The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

For the 1st Time in History a Bank is being taken to the Constitutional Court!

View previous topic View next topic Go down

For the 1st Time in History a Bank is being taken to the Constitutional Court!

Post by Snifferdog on 01.06.12 15:37

Please read the following which I have copied and pasted to save time. If we can get enough people interested to follow this court case below it could have far reaching repercussions for the present world wide banking system, and the future of you and your children.
Micheal Tellenger, a South African author, scientist and explorer has lodged a case against Standard Bank at the Constitutional Court in South Africa. This is the first time in hostory that a bank has been taken to a Constitutional Court in History.
Unfortunately and naturally, you will not find much information on the following in the newspapers, but there is a lot out on the net.

The New Economic Rights Alliance (www.newera.org.za) is preparing for a Constitutional
Court Case that aims to obtain transparency in banking (case number CCT38/12). This is a
once-in-history opportunity.

For the first time, a full bench of 11 judges, 22 registrars, eight clerks, four joined advocates
and four additional researchers will hear a case that goes to the heart of the banking system.
With so much financial turmoil overseas, a case like this has been destined to break. We
believe that South Africa is the one country that has the right mix of variables to make a case
like this possible.

This is an enormous undertaking and we require 20,000 signatures to have the desired impact.
Please sign this online petition: http://micro2.majesticinteractive.co.za/bf.php?fid=1151 and
ask everyone you know to do the same. The time for truth in banking is now.

The following outlines the reasons behind this action:

1. Banks do not “loan” money as their prolific advertisements claim. Money loaned is
actually money created, via an elaborate scheme of paper shifting and number
crunching. This involves the use of loan application forms and negotiable instruments,
the result being debit and credit book entries that have no liquid money value. It can be
said that banks make money out-of-thin-air under the “pretence” of a loan, but in
reality it is not a loan at all. This is deceptive and misleading as very few South Africans
know the truth.

2. It is a common legal principle in our law that one must possess that which one loans.
For reasons above, the banks are unable to meet this, a fundamental criteria for a valid
borrower / lender contract.

3. Banks are failing to provide simple information to their customers that should be easy
to access. Examples include a certificate of balance, audited proof that a lawful
“deposit” was actually made and the physical location of original documents, promissory
notes and other negotiable instruments. Instead of providing the customer with this
information, they choose to take legal action, and foreclose on homes and assets with
remarkable alacrity.

4. The banks are acting as intermediary / agent between the customer and other parties.
It is a requirement that an agency relationship be fully disclosed up front to the
customer. The banks do not disclose this relationship and, as a result, most people are
under the complete illusion that they are borrowing from their bank in the ordinary
sense of the word.
The New Economic Rights Aliance NPC. Directors: SC Cundil, BA Vermak, GJ Robertse, DC Modley, CG Sapsford.

5. Banks engage in a widespread and common practice called securitisation. Instead of
borrowing from the Reserve Bank on our behalf, banks bundle many loans together and
then sell these bundles to investors whereby the loans become securities. This process
caused the stock market crash of 2008 and threatens the global economy as we speak.
In fact, the betting game being played by the banks, called the derivatives market, is
currently estimated to be 20 times larger than the GDP of the entire planet. Rather than
slowing down, its sheer propensity for profit has led to a rampant growth of the
industry in South Africa. The Banks Act makes it crystal clear that securitisation falls
outside the business of a bank. Therefore, it is a blatant breach of the Bank Act for a
bank to engage in this practice, and rightly so.

6. Banks refuse to disclose the securitisation process to the customer, who has a legal
right to this information. When a customer asks for disclosure, the banks do not even
bother responding, or respond using unintelligible legal jargon. The entire securitisation
process is kept tightly secret while it provides huge profits to those behind the scenes.
Instead of securitisation providing a benefit to the customer by way of lower interest
rates, the reverse occurs: banks swiftly and relentlessly foreclose on assets in order to
satisfy the needs of their investors. It should also be mentioned that banks have been
known to securitise a debt several times, and that should a person default those
investors are protected by an insurance policy.

7. We have written confirmation from the South African Reserve Bank that, once a bank
sells a loan into a securitisation pool, they lose the legal right to that asset. This means
that literally tens, if not hundreds of thousands of homes and other assets have been
taken away from South Africans illegally because the wrong entity is suing in court.

8. Banks do not use “money,” they use negotiable instruments. These instruments are
defined clearly in the Bills of Exchange Act and have been used by trading merchants
for thousands of years. It is the constitutional right of every South African to have an
explanation of how our instruments are being used, traded, and exploited by the banks.

9. Banks are foreclosing on people’s homes and assets by using the contract as a shield.
Their argument is simple: “you signed a contract, so you must pay.” By sticking to the
age old axiom: the-agreement-is-king, anyone attempting to look behind the shield is
prohibited from doing so. This loan agreement, which is a series of one-way payments
with absolutely no risk whatsoever to the bank, is somehow enough to allow them to
win in court. We believe that granting summary judgment in such a manner, without
the courts listening to the counter argument that the contract is not valid due to
malicious deception, is unconstitutional.

10. It is illegal for banks to claim more than double the amount loaned from any borrower
(the in duplum rule). However, banks are not only breaking this rule, but they are also
forcing people to pay the interest on loans up front. In other words, the interest is paid
back first, before the principal. This is plainly illegal.

11. The collection processes in banks have become so extreme, that call centre operators
have been known to verbally abuse customers. The customer believes, quite wrongly,
that the bank is running at a loss and is simply doing its best to get its money back.
This illusion is maintained by the banks who continue to refine their well-oiled, clinical
machine of repossession and foreclosure.

12. If a bank employee dispenses with an affidavit, it is a legal requirement that the
directors of that bank first dispense with a Special Resolution granting permission for
that employee to make such an affidavit. This rule is currently being circumvented.
Somehow, half-hearted affidavits, made by just about anyone in the bank, are being
successfully used to obtain judgment and foreclosures.
The New Economic Rights Aliance NPC. Directors: SC Cundil, BA Vermak, GJ Robertse, DC Modley, CG Sapsford.

13. When a bank makes a deposit, they are prescribed by law to adhere to certain
administrative procedures outlined in the Banks Act. This is to ensure that the required
liquidity procedures are adhered to. Banks are circumventing these procedures and are
engaging in unlawful deposits, placing the economy of the entire country at risk.

14. There is an overall sense of conduct and legal justice required for the good of the
community (boni mores). By opting to merely rubber stamp orders during Summary
Judgment (a process which has been called a “draconian measure” by our very own
honourable Judges), without so much as even testing these arguments, the courts and
banks are tearing down the very fabric of the Constitution.

15. The legal relationship between a bank and its customer is fiduciary, not dissimilar to
that of a doctor and his patient, an estate agent and a home owner or a lawyer and her
client. By engaging in secret and underhanded dealings, and by not disclosing the full
truth up front, the banks are taking full advantage of their customers in the name of
profiteering. As such, this fiduciary relationship has been broken which is a most grave
and serious crime. This crime is perpetuated when the principal fails to answer, and
even bluntly ignores the requests and pleas of their customer in their hour of need.

16. Finally, it is a constitutional right for a person to have a full and fair trial. This right is
being circumvented by the courts in favour of swift and harsh Summary Judgments,
leading to the loss of assets and homes.

Should this action be successful, what is the benefit for the average South African?

1. Interest rates and fees could be reduced, thus significantly reducing monthly
repayments.

2. Banks will become more forgiving when dealing with defaulters, possibly even taking
out an insurance policy to protect the customer.

3. Forced austerity measures, currently being implemented in several countries around the
world, could be reduced or even avoided here in South Africa.

4. Courts will have more freedom to expand the common law, providing a stronger and
fairer defence for South Africans wishing to save their homes. Currently, the banks are
ruling the courts and this has got to change.

5. There will be a more competitive choice when loaning money or purchasing a home, as
banks will be disallowed to act outside the competition legislation.

6. Secrecy in dealing with a client’s money and loan agreements will be a matter of the
past, thus transparency shall prevail and people will know the inner workings of the
banking system once and for all.

7. Additional stock options should also be available whereby the client can elect to
purchase back or extend its borrowings on the open market or through securitisation
packages. This alternative form of financing will greatly help to prevent their assets
from being taken away.

For justification for the above contentions, and an on-going discussion of the case, please visit
www.thebigcase.co.za.

____________________
“‘Conspiracy stuff’ is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.”
– Gore Vidal

Snifferdog

Posts : 1008
Reputation : 10
Join date : 2012-05-11
Location : here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum