Amid Media Blackout, Canada Lawsuit Challenges Banker Rule

[jammies]

The whole thing is the equivalent of arguing with your parents about bedtime. You can't win because nappy-time rules don't rely on your consent or interpretation, they serve the purposes of those that make the laws and not those that must abide by them.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by jammies

The whole thing is the equivalent of arguing with your parents about bedtime. You can't win because nappy-time rules don't rely on your consent or interpretation, they serve the purposes of those that make the laws and not those that must abide by them.

So are not even pretending that democracy isn't dead anymore?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I would agree in so much as any private business should be able to declare bankruptcy and the positives and negatives that come along with that.

I am still unsure of how the Icelandic system was setup. It would appear that many in England were heavily invested in Icelandic banks and believe the government "owes" them their money.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but my understanding in Canada is that it is possible that any of the private banks if so need be could declare bankruptcy and CDIC is there to protect a portions of the populations money if that were to happen.

In the Icelandic case private banks, not the privatized central bank went belly up, namely Icesave which like Canada guaranteed deposits of 10% or whatever it was. This was paid back, or is at least mostly paid at this point.

The UK government used its terrorism laws, seized Icelandic assets and helped speed the destruction of our economy. They wanted more than the 10%, and demanded that the country pay for it, which is utter nonsense since no way in hell would any other country do that. They simply tried to bully their way, and thankfully the EU courts supported our position and they lost.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by Azure

Private banks aren't the problem. The fact that the US banks own assets worth 60% of the US GDP is the problem.

They need to be broken up. Smaller local and community banks need more help so they can thrive as well.

They are a problem when these banks can contribute to political parties and their candidates.

They are a problem when every FED/Treasury position is headed by former or soon to be employees of said banks, who along with most of the other candidates in both parties all went to the same two or three schools and belonged to the same fraternities, as did their parents.

[Tinordi]

crazy people talk monetary policy on the internet

[blueski]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

crazy people talk monetary policy on the internet

We're all actually pretty normal and boring. We only put on our crazy hats when we get on the internets.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I've seen this debunked a couple of times.

Just look at the first full paragraph:


This is Freeman on the Land/Truther/Birther type of stuff.

Typical ad hominem, straw man. Sad really. C'mon you can be better than that.

The citizen's of Canada own the crown land, the rights of ways, the airwaves, the minerals under the land and the fish near our shores.

We decide the laws and we get to decide how our monetary system works. It is important and it deserves your consideration. It underpines a lot more of your life than you may realize.

Rocco Galati isn't arguing that no one should pay taxes or get money for free. He's arguing that the Bank of Canada Act is being undermined and not followed the way it dictates. He's not inciting hatred or illegally occupying anything. He and who he represents are going at this through our courts.

Personally I find merit on both sides of this question and I'm hoping to watch this progress to a decent conclusion.

[Bobblehead]

I did - I posted the actual court decisions.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I did - I posted the actual court decisions.

Thanks, I read further in the thread and saw those. Looks like its done like dinner then.

[Matata]

It's a shame it was shot down. A debt based banking system is a system that magnetically draws all money back to the banks. How do you pay off a $100 + interest debt with the $100 the bank gives you?

Private banks serve only the interests of the individuals that run the bank, as history has proven time and time again. They are provided with no motivation or obligation to put the interests of the nation they serve above their own interests.

The Canadian dollar gets it's value based on faith in the ability of Canadians to produce goods and services.

[Harry Lime]

Plan A
Eliminate debt based banking system. Give Canada monetary sovereignty.

Plan B
Alberta enforces the spirit of the royalty system and agreements, puts all funds into Heritage fund. Acts as lender, buying debt of other provinces on promises of balanced budgets. Create circular interest repayment cycle.

Plan C
Colonize the moon, while other nations are playing in the dark ages.

Plan D
Enjoy immortality in new cyborg bodies.

I may be getting ahead of myself here. I'll try to be more realistic.

Plan A
Accept legal ruling on governance issues. Maintain status quo. Die sad, poor and decrepit, attempting to outlive pet cat.

[Canuck-Hater]

Yeah, I'm not sure it seems too easy to dismiss these as conspiracy theories, there is some validity to it.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

So are not even pretending that democracy isn't dead anymore?

My point has nothing to do with democracy, it has to do with people who think that because they define words one way, and that the courts and the government define them another, that the latter are wrong and can be "exposed" as illegimately exercising their power.

Yet - exposed by whom? By the courts that have upheld these laws for 40-odd years already? These challenges expect the ridiculous. It's stupid and lunatic and utterly naive.

Bobble's comparison to "Free Men on the Land" is apt, as this is another attempt that goes far beyond evolving the interpretation of law to an attempt at the utter overthrow of it. Who elected these clowns to set monetary policy and define the basis of the Canadian economy? How arrogant - and incidentally, non-democratic - is their belief that their opinions should become the law of the land thru the courts alone? If they're so sure they're right, why don't they start their own political party and get enough people to agree with them to put them in power and change the law?

[TapeToTape]

Originally Posted by jammies

Who elected these clowns to set monetary policy and define the basis of the Canadian economy? How arrogant - and incidentally, non-democratic - is their belief that their opinions should become the law of the land thru the courts alone? If they're so sure they're right, why don't they start their own political party and get enough people to agree with them to put them in power and change the law?

Who are you to say that their legal avenue of trying to make Canada better is wrong? If the creation of money is the most fundamental issue that exists in our society then every peaceful way to fight and raise awareness about the proper role of the Bank of Canada is the right way.

Some great videos - Money Masters, Money As Debt

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Thor

Iceland nationalized its national bank, there is already talk of trying to privatize it again, I'm screaming at the top of my lungs along with a few political parties here trying to stop this from happening again.

Not only that recently Iceland has charge these criminal bankers.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by jammies

My point has nothing to do with democracy, it has to do with people who think that because they define words one way, and that the courts and the government define them another, that the latter are wrong and can be "exposed" as illegimately exercising their power.

Yet - exposed by whom? By the courts that have upheld these laws for 40-odd years already? These challenges expect the ridiculous. It's stupid and lunatic and utterly naive.

Bobble's comparison to "Free Men on the Land" is apt, as this is another attempt that goes far beyond evolving the interpretation of law to an attempt at the utter overthrow of it. Who elected these clowns to set monetary policy and define the basis of the Canadian economy? How arrogant - and incidentally, non-democratic - is their belief that their opinions should become the law of the land thru the courts alone? If they're so sure they're right, why don't they start their own political party and get enough people to agree with them to put them in power and change the law?

It is also naive to think that someone can create a political party and gain a majority in order to exercise a policy that isn't already on the agenda of the top 3 parties. The closest we ever got to a 'new' political party making waves was the reform party, and it was successful on the backs of the rich and affluent, as opposed to the disenfranchised, with little economic clout.

The reason that this was brought to the courts is because there wasn't an avenue to explore this option within our system of government.

This issue is arguably one of the biggest that modern democracies have faced in the last couple of decades, but because it is not in the personal interest of the people running for office, and their backers, it is never on the agenda.

The government agenda is set by the parties, and not the people or the media, as would be healthy. Issues that challenge the power structure of the affluent in Canada are glossed over or ignored.

There has been 40+ years of history showing us that this system of banking is inferior to the previous one. But the people getting rich off of this current system are the ones setting the political agenda for the country, and they make sure this is not debated.

I guess I would also point out that this is a governance issue, and not a legal issue, so arguments about legal tidbits are running in circles. The reason that this was brought to the court, by a crazy people or by anyone else, was because no one would listen or act in a position of government.

The whole situation is actually very sad.

[Julio]

Why does this keep flashing in my brain when I read this thread?

http://www.socialcredit.com/index.php

[jammies]

Originally Posted by TapeToTape

Who are you to say that their legal avenue of trying to make Canada better is wrong? If the creation of money is the most fundamental issue that exists in our society then every peaceful way to fight and raise awareness about the proper role of the Bank of Canada is the right way.

They're not arguing about the correct way to create money, they're arguing that the government doesn't have the right to dictate how Canada creates money. Argue about the former all you like, as soon as you start arguing the latter, you are saying that the government doesn't have the right to govern.

These people are trying to impose a kind of back-door libertarianism, where the ability of the government to control fiscal policy is severely curtailed. They have zero chance of success, but that doesn't mean that one should smile and wink at their antics.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

It is also naive to think that someone can create a political party and gain a majority in order to exercise a policy that isn't already on the agenda of the top 3 parties.

Well, that's too bad for them then, isn't it? I never even implied that this would work, only that this would be the proper and democratic way to go about making the changes they want.

This isn't the USA, where a two-party dictatorship more or less has made any attempts to go outside the political establishment useless. If you think the current Conservative, Liberal or NDP platforms haven't evolved substantially int the last 30 years due to change from below, then you haven't been paying attention. If it takes another 30 years for one of the big parties to adopt an anti-fiat currency stance, or for a new party with new ideas to gain traction, so be it.

[Hack&Lube]

When you read anything that says:

"They don't want you to know this", or "secret that they are keeping from you that will change your life forever" you should be starting to form doubts in your mind that it is pure B.S. When you get to any part that says the government is forcing the media to not report something, then you know that is 100% conspiracy B.S.