again, our money is created out of nothing

April 19, 2005
Print this article
Canada: Class Action Accuses Banks of Illegal Creation of Money
Categories
Economy

John Ruiz Dempsey, criminologist and forensic litigation specialist filed a class action suit on behalf of the People of Canada alleging that financial institutions are engaged in illegal creation of money, reports Tom Kennedy, a Canadian activist for economic reform.

One of the best kept secrets is the mechanism of money creation in today's economic system. Although not really a secret at all, the fact that money is created not by and for the people who use it and not even by the government, but is issued by commercial banks when giving loans to private persons or government, is hidden by what could be described as thick clouds of smoke, put out by economists and government departments.

The complaint was filed Friday April 15, 2005 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia at New Westminster. It alleges that all financial institutions who are in the business of lending money have engaged in a deliberate scheme to defraud the borrowers by lending non-existent money which are illegally created by the financial institutions out of "thin air."

The legal action brings to the fore one of the major economic "drag factors" - the interest charged by banks for money that technically and legally is not theirs to lend, because even governments end up paying interest to banks lending money for public spending, and they in turn charge tax payers. A large part of every country's tax revenue goes first and foremost - before any "internal" spending - to payment of interest, largely because of the basic flaw in our way of creating money by the rich and for the rich.

Here is some more detail about the class action filed in Canada.

Class Action Suit Filed on Behalf of the People of Canada

forwarded by Tom Kennedy

New Westminster, B.C., April 15, 2005.

John Ruiz Dempsey BSCr, LL.B, a criminologist and forensic litigation specialist filed a class action suit on behalf of the People of Canada alleging that financial institutions are engaged in illegal creation of money.

The complaint filed Friday April 15, 2005 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia at New Westminster, alleges that all financial institutions who are in the business of lending money have engaged in a deliberate scheme to defraud the borrowers by lending non-existent money which are illegally created by the financial institutions out of "thin air."

Dempsey claims that creation of money out of nothing is ultra vires these defendants' charter or granted corporate power and therefore void and all monies loaned under false pretence contravenes the Criminal Code.

The suit which is the first of its kind ever filed in Canada which could involve millions of Canadians alleges that the contracts entered into between the People ("the borrowers") and the financial institutions were void or voidable and have no force and effect due to anticipated breach and for non-disclosure of material facts.

Dempsey says the transactions constitute counterfeiting and money laundering in that the source of money, if money was indeed advanced by the defendants and deposited into the borrowers' accounts, could not be traced, nor could it be explained or accounted for.

The suit names Envision Credit Union ("Envision"), a credit union; Laurentian Bank of Canada ("Laurentian Bank"), Royal Bank of Canada ("Royal Bank"), Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("CIBC"), Bank of Montreal ("BOM"), TD Canada Trust ("Canada Trust") and Canadian Payment Association ("CPA") as civil conspirators.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit is seeking recovery of money and property that was lost by way of confiscation through illegal "debt" collection and foreclosure. The Plaintiff is also seeking for the return of the equities which rightfully belong to the People of Canada, now being held by the defendant financial institutions as constructive trustees without color of right.

At all material times, these defendant banks and all of them have no legal standing to lend any money to borrowers, because:
1) these banks and credit unions did not have the money to lend, and therefore they did not have any capacity to enter into a binding contract;

2) the defendants did not have any cash reserve, they are not legally permitted to lend their depositor's or member's money without expressed written authorization form the depositors, and:

3) the defendants have no tangible assets of their own to lend and all their "assets" are "paper assets" which are mainly in the form of "receivables" created by them out of "thin air," derived out of loans whereas the monies loaned out were also created out of thin air.

Other than bookkeeping and computer entries, no money or substance of any value was loaned by the defendants to the Plaintiff. In all of the loan transactions entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the financial institutions did not bring any equity to any of the transaction.

All the equities were provided by the borrowers. The practices of the defendant financial institutions alleged in the complaint starkly contrast the practices of responsible and ethical money lenders who actually lend real, tangible, legal tender cash money.

The complaint alleges that the loan transactions are fraudulent because no value was ever imparted by the defendants to the Plaintiff; these defendants did not risk anything, nor lost anything and never would have lost anything under any circumstances and therefore no lien has been perfected according to law and equity against the Plaintiff.

The foreclosure proceedings which comes as a result of the borrower defaulting on such fraudulent loans were carried out in bad faith by the defendant banks and credit unions, and as such, these foreclosures were in every respect unlawful acts of conversion and unlawful seizure of property without due process of law which always results in the unjust enrichment of the defendants.

The suit alleges that the defendants utilize fraudulent banking practices whereby they deceive customers into believing that they are actually receiving "credit" or money when in fact no actual money is being loaned to their customers. However, the complaint describes a practice whereby there is realistically no money other than ledger or computer entries being loaned to the borrowers.

Rather than real money being received by the borrowers, "electronic" or "digitally created money", created out of nothing, at no cost to the financial institutions are entered as "loans" into their customers' accounts. The borrowers are then required to pay criminal interest rates for the money they never received. The suit alleges that the defendants effectively turn consumers into virtual debt slaves, forcing them to pay for something they never received, and then seizing their properties if they can no longer pay the banks with real money.

There is no law in Canada that could remotely suggest that the defendant financial institutions have the legal right to create money out of nothing. Dempsey says: "only God has the power to create anything out of nothing."

The class action suit, the first and the biggest of its kind in Canada is intended to give the justice system the opportunity to prove to itself and to the People of Canada who is really in control or whether they would continue to allow itself to be used by the banks as a tool in their unlawful and fraudulent banking practices which always ends in the enslavement of the people and confiscation of the people's properties.

Two other class action suits were filed by John Ruiz Dempsey against the banks. The first one was filed by Dempsey on behalf of Ian Dennis Gravlin of Calgary, Alberta and Pavel Darmantchev of Kelowna, B.C. versus the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. This matter is set for case management conference hearing on April 26, 2005. The Plaintiff expects a stiff opposition from the defendant's law firm. Madam Justice Garson is the case management judge assigned to the case.

A second class action suit was filed against MBNA CANADA BANK on behalf of Pavel Darmantchev of Kelowna, B.C., Ian Dennis Gravlin of Calgary, Alberta and Dena Alden of Vancouver, B.C.


A copy of the Dempsey legal action as filed can be found here to download as PDF.

- - -

February 2006:

John Dempsey says that the class action that is the subject of this article will be heard in court Feb 27, 28 and Mar 1st, 2006. See the link for more information.

Download file

And here a report of what happened in court:

"The People vs The Banks"

Vancouver, British Columbia, February 27, 2006

The People shut the court down after about twenty minutes into the hearing scheduled to be heard on February 27, 28 and March 1, 2006. After intensive questioning by the People represented by John-Ruiz: Dempsey, Pavel-N: Darmantchev, Pedro Liong and Otto Luinenburg, the presiding judge, Nicole Garson got out of the courtroom and left after she gave the Sheriff an order to clear the courtroom. Game over, the banks‚ motion to dismiss the People's claim will not be heard - at least for now.

The People came prepared, knowing they are being led to the slaughter by the banks' lawyers and the judge who prior to becoming a Supreme Court judge represented the banks lead counsel for one of the defendant banks - TD Canada Trust; obviously a clear conflict of interest which she refused to admit. Pavel said: "she had lots of chances to recuse herself in order to avoid confrontation but she failed miserably, presumably under the order of someone higher than herself."

John filed a Notice of Motion to be heard by the Chief Justice Donald Brenner. Judge Garson took it upon herself to "hear" the motion in clear violation of the Rules of Court which gave the moving party the sole right to set his own motion for hearing. John was never given the opportunity to file a Notice of Hearing; in fact it is not too clear how the motion came to be heard or what caused John's motion to be heard; the People suddenly received a "Reasons for Judgment" released by judge Garson on December 9, 2005. The People have no recollection of any hearings being set or heard regarding John's motion (see - Dempsey et al. v. Envision Credit Union et al., 2005 BCSC 1730). It appears like Garson J. decided to "hear" the motion and become the judge of her own cause - in violation of the legal maxim: nemo judex in sua causa.

Apprehension of bias has been clearly evident since justice Garson was appointed as case management judge. Her first biased act was to prevent John from representing others despite the fact that John had private power of attorney agreements with Pavel, Ian (Gravlin), Pedro and Otto to represent them in court. As attorney-in-fact, it is trite law, established by generations of jurisprudence, John can do all things that his principals can legally do. The law regarding power of attorney has existed long before any statute such as the Legal Profession Act came into existence. Yet, the same judge who is supposed to be our protector and public servant decided to violate and impaired the People's right of contract.

As humans, we have human rights and our rights are not subject to statutory control. It falls within the sovereign individual paradigm as reflected by the following US Supreme Court case:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Justice Garson has shown her true colors and where her allegiance lies by barring John to carry out his fiduciary duties to those who have agreed to be his lawful attorney based solely on "judicial discretion." Judicial discretion has no validity when there is positive law; judicial discretion cannot abrogate a living man or woman's natural rights; judicial discretion cannot overturn common law or statutory law. In the case of the said power of attorney contracts entered into between John and the people he represents, the contracts are even protected by the Power of Attorney Act of British Columbia. Garson J's blatant disregard for the law is recorded in her Reasons for Judgment in Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al, 2005 BCSC 839.

Justice Garson has shown her willingness and determination to bend over backwards to the whims and wishes of the banks by bulldozing all the bank class actions into one single action despite the objections of all the representative plaintiffs involved in these class actions including "The People vs. The Banks" class action. Although the class actions involve similar causes of actions, not all the defendants are the same. One thing is obvious however; the banks' lawyers are clearly attempting a judicial holocaust by herding all the class actions into one single gas chamber (or judge chamber) so that all the class actions can be slaughtered by one single judge/executioner in one fell swoop. John and his co-plaintiffs will not allow that to happen. They represent the People of Canada; they have the duty to ensure that such a planned massacre against the People does not happen. "The People are counting on us," John said, "this is not up to one single judge to decide on our class actions, it is the People who will ultimately decide on the People's fate, not judge Garson, this is the law of the land."

There are other reasons why John and his friends believe that they are being led to the slaughter such as: Garson J refused to strike the banks‚ statements of defence that really forms no reasonable defence. For example, all the banks‚ defence says that the class actions are frivolous, vexatious, scandalous and an abuse of process, a typical boiler plate defence that corrupt court courts always allowed corrupt defendant lawyers to get away with. Such a defence is no defence at all because it does not state why the class action suits are frivolous, vexatious, scandalous or an abuse of process. It is an insult to the People who know the truth.

Garson J has also allowed the banks to get away with serious violations of the Rules of Court and established legal procedures by allowing the banks' lawyers to refuse to produce documents, answer Interrogatories, and Notices to Admit. Based on our observation, it has been the normal practice of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, the highest courts in the province to apply the rules only when they see fit. Unrepresented litigants, particularly those who are not too familiar with the rules of court have lost their cases due to such unfair double standards. The People must follow the Rules of Court, but the lawyers and judges, particularly those who gets paid handsomely by the banking cartel need not be concerned about any rules. They make up their own rules as they go along, and they have judges that makes them right all the time.

As living men and women, we can only deal in truth. We can only deal with what is wrong and what is right. The admiralty courts like the supreme courts and appellate courts of the province only deal in arguments, in fictions, in make-believe laws created by them, the "just us" society. This is only one of the reasons why we have to shut them down. We have no time for their arguments. Either they deal with us in truth, or we will have nothing to do with their corruption. We are here to set the People free, by way of the truth, not by arguing in court. People lose in court because they argue. People are not allowed to argue in court, only the "officers" of their admiralty courts are allowed to make arguments in court. We play our own rules in their courts - "for we can do nothing against the truth but for the truth."

Justice Garson could not stand truth in her court room. Pavel asked her many times: "are you a public servant?" Garson J refused to answer a simple question with the truth. We already know the answer - she is nothing but a public servant, she is our servant. Garson J. lost it when the People in the court room themselves asked her: "why can't you answer a simple question - are you a public servant?" That was all the heat she could take that day. She stood up and started to leave and ordered the sheriff to clear the court room. However, before she managed to get out of the court room, John and Pavel told her: "You're fired Nicole." And all the People in the court said so: "You're fired."

At any rate, the matter is res judicata or already decided by virtue of the fact that the banks have no answer to John's Affidavit of Truth he filed in court. The affidavit was intended to solicit answers from the banks and establish the truth. In commerce, truth is established by an affidavit. An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce. The time for filing a reply has now passed. This means that the People have already established the truth in accordance with the law of commerce. In commerce, truth is sovereign and as sovereign, we, the People have already established the truth. We have no time for the banks‚ and their lawyers‚ arguments. They are precluded by estoppel.

So that was the end of that. We are ordering the transcript to make sure that no one could tamper with the records if they have not yet done so already. We will publish the contents of the court transcript as soon as we receive it. What's going happen next? Nothing. We, the People are not going back into that temple until the court has established that they have in rem or subject matter jurisdiction over us. As sovereign men and women, they have no power over us, unless it was given to them from above; or unless we accept their assumed power or jurisdiction. God bless you all.

John-Ruiz: Dempsey

One of Many


- - -


Some earlier updates...


Updage August 10, 2005:

New Westminster, B.C., April 10, 2005. Plaintiffs Lovey Cridge, a retired forensic accountant and John Ruiz Dempsey, a criminologist and forensic litigation specialist, both residents of Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, filed their amended Statement of Claim on August 2, 2005. The original class action suit filed on behalf of the people of Canada was filed on April 22, 2005.

The suit alleges that the government of Canada has engaged in a deliberate scheme to defraud the people of Canada through its illegal use of an invalid or non-existent statute, namely, the Income Tax Act of 1948 which has never been properly enacted according to law. The statement of claim alleges that the Plaintiffs which includes all of the People of Canada as the purported „taxpayers‰ have been defrauded and continues to be defrauded by the Canadian government, its collection agents, the now privatized Canada Revenue Agency (the former Revenue Canada), and robbed of their wealth and fruits of their labour through an elaborate scheme of coloured, illegal and unlawful seizure of property and money through the use of various coercive schemes, threats of fines and incarceration using the bogus and non-existent tax law, and the unlawful revisions thereof namely the Income Tax Act as contained within the Revised Statutes of Canada.

The class action suit is a result of more than five years of research and study of de facto Canadian federal statutes. The Plaintiffs says that there is no such thing as a lawful Income Tax Act in Canada. This so-called Act, is not a valid and lawful Act; this "Act" was unlawfully fabricated in violation of the Constitution of Canada, namely, the British North America Act of 1867 as it existed at the time of the purported enactment of the illegal Act.

The impugned Income Tax Act of 1948, as well as many other federal acts enacted by the de facto Canadian government since 1931 have not been enacted properly pursuant to the laws of England and Canada. The Income Tax Act of 1948, with unlawfully created versions thereof incorporated within various derivatives of the Revised Statutes of Canada are now fraudulently being used by the Defendants to rob the Plaintiffs and all the people of Canada.

For a bill or Act to be lawful and valid, the bill must be passed by the Canadian Parliament and the Senate. The Income Tax Act of 1948 was never passed by the Senate. After the bill has met the approval of the parliament and the senate, the bill must be assented to by the representative of the real Crown of England - the "Royal Assent" by the Governor General. At no time had this purported Act been given a Royal Assent by the Governor General if at all. And finally, pursuant to the Canadian Constitution, any Act that has been given a Royal Assent must be published in the Canada Gazette. At no time had this purported Act been published in any Gazette.

There has not been a lawfully appointed representative of the Crown since 1931 to the present. In order to circumvent this problem, the then ruling Prime Minister of Canada, William Lyons MacKenzie King signed the infamous Letters Patent of 1947 which gave the de facto Governor Generals all the powers of the Crown, including the power to give Royal Assent. This unlawful practice still goes on today. The ruling Crown of England is precluded by its own law to appoint Governor Generals. Again, to thwart this issue, King and the de facto Prime Ministers who came after him started to appoint their own Governor Generals.

Notwithstanding the fact that the said Income Tax of 1948 has not been lawfully passed by the Parliament, nor had it been given a Royal Assent, nor been published in the Canada Gazette, the Canadian government, took it upon themselves, to collect income taxes and extorted monies from the people of Canada without any colour of right, and without legal or juristic authority from 1948 to the present, and continues to collect and extort monies and properties from the people of Canada unlawfully.

Those who resisted or refused to pay income taxes were either arrested and falsely incarcerated, charged under various false criminal offences and their properties were unlawfully seized or confiscated contrary to the Magna Charta, the English Bill of Rights 1689, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Plaintiffs claim that the government and its agents also violated the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 after its enactment as well the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms after it was enacted and accepted as law that is enshrined within the Constitution of 1982 in Canada.

To further carry out its fraud and deception, the Canadian government "revised" the bogus Income Tax Act of 1948 (Income Tax Act - 1948, c. 52) and fraudulently and without colour of right, incorporated the illegal Act within the 1952 Revised Statutes of Canada (see R.S.C. 1952, c. 148). To further conceal their deception, the Defendants again revised the unlawful and counterfeit Income Tax Act (now with the reference to the year „1948‰ removed) and integrated this "new" Act with the 1970 Revised Statutes of Canada (see R.S.C.1970, c. 1-5). Again, to further obscure the truth and complete the "colouring" process, the 1970 (R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-5) Revised Statutes of Canada was again revised and further became the 1985 Revised Statutes of Canada (R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp)).

In all of the above machinations, debauchery and wicked manipulations and fraudulent misrepresentations, the government of Canada failed to fully hide the fact that Canada never had a valid and lawful income tax act or statute that could have justified the colossal crimes and unlawful acts perpetrated by the Canadian government against its own people.

The Plaintiffs, Lovey Cridge and John Ruiz Dempsey on behalf of the People of Canada, with the help of other researchers searched law libraries and archives for any proof that the impugned Income Tax Act might exist. The Plaintiffs found no evidence of it. The Plaintiffs say such "Act" simply did not exist and are therefore claiming for damages including the return of all money and property wrongfully confiscated (stolen) by the Canadian government from its people.

- - -

Update August 22, 2005

THE PEOPLE vs THE BANKS

VANCOUVER, British Columbia: Almost five months to the day of the initial filing of the biggest class action suit in Canada, John Ruiz Dempsey on Behalf of the People of Canada versus Envision Credit Union, Laurentian Bank, CIBC, Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, TD Canada Trust, The Canadian Payment Association and others, the lawyers representing the financial institutions are gathering steam to try to stop John Ruiz Dempsey, a criminologist and forensic litigation specialist from proceeding with their application to the court to strike Mr. Dempsey’s statement of claim in whole or in part. Hearings are set for September 12 and 13 at the Supreme Court in Vancouver. The statement of claim alleges among other things, creation of money out of nothing, fraudulent misrepresentation, money laundering, fraud, charging of criminal interest rates and breach of contract. A copy of the Statement of Claim is available for download through http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/.

"This without a doubt will be a precedent setting case that is sure to change the face of the banking system in Canada forever. Without even taking into consideration the potential damages, the sheer numbers of people alone who potentially can participate in this action, will in my estimation make this case the largest lawsuit ever filed for Class Certification in this nation", stated John Ruiz Dempsey.

The banks are being represented by two of the largest law firms in Canada such as Borden Ladner Gervais with 670 lawyers and Fasken Martineau Dumoulin with 500 lawyers. This is clearly a David and Goliath case where these lawyers are moving to tread heavily on Mr. Dempsey and the People of Canada he represents.

News Conferences are currently being arranged and will be held September 9 in Vancouver and Montreal. Various citizen groups and freedom movements as well as other special interest groups representing thousands of Canadians from across Canada are expected to rally in support of this action.

Media representatives wishing to attend any of the News Conferences, or wanting to ensure that they are on our mailing lists, or wishing to arrange for interviews with legal, forensic and other experts after any of the News. Conferences, should call to ensure that their current information is on file.

In Montreal, Quebec
Contact: Bruce Margolese
(514) 294-3284
E-Mail: bmargolese@yahoo.com

In Vancouver, B.C.
Contact: John R. Dempsey
(604) 597-1475
E-Mail: classaction_cpa@hotmail.com or classproceeding@yahoo.ca


Since sending out a News Release in April announcing the filing of the Class Action Law Suit, we have been inundated with calls from persons asking if it is too late to become involved.

The answer is NO. As long as you fit ANY ONE of the five criteria listed below, you can apply for registration for Class Participation. While we would like those interested in becoming involved to do so on a timely basis, as it adds strength to our efforts, a cut-off date for participation will be established (I believe by the court at a future date).
The criteria for participation is as follows:

1. If you have been involved in any kind of loan transaction with any bank or financial institution you are eligible to participate;

2. If you did not know that banks and financial institutions are engaged in illegal creation of money, you are eligible to participate;

3. If you were told by your bank or financial institution they loaned you money without receiving “cash” or “legal tender” money or currency, you are eligible to participate;

4. If you were unaware that the bank or financial institution made you sign a promissory note or loan application form and ‘monetized’ the said note or form by way of your signature, you are eligible to participate;

5. If you or your family have suffered or are facing foreclosure or seizure of property or debt collection by banks or financial institutions as a result of any loan or debt transactions with any bank or financial institution, you are eligible to participate.

It is important to note that you DO NOT have to be object or victim of any debt collection, foreclosure or any other legal proceeding to participate.

rest here http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/04/19/canada_class_action_accuses_banks_of_illegal_creation_of_money.htm