The END Could Come Like A Thief in the Night — X22 Report ~ SGT Report


SGT Report welcomes fellow truth-teller and REAL NEWS pundit Dave from X22 Report for an in-depth conversation about the unprecedented 4-hour shut down of the New York Stock Exchange last week. Dave and I agree that if the NYSE can shut down for half a day for no good reason, it proves that the END of our precarious financial system could come like a thief in the night – with NO warning at all.

We also focus on the real enemies of humanity – nope, not Osama, Al Qaeda or ISIS, but the Banksters and their friends who create and fund such organizations.

There’s a lot here to chew on, so grab an adult beverage, your favorite snack and kick back. X22 Report is here.

For REAL News & Information 24/7:
http://sgtreport.com/
http://thelibertymill.com/

Music: “The Complex”
(http://www.incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons “Attribution 3.0” http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b…

The content in my videos and on the SGTbull07 – SGTreport.com channel are provided for informational purposes only. Use the information found in my videos as a starting point for conducting your own research and conduct your own due diligence (DD) BEFORE making any significant investing decisions. SGTbull07 – SGTreport.com assumes all information to be truthful and reliable; however, I cannot and do not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of this information. Thank you.

Advertisements

MSM Chooses Silence on Massive Protests in Spain (PHOTO)



US Uncut
This is from Valencia, Spain, about an hour ago. But you wouldn’t know from watching the media, they’ve already made the decision to not televise the revolution.

Share this widely if you stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Spain, who continue to fight the culture of banking corruption and greed that rules governments worldwide.

NWO Globalist Agenda – Central Banks Attempting to Outlaw Cash Transactions


Published on Apr 23, 2015

NWO Globalist Agenda – Central Banks Attempting to Outlaw Cash Transactions
Beware All, Central Banks Attempting to Outlaw Cash Transactions, Be Prepared!

Simon Parkes Newsletter, June 2015


Welcome to the June edition of my newsletter.  As promised, this edition will focus on spiritual developments taking place all over the planet.  As those of you who have had consultations with me know, I have often referred to the new age phrase of ascension.  I often use this term myself as it is understood by the wider population and would seem to be self explanatory.  You will of course know that the opposite is true; we are drawing down our 10 energy strands of DNA into our bodies.  Some people are further down the road than others, some people sadly will never start the journey, but for those of us that have this time is one of great excitement, great change and an ever increasing challenge.  In some ways this is a difficult time for all of us because as we connect with our DNA strands, we see more clearly and understand more profoundly the world we live in and those that seek to rule us.

Over the last 3 years we have seen a massive escalation of false flags, but only those of us who are connecting and thus awake recognise these as false flags. To the others these are genuine happenings.  One of the greatest actors in our time, Benjamin Netanyahu, through him, Mossad and the Zionist faction have penetrated every government and institution on the planet.  So what a surprise that the Obama administration is now raising barriers to attempt to block out the Zionist faction, for who would willingly walk to destruction if there was another path to follow.  I know many of you are situated all over the planet, some feel very isolated, some are in small communities or groups, but all of us are connected through the desire to develop and ultimately to achieve the true ascendants of being a human.  Many years ago human kind contained 12 strands of DNA. Through trickery and subterfuge and not a little genetic alteration, the human form that we now posses was cheated of 10 strands of DNA.  Since the 21st December 2012, human kind took the most monumental step forward (a much more giant step than any fake first steps on the moon). All of you who are on this path to ‘ascension’ will face over the next 2 and a half years a most testing time.  You will see a carnival/theatre roll out in front of your eyes as the desperate elite do everything in their power to hoodwink and fool as many people as they can.  Please be mindful that these people have learnt much over the last 3 years and we should expect the subtlety of their false flags to develop.

We who are changing should expect over the coming 12 months an increased reaction as our physical bodies attempt to keep up with our energies as they change and develop.  You should expect increased headaches, tingling sensations, a feeling that each day is shorter than the last (we have less time to do what we have always done because time is not linear and the concept of time as we understand it is now changing). Many of us will begin to glimpse or see snapshots of the 4th dimension.  I do not accept the idea that we will go straight to the 5th dimension thus missing out the 4th (because that’s where all the bad guys are).  If we accept that we are here to learn how can any person learn by forgoing a whole dimension.  As this summer turns into fall, many voices will be raised telling us to do this or to do that. To follow this teaching or to follow that teaching. Those of you who know me know that I tell you to only trust yourselves and to ask yourselves when you hear such statements; does this have the ring of truth about it?

In relation to the economic situation in North America, I have been told that there are moves afoot to raise the interest rate in an effort to prop-up the failing confidence.  Other world leaders have also been involved in an attempt to place pressure on the key financial houses in a plea that, if successful, will forestall vast amounts of money (albeit of the electronic kind) being pulled out of the US.  The Zionist regime has a key part to play in this with both the leaders of the UK and Germany being very closely involved with this organisation.  In conclusion, whilst the road ahead will be both bumpy and rocky, this movement of change cannot be stopped although those that seek to maintain their hold, (some of whom are quite frankly insane and thus capable of anything), will not be able to prevent the developments that were always foreseen.

I just wish to draw a very important distinction between being Jewish and Zionist.  Indeed, even within the Zionist group there are good intentioned people.

Much strength, much hope, much love.
Simon

http://us9.campaign-archive1.com/?u=4a8bbd95efd926ee0efeb4a3b&id=2883ed5428&e=4aabaece2d

Veronica Keen and Andrew Bartzis, Part 8


In this episode Andrew and Veronica talk about the common history on Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Iran; The importance for us finding the truth behind the game the Government and Banks are playing to be able to make a change, Social control with Vaccinations programs, Wars, Fear, Controlled Energy, we are at the point that we forgot what love is and what and open society is, and a lot more!
In this episode Andrew and Veronica talk about the common history on Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Iran; The importance for us finding the truth behind the game the Government and Banks are playing to be able to make a change, Social control with Vaccinations programs, Wars, Fear, Controlled Energy, we are at the point that we forgot what love is and what and open society is, and a lot more!

Veronica’s Website: http://montaguekeen.com/

Like us on Facebook!: https://www.facebook.com/GalacticHist…

Galactic Historian Website: http://www.Galactichistorian.com
Veronica’s Website: http://montaguekeen.com/

Like us on Facebook!: https://www.facebook.com/GalacticHist…

Galactic Historian Website: http://www.Galactichistorian.com

Crimes of the Banks Exposed – UBUNTU Party Michael Tellinger


Michael Tellinger from the UBUNTU Party exposes how the South African Reserve Bank and their foot soldiers, all the private banks in our country, commit crimes against our people, unlawfully closing their accounts and stealing their money. In this case the SARB and STANDARD BANK stole around R320 million rand from a network marketing team that was getting too big and too wealthy. SARB simply closed their account and kept their money falsely accusing them of all kinds of activities. This group consists of around 190,000 people, many of whom are now pledging their support for the UBUNTU Party to prevent this from happening in future. UBUNTU Party will replace the privately owned Reserve Bank, by a PEOPLE’S BANK that will create money for the people, by the people and supply money free of tax, levies, interest or any other charges, for all activities in our communities – creating 100% employment and allowing all of us to live beautiful lives of abundance, free of all debt. The main function of a PEOPLE’S BANK is to provide the money that communities need in all areas of their activity. Home loans at 0% interest and no more repossessions.

The truth is out: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it


British banknotes – money

‘The central bank can print as much money as it wishes.’ Photograph: Alamy

Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn’t know how banking really works, because if they did, “there’d be a revolution before tomorrow morning”.

Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called “Money Creation in the Modern Economy“, co-authored by three economists from the Bank’s Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.

To get a sense of how radical the Bank’s new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don’t suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.

The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.

It’s this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say “there’s just not enough money” to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending “crowding out” the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: “Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits” … “In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money ‘multiplied up’ into more loans and deposits.”

In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it’s backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There’s really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What’s more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with “quantitative easing” they’ve been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.

What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there’s no question of public spending “crowding out” private investment. It’s exactly the opposite.

Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it’s obviously true. The Bank’s job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It’s possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.

But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realized the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.

Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that’s what’s happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity

The truth is out: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it


British banknotes – money

‘The central bank can print as much money as it wishes.’ Photograph: Alamy

Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn’t know how banking really works, because if they did, “there’d be a revolution before tomorrow morning”.

Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called “Money Creation in the Modern Economy“, co-authored by three economists from the Bank’s Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.

To get a sense of how radical the Bank’s new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don’t suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.

The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.

It’s this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say “there’s just not enough money” to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending “crowding out” the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: “Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits” … “In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money ‘multiplied up’ into more loans and deposits.”

In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it’s backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There’s really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What’s more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with “quantitative easing” they’ve been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.

What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there’s no question of public spending “crowding out” private investment. It’s exactly the opposite.

Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it’s obviously true. The Bank’s job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It’s possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.

But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realized the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.

Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that’s what’s happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity

Feds Say They Will Go Easy on Banks Doing Business with Marijuana Dispensaries


During the groundbreaking phone call on Thursday, August 29 in which U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told [3] the governors of Colorado and Washington the federal government would not attempt to intercept regulated legal marijuana in their states, he also said the Department of Justice (DOJ) is “actively considering” how to oversee the relationship between banks and marijuana shops.

According to the Huffington Post, [4] Holder told the governors as long as marijuana shops “operate within state laws and don’t violate other federal law enforcement priorities” the DOJ is looking to regulate those interactions as legal.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, released a statement [5] on Thursday calling for a hearing to discuss his proposed bill, Marijuana Businesses Access to Banking Act (HR 2652). In the statement, he raised concerns over “public safety, crime, and lost tax revenue associated when these legal and regulated businesses are operating in a cash-only system.”

He continued:

“We need to provide financial institutions certainty they can make their own business decisions related to legal, financial transactions without fear of regulatory penalties. Currently, under federal banking laws, many legal, regulated legitimate marijuana businesses operating legally according to state law are prevented from maintaining bank accounts and accessing financial products like any other business such as accepting credit cards, depositing revenues, or writing checks to meet payroll or pay taxes. They are forced to operate as cash-only enterprises, inviting crime such as robbery and tax evasion, only adding to the burden of setting up a legitimate small business.”

To that regard, a senior DOJ official speaking on a condition of anonymity told Huffington Post “the department recognized that forcing the establishments to operate on a cash basis put them at greater risk of robbery and violence.”

CNN warned in a report [6] that since the new guidelines do not change federal money laundering laws, some large banks might “still be leery of doing business with marijuana producers and sellers.”

Along with Holder’s announcement on Thursday came a memo from Deputy Attorney General James Cole, addressed to U.S. attorneys nationwide. The memo [7] outlines eight priorities [3] intended to serve as strict guidelines the attorneys are required to follow as federal marijuana policy when prosecuting in the states where it is legal.

According to the Huffington Post [4], the anonymous DOJ official said, “For now, financial institutions and other enterprises that do business with marijuana shops that are in compliance with state laws are unlikely to be prosecuted for money laundering or other federal crimes that could be brought under existing federal drug laws, as long as those pot businesses don’t otherwise violate the priorities.”

In addition, the Huffington Post reported, the official said he “would not rule out prosecution in any case, but the new approach is a reversal of a DEA policy [8] that had warned banks not to work with marijuana businesses.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee and the state’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson thanked Holder for his efforts to work with the states’ decision to legalize and regulate pot, and called Holder’s announcement “good news” in a statement [9] on Thursday.

“Attorney General Holder also expressed a willingness to work with the states on a financial structure that would not run afoul of federal law,” they said, calling the news an “affirmation of good work” by the state Liquor Control Board, which the state put in charge of designing a system of regulation and implementation for the new marijuana laws.

They continued, “We can assure the Attorney General that Washington state will remain vigilant in enforcing laws against the illicit marijuana market.”

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/feds-say-they-will-go-easy-banks-doing-business-marijuana-dispensaries?paging=off

 

Your Mortgage Documents Are Fake


Your Mortgage Documents Are Fake
August 21, 2013
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/your_mortgage_documents_are_fake/

All I can say is ‘this shouldn’t surprise anyone…’ ~BK

If you know about foreclosure fraud, the mass fabrication of mortgage documents in state courts by banks attempting to foreclose on homeowners, you may have one nagging question: Why did banks have to resort to this illegal scheme? Was it just cheaper to mock up the documents than to provide the real ones? Did banks figure they simply had enough power over regulators, politicians and the courts to get away with it? (They were probably right about that one.)

A newly unsealed lawsuit, which banks settled in 2012 for $95 million, actually offers a different reason, providing a key answer to one of the persistent riddles of the financial crisis and its aftermath. The lawsuit states that banks resorted to fake documents because they could not legally establish true ownership of the loans when trying to foreclose.

This reality, which banks did not contest but instead settled out of court, means that tens of millions of mortgages in America still lack a legitimate chain of ownership, with implications far into the future. And if Congress, supported by the Obama administration, goes back to the same housing finance system, with the same corrupt private entities who broke the nation’s private property system back in business packaging mortgages, then shame on all of us.

The 2011 lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in both North and South Carolina, by a white-collar fraud specialist named Lynn Szymoniak, on behalf of the federal government, 17 states and three cities. Twenty-eight banks, mortgage servicers and document processing companies are named in the lawsuit, including mega-banks like JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi and Bank of America.

Szymoniak, who fell into foreclosure herself in 2009, researched her own mortgage documents and found massive fraud (for example, one document claimed that Deutsche Bank, listed as the owner of her mortgage, acquired ownership in October 2008, four months after they first filed for foreclosure). She eventually examined tens of thousands of documents, enough to piece together the entire scheme.

A mortgage has two parts: the promissory note (the IOU from the borrower to the lender) and the mortgage, which creates the lien on the home in case of default. During the housing bubble, banks bought loans from originators, and then (in a process known as securitization) enacted a series of transactions that would eventually pool thousands of mortgages into bonds, sold all over the world to public pension funds, state and municipal governments and other investors. A trustee would pool the loans and sell the securities to investors, and the investors would get an annual percentage yield on their money.

In order for the securitization to work, banks purchasing the mortgages had to physically convey the promissory note and the mortgage into the trust. The note had to be endorsed (the way an individual would endorse a check), and handed over to a document custodian for the trust, with a “mortgage assignment” confirming the transfer of ownership. And this had to be done before a 90-day cutoff date, with no grace period beyond that.

Georgetown Law professor Adam Levitin spelled this out in testimony before Congress in 2010: “If mortgages were not properly transferred in the securitization process, then mortgage-backed securities would in fact not be backed by any mortgages whatsoever.”

The lawsuit alleges that these notes, as well as the mortgage assignments, were “never delivered to the mortgage-backed securities trusts,” and that the trustees lied to the SEC and investors about this. As a result, the trusts could not establish ownership of the loan when they went to foreclose, forcing the production of a stream of false documents, signed by “robo-signers,” employees using a bevy of corporate titles for companies that never employed them, to sign documents about which they had little or no knowledge.

Many documents were forged (the suit provides evidence of the signature of one robo-signer, Linda Green, written eight different ways), some were signed by “officers” of companies that went bankrupt years earlier, and dozens of assignments listed as the owner of the loan “Bogus Assignee for Intervening Assignments,” clearly a template that was never changed. One defendant in the case, Lender Processing Services, created masses of false documents on behalf of the banks, often using fake corporate officer titles and forged signatures. This was all done to establish standing to foreclose in courts, which the banks otherwise could not.

Szymoniak stated in her lawsuit that, “Defendants used fraudulent mortgage assignments to conceal that over 1400 MBS trusts, each with mortgages valued at over $1 billion, are missing critical documents,” meaning that at least $1.4 trillion in mortgage-backed securities are, in fact, non-mortgage-backed securities. Because of the strict laws governing of these kinds of securitizations, there’s no way to make the assignments after the fact. Activists have a name for this: “securitization FAIL.”

One smoking gun piece of evidence in the lawsuit concerns a mortgage assignment dated Feb. 9, 2009, after the foreclosure of the mortgage in question was completed. According to the suit, “A typewritten note on the right hand side of the document states: ‘This Assignment of Mortgage was inadvertently not recorded prior to the Final Judgment of Foreclosure… but is now being recorded to clear title.’”

This admission confirms that the mortgage assignment was not made before the closing date of the trust, invalidating ownership. The suit further argued that “the act of fabricating the assignments is evidence that the MBS Trust did not own the notes and/or the mortgage liens for some assets claimed to be in the pool.”

The federal government, states and cities joined the lawsuit under 25 counts of the federal False Claims Act and state-based versions of the law. All of them bought mortgage-backed securities from banks that never conveyed the mortgages or notes to the trusts. The plaintiffs argued that, considering that trustees and servicers had to spend lots of money forging and fabricating documents to establish ownership, they were materially harmed by the subsequent impaired value of the securities. Also, these investors (which includes the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve) paid for the transfer of mortgages to the trusts, yet they were never actually transferred.

Finally, the lawsuit argues that the federal government was harmed by “payments made on mortgage guarantees to Defendants lacking valid notes and assignments of mortgages who were not entitled to demand or receive said payments.”

Despite Szymoniak seeking a trial by jury, the government intervened in the case, and settled part of it at the beginning of 2012, extracting $95 million from the five biggest banks in the suit (Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citi and GMAC/Ally Bank). Szymoniak herself was awarded $18 million. But the underlying evidence was never revealed until the case was unsealed last Thursday.

Now that it’s unsealed, Szymoniak, as the named plaintiff, can go forward and prove the case. Along with her legal team (which includes the law firm of Grant & Eisenhoffer, which has recovered more money under the False Claims Act than any firm in the country), Szymoniak can pursue discovery and go to trial against the rest of the named defendants, including HSBC, the Bank of New York Mellon, Deutsche Bank and US Bank.

The expenses of the case, previously borne by the government, now are borne by Szymoniak and her team, but the percentages of recovery funds are also higher. “I’m really glad I was part of collecting this money for the government, and I’m looking forward to going through discovery and collecting the rest of it,” Szymoniak told Salon.

It’s good that the case remains active, because the $95 million settlement was a pittance compared to the enormity of the crime. By the end of 2009, private mortgage-backed securities trusts held one-third of all residential mortgages in the U.S. That means that tens of millions of home mortgages worth trillions of dollars have no legitimate underlying owner that can establish the right to foreclose. This hasn’t stopped banks from foreclosing anyway with false documents, and they are often successful, a testament to the breakdown of law in the judicial system. But to this day, the resulting chaos in disentangling ownership harms homeowners trying to sell these properties, as well as those trying to purchase them. And it renders some properties impossible to sell.

To this day, banks foreclose on borrowers using fraudulent mortgage assignments, a legacy of failing to prosecute this conduct and instead letting banks pay a fine to settle it. This disappoints Szymoniak, who told Salon the owner of these loans is now essentially “whoever lies the most convincingly and whoever gets the benefit of doubt from the judge.” Szymoniak used her share of the settlement to start the Housing Justice Foundation, a non-profit that attempts to raise awareness of the continuing corruption of the nation’s courts and land title system.

Most of official Washington, including President Obama, wants to wind down mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and return to a system where private lenders create securitization trusts, packaging pools of loans and selling them to investors. Government would provide a limited guarantee to investors against catastrophic losses, but the private banks would make the securities, to generate more capital for home loans and expand homeownership.

That’s despite the evidence we now have that, the last time banks tried this, they ignored the law, failed to convey the mortgages and notes to the trusts, and ripped off investors trying to cover their tracks, to say nothing of how they violated the due process rights of homeowners and stole their homes with fake documents.

The very same banks that created this criminal enterprise and legal quagmire would be in control again. Why should we view this in any way as a sound public policy, instead of a ticking time bomb that could once again throw the private property system, a bulwark of capitalism and indeed civilization itself, into utter disarray? As Lynn Szymoniak puts it, “The President’s calling for private equity to return. Why would we return to this?”

Update: This story previously suggested that banks settled this lawsuit with the federal government for $1 billion. That number is actually the total for a number of whistle-blower lawsuits that were folded into a larger National Mortgage Settlement. This specific lawsuit settled for $95 million. The post above has been changed to reflect this fact.

How to deal with the Sheriff of The Court ~ Micheal Tellinger, UBUNTU


 

04/22/2013

From the Desk of Michael Tellinger and the Ubuntu Party in co-operation with Ubuntu USA:

 

How to deal with the Sheriff of The Court Protect your property – know your rights – stand your ground Every day millions of people around the world are deprived of their property when a Sheriff of the court, or a Court Bailiff, or other, arrives at their home and begins to remove or attach their property – in most cases unexpectedly and also unlawfully.

But because our laws were not written to benefit people, but to rather uphold the rights of the corporations, the average person does not know what to say or what their rights are to prevent their property from being taken against their will.

The business of a Sheriff is not an ordinary private business or private enterprise. While they do operate as a business, they are heavily regulated and tightly governed by statute law – this works in favor of the people if they know what to say.

This document outlines what has come to our attention as the legal and lawful rights of all people, and what seems to be legal loophole in the system for our benefit – to pay the sheriff with a lawful PROMISSORY Note, drawn up by you and endorsed by you – when he/she arrives on your doorstep unexpectedly.

Such situations are highly stressful and people panic and go into shock and forget their own rights or how to respond. So please pay careful attention and memorize this information – it has to come naturally to you so that you do not panic and stumble on your words when facing a sheriff.
There is nothing to be afraid of – just having the courage to know your rights and how to stand your ground. Knowledge is power – use it for your own benefit.

If this does not make sense to you, then you need to understand two things:
1.    You need to understand how the money and banking system works outside the scope of this document; and
2.    A Promissory Note is defined as “incorporeal property” and lawful means of payment in most countries of the world; and
3.    Accept that to a certain degree at least, this is a legal loophole that we can use to the benefit of the people against the draconian and unlawful activities of the banks and government.

In South Africa, the settlement of a debt using ‘incorporeal property’ is, prescribed among other places, in the High Court Rules of South Africa as follows: (Click here to see use of promissory notes in the United States and Internationally)

Rule 45 (8) If incorporeal property, whether movable or immovable, is available forattachment, it may be attached without the necessity of a prior application to courtin the manner hereinafter provided:

(a)    Where the property or right to be attached is a lease or a bill of exchange, promissory note, bond or other security for the payment of money, the attachment shall be complete only when-

(i) notice has been given by the sheriff to the lessor and lessee,mortgagor and mortgagee or person liable on the bill of exchange or promissory note or security as the case may be, and
(ii) the sheriff shall have taken possession of the writing (if any) evidencing the lease, or of the bill of exchange or promissory note, bond or other security as the case may be, and

We have it on record from a hearing in the South Gauteng High Court, in the matter between STD Bank vs Tellinger, that the banks accept payment in Bills of Exchange AND Promissory Notes. The attached promissory note is compiled from its relevant definitions in the South African Bills of Exchange Act – see attachment.

NOTICE: This form of payment should only be used for banks – not to pay other people or small companies. They do not know what to do with such a form of payment – banks do. It is therefore our opinion that you can use a Promissory Note, drawn up by you, to pay the Sheriff because it is a payment is to the Bank. You should not use this method for the settlement of non-bank debts.

The Sheriff has his instructions and must follow strict legal guidelines. He is not a legal expert especially on the issue of promissory notes and Bills of Exchange – therefore it is not his place to enter into an argument with you about the merits of the form of payment. You have to stand your ground on this point. If the Sheriff does not accept your payment, then he must complete a Return of Service sheet to return to the bank’s attorneys and furnish you with you a copy.

Here is the sequence of events that the Ubuntu Party recommends. You have been conditioned to be terrified of a Sheriff or other persons of authority. Please study this and try to feel comfortable with all this information so that it is easy to remember what to do. Do not panic – do not be afraid.

Have the following handy:
·    A piece of paper and a pen,
·    A small black book that you can purchase from any stationary store,
·    Print out the attached promissory note with your details and serial number on it – have a few ready in your home in a place that you can find easily .
·    If you are able (not critical) record or film the entire conversation with a camera, cell phone or recording device.

Sequence of events:

1)    The Sheriff arrives and will most likely introduce himself as being “from the Sheriff’s office.” This is not good enough.

2)    Ask him/her for ID – do not let them onto the property without ID that states he/she is a Sheriff of the Court. Best is to stop them at the gate or door. Copy all relevant details down onto the piece of paper. Don’t rush. Take your time and be thorough.

3)    Demand a copy of the “writ of attachment” or “execution” or “valuation” – take a good look at it and make sure it is what he says it is. Again, take your time. Look for anything out of the ordinary (incorrect dates, pages not signed, etc.)

4)    Look for the total amount written on his documents – but don’t comment or mention anything at this stage.

5)    Say the following: I am willing and able to dispense with payment immediately, please wait here while I get it.

6)    Fetch your blank Promissory Note (attached) and “black book” to write the details of the NOTE in.

7)    Ask the Sheriff for the “all total”.  Say to him: “What is the ‘all total – or full and final settlement to dispose of this matter?”

8)    The “all total” is the full amount including costs; interest; fees; sheriff’s costs; attorney costs, and any other fees that may have been approved by the tax master.

9)    The sheriff will most likely make a call to the lawyers for the “all total.”

10)    Get the total amount from the Sheriff and fill in the Promissory Note.

11)    If sheriff asks what you are doing, say, “I am tendering payment, please be patient.”

12)    If he continues to ask what you are tendering, say: “I am settling this with a Promissory Note – it’s something like a check, but a Promissory Note is guaranteed because it is a liquid negotiable instrument. Kindly check High Court Rule 48 (8) (a) under ‘incorporeal property’ for confirmation.

13)    Do not be scared to sound like a robot or if you sound funny reading it out loud. The performance of a Sheriff is robotic in itself, so do not worry about how you sound.

14)    In your “black book,” fill in the details of your Promissory Note, the same way that you would fill in a check stub for your records. Date – Amount – To whom – Serial number of your promissory note.

15)    Then you sign below the information and hand the book to the sheriff to sign – do this rapidly, saying, “Please just sign here,” and hand him the pen. Urge him to sign.

16)    Hand him the Promissory Note only after he has signed the black book.

17)    If he signs the book, the matter is closed and he has accepted your payment. He now has to file a Return of Service stating that he received payment of ……….. Rand/Dollars/etc – and he has to leave your premises.

18)    Demand a copy of the Sheriff’s Return of Service document, that clearly shows that a payment of …xxx…rand/dollars was received from you.

19)    The bank has three days to challenge or refuse your payment by means of a special petition. If they do not petition within 3 days the matter is settled. The Sheriff cannot come back with the same summons.

20)    The bank will have to start a whole new legal action against you with a new summons.

21)    If he refuses to sign and obstructs the process, repeat to him that you are attempting to settle the full amount or the “all total” and that he is obstructing you to do so. Say, “I hereby state for the record that I am attempting to settle the all total with a lawful payment via my Promissory Note and you are obstructing me and preventing me from doing so.”

22)    Continue: “The payment is made in terms of the Bills of Exchange Act 34 of 1964 as amended by Act 56 of 2000;  and it is also a settlement in full as specified in terms of High Court Rule 45(8)(a).”

23)    If sheriff continues to be difficult not understanding what you are doing and wanting to proceed with his normal routine of attachment, tell him the following.

24)    “I have tendered your full payment of  ..xxx… rand/dollars and you have refused acceptance without qualification. I demand that you endorse on your Return of Service that you have refused to accept a lawful payment in the amount of ..xxx.. Rand/dollars, and rejected without qualification my payment.

25)    The sheriff is not entitled to refuse a payment because he is an agent – make him aware of it. In other words, explain to him that he is an agent operating as an intermediary and he is bound by the rules of the Court and the rules pertaining to Sheriffs.

26)    He must, as an agent, receive a lawful form of payment. Further explain him that he is not acting according to his mandate.

27)    Demand a copy of the Sheriff’s Return of Service.

28)    The Sheriff may NOT proceed with any attachments on your property OR even writing up any items, because:
a)    You have tendered lawful payment  -AND –
b)    He has issued you with a Return of Service – OR –
c)    He has refused payment and needs to file a Return of Service to the bank that states what transpired.

29)    If the Sheriff insists on entering and attaching your property, ask him to leave or you will call the police.

30)    NOTE: Sheriffs have been widely known to call “their own police” who are usually police acting outside their mandate, paid for by the Sheriff. Should this occur, you must call the police yourself. It is also highly recommended that you have friends on speed dial who can show up to support you and act as witnesses. You must get names and ID numbers of all police who you encounter.

31)    Remember that this is a CIVIL matter between the Bank and you – it is NOT a CRIMINAL matter – so the police may not assist the Sheriff in entering your home.

32)    The Police are there to maintain the PEACE – so if the Sheriff wants to enter your property by force, the police should protect you.

33)    The Sheriff needs to present different documents that rely on proof of a criminal offense to get assistance from the police. Stand your ground on this issue.

34)    Inform him that he has exceeded his mandate and he is now trespassing.

35)    Ask the police to arrest the Sheriff for unlawful entry and trespassing, after you have warned him, and ask them to charge him with intent to remove your property without cause.

36)    An additional charge may be: an attempt to extort money from you without legal invoice. This is the “all total” that the sheriff gave you earlier, without an official invoice. Nobody can demand payment without an invoice.

37)    There may also be a possible case of fraud against the Sheriff and the lawyers and the bank, who gave him the “all total.” Because the total will most likely not be accurate – the common practice by the lawyers is to inflate these amounts without adding it up accurately.  Put simply, if they feel you are ready to pay, the lawyers may inflate the amount, in belief that you are willing to settle. This is another reason why you should record the conversation.

38)    The Sheriff may be guilty of refusing lawful payment; extorting money without an invoice and inflating the amount payable.

See generic Promissory Note below. Please adapt it with your details – create your own sequence of serial numbers for each consecutive note; print out a few blank notes; and keep them in a safe place with easy access. This Promissory Note is suitable for South Africa and other countries where the existing money no longer states “I promise to pay the bearer.”

We suggest that in the UK and other countries, where it still states as such, the promissory note may not need the Terms & Conditions of payment, but be a pure “promissory note”.  The state will claim that their notes are underwritten by the treasury and therefore have value – which is not really true. Because the state depends on the goodwill of the people to have “trust” in the state currency, which is an empty promise to pay, since the currency is not supported by any precious metals.

The people, on the other hand, may claim that their Promissory Notes are underwritten by the One People’s Public Trust 1776, of which every living breathing human being is automatically a beneficiary and therefore can use the TRUST to underwrite their own promissory notes. The OPPT was established on 10 September 2012, by its own Declaration and Order, lodged with UCC office in Washington, DC, under filing number 2012096074 and is a bona fide TRUST of the people of the planet.

Without Prejudice – Non Assumpsit – All Rights Reserved

Link to original article / Ubuntu Party

 

 

BANKS FORECLOSED ~ SOMEONE SHOULD LET THEIR CUSTOMERS KNOW…


by Oppt-In (Notes
April 17, 2013

ALL CORPORATIONS, INCLUDING BANKS AND GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN FORECLOSED UPON.

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO HELP US SPREAD THE NEWS!

 

Below is a partial list (more will be added) of Social Media links to former corporate banking institutions. Feel free to use the list to inform and educate the banks customers who are unaware of their foreclosure.
Some content ideas:

OPPT – introduction to the Issues remix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZgQad5K3zA
What is The OPPT?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abehIMfmkxw

  • use your own words to inform others about the banks foreclosure and their freedom from debt slavery

*** PLEASE REMEMBER TO INFORM AND EDUCATE WITH LOVE, KINDNESS AND RESPECT ***

List of Social Media contacts for corporate banking institutions…

https://www.facebook.com/notes/oppt-in/banks-foreclosed-someone-should-let-their-customers-know/168081706685345

 

Banks Too Big To Jail, Hacktivists & Citizens Not


Published on Mar 7, 2013

TheYoungTurksTheYoungTurks

“A great many people around the county were rightfully shocked and horrified by the recent excellent and hard-hitting PBS documentary, The Untouchables, which looked at the problem of high-ranking Wall Street crooks going unpunished in the wake of the financial crisis. The PBS piece certainly rattled some cages, particularly in Washington, in a way that few media efforts succeed in doing. *

Attorney General Eric Holder is revealing why Wall Street hasn’t been charged for fraud or any other crimes. In Senate testimony, he pretty much said banks are too big to jail, that they will not be pursued. Where is the justice in letting big banks run free- even be bailed out while the government- while aggressively attacking hacktivist Aaron Swartz.?

*Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/…

Support The Young Turks by Subscribing http://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungt…

Like Us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/tytnation
Follow Us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks

Support TYT for FREE by doing your Amazon shopping through this link (bookmark it!) http://www.amazon.com/?tag=theyoungtu…

Buy TYT Merch: http://theyoungturks.spreadshirt.com/

 

Michael Tellinger – Opening Speech in the Supreme Court 29 July 2011


Michael Tellinger is a real hero, one we can all take example from…

Published on Jan 23, 2013

This is the opening statement made by a nervous Michael Tellinger in his first ever appearance against the banks in South Africa – in the Supreme Court of Johannesburg – 29 July 2011
An inspirational message for those who seek true justice and a new way ahead for humanity.
In October 2010, Michael Tellinger took the conscious decision to start challenging the South African banks about their fraudulent activities and the extortion of the people. He consciously defied paying his mortgage home loan to get into court and be given an opportunity to bring the unscrupulous behaviour of the banks to the attention of the public and the ignorant courts.
His intention was to sacrifice his property in Midrand, South Africa and to use it to find justice for all the people who did not yet understand the extent to which their lives are being manipulated and controlled by the banksters.
Scott Cundill had also stood up to the banksters at this stage and the two of them were lumped together by the legal system to appeared in the Supreme Court of Johannesburg on the 29th July 2011. Every attempt was made to classify the two as members of some kind of cult with an agenda against the banks.
The media labelled them as naive, crazy and just trying to wangle their way out of debt. Out of thousands of cases that have been argued in courts by ordinary people against the banks in South Africa — the banks have won every single case. Any scientist or statistician will tell us that there is something wrong with this equation and that there must be some kind of manipulation taking place behind the scenes.
By 21 December 2012, both Tellinger and Cundill — which includes the New Economic Rights Alliance, had lost all their actions against the banks — but they are not down and out – the actions continues.
What has transpired is that the media has finally been educated and have woken up to the gross exploitation and crimes committed by the banksters against every single human being alive today. And now the media is beginning to ask their own questions of the banksters.
The incredible thing is that to date the ordinary people who have stood up to the banks, have not been given a chance to cross examine the banskters in court, and the judgement keep piling up by the thousands against the people.
The legal system is perfectly structured to protect the corporations at all cost, and deny people access to justice through its deeply convoluted and very expensive structures that no ordinary human being can afford.
There is no opportunity for justice to the people. The system has to change to serve the people and not the corporations. After all – the courts are supposed to be PEOPLE’S COURTS and the government that appoints the judges, is supposed to be a servant of the people.