Amid Media Blackout, Lawsuit Challenges Banker Rule

• Outcome could decide if Canadians have monetary sovereignty.

By Mark Anderson —

A landmark Canadian federal appellate-court ruling could conceivably lead to the cancellation of Canada’s debt-based money system, and its repercussions are expected to be felt by central banks around the world.

According to American monetary-reform author and filmmaker Bill Still—and Canadian activists with whom this reporter has been in contact—Canada’s mainstream media has been suppressing news that a three-judge panel on January 26 ruled in favor of plaintiffs who filed suit to restore the Bank of Canada to its time-tested mandate of issuing debt-free money in the public interest.

“The [Canadian] government has ordered the mainstream media not to cover this,” wrote Mr. Still on his website, which covers monetary reform.

The ruling gives plaintiffs William Krehm and Ann Emmett of COMER, or the Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform, represented by attorney Rocco Galati, the ability to move forward toward trial. The Crown can appeal once more to Canada’s Supreme Court.

On December 12 of 2011, COMER filed suit to legally restore the former arrangement wherein The Bank of Canada—which, unlike the United States Federal Reserve with respect to U.S. citizens, is owned by the people of Canada—would return to the monetary practices it followed from 1938 to 1974, under the Bank of Canada Act.

During those years, the Canadian government borrowed money free of interest from the public Bank of Canada and made significant national progress.

“The bank was nationalized in 1938 to bring Canada out of the Great Depression,” Still stated.


The bank over the years would issue interest-free loans at the municipal, provincial and federal-government levels. Canada’s universal health-care system, St. Lawrence Seaway development, the national pension system, airports, subways, and other projects deemed to be in the public interest, sprouted in the rich soils of interest-free finance between 1938 and 1974.

Still added that, however, come 1974, the Canadian government decided to end debt-free money, yet prior to 1974 “there was no run-away inflation,” like “gold bugs” often fear, when contemplating so-called “easy-money” policies.

As recently as the early 1970s, one could buy a decent home in Canada for under $20,000. Moreover, Canada’s national debt was just $18 billion in 1974, mere chump change in terms of such a large, resource-rich nation.

But by 1977, with interest-laden banking, Federal Reserve-style, in place, “The Canadian national debt had risen 3,000%, to $588 billion,” said Still. He added that the cost of an average house increased almost as much.

The Canadian government has 60 days from January 26 to challenge the appellate ruling.

The plaintiffs say the defendants (officials) are, unwittingly or wittingly, connected to a conspiracy, along with the Bank for International Settlements (the central banker’s central bank), the Financial Stability Forum and International Monetary Fund “to render impotent the Bank of Canada Act as well as Canadian sovereignty over financial, monetary, and socio-economic policy . . . ,” as noted in a report provided by Still.

While Canada could renounce its debt altogether, at the very least it could stop issuing interest-bearing bonds—mainly bought up by banks so the government can get debt-money in return—and instead pump debt-free money into the economy, as Still advocates.

Michigan monetary reformer Robert Van Bemmelen reacted: “Any news that speaks to the issuance of debt-free money is good news. While the issuance of ‘this’ money would go toward infrastructure projects . . . ultimately, is doesn’t go far enough, in that it does not put increased purchasing power directly in the hands of the people.”

A perusal of the Internet, along with contacting Canadian monetary reformer Dr. M. Oliver Heydorn (author of “Social Credit Economics”) and Canadian activist John Devine, confirmed the near-total news blackout on the Bank of Canada ruling. One of the few, if only, published mainstream media items on the ruling comes from guest columnist Jacob Kearey-Moreland, writing in the February 6 Orillia Packet newspaper of Orillia, Ontario, where Devine also resides.

Moreland wrote: “The case aims to put on trial global banking powers and their Canadian representatives, accusing government officials primarily of abdicating sovereignty and subverting the Bank of Canada Act. The governor of the Bank of Canada, beyond parliamentary oversight and public scrutiny, routinely conspires with foreign interests to deliberate and determine Canadian monetary policy.”

Heydorn agrees with Van Bemmelen that issuing debt-free money, purely or mainly for public works, is a start, but it tends to empower the central state with too much spending discretion, falling short of consumer empowerment.

Donate to us

AFP Roving Editor Mark Anderson is a veteran reporter who covers the annual Bilderberg meetings and is chairman of AFP’s new America First Action Committee, designed to involve AFP readers in focusing intensely on Congress to enact key changes, including monetary reform and a pullback of the warfare state. He and his wife Angie often work together on news projects. Write to Mark at [email protected].

6 Comments on Amid Media Blackout, Lawsuit Challenges Banker Rule

  1. In the United States, there is no equivalent mandate and quite the contrary. The 12 Federal Reserve banks of issue are privately owned, and 31 U.S.C. § 5115(b) limits true U.S. notes, as follows:

    The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation:

    (1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and

    (2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

    On the other hand, public knowledge of the advantages of true U.S. notes is as vigorously suppressed as in Canada, and I am litigating to expose the deception.

    In particular, I am now drafting a complaint to file against the GAO, for grossly understating the benefit to the Government of eliminating the $1 Federal Reserve note in favor of the $1 United States coin. The $1 per new coin government gain is altogether excluded from the benefit, and concomitant interest savings are under-reported. The difference over 30 years is about a $5 billion vs. $60 billion. After 10 years, the GAO projects a loss of a couple of billion, whereas there would be a gain of about $20 billion.

    For my pre-litigation ping-pong correspondence with the GAO, see here.

  2. derp:

    YOU need to check the facts: COMER representing Canadians won the suit and also over the APPEAL by the Government. IN other words a DECISION was made in favour of the Plaintiff-COMER.

    NOW the Government has the LAST opportunity with only a few more days remaining to OVERTURN the decision by deciding to appeal or NOT in the SUPREME court.

    I would suggest “derp” you pay attention more closely to the video of Mr. Still and the Lawyer Rocco Galati.

  3. Much of this article is nonsense. However, the subject is important and it is good that at least someone is publishing this information. But you seriously need a fact-checker!
  4. They didn’t rule anything, they just agreed to hear the case. Alt media needs to check its facts.

Comments are closed.