The following two-page Short Story is a condensation of approximately 100,000 pages of reading and research by the author (TPM), covering a period of about 400-years, into the final unravelling of the global financial system, beginning in 1980 when the Crown in Right of Canada revived the egregiously-wrongful and illegal practice of non obstante or administrative-apartheid (selective non-prosecution) to give their banker friends permission to violate the criminal law.

By multiple international treaties, the whole global system has been technically criminal ever since, both in fact and in law. The bankers and their solicitors and lobbyists pretended that the criminal violation was an unusual technicality, and did not explain to the government at the time that they would be violating the single most financially significant criminal law under the entire Criminal Code, and that they would also be falsifying the securities to conceal it, and then leveraging and laundering the falsified securities internationally.

The bottom line is that there virtually isn’t a nominal debt-security in the world that is worth the proverbial paper that it is printed on – and the lawyers and the bankers (and the owners of the banks) are personally responsible and liable to all of the world’s nominal depositors for whatever constructive damages and losses.

Crossing the Rubicon

A Short Story on a failed attempt to take over the world.

by Timothy Paul Madden, forensic-financial-economist, and historian of equity, law, and policy.

In 1990 the global financial-law-community crossed the Rubicon.

In 1989, first the judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal, and then (in 1990) ratified by those of the Supreme Court of Canada, committed political and criminal sedition to depose the Crown in Right of Canada, and seized personal control in criminal dereliction of duty, and in subversion of the laws of Parliament. Most of them were former-bank-lawyers and bank-solicitors, many of whom had been directly appointed or elevated as judges by a former-bank-director (Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, then a very recent former director of the CIBC (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce)).

At most points in our long history, they would have been promptly executed for it.

The inviolate rule has always been that Parliament makes the laws, and the judges of the Courts are required by law to enforce those laws:

It is perfectly settled, that where the contract which the plaintiff seeks to enforce, be it expressed or implied, is expressly or by implication forbidden by the common or statute law, no court will lend its assistance to give it effect. It is equally clear that a contract is void if prohibited by a statute, though the statute inflicts a penalty only, because such a penalty implies a prohibition. (Baron Parke in Cope v. Rowlands (1836), 2 M. & W. 149, 150 E.R. 707 at 710).


Whenever the doing of any act is expressly forbidden by statute, whether on grounds of public policy or otherwise, the English courts hold the act, if done, to be void, though no express words of avoidance are contained in the enactment itself. In Bartlett v. Vinor (Carthew 252) [Lord Holt, C.J., 90 Eng.Rep. 750 (K.B. 1692)] Lord Holt says:

…every contract made for or about any matter or thing which is prohibited and made unlawful by any statute, is a void contract, tho’ the statute it self doth not mention that it shall be so, but only inflicts a penalty on the offender, because a penalty implies a prohibition, tho’ there are no prohibitory words in the statute. (Bartlett v. Vinor (Hob. 187. Skin. 322, S.C.) Carthew, 252. [1692])


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.”[2]


This prohibition, as Chief Justice Dorion justly remarks, is a law of public policy in the public interest, and any transaction in violation thereof is necessarily null and void; no court can be called upon [has jurisdiction] to give effect to any such transaction or to enforce any contract or security on which money is lent or advances as thus prohibited are made.

It would be a curious state of the law if, after the Legislature had prohibited a transaction, parties could enter into it, and, in defiance of the law, compel courts to enforce and give effect to their illegal transactions.[3]

But in 1989/90 the Canadian arm of the global financial-law-system, and especially the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, turned the whole world upside-down by unanimously ruling (and establishing the precedent) that henceforth the appointed-judges of the Courts have the power to enforce financial contracts and securities that are in violation of the criminal law and of international anti-racketeering laws and treaties, as committed by financial institutions, and aided and abetted by their financial solicitors / members-of-the-BAR, 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…[4]

And nobody said anything. The financial solicitors and lawyers worldwide simply – and with reckless abandon – embraced the Courts’ core ruling and new official doctrine of Yes, it is definitely criminal and racketeering, but it is not fundamentally illegal (Because, according to these former-bank-solicitors, the criminal law only provides that offenders will be severely punished, but does not expressly state: Don’t do it (which reasoning is (1) contrary to 400-years of well-established law (that a penalty legally imparts a prohibition), and (2) clinically and criminally-insane by existing medical and psychiatric standards)).

That is why, 30-years later, a typical mortgage or other financial security throughout most of the world (anywhere under the de facto control or administration of the BAR) is flagrantly and even cartoonishly-criminal on the face of it, as if it had been drafted by Dr. Evil, including and especially by psychiatric-institution-level disclaimers and provisions such as:

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].


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].

See attached Appendix 1 for a detailed examination of a typical nominal financial security.

[My apologies for using the same two example disclaimers throughout – it is just easier to explain to laypeople this way. But they are far from anecdotal or anomalies – a typical nominal security has dozens of similar flagrantly criminal provisions once the observer understands what makes a difference in this respect – TPM]

This then is the situation and apparent paradox with which we are all faced today under the nominal coronavirus panic – and regardless of whether it is a true-pretence or a false-pretence:

  1. A typical financial security virtually anywhere in the world today is not just an egregious fraud and forgery, but also clinically and criminally-insane by existing medical and psychiatric standards.
  2. Bankers, lawyers, and judges are the only people in the world who can’t see it, and
  3. The bankers, lawyers and judges are financially and criminally liable for all of the damages of their failed attempt to take over the world on behalf of the entrenched-money-power that materially controls them in theory and in practice.

The financial-law-community worldwide is comprised of professional-schizophrenics who, beginning in 1990, employed a strategy of managed-mental-illness in a brazen gambit to capture both dictatorial-control and the wealth of the world by flagrantly criminal means, but they came up short by underestimating the effects of the then-nascent Internet, and are now panicking because their most-massive-falsified-security-pyramid-scheme-in-history is on the verge of collapse, and sufficient of the broadly-defined public is on the verge of figuring it out.


Game-of-Chance / Godfather Offer-Letter

The following sample / example Offer-Letter and mortgage transaction is from a procedurally-typical (pretended) nominal $2.1 million business loan by a mainstream Canadian financial institution (1997 – and it has since become much worse and spread globally).

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 planned investment / improvements in the property that they already owned), and no material liabilities (and according to the bank’s current lawyers, even after all of this was explicitly brought to their attention, this constructive Godfather Offer is a “standard business deal” with nothing illegal or wrongful about it):

  1. First, you will obtain $46,000, and deliver it to us at the address designated below. This entry fee is non-refundable.[5]
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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).
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

In addition to all of the flagrant criminal-law offences, the basic design of this standard business deal literally defines 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.

Foreclosure is a rubber-stamp process almost everywhere in the world such that no one competent ever actually reads the securities. For thirty-years the finance lawyers worldwide have been adding scandalously-criminal provisions because they get obscenely rich doing so, and no one material ever challenges them on it. They were given enough rope – and they have well and truly hanged themselves.

Alleged securities are saturated with criminal and racketeering law violations

Today virtually every mortgage, for example, worldwide (in any country under the administration and / or control of the BAR), contains one or more (and normally most) of twelve primary and positive criminal devices (and one constructive (no. 13)). They are:

  1. False receipt for payment of, and receipt of, money / proceeds;
  2. False denials of nominal / pretended creditor (credit insurer / reinsurer) liability;
  3. False declaration of property ownership and / or registration-status of ownership;
  4. False declarations of compliance with securities-law disclosure requirements (including also in fraud of the financial markets).;
  5. Fictitious and / or illusory consideration;
  6. Bait and switch;
  7. Wagering / racketeering provision(s);
  8. Increased rates upon default / maturity and / or illegal penalties;
  9. Civil and criminal-law Illegality disclaimers;
  10. Deemed / pretended-damages provision(s) / jurisdictional fraud;
  11. Unearned interest (credit / loan fees) illegally capitalised in advance (Front-loading);
  12. Use of the nominal (“false and seriously misleading”) method of interest calculation; and
  13. Concealment / suppression of any or all of the above by splitting the agreement into two or more separate documents.

And which is / are on-its-face (prima facie) offensive to at least the following indictable offences / felonies (most are “serious [organised-crime / racketeering] offences”) and most of which are international-treaty-enjoined racketeering / designated offences:

• s. 206(1)(a) (scheme or proposal to loan or to advance credit by any mode of chance),

• s. 347 of the Criminal Code (entering into agreement or arrangement to receive, and / or receiving, payments or partial payments of, interest at a criminal [infinite or astronomical] rate),

• s. 362 of the Criminal Code (obtaining credit (underwriting / assumption of debt from issuer of the security (nominal / pretended borrower) by fraud or false pretence),

• s. 363 of the Criminal Code (obtaining execution of valuable security by false pretence),

• s. 366 of the Criminal Code (making [and / or soliciting] false document with intent (forgery-in-law)),

• s. 368 of the Criminal Code (uttering forged-document-in-law),

• s. 375 of the Criminal Code (obtaining by instrument based on forged-document-in-law),

• ss. 380(1) of the Criminal Code (fraud),

• ss. 380(2) of the Criminal Code ((incipient) fraud upon the (financial) markets).

• s. 386 of the Criminal Code (false statement / omission of material particular to deceive registrar),

• s. 388 of the Criminal Code (false / misleading receipt),

• s. 397(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (falsification of an accounting record),

• ss. 397(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (fraudulent omission of material particular from valuable security),

• ss. 462.3(c) of the Criminal Code (counselling to commit enterprise crime / designated offence(s)),

• ss. 462.31(1) of the Criminal Code (laundering proceeds of crime).

But the bankers, and the commercial, corporate, and financial law specialists who aid and abet them, are incapable of seeing the cesspool of rampant criminality into which they have descended – All they can see is their future bonus cheques under which they earn a kickback as a rake-off from the corresponding proceeds of crime.

Almost the entire planet is under the de facto care-and-control of a professional-criminal-class, itself comprised of professional-schizophrenics and sycophants who are not competent to run a lemonade-stand, let alone a complex global economy.

And it is all ratified and justified by the former-bank-lawyers and bank-solicitors who are directly appointed as judges by former bank-directors as “not fundamentally illegal” because the criminal law only provides that offenders will be severely punished but does not expressly state: Don’t do it.

And these are among the purported keenest legal minds in the world.

And these same people and the entrenched-money-power for whom they work are currently and actively planning to simply walk-away from in excess of the USD-equivalent of $250 trillion ($250,000,000,000,000) worth of unsecured-liabilities that they have kited by the most egregiously criminal means ever since the global-multi-nation BAR-Association coup d’état and Crossing of the Rubicon in 1990.

Everyone automatically assumes corruption – but they are also legally, clinically and criminally insane (and profoundly dangerous) by existing medical and psychiatric standards.

Houston – We have a problem.

  1. A reposit is like a deposit except that the right of property in it remains vested in the repositor instead of the bank.
  2. Snell v. Unity Finance, Court of Appeal, [1963] 3 All E.R., pp. 50-61, at p. 59.
  3. Bank of Toronto v. Perkins [1883] S.C.C. [Vol. VIII] 60.
  4. Thomson, (William E.) Associates Inc. v. Carpenter [1989] 34 O.A.C. 365. It is not about the purported rate of interest on the alleged credit – it is about the means by which the bank obtains credit from the pretended borrower plus all of the property-rights as a 100% loan-fee for the bank’s bare agreement to flip it back under the pretence of a loan.That is why the banks’ solicitors put the seemingly irrational (insane) disclaimers in the securities.
  5. $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).