Posts Tagged ‘Corrupt bankers’

Posted from:

Awaken Longford

http://awakenlongford.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/mortgageholders-the-ten-most-important-questions-you-need-to-ask-your-bank/

“If all the Nations of the World are in Debt! Where did all the Money go? ”

January 15, 2013 · by

THE TEN QUESTIONS ANYBODY WHO HAS A MORTGAGE SHOULD BE ASKING THEIR BANK!

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW!

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. With reference to point 6, has my loan securitised? If so, please send me all details regarding its securitization.

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 / surety to another party?

THE 10 QUESTIONS EXPLAINED

1. Am I indebted to the bank right now? (Please answer yes or no). Obvious question, right? Wrong. In fact, your bank may well refuse to answer it. Here’s why: If your loan has been securitised, then you are no longer indebted to your bank. If you are not indebted to your bank, then in our opinion, the bank cannot take judgement against you. A recent judgment in the US (one of many similar judgments since 2008) has ordered banks to pay out US$8.5billion to consumers because of banking fraud. This is almost identical to what you should be seeking. In the case of securitisation, your legal position with the bank has changed. Did your bank disclose securitisation to you? Do you even know what it means? Probably not. Therefore, you should therefore seek recourse and follow the success of other countries. Also, if the bank does answer “yes” to this question, and it turns out that your loan has been securitised, then it is our opinion that the bank has placed itself in a position of fraud and quite possibly perjury. This could lead to criminal action against the bank and possible recourse for you.

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? It is unlikely that your bank will answer this question. However, they may try to disguise the answer by using clever language, so read their answer very carefully. If your loan was securitised, then the bank’s money was not used to fund the loan. Therefore, a legitimate loan between you and the bank may not exist. The bank could never admit this, because to do so would be to admit that there could not possibly be a loan agreement with you. Even if your loan was not securitised, then the bank still cannot answer this question. Why? Because the bank did not loan you their own lawful money. Something you need to know about banking: banks do not “loan” money in the ordinary sense of the word. This is a tricky concept, and works like this: Banks do not make loans. Instead, they “advance” or “extend” something called “credit.” This simply means that a magical facility is created that provides you with “money” that is made out of thin air. As hard as it is for you to accept this, the money loaned to you was simulated (ie virtual). To illustrate: A customer deposits €100 into their bank. The bank then quickly makes nine photocopies of that €100. They lend those photocopies to nine people, charging interest on each of those so-called loans. Then, if the loan is not paid back with interest, they take away the assets pledged as security. In reality banks do not use a photocopier, they use a computer. The loan amount is typed into the computer and, hey presto, “magical” money is created out of thin air. You think that this money is a loan, or debt so you feel obligated to pay it back. However, it was never actually lent to you in the first place.

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.” If you are wrong, then the banks would have no problem complying with this request. However, see for yourself: they will not agree to amend the contract. If your loan has been securitised, your original agreement is no longer with the bank! A bank loses all right and title to the loan agreement once it has been sold into a securitisation scheme. One cannot amend an agreement when they are no longer legally entitled to it, nor do they have it in their possession. Furthermore, any indebtedness to the bank would have been settled as a result of the sale of the asset. Put simply, no matter what the situation, the bank did not possess the money it loaned you, and never did. They are fooling you and participating in a fraud of monumental proportions. The fraud is that they cannot take away your assets without disclosing the truth to both you and the Court.

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.

If everything is legitimate and above board, then banks should have no problem explaining how your particular loan came into being. However, banks will not reveal this to you. When you ask your bank these questions, you will see for yourself. You need to know something else about banking: Banks do not deal with actual, physical “money.” Instead, they operate with promises to pay. For example: if a bank promises to pay you €10,000, that would equate to a €10,000 deposit into your account. This deposit is reflected on your statement as a promise of the bank, to you, for €10,000. In other words, it looks like you have €10,000 in your account, but actually this number merely represents €10,000 worth of promises made by a bank to you. The words “money” and “deposit” are therefore misleading. The banks redefined these words so they sound the same in everyday use, but mean something very different to the legal and banking system. Another word being misused is the word “transfer.” A transfer is not a transfer of money. It is simply a case of the bank shifting their promise to pay A to a promise to pay B. This is only an illusion of a transfer. Do you remember when you first took out a loan? You gave the bank a promise, in writing, to make payments every month, with interest. This written promise to pay money to the bank becomes the money they used to lend you! Therefore, you actually created your own loan. It takes some time to get your head around this, and we recommend you research the links below to help you understand the process.

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?

This question is designed to trick the banks. You want confirmation from your bank that they deal in negotiable instruments (promises). Once admitted, it will confirm most of what you is saying. Remember, real money (gold and silver, or notes that represent gold and silver) no longer exist. The illusion of money (known as “credit” or “bank promises”) quietly replaced real money so that the banks could fund their own business empire by creating money out of nothing, then charging interest on it. Negotiable instruments (promissory notes and bills of exchange) serve, in effect, as money. So, when you give the bank a promissory note (a written promise to pay back a loan), they convert your promise into their promise. Their promise = so called “money.” So you gave them the money they loaned you.

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?

This question is plain and simple: we want the banks to admit the obvious. We know they engage in securitisation, but once they admit this to a customer, then the customer would naturally have the right to ask a crisp follow-up question: “well then, has my specific loan been securitised?” Remember, if your loan has been securitised, then the whole game changes. This is ultimately what we want the banks to tell us. There is a very good chance that your loan has been securitised. You need to know the truth, which is why you MUST persist in your demand for the answers.

7. With reference to point 6, has my loan securitised? If so, please send me all details regarding its securitization.

It is your right to know about securitisation. If you don’t get answers, then work  obtain recourse.

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? The bank only has one counter argument to this: there is a contract between you and the bank. However, if your loan has been securitised, the contract is sold! It’s gone. The bank no longer has the contract, nor does it have the right to that contract. What part of this do the banks not understand? If a bank alludes or pretends they have it, then we believe that they are committing fraud. The contract between you and the bank could conceivably say anything it wants to. The fact is that it has been sold and the bank has lost all rights to it. In our opinion, the bank cannot legally, ethically or morally claim back the debt from you because they have already been paid.

9. Has my loan with the bank been settled by a special purpose vehicle, insurance policy, or by any other party? This is going to shock you, so be warned. When a loan is securitised, your loan gets bundled with other loans and then sold to a third party. If you default (miss a few payments), then the third party (called an SPV – Special Purpose Vehicle) carries insurance. They get paid out if you default! This needs to be emphasised: If you get sick or lose your job, or you cannot meet your repayment obligations, then the secret third parties who trade in your loans get paid out. They are protected against your default. So then… where is your protection? Nowhere. You have no protection because to protect you would mean to inform you of the game and once you know the game, the game is over. And one more thing… if the SPV is insured so they get paid out if you default… and the bank was paid for your loan right up front when the loan was securitised. So then… how and why are they able to foreclose on your assets? And where does the money go from the sale on the Sheriff’s auction? This is precisely what we are fighting to expose.

10. Regarding the security given to the bank by me, has this security been sold on or given as security / surety to another party?

This is the final nail in the coffin. Put simply, we want the bank to admit that they no longer have your security. If they do not have your security, then they cannot foreclose. The banks will never admit this because it means admitting that billions of Euro’s in foreclosures of assets over the past two decades would have been illegal. This would lead to an avalanche of lawsuits.

January 2013 with very special thanks to my friends at NewERA South Africa

———————-

Posted from:

commonly known as mark of the house of keen YouTube Channel

Published on Jan 20, 2014

Warning — Mirrored

This video is not owned by us, we are merely sharing or mirroring this video to help promote the creators view to a greater audience.

We do not monetize any mirrored videos and only have the intent to educate and inform whatever we deem worthy of sharing to others.

We have absolutely no expectation of PRIVACY in any way over a PUBLIC website, therefore we have no claim to anything we have chosen to share or mirror, it is a shame that others still do.

The more mankind wakes up to what’s going on around them the better.

Enjoy, Share, Like, Subscribe, your choice to spread the knowledge!

Legal Disclaimer;

The Information and/or knowledge contained in this video is for guidance and education only.

While we are aware of common law, we are in no way functioning in a commercial / legal capacity. The knowledge and/or information in this video are offered as an opinion only and are not a substitute for using your own brain and logic or doing your own research..

The intent of this video is to help promote knowledge to all mankind and to cause no harm, loss or fraud to anyone.

For appropriate PRIVATE LEGAL advice ‘you’ should contact or contract a PRIVATE LEGAL professional who is fluent in legalese and a member of ‘your’ PRIVATE LEGAL SOCIETY, a member of the PRIVATE LEGAL society with the correct jurisdiction and LEGAL authority over ‘your’ LEGAL and NATURAL PERSONs’.

Legal Disclaimer;

The Information and/or knowledge contained in this video is for guidance and education only.

While we are aware of statutory legislation we are in no way legal professionals, the knowledge and/or information in this video are offered as an opinion only and are not a substitute for PRIVATE professional LEGAL advice.

The intent of this video is to help promote knowledge to all mankind and to cause no harm, loss or fraud to anyone.

For appropriate PRIVATE LEGAL advice ‘you’ should contact or contract a PRIVATE LEGAL professional who is fluent in legalese and a member of ‘your’ PRIVATE LEGAL SOCIETY, a member of the PRIVATE LEGAL society with the correct jurisdiction and LEGAL authority over ‘your’ LEGAL PERSON.

All rights as man reserved without prejudice.

COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER

UNDER SECTION 107 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT 1976, ALLOWANCE IS MADE FOR “FAIR USE” FOR PURPOSES SUCH AS CRITISICM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING, SCHOLARSHIP AND RESEARCH. FAIR USE IS A USE PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT STATUTE THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE INFRINGING. NON-PROFIT,EDUCATIONAL OR PERSONAL USE TIP THE BALANCE IN FAVOR OF FAIR USE.

DO NOT WATCH THIS CLIP

IF YOU RELY ON A PRIVATE LEGAL SYSTEM TO GIVE YOUR LIFE A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY AND MEANING!

THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS CLIP IS POTENTIALLY UPSETTING BUT MUST BE WATCHED WITH AN OPEN MIND.

UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO PUT EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW TEMPORARILLY ON HOLD, AND OPEN UP TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU MAY ACTUALLY BE A MEMBER OF MANKIND LIVING IN THE REAL WORLD AS MAN, WITH EACH MAN AND WOMAN HAVING THE ABILITIES TO CREATE, REASON, PRODUCE AND LABOUR, USING LOGIC AND KNOWLEDGE AS GUIDANCE, THEN THIS CLIP IS NOT FOR YOU.

———————————————-

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/01/bankers-arrested-in-iceland-ireland-uk-usa-switzerland-india-france-russia-austria-video-2879054.html

———————————————-

You are the bank

Posted from:

http://m.vice.com/en_uk/read/larry-summers-and-the-secret-end-game-memo

The Confidential Memo at the Heart of the Global Financial Crisis
Greg Palast’s Column

By Greg Palast

When a little birdie dropped the End Game memo through my window, its content was so explosive, so sick and plain evil, I just couldn’t believe it.

The Memo confirmed every conspiracy freak’s fantasy: that in the late 1990s, the top US Treasury officials secretly conspired with a small cabal of banker big-shots to rip apart financial regulation across the planet. When you see 26.3 percent unemployment in Spain, desperation and hunger in Greece, riots in Indonesia and Detroit in bankruptcy, go back to this End Game memo, the genesis of the blood and tears.

The Treasury official playing the bankers’ secret End Game was Larry Summers. Today, Summers is Barack Obama’s leading choice for Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, the world’s central bank. If the confidential memo is authentic, then Summers shouldn’t be serving on the Fed, he should be serving hard time in some dungeon reserved for the criminally insane of the finance world.

The memo is authentic.

I had to fly to Geneva to get confirmation and wangle a meeting with the Secretary General of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy. Lamy, the Generalissimo of Globalisation, told me,

“The WTO was not created as some dark cabal of multinationals secretly cooking plots against the people… We don’t have cigar-smoking, rich, crazy bankers negotiating.”

Then I showed him the memo.

It begins with Larry Summers’ flunky, Timothy Geithner, reminding his boss to call the Bank bigshots to order their lobbyist armies to march:

“As we enter the end-game of the WTO financial services negotiations, I believe it would be a good idea for you to touch base with the CEOs…”

To avoid Summers having to call his office to get the phone numbers (which, under US law, would have to appear on public logs), Geithner listed the private lines of what were then the five most powerful CEOs on the planet. And here they are:

Goldman Sachs: John Corzine (212)902-8281

Merrill Lynch: David Kamanski (212)449-6868

Bank of America: David Coulter (415)622-2255

Citibank: John Reed (212)559-2732

Chase Manhattan: Walter Shipley (212)270-1380

Lamy was right: They don’t smoke cigars. Go ahead and dial them. I did, and sure enough, got a cheery personal hello from Reed – cheery until I revealed I wasn’t Larry Summers. (Note: The other numbers were swiftly disconnected. And Corzine can’t be reached while he faces criminal charges.)

It’s not the little cabal of confabs held by Summers and the banksters that’s so troubling. The horror is in the purpose of the “end game” itself.

Let me explain:

The year was 1997. US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was pushing hard to de-regulate banks. That required, first, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act to dismantle the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. It was like replacing bank vaults with roulette wheels.

Second, the banks wanted the right to play a new high-risk game: “derivatives trading”. JP Morgan alone would soon carry $88 trillion of these pseudo-securities on its books as “assets”.

Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers (soon to replace Rubin as Secretary) body-blocked any attempt to control derivatives.

But what was the use of turning US banks into derivatives casinos if money would flee to nations with safer banking laws?

The answer conceived by the Big Bank Five: eliminate controls on banks in every nation on the planet — in one single move. It was as brilliant as it was insanely dangerous.

How could they pull off this mad caper? The bankers’ and Summers’ game was to use the Financial Services Agreement (or FSA), an abstruse and benign addendum to the international trade agreements policed by the World Trade Organisation.

Until the bankers began their play, the WTO agreements dealt simply with trade in goods – that is, my cars for your bananas. The new rules devised by Summers and the banks would force all nations to accept trade in “bads” – toxic assets like financial derivatives.

Until the bankers’ re-draft of the FSA, each nation controlled and chartered the banks within their own borders. The new rules of the game would force every nation to open their markets to Citibank, JP Morgan and their derivatives “products”.

And all 156 nations in the WTO would have to smash down their own Glass-Steagall divisions between commercial savings banks and the investment banks that gamble with derivatives.

The job of turning the FSA into the bankers’ battering ram was given to Geithner, who was named Ambassador to the World Trade Organisation.

Bankers Go Bananas

Why in the world would any nation agree to let its banking system be boarded and seized by financial pirates like JP Morgan?

The answer, in the case of Ecuador, was bananas. Ecuador was truly a banana republic. The yellow fruit was that nation’s life-and-death source of hard currency. If it refused to sign the new FSA, Ecuador could feed its bananas to the monkeys and go back into bankruptcy. Ecuador signed.

And so on – with every single nation bullied into signing.

Every nation but one, I should say. Brazil’s new President, Inacio Lula da Silva, refused. In retaliation, Brazil was threatened with a virtual embargo of its products by the European Union’s Trade Commissioner, one Peter Mandelson, according to another confidential memo I got my hands on. But Lula’s refusenik stance paid off for Brazil which, alone among Western nations, survived and thrived during the 2007-9 bank crisis.

China signed – but got its pound of flesh in return. It opened its banking sector a crack in return for access and control of the US auto parts and other markets. (Swiftly, two million US jobs shifted to China.)

The new FSA pulled the lid off the Pandora’s box of worldwide derivatives trade. Among the notorious transactions legalised: Goldman Sachs (where Treasury Secretary Rubin had been co-chairman) worked a secret euro-derivatives swap with Greece which, ultimately, destroyed that nation. Ecuador, its own banking sector de-regulated and demolished, exploded into riots. Argentina had to sell off its oil companies (to the Spanish) and water systems (to Enron) while its teachers hunted for food in garbage cans. Then, Bankers Gone Wild in the Eurozone dove head-first into derivatives pools without knowing how to swim – and the continent is now being sold off in tiny, cheap pieces to Germany.

Of course, it was not just threats that sold the FSA, but temptation as well. After all, every evil starts with one bite of an apple offered by a snake. The apple: the gleaming piles of lucre hidden in the FSA for local elites. The snake was named Larry.

Does all this evil and pain flow from a single memo? Of course not: the evil was The Game itself, as played by the banker clique. The memo only revealed their game-plan for checkmate.

And the memo reveals a lot about Summers and Obama.

While billions of sorry souls are still hurting from worldwide banker-made disaster, Rubin and Summers didn’t do too badly. Rubin’s deregulation of banks had permitted the creation of a financial monstrosity called “Citigroup”. Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup – which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million.

Then Rubin took on another post: as key campaign benefactor to a young State Senator, Barack Obama. Only days after his election as President, Obama, at Rubin’s insistence, gave Summers the odd post of US “Economics Tsar” and made Geithner his Tsarina (that is, Secretary of Treasury). In 2010, Summers gave up his royalist robes to return to “consulting” for Citibank and other creatures of bank deregulation whose payments have raised Summers’ net worth by $31 million since the “end-game” memo.

That Obama would, at Robert Rubin’s demand, now choose Summers to run the Federal Reserve Board means that, unfortunately, we are far from the end of the game.

Special thanks to expert Mary Bottari of Bankster USA http://www.BanksterUSA.org without whom our investigation could not have begun.

The film of my meeting with WTO chief Lamy was originally created for Ring of Fire, hosted by Mike Papantonio and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Further discussion of the documents I laid before Lamy can be found in “The Generalissimo of Globalization,” Chapter 12 of Vultures’ Picnic by Greg Palast (Constable Robinson 2012).

Follow Greg on Twitter: @Greg_Palast