Tagged with "Immunity"
Government has right to murder U.S. citizens anywhere, anytime, without legal review Tags: Sovereign Citizen American Immunity Domestic Terrorism Paper Terrorism Duality Right of Self Determination International Law U.S. Citizen

US Attorney General Eric Holder confirms government has right to murder U.S. citizens anywhere, anytime, without legal review by J. D. Heyes (NaturalNews)

Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr., says the U.S. Constitution does not protect American citizens who may be plotting to kill other Americans via terrorism. In a speech at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago this week, (http://www.washingtonpost.com) he said: "The American people can be -- and deserve to be -- assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws." Holder said anyone deemed to pose an "imminent threat" to other Americans and who could not otherwise be reasonably captured could face the business end of a sniper or drone-launched missile, or any number of other killing techniques. Critical factors that would result in such a decision include a "relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States." Holder went onto say the president is not bound by the Constitution to delay assassinations of American citizens until some "theoretical end stage of planning -- when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear," The Washington Post reported.
"Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a U.S. citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack," Holder said.


15 Signs That America Has Become A Crazy Control Freak Nation Where Almost Everything Is Illegal.

In the film Edge of Darkness, Mel Gibson stated that "everything is illegal in Massachusetts". Well, the same could pretty much be said for the United States as a whole. Our lives are governed by millions of laws, rules and regulations and more are being piled on all the time. In fact, 40,000 new laws just went into effect in January. Every single new law restricts your freedom just a little bit more. The truth is that America has become a crazy control freak nation where virtually everything that we do is highly regulated. You have probably broken multiple laws today that you don't even know exist. We have all become criminals and lawbreakers because almost everything is illegal at this point. Our politicians are convinced that they are "making life better" by piling gigantic mountains of laws on to our backs, and law enforcement authorities are convinced that they are helping society by "cracking down on crime", but the reality is that our liberties and our freedoms are being strangled by all of this government oppression.
Yes, every society needs laws. But the laws should be short enough and simple enough that everybody can read them and understand them.
In America today, there is no possible way that any of us could ever read all of the laws that apply to us.

The following are 15 signs that America has become a crazy control freak nation where almost everything is illegal....
#1 One California town is actually considering making it illegal to smoke in your own backyard.
#2 In Louisiana, a church was recently ordered to stop giving out water because it did not have a permit to do so.
#3 In the United States it is illegal to operate a train that does not have an "F" painted on the front. Apparently without that "F" we all might not know where the front of the train is.
#4 In many U.S. states is it now illegal to collect rain that falls from the sky on to your own property.
#5 In America today it is illegal to milk your cow and sell the milk to your neighbor. If you do this, there is a good chance that federal agents will raid your home at the crack of dawn.
#6 In Washington D.C. it is illegal not to recycle cat litter.
#7 It is illegal to give a tour of the monuments in Washington D.C. without a license.
#8 In the United States it is illegal to sell natural cures for cancer - even if they work.
#9 In the state of Massachusetts it is illegal to deface a milk carton.
#10 If you register with a false name on MySpace or Facebook you could potentially "spend five years in federal prison".
#11 In Hazelwood, Missouri it is illegal for little girls to sell girl scout cookies in the front yards of their own homes.
#12 All over the United States lemonade stands run by children are being shut down because they do not have the proper permits.
#13 In Florida, it is illegal to bring a plastic butter knife to school.
#14 In San Juan Capistrano, California it is illegal to hold a home Bible study without a "conditional use permit".
#15 In the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania it is illegal to make even a single dollar from a blog unless you buy a $300 business license.
Sadly, this list of crazy laws and ridiculous regulations could be thousands long.
We are a nation run by a bunch of control freaks that do not care about our liberties and our freedoms.
In this 40 minute video, John Stossel goes into great detail about how almost everything is illegal in America today.


Big Brother Propaganda: Sovereign Citizens: Radicals Exercising 'God-Given Rights' or Fueling Domestic Terrorism?
Watch: http://abcnews.go.com/US/sovereign-citizens-radicals-exercising-god-rights-fueling-domestic/story?id=15876417

If you think the IRS is lawful & that your Income Tax goes to running the United States watch: America: Freedom to Fascism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ayb02bwp0

And where do the income taxes that are collected actually go? In 1982, President Ronald Reagan formed The President's Private Sector Survey On Cost Control, an independent panel of 160 of the country's top business leaders headed by Peter Grace and known as The Grace Commission, in order to find ways to cut federal spending.
In their report submitted to President Reagan on January 15, 1984, this blue-ribbon panel stated the following, quoting directly from page 12 of their report:
"Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that one-third of all their taxes are consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal government as previously identified. With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt ... in other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from the government." More Facts Regarding the IRS:

1. The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.) 2. The IMF is an Agency of the United Nations. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. Pg. 816)
3. The U.S. Has not had a Treasury since 1921. (41 Stat. Ch.214 pg. 654) 4. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF. (Presidential Documents Volume 29-No.4 pg. 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-288)

What's the big deal about the Fed? For starters, it's not (contrary to popular belief) a part of the government. It's privately owned...which means the United States does not control its own money supply. The Fed was created around the same time that the US adopted such charming practices as taxing the income of working people and conscripting its citizens against their will to fight and die in overseas wars. Who really rules America? It's not who you think.

Watch “Money as Debt”:


THE LEGAL TRAP OF RENUNCIATION OF CITIZENSHIP - Beware the Pirates Code Tags: danger immunity Legal Rabbit Hole matrix renuciation stateless

Beware the Pirates Code.

Below is a letter "from the mailbag" addressing issues concerning Renun­ci­a­tion of U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship.


Are you famil­iar with this link, Mr. Williams?   http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html#

Did you par­tic­i­pate in these action as well? Yes and No   And if you did not, then why?


Am I famil­iar with Renun­ci­a­tion of U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship?    Yes

Do or did I “par­tic­i­pate”?    No.

Why not?

This is a “pro­gram” designed to trans­fer “a cow” from one ranch (slave plan­ta­tion) to another ranch.   If you will notice, it states that you “should” pos­sess other “nation­al­ity” (but you don’t have to).  That means that you become a “national”.  Nation­als have “granted civil rights”.   I didn’t become a “national”.…I became “Ambas­sador at Large” with diplo­matic rights.   I still pos­sess those rights.

I am attach­ing the SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES.   You will see that this “code” is bogus, accord­ing to the treaties signed by the United States.  But, if you don’t know Inter­na­tional law and treaties; and you then con­form to the “code” (by agreement).…as it says.…it does not get you out of “your debtor slave obligations”.

Allow me to list the prob­lems inher­ent with this THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT :

“(5) mak­ing a for­mal renun­ci­a­tion of nation­al­ity before a diplo­matic or con­sular offi­cer of the United States in a for­eign state , in such form as may be pre­scribed by the Sec­re­tary of State” (empha­sis added).

Do other coun­tries do this when thir “nation­als” become US cit­i­zens?   No.   A nat­u­ral­iza­tion process of a “for­eign state” can­not be dic­tated by the “state of orig­i­na­tion”.  That would be like the US dic­tat­ing the process for become a Pana­man­ian (or Boli­vian or any other nation-state other than US.   However, if you under­stand the verbiage.…it is not talk­ing about “becom­ing a nat­u­ral­ized cit­i­zen of another State/nation”.…it is talk about “mak­ing a for­mal renun­ci­a­tion of nation­al­ity”.   Why would some­one do that when it is not nec­es­sary?   Where in Inter­na­tional Law and Treaties is such “renun­ci­a­tion” required?

At this point.…open the file (pdf) and go to page 63 and read Arti­cles 1 and 2 of the Con­ven­tion on Nation­al­ity that the United States is sig­na­tory to.  Make sure that you keep in mind that some nations may not sign or may have reser­va­tions.  If they were one of the “High Con­tract­ing Par­ties” at the Con­ven­tion and they “do not sign at all”…they must make record of their refusal or reser­va­tion.   So, be sure to scroll to the end of that “ses­sion” on page 64 and read the reser­va­tions.  (note: you will not see the United States mak­ing a reser­va­tion, mean­ing that they adopted this con­ven­tion.  To ver­ify the accu­racy of what I just said, scroll to page 69 where you will see the United States mak­ing reser­va­tions on Extra­di­tion; and fur­ther to page 71 where you will find a dec­la­ra­tion of the United States about their “belief” in Polit­i­cal Asylum.)

Renun­ci­a­tions that do not meet the con­di­tions described above have no legal effect. So what?  Does this sound like you’re “in con­trol” of this process?   Does this sound a lit­tle “arbi­trary” in nature?  Mr. Cameron, the what that I refer to; for those that do this “renun­ci­a­tion process” and make them­selves a “tar­get” of the “Matrix system” is this.…you’re admit­ting that you’re incom­pe­tent and you’re saying.…“I don’t know Inter­na­tional Law.”    If you are going to “renounce cit­i­zen­ship”, you must be in another coun­try from the start of the process.   There­fore; Inter­na­tional laws and Inter­na­tional pro­to­cols gov­ern.  This is by Treaty and Agreement.

This is Catch 22.…because this is an Inter­na­tional process.  And the Catch 22 goes back to the doc­u­ment attached and the ques­tion pre­vi­ously posed; which is: Why would some­one do this “renun­ci­a­tion process” when it is not required?  This is an inten­tional snare.  As George Bush said, if you are not “with us, you are against us”.   The obvi­ous­ness of this inten­tional snare is the fact that it doesn’t con­form to Inter­na­tional Pro­to­cols, it makes you “appear” (pos­si­bly and unnec­es­sar­ily) bel­liger­ent, it can make you vul­ner­a­ble it ways that are destruc­tive (as you will see as I cover the high­lighted prob­lems), and it’s based on people’s vol­un­tary con­sent to do the process due to ignorance.

Using Inter­na­tional Pro­to­cols, as I did; there are much more Peace­ful means and ways.   The U.S. has acknowl­edged me now as Ambas­sador at Large for the State that I now rep­re­sent.  They did so specif­i­cally because I exe­cuted every­thing in accor­dance with the Inter­na­tional Pub­lic Order as defined within the Inter­na­tional Agreements/(treaties) and Pro­to­cols.  There­fore, the US knows that I am not incom­pe­tent and have no state­ments on any record that might be “ques­tion­able”.   In fact, the very oppo­site is true.…but that requires fur­ther infor­ma­tion that is not within the con­text of your question.…so continuing…

Because of the pro­vi­sions of sec­tion 349(a)(5), Amer­i­cans can­not effec­tively renounce their cit­i­zen­ship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. Courts have held cer­tain attempts to renounce U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship to be inef­fec­tive on a vari­ety of grounds, as dis­cussed below. Inef­fec­tive?  It’s inef­fec­tive because a “lat­eral trans­fer” from one “slave plan­ta­tion” to another “slave plan­ta­tion” is not “exer­cis­ing the Right of Self Deter­mi­na­tion and Self Gov­er­nance”.   And, nat­u­ral­iza­tion is the process of transfer…not “renun­ci­a­tion”.   Renun­ci­a­tion is only a trap to “make you stateless”…if you don’t “repa­tri­ate” some­where else.  You are claim­ing that you are totally incom­pe­tent, in any event.…especially if you “make your­self stateless”.

Please re-read sub­sec­tion C, again.  It’s about (alleged) priv­i­leges and ben­e­fits ver­sus liabilities…if you under­stand what I mean.  (if not, we can dis­cuss it later)

Per­sons intend­ing to renounce U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship should be aware that, unless they already pos­sess a for­eign nation­al­ity, they may be ren­dered state­less and, thus, lack the pro­tec­tion of any gov­ern­ment.  This is bla­tant iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the Legal Catch 22.  This would be a “holy crap, Bat­man” moment.   No pro­tec­tion of any gov­ern­ment?!  Whad­dya think they’re doing this “home­grown ter­ror­ism bill” for?   This “act” has already passed and it’s intent is to “iden­tify pos­si­ble domes­tic bel­liger­ents”; and then once “identified”, to make “Americans/USCitizens” state­less, so that “no other State” will inter­fere with “the domes­tic ter­ror­ists’ intern­ment” into a Camp, such as have been already built for such purposes.  And, they are build­ing “a list”; that is Home­land Security’s func­tion.  That’s it.  That is their func­tion; and igno­rantly doing such a process as this can (pos­si­bly) “iden­tify you”.

Here’s what hap­pens when you under­stand Inter­na­tional Law and Peace­ful Pro­to­cols, the LAW OF NATIONS, and the Right of Self Deter­mi­na­tion.  Note: Please read the Uni­ver­sal Dec­la­ra­tion of Human Rights (I sug­gest “entirety”, but specif­i­cally Art. 15) and the Inter­na­tional Covenant of Polit­i­cal and Civil Rights (Arti­cle 1 Sen­tence 1 spec.) for con­fir­ma­tion of some of the following…

Build­ing a State/nation and Self Gov­ern­ing.…sov­er­eign immu­nity and polit­i­cal rights.….good.

Inte­gra­tion into an Inde­pen­dent State as diplo­matic mem­ber or representative…diplomatic immu­nity and polit­i­cal rights.…good.

National status.…granted civil rights; no immunity.……bad.

Cit­i­zen status.…granted civil rights; no immunity.……bad.

Res­i­dent status.…granted civil rights; no immunity.……bad.

Alien.….granted civil rights; no immunity.……bad.


(fouled up beyond all recognition…never make assumptions)

Do you under­stand?  NO RIGHTS, NO PROTECTIONS.…NOTHING. They (mean­ing any State or Nation) can put you in a C-130 like a piece of luggage…and open the door at 20,000 feet and throw you out…and no one (and I mean no one) can or is going to say a word on your behalf you are deemed “state­less”.  This is about under­stand­ing the world you live in today; and the Ram­i­fi­ca­tions of Legal Ignorance.

As they say.…there is no excuse.   Result: You can get fried for stupidity.

[Note Mr. C: this is for your edi­fi­ca­tion about “the move­ment”.  “The Move­ment” is a name used by Judges in the Fed­eral Courts.  Been there…know it. This term refers to those that call them­selves by names, titles, and posi­tions that don’t exist and never existed…but which the Fed and State courts have ruled as Domes­tic Terrorist.

1. Sov­er­eign Cit­i­zen.…no such thing.…oxymoronic.. Cit­i­zens are sub­jects.  Sov­er­eigns are Mon­archs or nations.  There­fore: STUPID/bad

2. State National.…what?  The State ain’t ‘national’.   Stu­pid and oxy­moronic.  Means noth­ing.  Although many claim that these terms are inter­change­able.  In a sense that is true, since nei­ther exist “in law” and they are both a “fraud”.…as they don’t exist.  [And it ain’t your state, any­way. You didn’t cre­ate it. These guys are going to prison in droves at the moment.  They are igno­rant and arro­gant; a dan­ger­ous com­bi­na­tion; and accord­ing to cer­tain sources I have…it is going to get worse.…a lot worse.  It is why they are pass­ing these new “domes­tic ter­ror­ist” bills.  But, be warned…no mat­ter how many times you show them; and even if they can­not rebut you with any facts/information; they can­not be con­vinced in any man­ner.  None of them will debate the issue of their lunacy with “outsiders”.  Although…they debate it among one another as to which posi­tion is actu­ally accu­rate.  They beat them­selves silly at sem­i­nars.  The sto­ries are very com­i­cal.   They are so arro­gant about the “right­ness” of their posi­tion; that they will fight and argue vehe­mently with each other.  Bad.  Avoid like plague.]

They may also have dif­fi­culty trav­el­ing…That sucks.  But it is the result of “renun­ci­a­tion”.   It does not say that “dif­fi­cult travel” is the result of “a nat­u­ral­iza­tion process” before the com­pe­tent author­i­ties of another State.  Nor does it say that “dif­fi­cult travel“is result of the exer­cise of the “Right of Self Determination.”    It is this (bogus) “renunciation process”.


Under the Doc­trine of Reciprocity.…if THEY are free to travel anywhere…then so are THOSE that exer­cise the latter.…due to the Doc­trine of Equal­ity.   Equal Sta­tion means “EQUAL STATUS/station/state”.    At this level.…you must learn to read “what it does not say”.

Nonethe­less, renun­ci­a­tion of U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship may not pre­vent a for­eign coun­try from deport­ing that indi­vid­ual back to the United States in some non-citizen status.

Well.…I guess ya bet­ter be sure that the other Rancher/Farmer run­ning the other ranch/slave-plantation likes you before you start fil­ing any “pos­si­bly iden­ti­fy­ing bel­liger­ent” papers, huh?   This would be known as the “Yehsa, Massa” clause.   “Non-citizen” means “state­less” if you have done the renun­ci­a­tion process prop­erly accord­ing to the United States Code.   They are telling you plainly that…

State­less means.…FUBAR.

Also, per­sons who wish to renounce U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship should also be aware that the fact that a per­son has renounced U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship may have no effect what­so­ever on his or her U.S. Tax or mil­i­tary ser­vice oblig­a­tions (con­tact the Inter­nal Rev­enue Ser­vice or U.S. Selec­tive Ser­vice for more information).

Wow.…does not effect your tax sta­tus what­so­ever, eh?   And, they can still toss your butt back into the Military…if you ever served…under the guide­lines of STOPLOSS.   Of course, my con­tention is that you might want to pay real close atten­tion to a movie called: EAGLE EYE.…in which “any US Cit­i­zen can be ACTIVATED for the pur­pose of National Defense…according to the CON-STITUTION.  This would be because Arti­cle 2 Sec­tion 3 (accord­ing to me and Patrick Henry…among oth­ers) grants the Pres­i­dent (i.e. Supreme Commander-in-Chief) the “pow­ers of a King”.

If you are unfa­mil­iar with the “pow­ers of a King” then another great movie wherein THEY told every­one that lit­tle secret about “the Pow­ers of a King” was PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD’S END…in the scene where a par­lay is called between Lord Becket and Eliz­a­beth Swan: KING OF THE BREATHREN COURT.   She turns him (Jack Spar­row) over to Lord Becket as .…“Keeng”.

In addi­tion, the act of renounc­ing U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship will not allow per­sons to avoid pos­si­ble pros­e­cu­tion for crimes which they may have com­mit­ted in the United States, or escape the repay­ment of finan­cial oblig­a­tions pre­vi­ously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States cit­i­zens abroad.

No abscond­ing DEBTORS allowed.   Can’t flee the mortgages…or the taxes.   S.O.L.  (sorry, out of luck)

Par­ents can­not renounce U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship on behalf of their minor chil­dren.


Who’s your “daddy” now?


I sug­gest you Google or find a Black’s Law Dic­tio­nary and look for the term: parens patraie and learn more about it.  For instance:  from wikipedica; Parens patriae relates to a notion ini­tially invoked by the King’s Bench in the six­teenth cen­tury in cases of non com­pos men­tis adults”.  http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Parens_patriae

And, this is an entirely dif­fer­ent con­ver­sa­tion about the effects of this act of Congress.…

Please con­sider the effects of renounc­ing U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship, described above, before tak­ing this seri­ous and irrev­o­ca­ble action.

This is why I don’t par­tic­i­pate in “their pri­vate code”…I use Inter­na­tional Law because Inter­na­tional Law is the “Supreme Law of the Land”.



Farm­ers #4; Anti-Federalist Papers

US Con­sti­tu­tion; Arti­cle 2 sec­tion 3 and Arti­cle 6 sen­tence 2   (read what Patrick Henry; the his­to­rian of the time and Attor­ney, had to say about the future”)

Make no mis­take about it, Inter­na­tional Law is Supreme Law of the Land called Amer­ica; and it trumps that “code” (i.e.secret lan­guage) every time.

And that, as they say.…“is all, folks”.

THE LEGAL MATRIX: A WEB OF CATCH 22s.….coming soon to a web­site “near” you.

Thanks for the query, Mr. Cameron.   These are fun.


David-Parker: Williams

P.S.  Some other mate­r­ial for your “edi­fi­ca­tion pleasure”.….


P.S.S.  O.…please go back and click the link in the web­site link that you sent…referencing (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) and pay par­tic­u­lar atten­tion that this only applies to sub­sec­tion (5) of part (a) of § 1481 of “THEIR CODE”.  There are other sec­tions that cor­re­spond and con­form more cor­rectly with the Treaties and Con­ven­tions on Nat­u­ral­iza­tion signed by the United States.



IT'S CRIMINAL BY DESIGN Tags: The Right Of Self Determination History Banking Contract IT'S CRIMINAL BY DESIGN Remedy Diplomatic



Economist Tim Madden: The PIIGS Brief: understanding how oligarchs rig, loot our economies

  • May 10th, 2010 12:20 pm PT

   We hold these Truths to be self-evident...
Tim Madden is an economist with expertise on credit and banking. Tim and I are colleagues in lobbying government for public banking, with concentration in the US for state-owned banks (and here). The good news is that structural solutions to our economic controlled demolition are obvious and simple; and explained beautifully by many of America’s brightest historical minds. The bad news is that we’re still mired in oligarchic looting of our economies.
Tim’s following article explains collusion of government and judicial “leadership” to facilitate criminal looting through parasitic credit practices. This four-part article explains the principle and law, details a legal example of criminal looting with “official” collusion, and applies this to our international economy.
Tim can be reached at: timothypmadden@gmail.com
Tim's Canadian, but the rigged-looting is the same here. For a US face to what Americans are discovering as rigged-casino economics, also consider Fred Burks’ work, like this one.
The article is in four parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.


Hell claims his right, and with a roaring voice
Says, “Faustus, come; thine hour is almost come!”
 - Christopher Marlowe, The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus
The PIIGS Brief
By Timothy Madden
Portugal, Iceland, Ireland, Greece and Spain can sue Canada for damages from global financial crisis
The PIIGS nations, scandalously so-called, of the European Union (EU) appear to have a genuine cause of action and means of remedy against the Canadian state and its commercial court system, secured in part by the aggregate bonds/liability-insurance of members of the various provincial and federal bar associations and law societies in Canada, as well as those of the courts themselves. Provable damages globally appear to be in the range of several trillions of dollars.
The underlying issue is malfeasance of office, gross negligence, reckless disregard and endangerment, and the proximate cause of the global financial crisis, with respect to damages experienced and yet to be experienced by the people and institutions of the PIIGS nations.
The means of remedy is/are either or both of an action in tort (equity) and/or in law pursuant to certain several international treaties referred to generally as anti-money-laundering and anti-financing-of-terrorism treaties, of which the PIIGS nations are common signatories with Canada, and under which Canada agreed not to do what it then did, and continues to do, which is to allow its courts to wilfully and knowingly enforce financial securities that constitute “enterprise crime/racketeering/RICO” offences under the Criminal Code of Canada. The specific anti-organized-crime sections at issue are expressly attached to the aforesaid treaties under which Canada agreed to treat any such civil action as laundering of proceeds of crime, and to seize whatever proceeds are within its jurisdiction.  
Additional special, punitive, or exemplary damages are supported by the egregious nature of the means by which Canada violates the treaty or treaties directly, and of the means by which Canadian courts are converting financial securities contrary to the Criminal Code and in concealment (from international financial markets) of the known and admitted underlying criminality and vastly increased risk-in-fact.
Canada’s banks have escaped the global financial meltdown because Canada’s courts illegally granted them licence to operate, both in fact and in law, as “criminal organizations” within the meaning of domestic and international law. These same private banks used their criminal capacity to make themselves into de facto holding companies (and redirectors) for the illegal profits of the global system. They siphoned off the gravy and stuck the rest of the world with the bones.
Fact of the offences not at issue
In 1980 when the government of Canada was in the process of amending its Criminal Code to provide for a criminal rate of interest, it was brought to the attention of the senate banking committee (Senate Select Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce (SSCBTC)) that the new law (as then proposed/written and ultimately passed/enacted) would be routinely violated by mainstream financial institutions which would then be liable for criminal prosecution. One specific discussion addressed a “standby fee” which is a device used by financial institutions to, among other things, falsify securities.
The practice is caught by the criminal interest rate law because the fees, payable in advance, are legally defined as interest (and treated internally as such by the banks) which are converted/capitalized into principal on the face of the security, and in fact, at time zero (in advance), and therefore at an infinite and therefore criminal rate (above an effective 60% per annum).
The question/answer and nominal solution ultimately adopted was as follows, in material part (emphasis added):
Mr. Wong: Senator Buckwold, in one of the submissions made to the department [of Justice] at an earlier stage, the question was raised whether or not a standby fee, being a fee, would be included in the definition of "interest", and if it were, how would the interest be calculated, because, being infinite, it would certainly be above 60 per cent,....
Senator Buckwold: Is that illegal?
Mr. Wong: As the section stands, that would be illegal, yes.
Senator Buckwold: Then....the bank, theoretically, could be prosecuted for charging a criminal rate of interest for a standby fee...
Mr. Wong (Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):...theoretically, yes. That is one of the reasons this section is unusual, in that it requires the consent of the Attorney General before prosecutions are initiated, thus preventing the application of the section to commercial practices to which it was not intended that it apply. It then becomes a question of the Attorney General’s discretion. (SSCBTC transcripts; 4-11-1980, 24:28)
The solution is both logically and legally absurd, and of itself a manifestly incompetent and egregiously wrongful and illegal act by the Crown/government of Canada.
The amendment to the Criminal Code, however, had been tied to the repeal of the existing Small Loans Act (more on this below) which the private banks were desperate to get rid of so that they could radically increase credit card interest rates in order to remain solvent. A detailed study of the history and lobbying that went on reveals that the banks essentially used the criminal amendment as bait to get the government to repeal the Small Loans Act. They likely intended to separate the two components such that the Small Loans Act would have been repealed and then some reason would have been found not to amend the criminal law. But events began unfolding rapidly and as the clock ran down on the then current session of Parliament the banks were stuck with an all or nothing package. Hence the bizarre solution to the mainstream criminal problem.
The combined bill was then rammed through all three readings in the House of Commons over the final two days of the session (July 21/22, 1980) without any debate. The essential point for future reference is that this was not an innocent oversight but rather a desperate gamble by covert legislative manipulators who knew exactly what they were doing.
Flawed and absurd reasoning
The government’s nominal solution was and remains logically and legally absurd because the fact of criminality, directly or indirectly attached to a commercial contract, automatically precludes recovery or enforcement in a civil court.
And before it can even otherwise consider the criminal contract, per se, the courts have no capacity in law or in equity to grant standing (locus standi in curia) to an offender or to any party to an offence. A criminal contract is not and cannot be within the jurisdiction of a civil court. That is why, for example, one illegal-drug dealer cannot sue another, and why a contract-murder cannot be litigated for payment in a civil court. Few, if any, legal limitations on a court are as clear and unambiguous.
It is also a separate and distinct enterprise-crime/organized-crime/racketeering offence, under ss. 462.3(c) of the Criminal Code, to counsel or otherwise aid or abet (help or encourage) another to commit an offence under s. 347. So the solicitors who prepare the subject standby fee related securities, also, are prima facie guilty of advising/counselling their bank clients to commit the offences.
Further, any subsequent dealing “in any way and by any means” with any proceeds obtained contrary to s. 347 (or any “designated offence”) also automatically defines a separate and distinct offence under ss. 462.31(1) of the Code (laundering proceeds of crime) and which is also expressly joined with the aforementioned international treaties. The anti-racketeering provisions of the Code and the anti-money-laundering treaties were deliberately designed to cause a falling domino effect with the commission of a designated (enterprise crime) offence.
In every case, with the making of the contract contrary to the criminal law, the financial-liability-in-fact-and-in-law attaches itself to the bond(s) of the solicitor(s) who draw(s) up the securities.
But far from representing anomalous behaviour or confined to this particular example before the SSCBTC , the same actual and legal technicality applies to virtually every loan, advance, and security made or issued by a financial institution in Canada (and in multiple independent ways), as does the financial consequences of it.
As the Ontario Court of Appeal explained the liability aspect in terms of a civil case involving mere non-compliance with a civil disclosure statute that resulted in a $177,000 loss to the lender, and holding the solicitor liable for the loss:
Very simply, a solicitor who practices commercial law is responsible, if he undertakes to draft a promissory note, to see to it that it expresses the interest rate in a form that is enforceable. (Elcano Acceptance Ltd. v. Richmond, Richmond, Stambler & Mills; 1991, 68 O.R. (2d) pp. 165-189).
That is also why lawyers, and especially solicitors, must have professional malpractice insurance/bonding. The same applies to the private Crown commercial courts.
Crown has regardless no such power of non-prosecution
The subsection (347(7)) nominally requiring the permission of the Attorney-General to prosecute is also a constructive and asserted right of dispensation – a scandalous and illegal practice of the Crown formally associated only with civil statutes, but now brazenly attached to a criminal law. Dispensation means that the Crown grants a waiver of the law (literally to dispense with the law) to certain “high-born” people/favourites of the Crown. The practice was, and remains, outlawed-in-perpetuity under English law (and which still applies to Canada) by the English Bill of Rights (1689).
At this point the Crown in Canada becomes liable also (independently) in tort (a tort is an actionable wrongful act) to the PIIGS nations because its unlawful and illegal scheme of dispensation under the criminal law gave, and continues to give, constructive and actual licence to private financial institutions in Canada to systemically exploit, entrench, and expand long-recognized criminal practices, and to export them internationally under the colour of commercial normalcy.
Despite clear and repeated warnings, in at least certain several specialized (but otherwise mainstream) banking and financial-law publications, of the potentially catastrophic legal defects, including criminalization of solicitors, in the government’s scheme for avoiding the criminality of “commercial practices”, no concerted or apparent effort was made by the legal profession in Canada to rectify the defects. Instead the broadly-defined profession took clear and calculated steps to conceal the technical violation/criminality and its consequences from the public.
(see for example: Zeigel, Jacob, S. “Bill C-44: Repeal of the Small Loans Act and Enactment of a New Usury Law” (1981), 59 Can. Bar Rev. 188; also the follow-up article in Canadian Business Law Journal, [Vol. 11 1986] “The Usury Provisions In The Criminal Code – The Chickens Come Home to Roost”, by Jacob S. Zeigel, pp. 233 to 246; and National Banking Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 3, p. 43 (Part I), No. 4 (Part II)), PARTICIPATORY LOANS: THE CRIMINAL PROBLEM, by Alison Manzer and Rose Marie Ip of Robins, Appleby & Taub).
We will deal firstly and briefly with the criticality of interest that is illegally and unlawfully capitalized-in-advance, by whatever label, and then continue with the offences committed by the Canadian courts against the People of Iceland and the other PIIGS nations.


Part 2 is here.

Matrix Solutions




1 2 3
Blog Categories

Recent Comments
No one has commented recently

This website is powered by Spruz