New Economic Rights Alliance???The Big Case?

[Citizen X]

Hi everyone, I am Scott Cundill, the Chairman of the New Economic Rights Alliance (www.newera.org.za). This is very real. Most of your questions can be answered on our website, but to be honest they have already been answered in this email. You will note three things about the above email. 1. Proof from the Reserve Bank that the bank loses the rights to the asset in the securitisaiton process (this was attached to the original email). 2. Proof that SA banks are securitising at a rate of about R30billion per month. 3. A list of overseas court cases that show that this idea is not new, nor is it "conspiracy theory" but has been proven in overseas courts. Anyone who investigates the evidence can see this for themselves. However, for the ultimate proof, go to http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray and you can listen to interviews with our legal advisor that explains the whole system in South African legal and banking terms. This information is free as we are an NPO. Donations are always welcome - how else can we get to the truth unless we dig for it? [/i]

Hi Scotty C,
I'd like to impress upon you that I'm pleased that you've taken this opportunity to clarify matters! It's clear you using comparitive law i.e. international law.
1. Correct me if I'm wrong but International law is not an authoritative source of South African Law. As at today's date, the authoritative sources of South African law are : 1: Legislation; 2:Caselaw; 3:Common Law and 4: Custom law BUT just like academic textbooks they do have persuasive value; the bottom line is that any international case will still only be deemed to have persuasive value and presiding officers will still largely only look to the authoritative sources of South African Law;
“Section 39(1) of the Constitution makes it compulsory for a court to consider international law in the determination of constitutional issues. Recourse to international law, which has a wealth of conventions and practices which are designed to protect and promote human rights, is
indispensable to the development of South African constitutional jurisprudence, particularly in the analysis of the Bill of Rights.Foreign law. Section 39(1)(c) of the Constitution provides that the courts may consider foreign law, that is, especially case law from other countries such as Canada, Germany, USA, India etc. This is a discretionary power, which means that the courts may choose to consider the laws of other countries where there is insufficient guidance available from South African sources.”(UNISA 2010:5)
2. Is this case pending? Is the case dismissed? In short what are the latest court developments on this matter? and why do you charge a subscription fee?(I know you guys have a website, I will refer to it for detailed information), Regardless, I would appreciate an unambiguous response on my questions please Sir?

[ScottyC]

Hi there, I have been asked by the Moderator to respond to questions. Please Google "the new economic rights alliance" and you will see many news items both locally and around the world come up.

The NPO is duly registered which you can confirm with CIPRO.

Thank you,

Scott

[ScottyC]

Ok, to reply to your questions:

1. Correct! Our case action in the High Court (see www.thebigcase.co.za) is a Consitutional action! Case number 27478/12. The papers are available on the site and an update is coming out soon. Futhermore, for a full response to your questions, real the latest post on www.newera.org.za. That will take you to a link at http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray which will allow you to download and listen to a series of interviews with our legal advisors. He goes into common law, case law, etc. and referenced SA banking as it relates to South Africa. Once you have been through these interviews, and the posts on our website, court papers and watched my free series of videos called "The Dark Secrets of Money (and what we can do about it)" you will fully understand!

Kind regards,

Scott

[ScottyC]

One more thing - banking is very similar across all countries in the world (with the exception of only a very few). Securitisation as a process is almost idential to that of the US, with the exception that a few names have changed. Hence, the US is a starting point for an understanding of securitisation. More importantly, I quote international cases on securitisation because it proves to people that this approach is REAL. It is not consipiracy theory or mumbo jumbo and if it can work overseas, it could also work here. The balance of the reserach is specific to SA.

[ScottyC]

Just a note with regard to securitisation. With securitisation, there is a fundamental difference between a "cession" and a "sale." In securitisation, a true SALE takes place. Please go to http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray to listen to interviews that explain this in great detail.

[ScottyC]

Now THIS is a very very good point. The SPV that trades the debt on the JSE or bond markets carries insurance in case of a default (you may have heard of a Credit Default Swap). Therefore, if someone defaults on the loan, insurance covers this. Therefore, the SPV gets paid out, the bank have been paid out so where does the money go after an auction takes place? This is the basis of our upcoming class action against the banks. Again I urge you to listen here: http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray .

[ScottyC]

Good point again. The point is this - did the bank state up front what it's true role in the relationship with the customer is? The answer is NO. They did not disclose that they were acting as agent, third party collector, etc. and thus the fiduciary between them and their customer was broken.

[Dave A]

Now THIS is a very very good point. The SPV that trades the debt on the JSE or bond markets carries insurance in case of a default (you may have heard of a Credit Default Swap). Therefore, if someone defaults on the loan, insurance covers this. Therefore, the SPV gets paid out, the bank have been paid out so where does the money go after an auction takes place? This is the basis of our upcoming class action against the banks. Again I urge you to listen here: http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray .

I suggest any recoveries should go back to the insurance company.

Can you confirm absolutely that the South African SPV's are insured against debtor default? I know this is the case in the USA, but as stated earlier my understanding is the USA has a significantly different property mortgage regime.

[Citizen X]

Ok, to reply to your questions:

1. Correct! Our case action in the High Court (see www.thebigcase.co.za) is a Consitutional action! Case number 27478/12. The papers are available on the site and an update is coming out soon. Futhermore, for a full response to your questions, real the latest post on www.newera.org.za. That will take you to a link at http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray which will allow you to download and listen to a series of interviews with our legal advisors. He goes into common law, case law, etc. and referenced SA banking as it relates to South Africa. Once you have been through these interviews, and the posts on our website, court papers and watched my free series of videos called "The Dark Secrets of Money (and what we can do about it)" you will fully understand!

Kind regards,

Scott

Many thanks indeed Sir! Nothing ventured, nothing gained! I am personally all for the little guy, the average Joe taking on the Corporate giants when they infringe our rights. I merely curious as to how this matter will eventually pan out i.e what the final outcome actually be? I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how it turns out...

[Citizen X]

Hi there, I have been asked by the Moderator to respond to questions. Please Google "the new economic rights alliance" and you will see many news items both locally and around the world come up.

The NPO is duly registered which you can confirm with CIPRO.

Thank you,

Scott

Dear Scotty,
I don't doubt at all that you are duly registered. It’s noteworthy that we often refer to 'a section 21 company,' true to an extent; it should be a former section 21 registered company. I’m aware that all companies that registred as a certain form of ownership will retain their original registration. The only reason I raised this, is because I still hear , especially on radio stations, people referring to current non profit companies as section 21 companies. This only causes confusion from a practical perspective as section 21 of the repealed companies act of 1973 states“21. Incorporation of associations not for gain.

(1) Any association-
(a) formed or to be formed for any lawful purpose;
(b) having the main object of promoting religion, arts, sciences, education, charity, recreation, or any other cultural or social activity or communal or group interests;
(c) which intends to apply its profits (if any) or other income in
promoting its said main object;
(d) which prohibits the payment of any dividend to its members;
and
(e) which complies with the requirements of this section in respect to its formation and registration, may be incorporated as a company limited by guarantee.
(2) The memorandum of such association shall comply with the requirements of this Act and shall, in addition, contain the following provisions:
(a) The income and property of the association whence soever derived shall be applied solely towards the promotion of its main object, and no portion thereof shall be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, by way of dividend, bonus, or otherwise howsoever, to the members of the association or to its holding
company or subsidiary: Provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the payment in good faith of reasonable remuneration to any officer or servant of the association or to any member thereof in return for any services actually rendered to the association.
(b) Upon its winding-up, deregistration or dissolution the assets of the association remaining after the satisfaction of all its liabilities shall be given or transferred to some other association or institution or associations or institutions having objects similar to its main object, to be determined by the
members of the association at or before the time of its dissolution or, failing such determination, by the Court.
(3) The provisions of section 49 (1) (c) of this Act shall not apply to any
such association.
(4) Existing associations incorporated under section 21 of the repealed Act shall be deemed to have been formed and incorporated under this section.”


BUT

Section 21 of the new Companies Act 71 of 2005 as amended states:-


“21. Pre-incorporation contracts

(1) A person may enter into a written agreement in the name of, or purport to act in the name of, or on behalf of, an entity that is contemplated to be incorporated in terms of this Act, but does not yet exist at the time.
(2) A person who does anything contemplated in subsection (1) is jointly and severally liable with any other such person for liabilities created as provided for in the pre-incorporation contract while so acting, if-
(a) the contemplated entity is not subsequently incorporated; or
(b) after being incorporated, the company rejects any part of such an agreement or action.
(3) If, after its incorporation, a company enters into an agreement on the same terms as, or in substitution for, an agreement contemplated in subsection (1), the liability of a person under subsection (2) in respect of the substituted agreement is discharged.
(4) Within three months after the date on which a company was incorporated the board of that company may completely, partially or conditionally ratify or reject any pre-incorporation contract or other action purported to have been made or done in its name or on its behalf, as contemplated in subsection (1).
(5) If, within three months after the date on which a company was incorporated, the board has neither ratified nor rejected a particular pre-incorporation contract, or other action purported to have been made or done in the name of the company, or on its behalf, as contemplated in subsection (1), the company will be regarded to have ratified that agreement or action.
(6) To the extent that a pre-incorporation contract or action has been ratified or regarded to have been ratified in terms of subsection (5)-
(a) the agreement is as enforceable against the company as if the company had been a party to the agreement when it was made; and
(b) the liability of a person under subsection (2) in respect of the ratified agreement or action is discharged.
(7) If a company rejects an agreement or action contemplated in subsection (1), a person who bears any liability in terms of subsection (2) for that rejected agreement or action may assert a claim against the company for any benefit it has received, or is entitled to receive, in terms of the agreement or action.”
As a member of the public though, I would like to enquire as to why it’s necessary to pay a subscription fee to your company for receiving newsletters, updates etc? Shouldn’t they donate as and whenever they want to as opposed to been debited every month? Just a question, that’s all!

Alot of people still believe, based on what they currently say, that going forward, all non profit companies are section 21 companies, as mentioned, this won't apply to you as you registred under the old act before the new act came into being, but according to the new act, a non profit company is no longer a section 21 company simply becuase section 21 states something completed different....food for thought really!