# Social Category > The Whistleblower Forum >  Conspiracy of Silence -- Are you being robbed by your Bank?

## Darkangelyaya

Securitisation - A Conspiracy of Silence.pdf
Please find attached a report that has taken the internet by storm.
Banks have been lying to us!
Thousands of hard-working people have lost their homes in the process, and through deliberate misrepresentation by the Banks in South Africa.
Get your head out of the sand and start becoming aware of what is happening to 'your' money!
For more information, also visit http://www.newera.org.za

----------


## ians

I dont believe it, the banks would never lie to us or rip us off.

----------


## Darkangelyaya

> I dont believe it, the banks would never lie to us or rip us off.



Well then, no harm in reading it then?

----------


## Chrisjan B

> I dont believe it, the banks would never lie to us or rip us off.


You are not really that gullible are you?

----------


## IanF

What I can't understand is you borrow money and still owe some of it. Now the bank has used a funding mechanism to get in more money which involves your borrowings from the bank and you don't owe the money any more. 
Have I got the wrong end of the stick?
 :Helpsmilie:

----------


## adrianh

I think that ians has his tongue firmly in his cheek

----------


## Blurock

> I dont believe it, the banks would never lie to us or rip us off.


Banks want to be seen as ethical and honest in their dealings. They are the bastions of good business practice. The reality is that managers are under so much pressure to perform, that they and their staff are sometimes pushed to drastic measures just to keep their jobs. 

The sub prime scandal, illegal forex dealings, reckless trading, conditional selling (of insurance), interest rate manipulation and many other shady deals are proof of this. Yes, the perpetrators get caught and sentenced, but even banks harbour crooks in their mids. 

The executives from time to time hire consulting firms to investigate ways and means of reducing costs and increasing revenues. I do not think that those schemes are always ethical.

I have had first hand experience of a banking group who decided to stop paying the 2% interest on credit balances on cheque accounts. This was unannounced as "clients would not notice". Those that did notice and complained were re-embursed, only to receive a letter a month later that no interest would be paid as standard banking practice. :No:

----------


## Darkangelyaya

> What I can't understand is you borrow money and still owe some of it. Now the bank has used a funding mechanism to get in more money which involves your borrowings from the bank and you don't owe the money any more. 
> Have I got the wrong end of the stick?


Nope, you have it right!
The fact is, with securitisation, a third party has settled your debt with the Bank; they are also insured against default on payments. Since the Bank has been remunerated for your 'loan', they do not have the legal right to lay claim to your property anymore. Yet they will never disclose this, unless forced, and will continue to bully us as long as we take it, and don't make too many waves.
There are several cases for property repossession in South Africa that have recently been withdrawn (unconditionally) by the Banks, because the bonds were securitised.
Please don't just take my word for it; investigate the links I have posted for yourself.

----------


## IanF

> Nope, you have it right!
> The fact is, with securitisation, a third party has settled your debt with the Bank; they are also insured against default on payments. Since the Bank has been remunerated for your 'loan', they do not have the legal right to lay claim to your property anymore. Yet they will never disclose this, unless forced, and will continue to bully us as long as we take it, and don't make too many waves.
> There are several cases for property repossession in South Africa that have recently been withdrawn (unconditionally) by the Banks, because the bonds were securitised.
> Please don't just take my word for it; investigate the links I have posted for yourself.


OK now someone else has paid your loan (cession to this organisation) you still owe on the loan. This is then administered by the bank and you still owe it. Where can you show value paid. Isn't like financing a car you are the owner but the bank has the title to the car until you settle. How do you prove you have paid?
Then lets extend this to your company doing invoice discounting. After that how can you claim from your customer as you have been paid and then the customer refuses to pay the invoice.

----------


## Darkangelyaya

> OK now someone else has paid your loan (cession to this organisation) you still owe on the loan. This is then administered by the bank and you still owe it. Where can you show value paid. Isn't like financing a car you are the owner but the bank has the title to the car until you settle. How do you prove you have paid?
> Then lets extend this to your company doing invoice discounting. After that how can you claim from your customer as you have been paid and then the customer refuses to pay the invoice.


1. It is not ceded, it is bought outright from the Banks;
2. The Bank is never appointed to administer the loan;
3. Your contract is between you and the Bank, not between you and the 'debt owner';
4.The Bank must answer the simple question whether your specific debt has been securitised or not - you don't have to prove you paid - they have to prove not paid (not securitised);
5. It is exactly like financing a car - often credit card debt and vehicle finance also get securitised;
6. For more in-depth legal information, please contact NewEra, as I'm not a legal boffin at all, I'm merely putting the info out there for everyone to make up their own minds - I have a hard enough time already getting simple answers from my banksters.
7. Securitization is a multi-billion dollar industry, also in SA, info is freely available on Banking Regulatory websites in SA.

----------


## IanF

Darkangel,
When I go to those sites I am totally baffled that is why when I get someone who is straightforward punting this I want to ask the questions. Now for the banks to prove the debt they pull out an agreement and a statement. There is still a balance on the statement what do you put forward as proof of payment?

----------


## Darkangelyaya

> Darkangel,
> When I go to those sites I am totally baffled that is why when I get someone who is straightforward punting this I want to ask the questions. Now for the banks to prove the debt they pull out an agreement and a statement. There is still a balance on the statement what do you put forward as proof of payment?


Yes, it is overwhelming and confusing at first.

1. First ask the bank for a copy of your credit agreement.There you will be able to see whom you actually signed with.
2. Ask them outright whether your bond has been securitised. If it has, silence is normally the loud reply. If it hasn't, they should confirm that in writing.
3. Once you have these answers, you can decide which steps to follow.
Needless to say, the banks are not very forthcoming with info.
Also contact ScottyC, on here, or view his youtube videos about the dark secrets of money. (Scott Cundill)

----------


## Blurock

> OK now someone else has paid your loan (cession to this organisation) you still owe on the loan. This is then administered by the bank and you still owe it. Where can you show value paid. Isn't like financing a car you are the owner but the bank has the title to the car until you settle. How do you prove you have paid?
> Then lets extend this to your company doing invoice discounting. After that how can you claim from your customer as you have been paid and then the customer refuses to pay the invoice.


If you discount an invoice, the factoring company will collect the debt on your behalf as you have sold all your rights to the proceeds of the invoice to them.  If the debtor defaults, the factor can still claim from you in a "with recourse" agreement as you are guaranteeing payment by the debtor. Non-recourse agreements are not normally done in South Africa due to the perceived risk.

You may also have an arrangement where you discount an invoice or debt, but the factor allows you to collect the debt on their behalf. This is called a non-disclosed agreement.

When you pay the shop by credit card, the same principles as with factoring applies. The shop owner "discounts" the invoice with the card company who in turn will collect from the card holder. :Big Grin:

----------


## IanF

@blurock thanks for explaining the invoice discounting this is now understandable.
@darkangel I still can't get my head around how you can prove payment due to securitisation of your loan! Need to put on my deep thinking cap.

----------


## Justloadit

Even if the securitisation of your bond has taken place, the bank in all probability still stands as the responsible institution/collector in collecting the repayment of the original loan. In the case of non payment of the loan, whether the bank or whether the new owner of the debt will still follow the legal steps to collect their outstanding payment. The manner in which the securitisation is being presented, is giving a false impression that once the bank has securitised the bond, that the original bond is no longer payable. This to me is incorrect, you made a loan, and now you must pay it back.

----------


## Blurock

> @blurock thanks for explaining the invoice discounting this is now understandable.
> @darkangel I still can't get my head around how you can prove payment due to securitisation of your loan! Need to put on my deep thinking cap.


You can never get out of a debt because the debt has been ceded or sold to another party. The principle is; you owe money, you pay. :Smile:

----------


## Citizen X

> You can never get out of a debt because the debt has been ceded or sold to another party. The principle is; you owe money, you pay.


Here we need cold hard facts! How many actual people were thus far successful in extinguishing their debt on the basis of securitisation? I intend making a post about the Constitution referal/appeals process; many have tried and failed. At the first instance The Constitutional Court wants some very simple and straight forward information from you! What Constitutional right was infringed and what Constitutional issue is involved here. At this juncture, they don't really want any long story, just that!

----------


## IanF

OK so now we need to find out what the legal mechanisms are? It seems most here agree.

----------


## Citizen X

> OK so now we need to find out what the legal mechanisms are? It seems most here agree.


Very true Ian, I'll be perfectly honest with you, I haven’t had a chance to study all of the New Economic Alliances documents and court papers etc; there’s quite a bit! In fairness to them, I will want to properly study their documents before I give my layperson’s findings! Regardless, any appeal is almost always based on a question of law as opposed to a question of fact.(some insight, in criminal matters the Supreme Court of Appeal won’t hear an appeal on questions of fact simply because the trial court is in a far better position to assess aspects such as credibility of witnesses which you can’t really do on paper. That said, Scotty has given indication that this is bound to be a Constitutional Court matter. The ‘legal mechanism ,’ or question to the CC will simply initially be “Is there a Constitutional issue involved here in the first place? ”What Constitutional right has been infringed?”
So, yes, its legal mechanisms we mostly interested in. I think this is so, so that we can get a fair idea of what their prospects of success are? Going forward, there is a very special and specific Constitutional Court Appeal i.e. appeal from Supreme Court of Leave to CC that I very specifically want to use to demonstrate how clearly and concisely the CC wants things unpacked. In short this woman was convicted of murder, she went right through to the SCA, but did not succeed. She appealed to the CC as the CC says actually anyone that acts in the interst of themselves or a group of people with common cause may petition the court on Constitutional issues. They don’t hear any other issue and have made that clear in case law. She created a longwinded , long, very long, about the turn, too long story about battered women syndrome and how the SCA did not regard this. In short the CC averred that she did not apply for leave to appeal on grounds of new evidence and even if she did, her matter was not a Constitutional issue not matter how she attempted to make it seem as though it was a Constitutional issue….
I have no doubt that Scotty and company have their hearts in the right place but one must never underestimate the banks as a boxing contender: They the reigning heavy weight champion money wise!!!

----------


## tec0

Banks are ok for investments but I fear because long term work and or permanent work is going the way of the dodo so will long-term investments. Fact is a 10 year investment becomes a gamble if your contract at your employer only extends for a few months. 

I always said that labour brokers will be a massive negative on our economy but if you look at what is happening at the moment you realise that investments can no longer cope simply because the income capital is not there to support the structure. 

Thus the total investment power of the company will diminish over the next 5 to 10 years leaving the supper wealthy to feed off each other like parasites. 

That said 5 year investment plans along with flexible trusts is the new solution low risk and reasonable rewards are attractive to the average investor 

The actual ownership of rare metals is also on the rise. Silver especially as it is cheaper then Gold but still retain good value and as it is slowly becoming more expensive to mine silver, you know the value will grow steadily but slowly. 

But in all honesty I am looking forward to the new government body that will regulate the value of property. It will appropriately devaluate property thus making it more affordable to buy and to restore.  :Yes: 

Right now property is at a all time high, broken down homes with high restoration costs still sells for millions.  :No:  This is not an investment it is extortion.  :Mad:

----------


## Blurock

> But in all honesty I am looking forward to the new government body that will regulate the value of property. It will appropriately devaluate property thus making it more affordable to buy and to restore. 
> 
> Right now property is at a all time high, broken down homes with high restoration costs still sells for millions.  This is not an investment it is extortion.


Do you know something that we don't? Are we heading for a communist government where they decide where you will stay and what we pay for our property?

I think not. The government needs the tax to fund their gravy train and corruption and they are forever looking at new sources of revenue. Our local municipality re-valued my property earlier this year. The increased valuation, combined with the 9% increase in rates, resulted in a 17% increase in the amount I have to pay for rates on my property. Do you think these crooks will give it up? Dream on... :Huh:

----------


## wynn

> broken down homes with high restoration costs still sells for millions.  This is not an investment it is extortion.


Position, position, position.
A broken down shack on Clifton beach is worth more than a mansion in Tafelsig???

----------


## Darkangelyaya

Sheesh,
I'm back... what a week!
a) Nobody told anyone to not repay their legally owed debts;
b) Check out the poll results to see how much trust and faith we have in banks;
c) Be informed - wake up, and investigate every aspect of your life - it's called being present, living in the now, etc...
d) If a rich uncle of yours died and paid off all your debt, would you still insist on paying your bond back to the bank?!!!
Sigh...
I just obliterated my last remaining shred of dignity by tripping UP some steps.
Viva Ubuntu.

----------


## Darkangelyaya

> Very true Ian, I'll be perfectly honest with you, I havent had a chance to study all of the New Economic Alliances documents and court papers etc; theres quite a bit! In fairness to them, I will want to properly study their documents before I give my laypersons findings! Regardless, any appeal is almost always based on a question of law as opposed to a question of fact.(some insight, in criminal matters the Supreme Court of Appeal wont hear an appeal on questions of fact simply because the trial court is in a far better position to assess aspects such as credibility of witnesses which you cant really do on paper. That said, Scotty has given indication that this is bound to be a Constitutional Court matter. The legal mechanism , or question to the CC will simply initially be Is there a Constitutional issue involved here in the first place? What Constitutional right has been infringed?
> So, yes, its legal mechanisms we mostly interested in. I think this is so, so that we can get a fair idea of what their prospects of success are? Going forward, there is a very special and specific Constitutional Court Appeal i.e. appeal from Supreme Court of Leave to CC that I very specifically want to use to demonstrate how clearly and concisely the CC wants things unpacked. In short this woman was convicted of murder, she went right through to the SCA, but did not succeed. She appealed to the CC as the CC says actually anyone that acts in the interst of themselves or a group of people with common cause may petition the court on Constitutional issues. They dont hear any other issue and have made that clear in case law. She created a longwinded , long, very long, about the turn, too long story about battered women syndrome and how the SCA did not regard this. In short the CC averred that she did not apply for leave to appeal on grounds of new evidence and even if she did, her matter was not a Constitutional issue not matter how she attempted to make it seem as though it was a Constitutional issue.
> I have no doubt that Scotty and company have their hearts in the right place but one must never underestimate the banks as a boxing contender: They the reigning heavy weight champion money wise!!!


Ever heard of David and Goliath?  :Fence:

----------


## Justloadit

> Position, position, position.
> A broken down shack on Clifton beach is worth more than a mansion in Tafelsig???


Has anyone taken the time to look at the latest building regulations?
Well, make sure you are sitting down, because if not you will fall down!
Typical government - regulations are simply made with out studying the repercussions to the market, for manufacturers of materials, service providers, builders and home buyers. 
The new regulations are going to force the cost of new homes to cost more to build than in the past. 
So it will be "cheaper" to buy something old and renovate than to build new. Renovating will not require following the latest building codes.

So be ready for cost of housing to go up, and not down, simply because the cost of building according to the new regulations, is going to cost so much more.

----------


## Mike C

Is this similar to what is being discussed in this thread about bonds - or totally different?

My wife received this notification yesterday.




> We are pleased to advise you that Edcon Proprietary Limited ("Edcon") and Absa Bank Limited ("Absa") have entered into a strategic arrangement. On 1 November 2012, Absa became the credit provider for all South African customers with Edgars, Jet, Boardmans and Legit store cards.
> 
> Although Absa now provides the credit facility on your store card, it will be business as usual for you:
> 
> 
>    Your credit limit and repayment terms remain unchanged;
>    Your store card continues to be available for use; and
>    You can continue to make your repayments as you have previously done. 
> 
> ...

----------


## vieome

> Ever heard of David and Goliath?


 Is that the story of the small well armed boy taking down a big un-armed man?

----------

Darkangelyaya (21-Nov-12)

----------


## Darkangelyaya

> Is that the story of the small well armed boy taking down a big un-armed man?


Never bring a gun to a knife-fight.....

----------


## Darkangelyaya

> Is this similar to what is being discussed in this thread about bonds - or totally different?
> 
> My wife received this notification yesterday.


I might be mistaken, but I think it is the same thing. Credit Cards definitely fall into this category, but store cards... not 100% sure, although it technically is credit too.

----------


## ScottyC

Hi everyone, especallly to Darkangelyaya, you have held up the flag well! Bravo chick!

The one part that I took a chuckle at is the part where someone says "you borrowed money so you must pay it back." WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. If you believe this, then with the greatest of respect, you just don't get how the three trade methodologies - seignorage, fractional reserve banking and securitisation operate in the modern banking system. In fact, almost every word in that sentence is wrong.

Firstly, there is no "you" because you do not own the money in your bank account. The bank owns your money - check out SA Law for confirmation. That means, you are merely operating as a kind of agent for the bank when you make a so-called "transfer." You don't pay for anything, you merely adminster the bank's account for them.  Did you get the profoundness of this statement? "YOU" DO NOT EXIST - "YOU" ARE MERELY A SURROGATE BANK EMPLOYEE ADMINSTERING THE BANK'S ACCOUNTS FOR THEM. "None are more enslaved than those who honestly believe they are free."


Secondly, the word "borrow" is so misleading it makes you want to vomit. There is no "borrower" in a "loan agreement." In fact, there is no "money" - there are only bank IOU's (with no substance backing them) that masquerade as money. There can be no borrower, because the matching principle according to GAAP, merely allows banks to EXTEND or ADVANCE CREDIT. You give the bank an asset (negotiable instrument) and in return you get a credit facility (bank liability = promise to pay money = money). The bank doesn't loan you money, it just makes a facility available via a book-balancing act which you can then spend. You then pay it back with interest!!! That is why people say that money is created out of nothing.

"pay it back" - it is NOT possible to pay money back because it was never lent to you in the first place. BANKS DO NOT LEND THEIR DEPOSITS. Deposits are merely give the bank its illusion of liquidity so they can fractionalise its reserve depsoits into loans 10 times over. This is MONEY MADE OUT OF THIN AIR. Therefore, it is not possible to pay a debt - it is only possible to DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION. See the court case Stanek vs. White in the US. When you figure this out... oh wow, the world will change for you.

With the greatest of love and respect, please read the NewERA documents properly - especially Securitisation - A Conspiracy of Silence. Also, listen to the interviews with our legal advisor. 

When the penny drops, we look forward to you all standing with us.

ScottyC

----------

Darkangelyaya (22-Nov-12)

----------


## ScottyC

Check out Standard Banks end of year financials. They securitise anything that can be securitised. They are NOT operating as a bank, they are operating as a intermediary / agent for the shadow banking system which is highly protected by insurance (backed by the people). Naughty naughty...

----------

Darkangelyaya (22-Nov-12)

----------


## IanF

Hi Scottyc,
You know a lot that I don't understand. Also I can't follow the logic I tried to read on your website and the only idea I get is because the bank securitised your loan you don 't have to pay it back. Now you don't pay back the loan an the bank takes you to court how do you get "proof of payment" to show you have paid back the loan? 

The big picture then is the banks money is a fiction as such you don't owe it. How would the economic system work after the banks have been wiped out back to bartering?

----------


## Citizen X

> Ever heard of David and Goliath?


Sure I have. Now you are playing nice! You give credence to my Biblical icons, then I simply must hold you in high regard!
PROBLEM: In my official capacity as member of the very exclusive club: “The weak, foolish, and lowly and despised things of this world.” I’ve given privilege in stating really whatever it is that my feable mind can conjure up when it comes to the Bible: if we going to talk witin the ambit of David V Goliath, we need to mention the essential elements. :Thumbup: 
Challenge 1: David v Goliath style battle: EXPERIENCE??
You see it’s really quite simple: David already had experience in dealing with monsters before he took on Goliath!! SAY what??
You see no soldier of King Saul had thus far taken on what David so routinely and easily took on his official capacity as shepherd. *He said, I killed a BEAR, I killed a LION,* I’ll take on this character!
“ The lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear, HE will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine.”1 Samuel: 17:37
Challenge 2: David v Goliath style battle: The missing ingredient
In University equivalent terms, David majored in God, that was his speciality! :Gunsmilie:  “ You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, BUT I come against you in the name of the Lord.”
*In my opinion*, in this battle, we must know what the prospects of success are! I think we need to clearly understand on what Constitutional grounds this matter is being taken to the Constitutional Court. I think we need to know for sure how many South Africans have already been successful with a simple version of this argument to the banks?(If so how many?) These are simple facts that we need, I think

----------


## Darkangelyaya

> *In my opinion*, in this battle, we must know what the prospects of success are! I think we need to clearly understand on what Constitutional grounds this matter is being taken to the Constitutional Court. I think we need to know for sure how many South Africans have already been successful with a simple version of this argument to the banks?(If so how many?) These are simple facts that we need, I think


What I like the most about your post, Vanash, is the word 'WE'.

NB! I know you don't refer to international law as 100% applicable here, but go check out what happened in Iceland, and I believe Hungary is following suit.

----------


## Darkangelyaya

@All:
Hence the following:

http://www.theforumsa.co.za/forums/s...0123#post80123

@IanF:
ScottyC needs to answer that! I'm way too blond.
But, I can tell you that we are currently compiling a high court interdict application to stop banks from proceeding with legal action geared towards repossession, against ALL clients. Once the practice of securitisation has been fully investigated by the Law, I'm sure everyone will suddenly notice!

----------


## Citizen X

:Big Grin: 


> What I like the most about your post, Vanash, is the word 'WE'.
> 
> NB! I know you don't refer to international law as 100% applicable here, but go check out what happened in Iceland, and I believe Hungary is following suit.


*I sincerely wish Scotty and company every thing of the best*! I actually feel nothing for the banks. I think they've made enough profit over the years. I think they merciless when enforcing a debt; I'm for the ordinary South African :Big Grin: 
*The plural ‘we*,’ is actually keeping true to the original David v Goliath Biblical rendition. “ The ARMIES of the living God.”**
*You see David seen what no one else on that battle field was even capable of seeing!* The plural noun ‘armies!’ Your typical soldier on that battle field only seen his own one army Butt not young David. He actually sees the allies on D Day, in his individual case, platoons of angels and infantries of saints. The weapons of the wind and the forces of the Earth. Since David see ‘armies,’ instead of army, he gets right into battle with Goliath.

----------


## ScottyC

Thats ok - I suggest going here http://www.newera.org.za/explosive-interview/ and listening to the interviews with our legal advisor. They explain the whole process. The difficult thing to get over is this issue that you don't have to pay back a loan. Although that is COMPLETELY TRUE, that is not what we are advocating. For the first time, the people now have serious firepower on their side to level the playing field. You cannot look at the banks as merely a company that wishes to make money. It is an entire interconnected global consortium that regulates the planetary society. You need to see the banks for what they REALLY are and this is much broader than most people realise.

----------


## IanF

I am still confused but that is normal. 
Looking at the big picture, or my conclusion if you win your case against the banks how will the monetary system then work? 
If I was a bank I would stop lending as it is a fiction and you will struggle to get repaid.
 :Confused:

----------


## Darkangelyaya

10 Critical Questions to Ask Your Bank


If you want to understand how the banksters are deceitfully pulling the wool over all our eyes please go to the NewERA website and read the document called "Securitisation - Conspiracy of Silence" which is spreading through the Internet like wildfire. www.newera.org.za
Thanks to this document, people from all over South Africa are demanding that their bank tell them the truth. What is absolutely unbelievable, is that the banks are refusing to answer these 10 simple questions. 
These are brilliantly structured to expose the banks, if they are answered - that is why they will NOT answer these questions, because that would immediately implicate them in a number of unlawful and fraudulent activities. Starting by lying to you - which is what they have been doing in at least three Supreme Court hearings in which members of the UBUNTU Party were involved.

We urge you to send these questions to your banks and demand a response within 7 days. You will find that they immediately hand you over to their external legal department, breaching client confidentiality in the process. 

10 Critical Questions To Ask Your Bank Today

1.    Am I indebted to the bank right now? (Please answer yes or no).
2.    Please confirm that the bank actually possessed the money they claim to have lent me, prior to my loan being granted. In other words, did the bank physically have the money they lent me, prior to the money appearing in my account?
3.    Would the bank be prepared to amend the credit agreement as follows: We, the bank, did in fact possess the money we loaned you, prior to the loan being approved.
4.    Was the loan funded by assets belonging to the bank at the time the loan was granted? Either way, please describe in detail the accounting process used to create my loan.
5.    Did the bank record my promissory note / negotiable instrument as an asset on its books? If yes, how was my instrument used to create my loan, and where is my valuable promissory note / negotiable instrument now?
6.    Does the bank participate in a securitisation scheme whereby debts / promissory notes are bundled and then sold-on to a third party/parties via special purpose vehicles, entities or alike processes?
7.    Was my loan securitised? If so, please send me all details regarding the securitisation.
8.    Does the bank have a legal right to collect money it claims I owe it? If so, then were does this legal right come from, assuming the loan has been securitised?
9.    Has my loan with the bank been settled by a special purpose vehicle, insurance policy, or by any other party?
10.    Regarding the security given to the bank by me, has this security been sold on or given as security to another party?

NewERA is preparing a High Court Application (interdict) to prevent bank collections taken against their members. The UBUNTU Party urges everyone to join NewERA in this action and make history in taking back our economic freedom from the unlawful banskters who have been destroying peoples lives with impunity.

The banks cannot be allowed to stick their head in the sand and pretend that this R30 billion per month securitisation industry simply does not exist. While we at the UBUNTU Party are preparing our case to launch full criminal charges against the banks, we support the New Economic Rights Alliance in their proposed interdict against all SA banks, to stop all repossessions and auctions of properties until our arguments have been heard in a full trial that will expose the unlawful and fraudulent activities of the banksters.

To join the High Court interdict, and possibly protect your assets against economic hardship, please go to www.newera.org.za

Special Note: Some banks are telling their customers that NewERA is misleading them. If so, then surely the banks will happily answer all your questions?

VIVA UBUNTU - VIVA ABUNDANCE FOR ALL - VIVA UNITY
Michael of the family Tellinger

----------


## Dave A

I always worry when someone becomes too attached to a particular idea, the truth of which is marginal, and then relies on it completely in building the rest of their view of the world.

In the instance of The Big Case, this particular fixation is that a third party has "paid the debt of the homeowner". And I think it prudent to point out that there are alternative possibilities. The ones that come to mind are:

The third party has bought a revenue stream.The third party has bought the debt - all that has changed is the creditor.
And there may well be more.

What fascinates me though is the seeming reluctance of the banks to tackle the cases mentioned head on and finalise the issue. And I have to wonder why.

To be plain, I don't know why, but I have considered the following possibilities:

There is a technical flaw relating to disclosure.There has been some other legal flaw in the bond contract that may be vulnerable to exposure.The ducking of more complex cases is part of a sound legal strategy to eventually overcome the challenges.This particular attack deflects focus from and delays a much bigger threat - a full blown regulatory review of the securitisation of home bonds.
I know this much - as someone who has very recently taken a bond, there are some new clauses in the bond agreement that rather explicitly prevent me from mounting the sort of challenge NewERA is currently pursuing. Typical banker "belt and braces" or the response to a problem realised? Again, I don't know with certainty. But it has aroused my curiousity, so I'm following the progress of The Big Case with some interest.

I do worry about the red herrings being dragged through the mix, though. To me it does little to advance the credibility of NewERA and their Big Case. In particular, the "money out of thin air" argument is normally a clear sign you're debating with someone who is either deliberately trying to misdirect or has a poor "big picture" grasp of what a "monetary system" really is.

----------

Darkangelyaya (24-Nov-12)

----------


## Darkangelyaya

I was wondering what your views were, Dave.

And, like the true gentleman and thinker that you are, you have addressed this exactly as I expected.

I cannot answer your questions; and I do not necessarily agree with absolutely everything that is being said under the labels of either Ubuntu or NewEra, both of which I am a member. 

My view is however, to put the information out there, as factual as I'm able to under my name, or quoting the source where it's not my writings.

I always attempt to get people thinking for themselves, because that is a huge challenge for a lot of South Africans who just blindly believed in the old regime/ their specific church and its doctrine/ the local police chief / any medical doctor / their rugby team / their bank manager. (Scrap which is not applicable).

It rarely enters people's minds that there may be another way of looking at the world, there may be another religion whose followers won't all burn in hell, there may be a control-based / power-based / fear-based reason behind new and restrictive laws, there may be other worlds, aliens may really exist, and maybe the nice guy on the corner who always makes way for you really beats his wife to a pulp every weekend.

I don't care what anybody's beliefs are - monetary/fiscal/spiritual/politically/sexually/religious, none of it matters. What matters is that we start thinking for ourselves.

I personally know the person who developed the e-tolling system, for instance, and I know what his views, motivations, and reasons were for developing the system. A novel and economically sound idea to protect our transport industry, (without touching the consumer's pockets) has been turned into a huge money-making scheme. His intellectual property was taken, and then the idea behind the system has been violated. And he has not been paid.

There is corruption on every level of our Economic system. I was on a site this past week, where I was approached, twice, to inquire whether I'm open for 'pay-per-tender' discussions. I.e. Paying bribes in return for contracts. On the same site, a government employee (responsible for allocating this contract) and a contractor were in an obvious personal relationship, yet when you investigate her tender document, the affidavit states that she has no ties/friendships in government. Her company history also indicates that she only gets awarded the tenders that he oversees, every single time.

I know of, and have proof of, corruption to the tune of millions still going on in certain government sections. Even the Hawks are not willing to investigate this. Why?

All I'm saying is, let's put the information out there, for everyone to investigate on their own. If you have never encountered an idea contradicting your own, you have never questioned yours.

Let's just use our grey matter for a change. (If you could find this forum, you are quite able to think, and therefor, reason). Make up your own minds, but for goodness' sake, get both sides of the story!

 :Hmmm:

----------

Dave A (25-Nov-12)

----------


## Dave A

> My view is however, to put the information out there, as factual as I'm able to under my name, or quoting the source where it's not my writings.


 :Thumbup:

----------


## Citizen X

The following is my opinion on this matter in my official capacity as ‘Layperson to the law,’ a capacity which I’m incidentally very proud of!

My point of departure remains intellectual curiosity( as an ordinary member of the South African public).

I will state my opinion in points, I intend to unpack the procedural aspects of this case FIRST and firstly provide my opinion on one tape recording between Raymond Dicks and Scott Colin Cundil. Ideally, I’d also like to give my opinion on each averment in the particulars of claim. Since this is a colossal task, I should be in a position to provide a layperson’s opinion to each averment in stages. *This post deals only with the introductory interview and the procedural aspects.**
From the outset, allow me to impress upon you that I sincerely wish Scott and Newera everything of the best!
**@ Newera:* summons was sued out on 19 July 2012. Since this case is at the heart of openness and transparency, I’m confident that you will be open and transparent with me as an ordinary member of the public? The defendants must have delivered their plea. Please make their plea available so that we can also see what they have to say? You made your particulars of claim publically available, there should be no reason why you do the same for the defendants plea
PLEASE? :Smile: 
*Summary of my opinion*: _Start opinion:_That being said, my overall opinion is that the prospects of success are slim. Even if the High Court rules in their favour, the Constitutional Court still needs to confirm their findings. The sum total of my opinion is this: Customers were not loan fictitious money, as *they spent the money* on properties or goods and services. You can’t physically spend fictitious money! Even if through there are technicalities involved, what if the bank puts some simple questions to you?Q Did you take out a loan with bank a? A Yes QWere you forced to take out this loan? A No Q How did you spend this money A, Oh, I drew some and spent some at Sun-city, I bought a new lounge suit, I bought a house, I gave some away to the church _End opinion_
1. At this stage I simply want to put things into perspective from *a procedural point of view*;
2. I’ll start with the first recording, one of three that I have downloaded at this stage. I think this is just introductory, background interview between Scott Colin Cundil and Raymond Dicks. It’s entitled Raymond 1A(best quality);
3. Raymond Dicks is no doubt a learned man by his own testimony in this interview. I respect this fact of simply being learned.
4. Raymond inter alia talks about the sources of our South African Law. As at today’s date our sources of law are: 1. Legislation(aka enacted texts, aka Act of Parliament, aka Statute; it is a product of the National Assembly, it as an Act number and is signed into law by the President eg Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977(as amended), 2: Case Law(stare decisis:[also known as court decisions] this is court decisions which operate on the principal of judicial precedent, higher courts bind lower courts decision); 3: Common Law( This Roman- Dutch law as influenced by English law, it’s developed by our courts, it remains in force unless a statutory position states otherwise eg. the common law position of power of attorney as at today’s date is that the same can be provided verbally, tacitly or in writing UNLESS a statutory provision states otherwise; and/or where a statute is silent about a certain matter, the court will have a look at what common law has to say on that particular matter[ our Common law originated in ancient Rome, Rome had colonies, all its colonies had to accept it’s law; so when Rome colonised most of Europe including the Nederlands, the Netherlands had to accept Rome’s law. As the Netherlands developed original Rome law, they called it Roman- Dutch Law. Now, we know the story of Jan van Riebieck and company, when the first settlers started to arrive in what was then the Cape Colony, they brought along with them, this very Roman Dutch law. This Roman Dutch law was then developed in the Cape, it was a starting point if you will. Now, we know that South Africa was at one stage a British colony, they brought with them English case law. This is why I say Common law is Roman Dutch law as influenced by English Law. We still continue to develop this Common law in South Africa. This development is on-going. After 1994, our African Customary Law also known as indigenous law has had a great influence on Common law); 4.: Custom law and 5:African Customary Law). These five(5) sourcesremain our only authoritative primary sources of law; we do have secondary sources *BUT* they not binding and only have persuasive value e.g. International law and University textbooks and legal books. So, if you citing a Professor of Law, his view/opinion *holds persuasive value at* best. If in doubt, the court can even appoint what is called ‘friends of the court(amicus curiae),’ to assist them, they can appoint for instance two leading Professors of law who wrote tons of University Textbooks to assist them;
*5. International law.* Here I need to be very clear! We do have ‘public international law,’ *not* International law(comparative law). With Public International Law, we only concerned with the relationship between states. This will by definition include the law of peace and war etc. Comparitive law(comparing law by citing case law of other countries) *is NO LONGER even a LLB subject.* When it was a LLB subject it was optional NOT compulsory, one chose it as an elective. Now, no university has ‘Comparitive Law,’ as a LLB subject!!! So, if Law School doesn’t even have this as a subject any longer, this can be seen as an important point of departure. Prof Wily Hosten was the first South African academic to introduce ‘Comparitive law,’ into the LLB curriculum. That was then and this is now! *Think of it like this, Zimbabwe also has law, just imagine if our courts were obligated to take their laws of land reform seriously! Also think of it like this, this is not Zimbabwe, or India, or England or the USA, this is South Africa! As such, we as proud South Africans have our own law and our own way of doings thinks, why must be consider what other countries are doing? I think other countries should consider what we are doing in the area of law. I’m personally not concerned about what Mugabe and Zimbabwe are doing in their law. Their law means nothing to me, our law means everything to me!* 
*6.* *The LLB curriculum does indeed have a subject called ‘Banking Law!’ It doesn’t have a subject [any-longer] called ‘comparitive law!!! The next sentiment is not intended to offend, it’s intended to entertain! Allow this poor and wandering scholar some tongue and cheek. To drive home this point of national pride, I vest your attention on the 1981 fictitious movie ‘Escape from New York,’ now we know that Snake Plisken did indeed escape from New York. I now direct your attention to Escape from LA. In this movie the bad guy Georges Corraface, who has a new age cult called ‘The Shining Path revolutionaries puts it to Snake Plisken, ‘We know you escaped from New York, BUT this is not New York, this is LA!!!” So, why can’t I as an ordinary South African remark, This is not Zimbabwe, this is South Africa???
I escaped from New York!
*
*Bad guy: " Yes, we know you escaped from New York! BUT this is not New York, this is LA!!!"

7.* *The Civil Procedure*
What law regulates the High Courts in South Africa? I’ll give you the long title and the short title: Long title[ Rules regulating the conduct of the proceedings of the several provincial and local divisions of the Supreme Court of South Africa]. Short tile Uniform rules of court
*Action proceedings**.* This is called action proceedings because it involves a summons. In action proceedings there is a distinction between the pleading stage and the trial stage. During the pleading stage the plaintiff and defendant exchange various document
Combined summons: The plaintiff NewEra sued out what is called combined summons. With a combined summons the summons and the particulars of claim are intrinsically joined or linked. Further-more the combined summons calls upon the defendant(the banks) is do two things: 1: Enter an appearance(notice of intention to defend) and 2: Plea( answer paragraph by paragraph to the plaintiff’s particulars of claim i.e. either admit, deny, place in issue or confess and avoid
8. Why is combined summons used?[ Rule 17(2)(a) Uniform rules of court] The combined summons is used where the plaintiff’s claim is unliquidated. To put this in simple terms, with a liquidated demand anyone can by means of simple mathematical calculation determined the amount claimed whereas with a combined summons the amount claimed (quantum of claim) can’t be established with ease as at the time of particulars of claim. The court will make a final ruling of amount after hearing both sides. Combined summons is mostly used in actions for divorce, damages and actions associated with the National Credit Act as there are many averments in these cases.
9. The parties: The plaintiff and the defendant(In civil cases these are the parties titles change on appeal i.e. applicant, respondent)
10. The standard in civil cases: Balance of probability. This is the test the court will use, who version of events is more probable on a balance of probabilities;
11. Joinder of parties[ Rule 10(1) Uniform rules of court] Requirements: Each plaintiff must have a claim against and also must act against the very same defendant(s) in this case the defendants are the banks; AND one or more defendants must be entitled to act against the defendants in a separate action. Circumstances: The claim must depend on the same question of law and/or fact;
12. What happens after summons is sued out Certain documents such as the defendants notice of intention to defend as well as their plea(answer to plaintiffs particulars of claim must be made available to the plaintiff and registrar of High Court within a prescribed period of time( known as dies induciae);
*13.* Summons was sued out on 19 July 2012, it could have been served in Early August, I’m being presumptuous, let’s assume the 1 August 2012. The banks had 10 days from date of 1 August to enter an appearance(which they did), they also had 20 days after service of notice of intention to defend to serve plea on plaintiff and registrar, which they must have done. *They could also also served a ‘notice of exception,’ which I suspect the banks did*, (If so Newera, please let us know?)

----------


## Citizen X

Post 2
This is still just a follow up to my previous post number  . Here I still deal with the *introductory interview*.
Raymond Dicks makes mention of the ‘Reasonable person,’ concept of law. I honestly fail to see where or how this concept will apply anywhere in this individual case. I accept that I may be wrong, I think some simple clarification of where and how the reasonable person concept will find reference in this individual case?
The following is committed to memory! It’s not my own words! To be perfectly honest with you , I can’t recall the textbook and/or study guide where I got this from! Acknowledgement to original authors whoever you are!
Whilst the reason person is used as a test in other areas of law, it’s not used in every single civil case as a general rule. It is by and large used in the ‘Law of delict,’ in cases of gross negligence!
“The reasonable person is merely a fictitious character which the law invents to personify the objective standard of conduct which the law sets in order to determine negligence..
By reasonable man is meant an ordinary, normal, average person. In terms of case law, in Mbombela 1933 AD 269 273 the Court described the reasonable man as “the man of ordinary knowledge and intelligence. He is neither, on the one hand, an exceptionally cautious or talented person(Van As 1976 (2) SA 921 (A) 928), nor, on the other, an underdeveloped person, or somebody who recklessly takes chances. 
The reasonable person accordingly finds himself somewhere between these two extremes.
The reasonable person remains an ordinary flesh and blood human being whose reactions are subject to the limitations of human nature”
*Now, in latin, there was no proper term or word for reasonable person. The latin equivalent remains ‘Diligen paterfamilias or diligens bonus(responsible father of a house)*
‘In _Herschel v Mrupe_ 1954 (3) SA 464 (A) 490 it was stated that the concept of a _bonus paterfamilias_ is not that of a timorous fainthearted always in trepidation lest he or others would suffer some injury. On the contrary he ventures out into the world, engages in affairs and takes reasonable chances. He take reasonable precaution to protect his person and property and expects others to do the same.’


‘In _Robinson v Roseman_ 1964 (1) SA 701 (T) 715. In this case it was stated that the essence of negligence which depends on the care of a diligent man, requires the plaintiff to prove that (a) the defendant should have foreseen the possibility of his conduct injuring another in his person or his property and causing him patrimonial loss and (b) that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to have guarded against such occurrence.’

‘In _Union Government v National Bank of South Africa Ltd_ 1921 AD 121 130 Innes CJ stated “the test as to the existence of the duty of care is by our lawthe judgment of a reasonable man. Could the infliction of injury to others have been reasonably
foreseen? If so, the person whose conduct is in question must be regarded as having owed a duty to such others, whoever they might be, to take due and reasonable care to avoid such injury.’


So in essence, as an ordinary member of the public, I’m simply asking for clarification please Newera???

----------


## IanF

@Scotty
Vanash has made some interesting points in his posts. Do you have any comment other than look at the website.

 :Confused:

----------


## kcrampono

please feel free to read actions taken against the by Ubuntu Party on www.ubuntuparty.org.za we not here to oppose political parties we here to see all South Africans be treated as Humans this is our land.....

----------


## Dave A

> @Scotty
> Vanash has made some interesting points in his posts. Do you have any comment other than look at the website.


I guess not.




> please feel free to read actions taken against the by Ubuntu Party on www.ubuntuparty.org.za we not here to oppose political parties we here to see all South Africans be treated as Humans this is our land.....


You see, that's the problem. I look at your website and instead of getting answers I find I've got even more questions.

Here's an example taken from your UBUNTU position on mines and mining:




> A Council Of Elders will be appointed by the people of South Africa, consisting of the most trusted and respected individuals, to look after the interests of the people in this regard – this council will have absolute control to implement the will of the people – not the will of the corrupt politicians who are controlled by powerful multinational corporations.


Who will appoint the Elders?
What will be the process?
How will they determine the will of the people as to what needs to be done?

----------


## IanF

Now I get lost here 
You are asking for money which will go into the system you are fighting.

----------


## Darkangelyaya

> Now I get lost here 
> You are asking for money which will go into the system you are fighting.


How do you suggest funding it then?
Obviously there needs to be a transitional period, but we all still work, live and eat with money, right?

----------


## IanF

> How do you suggest funding it then?
> Obviously there needs to be a transitional period, but we all still work, live and eat with money, right?


That is my point once the banks are gone how do pay for anything? If the claims are successful what are the chances of the banks still being in existence? That is the irony that I see.

----------


## Darkangelyaya

> @Scotty
> Vanash has made some interesting points in his posts. Do you have any comment other than look at the website.


I have to come to ScottyC's defense here: Since Vanash has raised such valid points, it would require diligent legal research in my opinion. It is no coincidence that Vanash took time to compile his arguments before posting it here. Surely ScottyC has the right to take some time in answering it? (And then, of course, he isn't as active in this forum as I am. Should I take something for linguistic diarrhoea?)

----------


## Darkangelyaya

In Iceland the banks were obliterated, the people then formed their own national bank - with their own rules. Why can't that happen here? Why can't we go back even to cash first, and then tackle the rest?

----------


## Darkangelyaya

This was posted on Ubuntu's blog, and I have found it a very interesting perspective:

'I will start with the conclusion : The current monetary system can only work if there are inequalities and injustices.
Demonstration
Let us pretend that tonight all the leaders of the world appear on primetime TV hours to announce this :
« Tomorrow, at noon, each and every citizen in the country will be given a new bank account in which a sum of 10 million dollars will be deposited. It will be yours to do whatwver you wish. And when you have spent all of it, just call our government to receive another identical sum. In other words, from now on, everyone has all the money he can wish for, forever. »
Before raising the spectre of hyperinflation, just think about it for a while. Forget about the impact on the economy, on society or on politics or whatever. Just think about this : What would be my own personal reaction?
For me, I would think about doing only what I like and stop working for a living. But for now, I would invite my wife and friends for a luxury dinner at a fine restaurant. « Hey we are rich, lets celebrate! » Only to find that the restaurants door is closed. Because the employees are also rich. And even the owner of the restaurant does not wish to work anymore. Why work to earn money when I already have all the money I need? I cannot have more than all.
So lets go to the grocery store to buy some filet mignon and lobster. And we find the same closed door. Why would anybody do anything to earn money anymore? 
So we will soon be all hungry and unable to eat. The same will be true for any need I can have. We then will have to find a way to meet our needs. My neighbours and I will have to meet together and make offers. I know how to make soap and you can produce tomatoes. And the other neighbour already raises hens for the eggs and meat. Lets just contribute what we can for the benefit of all. And why should I ask money for my soaps? There is no point asking any money, since I already have all I want. I will only let anyone have access to my soaps if I can have access to some eggs and tomatoes.
This is how we will quickly realize that we do not even need money anymore. Money is irrelevant when everyone has it.
Now if we pretend on the contrary that money does not exist for anyone, we will come to the same conclusion. We dont need money.
So my conclusion is that the monetary system that we currently have can only work if there are rich and poor, haves and havenots. So that there are those with the money and those who will do anything to get some of it. Injustices are necessary for the system of money to work. It is inherently impossible to be all financially happy. This makes me understand why money cannot be a sustainable way to live in society. M. Tellinger, your contributionism system must be the natural answer. Thank you for this contribution of yours. I wish you all the best.
Paul'

----------


## IanF

I haven't been following Iceland's banking crisis, so I googled it. They seem to be coming right but there were consequences.



> Undoing the damage caused by the crisis is a work in progress; not every Icelandic innovation would be feasible in the U.S. or Europe. Iceland’s debt stands at almost 100 percent of GDP. Many of the country’s professionals have left for Norway and Denmark amid a dearth of jobs. Iceland still must figure out how to ease constraints that barred investors from withdrawing as much as $8 billion from the country and transferring it overseas. Inflation remains stubbornly high. To counter that, and to prevent capital flight, Iceland’s central bank has increased interest rates five times in the past year. But raising interest rates makes credit more expensive, checking growth.


 Link to Bloomberg
It sounds like one hell of a ride they had.

----------


## Justloadit

Hi Darkangelayaya,

The world originally started with bartering as the Ubunto blog states, but it evolved to another form of bartering.
I wwill use an simple example to illustrate. Lets say that you make soap, and your clients only have chickens, to barter, sounds great, but eventually you  going to have chickens for breakfast lunch and supper, after a while you do not want chickens, and the pig farmer does not want your chickens for his pig, so what now?

Money was a form of bartering in which all could easily participate.

Now lets not forget, who is going to build this road that you need to go to market with?
and who is going to protect you while you are traveling on this road?
Now that's where the infrastructure came in, and that's how government started. They created and maintained an infrastructure for their citizens to mature in.

Before you know it we will be back into the system that is currently in use, as this is a manner in which you can trade with a commodity that every one will accept.

----------

Darkangelyaya (28-Nov-12), Dave A (29-Nov-12), IanF (29-Nov-12)

----------


## wynn

In the latest 'Noseweek' there is an article about toll roads and the Mpondo of Pondoland there is a quote from the article that is relevant to the discussion here

"In 1886, when gold was discovered on the Witwatersrand, it was clear that a source of cheap labour had to be found. The only way the Cape Prime Minister Cecil Rhodes could get the amaMpondo to make themselves available, was to compel them to enter the cash economy by imposing taxation that had to paid in British currency rather than in cattle. This necessitated a surrender of their sovereignty, thus in 1894 Pondoland was the last African territory of South Africa to be annexed by the British Colonial Government."

----------


## ScottyC

Sorry for the delayed response. Vanash has made some interesting points. These our out of my league to answer. Our legal advisor continually bang his head against the table. He did give a reply and if I can find it I'll reproduce it, but suffice to say, he doesn't agree at all.

It is so bloody obvious what the banks and the system are doing to us that if you choose to defend them, then you can only have your neck stuck very, very deep in the sand. The legal system is against us - totally. They will not allow us to win. This is about waking people up/

Seriously guys, come on now - how much more evidence and proof do you need before you realise that our children will not survive the coming enslaught unless we actually take pro-active steps to do something. STOP TRUSTING AND GIVING POWER TO THE SYSTEM!!!

Dave hit the nail on the head earlier with his fantastic response about us needing to THINK FOR OURSELVES. If you want to find a way to defend the system then I assure you that you will find one.

----------


## Justloadit

It's not that we are defending the banks, or the system.
There is no other form to substitute, no matter how hard you can think.

When there are a hand full of people bartering, the system seems that it will work, however, when you bring everyone into the mix, the bartering system falls apart.
I just picturing the garage owner having a coral at the back of the forecourt, with cats, dogs, sheep cattle and other livestock. Now the petrol company comes to drop of petrol in a tanker, he has to now deal with 3 cattle, 4 dogs , 9 sheep. 7 goats, an ex wife..... as you can see the bartering system can not work on a grand scale.

Until a new replacement system can be advocated, trying to stop the current system is going to be fruitless.

----------


## ericlowry

Banks involved in shady deals, really. In cahoots with each other to raise charges, really. Sa banks have about the highest profit in the world and still charge you to deposit your own cash in your own account. Talk about a rip off.
E

----------


## Dave A

> It is so bloody obvious what the banks and the system are doing to us that if you choose to defend them, then you can only have your neck stuck very, very deep in the sand. The legal system is against us - totally. They will not allow us to win. This is about waking people up/
> 
> Seriously guys, come on now - how much more evidence and proof do you need before you realise that our children will not survive the coming enslaught unless we actually take pro-active steps to do something. STOP TRUSTING AND GIVING POWER TO THE SYSTEM!!!


This I (and we?) don't argue with. The problem is the NewEra / Ubuntu Party solutions are not viable (and that's putting it as gently as I can think of right now).

What I haven't nailed down yet is whether the whole program is born from spectacular naiveté or from minds far more cynical than my own.

----------

Blurock (30-Nov-12), Citizen X (30-Nov-12)

----------


## Blurock

> This I (and we?) don't argue with. The problem is the NewEra / Ubuntu Party solutions are not viable (and that's putting it as gently as I can think of right now).
> 
> What I haven't nailed down yet is whether the whole program is born from spectacular naiveté or from minds far more cynical than my own.


I can not imagine having to keep a cow and a couple of goats in my back yard. Lets get real! :Flowers:

----------


## ScottyC

Dave you hit the nail on the head and said it so elequently that this is about people learning to THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Only once you have read our court documents (and listened to the audio that goes with it) and listened to the audio interviews with our legal advisor will anyone be in a position to really comment about what we are donig.

We have said in the work NewERA has been doing - we are NOT here to provide a solution. We are here to show the current system for what it is. What do, however, is open the door for other solutions, currently being thwarted by the existing banks, the chance to shine through. 

There are MANY alternatives out there, but the banks continually pull them all down. So surely to use the excuse that until a new system is in place, we just carry on is fruitless? WE are the ones that must create and adopt new systems!

WE are the ones responsible for bringing about positive change. 

Scott

----------


## Citizen X

> Dave you hit the nail on the head and said it so elequently that this is about people learning to THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Only once you have read our court documents (and listened to the audio that goes with it) and listened to the audio interviews with our legal advisor will anyone be in a position to really comment about what we are donig.
> 
> We have said in the work NewERA has been doing - we are NOT here to provide a solution. We are here to show the current system for what it is. What do, however, is open the door for other solutions, currently being thwarted by the existing banks, the chance to shine through. 
> 
> There are MANY alternatives out there, but the banks continually pull them all down. So surely to use the excuse that until a new system is in place, we just carry on is fruitless? WE are the ones that must create and adopt new systems!
> 
> WE are the ones responsible for bringing about positive change. 
> 
> Scott


A very good morning to you Scotty,
Could you please be so very kind as to make available the banks plea(they must have served their plea by now)?
Alternatively make available their notice of exception..

Kind regards,
Vanash

----------


## wynn

> Banks still charge you to deposit your own cash in your own account. Talk about a rip off.
> E


When I had a business that took cash I used to deposit cash to pay the accounts of the companies I used to dislike doing business with or the ones that never gave a settlement discount.

----------


## Dave A

> Only once you have read our court documents (and listened to the audio that goes with it) and listened to the audio interviews with our legal advisor will anyone be in a position to really comment about what we are donig.


Been there. Done that - hence the questions. Just refering the questions back to the source of the confusion doesn't help much.

However, it's amazing how it's the smallest things that give the greatest insights.




> We have said in the work NewERA has been doing - we are NOT here to provide a solution.


Now that actually says volumes  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## Darkangelyaya

Hehe...
http://m.news24.com/fin24/Companies/...-fine-20121207

----------


## Dave A

Of course, Standard Bank is going to appeal the ruling  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------

