Why are so many of us underperforming our birthright?
For the majority in Canada the answer is because in 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ratified the decision of a group of ex-bank-lawyers calling themselves the Ontario Court of Appeal that criminal-law violations and racketeering offences committed by financial corporations are not illegal, because:
- The criminal law only provides that offenders will be severely punished but does not otherwise directly state: Don’t do it;
- Financial corporations are not among the class of persons to whom the criminal law was intended to apply; and
- The financial corporation had been counselled and assisted (aided and abetted) by “two leading Toronto law firms” / members of the BAR.
But the decision wasn’t just clinically insane by existing medical and psychiatric standards – it was also what the lawyers call precedent. Virtually all commercial crime sections of the Criminal Code are of the same form – none of them directly state – Don’t do it.
Thirty years later, a typical mortgage in Canada today has between 14 and 24 prima facie domestic criminal law and international-treaty-law racketeering violations / offences.
That is why, as just a relatively minor example, your nominal mortgage is most likely in the form of a wager or game-of-chance. Virtually every mainstream mortgage includes a provision to the effect:
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. [This provision allows the bank to charge off the lead-underwriter’s [pretended-borrower’s] assets as an entry-fee for a wager to account for the bank’s otherwise unearned (unaccounted-for) gain (i.e., so that it does not have to pay-back the secured credit that it receives from the note-issuer / pretended-borrower / creditor-in-fact)].
In plain English, and reduced to its essential and material elements, a typical nominal mortgage transaction is:
“First, legally and unconditionally convey to us all of the assets (everything real or financial and specific to this nominal transaction), and then maybe we will agree that we owe you something in return, and maybe we won’t.”
The scope and scale of criminal and international racketeering law violations is simply mind-boggling, and all hiding-in-plain-sight. It is not about whether you subsequently win the wager or game-of-chance – it is about the bank doubling its accounting (capital) gains and real profits by putting the alleged transaction into the form of a wager. From there on it’s all about leverage leverage leverage.
That is why the owners of the private banking system own virtually everything, even though they do not produce anything tangible.
The former bank-lawyers, who are directly appointed as judges by the former bank-lawyer or bank-director normally occupying the prime minister’s office at any given time, are masters at pretending that they don’t understand why these practices are illegal and criminal even as the nation itself is systematically harvested in violation of literally dozens of laws against precisely those practices.
As an ultimate failsafe they add general disclaimers to their securities that the parties agree to disregard the criminal law and all other laws:
NOTWITHSTANDING the provisions of any Statute [any lawful Act of Parliament including 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 – (SUN LIFE FINANCIAL in this particular case)].
Seventy-five years ago, at the end of WW 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 an embarrassing level of widespread poverty, while a relative handful of elites and elite families, domestic and foreign, own virtually everything.
They will tell you that I don’t know what I am talking about because I am not a lawyer. They will tell you that I am not capable of understanding their process of reasoning, which regardless stands on its own (res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself):
“[T]here is no doubt that the corporate plaintiff [directly funded / reinsured by the CIBC (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce)] committed an offence under s. 347(1)(a) by entering into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate” [also via front-loading ($45,000 kick-back converted-in-advance) contrary to s. 347(1)(b), (and also forgery / falsified-securities and money-laundering) to conceal it] [and] “The parties…acted on the advice of their solicitors” [described elsewhere by the trial judge as “two leading Toronto law firms”]
and / but
“…[The criminal law [Section [347(1)(a)], … 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  34 O.A.C. 365).
Lawyers are trained in the art of deceiving humans by stringing together statements that are not categorically false.
Eventually they lose not just the ability to perceive reality, but even the ability to understand that there is such a thing as reality.
The primary theoretical difference between a Court of civil / commercial Law, and a mafia Don or Godfather, is that the Godfather has jurisdiction over contracts that are offensive to the criminal law.
If Jimmy the Kid issues a contract on Johnny the Weasel, and Rocco the Enforcer then whacks Johnny the Weasel, then he can go to the Godfather for an adjudication if Jimmy the Kid refuses to pay him.
Her Majesty’s Courts, however, are presumed not to have any such jurisdiction, and are in fact obligated in such case to charge all involved with murder, or as an accessory to murder.
The former bank lawyers running the commercial courts in Canada don’t get that.
Since 1990 the implementation and then massive expansion of this racketeering-based business-model (basically a double-cross-leveraged-double-counting device), and their ability to get away with it, has allowed the private financial system to harvest at least an extra / bonus $10 trillion of unearned wealth / unjust enrichment ($10,000,000,000,000), or an average of about $1 million from each of ten million Canadian households.
But it’s ok because they made sure that we never even saw it, so how can we miss it?
If you can employ double-counting to capitalize interest in advance, or even just sufficient nominal loan-fees contrary to GAAP, and get away with it, then you can near literally buy the Earth with proceeds of crime in a single generation.
And that is precisely what we have.
This Post Has One Comment
It was eaten up by the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia.