Anatomy of a global coup d’état

3500 Words to change your life forever


For at least 400 years, commercial law in the Western world is based on the all-or-nothing principle of contracts.

If a contract is legally valid, then the Courts are required to enforce it in its entirety, even if it is unfair or one-sided.

But if there is anything illegal in the contract, then the whole contract is void, and the Courts have no power to interfere with the consequences, and the solicitor(s) or lawyer(s) who created / drafted the contract become financially liable for whatever losses or damages that result from the voiding of the contract. That liability is also why financial solicitors are paid so relatively well – their fees are in part an insurance premium to guarantee the legality of the contracts and securities that they create.

It is in theory the single most important thing to keep the system honest.

On the darker side, over the same 400-plus years the entrenched-money-power employs the same all-or-nothing principle as a ratcheting-device to slowly and systemically obtain an ever-more-disproportionate share of existing wealth, and of the on-going new wealth as it is produced by the masses of people who comprise the broadly-defined global economy.

No matter how bad and one-sided it gets, their answer is always the same – The Law is the Law.


Private banks in Canada (as most everywhere else) are all but officially insolvent and bankrupt.

In desperation, their owners and management pressure and lobby the government of Canada to revive the unlawful (malum in se or evil / wrongful-of-itself) and long-illegal (unconstitutional) practice of non obstante or administrative-apartheid (selective-non-prosecution) to effectively give the bankers permission to violate the criminal law, but also under the guise of creating a criminal rate of interest so that the public does not catch on to what is really being accomplished.

In early 1981 the Crown does so and amends its Criminal Code to make it a criminal offence to either enter into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate, or to receive or convert a payment or partial payment of interest at a criminal rate (including and especially loan-fees illegally converted-in-advance). But also with a provision requiring the permission of the Attorney-General for a criminal prosecution to be initiated.

But the professional-language-manipulators near-inexplicably fail to consider that if the contract is contrary to the criminal law, then it is wholly void and unenforceable in a civil court – and the lawyers who drafted it become liable – and it makes no difference whether the government chooses to prosecute the bank in criminal jurisdiction. There are also multiple additional racketeering and money-laundering offences that are almost always automatically established with the violation of the criminal interest rate law, and which do not require the consent of the AG for prosecution. The mistakes are so many and basic that they can only be attributed to a combination of the general level of desperation by the bankers at the time, and their inherent belief in their capacity to control the judges of the Courts should such become necessary.

The criminal interest rate sections are subsequently enjoined as designated / organized-crime offences under several international treaties on money-laundering and the disposition of proceeds of crime to which Canada is a contracting state party.

To avoid their most immediate problem the financial solicitors adopt a general strategy or tactic of falsifying the financial securities (technically compounding the felony) to conceal and deny interest illegally capitalized in advance, and to conceal and deny that the banks are actually obtaining credit from nominal borrowers, and then merely reinsuring that credit in favour of the seller / vendor of the property, which is vastly more profitable to them than money-lending (but which cannot be accomplished except in violation of the criminal-rate-of-conversion-law).

Once the banks recover and regain the appearance of solvency, logically management ought to stop using the criminal device, but by this time (mid-1980’s) both the bankers and their financial solicitors are thoroughly-addicted to the easy-money and personal-bonuses they obtain from their technical and actual violations of the criminal law, and from the resulting proceeds of crime.


Financial securities in Canada become ever-more-tainted, and eventually saturated, with criminal-law violations in fact, and the judges of the Courts make a series of obviously contrived and contradictory decisions to protect the lawyers and the solicitors and their malpractice-liability bonding and insurance underwriters from the massive and ever-mounting financial liabilities. But it is only a matter of time before the manifest illegality and layered-criminality becomes wholly unmanageable.

1989 / 90

Judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal and of the Supreme Court of Canada seize upon the civil case of William E. Thomson Associates Inc. v. Carpenter to depose Parliament and the Crown in Right of Canada, and to take dictatorial-control of government on behalf of the BAR Association and its most dominant or controlling-minds who are overwhelmingly comprised of broadly-defined commercial, corporate and financial law specialists.

On the facts, the trial judge found that the plaintiff had undoubtedly committed a criminal offence, where such offence is objectively a designated enterprise-crime or organized-crime / racketeering offence, and that the plaintiff had been aided and abetted in so doing by its financial solicitors – described by the trial judge as a “leading Toronto law firm”.

And it was not merely incidental but in fact defined the whole action. The plaintiff was asking / petitioning the Court to convert a promissory note that it had demanded and received in the commission of – and as security for – a criminal transaction. The plaintiff was literally asking / petitioning the Court to launder proceeds of crime for them.

The plaintiff had also committed several additional / collateral racketeering offences – including fraud and forgery – by providing for the falsification of the securities to conceal the underlying criminal interest rate of 145% per annum (legal max is 60%), and an independently-illegal and criminal $45,000 kick-back to the plaintiff and its leading Toronto law firm, and that the nominal plaintiff was a constructive middleman that had obtained its nominal loan funds from the CIBC (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce) whose management had apparently been aware of the real (criminal) terms of the agreement, thus making the bank’s management the technical ringleaders of the resulting criminal organization as defined under the Criminal Code.

In total, the facts established at trial – and accepted and maintained by all of the Courts throughout – established at least fourteen (14) domestic criminal-law and international racketeering-law offences, and the Courts acknowledged as much:

“[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 ($45,000 converted-in-advance) contrary to s. 347(1)(b), (and also forgery / falsified-securities and money-laundering) to conceal it] [and] “The parties…acted on the advice of their solicitors” [described elsewhere by the trial judge as “two leading Toronto law firms”]

Based on the established facts, (1) the Courts had no jurisdiction to even hear the civil-claim-case / petition, (2) the nominal plaintiff had no right or capacity to even be there (no capacity to assert or maintain locus standi in curia), and (3) the lawyer(s) for the plaintiff ought to have been disbarred and arrested for even filing the petition asking the Court to convert / launder proceeds of crime. (For bringing the administration of justice into disrepute, and for an act of attempted-money-laundering).

By law the judges of the Courts were required to provide for the arrest of the controlling mind of the plaintiff corporation, the solicitors from the Toronto law firm, and the bank officers who had approved and funded the criminal transaction – also involving significant accounting fraud and an entire raft of offences against the Bank Act.

Instead, the former bank-lawyers, many of whom had been directly appointed or elevated as judges by a former bank-director (Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of the same CIBC that had provided the funds for the criminal transaction), ruled and / or ratified that although clearly criminal and racketeering, what the bank, the plaintiff, and its leading Toronto law firm had done was not fundamentally illegal because the criminal law only provides for the severe punishment of offenders but does not expressly state: Don’t do it.

“…[The criminal law [Section [347(1)(a)]][1], … 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).

Notwithstanding that the judges’ reasoning was (1) directly contrary to 400-years of well-established and obviously-correct law (that a penalty legally imparts a prohibition), and (2) regardless clinically and criminally-insane by real and existing medical and psychiatric standards, the Court / judges then wholly and illegally 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.[2]

The Court / judges were 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.,

Note also and especially that this law is in the form of a direct order that the Courts / judges shall do it – a racketeering and sedition-level Catch-22.

The whole justification for allowing judges to be directly appointed by politicians is that there is not supposed to be any great level of discretionary powers. The judges are not supposed to be able to look-the-other-way on the objectively-defined racketeering offences nor the offences committed by the lawyers simply because they don’t like the legal consequences.

The same judges and the same Courts then asserted (under the same decision) that henceforth the Courts have jurisdiction to (1) grant standing before the civil Courts to criminal-law violators, and (2) enforce contracts and financial securities that are in violation of the criminal law, including and especially racketeering / organised-crime offences (and all other laws enacted by Parliament) and the international anti-racketeering / anti-organised-crime laws and treaties to which Canada is a contracting-state-party, and based solely on the former-bank-lawyer-judges’ personal opinion of:

[T]he 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…[3]

Henceforth the directly-appointed former-bank-lawyers will take the laws of Parliament and the international treaties under advisement, but the Courts and judges are now the absolute authority, and not either Parliament or the People it legally represents.

Henceforth the law is no longer the law of the land – but instead the law of the person – also known as government by apartheid or selective-non-prosecution.

It was, in-fact and in-law, a political and criminal coup d’état. And all for the noble cause (and independent financial crime by the Courts / judges) of covering-up and avoiding responsibility for the most massive criminal and racketeering operation in the history of the world.

Thirty years later, virtually every nominal financial security in the world is saturated with criminal and racketeering law violations.

But how can you possibly not know that?

It is almost certainly because you, like most everyone else, have never actually read the securities that you sign, or else you are not sophisticated enough (in financial and legalistic jargon) to appreciate how flagrantly criminal they are, and instead rely on the pure presumption that the lawyers involved would not provide for anything illegal. But they absolutely do – and they are paid handsomely for it – and normally as a direct percentage kick-back or rake-off from the conversion (money-laundering) proceeds of the falsified securities.

Here is a brief sample of some of the milder standard terms and disclaimers from a Personal Guarantee and registered Mortgage, respectively, from a mainstream Canadian financial institution with about $1 trillion in assets:

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].

The NOTWITHSTANDING disclaimer is a de facto pirate flag flatly declaring and warning all other commercial vessels that the parties will not obey the banking Acts, the accounting laws, the disclosure laws, or 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.

Structurally, it is the same as illegal-drug-dealers writing up a contract under which they agree that the contract remains valid notwithstanding the Narcotics Act, and then the Courts ruling that nothing can be done because the parties have agreed that the law does not apply to them.

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, the (Swiss-Army-Knife-like) provision and quasi-disclaimer clause could easily have been drafted from the games room of a psychiatric facility, while concurrently demonstrating a level of mathematical incompetence that is beyond breathtaking.

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.

The provision is also closely analogous to making / swearing a Customs Declaration at the border to the effect: “Nothing to Declare (as long as you don’t look in the trunk of my car).”

Also note how the violation of the criminal interest rate law is employed as a kind of diversion or red herring to the much more general provision that if the disclosed or declared interest rate is:

…unenforceable for any … reason, then the interest rate chargeable on the credit … secured by this mortgage will be … [i.e., 60% – 1% = 59% per annum]

Plain English translation: We have fulfilled our legal obligation under the federal securities law to disclose and declare the real rate of interest, and that it is 7.75% per annum. If, however, it is discovered or raised as an issue that such declaration is a false declaration [which it is in fact], then the rate of interest shall be increased to 59% per annum and applied against the amount secured regardless of the amount actually advanced.”

The interest-rate-increase clause also covers the bank’s separate use of the security in the international financial markets. 

The solicitors who drafted the securities are among the highest paid in the world and considered to be among those with the keenest legal minds in the world. But they are also on-its-face (prima facie) non compos mentis (not mentally competent) and / or criminally incompetent – here again by real and existing medical and psychiatric standards.

The precedent set in Thomson, that criminal / racketeering offences are not illegal (fundamentally or otherwise), was only the opening round of an ongoing process – that is why the lawyers call it precedent. For the past thirty-years it has been as if there has been an ever-escalating global competition between the former-bank-lawyers who are directly appointed as judges – and the current-bank-lawyers who draw up the securities, to see who can come up with the most ridiculously fraudulent and irrational excuse or justification to accommodate flagrant criminal and racketeering activity by the bankers and the rest of the so-called global financial system.

It is not about the relative power of Canada in terms of its particular form of government or its relative power status among the nations of the world. In the grand scheme of things Canada is a mere province and vassal-state in a global empire of money-power.

This literally-criminally-insane logic-virus (Yes it is definitely criminal and racketeering and money-laundering, but it is not fundamentally illegal) was carried throughout and infected the entire financial world by the lawyers and solicitors of the BAR Association(s) – and not by any nation’s legislature or government.

Many talk about the dangers and threat of an imminent One World Government – but we already have a de facto One World Government – it is called the BAR Association. It is based in the independent state called The City of London and it has de facto control of many if not most of the most financially powerful countries throughout the world.

It has simply specialized in keeping a low-profile while its most-powerful members go about the business of controlling (and systematically looting) the world. It has been going on for at least 400-years.

But as of at least 1989/90 for sure – it has been a precisely-defined and wholly illegal and unlawful transnational-criminal-organizationby its own findings of fact and lawand whose primary activity in fact is the creation, enforcement, and conversion of egregiously falsified securities.

By their own admissions of fact and law, the world’s civil court system is in the money-laundering business and of aiding and abetting the systematic looting of the masses by an entrenched-and-wholly-parasitic-money-power that does not produce anything tangible.

But in law all of these alleged financial securities throughout the world are void ab initio and in toto (void from their inception and in their entirety) and no right of property in them – or to the money or financial-capacity they represent – ever passed to the banks or other alleged holders of them.

As and when the tainted securities were sworn under oath and penalty of perjury (or otherwise obtained by false pretence), a constructive trust was established in favour of the issuer of them (pretended borrower but creditor-in-fact).

Just to be clear, all of the above is in respect of collateral (or secondary) criminal offences that are analogous to illegal drugs or other contraband found in the trunk of the banker’s car while attempting to cross the border. We have not yet dealt with the much more major defects that establish that the car itself has been metaphorically stolen by the banker / driver. As near-inconceivable as it might seem, the actual situation is vastly more serious and criminal than as described above.

For the author, a major turning point came when, in a particular case under analysis and audit, it became clear that after having obtained the owner’s agreement to hand over some $10 million of assets from a profitable small business – for nothing at all, and in violation of at least a dozen criminal and racketeering law statutes, the solicitors for the bank chose to (and even more flagrantly and obviously) violate at least another dozen such laws for the sake of demanding an additional $46,000 application fee from their target. A rational criminal would not do that. Only an obsessive / compulsive and pathological criminal would do that.

Special Equity-Title Salvage and Restitution Trust

In response (and regardless), Timothy Paul Madden, in his equitable-capacity as a being-of-conscience / equity, has invoked the equitable doctrine of necessity or equitable de facto doctrine to declare and publish an equity-lien on the equity-titles to all broadly-defined consumer-debt-securities on Earth where the lead-underwriter and equity-creditor in fact (the pretended-borrower) did not obtain the equity or underwriting credit for same (virtually all mortgages, car-loans, small-business-loans, credit/charge-card-loans / advances, etc.) and to which they are entitled in law and in equity.

He has also independently declared and published a salvage-title / salvage-lien on the same equity-titles and granted same, and the equity-liens, into a special-salvage-and-restitution-trust for the benefit of the rightful owners of those titles. The equity titles are (or had been) constructively abandoned or lost because the bankers never had any legal or equitable claim to them, and their rightful owners are not for the most part even aware of the existence of the equity-title as distinct from the legal-title.

Mr. Madden, however, well understands both the legal and equitable substance of those equity-titles, and that imposes upon him a lawful, legal and moral right and obligation to claim and salvage them in trust for their rightful owners.

All the People throughout the world who have been cheated by the ever-increasingly-and-flagrantly-criminal (pretended) banking system can provide for their own remedy by simply agreeing among themselves as to the fact and extent of their constructive and actual losses to the system.[4]

All claims and equitable restitution payments are to be converted to a new quasi-crypto-currency called Bonded Equity Exchange Credits (BEEC’s) that will function as a supplementary universal pre-paid equity-based currency and exchange system.

The Special Equity Salvage and Restitution Trust and BEEC’s are administered by WEREX (World Equity Repository and Exchange).

The information and documentation package (on the website) contains all of the law and legal decisions / references by which the system itself has verified and ratified all of the principles invoked by Mr. Madden. There is nothing profoundly new here – merely the honest application of the existing rules.

The information and supporting documentation is also Intellectual Property Security (IPS) to support the trust and the equity liens, and to educate people in the material facts; but otherwise not strictly necessary to the fact or implementation of the remedy (i.e., which remedy stands on its own regardless).

There is no cost to activate your seat on the WEREX or to obtain your equity entitlement from the Special Equity Salvage and Restitution Trust. It already belongs to you.

Under Phase 1, as a first step, everyone is entitled to claim the registered Principal Amount of the single largest mortgage that they have ever issued and registered.

Under Phase 1, and worldwide, approximately 300 million people, as pre-qualified underwriters and issuers of the USD-equivalent of $150 trillion of mortgage-equity, are entitled to restitution and recovery of the equity, wealth and financial capacity that they were systemically and systematically deprived of by unlawful and illegal means (and which includes also all of the interest subsequently paid-in-fact by them).

For the most part these 300 million people are the world’s responsible homeowners who have a vested interest in social-stability and an equity-based financial system.

If you have ever issued a mortgage, then you are a constructive member of the most powerful and legitimate organization on Earth, and with a foundation of the USD-equivalent of $150 trillion ($150,000,000,000,000) of pre-paid equity assets to back it.

It is time to start acting like it.

Footnotes / Endnotes

  1. 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.
  2. 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 criminal contract.
  3. 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.
  4. A legal-lien obtains its power from legislation and registration. An equity-lien gains its power from publication and knowledge-in-fact.