Lawsuit against the Bank of Canada

Information from Connie Fogal

Note from Connie... The full  statement of Claim is 26 pages long. The following are the first 9 pages which set out the claim and the identities of the  parties.The next 17 pages set out the facts. In my broadcast system I cannot send an attachment in order to send you the whole pleading right away..   I need someone who is able to host the whole pleading on  a website and send to me  an easily retrievable  link that I can easily send out. Please contact me at conniefogal@telus.net if you can help. I think this process may be in the works already, but the more places this is hosted , the better. ____________________________________________________________________________ COURT SEAL Court File No.:T-2010-11 FEDERAL COURT B E T W E E N: COMMITTEE FOR MONETARY AND ECONOMIC REFORM (“COMER”), WILLIAM KREHM, AND ANN EMMETT Plaintiffs - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, THE BANK OF CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Defendants STATEMENT OF CLAIM (Pursuant to s.17 (1) and (5)(b) Federal Courts Act, and s.24(1) and 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982) (Filed this 12th day of December, 2011) TO THE DEFENDANT: A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the Applicant. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or a solicitor acting for you are required to prepare a statement of defence in Form 171B prescribed by the Federal Courts Rules, serve it on the applicant’s solicitor or, where the applicant does not have a solicitor, serve it on the applicant, and file it, with proof of service, at a local office of this Court, WITHIN 30 DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served within Canada. Copies of the Federal Courts Rules, information concerning the local offices of the Court and other necessary information may be obtained on request to the Administrator of this Court at Ottawa (telephone 613-992-4238) or at any local office. IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, judgment may be given against you in your absence and without further notice to you. Date: December 12th, 2011 Issued by: Address of local office: Federal Court of Canada 180 Queen Street West, Suite 200 Toronto, Ontario M5V 3L6 TO: Department of Justice Ontario Regional Office First Canadian Place The Exchange Tower 130 King Street West Suite 3400, Box 36 Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6 AND TO: Bank of Canada 234 Wellington St. Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G9 CLAIM The Plaintiffs claim: declarations that: the Minister of Finance, and Government of Canada is required to request, and that the Bank of Canada is statutorily required, when necessary, to make interest-free loans, on the terms set out under s.18 (i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act, RSC, 1985, c. B-2 (the “Act”) for the purposes of “human capital” expenditures and/or municipal/provincial/federal “human capital” and/or infrastructure expenditures; that the “Government of Canada”, the Minister of Finance, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, with the Bank of Canada, A/ have abdicated their statutory and constitutional duties with respect to ss. 18(i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act which subsections read: 18. The Bank may … (i) make loans or advances for periods not exceeding six months to the Government of Canada or the government of a province on taking security in readily marketable securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any province; (j) make loans to the Government of Canada or the government of any province, but such loans outstanding at any one time shall not, in the case of the Government of Canada, exceed one-third of the estimated revenue of the Government of Canada for its fiscal year, and shall not, in the case of a provincial government, exceed one-fourth of that government's estimated revenue for its fiscal year, and such loans shall be repaid before the end of the first quarter after the end of the fiscal year of the government that has contracted the loan; B/ and further that the refusal to request and make (interest free) loans under s. 18(i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act has resulted in negative and destructive impact on Canadians by the disintegration of Canada’s economy, its financial institutions, increase in public debt, decrease in social services, as well as a widening gap between rich and poor with an continuing disappearance of the middle class; that s. 18(m) of the Bank of Canada Act, and its administration and operation, is unconstitutional and of no force and effect, in Parliament and the government, including the Defendant Minister of Finance, abdicating their duty to govern, and insofar, as monetary, currency and financial policies, per se, are concerned, and in turn as they effect socio-economic governance, have abdicated their constitutional duty(ies)and handed them over to those international, private entities, whose interests, and directives, are placed above the interests of Canadians, and the primacy of the Constitution of Canada, not only with respect to its specific provisions, but also with respect to the underlying constitutional imperatives, and which provision reads: (m) open accounts in a central bank in any other country or in the Bank for International Settlements, accept deposits from central banks in other countries, the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and any other official international financial organization, act as agent or mandatary, or depository or correspondent for any of those banks or organizations, and pay interest on any of those deposits; that the maintaining of minutes of meetings by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, with other central bank “governors” from other states and federation(s), as secret and not open to parliamentary and public view and scrutiny, constitutes: ultra vires action by the Governor of the Bank of Canada contrary to inter alia, s. 24 of theAct; unconstitutional conduct by the Governor of the Bank of Canada; that the Parliament of Canada, in: allowing the Governor of the Bank of Canada to hold secret the nature and content of his meetings with other central bank(ers); and in not exercising the authority and duty contained in 18(i) and (j) of the Act; and enacting s. 18(m) of the Bank of Canada Act; has unconstitutionally abdicated its duty and function as mandated by ss. 91 (1a), (3), (14), (15), (16), (18), (19) and (20) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as s. 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982; that the Minister of Finance is required to list expenditures(s) on “human capital”, including infrastructural capital expenditures relating to “human capital”, as an “asset” and not a “liability” with respect to budgetary accounting; that the Minister of Finance is required to list, in his budgetary accounting, all revenues collected priorto the return of “tax credits” to individuals, and moreover, corporate taxpayers, with tax credits subtracted from the total revenue due, before subtracting total expenditures from total revenue, and arriving at either a budgetary “surplus” or “deficit” as required, inter alia, by s. 91(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867; that the defendants’ (officials) are wittingly and/or unwittingly, in varying degrees, knowledge, and intent, engaged in a conspiracy, along with the BIS, FSB, an IMF, to render impotent the Bank of Canada Act, as well as Canadian sovereignty over financial, monetary, and socio-economic policy, and in fact by-pass the sovereign rule of Canada, through its Parliament, by means of banking and financial systems, which conspiracy and elements of such tortious conduct are set out, in inter alia,Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959 namely: that the Defendants’ (officials), including and together with the BIS, engage(d) in an agreement for the use of lawful and unlawful means, and conduct, the predominant purpose of which is to cause injury to the Plaintiffs, and all other Canadians; that the Defendants’ (officials), including and together with the BIS, engage(d), in an agreement, to use unlawful means and conduct, whose predominant purpose and conduct directed at the Plaintiffs, and all other Canadians, is to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and all other Canadians, or the Defendants’ officials should know, in the circumstances, that injury to the Plaintiffs, and all other Canadians, is likely to, and does result; that the privative clause in s. 30.1 of the Bank of Canada Act, A/ does not apply to the seeking of “judicial review”, by way of action or otherwise, of declaratory relief with respect to any statutory or constitutional ultra vires action and/or section of the Act, by way of declaratory relief, or any other prerogative remedy, available to hear and determine the statutory and/or constitutional limits or actions under the Act, in accordance with, inter alia, in Supreme Court of Canada’s pronouncement in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick [2008] 1 SCR 190, nor does it apply to seeking damages for ultra vires or unconstitutional damages:and B/ if s.30.1 of the Bank of Canada Act is interpreted to so apply as a privative clause, then it is unconstitutional and of no force and effect for breaching the Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to judicial review, as well as breaching the underlying constitutional imperatives of Rule of Law, Constitutionalism, and Federalism; damages in the amount of: $10, 000.00 per plaintiff; and should the within action be certified as a class action proceeding, $1.00 (one dollar) for every Canadian citizen/resident, to be calculated based on the last population figure published in the last census, in accordance with s. 91(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867; which damages are on account of: the constitutional breaches pleaded in the statement of claim herein; and the conspiracy pleaded in the statement of claim herein; such further declaratory and/or consequential injunctive and/or prerogative order and/or relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court grant; costs of this action and such further or other relief this Court deems just. THE PARTIES (a) the Plaintiff, Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (hereinafter “COMER”) historically to date is an international economic “think-tank”, based in Toronto, and was established in 1970, dedicating itself to the monetary and economic reform policies of Canada and conducts research, analysis, and publication(s) on these issues. For the past 23 years it has published a monthly publication entitled COMER with articles and analysis from various authors including some of its own committee members. Its committee members have consisted of economists, academics, and published authors expert in their respective fields; the Plaintiff, William Krehm, is and has been a member of COMER, since its inception, and has devoted much of his life to the study, research, analysis and writing on economic, monetary, and social reform, and is a published author on economic and monetary reform, included various articles, papers, as well as books as recent as 2010; the Plaintiff, Ann Emmett, is a member of COMER, and has devoted much of her life to the study, research, analysis and writing on economic, monetary, and social reform, and is a published author on economic and monetary reform, included various articles, and papers, as recent as 2010; the Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen, is statutorily and constitutionally liable for the acts and omissions of her officials pursuant to s. 17 of the Federal Courts Act as well as s. 24(1) and 52 of theConstitution Act, 1982; the Defendant, the Minister of Finance, is statutorily and ultimately, with the consent of Governor-in-Council, responsible for overseeing both the Bank of Canada, as well as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, pursuant s.14 of the Bank of Canada Act, and the Minister of Finance is also, constitutionally, responsible for setting out the budgetary process, and expenditures for each session of Parliament, upon the appropriation request, through the taxing power, of Her Majesty the Queen, as set out in Her Parliamentary throne speech delivered by the Governor General for that purpose; the Defendant, the Minister of National Revenue, is statutorily responsible for administering theIncome Tax Act, and other Federal taxing statutes related to the collection of revenue through, inter alia, the taxing power, under s. 91(3) of the Constitution Act, 1867; the Defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, is, constitutionally, the Chief Legal Officer, responsible for and defending the integrity of all legislation, as well as responding to declaratory relief with respect to legislation, including with respect to its constitutionality and required to be named as a Defendant in any action for declaratory relief.