Conspiracy of Silence -- Are you being robbed by your Bank?

[Blurock]

@blurock thanks for explaining the invoice discounting this is now understandable.
@darkangel I still can't get my head around how you can prove payment due to securitisation of your loan! Need to put on my deep thinking cap.

You can never get out of a debt because the debt has been ceded or sold to another party. The principle is; you owe money, you pay.

[Citizen X]

You can never get out of a debt because the debt has been ceded or sold to another party. The principle is; you owe money, you pay.

Here we need cold hard facts! How many actual people were thus far successful in extinguishing their debt on the basis of securitisation? I intend making a post about the Constitution referal/appeals process; many have tried and failed. At the first instance The Constitutional Court wants some very simple and straight forward information from you! What Constitutional right was infringed and what Constitutional issue is involved here. At this juncture, they don't really want any long story, just that!

[IanF]

OK so now we need to find out what the legal mechanisms are? It seems most here agree.

[Citizen X]

OK so now we need to find out what the legal mechanisms are? It seems most here agree.

Very true Ian, I'll be perfectly honest with you, I haven’t had a chance to study all of the New Economic Alliances documents and court papers etc; there’s quite a bit! In fairness to them, I will want to properly study their documents before I give my layperson’s findings! Regardless, any appeal is almost always based on a question of law as opposed to a question of fact.(some insight, in criminal matters the Supreme Court of Appeal won’t hear an appeal on questions of fact simply because the trial court is in a far better position to assess aspects such as credibility of witnesses which you can’t really do on paper. That said, Scotty has given indication that this is bound to be a Constitutional Court matter. The ‘legal mechanism ,’ or question to the CC will simply initially be “Is there a Constitutional issue involved here in the first place? ”What Constitutional right has been infringed?”
So, yes, its legal mechanisms we mostly interested in. I think this is so, so that we can get a fair idea of what their prospects of success are? Going forward, there is a very special and specific Constitutional Court Appeal i.e. appeal from Supreme Court of Leave to CC that I very specifically want to use to demonstrate how clearly and concisely the CC wants things unpacked. In short this woman was convicted of murder, she went right through to the SCA, but did not succeed. She appealed to the CC as the CC says actually anyone that acts in the interst of themselves or a group of people with common cause may petition the court on Constitutional issues. They don’t hear any other issue and have made that clear in case law. She created a longwinded , long, very long, about the turn, too long story about battered women syndrome and how the SCA did not regard this. In short the CC averred that she did not apply for leave to appeal on grounds of new evidence and even if she did, her matter was not a Constitutional issue not matter how she attempted to make it seem as though it was a Constitutional issue….
I have no doubt that Scotty and company have their hearts in the right place but one must never underestimate the banks as a boxing contender: They the reigning heavy weight champion money wise!!!

[tec0]

Banks are ok for investments but I fear because long term work and or “permanent work” is going the way of the dodo so will long-term investments. Fact is a 10 year investment becomes a gamble if your contract at your employer only extends for a few months.

I always said that labour brokers will be a massive negative on our economy but if you look at what is happening at the moment you realise that “investments” can no longer cope simply because the income capital is not there to support the structure.

Thus the total investment power of the company will diminish over the next 5 to 10 years leaving the supper wealthy to feed off each other like parasites.

That said 5 year investment plans along with flexible “trusts” is the new solution “low risk” and reasonable rewards are attractive to the “average investor”

The actual ownership of rare metals is also on the rise. Silver especially… as it is cheaper then Gold but still retain good value and as it is slowly becoming more expensive to mine silver, you know the value will grow steadily but slowly.

But in all honesty I am looking forward to the new government body that will regulate the value of property. It will appropriately devaluate property thus making it more affordable to buy and to restore.

Right now property is at a all time high, broken down homes with high restoration costs still sells for millions. This is not an investment it is extortion.

[Blurock]

But in all honesty I am looking forward to the new government body that will regulate the value of property. It will appropriately devaluate property thus making it more affordable to buy and to restore.

Right now property is at a all time high, broken down homes with high restoration costs still sells for millions. This is not an investment it is extortion.

Do you know something that we don't? Are we heading for a communist government where they decide where you will stay and what we pay for our property?

I think not. The government needs the tax to fund their gravy train and corruption and they are forever looking at new sources of revenue. Our local municipality re-valued my property earlier this year. The increased valuation, combined with the 9% increase in rates, resulted in a 17% increase in the amount I have to pay for rates on my property. Do you think these crooks will give it up? Dream on...

[wynn]

broken down homes with high restoration costs still sells for millions. This is not an investment it is extortion.

Position, position, position.
A broken down shack on Clifton beach is worth more than a mansion in Tafelsig???

[Darkangelyaya]

Sheesh,
I'm back... what a week!
a) Nobody told anyone to not repay their legally owed debts;
b) Check out the poll results to see how much trust and faith we have in banks;
c) Be informed - wake up, and investigate every aspect of your life - it's called being present, living in the now, etc...
d) If a rich uncle of yours died and paid off all your debt, would you still insist on paying your bond back to the bank?!!!
Sigh...
I just obliterated my last remaining shred of dignity by tripping UP some steps.
Viva Ubuntu.

[Darkangelyaya]

Very true Ian, I'll be perfectly honest with you, I haven’t had a chance to study all of the New Economic Alliances documents and court papers etc; there’s quite a bit! In fairness to them, I will want to properly study their documents before I give my layperson’s findings! Regardless, any appeal is almost always based on a question of law as opposed to a question of fact.(some insight, in criminal matters the Supreme Court of Appeal won’t hear an appeal on questions of fact simply because the trial court is in a far better position to assess aspects such as credibility of witnesses which you can’t really do on paper. That said, Scotty has given indication that this is bound to be a Constitutional Court matter. The ‘legal mechanism ,’ or question to the CC will simply initially be “Is there a Constitutional issue involved here in the first place? ”What Constitutional right has been infringed?”
So, yes, its legal mechanisms we mostly interested in. I think this is so, so that we can get a fair idea of what their prospects of success are? Going forward, there is a very special and specific Constitutional Court Appeal i.e. appeal from Supreme Court of Leave to CC that I very specifically want to use to demonstrate how clearly and concisely the CC wants things unpacked. In short this woman was convicted of murder, she went right through to the SCA, but did not succeed. She appealed to the CC as the CC says actually anyone that acts in the interst of themselves or a group of people with common cause may petition the court on Constitutional issues. They don’t hear any other issue and have made that clear in case law. She created a longwinded , long, very long, about the turn, too long story about battered women syndrome and how the SCA did not regard this. In short the CC averred that she did not apply for leave to appeal on grounds of new evidence and even if she did, her matter was not a Constitutional issue not matter how she attempted to make it seem as though it was a Constitutional issue….
I have no doubt that Scotty and company have their hearts in the right place but one must never underestimate the banks as a boxing contender: They the reigning heavy weight champion money wise!!!

Ever heard of David and Goliath?

[Justloadit]

Position, position, position.
A broken down shack on Clifton beach is worth more than a mansion in Tafelsig???

Has anyone taken the time to look at the latest building regulations?
Well, make sure you are sitting down, because if not you will fall down!
Typical government - regulations are simply made with out studying the repercussions to the market, for manufacturers of materials, service providers, builders and home buyers.
The new regulations are going to force the cost of new homes to cost more to build than in the past.
So it will be "cheaper" to buy something old and renovate than to build new. Renovating will not require following the latest building codes.

So be ready for cost of housing to go up, and not down, simply because the cost of building according to the new regulations, is going to cost so much more.

[Mike C]

Is this similar to what is being discussed in this thread about bonds - or totally different?

My wife received this notification yesterday.

We are pleased to advise you that Edcon Proprietary Limited ("Edcon") and Absa Bank Limited ("Absa") have entered into a strategic arrangement. On 1 November 2012, Absa became the credit provider for all South African customers with Edgars, Jet, Boardmans and Legit store cards.

Although Absa now provides the credit facility on your store card, it will be business as usual for you:


• Your credit limit and repayment terms remain unchanged;
• Your store card continues to be available for use; and
• You can continue to make your repayments as you have previously done.

You may raise any query in relation to your account by calling the customer helpline on 0860 112 442.

We look forward to continuing to provide value to you through your store card credit facility and, in partnership with Edcon, broadening the range of financial services and products currently available to you.

Yours faithfully

Cowyk Fox
Absa General Manager

[vieome]

Ever heard of David and Goliath?

Is that the story of the small well armed boy taking down a big un-armed man?

[Darkangelyaya]

Is that the story of the small well armed boy taking down a big un-armed man?

Never bring a gun to a knife-fight.....

[Darkangelyaya]

Is this similar to what is being discussed in this thread about bonds - or totally different?

My wife received this notification yesterday.

I might be mistaken, but I think it is the same thing. Credit Cards definitely fall into this category, but store cards... not 100% sure, although it technically is credit too.

[ScottyC]

Hi everyone, especallly to Darkangelyaya, you have held up the flag well! Bravo chick!

The one part that I took a chuckle at is the part where someone says "you borrowed money so you must pay it back." WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. If you believe this, then with the greatest of respect, you just don't get how the three trade methodologies - seignorage, fractional reserve banking and securitisation operate in the modern banking system. In fact, almost every word in that sentence is wrong.

Firstly, there is no "you" because you do not own the money in your bank account. The bank owns your money - check out SA Law for confirmation. That means, you are merely operating as a kind of agent for the bank when you make a so-called "transfer." You don't pay for anything, you merely adminster the bank's account for them. Did you get the profoundness of this statement? "YOU" DO NOT EXIST - "YOU" ARE MERELY A SURROGATE BANK EMPLOYEE ADMINSTERING THE BANK'S ACCOUNTS FOR THEM. "None are more enslaved than those who honestly believe they are free."


Secondly, the word "borrow" is so misleading it makes you want to vomit. There is no "borrower" in a "loan agreement." In fact, there is no "money" - there are only bank IOU's (with no substance backing them) that masquerade as money. There can be no borrower, because the matching principle according to GAAP, merely allows banks to EXTEND or ADVANCE CREDIT. You give the bank an asset (negotiable instrument) and in return you get a credit facility (bank liability = promise to pay money = money). The bank doesn't loan you money, it just makes a facility available via a book-balancing act which you can then spend. You then pay it back with interest!!! That is why people say that money is created out of nothing.

"pay it back" - it is NOT possible to pay money back because it was never lent to you in the first place. BANKS DO NOT LEND THEIR DEPOSITS. Deposits are merely give the bank its illusion of liquidity so they can fractionalise its reserve depsoits into loans 10 times over. This is MONEY MADE OUT OF THIN AIR. Therefore, it is not possible to pay a debt - it is only possible to DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION. See the court case Stanek vs. White in the US. When you figure this out... oh wow, the world will change for you.

With the greatest of love and respect, please read the NewERA documents properly - especially Securitisation - A Conspiracy of Silence. Also, listen to the interviews with our legal advisor.

When the penny drops, we look forward to you all standing with us.

ScottyC