UZA v. STANDARD BANK – Moving Forward… Forward to Bankruptcy?

STANDARD BANK LIMITED are certainly not wishing to move forward, contrary to their creed as the following communications indicate; where are the days when companies had pride in being dynamic? Instead of following King David Rockefeller’s one world policy? Hey, David? Dinosaurs in the making, we say… good luck; we are building a new model to make the old one redundant; in peace

To:       Head, Legal Centre, Standard Bank Group Limited, 9^th Floor,

Standard Bank Centre, 5 Simmonds Street, Johannesburg

From:   UZA, people’s courts, forums & tribunals

Re: Meeting to find reconciliation on unlawful banking practices

We have been approached by people represented by civic associations from the inner CBD who are the victims of numerous rights violations which involve what we now deem to be unlawful banking transactions, mortgages and the purchase and sales of apartment buildings, to name a few. For more information refer to https://giftoftruth.wordpress.com/banksters/

The people have requested that we represent them and participate along with them in this matter. Therefore, we wish for a two-hour meeting at your earliest convenience with 3 representatives of people attending, in order that we may address their concerns and find remedy for reconciliation.

UZA: As a people’s court at Natural Law we assist, guide and educate people and communities regarding their unalienable rights. We negotiate peaceful and positive conflict resolution between disputing parties to create a win-win for all people; the values we hold are what is common to the people and community and therefore reflect the unique and pivotal role in the cultural, social and economic life at international natural law jurisdiction. For more information refer to https://giftoftruth.wordpress.com/uza/

UZA is officially recognised as the SA Chapter of the committee in support of the International Tribunal for Natural Justice: http://itnjcommittee.org/about-us/chapters/southern-africa/

There is currently an international court case under way, filed by UZA against the Republic of South Africa for not protecting the rights of we the people against harmful banking practices and agencies intent on plundering the people; and, for not upholding the Bill of Rights as enshrined in the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. For more information refer to http://giftoftruth.info/

As a result all the wealth is now filtering into the hands of the few, the economy is grinding to a halt, the BRICS countries are unsuccessfully attempting to exit the Federal Reserve banking system, the Chinese stock markets have already crashed twice in the first week of 2016, the DOW has experienced the four worst days of trading since 1932 and more and more evidence is coming to light that the Federal Reserve banking system is a fraudulent system wherein money is merely an IOU, the banks are under control of a very few global elite private bankers with private interests which in most cases are not to the interest of the countries or the people. The system is collapsing and it is time for us to engage in finding remedy or we the people have no alternative but to start our own bank with our own banking system and cease from making use of commercial banks completely. So it is in the interests of STANDARD Bank, as a South African company, to participate in the soon-to-be-launched people’s banking system. So it is with this in mind, that we would like to set up a meeting and we require two hours of your time in order to start entering into discussions to address the issues and to find remedy for our concerns.

Oxfam study highlights massive global wealth divide.1% richest own more than rest of us

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/01/17/oxfam-wealth-inequality-report-davos/7892937

The combined riches of 62 of the world’s most well-heeled individuals in 2015 equaled the wealth of 3.5 billion people — the bottom half of humanity — a new report about extreme global wealth inequality released Sunday showed.

The findings, published by the poverty-fighting organization Oxfam, highlight the growing divide between those at either end of the income spectrum. Since 2010, the wealth of the richest 62 people increased 44% to $1.76 trillion, the report found. Over the same period, the wealth of the world’s poorest half fell over a trillion dollars or 41%.

“Our economic system is heavily skewed in their (the wealthiest) favor, and arguably increasingly so,” Oxfam said. “Far from trickling down, income and wealth are instead being sucked upwards at an alarming rate.”

Oxfam added: “Rising inequality is a problem for all of us. The OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) notes that increasing income inequality poses a risk for social cohesion and threatens to slow down the current economic recovery.”

As recently as 2010, Oxfam calculated, it took 388 of the world’s wealthiest individuals to match the collective income levels of the world’s poorest half. Oxfam did not name the 62 individuals it used as the basis for its calculations. In previous research reports, it has used Forbes’ billionaires list, in 2015 topped by Bill Gates whose net worth is $79.2 billion.

The group unveiled its research just a few days before the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, an annual event that sees world leaders, corporate titans and members of civil society gather for a week of discussions and workshops on the world’s most pressing problems. Income inequality is rarely far from the top of the agenda.

Please contact us at commonlawsa@gmail.com at your earliest possible convenience with a time and day and venue where we can meet in order to introduce our concerns.

Sincerely, without prejudice, under onerous title, all rights reserved

brother-thomas

______________

Dear Sir

With reference to your attached letter dated 20 January 2016 The Standard Bank of SA Ltd (“the bank”/”us”/”we”) hereby replies as follows:

At the outset any customer of the bank may lodge a complaint with us, which will be handled by a dedicated area (being the Complaints Resolution Centre), and can be contacted via e-mail (Complaint.ResolutionCentre@standardbank.co.za ) or telephonically on  0860 101 101.

Secondly the bank will regrettably not participate in your planned people’s banking system, and we suggest that you engage with the relevant regulatory authorities herein, being National Treasury at the SA Reserve Bank, etc

Thirdly any failure on the bank’s side to specifically reply to any of the allegations made in your letter under reply should not be construed as an acknowledgement to the correctness thereof and all of the bank’s rights remain strictly reserved herein.

Kindly be guided accordingly.

Sincerely

 

The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited Group Legal Division Tel +27 (0)11 636 9111 / Fax +27 (0)11 636 8277 / www.standardbank.co.za

South Africa: FW DE KLERK AND COVERT DEALINGS PRIOR TO THE 1994 ELECTIONS

For 2 decades accusations against the FW de Klerk government have been flying about. Many people have been whispering about huge sums of money being paid over by Swiss bank accounts to NP politicians and government operators to hand over the SA government to the ANC. For 18 years nothing could be proven, till now: CITIBANK Gen. Erle Cocke ran Nugan Hand Bank’s Washington office. In April 2000, Cocke gave a deposition running to 67 pages concerning his knowledge and involvement in Project Hammer. Ten days later he died from Pancreatic cancer. His explosive deposition reveals him as a very significant and highly connected player in a world few of us are familiar with.

Cocke related in his statement how Citibank was used as halfway stop for dodgy financial dealings in ‘black gold’ through Project Hammer – some 30 accounts used. Asked where these accounts were located, Cocke responded saying – in almost one solid block at Citibank.

PROJECT HAMMER

Project Hammer was a desperate undertaking by the USA gov. to rescue some of its major banks, who, by the end of the 1980’s, faced insolvency. These banks included Citibank, HSBC, Chase Manhatten and the Bank of New York.

The project was designed to cipher gold and diamonds as collateral as an emergency buoy for the ailing banks and to put the USA’s economy on track again.

It is at this stage that South Africa’s De Klerk government entered the fray – as major gold and diamond supplier, it was the easiest and cheapest way to rescue the USA banking sector. Only one small problem: South Africa was in political turmoil with the white rightwing challenging the NP government on all fronts.

The best smokescreen Citibank could think upon to move large amounts of money and gold bullion was:

Create political instability (between the NP gov. and the ANC). Then create a political vacuum where dodgy gold and diamond deals could be done without too many questions (maybe even an interim NP/ANC gov. where the minimum control would facilitate covert gold and diamond movements).

Project Hammer involved the trading of $13.6 trillion in debentures resulting in ‘fallout’ of about $1.1 trillion which was stashed I the Howard Hughes account in Credit Suisse. Obviously, in a project of this size, a lot of organizations had to be involved: The CIA, FBI, all the NSA agencies, Pentagon in the broadest sense of it and as such, the Treasury and Federal Reserve. Nobody got out of the act, and everybody wanted to get in on the act – for there was lots and lots of money to be made.

EXECUTIVE OUTCOMES, SANDLINE and the STASI

Another individual who has played a considerable role in Project Hammer, was Rolf van Rooyen, who operated a number of business entities including one called ‘Oceantech’ and another called ‘Eastech’ International Bank.

At one time Van Rooyen worked for SA Intelligence and is also believed to have been working for the CIA at the time Project Hammer was in process. Of significance is the fact that Gen. Cocke and Van Rooyen knew each other, although Cocke says he only spoke to him on the phone but never ‘shook hands with him’.

During a police interview in Germany in1995, Van Rooyen when questioned about Project Hammer responded: if you are referring to Operation Hamer, it is an extremely large, very delicate operation in co-operation with the authorities of various countries in which Oceantech is involved..

Working alongside Van Rooyen, was SA Intelligence operative Riaan Stander. Both Stander and Van Rooyen were board members of the “Eastcorp Syndicate” which boasted almost two dozen other companies in its stable. Included were Intercol Pty, Ltd, Cavo Shipping – which conducted intelligence gathering missions for governments, and Bridge S.A. The latter was registered in Monrovia, Liberia.

According to Peter Goslar, once a close friend of Riaan Stander, other board members of Bridge S.A., were Colonel Tim Spicer and Mick Ranger of ‘Sandline’ fame.

In a letter written to a Washington law firm involved in a lawsuit involving Project Hammer, Goslar fingers Bridge S.A. – and hence Van Rooyen and Riaan Stander, as ‘part of the Executive Outcomes operation. Eastech International Bank, was underwritten by a Mexican firm Ro-Mar Pharmaceuticals, a firm claiming to control over $100 billion in gold. Van Rooyen and Stander entered Eastech into an agreement to purchase 5000 metric tons of gold at a discount of 4% from the Second London Fix. This gold was held in the free zone area beneath Zurich’s Kloten Airport. Interestingly, the contract, which ran to 6 pages, bears the official stamp of the Swiss Police, authorizing and validating the transaction.

By 1995, Eastech International Bank had begun to hit the radar screen of regulatory authorities around the world that viewed it with suspicion, but by then it seems probable that much of Project Hammer’s SA objectives had been fulfilled. Fearing the worse, Rolf Van Rooyen left S.A. and traveled to Germany. According to his one-time friend, Peter Goslar, this is where he still lives albeit protected by former members of the East Germany’s Stasi spy-network.

Rudolph Ignatius van Rooyen – born in Kroonstad on 29 April 1959  ID no. 590429 5021 085; Last known address: Rheinstern Hotel 1610, Rheinstern, Dusseldorf, Germany. Alias – Rolf Rondine.

Director – Eastech International Bank, established in China and underwritten by a Mexican Firm. Contact person – Miss Lin Ying, China.

Riaan Stander

Security director of Eastech

Steve Potnak – managing director of Eastech Bank

Steve Pansegrow – military intelligence officer supplying Eastech with intelligence reports. He also supplied highly confidential information to C1, in the names of Eugene de Kock and Pieter Botha. Pansegrow’s wife was a receptionist for Van Rooyen and Stander.

Irma Els – operator helping in Ifafa – Eastcorp.

Fanie Smith – operator who signed validation certificates for Eastcorp.

– Letter of credit no. 9022101 signed by Fanie Smith and honoured by the bank and with a revenue stamp of the Greek gov.

– Certificate of deposit of $5 million, stamped by the Greek Gov, signed by Fanie Smith.

– Certificate of deposit of $25 million, stamped by the Greek Gov, signed by Fanie Smith.

– Directors of Eastcorp and Intercol as at the registrar of companies: Roelf van Rooyen, Riaan Stander, Douglas Randall. Intercol: Eugene de Kock, Gen. Tai Minnaar, Pieter Botha. Policemen and members of military intelligence served on both Eastcorp and Intercol.

– Dr. HP Bauer – involved with operator “Rosie”, Dr. HJ Schuster – agent of FAS in the US, Julian Rosie – director of FAS in South Africa.

– Riaan Stander liased directly with intel. Officers from C1 (SA Police), namely Eugene de Kock, Chappies Kloppers, Pieter Botha and Willie Nortje. They asked help from Eastech to infiltrate rightwing groups in Pietersburg and for help in the movement of large quantities of weapons.

– MAS 57/08/92 – Pretoria North Case ref, investigation officer – Lt. Col. AE Botha conducted an investigation into the irregularities, but it was never made public or brought to court.

In October 1998, a German intelligence operator forwarded a document marked “Top Secret” to Gerhard Laubsher of the S.A. National Intelligence Agency, marked MZ/HRB/10-10/98 ser. Noj/IBI citing the disappearance of $223 104 000 008 from the South African economy through ‘black gold’ dealings.

In the report the following 47 persons were named:

FW de Klerk, Hernus Kriel, Chris Stals, Japie Jacobs, Org Marais, Anton Rupert, Johan Rupert, James Cross, Christo Wiese (SARB), Christo Wiese (Boland Bank), Dr. Swanepoel, Dr. Groenewald, Mr. Potgieter, Alwyn Lombard, Jan Lombard, Barend du Plessis, Commisionar Blaauw (western cape), Simon Nothnagel, Simon and Peter Nassau, Giel Nieuwoudt, Ben Zuma, Anton Welch, George Hill, BB de Klerk, Chris Nissan, Kobus Kirsten,Van Deventer, Boet Claasen, Big John Smith, Willem Korden/Kordan, Daniel Julius, Jan Koch, John and Faize Adams, Peter Blake, Nick Fourie, Magistrate Liebenberg, Casiem and Shahida Brey, Peter Mopp, Riaan Engelbrecht, Peter Goslar, Detective Justin Swart, Charles/Lester Newton, Robert Ferguson and Wynand Louw:

The report quotes:

4.7 The RSA has in excess 3000 tons of gold in storage. We can identify that Cloten in Switzerland, Luxembourg and London are used extensively for stored gold.

4.8 The RSA has a small refinery in Switzerland and deals with an other small refinery in Luxembourg (owned by Italian members) to refine gold, remove the markings on the gold.

4.9 The RSA selling 550 tons of gold every year and approximately 50 tons of gold is stolen every year.

4.12 Some of this money is then recycled back in RSA.

4.13 Some examples: The recent announced merger of Goldfields and Gencor. The purchase of BOE, NBS, OK Bazaars etc. by Christo Wiese. Old Mutual Bibby Group. Gencor’s Billiton Group. Rembrands Richmond Group. Anglo Americans Miners Group.

6.3 High yield investments goes generally through Volkskas Bank, Nedbank, Boland and Standard-Chartered Bank RSA, all with approval from the SARB.

6.4 Arnold van Eck, offshore in – Imposses des Michandes, Veyreier du Luc, 74000 Anmecy-France, Bis Avenue D’Albigny, 74000 Anmecy-Le Veux, Adriaan (Riaan) Stander, Switzerland, 17 Rue de Levi, Crans Montana.

6.5 Van Ecks Associates, Clientel, Co. Directors are all well known military intelligence officers and political figures. Large sums of funds to almost $1.6 billion were handled and controlled by the Van Eck Syndicate on instructions of these politicians and intelligence officers – There are in RSA R37 million in farms unaccounted for. $40 million are being held in secret accounts in Van Ecks name. An unauthorized amount of $6 million was paid to Mrs. Van Eck. There are in RSA various assets of enormous value, belonging to Afri-Air, a total of at least R700 million. Overseas funding in $ 400 million, is also unaccounted for. A further amount of $ 7000 million unaccounted, controlled by Van Eck.

After scrutinizing some of Riaan Stander’s bank accounts, the following was found:

Adriaan Barend Stander; Selbornelaan 14; Lyttelton Manor, Pta.

Account name: Intercol Consultants (Pty) Ltd.

Volkskas bank – 0609-142-596, Verwoerdburg branch.

Account name: Intercol Consultants

Nedbank; Arcadia, Pretoria branch

Eastcorp South Africa

Bankcorp London

Swiftref – TBOAGB2L; 90 Long Acre; London SC2E 9SF

Account name

Eastcorp main account – 01-38496030-4

El Rosario Trust account – (Eastcorp HQ) – 01-38497030-0

Anti Crisi (Eastcorp Technical Division) 01-38498030-5

Eastech International Bank SA; Boland bank; Swiftref: BOLBZAJC

Pretoria branch; Account name: Estech International Bank – 136 873 6001

Relevant bank official – Mr. L. Coetzee – Gen Man.

Eastech International Bank – Tacoma, Washington.

Moving money between accounts is easy, especially when it is done with the lessing of the major banks and government, but moving gold and weapons around the globe is not so easy.

Enter one of the key players, shipping tycoon Tony Giordiadis, from Greece. Giordiadis had very close ties with Richard Carter (now corporate manager of BMW), the spokesperson for the SA President FW de Klerk.

On May 11 and 12, 1990, De Klerk paid an official visit to Greece. Here he met with Pres. Caramanlis and Prime Minister Mitsosakies. De Klerk also met Tony Gordiakis at this time. Of Greek origin, but London based, Georgiadis shipped oil to SA in contravention of sanctions and developed close relations with members of the NP gov. to distribute money freely, Georgiadis opened a bank account in Liberia for Mallar Incorporated (it was also through this account that bribes to the tune of $22 million wer paid to ANC officials during the Arms Deal).

Geordiadis’s father-in-law Lanaras once served as director of the shipping firm Alandis.

The conspirators were faced by another huge obstacle – the loyal members of the Defence Force, Military Intelligence, National Intelligence Agency and the South Africa Police, who would immediately put a stop to the transactions, should they find out.

‘THE NIGHT OF THE GENERALS’

De Klerk fired all loyal officers to that his collaborators could move freely.

On December 19, 1992, FW de Klerk fired 23 senior army officers, including navy officers, who could pose a threat to his plans.

So great was the speed with which De Klerk acted that even the army’s public relations office was not informed of the press conference. In addition, many of the officers disciplined, were on holiday and were unaware of their suspension.

The axed officers included: Major-General Chris Thirion, Deputy Chief of Staff, Intelligence, who had a reputation of being one of the more progressive of the younger generation of generals, Major-General Hennie Rouw, Chief of Army Intelligence, Brigadier Ferdie Van Wyk, Director of Army Communications, who master-minded Project Echoes, Brigadier Tolletjies Botha, Director – Directorate of Covert Collection, which was raided in November by investigators of the Goldstone Commission, including UN personnel, Brigadier Oos van der Merwe, Director of Army Intelligence, Commander Jack Widdowson of the Navy.

He named only three other officers, Colonel At Nel, Colonel Chris Prinsloo and Commandant Stephen Snyders, who were all put on compulsory leave.

This followed the purge of 19 police generals in August as part of a drive to bring the police in line with the negotiation process.

The further Indemnity Act pushed through parliament in August, needed to help ease officers out. The November raid on Military Intelligence’s Directorate of Covert Collection in November, by Goldstone investigators which provided the pretext for setting up the probe headed by Gen. Pierre Steyn.

A top-level meeting between senior Umkhonto We Sizwe and SADF officials in early August, brokered by the National Intelligence Service, which generally carries out the will of the cabinet. December’s ‘rationalisation’ measures which include the retrenchment of 6000 middle ranking officers followed.

In just 5 months, De Klerk had opened the door wide, for his own operators to continue the sell-out.

“I have never before seen a government destroy its own power base, such as this one is doing” – said former chief of Military Intelligence, Gen. Tienie Groenewald, while the country is steadily moving towards complete chaos, the government has effectively neutralized the SADF’s intelligence capacities by removing the eyes, ears and nose of the defense forces.

The Greek shipping tycoon could now go about his business unhindered. Georgiadis was of course also implicated in the swindle with the sinking of the greek ship , Salem, off the African coast earlier in what was decribed by Loydds of Great Britian as the biggest maritime swindle ever. “Salem – Lloyd’s pursues what may be the biggest maritime swindle ever – At 10:50am Greenwich time on Jan. 17, crewmen aboard the tanker British Trident, sighted a ship in distress off the coast of Senegal in Northwest Africa. The Salem, a 214 000 ton supertanker, registered in Liberia, was listing and dead in the water. By radio contact with the tanker, Trident learned that a series of mysterious explosions was responsible for the disaster. Indeed, a cloud of orange smoke billowed from the tanker’s deck. By 11:30 the disabled ship’s greek-born captain, Dimitrios Georgoulis, and his 22 crewmen, most of them Tunisians, had….”

Side note: It was at this time that the whole Project Hammer was put at risk by FW de Klerk’s impulsiveness. German operators learned that De Klerk was having an affair with Georgiadis’s wife, Elita (Lanaras’s daughter).

A memorandum was sent to the CIA, who decided to put a lid on the affair, until after the completion of Project Hammer.

Knowledge of the affair would not only open a can of worms, but it was not clear what Georgiadis’s reaction to the affair would be. It this only became public after another two years.

There would be a twist – Marike de Klerk.. When FW de Klerk divorced Marike to marry Elita, a clause was written into the divorce agreement that De Klerk would be able to censor any books or article Marike might decide to write – which indeed he did when he prevented the publication of a chapter titled Grotgesprek (cave conversation) in the autobiography titled “‘n Plek waar die son weer skyn.” ( a place where the sun shines again)

But Marike de Klerk was not done yet. Then, sadly, on 2 Dec. 2001, she was brutally murdered in her Dolphin Beach complex, Bloubergstrand apartment, hours after sending an undisclosed fax to Holland.

Curiously – the European Union paid R30 000 into the account of the murder accused – Mboniswa, channeled by the Foundation for Human Rights, for DNA tests. Mboniswa stood trail in the Western Cape High Court and was found guilty of the murder, without taking the stand in his own defense.

What was the follow wat the orchestrated and directed ‘political reform’ as was dictated to by foreigners of this country.

The reform was steered by international banks/financiers as well as foreign intelligence agencies.

The subsequent buy-out of South African politicians and role players, culminated in the demise of a country….

un-named source

South Africa – Bank busted over securitisation lies

Jack Darier of Parkhurst in Joburg asked his bank whether his loan had been securitised. No way, said the bank. It was the answer Darier was expecting. Meantime he had the proof that the opposite was true. It was a truth test, he says, and the bank failed.

Source: http://news.acts.co.za/blog/2015/11/busted-joburg-man-catches-standard-bank-out-over-securitisation-denial

Sometimes the banks just can’t get it right. Here’s a case where Standard Bank’s legal department flatly denied a customer’s mortgage loan had been securitised, while another department in the same bank sent proof that the loan had in fact been sold to an entirely different legal entity.

Busted. That’s what happens when the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

What makes this case even more interesting is that the customer, Jack Darier of Parkhurst in Johannesburg, does not have a judgment against his name, nor is his house under threat of being repossessed. He just wanted to know if his home loan had been securitised – in other words, on-sold by the bank to a new owner. That means the bank no longer has legal standing to bring action against the customer in the event of default. You can see below how the banks get around this – it’s a simple cession, they argue successfully in our brain dead courts.

So let’s ignore the blather of the R50,000-a-day silks who show up daily in our courts as they repossess upwards of 10,000 homes each year (and for which the SA Communist Party is now calling for an official investigation), and go straight to the law books: Regulation 35 of the Banks Act covers the sale of a loan to a third party by way of securitisation. A debt on-sold to a “Special Purpose Vehicle” is considered a sale (not a cession) under which the full entitlement, rights and obligations are conveyed to the purchaser. Regulation 35 furthermore blocks the public from gaining access to securitisation transactions, which are deemed to be “off balance sheet”.

The reason banks securitise is to move assets off balance sheet and so free up capital for further lending. The provisioning requirements of the Basel accords, which govern banking internationally, means banks have to set aside capital according to the type and risk of loans it makes. So if it can move these off balance sheet by way of securitisation, it’s a case of rinse and repeat – issue a bunch of new mortgage loans, bundle them together, and sell them off to investors. Great business if you can get it. If the mortgage lender defaults, there are various insurance policies and credit default swaps (CDSs) that make up the shortfall. A zero-sum game for the banks. But not if you are the home owner. If the home owner defaults, the bank will get judgment, sell the house at auction for a fraction of its value, and then pursue the hapless defaulter for the shortfall.

In law, that’s called undue enrichment. Or selling the same asset twice.

A securitisation is therefore not a cession, but a shift in ownership of the underlying asset. The problem is no defaulting home owner can afford the R50,000-a-day silk to argue this convincingly in court. So the charade goes on. Section 72 read with Section 1 of the Banks Act precludes a bank from participating in any business wherein it may unduly influence and/or place at risk its providential requirements or burden its liquidity requirements. So an SPV cannot be a division or associated entity of the bank. The SPV must be an independent juristic entity.

But let’s get back to Darier’s to-and-fro discussion with Standard Bank. When he found out his mortgage loan had been securitised – despite the bank’s bare denial – he went along to visit the commercial crimes unit in Johannesburg. There he laid a charge of fraud against the bank.

Despite having presented evidence of the securitisation along with his correspondence and affidavit and receiving a case number, no further action was taken by the police investigation unit.
Darier’s interest in the matter all started when his father ran into difficulty with the bank some years ago. He fired off a bunch of questions to Standard Bank asking whether his mortgage bond had been securitised.

No it had not, said the bank (you can see the correspondence below). But then another division from the same bank sent him a Certificate of Balance showing the mortgage loan was now owned by Blue Granite. This is a securitisation vehicle used by Standard Bank into which it has placed thousands of its loans.

Bear this in mind when reading what followed.

In mid-July this year Darier sent off a standard set of questions that New Economic Rights Alliance (New Era) advises clients to put to their banks.

Here’s the response from Joop Dekker, executive in charge of complaints resolution at Standard Bank, sent on 24 July 2015:

Good day Mr Darier,

We refer to your note below and would like to reply as follows:

Regarding the questions you have posed below we are of the view that your questions are inappropriate.

The bank does engage in the process of securitization and there is nothing untoward or illegal about this.

It seems that you are being misled by New Era and we note that your question is identical to those that New Era have been inviting people to ask.

The bank has been involved in litigation with this entity and we attach hereto a copy of the latest judgement herein. We draw your attention to paragraphs 24 and 25 where the honourable Judge Baqwa described the NEW Era’s action as vexatious. You will also note that legal cost had been awarded against the New Era directors in person.

Lastly we confirm that any failure on the bank’s side to specifically reply to your question below cannot be construed as an admission to the correctness thereof.

We therefore trust that the above clarifies the matter from the bank’s side.

Regards

Joop Dekker

To which Darier replied on 25 July 2015:

Hi Joop. I have seen by your position at the bank that you are merely doing your job in deflecting any negative PR. As such I harbour no ill feelings or intentions towards you.

However, my response is as follows:

1.       I am not surprised the bank finds these question “inappropriate” because they do not want their customers and the public to have an insight into their dubious banking practices. Just because they deem it inappropriate does not infer that there are inappropriate questions to ask.

2.       It seems to me that your bank and most likely all the banks underestimate the intelligence of the public and they are trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Your executives are a bastion of CA’s and financial professionals who seem to think they are far more intelligent than everyone else and no-one will be the wiser. This may the case in other instances but I can assure you this is not the case now.

3.       With regards to the legality of securitisation: you are 100% correct. The process of securitisation (ie. selling promissory notes/loan agreements to third parties for purposes of using as investment vehicles to invest in stocks) is legal. However, there is no mention of the fact that after ceding the loan agreement to a party without notification to the debtor the banks’ rights to repossess houses are null and void. The bank is thus merely acting as the agent for the third party in retrieving monies owed. I see on the website there is but 2 or 3 lines (mentioning) securitisation but there has been a convenient omission of any information which would allude the fact that the bank has no more rights for repossession.

4.       I have been influenced by New Era, however I do not deem them as misleading me. The fact you have not been willing to answer my questions is testament to the fact that the bank does not want to draw attention to the matter or reveal the shady practices. If the bank wasn’t doing anything wrong they wouldn’t find the questions “inappropriate”. New Era indicated that the bank would not divulge any details on this matter.

5.       Securitisation has been banned in the US for the reasons that is shady and it has resulted in a plethora of illegal foreclosures (No. There have been calls for the outlawing of securitisation in the US, but it is not banned – Ed).

6.       I assume that because the manner in which securitisation works, it can be utilised in any form of loan/credit agreement (home loans, car finance, credit cards, etc). It would fantastic if the banks and third parties undertook profit shares with the debtor as they are using money which has not been paid to them yet to create profits. They are essentially utilising the hard work and income of their customers to generate massive profits for themselves

7.       I am well aware of what vexatious litigation and proceeding are. I examined the document and it was considered vexatious due to the manner in which the litigation was undertaken. It actually has nothing to do with the legitimacy of accusations or the matter on hand and the legality of the bank repossessing houses when it has no right to.

8.       New Era have successfully won cases against the bank and you and I both know this (They certainly educated the public, and in doing so frustrated the banks in their attempts to repossess homes, but New ERA does not fight cases for individuals – Ed).

The response does not clarify the matter at all. That being said we can drop the matter on the premise that I assume that my home loan has been securitised and that I am aware the bank has no right to repossess it.

I will be engaging with New Era and volunteering my time and services for free.

Jack Darier

On 28 July, Joop Dekker of Standard Bank provided the following reply:

Good day Jack

We confirm that Home loan account number 364814497 has, according to the bank’s records, not been securitized.

Furthermore we will have to agree to disagree on our respective views regarding New ERA’s position, which entity has taken on the banking industry (including the SA Reserve Bank) during the past few years via the Courts, and has had no success whatsoever.

Hypothetically if your homeloan had been securitized, and due to arrears on the account the bank foreclosed on the loan, the homeloan would merely be ceded back to the bank (by the special purpose vehicle) and the bank’s normal legal and collections process would subsequently been followed.

Regards

Joop Dekker

So what we have here is a serious dispute of fact: Dekker’s denial of securitisation, and Darier’s inadvertent receipt of proof suggesting otherwise. Based on standards of evidence, it looks like Darier has made his point. The bank’s position is that even if the loan is securitised, it can simply re-cede it back from the SPV and continue with the normal collections process. In theory this is fine, except that per our reading of the law as per the above, you cannot reverse an outright sale with a simple cession.

But Darier was just getting started. He then fired off a letter to the Northern Provinces Law Society, asking what it was doing to investigate lawyers implicated in drafting dodgy securitisation agreements.

Good day. I would like to request a meeting with senior counsel at the Northern Law Society in order to discuss multiple instances of banking fraud committed by local banks and their legal teams which are acting on their behalf. Their attorneys and debt collectors are raising judgments in court and making demands for monies owed on credit agreements for which the bank has no locus standi as they ceded the credit agreements through securitisation structures. (And thus ceded the underlying assets as the whole credit agreements along with assets are sold off their books).

Proof of many instances  of this shady practice are available AND local attorneys and law societies can no longer claim they do not know what securitisation is and overlook the matter.

The attorneys have presented papers to the court which are untruthful and indicate the bank still has locus standi on properties lodged as surety when in fact they don’t. These attorneys are well aware of this and are essentially lying to judges and are actively committing fraud and being complicit to the fraudulent practice.

I would like to discuss this with the law society to understand their views and positions on this as I am sure the securitisation matter has arisen before and the fact that attorneys are still being given free reign to present fraudulent papers to the courts is tantamount to one of the following 2 scenarios: a) either the law society is completely oblivious to this matter and more study and education of the subject in-house is required,  or b) the law society has knowledge of this unlawful practice but is allowing it to continue as it represents a great value of business for the local legal system and practitioners (ie. You are complicit to the fraud and deception in court)

I am not working with New Era and I think it would be in the best interests of the law society to meet with me to discuss further as there may be calls for disbarring of many lawyers who are implicated in this scheme.

Also, another matter I am going to be addressing is how certain firms are structuring the securitisation contracts and legal framework on the JSE in a manner which they are aware is not legal as they knowingly create shell investment schemes. They are structuring in a manner which directly contravenes numerous banking and credit act subsections/clauses and they are structuring in a manner such that properties are not transferred at the deeds office to the entity to whom credit agreements and the physical assets have been ceded to. The sole purpose being so that if a customer defaults the bank can approach the courts and pretend to be legal creditor. They are knowingly advising banks to create shell investment schemes.

Surely the local law societies are aware of this practice or they need to start introducing formal education and study into these matters.

Jack Darier

The Law Society has requested a meeting with Darier over the matter. We’ll keep you posted.

On 11 July 2013, Pope Francis issued a Motu Proprio on criminal law matters in the Vatican

It is now 2years since the Official Vatican Network announced Pope Francis’ motu proprio, the most powerful legal instrument issued by a Pontificate of the Roman Catholic Church; this particular document will go down in history as one of THE documents that initiated the re-shaping of the world, giving Transnational Criminal Organizations 3 years to clean up their act, which includes the Holy See;

This does not mean that We, the People will absolve Pax Romana, in fact, it gives us the power to institute proceedings against pirates and imposters; the clock is ticking … 365 days … and counting [pictures with subtext added]

What is an obelisk, 4 pointed star of baal, 8 pointed star of ishstar doing in St. Peter’s square?

Pope Francis issues Motu Proprio on criminal law matters in Vatican

2013-07-11 Vatican Radio

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis has issued a Motu Proprio on criminal law matters and administrative sanctions within Vatican City State and the Holy See. In a statement by the Holy See’s Press Office, it was announced that on this same date, the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State has adopted the following laws:

Law No. VIII containing Supplementary Norms on Criminal Law Matters; Law No. IX containing Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code;Law No. X containing General Provisions on Administrative Sanctions.

The note from the Holy See Press Office goes on to clarify the following points:

The Motu proprio makes the criminal laws adopted by the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State applicable also within the Holy See.

The criminal laws adopted today are a continuation of the efforts to update Vatican City State’s legal system, building upon the measures adopted since 2010 during the pontificate of Benedict XVI.

These laws, however, have a broader scope, since they incorporate into the Vatican legal system the provisions of numerous international conventions including: the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, on the conduct of war and war crimes; the 1965 Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination; the 1984 Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the 1989 Convention on the rights of the child and its optional protocols of 2000.

 

Chemtrail on 1985 100 lire coin?

Of particular note in this context is the introduction of the crime of torture and a broader definition of the category of crimes against minors (including: the sale of children, child prostitution, the recruitment of children, sexual violence and sexual acts with children, and the production and possession of child pornography).

A section of the legislation introduces a list of crimes against humanity, in particular, the crimes of genocide and apartheid, following broadly the definitions adopted in the 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court. The section of the Criminal Code regarding offences committed in the exercise of public administration has also been revised in light of the 2003 United Nations Convention against corruption. With regard to penalties, that of life imprisonment has been abolished and it has been replaced with a maximum penalty of 30 to 35 years of imprisonment.

 

In line with the most recent developments at the international level, the new legislation also introduces a system of penalties for juridical persons who profit from the criminal activities of their constituent bodies or personnel, establishing their direct liability and providing as penalties a set of interdictions and pecuniary sanctions.

In the area of criminal procedure, the general principles of presumption of innocence and due process within a reasonable time have been recognized explicitly, while the power of the judicial authorities to adopt precautionary measures has been increased by bringing up to date the provisions for confiscation and the freezing of assets.

Also of importance is the modernization of the rather dated norms governing international judicial cooperation, with the adoption of measures in line with the standards of the most recent international conventions.

The law on administrative sanctions is of a general nature so as to serve as a common framework that provides for the possibility of sanctions in different areas intended to promote respect for the norms, to render them effective and to protect the public interests.

As a whole, these normative efforts form part of broader process aimed at modernizing further the Vatican legal system with a view to enhancing its consistency and effectiveness.

The following is an English translation of Pope Francis’ Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio on the jurisdiction of Judicial Authorities of Vatican City State in criminal matters (Full Text)

In our times, the common good is increasingly threatened by transnational organized crime, the improper use of the markets and of the economy, as well as by terrorism. It is therefore necessary for the international community to adopt adequate legal instruments to prevent and counter criminal activities, by promoting international judicial cooperation on criminal matters. In ratifying numerous international conventions in these areas, and acting also on behalf of Vatican City State, the Holy See has constantly maintained that such agreements are effective means to prevent criminal activities that threaten human dignity, the common good and peace. With a view to renewing the Apostolic See’s commitment to cooperate to these ends, by means of this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, I establish that: 1. The competent Judicial Authorities of Vatican City State shall also exercise penal jurisdiction over: a) crimes committed against the security, the fundamental interests or the patrimony of the Holy See;b) crimes referred to: – in Vatican City State Law No. VIII, of 11 July 2013, containing Supplementary Norms on Criminal Law Matters;- in Vatican City State Law No. IX, of 11 July 2013, containing Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code; when such crimes are committed by the persons referred to in paragraph 3 below, in the exercise of their functions;c) any other crime whose prosecution is required by an international agreement ratified by the Holy See, if the perpetrator is physically present in the territory of Vatican City State and has not been extradited. 2. The crimes referred to in paragraph 1 are to be judged pursuant to the criminal law in force in Vatican City State at the time of their commission, without prejudice to the general principles of the legal system on the temporal application of criminal laws. 3. For the purposes of Vatican criminal law, the following persons are deemed “public officials”: a) members, officials and personnel of the various organs of the Roman Curia and of the Institutions connected to it.b) papal legates and diplomatic personnel of the Holy See. c) those persons who serve as representatives, managers or directors, as well as persons who even de facto manage or exercise control over the entities directly dependent on the Holy See and listed in the registry of canonical juridical persons kept by the Governorate of Vatican City State;d) any other person holding an administrative or judicial mandate in the Holy See, permanent or temporary, paid or unpaid, irrespective of that person’s seniority. 4. The jurisdiction referred to in paragraph 1 comprises also the administrative liability of juridical persons arising from crimes, as regulated by Vatican City State laws. 5. When the same matters are prosecuted in other States, the provisions in force in Vatican City State on concurrent jurisdiction shall apply. 6. The content of article 23 of Law No. CXIX of 21 November 1987, which approves the Judicial Order of Vatican City State remains in force. This I decide and establish, anything to the contrary notwithstanding. I establish that this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio will be promulgated by its publication in L’Osservatore Romano, entering into force on 1 September 2013. Given in Rome, at the Apostolic Palace, on 11 July 2013, the first of my Pontificate.

Our comment: Without prejudice, we will be bringing a complaint before the International Tribunal for Natural Justice (www.itnj.org) regarding the lawfulness of Roman Dutch Law on the land of Southern Africa when it violates natural law and natural rights and has NO jurisdiction on the land; in addition, we also have questions to ask Pope Francis regarding the role of the Holy Roman Empire in historical and current crimes against We, the People such as breach of contract, trust, barratry, poverty and violations of non-derogable living rights;

All rights reserved, in peace, bt

PS: Interestingly, 11^th of July was the day a bankrupt strawman was created in a NAME resembling the author’s when his mother berthed him and surrendered him as ward of the state; he wishes to thank Francesco for his co-operation in our freedom;

Ostrich farmer from Eastern Cape shows court his mortgage loan is now in Taiwan

 Posted21 June 2015 Written by Ciaran Ryan

Category Securitisation

http://news.acts.co.za/blog/2015/06/ostrich-farmer-from-eastern-cape-shows-court-his-mortgage-loan-is-now-in-Taiwan

---

An ostrich farmer from Grahamstown has thrown the local court into a spin by apparently proving that his mortgage loan with Standard Bank has been on-sold to an investor in Taiwan. This is the first time a securitisation audit has been presented in a SA court. On the basis of the evidence presented, the farmer says Standard Bank has no right to be in court.

Ash Davenport, a 63 year-old ostrich farmer from outside Grahamstown in the Eastern Cape, may be about to make history in his effort to stave off attempts by Standard Bank to take possession of his 3,260ha farm over a R3 million loan he took out seven years ago.

Last week he threw the Grahamstown High Court into a spin when his attorney, Bev Carruthers of Port Elizabeth, plonked a securitisation audit in front of the judge. The securitisation audit suggests that his mortgage loan has been on-sold to a Taiwanese bank and is no longer owned by Standard Bank. That being the case, Standard Bank has no right to be in court. More than that, the audit suggests the bank has securitised (or on-sold) his bond for R5 million, not the R3 million he supposedly signed for.

The court reserved judgment as to whether to allow the audit to be presented as new evidence in a case that has been dragging on for close to seven years.

“I intend to fight this all the way,” says Davenport. “These banks have been getting away with this nonsense for too long. I had to pay R17,000 for the audit but it was worth it, since it provides proof that the bank has in fact been securitising mortgage loans and then coming after property owners when they have no right to.”

Securitisation audits are a new development in South Africa, but are common in the US. They effectively carry the same weight as a financial opinion by a company’s auditor, though the banks are trying to dismiss them as hearsay.

Standard Bank attempted to discredit the audit by Michael Carrigan, a certified mortgage securitisation auditor in the US, who managed to track the chain of title for Davenport’s mortgage bond all the way to Taiwan. The bank referred to Carrigan’s evidence as “speculative at best” and claimed he did not have a grasp of South African law. It then reiterated that his loan had not been securitised.

Carrigan also provided a second audit for another Grahamstown resident, Jay Brown (not his real name), apparently proving that his Standard Bank mortgage loan had ended up with a bank in Thailand. Brown is also defending his property against repossession by the bank.

Bear in mind that the bank in both cases has denied – as all the major banks have done in thousands of other similar cases – that it had not securitised these mortgage bonds. Brown went one step further, by settling his debt to the bank by way of a promissory note of his own – similar to a cheque or bank note – which he claimed is legally permissible in terms of the Bills of Exchange Act.

This is a rather interesting defence first developed in SA by the late John Joubert, who insisted that individuals should issue their own promissory notes in settlement of debts, just as the banks concoct money out of thin air on their computer terminals. Standard Bank has refused to accept Brown’s promissory note.

Davenport has taken a more traditional route, arguing his case based on whatever evidence he can get his hands on. He asked Standard Bank to produce a “wet ink” copy of his mortgage bond and what was produced looked a little strange. The lines, the type face and the signatures did not line up with another copy he had. To all intents and purposes, it looked as if the documents were manufactured after the event, according to Davenport. Like someone had literally cut and pasted sections from one document, pasted them onto another, and then made a photocopy. This made him even more suspicious, even more certain that his mortgage bond had been securitised and the bank was hiding something.

So how did Davenport end up in this position?

The first thing to understand is that he is an eastern Cape farmer with a sharp tongue who doesn’t take kindly to bankers in suits coming to take away a farm that he and his family have been working since 1956. At one time he was the Eastern Cape’s most prominent ostrich farmer. He was exporting his ostrich meat to Europe and making a decent living. In 2004, the Avian flu scare hit SA. A government vet (Davenport calls him a “prick”) was sent down from Pretoria to inspect his birds, and with a wave of his pencil decided they should all be slaughtered.

“What these pricks don’t understand is that the ostriches develop antibodies to the Avian flu virus. Once they have had Avian flu and survived, they are immune against the disease. They will never get it again. So what the vet was picking up was the antibodies, and on this basis he decided my entire flock should be slaughtered.”

Davenport’s trouble all started when a government vet ordered his entire flock of ostriches to be slaughtered, even though the birds were healthy and had no signs of Avian flu. His business destroyed, he was forced to approach the bank for a loan

Overnight, Davenport’s business was destroyed. He was forced to approach Standard Bank and ask for a R3 million overdraft facility. The bank agreed, provided he put up the farm as security.  But this R3 million was getting him nowhere. He swallowed his pride and approached the bank a second time asking for additional credit facilities that would allow him to rebuild his business.

This is when the bank started to get alarmed. When Davenport drew down his facility to R2,6 million to pay his monthly wages and running costs, the bank suddenly froze all his accounts.
Then came the summons for repayment of the loan. Davenport knew nothing about the law, so he sent the summons on to a lawyer friend who did nothing with it. Then the bank got a default judgment against him.

Trouble arrives in the form of a summons

Now he was in trouble. The bank was about to put his farm up on auction for R4 million, when Davenport reckons it is worth R60 million. His mechanic put him in touch with a DIY lawyer who somehow managed to stop the sale at auction.

The bank came back with a second summons. This time he decided he should probably get a proper lawyer, which was when he met Bev Carruthers in Port Elizabeth, who had two days to prepare for his case in the Grahamstown High Court. Carruthers stood before the judge saying she had only just been briefed, and asked for a postponement – which she got.

At the time she knew nothing about securitisation, but Davenport had been reading the material on the New Economic Rights Alliance website and was convinced that his mortgage bond – which the bank alleges had been pledged as security against his R3 million overdraft – had been securitised. The problem with this defence is that the banks, supported by the courts, demand that the borrower provide proof of this. Of course this is impossible. This is analogous to a thief who has made off with your wallet. You catch him after he has disposed of the wallet and he then demands that you provide proof of the whereabouts of the wallet to prove his guilt. Insane, sure, but the courts are buying this.

Then Davenport and Carruthers were introduced to Virtual Velocity, a company that had just started offering securitisation audits in SA. This involves interrogating multiple databases in SA and overseas to track the movement of mortgage loans and the associated mortgage “notes”.

The US-based auditor, Carrigan, is considered a world expert in securitisation, and has testified in close to 3,000 cases in US courts. In both the Davenport and Brown audits, he presented screen shots from the Bloomberg database showing where the “notes” got divorced from the “loans” and where they both ended up.

In his affidavit for Davenport, he testified that the loan ended up with a Special Purpose Vehicle known as Standard Bank of South Africa/ Taipei CBO, Series 2006-1. This is an entirely different legal entity to Standard Bank itself.

The audit shows that Davenport’s mortgage loan has probably ended up in Taiwan

The audit report shows how the securities certificates were divorced from the mortgage loan and ended up in the hands of the investors. The mortgage documents remained with Standard Bank, the securities certificates ended up with the investors and the “borrower funds” ended up with the Land Bank of Taiwan. Carrigan claims in his affidavit, once the Mortgage loan and “note” are divorced from each other, the purported creditor loses all legal right to approach the borrower, and is in fact committing fraud.

The audit – as is the case with any audit, financial or otherwise – is not definitive, but it casts sufficient doubt on Standard Bank’s assertions that the mortgage has not been securitised.

Should Davenport win this round, his matter will go to trial and then the bank will be asked to explain why his loan appears on the Bloomberg database as being owned by a bank in Taiwan. And why Brown’s mortgage loan appears in Thailand.

This, alongside the recent discovery by Adv Douglas Shaw that banks are able to hide their securitisation activities by not reflecting the new owner’s name at the Deeds office, makes for a very interesting battle looming for the banks.

It only takes one case to win, like Davenport’s, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Then come the class action suits.

What Carrigan’s affidavit says

This is a bit technical, but worth repeating here for those following the securitisation argument. Notice how the courts in the US do not recognise any creditor who cannot produce the note alongside the mortgage. And how banks doing this are actually “double dipping” – taking payment twice – which is a fraud. Judges in SA need to start paying attention to this and haul bank executives into court to get to the bottom of this securitisation hall of mirrors.

Carrigan’s affidavit for Ash Davenport says: “The written agreement that created the Standard Bank of South Africa/ Taipei CBO, Series 2006-1 is a ‘Pooling and Servicing Agreement’ (PSA), and is a matter of public record, available on the website of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). The Trust is also described in a ‘Prospectus Supplement,’ also available on the SEC website. The Trust by its terms set a “closing date” of on or about TBD (To Be Decided). The promissory note in this case became trust property in compliance with the requirement set forth in the PSA. The Trust agreement is filed under oath with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The acquisition of the assets of the subject Trust and the PSA are governed under the law.

“In view of the foregoing, any Assignment of Mortgage executed after the Trust’s Closing Date would be a void act for the reason that it violated the express terms of the Trust instrument.

“In Carpenter v. Longan 16 Wall. 271,83 U.S. 271, 274, 21 L.Ed. 313 (1872), the U.S. Supreme Court stated ‘The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.’”

“By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt. Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the Mortgage, with the Mortgage lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become unenforceable. The practical effect of splitting the Mortgage from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the Mortgage is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the Mortgage.”

“Generally, if the Mortgage and the Note are not together with the same entity, there can be no legal enforcement of the Note. The Mortgage enforces the Note and provides the capability for the lender to foreclose on the property. Thus, if the Mortgage and the Note are separated, foreclosure legally cannot occur. The Note cannot be enforced by the Mortgage if each contains a different mortgagee/beneficiary; and, if the Mortgage is not itself a legally enforceable instrument, there can be no valid foreclosure on the homeowners’ property.”

“No Entity can be a creditor if they do not hold/own the asset in question (i.e. the NOTE and/or the property); a Mortgage Pass Through Trust (i.e. R.E.M.I.C., as defined in Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter M, Part II §§ 850-862) cannot hold assets, for if they do, their tax exempt status is violated and the Trust itself is void ab initio. This is an indication that either the Trust has either voided its intended Tax Free Status, or the asset is not in fact owned by it.

“In the event that the loan was sold, pooled and turned into a security, such event would indicate that the alleged holder can no longer claim that it is a real party of interest, as the original lender has been paid in full.

“Further said, once the Note was converted into a stock, or stock equivalent, that event would indicate that the Note is no longer a Note. If both the Note and the stock, or stock equivalent, exist at the same time, that is known as double dipping. Double dipping is a form of securities fraud.

“Once a loan has been securitized, which the aforementioned loan may have been done many times, that event would indicate that the loan forever loses its security component (i.e., the Mortgage), and the right to foreclose through the Mortgage is forever lost.”

 

Message from brother thomas: “While everyone who is within range of a mind control device such as internet, smart phone technology or other, is on pause… (yes you are on pause, look around you);
those people that cannot afford babylon technology, are peacefully reclaiming what is their’s; you certainly are missing out on all the fun…

Over the next few days we are uniting communities in the cape, especially those facing evictions, to bring their flag and support the call for community independence as per common, customary or tribal law as long it is in the spirit of the bill of rights (most of it, some parts are un-acceptable)

The courts are in a shambles: refering to the pinned post, acting judge john riley over-ruled the registrar’s okay for the release of 1 set of audio copies of the court case between proudly manenberg and consol; he acted as trustee, beneficiary and administrator in this matter;
The judge ignored the motu proprio served in court which is the highest legal instrument; the opposing advocate admitted to the Vatican in an email to us on friday evening; they are just digging themselves deeper, we will be notifying franscisus that his house is in anarchy and this is what happens when a church, aristocrachy, monarchy, state or government becomes a law-breaker and becomes a law unto themselves;

We have met up with a group of law lecturers who are also defending people against foreclosures and we are joining hands; one of them worked closely with the national treasury and we have had long conversations regarding bills of exchange;

There is lots happening in reality; just not here; if you want it here then start giving freely and you will receive freely; it is disgusting that there is over 2750 leeches on this page and none of you have even bothered to ask how you can give; if each one of you contributed r50 month, we would have already settled all debts of this country and be rolling out projects, yet you indulge yourselves: ubuntu has spent over 900 000 on their election campaign when they know it’s a scam and that it conflicts with common law subject matter jurisdiction; ubuntu now belong to the crown; how much did new era spend if it wasn’t for a handfull of visionaries amongst you, who kept this flame alive, it would have been snuffed because the majority indulge themselves; sies vir julle!!! “

Truth Warrior – Karen Hudes World Bank Whistleblower

http://www.spreaker.com/user/truthwar…

09/09/13
Karen Hudes studied law at Yale Law School and economics at the University of Amsterdam. She worked in the US Export Import Bank of the US from 1980-1985 and in the Legal Department of the World Bank from 1986-2007. She established the Non Governmental Organization Committee of the International Law Section of the American Bar Association and the Committee on Multilateralism and the Accountability of International Organizations of the American Branch of the International Law Association.

In 2007 Karen warned the US Treasury Department and US Congress that the US would lose its right to appoint the President of the World Bank if the current American President of the World Bank did not play by the rules. The 66 year old Gentlemen’s Agreement that Europe would appoint the Managing Director of the IMF and US would appoint the World Bank President ended in 2010. Her website is: http://kahudes.net

 

JPM to Shutter Litigation Group for Consumer Debt Collection

by Chris Cumming

OCT 17, 2013

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) plans to disband a group tasked with suing consumers to collect delinquent debts, according to former employees and others who were told about the change. The move comes two years after the bank ceased filing collections suits amid scrutiny of the accuracy of its records and court filings.

Last week, the bank informed employees in its collection-litigation services division that it plans to shut the unit and reassign them to other parts of the company, said former employees and others told of the changes. The San Antonio-based division is responsible for coordinating litigation against delinquent borrowers, maintaining records and managing law firms hired to pursue the bank’s claims, the sources say.

The group’s roughly 100 employees could be reassigned or let go as a result of the shutdown, the sources say. A JPMorgan spokesman would not confirm the closing or the size of the group.

JPMorgan halted lawsuits to recover consumer debt in 2011, after legal challenges and whistle-blower allegations cast doubt on the accuracy of records related to accounts the company had sold to third-party collections firms. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency last month issued a consent order requiring JPMorgan Chase to reform its collections department and put in place new internal controls related to its attempts to collect on delinquent accounts via lawsuits and debt sales.

Last week’s shutdown of the collection-litigation services group raises the question of whether the bank is bracing for legal challenges in the wake of last month’s OCC settlement.

A JPMorgan Chase spokesman said the bank has “no plans to restart” debt-collection suits but was unable to confirm whether the bank has decided to disband the collection litigation services group permanently. He said the company has reassigned some employees from collections litigation to work on fulfilling the requirements of the OCC’s consent order, and that employees at the San Antonio facility are regularly shifted between departments.

JPMorgan Chairman and Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said he intends to make compliance a priority and to exit noncore businesses that carry excessive risk. The company lost $380 million in the third quarter, taking a $7.2 billion charge related to legal costs and bringing its litigation reserves at the end of September to $23 billion.

JPMorgan has come under fire from federal and state regulators for shoddy documentation within its consumer-loan collections group. An American Banker series last year outlined the allegations against the bank, including charges that it cut corners with documentation used internally and filed “robo-signed” documents in court that had not been the subject of legally required scrutiny. In last month’s consent order, the OCC accused JPMorgan of suing customers based on faulty documents and understaffing its collections-litigation group.

JPMorgan said in a statement that the issues affected less than 1% of its customers, that it is working to reform its practices and has withdrawn the affected suits. It stopped selling most consumer debt to third-party collectors earlier this year.

JPMorgan’s settlement with the OCC appears to resolve the debt-collection issue on the federal level, but the bank may still be open to legal claims from state regulators.

California, which sued JPMorgan in May, is the only state to file claims against the bank so far over its debt-collection practices, but a group of 13 states, led by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, has launched an independent investigation into possible violations. Massachusetts has also launched its own investigation.

The California complaint, filed by state Attorney General Kamala Harris, accuses the bank of using widespread robo-signing in its collections efforts. Harris estimates that the bank’s attorneys filed more than 100,000 collections suits between January 2008 and April 2011, including more than 450 on a single day in 2010.

 Five Regulatory Changes Coming to the Mortgage Market

« 1 of 6 »

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Confusion and panic. Those are the words most often used by lenders when faced with the onslaught of mortgage regulations and other rules going into effect in three months. Regulators have sought to defuse concerns partly by attending industry conferences, but they have also made it clear that several other big changes are on their way. Following is a guide to what’s ahead.

http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/178_201/jpm-to-shutter-litigation-group-for-consumer-debt-collection-1062882-1.html

 

 

World Bank Whistleblower is on Main Stream Media Stations with Warning

Published on Oct 19, 2013

Four Senators wrote Letters to Congress on behalf of Ms. Hudes in response to her disclosure that the Debt of the U.S.A was headed for collapse- as far back as 2005. She discovered Corruption beyond belief. She said that Americans would be astounded to know what is truly going on behind the scenes – and said our world is run by mobsters and mafia style governments. (My conclusion is that the people cannot see how their life source is nothing more than feeding those at the top. Once your work years are done, you are considered expendable and useless.) Feel free to download and reshare.

Here is the first letter she wrote. I encourage you to visit her website and make up your own minds.

Senator RIchard G. Lugar
306 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D. . 20510-1401

Dear Senator Lugar,

December 28, 2006

As a member of the World Bank’s Legal Department for twenty years, and a
member of the DC Bar, I am obligated by the DC Rules of Professional Conduct to
report a weak control culture in the Bank. On June 2,2004 I informed tne Audit
Committee of the Board of Executives Director about sensitive governance issue
concerning interference in the Board’s access to information. The Operation Evaluations
Department refused to reveal to the Board the role of the Bank’s poor supervision of the
Philippine Banking Sector Reform Loan in the corrupt take-over of the second largest
bank in the Philippine resulting in a 550 million banking failure, cancellation of $200
million from the Bank’s loan to the Philippine, and cancellation of $200 million in
co-financing from Japan.

Two of the Bank’s former Ethics Officer tried in vain to protect me from
retaliation for reporting the lapse in internal controls. Anita Baker placed my divisIon
chief. Mohan Gopal, on mandatory administrative leave for his retaliation against me.
After Jacqueline Gates replaced Anita Baker, Ethic Officer, she asked the Institutional
Integrity Department (INT) and the Human Resource Department (“HRD”) to end the
retaliation, then both INT and HRD refused. Ms. Gates resigned in frustration. I have
reported the risk to the reputation of the U for probity in it oversight of the Ban to
Senior management ,the U.S. Executive Director’s office. and the Secretary
Department. Documented in the attached correspondence.

The Netherland constituency intervened in 2005, and the Audit Comittee
requested INT to look into the matter. The resulting INT report of October 31,2005 was
evasive and sought to discredit me rather than to address the serious issues which I raised. The Executive Directors are now requiring an audit of INT. The attached work program of the Board’s committee on Governance is aimed at achieving better access to
information and greater voice in Bank management.

The review of the bank’s conflict resolution system and policies for protection of
whistleblowers, mandated by US law, is proceeding in a closed process that exclude.
the Board, after a task force with a broader mandate that would have consisted of former
members of the Board was rejected. I learned yesterday from the Staff Association that
the new whistleblower rule had been finalized without provision for review of the final
draft by the Board or by experts.

Mr, Eckhard Deutscher, Dean of the Board, has informed me that the World Bank Board is treated like a mushroom, “kept in the dark, and covered with fertilizer,” It is necessary for the review of the Bank’s conflict resolution system to be put on track to achieve consensus for much needed reform in order to minimize risk to the Bank,

I sought to mediate my personnel grievances with HRS, but was referred instead to the Bank’s Appeals Committee and the Administrative Tribunal. The performance of the Administrative Tribunal on my case documents the weaknesses in the Bank’s conflict resolution system, HRS is refusing to mediate and demanding for me to leave the Bank in July, 2007. If I am required to leave the Bank, this will dissuade any other employee who would report serious internal problems from establishing a direct line of communication with the Board.

I am currently working with Kevin Kellum on the Farm Journal forum to be held
in December 2007, I sincerely hope that you will help me to remain at the Bank so that I can continue my work on RULE OF LAW.

Respectfully,
Karen Jude
http://kahudes.net/

Prepare for Change – Victory of the Light!

Beautiful and holistic changes are occurring everywhere on Earth! All Light Workers are invited to Participate as a New Society is being born into the Light of Truth. A massive surge of positive feelings is powering a deep shift worldwide. Optimism and joy are creating peace in everyone as they are filled with an instinctive knowing of truth and humanity’s incredible potential for loving change.

The unfolding of love and truth has been written about and spoken of by the great prophets, sages and mystics of all cultures for thousands of years, it is the Event when humanity is lifted above the darkness and fear that has so engulfed us since the fall.

Now is the time prophesied, the Victory of the Light!

Prepare For Change is here to connect all people, particularly light workers, together in loving, peaceful support of a prosperous New Society. Please join us! Come together and form an Event Support Group to assist positive change in your area.

Visit http://prepareforchange.net

 

Must Watch! Why This Crash Will Eclipse Them All. By Gregory Mannarino

Published on Oct 8, 2013

*Link to previous video: http://youtu.be/VWGTna4zafg
This interview was posted with permission from http://TradersChoice.net

SUBSCRIBE (It’s FREE!) to “Finance and Liberty” for more interviews and financial insight: http://bit.ly/FinanceAndLiberty
Website: http://FinanceAndLiberty.com
Like us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/FinanceAndLiberty
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/Finance_Liberty