Saturday, May 23, 2009

Duplicity or Stupidity

Frontpage from aid4families:
Prosecutors said that the people that believed that an economic 9/11 was coming in aug. 07 were "weak naive and greedy", obviously since the banks remained great stewards of the economy and lived under the same laws. Also we know that an economic explosion never occurred--yeah right?

Most people don't know what I'm talking about but most people think the crisis started six months ago, so...

july 2008--- A year after I continued to warn people and spending articles telling the rest of the world they weren't immune to the crisis, I see this. Bank of canada says, worst behind us circa summer 08.

Where was the AMF for the six banks and the 34 billion in ABCP or deceptive banking practices that the government still refuses to address but makes arrest for with everyone else?

The Caisse de Depot chief: after running the ponzi scheme with the other Canadian banks for a $36billion debacle, drying up the entire pension system in Quebec. He simply talks down to parliament then takes a cushy job next door.
The unguarantee guarantee that was too crooked for wall st. The guarantee on the ABCP ponzi in Canada was so crooked that even the vipers on wall st. wouldn't rate it and called it "worthless"

I read in court about the Canadian standard of proof for fraud and was given the impression that fraud is "whatever we say it is and we know it when we see it" yeah see if that allows you to forgo the burden.

Jail as repression, jailing Mandela protected apartheid, jailing Christ stop Christianity, jailing MLK kept segregation or does it just piss people off.

These people had the audacity to be offended that I was saying the system was hypocritical but here's the test.

question 1. Is every regulator, law maker, law enforcement officer, court and prosecutor aware of complaints and lawsuits and complaints about abusive, deceptive-fraudulent practices by the banks. Yes OR No? if no, then why not?

question 2. How many have been raided and shutdown with all the depositors refunded and damages awarded? 1 of the the top 6 Canadian banks, 2 of the 6, 3 of the 6 or none of the 6. If none, then why not?

Why does too big to fail really mean too chicken shit to try to jail?

Basically, if a bank CEO blows your brains out in broad daylight on a busy street with video camera's watching, the only thing that would come of it is your family would receive a bill for the bullet.
Everyone admitted that I hadn't violated the criminal code, the investigators for the RCMP and the securities commission. I can't rely too much on it since neither did an actual investigation before bringing charges.

Only violations that occurred involve selective prosecution. The violation of duplicitous cowards trying to create deceit in a contract that I published online that people could read in advance or send to their attorney. On the other hand we have pages of deliberately archaic disclaimers and confusing text in bank and investment contracts but no raids or closing of bank of America or bank of Montreal by the RCMP or FBI.

They tried to put words in the customers mouths, tried to misread the website but all I ask is where is that benefit of the doubt, like you have for that bankcard your carrying? On the other hand if you see fraud under every tree, in every word and every phrase then all of the banks should be gone by year end because there contracts are a landmine of deceit and dishonesty.

In this crooked sham of a ruse they believe that they can keep misapplying the law and make it up as they go along. So I'm glad that they picked me and I'm glad that they picked this moment in history when everyone is losing everything because they were too busy jailing bank competitors and looking the other way for for the banks misdeeds.

Said I addressed fraud in my statement to the police and in my video evidence and my testimony as proof that I was a crook. What was I suppose to talk about, underwater basket weaving? You're the fool that charged me with fraud and when I address it head on it's proof of my guilt?

I let them know that they can try to cover for each other as long as they see fit. Add wrongful conviction to malicious prosecution to false imprisonment, it won't be the first time. The thing I know for sure after 2 years of this BS is that I will still be the one to finish what they started and will plague them to their graves. 20 years from now people will still be asking them about this case and why they thought they could pull a Omar Khadr.

Their problem is that Canada doesn't consider itself a feudal, bigoted, repressive society and wrote up equal protections in it's charter and constitution.

Like all western democracies the practices couldn't be further from the ideals. So occasionally someone has to hold a mirror up to the society in it's supreme court and demand and explanation for the disparity between the self image and reality.

I consider this ordeal part of the growing pains for my organization because I won't have to deal with any slander about fraud or scam. I was offered a year of probation a year ago before the trial. After I refused, I was sentenced to a de facto sentence of one year because they didn't have the case PLUS prison time is back on the table. That's what happens when you're innocent and opt to clear your name instead of plead out.

We're concerned about the sane things, the effects on our children and life but I am not concerned that a conviction could be based on the prosecution getting in the ballpark of fraud. If I'm convicted I will mail everyone involved copies of bank contracts from every bank( you know, since they see fraud in every word or deed, right?) Like Obama said for our entire lifetime everyone has needed a magnifying glass and a reference manual for bank contracts. As Dick Durbin admitted (senior senator) The bankers run the place (Washington-law makers and courts). The finance minister in Canada told Canadians not to get their hopes up for the Harper administration to crack down on bank fraud. He wasn't talking about not arresting or prosecuting them, he was only talking about not bothering them with the request to not rip the public off so much.

Yes, now is the time to convict the organization that warned people about the crisis a year and a half before the media or government admitted it. Yes, it's time to convict the organization that didn't put a limit on how much interest they PAID people (which makes you a crook). The people that grease the courts and cops hands still have no limit on how much interest they can CHARGE people. So I can pay 30% or 500% a year but it has to be to a bank or pawn shop, NOT a working family.

If I go to jail for something that stupid, I'll expect Christmas cards from hell from these people because that's an automatic ban from heaven and you have to hate god to defend one practice and persecute the good one.

What I should do is put Scotia bank or JPMorgan at the top of the contract and change the payments to interest charges, so they will be to cowardice to bother me.

No one involved knew a thing about investments or it seems private contracts either. They were so busy talking about red flags and the inevitability of failure for my organization that I never was allowed the opportunity to consider a crime.

When Tom cruise came out with minority report, I thought it would be about the over prosecution and sentencing disparities for minorities. It was close since it was still about arresting people before a crime based on dreams. He was very gung ho until it was turned on him and I can imagine if any of my attackers were tried with this case. Actually I can't since people commit suicide for less stress than this and hypocrites are twice as prone. You ever notice when cops are in trouble in movies they fight the investigation then when it comes time to pay their debt to society they shoot themselves?

Conviction, prosecution and investigation would all be based on the same collective delusions and insanity.

The prosecutor in his short incoherent summation only tried to inflame the courts prejudices by trying to compare the program to a ponzi scheme. Also by saying how little either of them need for a fraud conviction(the practice of the law--not the letter and for sure not the spirit). Selective prosecution says that if they can't find it in the organizations that own the homes(conflict of interest) then they shouldn't be able to find it anywhere else.

They took issues with my video statement even though I was reading, from supreme court lawyers, members of parliament, media quotes of government officials. It was clear that this was fair( a room full of white guys glaring at us).

It boiled down to the fact that they convicted people of fraud for claiming to use the money for a purpose such a buying a certain stock but the people did nothing but pay the people their own money (like Madoff saying he never made a single trade but sent people statements saying he did). Aid4families did the OPPOSITE, made no claims to the specifics of the investments and THEN MADE INVESTMENTS. Despite this being the total opposite of a ponzi scheme and the justification for all the other ponzi/fraud convictions, they remain undeterred in attempting to twist the law and torture themselves into a way to stretch reason and sanity to include us.

Watch this video!!

Recent headlines from economic news