# General Business Category > Business Finance Forum >  New Economic Rights Alliance???The Big Case?

## Citizen X

Hi Guys,

I've come across an email that makes for interesting reading! I can't confirm or deny it's authenticity. I would however like some form of clarity, information or comments on this email please........

"Up to a trillion rand could be refunded to South African customers by the banks. This is precisely the kind of cash injection that will help bring our country out of debt slavery and into a new age of prosperity.

Millions of South Africans who have loans or credit could see their monthly repayments reduced substantially. And tens of thousands of people who have had judgments against them over the past two decades may be eligible for compensation. Garnishee orders should be slashed and small businesses struggling with overdrafts should be released from the shackles of debt slavery.

In simple terms  it is very possible that your credit card, home loan, personal loan, vehicle loan or any form of credit you may have, has been settled in full by a third party, called a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV).  Because your loan has been settled in full (i.e.. The bank has been paid out for your loan), the bank cannot bring your case to court. Under these circumstances, the collections process undertaken by banks, and any judgments taken by the bank as a result, would be unlawful.

Once a loan has been securitised (this is the technical term for this process), the bank loses the legal right to the asset. Confirmation of this was given to the New Economic Rights Alliance in the form of the attached letter from the South African Reserve Bank (see page 5, para AD8).

Unfortunately the banks neglect to tell the customer that their loan has been settled thanks to securitisation. This is why The New Economic Rights Alliance, a non-profit organisation, was formed. We are here to educate the South African people, and take legal action if required.

An example of where a bank has admitted outright securitisation, and withdrawn their court case, is the case of ABSA vs Louis Louw. You can read about this case in our legal documents at www.thebigcase.co.za.

Several overseas court cases have also proven that what we are saying is correct. For example:
A very recent case in Washington witnessed a huge victory that has opened the door for many future lawsuits of this nature (http://www.Reuters.com/article/2012/...88D1OF20120914).If that is not enough, an important case in Hawaii confirmed that a bank has no right to sue for an asset that has been securitised (http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012...k-of-standing/).There was also a massive US$37 billion settlement paid out by five major banks in the US under similar circumstances: (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_1...s-over-abuses/).And hot off the press, the banks have just lost a huge case in Australia over securitisation (also called Collateralised Debt Obligations  CDOs). This time, it was the investors who took down the banks for misleading them. This court case effects people all over the world (http://www.ABC.net.au/news/2012-09-2...t-case/4273896).Even the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is suing the major banks in the US for securities fraud. (http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2012/0...urities-fraud/)


There are many other cases too numerous to mention, but legal beavers who want to see for themselves should look up these cases: 
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. V Farmer, 2008 NYFrancis J. Bevilacqua, Third vs. Pablo Rodriguez, Oct. 18th, 2011FERREL L. AGARD Case No. 810-77338


Securitising loans behind the backs of the customer is a huge business for South African banks. According to the Banking Association of South Africas website, banks are securitising around R30billion per month (http://www.banking.org.za/Securitisation/detailed.php.) These numbers indicate that the banks are offloading private debt very quickly onto the public. This is leading to a kind of "financial cannibalism" where one person is forced to rely on another person's repayments in order to survive.

If you default on a loan, the debt to the SPV and its investors are covered by an insurance policy. This is provided for in the Securities Services Act. Insurance of this nature (usually called a credit default swap) nearly sent insurance giant AIG under in 2008. When insurance pays out, the debt is settled. So, quite simply, there can be no legal case against you because all parties have been settled. In law, this would be referred to as de minimis non curat lex.

Securitisation has yielded massive profits for the banks while the customer continually loses out. Because they did not disclose what they were doing to the customer and did not inform the customer that their debt had been settled, we believe that the bank profited unfairly. Is it time to bring the scales of justice into balance?

Feel free to have your lawyer or debt counsellor contact us for more information. Alternatively, stand by while we prepare for a class action lawsuit whereby all South Africans can join with NewERA and claim from the banks what is rightly theirs.

Please let all your friends, family members and colleagues know about this letter, and to join us at www.newera.org.za.THE NEW ECONOMIC RIGHTS ALLIANCE

PS. If you would like to demand answers from your bank right now, below is a list of questions that you can ask. If you are lucky enough to receive a response, read it carefully. You will notice that your questions will probably not be answered directly. Click here for a list of contact details.

Am I indebted to the bank right now? (Please answer yes or no).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?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.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.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?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?Was my loan securitised? If so, please send me all details regarding the securitisation.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?Has my loan with the bank been settled by a special purpose vehicle, insurance policy, or by any other party?Regarding the security given to the bank by me, has this security been sold on or given as security to another party?"

----------


## vieome

http:think it is a hoax

Though there are cases against the banks http://www.newera.org.za/class-actio...nst-the-banks/

----------


## Citizen X

*My question is simply this:* If this was as big a story as it appears to be, then why is it not in the mainstream media? The media are vultures for just this sort of thing! Also, call me naive, but with the advent of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, section 21 no longer refers to the former non profit company as it was in section 21 of the 1973 Act. *Now somewhere on there website is a reference to s 21???*

----------


## Dave A

As far as I know it isn't a hoax email, and the guy behind it has made mainstream media - although not the headline news.

Michael Tellinger's lawsuit actually came up on TFSA a few months ago, a Youtube video where Michael was long on hype and short on detail. A few of us had a dip in the following posts.

And the New Economics Rights Alliance website is for real too. 

I do see fundamental flaws in the argument presented by the email.

For example, here's a quick question that you shouldn't have to ask your bank to figure out the answer - Does a bank lend its own money to borrowers, or does it actually act as an intermediary lending you money it has obtained from elsewhere, and manages and invests in loans on these funders' behalf?

If you're struggling with the answer, what do you think banks do with positive account balances - leave the cash to rot in their vaults?

At this point I have one other comment - has anyone taken a close look at their bond contract recently? There's some damn interesting stuff about the bank selling your debt on to third parties nowadays that I'd think would kill any claim by the debtor against the bank along the lines suggested above stone dead. What I don't know off the top of my head is whether that stuff has always been there or it's a recent addition.

----------

Citizen X (04-Oct-12)

----------


## Blurock

> *My question is simply this:* If this was as big a story as it appears to be, then why is it not in the mainstream media? The media are vultures for just this sort of thing! Also, call me naive, but with the advent of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, section 21 no longer refers to the former non profit company as it was in section 21 of the 1973 Act. *Now somewhere on there website is a reference to s 21???*


It did make the headline news earlier in the year. The case was heard and rejected in the Pietermaritzburg court. This group are now garnering support and are trying in other provinces. It is funny that these kind of cases only goes to court when the s#!rt hits the fan. Why did they not complain before they defaulted on their bond repayments? 

The arguments raised does not make sense at all. It is clear that they do not understand the economic system and they know nothing about banking. (See Dave's comments) An emotional appeal will never win in court. Unless you have your facts right, you have no chance. :Stick Out Tongue:

----------

Citizen X (04-Oct-12)

----------


## Citizen X

> As far as I know it isn't a hoax email, and the guy behind it has made mainstream media - although not the headline news.
> 
> Michael Tellinger's lawsuit actually came up on TFSA a few months ago, a Youtube video where Michael was long on hype and short on detail. A few of us had a dip in the following posts.
> 
> And the New Economics Rights Alliance website is for real too. 
> 
> I do see fundamental flaws in the argument presented by the email.
> 
> For example, here's a quick question that you shouldn't have to ask your bank to figure out the answer - Does a bank lend its own money to borrowers, or does it actually act as an intermediary lending you money it has obtained from elsewhere, and manages and invests in loans on these funders' behalf?
> ...


I can't help but agree with Dave! What does make sense to me is that is Bank abc, sells debtor D's to debt collector X on 4 October 2012; then in principle they ceded all rights and titles. In practice if bank ABC then goes ahead and applies for and obtains one form of judgment or another on debtor B on 2 November 2012, then they acting on a debt over which they have no rights. Ordinarlily this would be a problem, but bank ABC and debt collector X are in bed together and therefore have a nice cosy relationship. This is where the real problem arises, I assist Miss Q, to obtain extinctive prescription over this debt in December 2012, debt collector x, confirms in writing that this debt is prescribed and that they abandon their claim, then bank ABC contacts Q and demands payment citing default judgement. In principle one would argue that they sold the debt and all its rights BUT becuase XYZ and X are in bed, they happy to amend the sale date!! What is the practical and most lucrative way forward in such a circumstance?

----------


## Dave A

> What does make sense to me is that is Bank abc, sells debtor D's to debt collector X on 4 October 2012; then in principle they ceded all rights and titles. In practice if bank ABC then goes ahead and applies for and obtains one form of judgment or another on debtor B on 2 November 2012, then they acting on a debt over which they have no rights. Ordinarlily this would be a problem, but bank ABC and debt collector X are in bed together and therefore have a nice cosy relationship.


I suspect when you get down to the nuts and bolts the debt is "sold" (securitised), but not the bank's duty to administrate payments and ensure performance of the debtor.

The other wrinkle I see in the NERA argument relates to the insurance side of this. If the banks (or SPV's) have been double dipping and fraudulently collecting from the debtor and claiming from insurance in the same matter, it is not the debtor that is being predjudiced but the insurance company.

If there is any money due to be refunded for double dipping, I suggest it'll be owed to the insurance company.

----------


## Citizen X

Will be interesting to see what develops here either way....

----------


## ScottyC

Hi everyone, I am Scott Cundill, the Chairman of the New Economic Rights Alliance (www.newera.org.za). This is very real. Most of your questions can be answered on our website, but to be honest they have already been answered in this email. You will note three things about the above email. 1. Proof from the Reserve Bank that the bank loses the rights to the asset in the securitisaiton process (this was attached to the original email). 2. Proof that SA banks are securitising at a rate of about R30billion per month. 3. A list of overseas court cases that show that this idea is not new, nor is it "conspiracy theory" but has been proven in overseas courts. Anyone who investigates the evidence can see this for themselves. However, for the ultimate proof, go to http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray and you can listen to interviews with our legal advisor that explains the whole system in South African legal and banking terms. This information is free as we are an NPO. Donations are always welcome - how else can we get to the truth unless we dig for it? [/i]

----------


## Dave A

> 1. Proof from the Reserve Bank that the bank loses the rights to the asset in the securitisaiton process (this was attached to the original email).


That, I think, is agreed and not contested. My question is whether the bank is still responsible for enforcement of the bond debtor's responsibility?

I'd also caution against putting too much store in USA court decisions in this. The SA bond contract is significantly different to what is common in the USA.

----------


## Citizen X

> Hi everyone, I am Scott Cundill, the Chairman of the New Economic Rights Alliance (www.newera.org.za). This is very real. Most of your questions can be answered on our website, but to be honest they have already been answered in this email. You will note three things about the above email. 1. Proof from the Reserve Bank that the bank loses the rights to the asset in the securitisaiton process (this was attached to the original email). 2. Proof that SA banks are securitising at a rate of about R30billion per month. 3. A list of overseas court cases that show that this idea is not new, nor is it "conspiracy theory" but has been proven in overseas courts. Anyone who investigates the evidence can see this for themselves. However, for the ultimate proof, go to http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray and you can listen to interviews with our legal advisor that explains the whole system in South African legal and banking terms. This information is free as we are an NPO. Donations are always welcome - how else can we get to the truth unless we dig for it? [/i]


Hi Scotty C,
I'd like to impress upon you that I'm pleased that you've taken this opportunity to clarify matters! It's clear you using comparitive law i.e. international law. 
1. Correct me if I'm wrong but International law is not an authoritative source of South African Law. As at today's date, the authoritative sources of South African law are : 1: Legislation; 2:Caselaw; 3:Common Law and 4: Custom law BUT just like academic textbooks they do have persuasive value; the bottom line is that any international case will still only be deemed to have persuasive value and presiding officers will still largely only look to the authoritative sources of South African Law;
“Section 39(1) of the Constitution makes it compulsory for a court to consider international law in the _determination of constitutional issues_. Recourse to international law, which has a wealth of conventions and practices which are designed to protect and promote human rights, is
indispensable to the development of South African constitutional jurisprudence, particularly in the analysis of the Bill of Rights.*Foreign law.* Section 39(1)(c) of the Constitution provides that the courts may consider foreign law, that is, especially case law from other countries such as Canada, Germany, USA, India etc. This is a discretionary power, which means that the courts may choose to consider the laws of other countries where there is insufficient guidance available from South African sources.”(UNISA 2010:5)
2. Is this case pending? Is the case dismissed? In short what are the latest court developments on this matter? and why do you charge a subscription fee?(I know you guys have a website, I will refer to it for detailed information), Regardless, I would appreciate_ an unambiguous response_ on my questions please Sir?

----------


## ScottyC

Hi there, I have been asked by the Moderator to respond to questions. Please Google "the new economic rights alliance" and you will see many news items both locally and around the world come up.

The NPO is duly registered which you can confirm with CIPRO.

Thank you,

Scott

----------


## ScottyC

Ok, to reply to your questions:

1. Correct! Our case action in the High Court (see www.thebigcase.co.za) is a Consitutional action! Case number 27478/12. The papers are available on the site and an update is coming out soon. Futhermore, for a full response to your questions, real the latest post on www.newera.org.za. That will take you to a link at http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray which will allow you to download and listen to a series of interviews with our legal advisors. He goes into common law, case law, etc. and referenced SA banking as it relates to South Africa. Once you have been through these interviews, and the posts on our website, court papers and watched my free series of videos called "The Dark Secrets of Money (and what we can do about it)"  you will fully understand! 

Kind regards,

Scott

----------


## ScottyC

One more thing - banking is very similar across all countries in the world (with the exception of only a very few). Securitisation as a process is almost idential to that of the US, with the exception that a few names have changed. Hence, the US is a starting point for an understanding of securitisation. More importantly, I quote international cases on securitisation because it proves to people that this approach is REAL. It is not consipiracy theory or mumbo jumbo and if it can work overseas, it could also work here. The balance of the reserach is specific to SA.

----------


## ScottyC

Just a note with regard to securitisation. With securitisation, there is a fundamental difference between a "cession" and a "sale." In securitisation, a true SALE takes place. Please go to http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray to listen to interviews that explain this in great detail.

----------


## ScottyC

Now THIS is a very very good point. The SPV that trades the debt on the JSE or bond markets carries insurance in case of a default (you may have heard of a Credit Default Swap). Therefore, if someone defaults on the loan, insurance covers this. Therefore, the SPV gets paid out, the bank have been paid out so where does the money go after an auction takes place? This is the basis of our upcoming class action against the banks. Again I urge you to listen here: http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray .

----------


## ScottyC

Good point again. The point is this - did the bank state up front what it's true role in the relationship with the customer is? The answer is NO. They did not disclose that they were acting as agent, third party collector, etc. and thus the fiduciary between them and their customer was broken.

----------


## Dave A

> Now THIS is a very very good point. The SPV that trades the debt on the JSE or bond markets carries insurance in case of a default (you may have heard of a Credit Default Swap). Therefore, if someone defaults on the loan, insurance covers this. Therefore, the SPV gets paid out, the bank have been paid out so where does the money go after an auction takes place? This is the basis of our upcoming class action against the banks. Again I urge you to listen here: http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray .


I suggest any recoveries should go back to the insurance company.

Can you confirm absolutely that the South African SPV's are insured against debtor default? I know this is the case in the USA, but as stated earlier my understanding is the USA has a significantly different property mortgage regime.

----------


## Citizen X

> Ok, to reply to your questions:
> 
> 1. Correct! Our case action in the High Court (see www.thebigcase.co.za) is a Consitutional action! Case number 27478/12. The papers are available on the site and an update is coming out soon. Futhermore, for a full response to your questions, real the latest post on www.newera.org.za. That will take you to a link at http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray which will allow you to download and listen to a series of interviews with our legal advisors. He goes into common law, case law, etc. and referenced SA banking as it relates to South Africa. Once you have been through these interviews, and the posts on our website, court papers and watched my free series of videos called "The Dark Secrets of Money (and what we can do about it)" you will fully understand! 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Scott


Many thanks indeed Sir! Nothing ventured, nothing gained! I am personally all for the little guy, the average Joe taking on the Corporate giants when they infringe our rights. I merely curious as to how this matter will eventually pan out i.e what the final outcome actually be? I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how it turns out...

----------


## Citizen X

> Hi there, I have been asked by the Moderator to respond to questions. Please Google "the new economic rights alliance" and you will see many news items both locally and around the world come up.
> 
> The NPO is duly registered which you can confirm with CIPRO.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Scott


Dear Scotty,
I don't doubt at all that you are duly registered. It’s noteworthy that we often refer to 'a section 21 company,' true to an extent; it should be a former section 21 registered company. I’m aware that all companies that registred as a certain form of ownership will retain their original registration. The only reason I raised this, is because I still hear , especially on radio stations, people referring to current non profit companies as section 21 companies. This only causes confusion from a practical perspective as section 21 of the repealed companies act of 1973 states“21. Incorporation of associations not for gain.

(1) Any association-
(a) formed or to be formed for any lawful purpose;
(b) having the main object of promoting religion, arts, sciences, education, charity, recreation, or any other cultural or social activity or communal or group interests;
(c) which intends to apply its profits (if any) or other income in
promoting its said main object;
(d) which prohibits the payment of any dividend to its members;
and
(e) which complies with the requirements of this section in respect to its formation and registration, may be incorporated as a company limited by guarantee.
(2) The memorandum of such association shall comply with the requirements of this Act and shall, in addition, contain the following provisions:
(a) The income and property of the association whence soever derived shall be applied solely towards the promotion of its main object, and no portion thereof shall be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, by way of dividend, bonus, or otherwise howsoever, to the members of the association or to its holding
company or subsidiary: Provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the payment in good faith of reasonable remuneration to any officer or servant of the association or to any member thereof in return for any services actually rendered to the association.
(b) Upon its winding-up, deregistration or dissolution the assets of the association remaining after the satisfaction of all its liabilities shall be given or transferred to some other association or institution or associations or institutions having objects similar to its main object, to be determined by the
members of the association at or before the time of its dissolution or, failing such determination, by the Court.
(3) The provisions of section 49 (1) (c) of this Act shall not apply to any
such association.
(4) Existing associations incorporated under section 21 of the repealed Act shall be deemed to have been formed and incorporated under this section.”


*BUT
*
Section 21 of the new Companies Act 71 of 2005 as amended states:-


“21. Pre-incorporation contracts 

(1) A person may enter into a written agreement in the name of, or purport to act in the name of, or on behalf of, an entity that is contemplated to be incorporated in terms of this Act, but does not yet exist at the time. 
(2) A person who does anything contemplated in subsection (1) is jointly and severally liable with any other such person for liabilities created as provided for in the pre-incorporation contract while so acting, if- 
(a) the contemplated entity is not subsequently incorporated; or 
(b) after being incorporated, the company rejects any part of such an agreement or action. 
(3) If, after its incorporation, a company enters into an agreement on the same terms as, or in substitution for, an agreement contemplated in subsection (1), the liability of a person under subsection (2) in respect of the substituted agreement is discharged. 
(4) Within three months after the date on which a company was incorporated the board of that company may completely, partially or conditionally ratify or reject any pre-incorporation contract or other action purported to have been made or done in its name or on its behalf, as contemplated in subsection (1). 
(5) If, within three months after the date on which a company was incorporated, the board has neither ratified nor rejected a particular pre-incorporation contract, or other action purported to have been made or done in the name of the company, or on its behalf, as contemplated in subsection (1), the company will be regarded to have ratified that agreement or action. 
(6) To the extent that a pre-incorporation contract or action has been ratified or regarded to have been ratified in terms of subsection (5)- 
(a) the agreement is as enforceable against the company as if the company had been a party to the agreement when it was made; and 
(b) the liability of a person under subsection (2) in respect of the ratified agreement or action is discharged. 
(7) If a company rejects an agreement or action contemplated in subsection (1), a person who bears any liability in terms of subsection (2) for that rejected agreement or action may assert a claim against the company for any benefit it has received, or is entitled to receive, in terms of the agreement or action.”
As a member of the public though, I would like to enquire as to why it’s necessary to pay a subscription fee to your company for receiving newsletters, updates etc? Shouldn’t they donate as and whenever they want to as opposed to been debited every month? Just a question, that’s all!

Alot of people still believe, based on what they currently say, that going forward, all non profit companies are section 21 companies, as mentioned, this won't apply to you as you registred under the old act before the new act came into being, but according to the new act, a non profit company is no longer a section 21 company simply becuase section 21 states something completed different....food for thought really!

----------


## Citizen X

> I suggest any recoveries should go back to the insurance company.
> 
> Can you confirm absolutely that the South African SPV's are insured against debtor default? I know this is the case in the USA, but as stated earlier my understanding is the USA has a significantly different property mortgage regime.


International law in South Africa is currently mostly important becuase the South African Law Reform Commission does look at International Law and norms when making recommendations but no presiding officer such as a judge or magistrate is obligated to take cognisance of any international law when making a ruling, they will lokk at Legislation, caselaw, common law and Custom law. They will see university textbooks and international law merely as persuasive i.e. makes a good point or argument but doesn't necessarily have to be considered whatsoever. This discretion is exercise judicially. The Constitutional Court will strictly and only look at Constitutional issues. So the question they'll ask and the question that I now ask is what Constitutional issue based on the Constitution of 1996 is now called in question in this particular case? And, is this case still pending? Has it been dismissed? Was an appeal lodged and if so then on what grounds?

----------


## ScottyC

Yes, we can. Our legal advisor has completed this reserach recently. It gets complicated due to the fact that it involves the securities act and other statutotry regulations the govern the JSE and other bond markets. We will be putting a detailed document on this which will be released soon, hopefully this week. Sleepless nights this side - a lot of strain being taken.

----------


## ScottyC

Fair and valid points!

----------


## ScottyC

Yes! You are correct, but this is a long question to answer. I will try be brief.

The original Constitutional Court case was not NewERA, it was Michael Tellinger. This was dismissed before he even got in the door. This court case is taken by the NPO / NPC which is a s172 Constitutional application to the Hight Court (s172 allows the High Court to hear matters of Constitutionality). If we get a certification, this will almost certainly end up in the Constitutional Court. I just uploaded new audio files today of us discussing the case while we were doing the documents - check out http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray/Case_Discussion/. This explains our court papers in detail.

Since we filed, we have now all the proof that anyone could want that securitisation is a stuff up made by the banks, and literally a huge chunk of the SA loan proportion has been set-off and the banks cannot lawfully claim. To say this is big, is an understatement. In fact, it is so big that very few people believe it. It is true.

I am about to upload a new post about something new too.. Michael Deurr, shareholder of the SARB is blowing the lid with a documentary he commissioned about fraud at the SARB. WOW! 





> International law in South Africa is currently mostly important becuase the South African Law Reform Commission does look at International Law and norms when making recommendations but no presiding officer such as a judge or magistrate is obligated to take cognisance of any international law when making a ruling, they will lokk at Legislation, caselaw, common law and Custom law. They will see university textbooks and international law merely as persuasive i.e. makes a good point or argument but doesn't necessarily have to be considered whatsoever. This discretion is exercise judicially. The Constitutional Court will strictly and only look at Constitutional issues. So the question they'll ask and the question that I now ask is what Constitutional issue based on the Constitution of 1996 is now called in question in this particular case? And, is this case still pending? Has it been dismissed? Was an appeal lodged and if so then on what grounds?

----------


## Citizen X

> Yes! You are correct, but this is a long question to answer. I will try be brief.
> 
> The original Constitutional Court case was not NewERA, it was Michael Tellinger. This was dismissed before he even got in the door. This court case is taken by the NPO / NPC which is a s172 Constitutional application to the Hight Court (s172 allows the High Court to hear matters of Constitutionality). If we get a certification, this will almost certainly end up in the Constitutional Court. I just uploaded new audio files today of us discussing the case while we were doing the documents - check out http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray/Case_Discussion/. This explains our court papers in detail.
> 
> Since we filed, we have now all the proof that anyone could want that securitisation is a stuff up made by the banks, and literally a huge chunk of the SA loan proportion has been set-off and the banks cannot lawfully claim. To say this is big, is an understatement. In fact, it is so big that very few people believe it. It is true.
> 
> I am about to upload a new post about something new too.. Michael Deurr, shareholder of the SARB is blowing the lid with a documentary he commissioned about fraud at the SARB. WOW!


Hi Scotty,

I would like to thank you very much indeed for being so forthcoming! I acknowledge that not all aspects of litigation can be freely divulged as the other party would then have access to the details of your strategy! Personally I'm for epic David versus Goliath battles, I'm for the small guy, I'm for the grassroots man. I've never been for corporate South Africa, I will never be for corporate South Africa!
I wish you guys well!
Vanash

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

Criminal: Police linked to organised hit on bank investigation lawyer
A legal adviser working on an investigation into SA banks was robbed at gunpoint at the weekend and his files were stolen with what appears to be the help of police, says a report in The Mercury. But unbeknown to the group of at least 12 robbers, their entire escapade was caught on cameras hidden around the property. The footage shows what appears to be three police cars driving up and down the 600m street while the robbery takes place. The report notes Raymondt Dicks was home with his son and friend in Midrand on Saturday night when six armed men stormed into the house. Dicks is the legal adviser to the group NewERA (New Economic Rights Alliance) which has launched a court case against the four major banks and the SA Reserve Bank. He is also representing author Michael Tellinger, who is suing Standard Bank for civil fraud. The footage of the robbery, Dicks said, showed police vans blocking the road while the robbers entered his property. It showed the men carefully going through the house for three hours and 20 minutes. Dicks said his files were meticulously gone through. Only two  relating to the NewERA and Tellinger cases  were missing. Constable Matome Tlamela, of the Midrand police station, reportedly said a case of armed robbery was being investigated.

----------


## IanF

Anthony
That is scary stuff. But will this be investigated :Confused:

----------


## Citizen X

> Criminal: Police linked to ‘organised hit’ on bank investigation lawyer
> A legal adviser working on an investigation into SA banks was robbed at gunpoint at the weekend and his files were stolen with what appears to be the help of police, says a report in The Mercury. But unbeknown to the group of at least 12 robbers, their entire escapade was caught on cameras hidden around the property. The footage shows what appears to be three police cars driving up and down the 600m street while the robbery takes place. The report notes Raymondt Dicks was home with his son and friend in Midrand on Saturday night when six armed men stormed into the house. Dicks is the legal adviser to the group NewERA (New Economic Rights Alliance) which has launched a court case against the four major banks and the SA Reserve Bank. He is also representing author Michael Tellinger, who is suing Standard Bank for civil fraud. The footage of the robbery, Dicks said, showed police vans blocking the road while the robbers entered his property. It showed the men carefully going through the house for three hours and 20 minutes. Dicks said his files were meticulously gone through. Only two – relating to the NewERA and Tellinger cases – were missing. Constable Matome Tlamela, of the Midrand police station, reportedly said a case of armed robbery was being investigated.


Good afternoon Anthony,
Your post sends chills through my spine!  It seems that the good guys are incessantly oppressed, subjugated and silenced!

----------


## Blurock

So is there more to it than meets the eye? :Confused:

----------


## Citizen X

> So is there more to it than meets the eye?


It seems that way Blurock.

----------


## ScottyC

Hi everyone,

The story is on the news again today - just google "raymondt dicks" and many will come up. Reporters have been with him the last two days. The investigation is continuing. We will try and get the footage onto youtube.

----------


## ScottyC

I forgot to mention - we plant to be in court on November 27, but the banks are doing everything they can to delay this. Please visit www.newera.org.za for info.

----------


## Citizen X

> I forgot to mention - we plant to be in court on November 27, but the banks are doing everything they can to delay this. Please visit www.newera.org.za for info.


A very good morning to you Scotty,
I'd like to impress upon you that I appreciate your response! I can understand that your hands are full right now! As soon as I can get some time on my hands, I'd like to demonstrate right here on TFSA exactly how problematic a Constitutional Court battle can be and point out the actual problem areas with just one CC example.
Whilst your matter may indeed have merit and its appears(prima facie and ex facie) that it's in the best interest of all South Africans, the immediate problem is apparent, collectively the banks have sufficient funds for litigation.
In a David v Goliath battle you need your wits about you! I will indeed visit the links you provided.
I find it very disturbing that in a Constitutional Democracy a jurist can be attacked alternatively robbed alternatively intimidated alternatively silenced. If there are spanners in the works that South Africa needs to know what or who these spanners are!

----------


## Dave A

Disturbing news indeed!




> We will try and get the footage onto youtube.


That would be cool  :Smile:

----------


## Darkangelyaya

There is some footage from the infrared camera at the lawyer's house, just search for 'Midrand Police Question' on YouTube.
And please support NewEra.org.za, I am one of the Class Action Plaintiffs in their case against the Banks.

----------


## Darkangelyaya

Please Google 'Midrand Police Question', for footage of the actual robbery on Youtube.

----------


## Dave A

Oh dear - not particularly convincing of police involvement, is it.  :Stick Out Tongue: 

If that's as good as it gets... I confess I'm underwhelmed.

----------


## Blurock

> unbeknown to the group of at least 12 robbers, their entire escapade was caught on cameras hidden around the property. The footage shows what appears to be three police cars driving up and down the 600m street while the robbery takes place.


Truths, half truths and lies? Where are the police cars?  :No:  :Helpsmilie:

----------


## Darkangelyaya

> Oh dear - not particularly convincing of police involvement, is it. 
> 
> If that's as good as it gets... I confess I'm underwhelmed.


I am not too sure that this is the footage they described in the accounts of the robbery; it was posted by someone else. I will try to get other footage, because this just looks like a 'normal' robbery (how sad is that - that we can call this normal?).

----------


## Darkangelyaya

My apologies all, it seems that the footage of the robbery has not been broadcast yet; so the Youtube footage shown earlier in this thread is of unknown source.
If you are interested in the robbery, please read this link: http://www.ubuntuparty.org.za/2012/1...er-30-oct.html

----------


## 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*, i(If so Newera, please let us know?) 






I intend to continue, in a next post with some more comments on the introductory interview and then to make posts on each individual averment of the Plaintiff*(I think, or I hope, no promises!)*

----------


## 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(which means 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???

----------


## Citizen X

Dear Scotty,

I'm fairly certain that pleadings have closed. I wonder if you would please oblige me by making avialable the banks plea/exception? This is the only way we as ordinary South Africans can hear the other side of this story! Since the epicenter of your case is a lack of openess and transparency by the banks, I'm confident that you will be completeley open and transparent with me as an ordinary South African!

----------


## Darkangelyaya

> Dear Scotty,
> 
> I'm fairly certain that pleadings have closed. I wonder if you would please oblige me by making avialable the banks plea/exception? This is the only way we as ordinary South Africans can hear the other side of this story! Since the epicenter of your case is a lack of openess and transparency by the banks, I'm confident that you will be completeley open and transparent with me as an ordinary South African!


Scotty is dealing with a personal crisis right now, he will no doubt respond as soon as he is able to!

----------


## ScottyC

The banks drew and exception. We amended our summons. They banks drew exception to our amended summons. Now we have to go to court to force them to reply. What can I say?

----------


## Citizen X

> The banks drew and exception. We amended our summons. They banks drew exception to our amended summons. Now we have to go to court to force them to reply. What can I say?


Dear Scotty,

I would like to impress upon you,that I appreciate the fact that you clarify these matters to us, the South African public, you are currently far more open and trasparent than the banks :Embarrassment: . I can't see that the notice of exception to the amended summons will succeed! In your favour, you do have several plaintiff's. It will not be in the interest of justice to throw this matter out simply on defective summons alternatively amended summons. *If you were to ask me a simple question: Do you feel the banks sorry?* _Then, my simple answer is_ , 'No, I don't feel the banks sorry and no I'm not going to lose any sleep becuase of the banks'!
*What was the initial exception* i.e. 'vague and embarrasing, argumentative or not clear and concise' or if a defective summons, then what very specific aspect of the summons was in question?
*Plea:* When the banks eventually do file and serve their plea, please share this with us?

Kind regards,
Vanash

----------


## Citizen X

The High Court and Constitutional issues

I like to take this opportunity to put some perspective on Constitutional issues in general and the High Courts jurisdiction in particular. This has no particular reference to NewEra, its just that its an opportunity to clarify this matter. I will say this of NewEra though: In my opinion this is one of the most ambitious law suits in South Africa! This is indeed commendable! Im traditional and almost spiritual when it comes to the prelude to an epic battle, as such, I can only wish NewEra everything of the best! Well have to wait and see what transpires. Im confident that Scotty will disclose the banks plea [that is after the hearing for the notice of exception takes place and the banks eventually do plead, I want to see what the banks have to say.]


Its noteworthy that this matter is not on appeal nor is it on review. It the case of a Plaintiff [joinder: several plaintiffs with the same cause of action or question of law and/or fact]
1. A good place to start is with the Constitution of 1996 itself. Section 39(1)(c) of the Constitution reads as follows:-When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum- (c) *may* consider foreign law.
2. The word may, can present itself as a verb or noun depending upon the sentence. The best way to really understand this word is to simply ask your-self: What is the opposite of may? The answer puts real perspective on things: the opposite of may, is may not.
3. This is a discretionary power, which means that the presiding officers may or may not consider international law. This power is exercised judicially.(this simply means that the court will use its discretion)
4. Section 172 is entitled *Powers of courts in constitutional matters. Section 172(2)(a) reads as follows:* This is where you can see for your very self how problematic Constitutional issues really are. If we take this section by section, youll see what legal hurdles you have!
5. Lets start with section 172(2)(a) [ for those of you interested in how to read a section, 172: Section; (2): Subsection; (a): paragraph] SO, we addressing section 172(subsection 2) and [paragraph a) first:
6. It reads as follows:The Supreme Court of Appeal, a High Court or a court of similar status may make an order concerning the constitutional validity of an Act of Parliament, a provincial Act or any conduct of the President, but an order of constitutional invalidity has no force unless it is confirmed by the Constitutional Court.
7. To appreciate what paragraph a is saying, youll have to consult paragraph b and d;
*8.* Paragraph b reads as follows: A court which makes an order of constitutional invalidity *may* grant a *temporary* interdict or other temporary relief to a party, or may adjourn the proceedings, *pending a decision of the Constitutional Court on the validity of that Act or conduct.*
*9.* Paragraph d is where it really gets interesting! It reads as follows:Any person or organ of state with a sufficient interest may appeal, or apply, directly to the Constitutional Court to confirm or vary an order of constitutional invalidity by a court in terms of this subsection.
*10.* *The inference is that regardless of what the High Court rules* it still has to be confirmed by the Constitutional Court and any party, the plaintiff or the defendant may either appeal or apply directly to the CC to either confirm or vary the order.
*11.* International Law is a source of our Constitution _BUT_ section 167(5) states, The Constitutional Court makes the final decision whether an Act of Parliament, a provincial Act or conduct of the President is constitutional, _and must confirm any order of invalidity made_ by the Supreme Court of Appeal, a High Court, or a court of similar status, before that order has any force.
*12.* The CC is still the only court which has complete jurisdiction on constitutional matters.
*13.* Section 39(2) of the Constitution of 1996 reads as follows:  When interpreting any legislation, and when developing the common law or customary law, every court, tribunal or forum must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.
*14.* You must be able to distinguish between the bill of rights in the Constitution of 1996 and the other sections of the Constitution. Im by no means suggesting that the other sections are not of importance but rather that when one mentions bill of rights, one strictly and only speaks of the rights mentioned in section 7 up to and including section 35 with the understanding that these rights can indeed be limited in terms of section 36 of the very same Constitution of 1996.
Keen to learn of any developments on this matter

----------


## Citizen X

Good evening Scotty,

I'm fairly certain that you will be open and transparent with us i.e. keep us abreast of developments.
Thus far, you've proved to be approachable and open and transparent. This matter is now in the public interest. I look forward to your post!!

----------


## Darkangelyaya

Received this update per email:

'THE BIG CASE UPDATE: Judge van Eeden will hand down his ruling at 10h00 on Friday morning. Will NewERA's case (attached) be thrown out for being vexatious and / or "vague and embarrassing?" Or will the Judge ask NewERA to amend their summons and try again? Or will the Judge require the banks to respond to the allegations made against them?

We shall see...

One additional (and quite remarkable) point: We believe that the Reserve Bank had two Senior Counsels arguing their case today. The four major commercial banks were represented by three counsel, two of them senior. One SC was Gilbert Marcus, brother of Reserve Bank Chairman Gill Marcus. NewERA was represented by one junior counsel acting pro bono. The entire argument lasted no more than an hour. At an average of R50,000 for each of the SC's, one wonders: why all the trouble and expense to fight off nothing more than a "vexatious litigant?".

What can you do:

Spend 20 minutes skimming through the headlines and articles on our website. This page is the best and quickest summary of local and overseas news. For example: Did you know that Cyprus had to fight off the banks from seizing 10% out of their savings accounts to pay for their banks bailout? The same could be asked of Italy and now even New Zealand. 
Join our Class Action and lets sue the banks as a large group. Click here to join the class action. 
Please support NewERA. Become a paying Member here.

And please note: Our annual AGM will be held in the afternoon of April 12th. We are looking for directors and volunteers for 2013. Please come and join us. We would love to have your support. (Details to follow in our next letter).

THE NEW ECONOMIC RIGHTS ALLIANCE'

----------


## dcs

Clarity required.

I have a very layman understanding of things banking.  I have gleaned a perspective of things which may not be entirely accurate and would appreciate someone could clarify things for me.

1.  In South Africa, banks are required to retain 2.5% (I think) of every Rand deposited with them.  So is a saver deposits R100 then the bank may lend out R97.50 of this amount.  However, what in essence happens is that the borrower takes the R97.50 to pay a creditor who in turn deposits the R97.50 at a bank.  This bank may now in turn lend out 97.5% of the R97.50.  If this continues, ultimately the banks can lend out R4,000 (I think) on the original deposit.

2.  If the bank then sells the debts/loans of R4,000.00 to a third party they will then be in a position to lend out a further R4,000.00 based on that original R100 deposit.  This process could continue ad infinitum.

3.  As I understand it, points 1 and 2 is what the US banks were doing and making an absolute fortune in exploiting this loophole(?).  In order to make even larger profits they were badgering people who would ordinarily not qualify for a home loan to buy property as the bank did not care what happened to the repayments because they were sold on to third parties and were insured.

4.  The upshot of this was that property prices rose out of proportion to their true value, but so did defaulters. Also, banks were illegally expanding the money supply which has its own set of issues. 

5.  In the nature of unsustainable concepts like this the bubble burst and the fallout has been the bank insolvencies, bail-outs and the current depression we are in.

I would like clarification as to the accuracy of points 1 to 5.  Assuming that points 1 to 5 are substantially correct (and it sounds very much like a conspiracy theory to me) then is this what the SA banks are doing and is it part of the NERA court case?

I have heard that to counter this, Portugese Banks may only lend what was deposited originally (R100).  I cannot understand how the bank can easily distinguish between an original and a secondary deposit.  Scottish banks may only lend out on deposits of more than 100,000 pounds.

If this is indeed correct, then surely someone in authority should be doing something and not leaving it up to people like NERA ?

----------


## Dave A

> I would like clarification as to the accuracy of points 1 to 5.


I believe what you have missed in your logic is that the bank has to pay back the depositors  :Wink: 
Alternatively they're just replacing one debt with another - they certainly haven't made R4k out of fresh air.

When it comes to the NERSA case, I think the crux is as follows:
1. The mortgages provided by banks are being converted into financial instruments and sold to 3rd parties (I believe this part is not disputed).

2. NERSA's argument is that because the bank has sold the debt, the debt has been paid and the debtor no longer owes the money.

3. NERSA seems to ignore the point that the debt is actually now owed to the third party that bought the debt. Or at best try to fudge past the point by claiming the debt will be settled by insurance against default.

The question that comes to my mind at the very shallowest level if we go down the rabbit hole of NERSA's thinking - who now owns the backing asset (the property)?
I reckon it would be the insurance company...

The problems go far deeper than that, of course - but it's the one obvious consequence that I see NERSA keeps silent on in their efforts to garner support for their effort.

There is no free lunch.

----------


## dcs

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the response.




> I believe what you have missed in your logic is that the bank has to pay back the depositors 
> Alternatively they're just replacing one debt with another - they certainly haven't made R4k out of fresh air.


I did a bit of googling and found that this is called "Fractional Reserve Banking".  A complicated article about the topic in Wiki.  It seems that not all deposits are available for lending criteria as I described, only more long term term deposits.  Per the article it started historically with goldsmiths and issuing promissory notes against deposits and finding that they were not having to settle notes all at the same time.  This meant they could issue more promissory notes than the securities they had and make more money - the birth of fractional reserve banking.  They also say that the only time a bank had a problem with this was when there was a "run" on a bank - all the depositors wanting to withdraw their money at the same time.  To limit the risk of this they created central banks.

I think, therefore, that the banks have made money out of fresh air - but legally, not illegally like a counterfeiter.  When they sell off their loans to a third party and start afresh from the original deposit I believe they are creating money out of fresh air again, but this time illegally or at least not as originally envisaged when the fractional reserve banking laws were created. 




> When it comes to the NERSA case, I think the crux is as follows:
> 1. The mortgages provided by banks are being converted into financial instruments and sold to 3rd parties (I believe this part is not disputed).


Do you think this is legal?





> 2. NERSA's argument is that because the bank has sold the debt, the debt has been paid and the debtor no longer owes the money.


This argument is spurious.  Surely the NERSA people cant seriously expect to convince a court of this?  The fact that the bank has sold off the debt ( the "or assigns" type stuff in the legal documents) should not impact the debtor at all.




> 3. NERSA seems to ignore the point that the debt is actually now owed to the third party that bought the debt. Or at best try to fudge past the point by claiming the debt will be settled by insurance against default.


Yes, the banking system is far from perfect, and it seems that it has been shown that they have been acting out of greed - in the US at least.




> The question that comes to my mind at the very shallowest level if we go down the rabbit hole of NERSA's thinking - who now owns the backing asset (the property)?
> I reckon it would be the insurance company...
> 
> The problems go far deeper than that, of course - but it's the one obvious consequence that I see NERSA keeps silent on in their efforts to garner support for their effort.


Agreed.  I think that Scotty owes a better explanation than he has given.  He sends us off to websites that seem a bit hysterical in their claims - work on emotion rather than fact.  I also battle to match his answers to the questions.  If he wants support, financial and otherwise, it is necessary to provide a clear, factual summary of the case - I am no lawyer and am not prepared to wade through acres of complex legal and banking jargon, and then be given a garbled, emotional account of the documents.  




> There is no free lunch.


I believe there is, not for the debtor, but for the bank!


Dave

----------


## Citizen X

Back to the Big Case..

So Newera have been instructed by the court to amend their particulars of claim once again! The one feature of a particulars of claim is that it must be very, very, very clear and concise and to the point and must clearly, very cleary state the cause of action alternatively what is been claimed!
I'm keen to see the bank's pleading though, very keen indeed! This will only take place if the court accepts the amended particulars of claim and then the banks will have to plead i.e. answer paragraph by paragraph to Newera's particulars of claim..

----------


## Citizen X

> Agreed. I think that Scotty owes a better explanation than he has given. He sends us off to websites that seem a bit hysterical in their claims - work on emotion rather than fact. I also battle to match his answers to the questions. If he wants support, financial and otherwise, it is necessary to provide a clear, factual summary of the case - I am no lawyer and am not prepared to wade through acres of complex legal and banking jargon, and then be given a garbled, emotional account of the documents.


DCS, i can't but agree to  with you on this one!
Scotty, this matter is now really in the public interest, might I  humbly suggest that you please make some form of response here as well, seeing that you have come onto TFSA before?

Excuse the pun, but in particular, what specific averment of your particulars of claim is an issue of dispute at present i.e. today?

----------


## Dave A

> I think, therefore, that the banks have made money out of fresh air


No - they've just leveraged their holdings. When you get down to it every business does that, just the "assets" being leveraged are different.




> When it comes to the NERSA case, I think the crux is as follows:
> 1. The mortgages provided by banks are being converted into financial instruments and sold to 3rd parties (I believe this part is not disputed).
> 			
> 		
> 
> Do you think this is legal?


At face value, yes it would seem so. However, I did mention somewhere previously that the banks do seem to have amended their bond contracts recently. There *might* have been a legal vulnerability before, but if there was a legal flaw, I'm pretty sure it's not the one that NERSA is chasing after. It might just be a "belts and braces" adjustment - which banks are rather well known for.

I think the more important question would be "is it wise and prudent to allow securitisation of mortgages?"
And on that one, I haven't got the answer (yet).

The upside would seem to be it makes more money available to fund mortgages.
The downside is it seems to bring a higher element of risk to the entire economic ecosystem.

----------


## IanF

Scotty
We are all waiting for news on this, it is a very intriguing case,

----------


## ScottyC

Hi everyone! I am so sorry - I had no idea you were posting here. I only recieve one email and that was a few minutes ago asking me to respond.

The facts are simple. The banks engage in three trade methodologies which we believe are unconstitutional. In order to get away with them, they have to create very dodgy contracts and ultimately mislead the public. These three trade methodologies are:

   a. Firstly, banks engage in a process called fractional reserve lending where they make “loans” out of nothing. In other words, modern loans are not exchanges or transfers of money as most people are taught: the loans are 'simulated transactions' where the credit is created “out of thin air” by the bank when the loan is made.

   b. Our printed banknotes are merely colourful pieces of paper whose perceived value is created and manipulated by the South African banking system. Only a small portion of this simulated value accrues to the government and this is called “Seigniorage.”

   c. Banks bundle these so-called “loans” together and then trade them on the stock exchanges and bond markets without proper or fair disclosure to the customer. They use this technique not just for profit, but to free up their balance sheets to create more loans, many of them unsecured. As such, the banks are acting as an intermediary or agent to the customer and we believe the lack of disclosure to the people in this regard is unlawful.

Someone above mentioned that many website are emotional and not fact. Spend 20 minutes reading the articles on our Facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/NewEconomicRightsAlliance. These articles and links show it like it is - CHAOS. 

Now, for those of you who still believe that somehow this system is all ok, then I have only one word for you: CYPRUS. 

You see, the beauty of our case is that world events continue to prove us right. We will re-submit the papers to the court and be as clear and as direct as possible. Just remember that legislation allows the banks to stay secret. It is very difficult to break their veil and they will do what they can to avoid pleading. 

Scotty

----------


## Dave A

> c. Banks bundle these so-called “loans” together and then trade them on the stock exchanges and bond markets without proper or fair disclosure to the customer. They use this technique not just for profit, but to free up their balance sheets to create more loans, many of them unsecured. As such, the banks are acting as an intermediary or agent to the customer and we believe the lack of disclosure to the people in this regard is unlawful.


That's the bit where I suspect you might have a case worth serious consideration.




> Now, for those of you who still believe that somehow this system is all ok, then I have only one word for you: CYPRUS.


Actually, more than one word on CYPRUS would be good - especially how you reconcile the Cyprus situation to your points a and b. Why don't the banks just manufacture the money out of thin air? (That is what you're claiming, right?)

The hard truth is much of the wild hand-waving about Cyprus I've seen shows a remarkable level of misunderstanding of the situation.

Whip up a little hysteria and you can create a localised shortage of anything - Euros in cash, water, fuel, grain, conche shells...

----------


## Blurock

So you buy your clothes on account from a retail store, only to find out that the store has now sold the debt to a bank.
What I'd like to know is:

1. Did the retail store create money out of thin air?
2. Does the retail store continue to create debt from money that does not exist?
3. Does that give you the right not to pay your clothing account?
4. Will you now stop shopping at this store or just pay cash for your clothes?

----------


## ScottyC

You are going to get a fright now, but this is actually NOT how it works in practice. What you are describing is the factional reserve lending principal as it is described in text books, etc. A bank has R100, lends out R90, etc.

This is a SIMULATED explanation that explains the maths of the process. However, in practice BANKS DO NOT LEND DEPOSITS. I will say this again: BANKS DO NOT LEND DEPOSITS! Eg. Have you ever gone to buy pizza and hard your card declined becasue the bank had lent your money? Of course not. And are you going tell me that when the bank "extends" you an overdraft that this money actually came from somewhere? No way! What happens is a debit / credit book entry which creates the money out of nothing. I won't go into this, but to simplify: A bank get a R100 deposit. They do not loan this deposit. Instead, they create R900 OUT OF THIN AIR as loans to people. So their 10% reserve is maintained. 

There is NOT a loan in place. There is NOT a transfer from the bank to you. There is NOT even a deposit. Look on all your "loan" agreements. They used terms like "extending credit" and "money advanced." The whole is a total lie.

Then they take all these simulated loans and sell them via securitisation. They get the princpal back plus interest immediately. The interest then becomes a reserve which the banks can use to make new loans x10 using the same principal as before.

(FYI banks lend money to each other, but this is simulated - they don't actually lend money. They simulate the lending of money by passing IOU notes between themselves.)

----------


## ScottyC

Securitisation does not create new money. LOANS create new money. If you buy somethign from a shop with your credit card, the credit in your card is "brand new money" it is not a loan.

The rest of the points are moot because the retail aspect uses "money" as "currency" which is valid.

Just one thing - money does not exisit. Money as we know it is actually _the promise to pay money._ Please never forget this. If ABSA owes you R100, then that promise to pay you R100 is what we call R100.

This is why our case is so important. Even well educated people have no idea what is going on.

----------


## ScottyC

Oh yes they have made the money out of thin air! All "loans" are created out of thin air. There is no "loan" or "transfer" or "deposit" made in a "loan." this goes back to the goldsmiths and is well documented. PROMISES TO PAY ARE NOW THE ONLY MONEY THERE IS!  :Smile: 

And no, they most certainly do NOT have to pay the depositors back. It is not the depositors money, it is the banks money (this was talked about in Legal Brief SA a fewmonths ago). There is no money and they don't have to pay it back. They only allude to the fact that they do, but if you believe them then you need a wake up call. I have just one word for you - CYPRUS. 

(By the way we are NerERA not NERSA)

In fact there IS NOT MONEY, there are only PROMISES to pay money used as money. You cannot actually pay for anything in our banking system becauses there is no money to pay it with. You can only discharge the obligation of the debt by using a currency. Go through our Facebook page - there are links to some brilliant explanations of this.

----------


## Citizen X

> Oh yes they have made the money out of thin air! All "loans" are created out of thin air. There is no "loan" or "transfer" or "deposit" made in a "loan." this goes back to the goldsmiths and is well documented. PROMISES TO PAY ARE NOW THE ONLY MONEY THERE IS! 
> 
> And no, they most certainly do NOT have to pay the depositors back. It is not the depositors money, it is the banks money (this was talked about in Legal Brief SA a fewmonths ago). There is no money and they don't have to pay it back. They only allude to the fact that they do, but if you believe them then you need a wake up call. I have just one word for you - CYPRUS. 
> 
> (By the way we are NerERA not NERSA)
> 
> In fact there IS NOT MONEY, there are only PROMISES to pay money used as money. You cannot actually pay for anything in our banking system becauses there is no money to pay it with. You can only discharge the obligation of the debt by using a currency. Go through our Facebook page - there are links to some brilliant explanations of this.


A very good morning to you Scotty,

Many thanks indeed for responding! It demonstrates openess and transparency from your side, I'll give you that! I don't see any bank coming onto TFSA to respond!
1. Scotty, can you post a link of the previous particulars of claim, the one, before the ruling on Friday and can you post a link on the new amended particulars of claim?

This will be highly appreciated!

Kind regards,
Vanash Naick

----------


## Blurock

Well, at least we agree on one point; a bank note is the same as a promissory note. That is how the world trades. The bank record all their transactions which is embodied in a balance sheet that is reported to the authorities and shareholders. What I do not understand is what do you suggest as an alternative? Are we now to hold gold bars under our beds?

----------


## Dave A

Oh dear!

Oh dear oh dear oh dear  :No: 

...

I had actually drafted quite a long post. But on second thoughts, NerERA should go start a bank and test their theories in practice.



Cyprus indeed! Cyprus *proves* the holes in your theories...

 :Banghead: 

Edit: Please ignore the attachment below - it's a residue of all the stuff I was going to talk about. It involved understanding financial statements, cashflow, audits, double entry accounting, the difference between a reserve bank and a retail bank etc. But seeing as that's all fiction to you, not much sense going into it.

----------


## ScottyC

The particulars of claim can be downloaded on www.thebigcase.co.za along with commentary.

The alternative is _to give the alternatives a chance!_ in other words, we want alternative currencies to thrive instead of being supressed.

----------


## Citizen X

> The particulars of claim can be downloaded on www.thebigcase.co.za along with commentary.
> 
> The alternative is _to give the alternatives a chance!_ in other words, we want alternative currencies to thrive instead of being supressed.


A very good morning to you Scotty,

I reiterate that for openness and transparency I commend you!
The banks are conspicuous by their absence! Their silence is deafening! You see ‘sub judice,’ only applies to what has not yet been heard in open court. There’s no reason why they shouldn’t appear here and at least say something.
I'm very keen to see how this matter unravels. Either way, there will be a ruling and reasons for such ruling

----------


## dcs

> Edit: Please ignore the attachment below - it's a residue of all the stuff I was going to talk about. It involved understanding financial statements, cashflow, audits, double entry accounting, the difference between a reserve bank and a retail bank etc. But seeing as that's all fiction to you, not much sense going into it.


Hi Dave,

I hope you didn't destroy the post!  I would so like to get back to the place I was a few years ago:  Everything was fine, The financial world made some sort of sense and I could trust big businesses like banks and insurance companies.  My current state is that big business is driven by greed and they will stop at nothing to get the extra buck.  They have vested interests and will keep those paramount even if it means destroying society as we know it.  I think we are all kept in check by this and despite having freedom and the vote and so forth the reality is that we are living in a modern (financial) version of feudalism controlled by big business - not only banks.

Many years ago I studied a bit of economics and learnt about money supply, M3 and multiplier factors and so forth.  Problem is, there were no credit cards or electronic transfers and derivatives or securitisation  in those days.  All these new types of transaction must have moved a significant amount of money supply control from the reserve bank to the commercial banks.  The commercial banks have increased the debt burden of people hugely since the second half of the twentieth century by encouraging moves to credit cards and loans.  These days it is the norm for a person to be paying a significant proportion of their earnings in interest, way more than in the sixties to eighties.

I really would like to be corrected, and if my mythical banking scenario can be broken it would go a long way toward restoring my trust.

----------


## Frankincense

Hi,

I do not accept the authority of all Temple Bar Courts nor will I consent to them to operate in a Trustee capacity for any natural free person...I care less for thier *imminent* negative ruling! (As if they will find in the poor's favour and scrap mutli-tiered leveraging without the reserves in place and selling of debt to others - this has ramifications for the entire GLOBAL financial system sanctioned by Temple Crown Authority)

Its not the dirty banking that needs to be changed, its those in *authority* sponsoring its existence!

The outcome of this can go two ways:

(1)  Too much publicity and Banks/SARB/Crown Bar cuts deal with Tellinger to have some cosmetic changes introduced and media marketed with Plaintiff telling of a _compromise type_ deal and who knows, maybe offer to pay him off to shut up - case dismissed (Possible but will allow Banker exposure in entering pleas)...reminiscent of Competition Commision into banks outcome of Crown....not likely!

(2) Tellinger is told to F&* off - gutted fish on skillet! (Most obvious ruling)

I believe with the media owned by big business, they will keep it quiet like it is being suppressed as we speak. We dont see any hype on mainstream media. Plaintiff will be dismissed *with costs*

...surley if you see this coming you would change your approach to suit a known outcome? Even so....

 I remain disappointed that people approach a *corrupt judiciary*  expecting different outcomes. Not gonna happen!

When you know the wind will blow against you, change the sail!

If Plaintiff makes special appearance as the natural person under common law and we get sufficient real natural persons to sit in the public gallery and establish common law jurisdiction, we could achieve more by exposing the courts unwillingness to allow Common Law rule and jusridiction establishement than sitting back and loosing yet another Contract Law debate leaving the Wolves in charge still. This means Plaintiff can arrest the SC (Bench) under common law for gutting of fish on a skillet instead of true justice and fair banking, then We, the people adjourn court with our findings.

This would enable RSA to become independant from Crown Judicial Rule... it would literally be toppling The Crown in SA. It would also have major impacts on our country given the interests involved.

I have a hope that one day people will no longer be considered "Legal Persons" but may once again present themselves as "Natural persons" alive blessed by thier Creator, and appoint the Judge Trustee and as Beneficiary of the trust, request the collapse the "Dead Mans trust: Cest tui que" for we are here and alive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ0Y_jjlCTQ

Time will tell.

Tetragrammaton Rocks!

 :Gunsmilie:

----------


## Blurock

I am still waiting on an answer to my question; What do you suggest as an alternative to the existing banking system? :Confused:

----------


## Dave A

> Hi Dave,
> 
> I hope you didn't destroy the post!


I'm afraid I did - and I'll not be trying to rebuild that line of thought either, in no small part because it is to a large extent irrelevant to resolving the actual challenges this thread poses.




> I would so like to get back to the place I was a few years ago:  Everything was fine, The financial world made some sort of sense and I could trust big businesses like banks and insurance companies.  My current state is that big business is driven by greed and they will stop at nothing to get the extra buck.  They have vested interests and will keep those paramount even if it means destroying society as we know it.  I think we are all kept in check by this and despite having freedom and the vote and so forth the reality is that we are living in a modern (financial) version of feudalism controlled by big business - not only banks.


I'm delighted you've got to the point where you don't blindly trust them. The next step is making sure you *understand* them. When you grasp the rationale (and believe me, there is always solid rationale behind what they do), you stand a much better chance of making progress for yourself.




> The commercial banks have increased the debt burden of people hugely since the second half of the twentieth century by encouraging moves to credit cards and loans.  These days it is the norm for a person to be paying a significant proportion of their earnings in interest, way more than in the sixties to eighties.


Did the banks do that, or did people bring it upon themselves? Bear in mind the National Credit Act was intended not only to reduce over-indebtedness, but to also increase access to credit. And the NCA is one of the pieces of legislation where in retrospect, I think "the ordinary people of SA" genuinely got what they wanted.

My personal view is most people don't use debt correctly. (Probably deserves a thread all on it's own, actually).




> When you know the wind will blow against you, change the sail!


Absolutely  :Applaud: 
(Even if we probably have different changes to that sail in mind, I absolutely agree with the principle  :Wink:  )




> I am still waiting on an answer to my question; What do you suggest as an alternative to the existing banking system?


I believe this, more than anything else, is why the effort is doomed from the outset - the lack of a genuinely viable alternative proposal.

Even if NerERA wins a single line in the skirmish, the consequences of a change to the status quo are going to determine the path forward far more than the fault found. And I'm not talking about just the consequences to the big corporates and the big cheeses - I mean the consequences for *all* of society - quite literally civilisation as we know it.

----------

Frankincense (27-Mar-13)

----------


## SkyWalker42

The following article made it to Polity.co.za:

"Justus" is a Circus

"Imagine you discover that an Unconstitutional fraud is being perpetuated on the people of South Africa by the banks. You spend over a year collecting evidence and research with specific reference to South African economics and South African law. You create a non-profit organisation, elicit the support of 150,000 people and lay it before the High Court as best you can.

 This is the story of The New Economic Rights Alliance, aka: NewERA."

Link : http://www.polity.org.za/article/new...013-2013-04-11

----------


## SkyWalker42

Scotty interviews Raymond Dicks who was in the court on the 9th of April.

http://downloads.newera.org.za/TheNews/

Download Episode 5.

----------


## Dave A

> And their main argument? NewERA makes no sense


Given the result, I guess that part of their argument prevailed then.

----------


## Blurock

Well, I'm not a big fan of the banks, but from the outset it looked like NewEra did not even make sense to NewEra. Was the objective just to have their bond debt scrapped? Then that is what they should have asked for, not some far fetched idea or argument that makes no sense to anyone.

----------


## Citizen X

> The following article made it to Polity.co.za:
> 
> "Justus" is a Circus
> 
> "Imagine you discover that an Unconstitutional fraud is being perpetuated on the people of South Africa by the banks. You spend over a year collecting evidence and research with specific reference to South African economics and South African law. You create a non-profit organisation, elicit the support of 150,000 people and lay it before the High Court as best you can.
> 
> This is the story of The New Economic Rights Alliance, aka: NewERA."
> 
> Link : http://www.polity.org.za/article/new...013-2013-04-11


A very good evening to you Skywalker,

Are you a member of Newera? What is your affiliation with Newera? Nothing wrong if you are affiliated with them! Please indulge me by answering the question please?

----------


## Dave A

Skywalker has shown an interest in a range of topics so far.

----------


## SkyWalker42

> A very good evening to you Skywalker,
> 
> Are you a member of Newera? What is your affiliation with Newera? Nothing wrong if you are affiliated with them! Please indulge me by answering the question please?


I am not a 'paying member' of NewERA. I subscribed to receive their news via email. I suppose that makes me one of their 150 000 'supporters'. I do support their views and efforts.

----------


## SkyWalker42

> Skywalker has shown an interest in a strange range of topics so far.


...

----------


## SkyWalker42

> <snip>
> 
> I believe this, more than anything else, is why the effort is doomed from the outset -* the lack of a genuinely viable alternative proposal.*
> 
> Even if NerERA wins a single line in the skirmish, the consequences of a change to the status quo are going to determine the path forward far more than the fault found. And I'm not talking about just the consequences to the big corporates and the big cheeses - I mean the consequences for *all* of society - *quite literally civilisation as we know it*.


This is why it is called the Big Case. It is like Ron Paul asking to audit the privately owned Federal Reserve, which has not happened yet and is probably not going to happen. The consequences will be too devastating to the system.

What NewERA is asking is also to audit the FED (SARB) and they are actually getting a step  further than Ron Paul has.

The alternative. A State owned central bank.

Just like 
Afghanistan  (used to have)
Iraq  (used to have)
Libya  (used to have)
North Korea
Iran.

Spot the pattern...

----------


## Citizen X

> I am not a 'paying member' of NewERA. I subscribed to receive their news via email. I suppose that makes me one of their 150 000 'supporters'. I do support their views and efforts.


A very good afternoon to you Skywalker :Wink: 
There wouldn't be anything wrong if you were a paying member! I'm fairly neutral on this matter, just wanted to see want is your angle on this matter..just curious I suppose..

----------


## Blurock

I have still not seen any argument that makes any sense in support of this action. Can you give us some facts, not wild accusations and theories.

----------


## Frankincense

I am very familiar with the nature of charges being raised by the plaintiff. It has been clearly documented in the summons. If anyone requires further "clarification"  of the breaches modern banking institutions are, according to my judgment,  guilty of, and wish to label them as vague, I would question such an individuals ability to understand simple literature and refer them to read the detail and look around them as citizens funds are being depleted due to banks failures as in Cyprus.   When the SARB too attempts  to correct the inflationary consequences of renegade printing of cash without reserves having interest included without having those reserves, and commercial banks creating trillions of virtual rands in loans, RSA citizens will have their savings taken from them, and the alledged "vagueness / intangeability" will dawn upon the "nay sayers" of today.  Be that as disappointing as it may be from watching the questions being asked, I would find in plaintiffs favour and ensure banks are to plea.

----------


## Citizen X

> Be that as disappointing as it may be from watching the questions being asked, I would find in plaintiffs favour and ensure banks are to plea.


I too am very keen to see the outcome of this matter. I think that at the very least, the court should accept their amended particulars of claim and give the banks an opportunity to plead. Scotty has thus far being open, transparent and forthcoming in this thread, I trust that he will provide us with the banks plea when that time arrives. Vague and embarassing doesn't necessariuly mean that the pleading lacked quantity, it means that the pleading was not clear and concise, averment by averment. One must remember that the banks will have to plead averment by averment, and answer every single thing in each paragraph, should they fail to do so, it will be taken to be an admission. So yes, the initial particulars of claim was vague. Time will tell on this matter..very keen to see the outcome

----------


## SkyWalker42

NewERA updates on this thread;

http://www.theforumsa.co.za/forums/s...ll=1#post90804

Rather click this one for "full view"
http://www.theforumsa.co.za/forums/s...ght=#post86252

----------

