Not surprisingly, the defendant banks are demanding that the suit be dismissed as vexatious and without foundation. Madam Justice Garson, the assigned case management judge, prior to becoming a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, seems to have worked for one of the defendant banks, TD Canada Trust. A motion to recuse Justice Garson as partial was decided by ... Justice Garson, prompting John Dempsey to say she violated the maxim "nemo judex in sua causa" or no one shall judge a case in which they are personally involved...
It will be interesting to see how the case continues to evolve, but in any case, it has already done much to raise international awareness of the issue - the illegal creation of money by the banks - also described in G. Edward Griffin's book "The Creature from Jekyll Island". A chapter of "The Creature" is available to readers in Banks and Money - The Mandrake Mechanism.
Here is the communication from John Dempsey marking the first anniversary of his controversial court action...
The People vs The Banks - First Anniversary
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, April 15, 2006.
Exactly a year ago today, on April 15, 2005, we filed the biggest
class action suit in Canada - "The
People vs The Banks." This class action created shock waves in the heart
of the world's banking business that deals in unlawfully created,
non-tangible, non-existent digital money.
The class action involves millions of people in Canada. Despite the
mainstream media's continued biased reporting, the news of the class
action suit has traveled all over the world. The whole world is
watching, waiting to see how the banks and the courts are going to stop
John-Ruiz: Dempsey from proceeding with this major lawsuit.
The suit arises from the fact that banks as credit-lenders flourish only
because of fraud and deception, breach of contract, deception, unjust
enrichment, unlawful conversion and illegal creation of money. The
Plaintiff (as well as the other millions of people), the "borrower" is
always the source of the principal amount of any alleged loan by virtue
of his "promise" to pay (the "promissory note"), from which a negotiable
instrument is generated, i.e. "money," pursuant to commonly accepted
banking practice which the credit-lender then converts into another form
(bank draft, cashier's check) in accordance with their lending policies
which is then reissued in the form of a "loan." This "loan" is nothing
more than accounting entries on the bank's ledgers, because the
financial institutions like the defendant banks, loans nothing of
substance, and are forbidden by banking regulations from loaning the
bank's cash or assets.
Money simply does not exist. What we call money, the Canadian bank note
they call "legal tender" is not money. It has no intrinsic value. It
costs two cents to make a five dollar bill as well as it is for a
hundred dollar bill. It is money by decree; it is money only because the
government says it is money. Worse, in this case, the "money" in
question in this lawsuit is the privately created, digital, computer
generated money surreptitiously created by the banks and "loaned" to
their unsuspecting borrowers with criminal interest at no cost to
themselves.
As far as the representative Plaintiff, John-Ruiz: Dempsey is concerned,
the People of Canada do not owe the banks any debt or money. It was the
other way around. John says: "How can we owe them anything when we never
received anything of any value [substance] from these banks?" The money
which was assumed to have been credited into the borrower's account was
derived from "thin air" - God's money, or money that never belonged to
the banks at all. The banks have no legal right to use God's money and
pass them on to the unsuspecting borrowers and call it a loan and then
start charging usury. This is nothing but pure skullduggery.
"Only God can create something of value out of nothing ... no action
will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending
upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction to which Plaintiff
[the bank] was a party." Per Justice Mahoney in
First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly,
12/07/1968.
In First National Bank above, (more popularly known as the Credit River
decision) further stated: "The [bank's] act of creating credit is not
authorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States, is
unconstitutional and void, and is not lawful consideration in the eyes
of the law to support anything or upon which any lawful right can be
built." - Justice Martin V. Mahoney.
The above Minnesota trial court's decision is holding the federal
reserve act unconstitutional and void; holding the National Banking Act
unconstitutional and void; declaring a mortgage acquired by the First
National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its
business, along with the foreclosure and the sheriff's sale to be void.
This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all
private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and state
bonds held by the Federal Reserve, national and state banks to be null
and void. This amounts to an emancipation of the nation from personal,
national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every
American (as well as Canadian) owes it to himself, his country, and to
the people of the world for that matter to study this decision very
carefully and to understand it, for upon it hangs the question of
freedom or slavery.
The above statement by Justice Mahoney also holds true in Canada because
there is no law in Canada, whether federal or provincial, that remotely
suggests that it is lawful for any bank to create money out of thin air
and then use this created money as valuable consideration whereby they
could now loan this created money as principal and then charge their
unsuspecting victims interest for the rest of their lives! This is
legalized slavery.
An earlier decision by the Supreme Court of Canada which dealt with the
same issue of lack of consideration per Henry J.: "...I know of no law
to oblige me to pay it. When I deliver and execute a note, I am presumed
to have received a consideration for it, and I am therefore bound to pay
the legal holder or endorsee, but it would be contrary to every
equitable, and I may say legal, principle to make me pay in the other
case, where I received no value, or did no act from which such may be
presumed." Scott v. R. (1878), 2 S.C.R. 349.
The People have a strong case. The only problem is money, and the banks
have lots of it. The banks have been known to spend $100,000.00 or more
trying to collect a $5,000.00 claim. The banks simply cannot afford to
have any precedents. They can afford to pay their highly paid lawyers
and perhaps even bribe the judges in order to achieve their evil goals.
Just recently, the banks and The People were compelled to appear before
Madam Justice Garson, the assigned case management judge who heard the
banks' lawyers argue that the statement of claim should be struck in
whole or in part. The banks argue that the People's claim has no merit
based on their flimsy arguments that the pleadings are either vexatious,
frivolous, scandalous and abuse of process. However they all failed to
show why the claims are vexatious, frivolous, scandalous and abuse of
process.
John and his team, submitted the truth, that the court has no
jurisdiction to hear or decide the case simply because the judge herself
is in direct conflict of interest. Prior to Judge Garson becoming a
judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, she worked for one of
the defendant banks, TD Canada Trust. John filed a motion to have Garson
recused. This motion was intended to be heard by the Chief Justice
himself. Notwithstanding, Garson took it upon herself to decide on the
motion to recuse without any notice of hearing being filed which
violates the maxim: "nemo judex in sua causa" which means that one
cannot be the judge of his/her own cause. Garson saw nothing wrong with
that.
During the last hearing on April 6, 2006, John personally served Garson
a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. John and others filed this
lawsuit against Garson in her personal capacity for interfering with
John's personal right of unlimited contract with his principals. The
suit also named another judge, Justice James Williams who, without
proving any jurisdiction or proof of claim or evidence against John
decided to grant an injunction against him from representing other
people in court because he is not a member of the BAR or law society.
With this writ filed against Garson as a defendant, this judge is now in
clear conflict without any excuse.
At the hearing on April 6, John and the others told Garson they will not
accept any decision or order made or done while she is in direct
conflict of interest and without proper jurisdiction. However, knowing
how she made her previous decisions that have no foundation in law or
fact, it will not come as a surprise if this judge puts on her blindfold
and ignores the law in order to give the banks a great favour. The whole
world will have the opportunity to see whether or not the courts deserve
the kind of respect they think we owed them. Needless to say, the ball
is in their court.
Whatever happens, this is only the beginning. The greatest battle, "The
People vs. The Banks" has only begun. This battle will continue until
the tables of the money changers have been overturned once more. If God
be for us, who can be against us? May God Bless Us All.
Please contact us by email at:
thepeoplevsthebanks@yahoo.com or
thepeoplevsthebanks@hotmail.com.
Visit our websites at:
www.freewebs.com/classaction/ or
www.theclassactionsuit.com
See also:
Canada: Class Action Accuses Banks of Illegal Creation of Money
Affidavit of Walker F Todd expert witness for
defendants Harshavardhan and Pratima
"... I conclude that Plaintiff and Defendants exchanged reciprocal
credits involving money of account and not money of exchange; no lawful
money was or probably ever would be disbursed by either side in the
covered transactions."
