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

[ScottyC]

Check out Standard Banks end of year financials. They securitise anything that can be securitised. They are NOT operating as a bank, they are operating as a intermediary / agent for the shadow banking system which is highly protected by insurance (backed by the people). Naughty naughty...

[IanF]

Hi Scottyc,
You know a lot that I don't understand. Also I can't follow the logic I tried to read on your website and the only idea I get is because the bank securitised your loan you don 't have to pay it back. Now you don't pay back the loan an the bank takes you to court how do you get "proof of payment" to show you have paid back the loan?

The big picture then is the banks money is a fiction as such you don't owe it. How would the economic system work after the banks have been wiped out back to bartering?

[Citizen X]

Ever heard of David and Goliath?

Sure I have. Now you are playing nice! You give credence to my Biblical icons, then I simply must hold you in high regard!
PROBLEM: In my official capacity as member of the very exclusive club: “The weak, foolish, and lowly and despised things of this world.” I’ve given privilege in stating really whatever it is that my feable mind can conjure up when it comes to the Bible: if we going to talk witin the ambit of David V Goliath, we need to mention the essential elements.
Challenge 1: David v Goliath style battle: EXPERIENCE??
You see it’s really quite simple: David already had experience in dealing with monsters before he took on Goliath!! SAY what??
You see no soldier of King Saul had thus far taken on what David so routinely and easily took on his official capacity as shepherd. He said, I killed a BEAR, I killed a LION, I’ll take on this character!
“ The lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear, HE will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine.”1 Samuel: 17:37
Challenge 2: David v Goliath style battle: The missing ingredient
In University equivalent terms, David majored in God, that was his speciality! “ You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, BUT I come against you in the name of the Lord.”
In my opinion, in this battle, we must know what the prospects of success are! I think we need to clearly understand on what Constitutional grounds this matter is being taken to the Constitutional Court. I think we need to know for sure how many South Africans have already been successful with a simple version of this argument to the banks?(If so how many?) These are simple facts that we need, I think

[Darkangelyaya]

In my opinion, in this battle, we must know what the prospects of success are! I think we need to clearly understand on what Constitutional grounds this matter is being taken to the Constitutional Court. I think we need to know for sure how many South Africans have already been successful with a simple version of this argument to the banks?(If so how many?) These are simple facts that we need, I think

What I like the most about your post, Vanash, is the word 'WE'.

NB! I know you don't refer to international law as 100% applicable here, but go check out what happened in Iceland, and I believe Hungary is following suit.

[Darkangelyaya]

@All:
Hence the following:

http://www.theforumsa.co.za/forums/showthread.php/13713-UBUNTU-Party-Launch-Invitation?p=80123#post80123

@IanF:
ScottyC needs to answer that! I'm way too blond.
But, I can tell you that we are currently compiling a high court interdict application to stop banks from proceeding with legal action geared towards repossession, against ALL clients. Once the practice of securitisation has been fully investigated by the Law, I'm sure everyone will suddenly notice!

[Citizen X]

What I like the most about your post, Vanash, is the word 'WE'.

NB! I know you don't refer to international law as 100% applicable here, but go check out what happened in Iceland, and I believe Hungary is following suit.

I sincerely wish Scotty and company every thing of the best! I actually feel nothing for the banks. I think they've made enough profit over the years. I think they merciless when enforcing a debt; I'm for the ordinary South African
The plural ‘we,’ is actually keeping true to the original David v Goliath Biblical rendition. “ The ARMIES of the living God.”
You see David seen what no one else on that battle field was even capable of seeing! The plural noun ‘armies!’ Your typical soldier on that battle field only seen his own one army Butt not young David. He actually sees the allies on D Day, in his individual case, platoons of angels and infantries of saints. The weapons of the wind and the forces of the Earth. Since David see ‘armies,’ instead of army, he gets right into battle with Goliath.

[ScottyC]

Thats ok - I suggest going here http://www.newera.org.za/explosive-interview/ and listening to the interviews with our legal advisor. They explain the whole process. The difficult thing to get over is this issue that you don't have to pay back a loan. Although that is COMPLETELY TRUE, that is not what we are advocating. For the first time, the people now have serious firepower on their side to level the playing field. You cannot look at the banks as merely a company that wishes to make money. It is an entire interconnected global consortium that regulates the planetary society. You need to see the banks for what they REALLY are and this is much broader than most people realise.

[IanF]

I am still confused but that is normal.
Looking at the big picture, or my conclusion if you win your case against the banks how will the monetary system then work?
If I was a bank I would stop lending as it is a fiction and you will struggle to get repaid.

[Darkangelyaya]

10 Critical Questions to Ask Your Bank


If you want to understand how the banksters are deceitfully pulling the wool over all our eyes please go to the NewERA website and read the document called "Securitisation - Conspiracy of Silence" which is spreading through the Internet like wildfire. www.newera.org.za
Thanks to this document, people from all over South Africa are demanding that their bank tell them the truth. What is absolutely unbelievable, is that the banks are refusing to answer these 10 simple questions.
These are brilliantly structured to expose the banks, if they are answered - that is why they will NOT answer these questions, because that would immediately implicate them in a number of unlawful and fraudulent activities. Starting by lying to you - which is what they have been doing in at least three Supreme Court hearings in which members of the UBUNTU Party were involved.

We urge you to send these questions to your banks and demand a response within 7 days. You will find that they immediately hand you over to their external legal department, breaching client confidentiality in the process.

10 Critical Questions To Ask Your Bank Today

1. Am I indebted to the bank right now? (Please answer yes or no).
2. Please confirm that the bank actually possessed the money they claim to have lent me, prior to my loan being granted. In other words, did the bank physically have the money they lent me, prior to the money appearing in my account?
3. Would the bank be prepared to amend the credit agreement as follows: “We, the bank, did in fact possess the money we loaned you, prior to the loan being approved.”
4. Was the loan funded by assets belonging to the bank at the time the loan was granted? Either way, please describe in detail the accounting process used to create my loan.
5. Did the bank record my promissory note / negotiable instrument as an asset on its books? If yes, how was my instrument used to create my loan, and where is my valuable promissory note / negotiable instrument now?
6. Does the bank participate in a securitisation scheme whereby debts / promissory notes are bundled and then sold-on to a third party/parties via special purpose vehicles, entities or alike processes?
7. Was my loan securitised? If so, please send me all details regarding the securitisation.
8. Does the bank have a legal right to collect money it claims I owe it? If so, then were does this legal right come from, assuming the loan has been securitised?
9. Has my loan with the bank been settled by a special purpose vehicle, insurance policy, or by any other party?
10. Regarding the security given to the bank by me, has this security been sold on or given as security to another party?

NewERA is preparing a High Court Application (interdict) to prevent bank collections taken against their members. The UBUNTU Party urges everyone to join NewERA in this action and make history in taking back our economic freedom from the unlawful banskters who have been destroying people’s lives with impunity.

The banks cannot be allowed to stick their head in the sand and pretend that this R30 billion per month securitisation industry simply does not exist. While we at the UBUNTU Party are preparing our case to launch full criminal charges against the banks, we support the New Economic Rights Alliance in their proposed interdict against all SA banks, to stop all repossessions and auctions of properties until our arguments have been heard in a full trial that will expose the unlawful and fraudulent activities of the banksters.

To join the High Court interdict, and possibly protect your assets against economic hardship, please go to www.newera.org.za

Special Note: Some banks are telling their customers that NewERA is “misleading them.” If so, then surely the banks will happily answer all your questions?

VIVA UBUNTU - VIVA ABUNDANCE FOR ALL - VIVA UNITY
Michael of the family Tellinger

[Dave A]

I always worry when someone becomes too attached to a particular idea, the truth of which is marginal, and then relies on it completely in building the rest of their view of the world.

In the instance of The Big Case, this particular fixation is that a third party has "paid the debt of the homeowner". And I think it prudent to point out that there are alternative possibilities. The ones that come to mind are:

• The third party has bought a revenue stream.
• The third party has bought the debt - all that has changed is the creditor.

And there may well be more.

What fascinates me though is the seeming reluctance of the banks to tackle the cases mentioned head on and finalise the issue. And I have to wonder why.

To be plain, I don't know why, but I have considered the following possibilities:

• There is a technical flaw relating to disclosure.
• There has been some other legal flaw in the bond contract that may be vulnerable to exposure.
• The ducking of more complex cases is part of a sound legal strategy to eventually overcome the challenges.
• This particular attack deflects focus from and delays a much bigger threat - a full blown regulatory review of the securitisation of home bonds.

I know this much - as someone who has very recently taken a bond, there are some new clauses in the bond agreement that rather explicitly prevent me from mounting the sort of challenge NewERA is currently pursuing. Typical banker "belt and braces" or the response to a problem realised? Again, I don't know with certainty. But it has aroused my curiousity, so I'm following the progress of The Big Case with some interest.

I do worry about the red herrings being dragged through the mix, though. To me it does little to advance the credibility of NewERA and their Big Case. In particular, the "money out of thin air" argument is normally a clear sign you're debating with someone who is either deliberately trying to misdirect or has a poor "big picture" grasp of what a "monetary system" really is.

[Darkangelyaya]

I was wondering what your views were, Dave.

And, like the true gentleman and thinker that you are, you have addressed this exactly as I expected.

I cannot answer your questions; and I do not necessarily agree with absolutely everything that is being said under the labels of either Ubuntu or NewEra, both of which I am a member.

My view is however, to put the information out there, as factual as I'm able to under my name, or quoting the source where it's not my writings.

I always attempt to get people thinking for themselves, because that is a huge challenge for a lot of South Africans who just blindly believed in the old regime/ their specific church and its doctrine/ the local police chief / any medical doctor / their rugby team / their bank manager. (Scrap which is not applicable).

It rarely enters people's minds that there may be another way of looking at the world, there may be another religion whose followers won't all burn in hell, there may be a control-based / power-based / fear-based reason behind new and restrictive laws, there may be other worlds, aliens may really exist, and maybe the nice guy on the corner who always makes way for you really beats his wife to a pulp every weekend.

I don't care what anybody's beliefs are - monetary/fiscal/spiritual/politically/sexually/religious, none of it matters. What matters is that we start thinking for ourselves.

I personally know the person who developed the e-tolling system, for instance, and I know what his views, motivations, and reasons were for developing the system. A novel and economically sound idea to protect our transport industry, (without touching the consumer's pockets) has been turned into a huge money-making scheme. His intellectual property was taken, and then the idea behind the system has been violated. And he has not been paid.

There is corruption on every level of our Economic system. I was on a site this past week, where I was approached, twice, to inquire whether I'm open for 'pay-per-tender' discussions. I.e. Paying bribes in return for contracts. On the same site, a government employee (responsible for allocating this contract) and a contractor were in an obvious personal relationship, yet when you investigate her tender document, the affidavit states that she has no ties/friendships in government. Her company history also indicates that she only gets awarded the tenders that he oversees, every single time.

I know of, and have proof of, corruption to the tune of millions still going on in certain government sections. Even the Hawks are not willing to investigate this. Why?

All I'm saying is, let's put the information out there, for everyone to investigate on their own. If you have never encountered an idea contradicting your own, you have never questioned yours.

Let's just use our grey matter for a change. (If you could find this forum, you are quite able to think, and therefor, reason). Make up your own minds, but for goodness' sake, get both sides of the story!

[Dave A]

My view is however, to put the information out there, as factual as I'm able to under my name, or quoting the source where it's not my writings.

[Citizen X]

The following is my opinion on this matter in my official capacity as ‘Layperson to the law,’ a capacity which I’m incidentally very proud of!

My point of departure remains intellectual curiosity( as an ordinary member of the South African public).

I will state my opinion in points, I intend to unpack the procedural aspects of this case FIRST and firstly provide my opinion on one tape recording between Raymond Dicks and Scott Colin Cundil. Ideally, I’d also like to give my opinion on each averment in the particulars of claim. Since this is a colossal task, I should be in a position to provide a layperson’s opinion to each averment in stages. This post deals only with the introductory interview and the procedural aspects.
From the outset, allow me to impress upon you that I sincerely wish Scott and Newera everything of the best!
@ Newera: summons was sued out on 19 July 2012. Since this case is at the heart of openness and transparency, I’m confident that you will be open and transparent with me as an ordinary member of the public? The defendants must have delivered their plea. Please make their plea available so that we can also see what they have to say? You made your particulars of claim publically available, there should be no reason why you do the same for the defendants plea
PLEASE?
Summary of my opinion: Start opinion:That being said, my overall opinion is that the prospects of success are slim. Even if the High Court rules in their favour, the Constitutional Court still needs to confirm their findings. The sum total of my opinion is this: Customers were not loan fictitious money, as they spent the money on properties or goods and services. You can’t physically spend fictitious money! Even if through there are technicalities involved, what if the bank puts some simple questions to you?Q Did you take out a loan with bank a? A Yes QWere you forced to take out this loan? A No Q How did you spend this money A, Oh, I drew some and spent some at Sun-city, I bought a new lounge suit, I bought a house, I gave some away to the church End opinion
1. At this stage I simply want to put things into perspective from a procedural point of view;
2. I’ll start with the first recording, one of three that I have downloaded at this stage. I think this is just introductory, background interview between Scott Colin Cundil and Raymond Dicks. It’s entitled Raymond 1A(best quality);
3. Raymond Dicks is no doubt a learned man by his own testimony in this interview. I respect this fact of simply being learned.
4. Raymond inter alia talks about the sources of our South African Law. As at today’s date our sources of law are: 1. Legislation(aka enacted texts, aka Act of Parliament, aka Statute; it is a product of the National Assembly, it as an Act number and is signed into law by the President eg Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977(as amended), 2: Case Law(stare decisis:[also known as court decisions] this is court decisions which operate on the principal of judicial precedent, higher courts bind lower courts decision); 3: Common Law( This Roman- Dutch law as influenced by English law, it’s developed by our courts, it remains in force unless a statutory position states otherwise eg. the common law position of power of attorney as at today’s date is that the same can be provided verbally, tacitly or in writing UNLESS a statutory provision states otherwise; and/or where a statute is silent about a certain matter, the court will have a look at what common law has to say on that particular matter[ our Common law originated in ancient Rome, Rome had colonies, all its colonies had to accept it’s law; so when Rome colonised most of Europe including the Nederlands, the Netherlands had to accept Rome’s law. As the Netherlands developed original Rome law, they called it Roman- Dutch Law. Now, we know the story of Jan van Riebieck and company, when the first settlers started to arrive in what was then the Cape Colony, they brought along with them, this very Roman Dutch law. This Roman Dutch law was then developed in the Cape, it was a starting point if you will. Now, we know that South Africa was at one stage a British colony, they brought with them English case law. This is why I say Common law is Roman Dutch law as influenced by English Law. We still continue to develop this Common law in South Africa. This development is on-going. After 1994, our African Customary Law also known as indigenous law has had a great influence on Common law); 4.: Custom law and 5:African Customary Law). These five(5) sourcesremain our only authoritative primary sources of law; we do have secondary sources BUT they not binding and only have persuasive value e.g. International law and University textbooks and legal books. So, if you citing a Professor of Law, his view/opinion holds persuasive value at best. If in doubt, the court can even appoint what is called ‘friends of the court(amicus curiae),’ to assist them, they can appoint for instance two leading Professors of law who wrote tons of University Textbooks to assist them;
5. International law. Here I need to be very clear! We do have ‘public international law,’ not International law(comparative law). With Public International Law, we only concerned with the relationship between states. This will by definition include the law of peace and war etc. Comparitive law(comparing law by citing case law of other countries) is NO LONGER even a LLB subject. When it was a LLB subject it was optional NOT compulsory, one chose it as an elective. Now, no university has ‘Comparitive Law,’ as a LLB subject!!! So, if Law School doesn’t even have this as a subject any longer, this can be seen as an important point of departure. Prof Wily Hosten was the first South African academic to introduce ‘Comparitive law,’ into the LLB curriculum. That was then and this is now! Think of it like this, Zimbabwe also has law, just imagine if our courts were obligated to take their laws of land reform seriously! Also think of it like this, this is not Zimbabwe, or India, or England or the USA, this is South Africa! As such, we as proud South Africans have our own law and our own way of doings thinks, why must be consider what other countries are doing? I think other countries should consider what we are doing in the area of law. I’m personally not concerned about what Mugabe and Zimbabwe are doing in their law. Their law means nothing to me, our law means everything to me!
6. The LLB curriculum does indeed have a subject called ‘Banking Law!’ It doesn’t have a subject [any-longer] called ‘comparitive law!!! The next sentiment is not intended to offend, it’s intended to entertain! Allow this poor and wandering scholar some tongue and cheek. To drive home this point of national pride, I vest your attention on the 1981 fictitious movie ‘Escape from New York,’ now we know that Snake Plisken did indeed escape from New York. I now direct your attention to Escape from LA. In this movie the bad guy Georges Corraface, who has a new age cult called ‘The Shining Path revolutionaries puts it to Snake Plisken, ‘We know you escaped from New York, BUT this is not New York, this is LA!!!” So, why can’t I as an ordinary South African remark, This is not Zimbabwe, this is South Africa???
I escaped from New York!

Bad guy: " Yes, we know you escaped from New York! BUT this is not New York, this is LA!!!"

7. The Civil Procedure
What law regulates the High Courts in South Africa? I’ll give you the long title and the short title: Long title[ Rules regulating the conduct of the proceedings of the several provincial and local divisions of the Supreme Court of South Africa]. Short tile Uniform rules of court
Action proceedings. This is called action proceedings because it involves a summons. In action proceedings there is a distinction between the pleading stage and the trial stage. During the pleading stage the plaintiff and defendant exchange various document
Combined summons: The plaintiff NewEra sued out what is called combined summons. With a combined summons the summons and the particulars of claim are intrinsically joined or linked. Further-more the combined summons calls upon the defendant(the banks) is do two things: 1: Enter an appearance(notice of intention to defend) and 2: Plea( answer paragraph by paragraph to the plaintiff’s particulars of claim i.e. either admit, deny, place in issue or confess and avoid
8. Why is combined summons used?[ Rule 17(2)(a) Uniform rules of court] The combined summons is used where the plaintiff’s claim is unliquidated. To put this in simple terms, with a liquidated demand anyone can by means of simple mathematical calculation determined the amount claimed whereas with a combined summons the amount claimed (quantum of claim) can’t be established with ease as at the time of particulars of claim. The court will make a final ruling of amount after hearing both sides. Combined summons is mostly used in actions for divorce, damages and actions associated with the National Credit Act as there are many averments in these cases.
9. The parties: The plaintiff and the defendant(In civil cases these are the parties titles change on appeal i.e. applicant, respondent)
10. The standard in civil cases: Balance of probability. This is the test the court will use, who version of events is more probable on a balance of probabilities;
11. Joinder of parties[ Rule 10(1) Uniform rules of court] Requirements: Each plaintiff must have a claim against and also must act against the very same defendant(s) in this case the defendants are the banks; AND one or more defendants must be entitled to act against the defendants in a separate action. Circumstances: The claim must depend on the same question of law and/or fact;
12. What happens after summons is sued out Certain documents such as the defendants notice of intention to defend as well as their plea(answer to plaintiffs particulars of claim must be made available to the plaintiff and registrar of High Court within a prescribed period of time( known as dies induciae);
13. Summons was sued out on 19 July 2012, it could have been served in Early August, I’m being presumptuous, let’s assume the 1 August 2012. The banks had 10 days from date of 1 August to enter an appearance(which they did), they also had 20 days after service of notice of intention to defend to serve plea on plaintiff and registrar, which they must have done. They could also also served a ‘notice of exception,’ which I suspect the banks did, (If so Newera, please let us know?)

[Citizen X]

Post 2
This is still just a follow up to my previous post number . Here I still deal with the introductory interview.
Raymond Dicks makes mention of the ‘Reasonable person,’ concept of law. I honestly fail to see where or how this concept will apply anywhere in this individual case. I accept that I may be wrong, I think some simple clarification of where and how the reasonable person concept will find reference in this individual case?
The following is committed to memory! It’s not my own words! To be perfectly honest with you , I can’t recall the textbook and/or study guide where I got this from! Acknowledgement to original authors whoever you are!
Whilst the reason person is used as a test in other areas of law, it’s not used in every single civil case as a general rule. It is by and large used in the ‘Law of delict,’ in cases of gross negligence!
“The reasonable person is merely a fictitious character which the law invents to personify the objective standard of conduct which the law sets in order to determine negligence..
By reasonable man is meant an ordinary, normal, average person. In terms of case law, in Mbombela 1933 AD 269 273 the Court described the reasonable man as “the man of ordinary knowledge and intelligence. He is neither, on the one hand, an exceptionally cautious or talented person(Van As 1976 (2) SA 921 (A) 928), nor, on the other, an underdeveloped person, or somebody who recklessly takes chances.
The reasonable person accordingly finds himself somewhere between these two extremes.
The reasonable person remains an ordinary flesh and blood human being whose reactions are subject to the limitations of human nature”
Now, in latin, there was no proper term or word for reasonable person. The latin equivalent remains ‘Diligen paterfamilias or diligens bonus(responsible father of a house)
‘In Herschel v Mrupe 1954 (3) SA 464 (A) 490 it was stated that the concept of a bonus paterfamilias is not that of a timorous fainthearted always in trepidation lest he or others would suffer some injury. On the contrary he ventures out into the world, engages in affairs and takes reasonable chances. He take reasonable precaution to protect his person and property and expects others to do the same.’


‘In Robinson v Roseman 1964 (1) SA 701 (T) 715. In this case it was stated that the essence of negligence which depends on the care of a diligent man, requires the plaintiff to prove that (a) the defendant should have foreseen the possibility of his conduct injuring another in his person or his property and causing him patrimonial loss and (b) that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to have guarded against such occurrence.’

‘In Union Government v National Bank of South Africa Ltd 1921 AD 121 130 Innes CJ stated “the test as to the existence of the duty of care is by our lawthe judgment of a reasonable man. Could the infliction of injury to others have been reasonably
foreseen? If so, the person whose conduct is in question must be regarded as having owed a duty to such others, whoever they might be, to take due and reasonable care to avoid such injury.’


So in essence, as an ordinary member of the public, I’m simply asking for clarification please Newera???

[IanF]

@Scotty
Vanash has made some interesting points in his posts. Do you have any comment other than look at the website.