It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
I can understand some of the legal basis for the case - simply put, that one must possess that which one loans. Banks, according to the applicants, are unable to meet the fundamental criteria for a valid borrower/lender contract. The argument is that banks don't create loans at all - basically they have been legally allowed to issue new money as an interest bearing loan without the backing of real goods and or services. I tried to explain the money multiplier principle myself to a mathematician recently and he may have listened intently and nodded at times, but failed to understand the concept that more money is created by banks from one deposit.
Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.
Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff's sale passed no title to plaintiff.
The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.
Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.
At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.
Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
Important Update regarding the Michael Tellinger case.
Mar 14, 2012 by Scott
court case, michael tellinger
Earlier today, we received the sad news that Michael Tellinger was not successful in his leave to appeal, and has not been granted a trial. We as the NPO looked forward to hearing the reasoning behind the judge’s decision. However, some alarmed NewERA Members, who were present at the hearing, have brought some serious concerns to our attention. We attach an example of such concern below.
Mr Tellinger’s argument seems to be thorough and comprehensive. If it was ignored so recklessly, do we have a duty to ask why?
We encourage you to send the attached documents to your lawyer, your accountant, your banker, and anyone you may know who has a sound logical mind. We hereby open a debate to anyone who wishes to solicit an opinion regarding these documents.
In light of this, the NPO is seriously considering to intervene more formally in the Tellinger case, as he considers alternative options available to him.
THE NEW ECONOMIC RIGHTS ALLIANCE
After a slight technical hiccup last Friday at the Constitutional Court, regarding the binding of a substantially long legal document, Michael Tellinger made global history on the 23rd & 24th April 2012, in Johannesburg when he filed his 1100-page NOTICE OF MOTION against Standard Bank in the Constitutional Court of South Africa, accusing the bank of unlawful and unconstitutional activity. The case number allocated by the Constitutional Court is CCT 28/12.
Tellinger also served the NOTICE OF MOTION on the RESERVE BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA and the MINISTER OF FINANCE, alleging that they are jointly and consciously implicated in the unscrupulous and devious activity that has led to unimaginable financial hardship of the South African people.