COMER Lawsuit Claims That Canadians Have Been Swindled Out Of Trillions Since 1974

Richard 'Hub' HughesConstitutional lawyer Rocco Galati’s lawsuit on behalf of Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) has cleared another hurdle of opposition and headed to the Supreme Court.

Bill Abrams sought monetary reform

Bill Abram 

Many of you will recall the late Bill Abram who, bolstered by his wife Celia, patiently conducted forums and ‘Eye Opener’ film nights throughout the Cowichan Valley.

Monetary Reform was what drove them. It was always at the top of their list.

The two retired school teachers patiently but persistently explained  the fraud that was being perpetrated against Canadians through this unequalled deception.


Renowned Toronto lawyer, Rocco Galati, brings unusual case to change the way Canada’s central bank operates.

To many it seemed a challenge beyond our capabilities but COMER has continued their fight.

I would like to think that they are smiling now to see their hopes and efforts will be fought out in Supreme Court of Cananda.

Accomplished lawyer Rocco Galati is carrying the ball and it could not come at a better time for an infrastructure depleted Canada.


By Joyce Nelson

Originally published in the Watershed Sentinel

One of the most important legal cases in Canadian history is slowly inching its way towards trial.  Launched in 2011 by the Toronto-based Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER), the lawsuit would require the publicly-owned Bank of Canada to return to its pre-1974 mandate and practice of lending interest-free money to federal, provincial, and municipal governments for infrastructure and healthcare spending.

Renowned constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati has taken on the case for COMER, and he considers it his most important case to date.

On October 14, a Federal Court judge cleared away yet another legal roadblock thrown in the lawsuit’s path. The federal government has tried to quash the case as frivolous and “hypothetical,” but the courts keep allowing it to proceed. As Galati maintains, “The case is on solid legal and constitutional grounds.”

When asked after the October procedural hearing why Canadians should care about the case, Galati quickly responded: “Because they’re paying $30 or $40 billion a year in useless interest. Since ’74, more than a trillion to fraudsters, that’s why they should care.” (COMER says the figures are closer to $60 billion per year, and 2 trillion since 1974.)


Read More

You might also interested in this earlier Toronto Star article from spring 2015 when Rocco Galati commenced the lawsuit. It at least partly explains the inflationary climb that kicked in mid 70’s along with the spiralling debt. The banks made money out of thin air and we have been picking up the tab ever since.

This was pushed by powerful Swiss bankers on an international basis and kicked into play under Pierre Trudeau’s time in office. Interesting that the Harper government tried to block the case going to court. All political parties have refused to speak out or intervene, oddly enough even the NDP. Why?

6 comments to COMER Lawsuit Claims That Canadians Have Been Swindled Out Of Trillions Since 1974

  • John Monroe

    This won’t be going to the Supreme Court any time soon. A court has just ruled against COMER for the fourth time. COMER is appealing, but based on the judge’s comments and the appeal court’s decision last time, they are unlikely to win at the appeal court. Just as well, since most of their claims are false, although the case has been thrown out before a court has even gotten so far as to rule on the veracity of their claims.
    The Bank of Canada never had a mandate of lending interest free to anyone, although its practice of paying a dividend equal to its profits to the federal government meant that federal borrowing was close to interest free. Provinces and municipal governments are not entitled to a share in the dividends, so their borrowing never was and never can be “interest free” in this way. There were never conditions on this borrowing, the Bank of Canada’s lending to the government could be used for anything, it was never restricted to infrastructure or healthcare. What the Bank of Canada can lend “interest-free” is restricted to what it can borrow interest free, basically the money it prints.
    Nothing of significance changed for federal borrowing in 1974. Before and after 1974 the government borrowed from both the Bank of Canada and the private sector. The amount the federal government has borrowed from the Bank of Canada has increased every year since 1974 and is now over $90 billion. What did change after 1974 was the government started running much larger deficits, much bigger than the Bank of Canada could finance by printing money.

  • Thank you for the update. This is a really big deal. We are being fleeced. And I agree, the ‘inflation’ word is a red herring. Combine this with the need for an Independent Ombudsman for Healthcare and Hydro (another fleecing operation) and get rid of interprovincial taxation and Canada might have a beautiful vibrant healthy economy and people. I just came across this article and it touches upon a big mindset problem (albeit applied in an educational system) that has been set in place in the world and it needs to be broken. There has been no intellectual growth in our financial systems or entrepreneurial acumen. Only the feeding of guns and butter. Welfare and war. And a race to the bottom. All brought to us by the geniuses in power looking after our best interests (not).

  • Pamela Mac Neil

    Thx for the update on this Richard. If COMERS wins this case it will send shock wave throughout the West.Galati is the right man to be fighting this.

  • Liam Young

    So, the question is who pays?
    And if all of a sudden the Bank of Canada is able to lend interest-free to provinces and municipalities, won’t there be a massive inflationary effect?

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>