[GJM] The People vs The Banks..........................

[robert searle]

Dear All,

        Though originally sent privately to E-list
members of Peter Challen I think it is still worthy to
put out to a "wider" audience here on the Global
Justice Discussion Group.

Though the material presented is truncated there is a
weblink which give the full text of the below. It also
includes some disturbing pics...


Robert Searle.



--- Peter Challen <peterchallen at googlemail.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ardeshir Mehta" <ardeshir at mac.com>
> To: <silences at yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:52 PM
> Subject: The People vs The Banks - First Anniversary
> 
> 
> A good first step!
> 
>  From
> <http://www.planetization.org/destroythesystem.htm>:
> 
> [QUOTE]
> 
> 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 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 bias 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 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 suggest 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.
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===



      ___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/