd but they did it anyway).
Normally the judges (mostly former bank-solicitors / lawyers) would find some pretence to officially conclude that the law “does not happen to apply in this particular case” (and which had been facilitated by the politicians (as de facto agents of the entrenched-money-power) who had deliberately (and otherwise irrationally) written / sabotaged the laws using needlessly complicated language to accommodate their doing so).[4]
In the larger result the lenders generally ignored the various civil, accounting, and disclosure laws against it, while also systematically looting the public via the other five forms of leveraged fraud that remained virtually invisible to the public.[5]
1980/81
Because of certain structural imbalances when the restraints were removed in 1968, by the late 1970’s and early 1980’s banks in Canada (and most everywhere else) are all but officially insolvent and bankrupt. In desperation, and under the guise of amending the Criminal Code to provide for a criminal rate of interest, the entrenched-money-power-in-Canada induces the government / Crown in Right of Canada to violate its contract with the People under the Bill of Rights (1689) by reviving administrative-apartheid or selective-non-prosecution (non-obstante)[6] and (incredibly) also extending it into the criminal-law realm.
The larger object is to quasi-ostensibly (or surreptitiously) allow private financial institutions to violate GAAP, IFRS, and domestic and international anti-racketeering laws for the purpose of illegally and unlawfully capitalizing interest-in-advance and / or from the proceeds of newly-issued-credit (i.e., to accommodate leveraged-double-counting / front-loading).
Senator Buckwold: Then looking at the reverse aspect, the bank, theoretically, could be prosecuted for charging a criminal rate of interest for a standby [loan] fee [converting loan fees in advance (at an infinite (or astronomical) rate) / leveraged-double-counting via front-loading]
Mr. Paul-Emile Wong, Consumer Research Branch, Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: …theoretically, yes. That is one of the reasons this [soon to be new] section [of the Criminal Code] 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 credit / money system] that it apply. It then becomes a question of the Attorney General’s discretion [administrative apartheid]. ((Senate Select Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce) (SSCBTC) transcripts; 4-11-1980 [November 4, 1980], 24:28)[7]
January 1981
Crown / Parliament amends Criminal Code to make front-loading a direct and specific criminal offence, including the nominal requirement for the government’s (AG’s) permission to prosecute. Real purpose is to replace / get rid of Small Loans Act of 1939 (and its damning preamble (above) spelling out the evils of front-loading) and to jack-up credit-card-account interest rates to regain the appearance of solvency.
Either way, (and near-inconceivably and at-least criminal-negligence / incompetence for professional legislators being advised by professional lawyers and solicitors), and in addition to the breach-of-contract / violation of the Bill of Rights, Crown / government fails to consider multiple collateral consequences under domestic and international law that cannot be negated or affected by the Crown’s political-decision or otherwise failure to prosecute the initial or triggering criminal-law violation(s).
[F]ees and commissions for arranging the loan were paid by the borrower at the time of the advance. Are you [the banker and / or the bank’s solicitor] committing a criminal offence?
…
Of greater concern to the lender is the apparent illegality of the transaction where the transaction offends the Criminal Code, which can result in restrictions on recovering principal and interest in civil actions…
…
In response to the question of whether you [bankers and bank solicitors] are participating in the commission of a criminal offence in the loans described, the answer, in many instances, is yes – bankers, and possibly even their solicitors, may well be participating in a criminal offence.[8] (Canadian Banking Law Review)
Chain-of-reasoning and general conclusion is directly deterministic, however, and the word “possibly” is non sequitur. There isn’t any maybe about it.
Another collateral consequence is that corresponding legally-defined (and in fact) proceeds of crime concurrently becomes single most significant source of income to members of the legal profession in Canada (i.e., the money / legal fees paid to the lawyers / solicitors to create and falsify the front-loaded securities is / are in fact (normally) created from and by the criminal / racketeering / laundering offence itself).
Within a matter of days every provincial and federal Bar Association and Law Society in Canada (and the lawyers who comprise them) clearly and unambiguously satisfies the Criminal Code definition of a “criminal organization”. Because the act itself is malum in se or evil / wrongful-of-itself,[9] it is also precluded from being characterized as a mere or unintended technicality. It is a massively-important accounting-fraud, almost always compounded by securities falsification to conceal it (i.e., establishing also mens rea), and it is also illegal, criminal, and racketeering in law.
For the legal profession, it is not just willful blindness, but, at an absolute minimum, egregious criminal incompetence.
1981 to 1989
After initially and repeatedly admitting the multi-level-defects in the administrative-apartheid / selective-non-prosecution scheme, the legal profession more generally reverses direction and begins active suppression and constructive denial of the fact and extent of the problem – a kind of normalized / consensus willful blindness.
Meanwhile, management at virtually all financial institutions in Canada concurrently and ever-increasingly adopt or expand objectively criminal / racketeering practices to leverage income, profits, and asset-acquisition-and-creation-rates to near-hyper-inflation-levels.
1989/90
After a series of obviously contrived and contradictory decisions, judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal and of the Supreme Court of Canada attempt nominal containment and damage control by (unanimously) endorsing / ruling that criminal / international-racketeering offences committed by private nominal creditors are “not fundamentally illegal” because the criminal law only provides for severe punishment of offenders but does not expressly state: Don’t do it. (All substantive sections of the Criminal Code are of the same form – none of them expressly state – Don’t do it. Under the judges’ reasoning, murder, theft, forgery, assault, etc., are also not fundamentally illegal. And it had been well-established for centuries that a penalty legally imparts a prohibition).
Situation compounded by, first, as a general / pretended matter of policy, civil financial-law cases are assigned / channelled to judges who are former “commercial, corporate and financial law specialists” (i.e., former bank-solicitors) with overwhelming personal conflicts of interest, and many of whom had been directly appointed or elevated as judges by the then Prime Minister, former CIBC-bank-director (and later / future Amex Bank of Canada bank-director) Brian Mulroney.
Second, the nominal plaintiff / lender in the case was a constructive middleman that had obtained its nominal loan funds from the CIBC whose management had apparently been aware of the real (criminal) terms of the arrangement, thus placing the CIBC (management) among the technical ringleader(s) of the resulting criminal organization:
“[T]here is no doubt that the corporate plaintiff [directly funded by the CIBC] 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 contrary to s. 347(1)(b), (and also forgery / falsified-securities and money-laundering) to conceal it]
and / but
…[The criminal law [Section [347(1)(a)]][10], … provides only for punishment of persons agreeing to receive interest at criminal rates but does not prohibit agreements providing for such rates….
“The purpose of [the criminal law [s. 347(1)(a)]] is to punish everyone who enters into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate. It does not expressly prohibit such behaviour, nor does it declare such an agreement or arrangement to be void. The penalty is severe, and designed to deter persons from making such agreements. … It is designed to protect borrowers … It is not designed to prevent persons from entering into lending transactions per se…. Therefore the agreement [which the Court / judges have found and acknowledged to be contrary and offensive to the criminal law, and which criminal law is a designated racketeering offence] is not fundamentally illegal.” (Thomson, (William E.) Associates Inc. v. Carpenter [1989] 34 O.A.C. 365).
The Court / judges then wholly ignored all of the domestic and international criminal-law and racketeering violation(s) by the plaintiff, by the bank, and by the financial solicitors, and then gave the offending plaintiff full judgement.[11]
In addition to at least technical sedition against the Crown / Parliament (and / or criminal incompetence / capital dereliction of duty / violation of oaths of office), the judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal and the S.C.C. repeat and compound the mistake made by government / Crown in Right of Canada.
Deeming, pretending, or being of the opinion that the criminal act is not fundamentally illegal does not change the fact that it is malum in se or evil / wrongful of itself (a massively-significant (national-security-level) financial-crime / accounting-fraud), and it remains a fraud against GAAP, a specific criminal offence, a racketeering (designated / enterprise-crime) offence, and which is expressly enjoined under multiple international treaties on money-laundering to which Canada is a Contracting State Party (among the most prominent being the UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime).
The most prominent (and documented) purpose of s. 347 (criminal interest rate (max. conversion rate of 60% per annum)) was not to protect borrowers, but to prevent nominal creditors from converting and / or laundering proceeds of crime by committing accounting fraud via the acceleration of accrual of interest contrary to GAAP and IFRS.
The social utility of administrative-apartheid
On the civil-administrative side, the judges of both the Ontario Court of Appeal and the S.C.C. concurrently provide and unanimously endorse new legal test for the civil enforceability of commercial contracts and securities that are contrary to the criminal law and to the international anti-racketeering treaties to which Canada is legally-bound. To facilitate its administration, such a monumental official change in favour of the entrenched-money-power must be balanced or off-set by a commensurate official suppression of the legal and equitable rights of the people whose property is being wrongfully harvested-in-fact and by criminal-means-in-law.
As of 1989/90 in Canada, whether a contract / security that is offensive to (in violation of) the criminal law remains valid as an asset to the nominal-creditor / criminal-offender, and a binding liability on the nominal-debtor / financial-fraud-victim, depends upon the appointed judges’ (former-bank-lawyers’) 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…[12]
In the result, and by judicial fiat, and in prima facie furtherance of a worldwide racketeering scheme, Canada (1) ceases to be a parliamentary democracy and (2) becomes de facto government by administrative-apartheid where the criminal law is no longer the law of the land but instead selectively applied or not to different classes of legal persons “at the pleasure of Her Majesty” and as determined case-by-case by former bank-lawyers.
And it is not just s. 347 but an incredible range and number of collateral criminal and racketeering offences to hide it, to deny it, and to launder it as well.
The role of the former bank-solicitor-judges was in effect: “Hey, look, the AG is not going to prosecute for the first criminal / racketeering offence anyway, so what is the harm of falsifying the securities to hide it as well?[13] And once we get to that point, we (the Court) are pretty much compelled to further launder it for them it too. And of course even mentioning the multiple independent criminal and racketeering offences by the financial solicitors, in and of themselves, as well as aiding and abetting before, during, and after the fact, would be a public-relations nightmare – best to just leave it alone and let the market take care of itself.”
The only sound to be heard was that which echoed off the skyscrapers on Bay Street (and which was ultimately exported and leveraged (via the falsified securities) from Canada to Wall Street in the U.S., and to The City in the U.K. etc., etc.)):
Woo-Hoo! Free Money!! Let’s Party!!!!
Corporate, commercial, and financial law specialists regardless take the new official doctrine (legal precedent) of ‘criminal / racketeering but “not fundamentally illegal”’ as a broad policy decision to the effect that anything goes.
What could possibly go wrong?
Anything goes – the consequences-in-practice
The ex-temporal fraud of front-loading or conversion / infinite-rate-acceleration of unearned interest-in-advance (by whatever name or pretence) and the coerced-consent securities falsification to hide it and to deny it, and especially the resulting cross-leveraged-super-fraud, is the engine, or driving force, of domestic and global finance and unearned-wealth aggregation and concentration. It’s the official gravy-train of “The 1%”.
Globally, from about the major multi-nation Bank / Banking Act revisions circa 1968[14] (and measured just up to the year 2000), for example, the average direct leverage ratio was about 15-to-1, meaning that every $1,000 (or 1%) of loan / credit fees on a standardised ($100,000) mortgage will also leverage / increase the total cost of credit by about $15,000 over the whole term (amortisation period) of the loan or advance.[15]
And then every extra $1,000 of such juiced interest income will in turn leverage or allow the bank to also increase / expand its total credit assets by another 20-to-1 or $20,000. Every $1,000 or 1% front-loaded loan fees / bonuses per $100,000 of new credit supports and accommodates another bonus $300,000 for the owners of the nominal banking system over and exponentially-proportional to the subsequent and ever-rolling-forward twenty-five-year period (like an ever-larger-ever-growing-tsunami-of-debt moving forward in time).
The 1990’s corporate takeover of (Toronto-based) Maclean-Hunter cable-TV by Rogers Telecommunications, for example, purportedly involved (or was to involve) a near $90 million securities-juicing and rake-off of nominal loan fees (cross-leveraged-double-counting-fees) for the bankers, brokers, and solicitors on a nominal $2.15 billion advance or 4.2% illegal front-loading.
The banks and brokers backing Ted Roger’s bid for Maclean Hunter Ltd. stand to skim off almost $90 million in fees if shareholders take up the cable magnate’s $2.9 billion offer for the media conglomerate. *** The four chartered banks that have agreed to lend Roger’s Communications Inc. $2.15 billion to finance the take-over will walk away the biggest winners from the deal according to an offering circular sent to Maclean Hunter’s shareholders late Monday. *** The lending group – led by the Bank of Nova Scotia and believed to include the Toronto-Dominion, Royal and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce [CIBC] – will receive “up front fees” of up to $49 million, the circular says. The sum does not include loan interest payments….”[16] [The other near $41 million was for the brokers (and (normally) the solicitors)].[17]
Assuming that the deal went through as described / reported, and based on (or measured against) the rates in effect at the time, the banking syndicate behind it (the Gang of Four) will have received the $90 million once in advance or from the inflated nominal proceeds on the day of the advance, then a leveraged $1.2 billion of interest-upon the extra $90 million over the 25-year amortisation,[18] plus / including a second payment (“re-payment”) of the $90 million again as pretended principal.
Overall, the nominal 4.2% illegal interest-front-loading will leverage the total dollar cost of credit by about 36% per se (i.e., from about $3.4 billion, to $4.6 billion) and which would then be down-loaded to the broadly-defined public through CRTC (i.e., government-approved) rate increases on cable-TV subscription services. In effect, for 25 years (from 1994 to 2019) a quarter of everyone’s monthly cable bill will have gone to pay the bankers interest on the $90 million illegal party fund that they created for themselves, the brokers, and the lawyers, from the nominal (illegally-inflated / front-loaded) proceeds on the day of the deal.
For those who understand the process involved, the bankers will have violated the Bank Act, the per diem principle under GAAP and IFRS, and multiple ordinary and anti-racketeering / anti-organised-crime provisions of the criminal law, to fraudulently employ their bank charters to simultaneously create (technically obtain and reinsure), convert, and launder an extra $90 million in new money / credit for their own accounts.
Then over that same trailing 25-year period, the extra $1.2 billion of juiced income as earned-interest-income / deemed / pretended-equity on their income-statements and balance-sheets will in turn have supported an additional credit-asset-expansion of at least 20-to-1 or $24 billion. In practice, the combined cross-leverage-ratio over 25 years will have been about 250-to-1.
That, in a nutshell, is why we are increasingly being exposed to, and conditioned to, the concept of a quadrillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000,000). A pentillion won’t be far behind: ($1,000,000,000,000,000,000). Virtually all money is debt (more precisely reinsured credit), and debt is hyper-leveraged by loan / credit fees (cross-leveraged-double-counting-fees or infinite-rate-interest-accrual-acceleration-fees).
As a species, up until about the middle of the 20th century, we only needed up to the concept of multiple millions to account for just about everything important for all of human history. In terms of money and relative wealth, especially, it was widely reported in the early 1970’s that the American industrialist Howard Hughes had only then just become the world’s first billionaire and the world’s single richest human. Minimum wage was then in practice about $2 per hour.
Not yet fifty years later, and the broadly-defined media are routinely posing the question as to who will become the world’s first trillionaire. Minimum wage in practice is now about $10 per hour (measured in $USD across Canada and the U.S.).
Over the same not-yet-fifty-year period, the standard by which the world’s single richest human is measured has increased by approaching 1,000-times, while the minimum-wage-in-practice for the little people has increased about 5-times.[19] The single most important reason for that discrepancy is ex-temporal fraud – the habitual and pathological unlawful and illegal front-loading of loan / credit fees (cross-leveraged-double-counting-fees or infinite-rate-interest-accrual-acceleration-fees).
While I am herein examining the specific route taken by Canada’s financial-and-legal-system-handlers to achieve it, the same egregiously fraudulent disregard for law and equity has become endemic to the vast majority of nations worldwide. The banking-gangs everywhere are all joyously cooking-their-books (rolling-over-falsified-securities) in near-rapturous celebration of their self-promotion as financial geniuses, while they concurrently and systematically loot (asset-strip) the masses.
Interim summary
As an interim summary, and again using Canada as a microcosm of the global financial system, it all became materially unstable or unhinged in 1968 when the Bank Act was amended to remove the 7% per annum interest rate limit, and to remove the prohibition of banks converting (reinsuring) credit against real estate. The combination of the two created a perfect-storm-feedback-loop fuelled by runaway interest rates.
Those runaway interest rates, in turn, were themselves accommodated by the same private global banking system that had had the foresight, at almost precisely the same time as they had the restraints removed, to introduce and then quickly entrench the concept of the floating rate of interest. It was the single most significant change in human socioeconomic relationships in history – the right of one party to a contract to unilaterally alter the essential terms after the fact to their own benefit and to the manifest detriment of the other party. Yet no legislature appears to have taken any meaningful action to even regulate it, let alone prohibit it – the bankers just did it. Canadian banks, especially, then quickly turned it into an art-form.[20]
The metaphoric monkey-wrench in the process was the federal Small Loans Act of 1939 that limited interest rates on most credit-card-account balances to 6% per annum, and the bankers made a de facto deal with the devil to get rid of it by agreeing to support its replacement by an amendment to the Criminal Code creating a (60% max.) criminal rate of interest conversion, and in reliance on administrative-apartheid or selective-non-prosecution to deal with their illegal-front-loading problem. The rest is history.
Whether characterised as scheming-arch-criminals or merely metaphoric Sorcerer’s Apprentices, the appointed former-bank-lawyer / solicitor-judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal and of the Supreme Court of Canada that subsequently ratified the new doctrine of criminal / racketeering but “not fundamentally illegal” were in practice and effect among the most recklessly irresponsible humans ever to walk the face of the Earth.
Constructive and actual coup d’état
Notwithstanding (and in addition to) the massive financial consequences and channeling of proceeds of crime to the private financial and legal systems, what may prove to be the single most significant socio-economic result was (and remains) the concurrent actual and constructive (and wholly criminal and seditious) coup d’état by the bar association(s) / legal profession against the Crown in Right of Canada.
Upon the finding(s) of fact and law (at trial) that the plaintiff in Thomson had violated s. 347, it became virtually impossible for the Court(s), and especially the subsequent appellate courts, to avoid two critical matters of fact and law:
There is no doubt that the corporate plaintiff [Thomson Associates Inc., funded by the CIBC] committed an offence under s. 347(1)(a) by entering into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate… [and/but] The parties… acted on the advice of their… solicitors…. [described elsewhere by the trial judge as “two leading Toronto law firms”]
And bearing in mind always that if you rank-order all 800-plus offences under the Criminal Code according to how much money is obtained in fact in violation of them, then s. 347 would be ranked number-one and would be at least 100-times greater than the next closest competitor, and regardless greater than all the other criminal offences combined.
On the facts established, Thomson Associates Inc., and its solicitors, and the CIBC, were all prima facie guilty (i.e., automatically once the trial court established the facts that established the offence against s. 347) of offending (at least) ss. 347(1)(a) (entering into arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate), ss. 347(1)(b) (receipt or conversion of a payment or partial payment of interest at a criminal rate ($45,000 loan fee(s) converted in advance)), ss. 397(1)(b) (omitting material particular ($45,000 required rebate / kickback to creditor) from a valuable security for a fraudulent purpose (i.e., to deny and conceal the real transaction / criminal rate), s. 366 (making false document with intent to rely upon as genuine), s. 368 (uttering false / forged document), ss. 380(1) ((fraud) against unsecured creditors (including the ordinary employees) of the mining company), ss. 462.31(1) (laundering proceeds of crime), and ss. 463.3(c) (counselling to commit an enterprise crime / racketeering offence (a separate count / indictment against the solicitors (and the CIBC, and its own lawyers / solicitors) in respect of each of the preceding offences), all of which are enterprise crime / racketeering offences (now and as of 2001 called “designated offences”).
The bank (management), also, had quasi-initiated / created / obtained the nominal loan funds by directly or indirectly (through Thomson Associates Inc.) taking / converting (reinsuring) the promissory note(s)[21] and/or master agreement / debenture contrary to ss. 462.31(1) (laundering of proceeds of crime), and a raft of collateral offences under the Bank Act that also directly and automatically criminalized the bank’s solicitors, executive officers and board of directors with or without specific actual knowledge (i.e., by strict liability or quasi-strict-liability),[22] in addition to the general offence of failing to comply with GAAP (as required under (what was then) s. 308 of the Bank Act).
The Criminal Code also directly defines the solicitor(s)’ act of counselling or aiding and abetting (assisting and encouraging) their clients to commit an enterprise-crime / racketeering offence as itself an enterprise-crime / racketeering offence by the solicitor(s):
[462.3] “enterprise crime offence [now (and post-2001) called (renamed) 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)].
The definition of a “criminal organization”, domestically, is by s. 2 (Definitions), and by ss. 467.1(1), of the Criminal Code of Canada, and which is extended more or less globally through several independent international treaties (emphasis added):
“criminal organization” means a group [e.g., private BAR/Bar Associations and / or Law Societies], however organized, that
(a) is composed of three or more persons in or outside Canada; and
(b) has as one of its main purposes or main activities the facilitation or commission of one or more serious offences that, if committed, would likely result in the direct or indirect receipt of a material benefit, including a financial benefit [nominal legal-fees paid from the falsified securities and criminal rate conversion proceeds], by the group or by any of the persons who constitute the group.
where
“serious offence” means an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more [which includes (also) s. 347], or another offence that is prescribed by regulation.
2. Facilitation – For the purposes of this section and section 467.11, facilitation of an offence does not require knowledge of a particular offence the commission of which is facilitated, or that the offence actually be facilitated.
3. Commission of offence – In this section and in sections 467.11 to 467.13, committing an offence means being a party to it or counselling any person [management of financial institution or nominal borrower / debtor (technical issuer of the falsified securities)] to be a party to it.
And, critically, the more relatively powerful a given lawyer or solicitor is within the organisation-so-defined (i.e., the BAR), the more likely it is that they are obtaining income (and highly-inflated income) directly or indirectly from the criminal-law-violations and from the resulting proceeds of crime. It is not just a technicality.
Another highly salient aspect is the cross-compounded-nature of the problem / offences. The nominal client’s (bank’s / creditor’s) act is illegal under GAAP and is a criminal act and which is also an enterprise-crime / racketeering-offence. And the solicitor’s act of counselling or aiding and abetting their client is itself a criminal offence under s. 22 (aiding and abetting), and also a specified racketeering or organised-crime offence (by s. 462.3(c)) when the offence aided and abetted is itself an enterprise crime / racketeering offence; and the bank’s subsequent or concurrent payment to its solicitor is (normally) an independent act of laundering of proceeds of crime / money-laundering (under s. 462.31(1)).
The most critical aspect with respect to the solicitors is under the definition of “Commission of [a serious] offence”, above, where it provides that “committing an offence means…counselling any person to be a party to it.” (same under s. 462.3).
Technically / legally, the bank (and its employees / officers) and its solicitors are jointly committing the racketeering offence directly (and which they are in fact anyway), and the solicitors are not merely aiding and abetting the banks / bankers before the fact (i.e., they are not at arm’s length). That means also that the Bar Associations and Law Societies are direct joint participants in the offences. In law, the bankers and the lawyers are a joint-criminal-organization or all members of the same criminal-organization.
Every time a banker commits a racketeering offence under the criminal law, their solicitors are committing two offences, because the solicitor / lawyer also commits an independent offence under the specific counselling offence (s. 462.3(c)) as well as being a joint-party to the banker’s offence (s. 22,). And three offences if and when they are paid by the bankers directly from the proceeds of crime (money-laundering).
Note here again the rather careless and casual (cavalier) attitude of the solicitors who wrote the nominal cautionary article for Canadian Banking Law Review:
In response to the question of whether you [bankers and bank solicitors] are participating in the commission of a criminal offence in the loans described, the answer, in many instances, is yes – bankers, and possibly even their solicitors, may well be participating in a criminal offence.[23]
While the criminal law as written / enacted (and extended internationally by treaty) is adamant that the financial solicitors – and therefore the bar associations – are the constructive ringleaders or kingpins before, during and after the fact.
To be accurate the caution should close with “…the answer is a most emphatic yes – both the bankers and their solicitors are co-members of a criminal organization in flagrant violation of multiple domestic and international racketeering offences in fact and under the criminal law.”
Upon the Court’s / judge’s finding / discovery of the facts that prima facie established the criminal offence(s) (and / or on the Plaintiff’s own pleadings and evidence), by law the judge(s) were required to provide for the arrest of the controlling mind of the Plaintiff (i.e., Mr. Thomson), and of the respective lawyers / solicitors (ringleaders / accomplices) involved (from the “two leading Toronto law firms”), and to seize the property / asset ($75,000 promissory note) that had been obtained by them in the commission of an offence contrary to the enterprise-crime / organised-crime / anti-racketeering sections of the Criminal Code.
The Court / judges were also bound by the federal Evidence Act to take judicial notice of all of these multiple additional offences that were automatically (prima facie) established on the same facts, including and especially, laundering of proceeds of crime, constructive forgery, fraud, and the solicitors having counselled (and independently aided and abetted) their clients to commit several enterprise-crime / racketeering offences, and to conceal it through falsified securities and / or falsified collateral documentation (emphasis added):
Judicial notice shall be taken of all Acts of Parliament, public or private, without being specially pleaded. R.S., c. E-10, s. 18.,
Such is one of the primary and at least official reasons given for appointing judges almost exclusively from the ranks of lawyers. They are presumed and required to know the law so as to prevent the Courts themselves from being used for illegal or degrading purposes, and more generally to prevent the administration of justice from being brought into disrepute.
It is also an extension of the Crown’s contract not to engage in non obstante or administrative apartheid. If the Crown itself has no power to selectively apply or not the law, and most certainly not the criminal law, then it obviously cannot bestow such power on the judges of its Courts. If the plaintiff offended s. 347, and falsified the nominal securities to conceal it, and was aided and abetted by its solicitors, then the judges are required to take judicial notice of all of it.
It does not appear to have occurred to anyone material that the action itself was literally an application or petition by the offending plaintiff and their lawyers asking the Court to launder (or rather re-launder) proceeds of crime for it!! The plaintiff literally asked the Court to convert and launder the asset that it had received in the commission of, and as security for, a criminal and racketeering offence, into a Court-issued judgment order!!!
Also note the similarity of the offence here to that committed by the financial solicitors who wrote the article for Canadian Banking Law Review. On the face of it the article (which is notably long) is highly evasive to anyone with an understanding of the larger issues and the totality of what is at stake (It seems to me to have been a tutorial for all of the solicitors to get their stories straight). But a good way to truly appreciate its substance is to assume that instead of an article prepared for a specialized financial law publication, the same lawyers had been hired by a client to advise them on the same issues.
In such case the authors / lawyers would be prima facie guilty of criminal negligence by failing to mention any or all of the collateral offences that are automatically established on the same facts (as presented in the article). The judges were likewise criminally negligent by their failure to take judicial notice of the fact and extent of the securities-falsification offences, enterprise-crime and money-laundering status, etc. of s. 347, and the offences by the solicitors / lawyers.
Note also that this law is in the form of a direct order that the judges shall do it. By their own purported reasoning in Thomson, the judges’ omission / failure was “fundamentally illegal”. A racketeering and sedition-level Catch-22.
In fact the civil court(s) judges all committed sedition (against Parliament) under s. 59 of the Criminal Code by even asserting jurisdiction (with knowledge-in-fact) over a criminal contract (The King against Boucher [1951] S.C.R. 265).
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.”[24]
This is a pretty basic rule, sometimes pronounced foundational.
And this is where the coup d’état truly occurred both in substance and in law because the judges of the Courts entirely and illegally ignored all of the criminal and civil laws binding upon them, and instead held that the participation of the solicitors in the criminal offences before, during, and after the fact constituted mitigating circumstances!!! “Yes, technically the plaintiff robbed a liquor store, but it is ok because he hired a member of the BAR as wheelman to drive his getaway car”!!!
There is no doubt that the corporate plaintiff committed [a criminal / racketeering] …offence [and] The parties… acted on the advice of their… solicitors….
At a minimum, the former bank-lawyers and bank-solicitors were simply incapable of grasping the legal meaning and import of their own findings of fact and law.
It was and remains arguably the single most significant sleight-of-hand in the history of English law and equity, and which resulted in the lawyers effectively deposing the Crown on behalf of the BAR. Because the lawyers / solicitors are defined and recognised as joint-offenders under the criminal law, the pith and substance of the Courts’ ruling was that, henceforth, criminal-law / international-racketeering offences committed by creditors / banks are “not fundamentally illegal” as long as the criminal-law-offender is advised and assisted (aided and abetted) by a member of the BAR.
Just to be clear, this massively fraudulent and hyper-inflationary financial-juggernaut cannot stop until a relative handful of families own everything on Earth, and as of the S.C.C. ratification of Thomson in 1990, neither domestic criminal law nor international anti-racketeering treaty-law can stop them.
The Crown is a legal-fiction, but metaphorically at least, in 1989/90 the lawyers / judges in Canada murdered the Crown and installed an imposter in its place. That is why Her Majesty does not now object when She gets metaphorically b*tch-slapped in public by past or present members of the BAR.
Technically all of these flagrant racketeering offences by which the public is being systematically looted are not being committed by the bankers. The banks and bankers are merely the metaphoric henchmen, bag-men, and holding-companies for the entrenched-money-power that owns these glorified accounting entities. Both in fact and in law the culpable head of the global-crime-family is / are the solicitors and lawyers operating as the BAR.
Long term racketeering operation
And, here again, it must be emphasised that it is far more than a mere technicality, but in fact the source or nexus of practical power and influence in the modern world. Among the first highly significant cases I encountered in 1990 when I first started reading and researching decisions on the federal securities law (Interest Act) was London Loan & Savings Co. of Canada [of London, Ontario] v. Meagher [1930] S.C.R. 378.
At the time of the original mortgage transaction in 1922 a lawyer / solicitor would have typically charged between $50 and $100 to prepare a pre-printed mortgage form and have it registered at the local Land Title Office, and that fee ($50) would have represented at least a week’s gross wages for a typical worker. Henry Ford in the U.S., as an easy frame of reference, had then only just recently begun paying his factory workers $5 per day.
But in London Loan, the sole real difference was that the solicitor had agreed to falsify and register the mortgage security so as to conceal a $4,500 kick-back to London Loan. And for this service the solicitor’s fees ballooned to almost $1,500 – enough at the time to purchase two brand new automobiles – for perhaps an hour’s work.
Ever since, and covering the ensuing near century, I have noted a consistent pattern of the solicitor fees being so inflated to accommodate a suspiciously consistent one-third kick-back from the kick-backs to the solicitors for the service of falsifying the securities.
Everybody knows that in Canada, if you want your securities falsified to cross-leverage your balance sheet and your income statement, then the solicitors have to get a kick-back more-or-less equal to one-third of the amount by which the securities are falsified. And, in practice, the net bonus-proceeds are then often channelled-in-fact to bank-management’s own bonus-pool (i.e., compounded laundering of proceeds of crime).
But it’s not a criminal conspiracy – it’s a common practice in the industry. No matter how scandalous and ridiculous it may have already been, that all changed with s. 347 in 1981. That is what drove the judges to the equally ridiculous and plainly seditious notion of “not fundamentally illegal” in 1989/90. That is what compelled them to either depose the Crown – or go to jail themselves.
What else made London Loan such a financially-monumental decision was that the judges of the Supreme Court (in 1930) used it to deliver a policy-directive to the broadly-defined legal profession that the federal mortgage-securities law was not to be applied to any mortgages, period, and that is was once again safe to go back to front-loading and falsifying the securities to conceal it. The Supreme Court spelled-it-out for them, right at the end, after about ten pages of incoherent rambling on why the law did not apply here (the trustee had only claimed for return of the $3,000 nominal “bonus” and not the $1,500 of “legal fees”):
The [trustee’s (Meagher’s)] argument, if acceded to, involves very far-reaching consequences. …..It might even be argued that the [full and truthful disclosure] principle [under s. 6 of the federal securities law] would extend to the common transaction of the retention by [the creditor] of the amount of his solicitor’s bill for examining title and putting through the loan.
And then for the next 90 years (1930 to 2020) the Courts have ultimately ruled in virtually every case of alleged mortgage security fraud against the federal securities (anti-front-loading) law that it does not happen to apply in this particular case.
But it is now, and always has been, about the past and present members of the BAR (solicitors and judges) using the colour-of-law to aid and abet the owners of the banks to loot the masses in exchange for a healthy kick-back from the proceeds.
In the early part of the [20th] century, [German] Prince Herman Pückler-Muscau saw a child of eight driving his own vehicle, in the middle of a whirlpool of carriages, and commented that ‘such a thing…can only be seen in England, where children are independent at eight, and hanged at twelve’. There is indeed the famous description of a traveller in 1826 of a group of twelve-year-olds, sitting in the condemned cells in Newgate [Prison], ‘all under the sentence of death,… [London The Biography, by Peter Ackroyd, Chatto & Windus, London, 2000, p. 653].
The English Crown is, by its own admissions of fact and law, nothing more than a de facto global-criminal-enterprise and holding-company for proceeds of crime. In 1922 while these Crown-agents / members of the BAR were busy violating about a dozen criminal laws to obtain and conceal a $4,500 kick-back to London Loan, less than a single human lifetime earlier the same Crown was still passing death-sentences on desperately poor and hungry twelve-years-olds who stole food, because “The Law is the Law”. But the de facto motto of the English Crown is now and always has been: “The Law is the Law – except when it’s not”.
1990-forward (post-ratification of Thomson by S.C.C.)
Last vestige of restraint is abandoned as commercial securities become cartoonishly-criminal in virtually all areas that boost debt and illegal gain / profits, and including and especially by nominal disclaimers that appear to have been drafted by Dr. Evil:
NOTWITHSTANDING the provisions of any Statute [any lawful Act of Parliament (including and especially the criminal law)] relating to the rate of interest payable by debtors this contract [and security] shall remain in full force and effect whatever the rate of interest received or demanded by [the Bank].
The NOTWITHSTANDING disclaimer is a de facto pirate flag declaring that the bank will not obey the criminal law, nor any of Canada’s international treaties (including re: International Commercial / Maritime / Admiralty Law) on the disposition and laundering of proceeds of crime. That was and remains the purpose of a (black) pirate flag – notice to other vessels that the crew of the pirate ship does not recognise the law of the sea (Maritime / Admiralty Law) and that as long as no one resists, then no one gets hurt. But if the crew of the target ship / vessel tries to run or offers any act of resistance, then the red flag goes up and the pirates will kill everyone on board as a matter of policy.
And the private banks (management and owners) really are plundering the other commercial vessels (and the public generally) under a flagrantly criminal business-model. The private Canadian financial system is quite literally obtaining more wrongful / unearned money from objective criminal-law violations, every single day, than all the conventional theft and robbery offences in Canadian history rolled into one.
There are thousands of police and other law enforcement officers across Canada risking their lives on a daily basis to protect relatively piddling property rights while the entrenched-money-power systematically loots the majority out of trillions of dollars of wealth. It would be high-comedy if the consequences were not so tragic.
4.3 If the Interest Rate stipulated herein [7.75%] would, except for this clause, be a criminal rate 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].
Structurally, and notwithstanding that it is simply dripping with mens rea, the (Swiss-Army-Knife-like) quasi-disclaimer clause could easily have been drafted from the games room of a psychiatric facility for the criminally insane, while concurrently demonstrating a level of mathematical incompetence that is beyond breathtaking.
Among the most important caveats here is not to confuse any perceived probability of the bankers attempting to (publicly) enforce a given clause with what the clause actually states or provides for. And they also make more $ billions in the financial markets from them (the falsified securities as written and registered) even if they never go to court.
Legally, the clause is directly analogous to a commercial bill of lading that makes a legal declaration that the containers carried under it contain flour and sugar, but also that if it should be discovered or raised as an issue that the containers actually contain heroin and cocaine, then the parties agree that a certain chemical shall be added to the containers so as to react and chemically alter the contents to something that is not illegal.
It further provides that (among other things) if the nominal or pretended-borrower or debtor complains or goes to the police or to the Courts for protection, then the liability shall remain valid and binding regardless, and the pretended-borrower / debtor will be punished (in practice or on average) by up to a ten-fold increase in the rate of interest (which also constitutes another pirate flag / threat not to resist).
Securities concurrently (and paradoxically) provide that the Courts only have jurisdiction to enforce payment on them but not to rule on their legality. Both disclaimers are a declaration of the bank’s legal superiority to the same Crown that created it. So even if a Court in Canada were to rule the disclaimer to be unenforceable, the security itself provides on its face that such is irrelevant (“If…unenforceable..for any reason” (including a Crown / Court decision to the contrary)) and the bank / bankers can still use it (as an asset on their books) in at least the international financial markets as a real-estate-secured security bearing interest at 59% per annum.
And the real or de facto meaning of both of these typical disclaimers is: “Screw the Crown, Screw the Parliament, and Screw the People and their criminal law and international anti-racketeering laws and treaties – Nobody tells a bank or banker – and most certainly not the entrenched-money-power who own them – what they can do.” (Both disclaimers are examples of the constructive b*tch-slapping that I referred to earlier).
In both law and equity, the only course open to the Courts / judges is to recognise and declare the entire agreement as illegal and void ab initio (from its inception), which will cause a cascade-failure of the entire system (with the financial liability falling to the BAR and its malpractice-liability underwriters – and all the assets would be recognised as having been held in trust for the defrauded pretended-borrowers)).
…[A]ny contract stipulating whether directly or indirectly that the question of fraud [against the criminal law] shall not be raised, is against public policy and therefore void. (The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company v. Anctil [1897] S.C.C. Vol. XXVIII p.122)
The entrenched-money-power has learned-well how to play the all-or-nothing game of law and equity. The financial law specialists have learned that as long as they all commit the same crimes, then the judges are powerless in practice to stop any of them.
Another critical factor is that judicial immunity does not apply to any crime committed by a judge before their appointment as a judge, and, here again, the majority were notorious front-loaders and securities-falsifiers as solicitors / lawyers. That is why the former bank-director occupying the prime minister’s office appointed them in the first place. It all runs more smoothly that way.
Full-blown racketeering / Racketeering-on-steroids
Circa 1996-forward: Virtually all mortgages in Canada have fully and expressly adopted organised-crime / game-of-chance business-model requiring nominal borrower to first unconditionally convey and transfer all of their related assets / property to the private financial institution expressly in exchange for the bare chance of receiving anything in return (a new form of aggravated or super-leveraged-double-counting (and racketeering by definition – or rather racketeering-on-steroids)). It is literally the Godfather’s business-model:
Godfather: First, as a sign of your respect, I want you to legally sign over everything that you own to me. Then I will decide what and how much, if anything, that I will give you in return. It’s a good deal. It’s an offer you can’t refuse.
The instant the mortgage is registered / delivered (executed) the bank owns both the financial-security (money-asset) and title to the real-estate, and the nominal borrower has at best a repurchase-option to buy it back by doing everything that the mortgage requires. The process usually also qualifies independently as a bait and switch):
MORTGAGE TERMS Part 2, (p. 13) 8.11] The Borrower agrees that neither the execution nor registration of this mortgage will oblige the Lender to advance any…money hereunder but the advance of money from time to time will be in the sole discretion of the Lender.
___
NO OBLIGATION TO ADVANCE – The [Borrower] acknowledges and agrees that neither the execution of this [Security] Agreement nor execution and delivery of any security shall bind [the Bank] to advance or re-advance any unadvanced portion thereof, but nevertheless the estate conveyed to [the Bank] by any security shall take effect upon the execution and delivery of such security. [The estate includes both the real-estate title and the financial securities (money assets), plus any direct entry-fees / application-fees, etc. Most critically it requires the bank to first receive something of value to the bank, in exchange for the bare possibility of the bank giving anything in return. The security says what it means, and it means what it says. It is a game-of-chance / wager passed-off / pretending to be a business custom.]
___
2 (1) In return for the Lender’s agreeing to lend the Principal Amount to the Borrower [The bait], the Borrower grants and mortgages the Land to the Lender as security for payment of the Mortgage Money [a separately defined unconditional sum / amount regardless of any subsequent actual loan or advance] and the fulfillment of all the Borrower’s other promises and agreements as set out in This Mortgage until the Borrower has performed all the Borrower’s obligations under This Mortgage.
and / but
(14) Whether or not:
(c) the Lender has advanced to the Borrower part of the Principal Amount, the Lender does not have to advance the Principal Amount or the rest or any further part of the Principal Amount to the Borrower unless the Lender wants to. [The switch]
Reduced to its most essential elements:
In return for the Lender’s agreeing to lend… the Lender does not have to advance the Principal Amount …. unless the Lender wants to.
Here again, it is difficult to even fathom the combination of incompetence and arrogance of the solicitors who drafted it.
Whether the bank (financial beneficiary of / under the security) subsequently advances (returns or reinsures) the credit (normally they do) is irrelevant. Under the wagering / game-of-chance format or device the bank books or accounts for (charges-off) its acquisition of all the property rights and assets as an entry-fee for the constructive wager and contrary to (in fraud of) GAAP, IFRS, and all of the domestic and international anti-racketeering laws against it (which violations-of have been deemed by the Courts as “not fundamentally illegal” in Canada since 1989/90 to accommodate the domestic and international trafficking in them (the illegal / falsified securities) by the private banks – or rather their owners and management).
And, here again, do not confuse the probability of the banker attempting to enforce it (directly and in public against the nominal borrower) with what it actually states. In fact, if bank management were to change-its-mind for any reason after the registration of the mortgage, then they almost certainly would not attempt to enforce it as such would bring focused public attention to the larger systemic fraud.
The banks (owners and management) used to violate law and equity by demanding a separate fee, say 5%, purportedly for the bank’s agreement to make the loan in addition to interest on the loan itself.
As of (or rather beginning in) 1913[25] modern banks have systemically increased that fee to 100% (and more) so as to directly employ the promissory-note-issuer’s underwriting of the liability as a transaction / reinsurance-fee to the bank for the bank’s separate agreement to nominally return it (flip-it) back to them at interest. Modern banking is not money-lending and it has nothing to do with money-lending – it is credit-reinsurance.
The entire process defines a de facto perpetual-motion-machine by which all of the assets of and in Canada (and most everywhere else) are financially-vacuumed-up and converted into the property of the bookkeepers and their owners.
One must not confuse the object of a conspiracy with the means by which it is intended to be carried out. Scott v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1974] 60 Cr. App. R. 124 [House of Lords]
The Canadian system has become a clear and obvious example or microcosm of the whole global so-called financial system that is one great massive and deliberate confusion of illegal / criminal objects obtained by illegal / criminal means. It confuses the hell out of people and that is exactly what it was designed to do.
Concealed $1 Trillion front-loaded onto credit/charge-cards every 18 months
The same private banks (owners and management) globally are concurrently and systematically skimming the USD-equivalent of $1,000,000,000,000 ($1 trillion) roughly every 18-months in concealed-credit-charges (pretended (and front-loaded) Merchant Fees) under credit/charge-card transactions while metaphorically calling us idiots by telling us that the circa $2 billion a day ($2,000,000,000) that they stuff into their pockets (and officially record as interest income from card-users) is a “discount-for-cash” and that their aggregate card-users are taking advantage of them by obtaining “free loans”.
Amex Bank of Canada, for example, declares under its Annual Reports / Accounting Principles:
Interest income is capitalized [front-loaded at the time of purchase] into the loan balance [“cardmember receivable” balance] in accordance with the terms of the Cardmember agreements. [Amex Bank of Canada Financial Statements/Annual Report]
____
All amounts charged to the account, including purchases, …and … fees [front-loaded interest charges at the time of purchase] will be called Charges in this Agreement. [Amex Cardmember Agreement] [i.e., all Principal and Interest-capitalized [front-loaded] in-advance will be called “Principal”]
To satisfy the money-market regulations, Amex needs the card-users’ express consent to pay the concealed-credit-charges, but absolutely not their knowledge-in-fact. Amex’s long-time standard 5% (pretended) “merchant fee / (price discount)” in exchange for a 21-day “grace” period defines an effective interest rate of 144% per annum.
An important collateral purpose is to cripple small-business by taking away its working capital to impede their ability to compete with the major corporations that get significantly lower rates. The concealed price discounts that a small business is required to give to card-users can easily represent up to 50% of its gross-operating-profits or working / operating-margin.
And about 10% of the global total or $200 million a day, is a direct rake-off from the aggregate government sales-taxes that are run through these accounts. Many banks make more money skimming the sales-tax revenue than they pay in income-taxes.
(See either or both of “The Free Loan Story” or “Conspiracy Theory my butt” for a detailed analysis. And as brutally fraudulent as it is, front-loading is not the be-all-and-end-all of bank-fraud – it is just one especially important fraudulent device incorporated into a financial world that is saturated with financial-fraud devices (i.e., the credit/charge-card business is still grotesquely fraudulent even if the concealed credit charges were not front-loaded). We can’t see the fraud because it is all fraud all the time.)
Trafficking in false receipts
Assume for the sake of exposition and argument that you are at home and you notice that a new neighbour is moving into one of the houses in your close-by neighbourhood. But for whatever reason, you really don’t like the looks of them and you suspect that they may be a child molester.
Now assume that I suggest to you that we go down to a lawyer’s office where you can swear an Affidavit under oath that you witnessed your new neighbour commit an act of child molestation, and that we then give the Affidavit to the lawyer to hold just in case they do in fact later sexually molest a child. Would you do it?
No, of course not, because the act of bearing false witness is a wrongful act of itself and your felony crime would be complete the instant you swear the false Affidavit and regardless of whether the one against whom you have borne false witness later does anything wrong.
Now let’s take it to the other extreme by assuming that, instead, you really like the looks of your new neighbour and you get the impression that they are so virtuous that they would even risk their own life to save a child who might fall into the nearby river.
I therefore suggest that we go and see a lawyer where you can swear under oath that you witnessed your new neighbour rescue a child from the river – and again give it to the lawyer to hold just in case it should actually happen. Here again, would you do it?
Well, here again, obviously not. Bearing false witness either for or against anyone or anything, or to any event, is a wrongful act in and of itself, any competent lawyer or judge knows it, and any lawyer who went along with it with knowledge would be disbarred and prosecuted themselves.
And finally, just be thorough, assume that you have no preconceptions about your new neighbour at all, and that he walks up to your front-door to introduce himself and to ask a favour of you. He explains that he has just moved in to the house across the street but has a bit of a problem that he needs to deal with. He then asks whether you would swear and sign an affidavit that you saw him standing in his new front yard the previous evening at precisely 9 p.m.
Even though you did not in fact see any such thing, there is nothing either distinctly negative or positive about someone standing in their front yard. So would you do it?
And here again, obviously not. It does not matter whether the thing falsely attested to is negative, neutral, or virtuous – or what you do with the false attestation after your swear it.
It is, however, in law a more and especially wrongful (aggravated) act or compounded felony to bear false witness to the wrongful act of another than to a neutral or virtuous act.
So by what alchemy-of-logic would any legal-professional ever conclude that it is acceptable to falsely swear under oath that you witnessed someone pay money to someone else (or to yourself) when both you and the lawyer know that it isn’t true?
Trafficking in false receipts
The first thing that a nominal creditor requires, directly or indirectly,[2] in the alleged or pretended making of a mortgage loan, is that the nominal / pretended-borrower swear under oath and penalty of perjury that the bank / nominal / pretended-creditor has already paid them the loan proceeds when in fact it has not.
As for example:
In consideration of the Principal Amount of lawful money of Canada, now paid by the Mortgagee [Bank / Creditor] to the Mortgagor [Borrower / Debtor], the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Mortgagor doth grant and mortgage unto the Mortgagee, its successors and assigns forever, ALL AND SINGULAR the Lands subject only to the Permitted Encumbrances.
where (by clause 1 (xiv)) ““Principal Amount” means the principal amount described in PART 1 of this mortgage [i.e., $2,100,000.00].”).
As and when the writings / securities were signed, witnessed, sworn under oath and notarized, and delivered / registered (executed), the payment and receipt clauses were objectively and verifiably and categorically false. The bank had paid in fact no money (nor even assumed any liability), lawful or otherwise, to anyone, it did not concurrently do so, and it was expressly under no obligation to do so in the future (under another provision of the nominal mortgage).
Stop. There.
The entire purported socio-financial-control system (bankers, lawyers, and judges) will go into panic-damage-control-mode to insist hysterically that that does not matter. But it absolutely does – both in law and in equity, and both in theory and in fact.
The falsified receipt is the credit / money itself[3] (or a direct conversion or ratification thereof) and the bank (management and owners) really does recognise and record its registration and / or the bank’s receipt and possession of it as a commensurate increase in the bank’s own cash-equivalent money assets (and as credit received by the bank from the issuer of the security).
That is why it has to be sworn under oath and penalty of perjury (otherwise, and among other things, management of any bank in the system could arbitrarily claim to have loaned $1 quadrillion ($1,000,000,000,000,000) or whatever is necessary to an accomplice to take-over or buy-up all the other players.)
And if and when there is a nominal default, the bankers have an employee of the bank swear an affidavit under oath that the bank’s foreclosure claim is directly based on the bank having loaned the named principal amount (made an equity investment) to the issuer of the security and that their sworn belief is expressly based on the (false) payment and receipt clauses in the registered mortgage. That is why the global foreclosure process is essentially a rubber-stamp process by the civil courts that almost never make any meaningful enquiry into the real transaction. (The employee cannot base their sworn belief on the bank’s records because if they were to check they would normally discover that the bank had made no such payment and that the sworn security is false – so instead they swear that they believe that the bank made an equity investment and payment to the nominal / pretended borrower because the mortgage says so – it may seem a fine point but the lawyers know what they are doing).
As and when the security is executed, the falsification is, among other things, in anticipation by the bank’s lawyers of committing a subsequent fraud-upon-the-Court (and notwithstanding that the Court / judges do not object to being so deceived).
But here again, it is regardless a fraud to bear false witness to any act of another (and / or yourself), but it is an aggravated or compounded felony to bear false witness to the wrongful act of another, and committing an act of debt by receiving a loan is a wrongful-act-in-law that directly affects the legal and equitable rights of the party to whom the false witness has been so borne. At one point such a false witnessing and swearing under oath would have been sufficient to put someone (the alleged debtor) into debtors’ prison as a constructive felon. Today it strips the real or equitable creditor (lead-underwriter / pretended-borrower) of their legal and equitable rights as creditor-in-fact, and it puts a falsified money-asset (a forgery / false-document) onto the bank’s balance sheet.
In this particular case, the owner of the corporate entity issuing the mortgage was an actual and constructive trustee / officer of the corporation (as its sole director and shareholder). The banker said in essence: “As a condition of obtaining the bare chance of receiving the (pretended) loan we require you to first commit an act of libel against your corporate person / entity by swearing under oath and penalty of perjury that you witnessed that person / corporate entity commit an act of debt by receiving a $2.1 million loan from the bank. Technically we are asset-stripping your corporate entity and obtaining all of its assets by criminal means, and so we need you to first also commit a strict-liability criminal offence – to make us technically partners-in-crime – so that you cannot sue us in equity if you later discover our fraud-in-fact or fraud(s)-in-law, and so that we don’t have to carry that possibility as a contingency on our accounting books”:
particeps criminis … 2. The doctrine that one participant in an unlawful activity cannot recover in a civil action against another participant in the activity. (Black’s Law Dictionary (1999) (7th ed.)
“Also, please disregard the fact that the solicitor is suborning perjury from you. Do you want the (pretended) loan or don’t you? If you do, then raise your right hand, swear, and sign here. If you don’t, then there is the door. And please initial here that you agree that we have not employed any form of coercion.”
The reason pretended-banking (credit-reinsurance-in-fact) is such an obscenely profitable business is because that falsified receipt is the only thing the bank / banker ever contributes to the alleged transaction.
Deposits Practice and estoppel
As an additional quick and obvious test, tell the same banker that you want to make a $2.1 million deposit and that all you need from the bank is a sworn and notarized receipt (and negotiable / registered security!!!) from it claiming / swearing that you have already made the deposit. The banker will call the police and have you arrested (along with any employee of the bank who might otherwise attempt to comply with your request – this isn’t bleeping rocket science).
The other half of the nominal banking system is obsessed with, and essentially defined by, electronic, computerized, and human-operated systems and sub-systems designed around one central purpose – and that is to make it impossible in practice for anyone to obtain and / or act upon a receipt for money paid to a bank or banker before it has been paid in fact.
The (pretended) bankers cannot (because of what is called estoppel) maintain such extensive systems designed to ensure that they never give receipts for money before they actually receive it, while concurrently claiming that they do not understand the substance of their own wrongful (and prima facie criminal) acts of soliciting, obtaining, converting, and trafficking in such objective forgeries and falsified securities.
Estoppel is the same principle that legally prevents you from later claiming that the bank never loaned you any money as a defence in a foreclosure action – the bank directly relies on the false receipt under the sworn security (and the affidavit of its own employee) to estop you from going there at all.
Nor can a false document be converted into a genuine document by putting it into what is called escrow. If a document is false as and when it is created / executed (which is also the only time at which the truth of falsity of it can be definitively determined), then it forever remains a false document. If a purported Picasso painting is a forgery-in-fact, then it cannot be converted into a genuine Picasso by putting it into escrow:
In R. v. Lemire, [1965] S.C.R. 174, this Court held that the accused’s belief that his actions would subsequently be ratified afforded no defence. …., Martland J. (for the majority [of the Supreme Court of Canada]) held, at p. 193:
In other words, [the position of the accused is that] there is no intent to defraud within the requirement of s. 323(1) [now s. 380(1)] if the accused person, while deliberately committing an act which is clearly fraudulent, expects that that which he is doing may, at a later date, be validated. To me the very statement of this proposition establishes its error in law.
The accused had been properly convicted of fraud for issuing / submitting (converting) false receipts for payments that he had not made in fact (and even though he may have genuinely believed that his falsifications would be subsequently nominally validated) .
Another way to see the same fraud is that as and when the pretended-borrower signs and delivers the security, they normally have neither the capacity nor intent to honour the security unless the bank delivers the principal amount to them. But if the security were to say so, then it would be obvious that it is a conditional promise to pay and not an unconditional promise to pay, and the bank would be unable to employ the security as its source of funds for the alleged loan proceeds. The false receipt for proceeds already delivered is a falsification of the security that gives it the false appearance of an unconditional promise to pay. The bankers and their solicitors are not just defrauding the pretended borrower but are simultaneously committing (and / or anticipating) a massive number of frauds against the financial markets.
In the minds of the bankers and the financial solicitors, one fraud cancels out the other, while under the criminal law the second fraud is a compounding of the felony.
The bankers globally are committing massive financial frauds in the international financial markets by trafficking in falsified securities where the issuers and underwriters of them have been tricked into issuing false receipts in favour of the ringleaders / perpetrators by a tag-team combination of the bankers and their financial solicitors.
Perhaps more critically in terms of functional or practical purpose, the false payment and receipt clauses conceal and deny (and / or obfuscate) the fact that the bank is the lead-debtor in equity and gratuitous beneficiary of the lead-underwriters’ equitable undertaking of the liability. It is to hide and deny the fact that the bank is only reinsuring the credit that the bank first obtains and receives from the pretended debtor.
Ignoring, for the moment, (in respect of this particular case / example) the nominal loan fees (entry-fees and/or reinsurance-premiums-in-fact) and collateral securities (and the embedded disclaimers) (and the securities falsification to conceal it, and the wagering-format), a complete and accurate statement of the consideration to be provided and exchanged would have been as follows:
In consideration of (the pretended borrower) first agreeing that they owe a secured $2.1 million to (the bank), (the bank) will then agree that it owes an unsecured $2.1 million to (the pretended borrower).
That is a very different transaction from a loan of money – in fact it is the conceptual / mirror-image opposite. A loan of money would immediately cost the bank $2.1 million, while a credit-reinsurance transaction immediately gains the bank $2.1 million – with a $4.2 million difference in favour of the bank. That is how and why the private banks globally have come to own everything while producing nothing.
If the bank were loaning its own or someone else’s pre-existing money, then the order of events is (arguably)[30] not absolutely critical (although the false receipt is still a false receipt and which renders the mortgage a false document and forgery-in-law). But under a credit-reinsurance transaction, order of events, or procedure, is everything.
The banker(s) and / or the bank’s solicitor(s)[31] arrived at the swearing / signing with nothing-at-all. They left with a real-estate-secured advance of $2.1 million of credit from the nominal borrower (i.e., an unconditional undertaking of indebtedness, and liability to pay the bank $2.1 million plus interest), a $2.1 million cash-withdrawal-receipt from the nominal borrower, and the legal title to a (minimum) $2.1 million real-estate asset, for a minimum total of $6.3 million in new assets on the asset-side, in exchange, on the liability-side, for the nominal borrower’s additional sworn and notarized agreement that:
[MORTGAGE TERMS Part 2, (p. 13) 8.11] The Borrower agrees that neither the execution nor registration of this mortgage [and all of its provisions / liabilities of the Borrower] will oblige the Lender to advance any further[32] money hereunder but the advance of money from time to time will be in the sole discretion of the Lender.
Then after formally (procedurally) booking the bank’s minimum $6.3 million gain[33], the bankers three days later gratuitously agreed that they owed a new $2.1 million (less more fees) to the vendor / seller of the property. A minimum $6.3 million of hard / secured assets came in – balanced or off-set by an unsecured $2.1 million liability out.
Money-lending became credit-reinsurance became game-of-chance
Just to be clear, when banks were in the money-lending business, the bankers would demand, say, a 5% fee for their purported separate agreement to make the loan. But an otherwise $100,000 loan actually cost the bank $100,000 to make.
Then the business morphed or mutated into credit-reinsurance where the bankers said to the effect: “First, gratuitously advance credit to us by agreeing unconditionally (by promissory note and mortgage) that you owe us 100% of the credit amount, plus a 5% bonus for our agreement to advance (re-advance or re-insure) the credit (total 105%), all as a loan (transaction / premium / reinsurance) fee, and then we will agree to flip the capacity back to you (less the 5% bonus) as a new and (wholly-inflationary and costless-for-us-to-produce) unsecured deposit-credit that you can then assign by cheque to the vendor / seller to pay for the property. Then we will agree that we owe the purchase price to the vendor instead of to you.”
Then (after the new doctrine of “criminal but not fundamentally illegal”) the business morphed or mutated again into today’s full-blown Godfather-based-business-model where the bankers demand the same 105% underwriting of liability but now in exchange for the bank’s bare agreement that it might flip it back instead of its previous agreement that it will flip it back. At some point some bank solicitor said to the effect: “Hey! If we put the securities into the form of a wager or game-of-chance, then we can re-leverage our rate of asset creation and acquisition!” “Bonus! Bonus! Bonus! – Let’s Party!”
Money-lending became credit-reinsurance became entry-fee or game-of-chance-based-credit-reinsurance.[34]
Game-of-Chance Offer Letter
The essential and material elements of the procedurally-typical nominal $2.1 million business loan by a Canadian financial institution (that I have been using for most of the examples given) are as per the following summary of the bank’s Offer Letter or Commitment Letter (dated December 20, 1996).[35]
The potential nominal borrower to whom the de facto offer was made or solicited (and accepted (as the best deal they could get in the Canadian environment)) had a net circa $10 million in broadly-defined assets (including the net-present-value of the expected increase in cash-flow from the investment / improvements), and no material liabilities (and according to the bank’s current lawyers this constructive Godfather Offer is a “standard business deal” with nothing illegal or wrongful about it):
- First, you will obtain $46,000, and deliver it to us at the address designated below. This entry fee is non-refundable.[36]
- You will then register an unconditional charge and undertaking of liability in the amount of $2.1 million to us, and against your property, at the Land Title Office (one of the two-pretended-co-borrowers already owned (near-clear-title) the real estate and buildings).
- You will give us a notarised receipt claiming and swearing under oath and penalty of perjury that we have already paid you $2.1 million of lawful money of Canada, and that you have received it from us.
- You will legally restate and ratify our payment, and your receipt, of the above indicated $2.1 million, by providing for the registered securities to claim and swear compliance with the federal securities law (Interest Act, s. 6). Under the same securities you will deny by omission both the fact and amount of the aforementioned $46,000 cash-entry-fee / cash-payment to us.
- You will give us a sworn and notarised undertaking that you will pay us an additional $2.1 million by stipulated instalments and / or On Demand.
- You will provide and register a conveyance of the legal title and ownership of your land and buildings to us, in exchange for a repurchase-option to buy it back from us by paying us all of the money you are required to pay us under all of the securities.
- You will provide and register a conveyance of the legal title to your ongoing gross business revenue / cash-flow by a sworn and notarised and separately registered Assignment of Rents in favour of us (for us to use in the international markets).
- You will give us a sworn and notarised undertaking that if any of the above terms are illegal or criminal or unenforceable for any reason, then the agreement remains valid anyway, and the interest rate is amended and increased to 59% per annum in favour of us, and applied against the amount secured irrespective of the amount ultimately advanced / returned to you.
- And, once you have unconditionally done / conveyed all of the above money, financial assets and property to us, you will agree that anything that we give you, or are contractually obligated or required to give you, in return, shall be at our sole discretion.
Pay us $46,000 in cash up front as an ante or entry fee (and GAAP-fraud concealment fee), and then unconditionally transfer virtually the entirety of your $10 million in assets to us, and then maybe we will agree that we owe you an unsecured $2.1 million in return, and maybe we won’t. Take it or leave it. Welcome to Canada – a country of the entrenched-money-power, operated by the entrenched-money-power and for the entrenched-money-power.
Reverse the parties
To truly grasp the ever-increasing absurdity of it, simply reverse the identity of the parties and the pure labeling of the components. What is passed off as a business proposal when issued by a bank reads like a terrorist extortion demand letter when so turned around.
Assume that the owners / principals of the pretended-borrower had instead approached management at the bank with the following proposal / offer:
- The bank is to pay us $46,000 up front by cash / cheque;
- The bank is to deliver to us circa $10 million of additional cash-equivalent money assets as nominal security but of which we are henceforth the legal owners;
- The bank is to give us an express cash receipt swearing under oath (by the bank’s directors) that we have already made a $2.1 million deposit of “lawful money of Canada”, and which shall remain valid even if we have not; and
- The bank agrees to the following disclaimers that the bank agrees to wholly disregard any law against it, and that if any of it is illegal, then the bank agrees to increase the rate of interest it will pay on the $2.1 million real or pretended deposit from 7.75% per annum to 59% per annum:
NOTWITHSTANDING the provisions of any Statute [law] relating to the rate of interest payable by [deposit-taker] debtors [e.g., s. 347 of the Criminal Code, GAAP, IFRS, Trust and Loan Companies Act, etc.], this [deposit] contract [and security] shall remain in full force and effect whatever the rate of interest received or demanded by [the depositor].
4.1 If the Interest Rate stipulated herein would, except for this clause, be a criminal rate or void for uncertainty or unenforceable for any other reason, then the interest rate payable on the [real or deemed deposit] 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].
and in return
- We will agree that we might make a $2.1 million deposit at our sole discretion, but are not legally / contractually obligated to actually do so, and we get to keep all of the above described assets even if we don’t.
On top of the mind-numbing absurdity of it, the offer itself is obviously illegal and criminal to the nth degree. Without the bank’s corporate logo, it is just a simple gangster (or worse) shakedown letter.
The first thing that management at the bank would do would be to call the police – or perhaps even a SWAT-team.
Regardless, this actual typical financial deal and security in Canada (and increasingly the rest of the world) today is constructively[37] and / or on its face (prima facie) offensive to domestic and international laws / treaties against one or more (and normally most) of falsification of an account, fraud, GAAP / IFRS-fraud, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty[38], embezzlement, constructive and actual forgery / making-false-documents, uttering false / forged documents, obtaining credit (from pretended-borrower) by fraud or false pretence, omitting material particulars from valuable securities for a fraudulent purpose, receiving / converting payments or partial payments of interest at a criminal rate, incipient-mail-fraud and wire-fraud, laundering proceeds of crime, and racketeering / wagering.
And all nominally justified and purportedly legitimized by disclaimers to the effect that the parties know and understand that the agreements and securities are illegal and criminal, but if such should be discovered or raised as an issue, then either (1) they simply don’t care, and / or (2) they were just kidding.
But it’s all ok because none of the two dozen or so unlawful, illegal, criminal and international racketeering / organised-crime offences are “fundamentally illegal”.
That is how an otherwise relatively minor private entity, such as Toronto-based Sun Life, has seen its assets / AUM balloon from circa $381 billion in 2008 to almost $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) today while technically it does not produce anything except unearned-capital-gains and proceeds-of-crime–accounting-profits in off-set of unsecured / kited-liabilities. And all during a purported credit crisis.
And the big private chartered banks make Sun Life look like amateurs.
The only answer the lawyers have to it is Bare. Naked. Denial. That is why it cannot be stopped and the actual physical securities become increasingly cartoonish with each progressive iteration. The instant the music stops it becomes obvious that the lawyers and solicitors are co-liable for all of the financial losses and they get to share a jail cell with the bankers (and the controlling minds of the principal-owner / families that have been living off the avails and proceeds of crime for up to ten consecutive generations). That is why the global financial system is a runaway freight train.
Very simply, a solicitor who practices commercial law is responsible, if he undertakes to draft a promissory note [or any other financial security], to see to it that it expresses the interest rate [or any other material provision] in a form that is enforceable [i.e., not criminal]. Ontario Court of Appeal – Elcano Acceptance Ltd. v. Richmond, Richmond, Stambler & Mills; 1991, 68 O.R. (2d) 165.
And upon competent examination it is abundantly clear that the financial solicitors have been demanding and receiving egregiously-inflated fees and percentage kick-backs for the service of falsifying and laundering the financial securities. It is not just a technicality – they really are partners-in-crime.
That is why the (former bank-solicitors appointed by a former bank-director) judges of the appellate courts and the Supreme Court of Canada can rule or endorse that violation of the single most significant and important criminal / racketeering offence in the entire Criminal Code is not fundamentally illegal because the criminal law only provides that offenders will be severely punished but does not expressly say Don’t do it – while not a single law professor raises so much as an eyebrow!
Seventy-four years ago, at the end of World War II, we in Canada were fewer than twelve million people in possession of about one-tenth of the world’s broadly-defined diverse natural resources.
Today we have ever-increasing widespread poverty while a relatively tiny controlling elite have done very well for themselves – by selling out the rest of us to domestic and international (and highly-organised and flagrantly criminal) financial interests who are operating openly and in fact under a game-of-chance / wagering-based racketeering-on-steroids-business-model.
Notwithstanding all of the flagrant criminal-law offences, the principle that shakes the entrenched-money-power to its core is:
When a legal-agreement / contract fails, equity is automatically revived.
Even the relatively few judges who are not former bank-lawyers or bank-solicitors have been brainwashed and / or otherwise coerced into looking the other way on ever-increasingly-massive illegalities because they believe that the bankers really are loaning their own or someone else’s pre-existing money to the alleged borrowers. But the pre-qualified promissory-note-issuer is the lead-underwriter and equity-creditor-in-fact and the bank is the lead-debtor-in-fact and reinsurer.
Modern pretended-banking is a double-reverse-double-whammy equity extraction business fraudulently passed off as an equity investment business.
Modern banks do not advance credit to nominal debtors – they obtain credit from nominal debtors, and then reinsure or nominally (pretend-to) guarantee that credit in favour of the vendor / seller of the real-estate or other property being sold and purchased with the credit (while stripping off all of the purported security as reinsurance-premiums for themselves). They are asset-strippers, asset-sinks, and unsecured–liability-kiters.
The credit / money, per se, does not even exist unless and until the pre-qualified nominal debtor underwrites it by agreeing that they owe it (i.e., by assuming / underwriting / accepting the liability)[39]. In about 98% of all nominal credit transactions, what we are first conditioned, and then obsessively-habituated, to describe and label as borrowers or debtors are in fact / substance the lead-underwriters and creditors-in-fact or creditors-in-equity.
What we are dealing with in fact is a relatively tiny global controlling elite – perhaps 10,000 people / controlling-minds worldwide – systemically and systematically sucking-the-life-force from over seven billion people through a scandalously unlawful and flagrantly illegal system of orchestrated false documents and forgery.
Going back to 1913, with the de facto conversion / transition from money-lending to credit-reinsurance, they could have taken over the entire planet by just maintaining the illusion that they were playing by the rules until they owned everything (and allowing for a moving-target in the form of ever-increasing new wealth due to massive increases in productivity from technology). In theory it would have taken them about 200 years.
But they got ever-more greedy and stupid until the current generation decided that they had to be the generation that gets the glory for capturing the whole world. In so doing they have exposed the egregiously criminal and iniquitous substance of their system, where the consequences in law and equity are that they lose it all.
As, ironically, the House of Lords itself put it in ratification of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1928:
It might have been possible, as no agreement was entered into, that even after the original proposal the two heads could have been separated, and two independent agreements might have been prepared,…, but that is not, in fact, what was done. (Banking Services Corp. v. Toronto Fin. Corp. Ltd. et al. H.L Imp. P. C. [1928] 3 D.L.R. 1).
All that matters is that the Canadian Crown Courts did in fact rule that criminal / international racketeering offences are not fundamentally illegal,[40] Canada did in fact fail to perform its international treaty obligations, Canadian banks / institutions did in fact flood the international markets with technical and actual legal-forgeries and / or proceeds of crime, and those falsified / tainted securities / funds were in fact leveraged multiple times by an international financial system that knew, or ought to have known, of the massive criminality involved because they all engage in the same essential crimes by various means in their own domestic jurisdictions.
And all of the world’s franchise Bar Associations and Law Societies are in fact and in law responsible for the damages as partners-in-crime with the bankers and most significantly the controlling minds who own the banks.
But perhaps the most significant reality of all is that the lawyers, the solicitors, and the bankers and the banks’ owners are not merely a criminal-organization in-law; they are all also in-fact and in-law constructive and actual absconding debtors attempting to avoid and evade their lawful and legal debts to their creditors-in-fact.
Timothy Paul Madden, forensic-financial-economist, and historian of equity, law, and policy.
Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa, November 5, 2019.
Updated as at March 30, 2020.
- 2.(a) “cost” of a loan means the whole of the cost of the loan to the borrower whether the same is called interest or is claimed as discount, deduction from an advance, commission, brokerage, chattel mortgage and recording fees, fines, penalties or charges for inquiries, defaults or renewals or otherwise, and whether paid to or charged by the lender or paid to or charged by any other person, and whether fixed and determined by the loan contract itself, or in whole or in part by any other collateral contract or document by which the charges, if any, imposed under the loan contract or the terms of the repayment of the loan are effectively varied. [Small Loans Act of 1939] ↑
- Small Loans Act of 1939 ↑
- GAAP is Generally Accepted [and legally binding] Accounting Principles/Practices, and IFRS is International Financial Reporting Standards (also in fact regardless of formal designation as such). ↑
- The public has been conditioned over the centuries to believe that these nominal loopholes are things that are discovered or asserted by clever lawyers after the fact. But they are in fact deliberately written into the law by the MP’s and other alleged legislative representatives of the People so as to provide an ultimate escape hatch for the appointed judiciary to negate any legislation that ultimately threatens the interests of the entrenched-money-power. ↑
- In 1584, under Heydon’s Case 76 ER 637, the English judges obtained the exclusive right to interpret the words used in a statute (law) on condition that they always consider the mischief or purpose for which Parliament had enacted the law. Shortly thereafter they created a new rule that made it illegal for anyone to submit evidence of legislative intent in a civil action, so that the judges were free to simply declare what Parliament’s purpose was without fear of being contradicted. That is what compelled a repeatedly frustrated Parliament to add the preamble denouncing front-loading to the Small Loans Act of 1939. No matter how many laws Parliament had enacted against it, the former bank-lawyer/judges would assert that the purpose of the law was to ensure that the front-loaded fees and bonuses etc. were reasonable (The then 400-year-old rule was overturned in 1986 (opening the floodgates)). ↑
- The practice is unlawful and wrongful as founded in apartheid. Direct-apartheid is where, as a simple example, a government makes it illegal for Black People to walk on the public sidewalks. An administrative-apartheid or non-obstante-based government would instead make it an offence for anyone to walk on the public sidewalks, and then choose to only prosecute Black offenders and not White offenders. The Crown conceded in perpetuity under the Bill of Rights in 1689 that the law means the law of the land, and not the law of the person. Most generally, Apartheid is the act of using the law to create different classes of people (or legal persons) with different legal rights solely or substantively for the purpose of keeping them superior or subservient respectively.NON OBSTANTE. In English law.These words, which literally signify notwithstanding, are used to signify the act of the English king whereby he dispenses with the law, that is, authorizes its violation. He cannot by his licence or dispensation make an offence dispunishable which is malum in se [evil / wrongful-of-itself (like front-loading)]; but in certain matters which are malum prohibita [not wrongful but illegal only by statute], he may, to certain persons and on special occasions, grant a non obstante. (Vaughn 330-359 ; Lev. 217. ; Sid. 6, 7 ; 12 Co. 18, 7 Bacon Abr. Prerogative (D 7) 2 Reeve, English L.C. 8, p. 83. But the doctrine of non obstante, which set the prerogative above the laws, was demolished by the bill of rights at the revolution. 1 W. & M. Stat. 2 c. 2 ; 1 Bla. Com. 342 ; 1 Steph. Com. 460 ; (Bouvier’s L.D. 1883). ↑
- The section was originally enacted a s. 305.1 and later amended to s. 347, but I will refer to it throughout by its current designation as s. 347. ↑
- National Banking Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 3, p. 43 (Part I), No. 4 (Part II)), PARTICIPATORY LOANS: THE CRIMINAL PROBLEM, by Alison Manzer and Rose Marie Ip of Robins, Appleby & Taub. ↑
- As established (also) in law by the fact of the Preamble to the Small Loans Act of 1939. A preamble survives the repeal of a statute. A preamble is founded in equity to expose the wrongful nature of a given act or practice. ↑
- The section was originally enacted as s. 305.1. Also, in this particular case the plaintiff / creditor had violated both subsections of the criminal interest rate law – the whole term yield was 145%, and the securities had been falsified to conceal it by front-loading $45,000 of interest in advance. ↑
- Including its legal costs against the financial-fraud victim! The defendant Mr. Carpenter was not the nominal borrower. He was simply a pure guarantor who had not even received any premium to guarantee the payment. ↑
- Thomson, (William E.) Associates Inc. v. Carpenter [1989] 34 O.A.C. 365. Note also how quickly (in the same decision) the Court / judges commit the constructive Freudian slip of constructively referring to the criminal law as a “prohibition” notwithstanding the substance of their core ruling in the same case that there is technically no such prohibition. It is criminally insane either way of course, but that’s policy. ↑
- Because the omission of the required rebate or kick-back conceals the violation of s. 347, it is automatically an offence under s. 397(1)(b) (Omitting a material particular from a valuable security for a fraudulent purpose). ↑
- The date / event is significant because most banks were consequently legally allowed into the residential mortgage business which had been prohibited to them under the prior legislation. The trailing 32-year period to the year 2000 represents just a single snapshot-in-time of a process that has been going on for more than 300 years in the modern era. The removal of statutory interest rate limits also appears to have been a coordinated international phenomenon and more or less contemporaneous with the broad introduction of so-called floating interest rates – the single most import change in commercial history – the ability of one party to unilaterally amend a contract after the fact to the manifest detriment of the other party. Nobody voted on it – the bankers just did it. And they all did it at roughly the same time – isn’t that interesting? ↑
- That is, if all debt were considered as one big mortgage. Actual land / property mortgage rates, per se, are generally lower than the average rate on all debt. ↑
- All financial institutions are required to, and do, recognise the nominal loan fees as interest income. ↑
- Toronto Star; January 31, 1994. Based on documented industry practice, the financial solicitors / lawyers involved would be expected to receive about one-third or $30 million, of the total amount front-loaded. ↑
- Assuming a fixed 25-year amortisation and a fixed stated interest rate of 12% per annum, reflecting the rates in effect at the time. Also 12% per annum was the approximate average prime interest rate over the 30-year period 1974 to 2004. Based on the same required payments, the contract is paid off after 20.5 years, but 25 years with the $90 million front-loading. The extra 4.5 years of payments total $1.2 billion. The actual terms of the Roger’s deal may have been different, but the central point is to demonstrate the effects over the whole period. If the whole financing of the economy were characterised as a single loan of $2.15 trillion, with a $90 billion loan fee, then that loan fee would add $1.2 trillion bonus interest for the bankers over the 25-year amortisation. (In practice Rogers is unlikely to have locked-itself-in to a 25-year amortisation at the relatively high rates in effect at the time (1994)). ↑
- Over the same period, the price of a Big Mac at McDonald’s (in downtown Toronto where I am now / today ((January 2019) passing through)), for example, has increased from 60 cents to $7, representing about a 12-times increase in prices for the little people supported by their only 5-fold increase in wages. Not the most scientific of observations, but a reasonable measure of the general purchasing-power squeeze wrought upon the working-poor. Although, to be fair, over the same period, the price of the entry-level Ferrari has increased about 15-times from about $15,000 to $225,000. Perhaps a better metric is that when I got my first part-time job in 1973, I earned the minimum hourly wage of $1.75 in Winnipeg, and could purchase almost exactly three Big Mac’s with an hour’s wage. Someone earning $10.50 per hour today can only purchase 1.5 Big Mac’s with an hour’s wage. ↑
- In Canada, by 1980 financial institutions were each maintaining as many as five different (and floating) “prime” rates of interest – they had Agricultural Loan Base Rates, Industrial Loan Base Rates, Technology Loan Base Rates, Personal Loan Base Rates, Mortgage Loan Base Rates, etc., as each sector of the economy / market was targeted and selectively milked according to its ability to produce. ↑
- Thomson had apparently obtained similar notes from others on the board sufficient to cover the entire amount. ↑
- The Bank Act was written so as to allow bank management to control and criminalize at will virtually anyone (any nominal debtor) who even annoys them. But the same laws apply to bank management too. ↑
- National Banking Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 3, p. 43 (Part I), No. 4 (Part II)), PARTICIPATORY LOANS: THE CRIMINAL PROBLEM, by Alison Manzer and Rose Marie Ip of Robins, Appleby & Taub. This article was just one of several that were published on the same subject in various financial law publications. ↑
- Snell v. Unity Finance, Court of Appeal, [1963] 3 All E.R., pp. 50-61, at p. 59. Although it should be noted that the Court / judge should have used the word “illegal” and not “unlawful”. Things that are unlawful are wrongful with or without a law against them, and so cannot be made unlawful by Parliament. A big part of the larger problem is that there is something about the legal profession that accommodates misuse of specialized terminology to an extent that would not be tolerated in any other profession. ↑
- Tempered or moderated by what were called required-reserves which were slowly wound-down over the course of the century so that the public never clued-in to what had really happened in 1913. If government had laid claim to the whole free-lunch obtained by the private banks in 1913, then were would have been no need for an income tax. ↑
- Sometimes the bank and its solicitors employ the fictitious or illusory consideration technique of substituting the bank’s bare agreement to loan to achieve the same result. Either way, the functional result is to make the security appear to be an unconditional liability of the nominal borrower when it is in fact a conditional liability that is dependant on the bank paying them the loan proceeds. But it is regardless constructive forgery under both English and Canadian Law (The Queen v. Gaysek [1971] SCR 888). ↑
- Or rather one form of it. The bank can employ either the unconditional undertaking of indebtedness or the falsified receipt as its source of funds or basis of its subsequent or eventual issuance of a new unsecured liability (ultimately) to the vendor. Also, the wrongful act is complete upon the false swearing of the security and cannot be cured by escrow. ↑
- This is normally a device claimed by lawyers in the U.S. – but even if it were used in Canada it would remain incurably flawed and ineffective as a device by which to evade the criminal law. ↑
- R. v. Lemire, [1965] S.C.R. 174, R. v. Theroux [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5. ↑
- In fact, however, the entire system is founded in apartheid, and the so-called Bank / Banking Acts are in substance Acts of Apartheid that create a legally superior class of legal persons who are allowed to pay their debts by merely agreeing that they owe them. It is the ability of these designated-legal-persons to traffic in the promissory notes as cash-equivalent-money assets that renders the masses legally and financially inferior to them. ↑
- Note that the bankers may claim that the solicitor is technically working for the nominal debtor and issuer of the security, but that is rendered irrelevant regardless because of the technical status of the BAR as a criminal organization (both generally and in respect of this particular transaction). The whole thing is criminalized as and when the bank’s employees / agents make or solicit (counsel) the nominal debtor to enter into the transaction. In this particular case both parties had their own solicitors but both were members of the same criminal organization (Law Society of BC) which dominates all other factors under both domestic and international treaty law. ↑
- The word “further” is a double-barrelled fraud / smoking gun. First, the clause makes it clear that the bank has no liability to advance / return the credit that it has received from the note and mortgage issuer, while (2) cross-ratifying the objectively false payment and receipt clause (i.e., otherwise there would be a direct contradiction (but which there is anyway – the psychological device is that the reader assumes that they must be referring to the loan that has yet to be made notwithstanding the express payment and receipt clauses)). ↑
- The actual total in this case was circa $10 million including the separately registered Assignment of Rents. ↑
- Another way to understand the “No obligation to advance” provision is that it legally negates or off-sets the bank’s obligation to repay the credit that the bank first obtains from the pretended borrower. ↑
- Referenced elsewhere by the bank as being dated December 19, 1996, but is the same document. ↑
- $42,000 of which was claimed / demanded as a “Commitment Fee” that was not refunded in fact notwithstanding that the offer letter claimed that it was potentially refundable (and by definition a commitment fee is not refundable). ↑
- In this context, constructively means that an observer needs to have knowledge of the actual or real transaction in order to determine the fraud in the nominal documentation / securities, while prima facie means that the documentation / securities are criminal on the face of it regardless of the real transaction. ↑
- Normally a banker will claim that a bank is not a fiduciary, but the illegal or criminal status of one or more provisions means that the writing cannot pass as a financial instrument and instead creates a trust in favour of the issuer / nominal-debtor, and that automatically makes the bank a constructive trustee and fiduciary (Saunders v. Guiness Plc. (1990) H.L.). The two example disclaimers are from a standard Sun Life security (Personal Guarantee) and a Sun Life mortgage, respectively. Virtually all financial institutions in Canada have adopted variations of the same essential provisions. ↑
- See Part 2 of “Rule of Law my butt” for a detailed examination of process ↑
- What is important here is that it is not possible to make such a ruling in good faith. The judges cannot rely on so-called judicial immunity because their decision is technically and actually criminally insane, and was intended in fact to aid and abet on-going racketeering activity, and to cover for their own previous offences as lawyers. Judicial immunity does not apply to any wrongful / criminal act committed by a judge before being appointed a judge. The judges were also guilty of serial-failure to declare their prima facie conflicts-of-interest. ↑