Lawsuit Against the Banks

Hooray the fiuture looks great again God bless MIchael

Are
Fraudulent Banks Selling “Reverse London Bridges” to South
African Investors?

Tom
Dennen

The
Directors of the New Economic Rights Alliance (New Era) have been
ordered to appear in Court on May 14 to explain why they should not
pay
Investec’s legal costs in
their personal capacity.

New
Era accused South African banks of being involved in a
‘securitisation’ of the SA economy and then supended
“all
legal action
currently taken against every
South African by the banks, until a full investigation has been
undertaken into our banking system”.

This
withdrawal released the matter
from sub judice constraints,
so “it can be reported on as “freely as the press is allowed”
before the ‘Secrecy’ Act regulates comment on
matters not sub
judice.

New
Era claims

Potentially
tens of thousands of homes and other assets have been repossessed
illegally “due to the banks’ lack of legal standing in
securitisation transactions,

The
full effect of… the securitisation of the SA economy is being
hidden…

Investec
has been acting as an agent between its customers and a plethora of
secretive securitisation corporations without their written
permission as required by the Bank Act,

Investec
has not disclosed to their customers whether or not their loans have
been securitised.

The
audited reports of the banks may be misrepresenting their financial
position.

They
have not reported to the National Credit Register any change of
ownership in a securitsation transaction as required by s69(4) of
the National Credit Act.

Debt
counsellors cannot perform their role effectively as they do not
know who are the true owners of their clients’ loans.

New
Era also asks, “Is a special purpose vehicle used for
securitisation a registered credit provider? And are they legally
allowed to charge interest on such loans?

“The
entire process of securitisation is deeply questionable.”
Why?

It
can and has been seriously abused.

Securitisation
is the practice of ‘bundling’ various different types of contractual
debt (commercial mortgages, auto & credit card loans and others)
along with residential mortgages, into a debt ‘book’ and selling that
consolidated book to speculators who invest in the the book at less
than its total future value. The book’s validity is secured though
residential borrowers’ traditionally full commitment to that debt
obligation and so the bundle itself including
the other debts becomes a
“Mortgage-backed” secuity.

When
less secure debt obligations like ‘maxed-out’ credit card debts are
added to this financial instrument, the “security” of the
residential mortgage assumption carries over (‘securitised’) to the
card debt, surreptitiously undermining the value of the instrument
and eventually trust in it.

After
deregulation of banks in the US, those bundles were allowed to carry
a Triple-A rating on stock exchanges because they were
‘mortgage backed’.

Mortgage
debt is the most secure, but also profitable: For example, interest
on R800k borrowed over 20 years for a home is ‘worth about as much’
as the original loan and, payed back over its 20 year ‘life’, worth
another R800k or more, depending on the Repo Rate or any agreement
that may have made with the bank like ‘fixing’ interest repayment
rates..

So
the lender begins with a potential outstanding amount of R1 600k on a
home, a 100% return.

Selling
it to multiple long-term investors at a market-related price today,
of say, R1 200k, relieves the bank of the debt, yielding a relatively
quick profit while investors are confident of R1 600k back (over 20
years) on their R1 200K investment.

So
far, so good… our trust has not yet been abused, merely exploited.

But
now we don’t know who ‘owns’ the paper on the debt.

A
worst-case securitisation scenario smashed into the US economy during
2008 when ‘toxic’ (worthless) ‘sub-prime’ mortgage agreements, that
sellers knew would never yield repayment revenues, were fraudulently
‘made secure’ when bundled with trustworthy mortgage debt and sold
as Triple-A shares to unsuspecting investors.

The
‘toxic asset’ defaults in those Triple-A bundles caused the
“Sub-Prime Crash” of 2008.

“Questionable”
indeed!

An
interesting positive ‘unentended consequence’ of this fraudulent
behavior ‘legalises’ the ‘London Bridge loophole’: “I’ll sell you
title (to the London Bridge) but can only transfer that title to you
“once I have Proof of Ownership” sometime in the future.”

By
making it almost impossible to know physically
where the original mortgage loan documents are, securitasation makes
it legally possible for aware home-owners to fight foreclosure as SA
law requires proof of ownership on the part of the entity
instituting the action in order to legally
foreclose – the ‘London Bridge’ remains in the owners hands!

Banking
regulations protect both home owners and small investors from
‘sub-prime’ type fraud. Deregulating banks – in the US as early as
the Reagan administration – can allow securitisation corporations
access to private funds such as savings accounts, pension funds and
other ‘secure’ instruments designed to benefit the depositors
only.

For
obvious reasons ‘access denied’ normally applies to those funds.

Unconfirmed
Media reports, that the SA government has tapped into civil service
pension funds to secure capital for e-tolling, suggest that some bank
deregulation may have already taken place here.

It
is more than relevant that in this global economic ‘Clash of
Civilizations’ we are experiencing, that we are financially aware.

All
Law speaks the same language on Usury. One Civilization still holds
to that language, the other lost it decades ago.

The
Old Testament and the New, the Q’uran, the Tao te Ching, the Bahgavat
Gita and every other ‘religious’ text extant today is explicit on the
subject: Any interest at all charged on money lent is usury; it is
intrinsically destructive to civil society, it is fundamentally wrong
and not only historically criminalised, but a ‘sin’.

Why?

It
is a fundamental abuse of trust, especially if sanctioned by a
nation’s rulers.

South
Africa is sitting on the economic fence between NATO and BRICS.

Will
its Free Press take up the New Era challenge and speak up for that
Government Pensioner unknowingly speculating on ‘sinful’ e-toll
financing… or join the Rest of the West?

Tom
Dennen

Overport

085
053 0385

Sources:

“He who takes interest for a loan of money acts unjustly for he sells
what does not exist. It is wrong in itself to take a price (usury)
for the use of money lent, and as in the case of other offences
against justice, one is bound to make restitution of his unjustly
acquired money” – Thomas
Aquinas,

One discerns wrong livelihood as wrong livelihood, and right livelihood
as right livelihood. And what is wrong livelihood? Scheming,
persuading, hinting, belittling, and charging interest. This is wrong
livelihood.” -
Siddharta Gautama Buddha.

If one has charged interest or taken increase– shall he then live? He
shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, he shall
surely die; his blood shall be upon him. -
Ezekiel (18:13)

“One who lends money on usury cannot be regarded as reformed until he tear
up his account-books and effect a complete reformation.” – Talmud,
Tractate Sanhedrin II.

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties
than standing armies…

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of
their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and
corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the
people of all property – until their children wake up homeless on the
continent their fathers conquered, Jefferson 1802.

“And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit
is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much
back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in
return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of
the Most High – Jesus Christ (Luke 6:34-35)

“If you have money, do not lend it at interest. Rather, give to someone
from whom you will not get it back” Jesus in the Gospel
of Thomas (95)

Owe no person anything, except to love one another” the same Man in
Apostle Paul (Romans 13:8)

“Murderers, Suicides, Sodomites… Usurers” dwellers in Dante’s Seventh Level

“Meanwhile a powerful host of accusers fell with sudden fury on the class which
systematically increased its wealth by usury in defiance of a law
passed by Caesar the Dictator defining the terms of lending money and
of holding estates in Italy , a law long obsolete because the public
good is sacrificed to private interest“The curse of usury was
indeed of old standing in Rome and a most frequent cause of sedition
and discord, and it was therefore repressed even in the throes of a
less corrupt morality. – Tacitus, the Annals of Rome, A.D. 29.