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/s...0123#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.