sabato 3 luglio 2010

Come i banchieri fanno le regole

I banchieri fanno le regole

02 luglio 2010 | Libération Parigi
Turcios

L'Unione europea vuole regolamentare la finanza internazionale. Ma in mancanza di esperti indipendenti è costretta ad affidarsi alla consulenza delle banche. Un conflitto d'interessi che desta parecchie preoccupazioni.

Le banche stanno svuotando di ogni significato i progetti di regolamentazione della finanza internazionale? Di certo si danno un gran daffare nei corridoi del Parlamento di Strasburgo o della Commissione europea a Bruxelles per far conoscere il loro punto di vista. Tassa sulle banche, tetto ai bonus, regolamentazione dei fondi speculativi, divieto di vendite allo scoperto: gli argomenti non mancano. E questo preoccupa numerosi eurodeputati di diversa estrazione politica, che la settimana scorsa hanno denunciato la lotta impari tra una finanza onnipotente e una società civile quasi assente.

Presentando il suo rapporto sulla crisi finanziaria, l'eurodeputata socialista Pervenche Berès ha destato scalpore chiedendo agli stati membri di boicottare la banca d'affari Goldman Sachs. Ma l'eurodeputata non si fa troppe illusioni: "La proposta non sarà accettata, ma è comunque un modo per mettere in evidenza il problema del doppio potere di queste banche".

Questo atteggiamento "entrista" è diventato una specialità degli istituti di credito. Per esempio la bozza di legge sulla supervisione finanziaria europea è direttamente legata a un rapporto ordinato dalla Commissione e consegnato il 25 febbraio 2009. Il problema è che il testo, considerato troppo prudente, è stato scritto da un gruppo di "esperti" presieduto da Jacques de Larosière, ex governatore della Banca di Francia e attuale consigliere dell'amministratore delegato di Bnp-Paribas. Dei sette professionisti che fanno parte della commissione tre provengono dal settore privato, anche se in passato hanno avuto funzioni pubbliche: Rainer Masera (Lehman Brothers), Otmar Issing (Goldman Sachs) e Onno Ruding (Citigroup). In altre parole quattro banchieri (di tre istituti statunitnsi) e un quinto, Callum McCarthy, ex presidente della Financial Services Authority britannica, notoriamente contrario a qualunque supervisione troppo vincolante. Insomma, una maggioranza proveniente o vicina al settore della finanza. Come stupirsi del risultato?

"Niente di strano", dicono i collaboratori di Michel Barnier, il commissario al mercato interno e ai servizi bancari, "si tratta dei migliori esperti in un settore in cui l'aspetto tecnico è molto sviluppato. Del resto, a chi altro dovremmo rivolgerci?" Il problema è proprio questo. "I funzionari della Commissione sono incompetenti in questo campo", conferma un insider di Bruxelles. "E così si rimettono al parere delle banche".

Niente svolta

La questione è delicata e lo stesso Barnier ha ammesso la settimana scorsa che bisogna "diversificare e aprire" i famosi "gruppi di esperti". Nel corso degli anni la Commissione si è circondata del personale e delle competenze necessarie attraverso più di mille "gruppi di esperti", che la consigliano nell'elaborazione delle leggi.

Il funzionamento, la composizione e il potere di questi gruppi sono poco trasparenti, denuncia l'ong Alter-Eu, specialista nell'individuare le lobbies attive a Bruxelles. Solo nel settore finanziario vi sono presso la direzione generale del mercato interno 19 gruppi di esperti. Secondo Alter-Eu, che ha pubblicato nell'ottobre 2009 uno studio sull'argomento, otto di questi comitati sono dominati dal mondo finanziario, come quello sui prodotti derivati, sui problemi bancari o sulle manipolazioni del mercato. A quanto pare la Commissione non gradisce le domande su questi gruppi di esperti. Libération ha chiesto un elenco completo e la loro composizione precisa. Dopo due mesi la Commissione si è limitata fornire un elenco dei link internet. L'informazione è quanto meno incompleta: il gruppo dei "problemi bancari" fornisce infatti i nomi degli esperti, ma non precisa le imprese alle quali appartengono; quello sui prodotti derivati si limita a dire che ci sono 34 esperti che rappresentano le banche e 10 i poteri pubblici, ma i nomi dei consulenti del settore privato non sono comunicati. Inoltre i rappresentanti della finanza presenti in questi gruppi sono quasi il doppio dei funzionari pubblici incaricati di elaborare la legislazione del settore finanziario.

Di conseguenza non deve stupire che nessun testo in discussione al Parlamento europeo o al Consiglio dei ministri rappresenti una vera rottura con il passato. "La cosa più strana è l'attenzione dimostrata dalla Commissione alle richieste delle banche anglosassoni", continua il nostro funzionario francese. "Come se la cosa più importante fosse non irritare gli Stati Uniti". La pressione delle banche non è affatto dissimulata. Ma è forte, molto forte, e quindi efficace. (traduzione di Andrea De Ritis)

5 luglio: trasmissione su Giacinto Auriti

Lunedì 5 luglio dalle ore 21:30 sintonizzatevi su TRSP o su SKY 886

Alla trasmissione " IL SENSO DELLA VITA" si parla delle staordinarie teorie di Giacinto Auriti.

Ospiti in studio:
- Antonio Pimpini
- Luciano Marrocco
- Marco Solfanelli
- Gianluca Monaco

i riferimenti per seguire il canale televisivo sono i seguenti e chi può registri (durata 1 ora circa)

Satellite Hotbird 6 13° est - 11179,00H (Orizzontale) canale SKY numero 886

Frequenze
1 TERAMO - CANALE 37 - Colle Izzone per Teramo - Giulianova
2 PESCARA - CANALE 42 dalla Maiellla e CANALE 25 da San Silvestro
3 L'AQUILA - CANALE 57 da Monte Luco di Roio e CANALE 64 da Monte S. Cosimo per Sulmona, Popoli, Bussi CANALE 35 Monte Cimarani per Avezzano CANALE 53 Localita' Castello per Castel Di Sangro, Alfedena e Roccaraso
4 CHIETI - CANALE 42 e CANALE 24 da Petacciato per Vasto e CANALE 26 da Casacalenda (CB) per Vasto e Termoli
5 FROSINONE - CANALE 65 in digitale terrestre per la provicnia di Frosinone
6 ISERNIA - CANALE 37 per Isernia e Venafro
7 CAMPOBASSO - CANALE 60 da Schiavi d'Abruzzo per Trivento e CANALE 57 per Campobasso e CANALE 26 da Casacalenda per Termoli
8 FOGGIA - CANALE 20 dal Volturno per Foggia, Manfredonia, Apricena

The silver market is a criminal operation

Metals smash down was just another paper affair, Butler tells King World News

Section:

10:50a ET Saturday, July 3, 2010

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold (and Silver):

In his weekly interview with Eric King of King World News, silver market analyst Ted Butler remarks that last week's smash down in the precious metals was another typical manipulation by the big commercial traders, a paper affair on the Comex without any real metal selling. The big commercials, Butler adds, began buying again on Friday. Butler says he has lost patience with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, calls the silver market a criminal operation, identifies its perpetrators, as he has done before, and notes that none of them have ever challenged his accusation. The interview is about 10 minutes long and you can find it at the King World News Internet site here:

http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast_Gold+/Entries/2010/...

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

Banking International Spectre: Economic Holocaust delayed

Basel trading book rules delayed by year

Jun 18, 2010 12:06pm EDT

* Co-ordinated start date of not later than Dec. 31, 2011

* United States was not ready to apply rules

(Adds more details, background, reaction)

FRANKFURT, June 18 (Reuters) - The Basel Committee of central bankers and supervisors agreed to delay its tough new capital requirements on bank trading books by one year, it said on Friday.

"The Committee agreed to a coordinated start-date of not later than Dec. 31, 2011 for all elements of the July 2009 trading book package," it said in a statement.

"As a result of these revisions, market risk capital requirements will increase by an estimated average of three to four times for large internationally active banks."

Capital requirements for a bank's trading book are lower than for the main book, which has encouraged banks to shift some assets to the trading book to escape higher capital charges.

The delay comes after banks argued they need more time because the United States was not ready to apply the rules earlier, and the European Union and the U.S. said the implementation should be done jointly in both regions.

The Association for Financial Markets in Europe, a banking lobby that represents some of the world's biggest banks, said in April the end of 2010 start date for the rules was unrealistic and that the United States did not appear ready.

"It's a welcome move and it's a sign the committee has been listening very carefully to what people have said and we are pleased with that," an AFME spokesman said on Friday.

Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) Chief Executive Josef Ackermann urged regulators last week to coordinate the tougher trading book rules.

"We believe the implementation of Basel 3 trading book proposals should be simultaneous, symmetrical, and comparable across all major financial markets," Ackermann said.

Banks also expect the Basel Committee to be more flexible in implementing its wider Basel III reform of bank capital and liquidity requirements.

The Group of 20 leading countries agreed last year this should be implemented by the end of 2012 but G20 finance ministers said this month there is likely to be a long phase in for some Basel III elements. (Reporting by Huw Jones and Sakari Suoninen; Editing by Ron Askew)

How an Honest Court can expose MORTGAGE fraud

BANKSTERS PROVE THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW IN AUSTRALIA

BANKSTERS - GANGSTERS - TRAITORS - the worlds SCAMSTERS

presented by CRAG "Community Reformation Action Group" Australia

Crime

Definitions:

Banksters - take our money by deception ... they are criminals using words

Gangsters - take our money by force ... they are criminals using
weapons.

Traitors - politicians and judges who are on the take from
Banksters-Gangsters .

Mortgage . -. a Death Pledge (Mort = Death ... gage = Pledge)

Here's how the Bankster-smoke and mirrors mortgage scam works;

1. When we sign an application for a loan (a "financial accommodation" ),
they

securitise-monetise our signature into a dual faceted "Promissory- Mortgage
Note" ... IMPORTANT, as ours is the only signature, it is not a legal
contract .

2. They give it a "number", tagged with a dollar amount ... entering it in
their "direct deposit account" ledger as an Asset, and also as a Liability
... this is evidence that they have accepted our promissory note as money
... they then transfer our own money into our cheque account, pretending
that they are loaning us their money.

By concealing the substance of the transaction ... the bookkeeping entries,
where they record the promissory note as a loan from us to the bank. ...
proves that we are the lender and the bank is the borrower ...

IMPORTANT they use smoke and mirrors to deceive us, into thinking that the
opposite occurred ... a breach of contract.

Their bookkeeping entries also prove that when the bank deposited our
promissory note into our cheque account, they created new bank credit money
... the bank did not loan their own, or depositors money ... they loaned
counterfeit money.

IMPORTANT this verifies that no "consideration" under contract exists.

3 Then, even though the previous owners bank receives a "cheque" for the
"paid out Mortgage", the "derivative Bond" created by the previous owners
bank still continues its life on the Stock Exchange (per 4)...

IMPORTANT this is criminal "double dipping", ie selling something twice.

3. They term us the "borrower", charging us "interest", which over a 25 year
period we pay them four times the original amount.

IMPORTANT in reality we are the Lender and they are the Borrower, for they
couldn't create the "Money" without our signature.

4.Extracting the Promissory aspect from the Mortgage Note they create a
"monetised derivative", a financial instrument , a "Bond" ... based on the
projected future interest income stream it is sold in to a Stock Exchange
listed Hedge Fund

IMPORTANT the Cusip Number allocated to the instrument is our evidence.

If they deposited it on Wall Street they must Register it as a Security? If
it went unregistered they have violated codes with the Security Exchange
Commission which could cause the Bank to lose their Charter and their
ability to do business.

IMPORTANT the Mortgage Note rights transfer with the Bond, thus the original
bank cannot prove any continuing interest in our home.

5. Even though they have sold the "Promissory" Note aspect of the "Mortgage"
they retain our "Title Deeds" fraudulently pretending that they can take
possession of our home ... IMPORTANT having "double dipped", they have
suffered no injury, thus they have no lawful claim against our home.

BUT THATS ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG;

6.Under "Fractional Reserve Bank" rules, they are allowed to call our
"Mortgage" an Asset - on which they can lend 10 times the amount we loaned
them from our signature.

IMPORTANT all Reserve Banks in the world are indirectly owned by a Bankster
cartel..

7. Thus leveraging our fiction $1 million mortgage into a larger fiction $10
million, at say 7% pa, their interest income is really 70% pa (7% x 10
mortgages = 70%pa)

8.On the next round of the carousel the fiction $10 million is again
leverage by 10 ... creating $100 million, and so on and on.

CONCLUSION: They owe us ! ... we owe them nothing !

SUMMARY STEP BY STEP PROCESS

Borrower Signs the Banks Loan Contract and Mortgage

Borrowers Signature transforms the Loan Contract into a Financial
Instrument worth the Value of the agreed Loan Amount

Bank Fails to Disclose to Borrower that the Borrower Created an Asset

Loan Contract (Financial Instrument) Asset Deposited with the Bank by
Borrower

Financial Instrument remains property of Borrower since the Borrower created
it

Bank Fails to Disclose the Banks Liability to the Borrower for the Value of
the Asset

Bank Fails to Give Borrower a Receipt for Deposit of the Borrowers Asset

New Money Credit is Created on the Bank Books credited against the
Borrowers Financial Instrument

Bank Fails to Disclose to the Borrower that the Borrowers Signature Created
New Money that is claimed by the Bank as a Loan to the Borrower

Loan Amount Credited to an Account for Borrowers Use

Bank Deceives Borrower by Calling Credit a Loan when it is an Exchange for
the Deposited Asset

Bank Deceives Public at large by calling this process Mortgage Lending, Loan
and similar

Bank Deceives Borrower by Charging Interest and Fees when there is no value
provided to the Borrower by the Bank

Bank Provides None of own Money so the Bank has No Consideration in the
transaction and so no True Contract exists

Bank Deceives Borrower that the Borrowers self-created Credit is a Loan
from the Bank, thus there is No Full Disclosure so no True Contract exists

Borrower is the True Creditor in the Transaction. Borrower Created the
Money. Bank provided no value.

Bank Deceives Borrower that Borrower is Debtor not Creditor

Bank Hides its Liability by off balance-sheet accounting and only shows its
Debtor ledger in order to Deceive the Borrower and the Court

Bank Demands Borrowers payments without Just Cause... Deception-Theft- Fraud

Bank Sells Borrowers Financial Instrument to a third party for profit

Sale of the Financial Instrument confirms it has intrinsic value as an Asset
yet that value is not credited to the Borrower as Creator and Depositor of
the Instrument

Bank Hides truth from the Borrower, not admitting Theft, nor sharing
proceeds of the sale of the Borrowers Financial Instrument with the
Borrower

The Borrowers Financial Instrument is Converted into a Security through a
Trust or similar arrangement in order to defeat restrictions on transactions
of Loan Contracts

The Security including the Loan Contract is sold to investors, despite the
fact that such Securitization is Illegal

Bank is not the Holder in Due Course of the Loan Contract

Only the Holder in Due Course can claim on the Loan Contract

Bank Deceives the Borrower that the Bank is Holder in Due Course of the Loan
Contract

Bank makes Fraudulent Charges to Borrower for Loan payments which the Bank
has no lawful right to since it is not the Holder in Due Course of the Loan
Contract

Bank advanced none of own money to Borrower but only monetized Borrowers
signature

Bank Interest is Usurious based on there being No Money Provided to the
Borrower by the Bank so that any interest charged at all would be Usurious

Thus BANK LOAN TRANSACTIONS ARE UNCONSCIONABLE!

Bank Has No True Need for a Mortgage over the Borrowers Property, since the
Bank has No Consideration, No Risk and No Need for Security

Bank Exploits Borrower by demanding a Redundant and Unjust Mortgage

Bank Deceives Borrower that the Mortgage is needed as Security

Mortgage Contract is a second Financial Instrument Created by the Borrower

Deposit of the Mortgage Contract is not credited to the Borrower

Bank Sells the Borrowers Mortgage Contract for profit without disclosure or
share of proceeds to Borrower

Sale of the Mortgage Contract confirms it has intrinsic value as an Asset
yet that value is not credited to the Borrower as Creator and Depositor of
the Mortgage Contract

Bank Deceives Borrower that Bank is the Holder in Due Course of the Mortgage

Bank Extorts Unjust Payments from the Borrower under Duress with threat of
Foreclosure

Bank Steals Borrowers Wealth by intimidating Borrower to make Unjust Loan
Payments

Bank Harasses Borrower if Borrower fails to make payments, threatening Legal
Recourse

Bank Enlists Lawyers willing to Deceive Borrower and Court and Exploit
Borrower

Bank Deceives Court that Bank is Holder in Due Course of Loan Contract and
Mortgage

Banks Lawyers Deceive and Exploit Court to Defraud Borrower

Bank Steals Borrowers Mortgaged Property with Legal Impunity

Bank Holds Borrower Liable for any outstanding balance of original Loan plus
costs

Bank Profits from Loan Contract and Mortgage by Sale of the Loan Contract,
Sale of the Mortgage, Principal and Interest Charges, Fees Charged, Increase
of its Lending Capacity due to Borrowers Mortgaged Asset and by Acquisition
of Borrowers Mortgaged Property in Foreclosure. Bank retains the amount of
increase to the Money Supply Created by the Borrowers Signature once the
Loan Account has been closed.

Borrower is Damaged by the Banks Loan Contract and Mortgage by Theft of his
Financial Instrument Asset, Theft of his Mortgage Asset, Being Deceived into
the unjust Status of a Debt Slave, Paying Lifetime Wealth to the Bank,
Paying Unjust Fees and Charges, Living in Fear of Foreclosure, and
ultimately having his Family Home Stolen by the Bank. ... Thus the

BANK MORTGAGE BUSINESS IS UNCONSCIONABLE

QUESTIONS and ANSWERS

Q: What is the basis of your Peoples Grand Jury action against the banks,
and why do you say that the banks are engaged in fraudulent and illegal
practice?

A: Our statement of claim explains the lot, but essentially, when you go to
the bank to borrow money, they don't really lend you any money (or not the
kind of money that we can see, feel and touch such as gold or legal tender
bank notes).

Not only do you not receive any money, but the "money" or "credit" that you
receive actually comes from you ... from the promissory note or commercial
instrument which you yourself "validate" by signing the document.

The bank takes this instrument which you just created (your own money) from
you and the bank deposits this money into their account.

They then make a ledger or computer entry into your account and claim they
loaned you the money.

This is illegal because there is no law that empowers these corporations to
create money out of nothing. Only God can create something out of nothing.

In the above example, the money "loaned" to you by the bank actually came
from you.

The bank provided no equity in the transaction; the bank never risked
anything, nor lost anything and never would have lost anything.

The bank was only supposed to keep your money (the promissory note) as
collateral, in case you default.

But what they do not tell you is that they took your promissory note or
commercial instrument and converted it for their own use. They unlawfully
enriched themselves, and this is illegal.

Q Why do you say the money or credit comes from me?

A: Because that is the truth - the money, or the bank note that we have in
circulation today is nothing but a promissory note ... it is not real money,
it is fiat money ... a piece of "legal tender" paper ... that says the
government owes us the money, because after they took the gold out of
circulation, there is really no money left ... therefore there is nothing to
pay our debts with!

All we have is the government's promise to pay - worthless IOUs that are not
backed with anything other than the government's coercive force, which
dictates to us that we have to accept this form of "legal tender fiat money"
or we get nothing for our labour.

The banks have no "credit", the credit comes from us. This credit is backed
by our labour, our ability to repay whatever we may borrow.

But the banks, the lawyers, the accountants, and the bottom feeder debt
collectors do not tell us that.

The banks lie to us each time we borrow money because they really do not
lend us any money ... whatever "money" they lend to us is ours to begin with
as it did not come from their vaults ... it was created as electronic or
digital money.

Q: Where does the bank get the money to lend to their borrowers?

A: They use God's money ... money they create out of nothing, out of "air,"
... they have created an unlimited "money tree" ... made possible by
gullible and trusting people who are led to believe that they are lending us
their own money ... or money deposited by their clients in their chequing or
savings account.

The banks really do not have any money or assets to lend.

Banking regulation does not permit the banks to lend their depositors'
money.

Money is created each time a borrower signs a promissory note which is then
deposited into their account as "cash."

This cash value is then used by the bank to increase their book asset by the
amount that is equivalent to the loan.

It is not as though the bank had this money sitting in their vault waiting
for someone to come along and borrow that money.

The fact is, prior to the loan agreement, when we come to the bank to borrow
money, the money did not exist. Therefore the money had to come from
somewhere.

In the old days, when banking used to be honest and honourable, only those
who have money can engage in the business of lending money. That was when
the banking business used to operate just like any other business.

If the bank did not have the money, they have to get the money from the
central bank or another bank, rent the money at wholesale (low interest) and
then lend the money at retail (higher interest) to the borrower.

They couldn't create unlimited amounts of money like they do now. It is
true, banks were allowed to issue debt certificates, or notes, but these are
really not intended to be circulated as money.

In recent times, banks are no longer required to have money in order to lend
money.

You might say: "duh?" Yes it's true ... it's called the fractional reserve
banking system.

This is because there is really no such thing as money. So when you want to
borrow money, you just go to one of these banks who does not have any money
to lend, and they'll create money right in front of you, just like magic.

Just sign a promissory note or loan application form and voila!

With one quick computer entry, you now have money sitting in your account!

Or the bank issues a cheque payable to you even though these cheques are not
backed by any currency or legal tender money.

WARNING: Don't do this at home, do not write cheques without sufficient
funds or you will be arrested and charged for the crime of false pretence
under the Criminal Code.

Only the banks are permitted (not by law) to write cheques with absolutely
no funds and yet get away with it and then charge interest on these
counterfeit, non-existent monies at criminal interest rates.

Banks can only legally do two things - take deposits and make loans.

Their corporate charter or power is very limited. Nowhere in the Bank Act or
the Constitution does it say that banks can lawfully or legally create money
out of nothing and then lend us this counterfeit, non-existent money and
charge us interest for it.

Only the Parliament can legally create money.

Q. How does the bank really create money?

A: Simple - they just write a cheque, or they make a book or computer entry.
The banks don't even have to have any money of their own, one bank writes a
cheque, the other banks have to accept it - according to the Payments
Association clearing rules.

This acceptance by the other banks (although they are all realistically one
bank) protects the issuing bank from criminal prosecution for false
pretence, an indictable crime punishable for up to 5 years.

If no one complains, there is no crime. This is how our legal system works.

To understand more regarding this subject from the bank's standpoint, please
read Modern Money Mechanics published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
... a free internet download.

Q. Who is the Borrower, and who is the lender ?

A. Everyone agrees the borrower should repay the lender. The problem is that
most people are confused as to who funded the loan.

The key question is simple: Should the borrower repay the one who funded the
loan?

If the bank says yes ... your loan is paid off, as you are the lender.

If the bank says no ... then you do not need to repay the loan, as the law
says if there is not mutual understanding in the agreement, then there is no
agreement.

Q. Are home Mortgages valid Contracts ?

A. The Common Law criteria for the creation of a contract are that ALL 10
elements are essential for a valid Contract;

1 Offer - you ask for a loan of Money

2.Acceptance - the bank accepts, thus your offer becomes a promissory
note to pay.

3.Consideration - bank does not lend you real money - they create
counterfeit money

4 Intention to Enter Legal Relations - the banks use Deception thus
unlawful.

5 Legality of Purpose - it is unlawful for banks to create money from
the Air

6 Capacity to Contract - the Banks give you wrong information

7 Genuine Consent - the banks make you the borrower when you are the
lender

8 Certainty of Terms - Banks variable interest rates are uncertain

9.Possibility of Performance - Banks cannot lend their shareholders
funds

10.Enforceable by Law - Banks have used Deception, and Fraud so
unenforceable

Bank Mortgages are thus in breach of most of them.

Q. Are variable interest rates a breach of contract ?

A. Yes because "variable interest rates render a contract void for
uncertainty" all loan contracts with variable interest rates are fraud, ie:
not having been created in the first place ..."a deed or charter not in
being is not valid" (legal maxim).where there is fraud there is no valid
contract.

Q.What is a bank cognovit note ?

A. Banks enter you into a Cognovit promissory note whereby you sign away all
your rights ... an Unconscionable Confessed Judgment ... making the Contract
unlawful.

BANKSTERS (the Plaintiff) HAVE TO PROVE THEIR CLAIM IN AN AFFIDAVIT (Sworn
by a Natural person); the AFFIDAVIT should encompass the following;

1. The Plaintiff is required to VALIDATE the alleged Debt - Prove

i.that the Plaintiff is a Creditor

ii.that the Plaintiff has suffered an injury

iii.that there is probable cause ie the 8 elements of a contract.

2. The Plaintiff is required to VERIFY the alleged Claim -

3. The Plaintiff is required to Prove they had MONEY to lend and therefore
had the capacity to enter into, and/or perform under, a binding contract.

4 The Plaintiff is required to Prove that they provided "Valuable
Consideration" , a key ingredient of the 8 elements of a Contract.

5. The Plaintiff is required to Prove that the Plaintiff had any cash-money
reserve; the Plaintiff is not legally permitted to lend their depositors or
members cash-money without expressed written authorisation from their
depositors and therefore the Plaintiff has not proven the capacity to enter
into, or perform under, a binding contract.

6. The Plaintiff is required to prove that the Plaintiff had tangible assets
of their own to lend, thereby having the capacity to enter into, or perform
under, a binding contract;

7. The Plaintiff is required to prove that their "assets" are not mostly
"paper assets", "receivables" , thereby proving the capacity to enter into,
or perform under, a binding contract;

D

8. The Plaintiff is required to prove that they do not conjure "moneys" out
of " thin air ", from the signatures of "loan applicants".

9. The Plaintiff is required to prove that they do not create "new"
artificial "moneys - debt", which they rename "Principal"; which they then
put into the "loan applicants-borrower s " account as a "Loan" at "Interest"
.

10.The Plaintiff is required to prove that the Plaintiff had, other than
bookkeeping and computer entries, "Money" or "Substance" of any value to
loan, thereby proving the capacity to enter into, or perform under, a
binding contract;

11.The Plaintiff is to produce evidence by way of Justice of the Peace
certified copies of the Plaintiffs signed letter/s of Demand; signed
Statement/s of Claim ; signed Affidavit/s; and all documents showing their
calculations of alleged "financial accommodation" , "advanced moneys",
"Interest" .

12. The Plaintiff is to produce the legal definitions, for "default notices"
"default" "defaulted" "principal" "money" "moneys" financial accommodation"
"interest" , quoting the source Law dictionary, used by them.

13. The Plaintiff is required to provide copies of ALL Valuations .

14. The Plaintiff is required to provide copies of ALL documents, and
records, whether electronic, or in any other media, or form.

15 The Plaintiff is to explain how they "create credit"-"provide financial
accommodation" , "valuable consideration" in the light of comment by Ex
Senator Helen Coonan that " banks do not borrow money from the Reserve bank
for the creation of credit"

16 The Plaintiff to produce the document-evidence which was used to give
full and complete disclosure of the eight essential elements of the alleged
contract.

17 The Plaintiff to produce evidence that any money or currency changed
hands or was deposited in the defendants account.

18 The Plaintiff to produce evidence that the "loan document" is NOT a
Promissory Note, being a instrument used to create the alleged "valuable
consideration"

19 The Plaintiff to produce all documents, records relating to the
"Securization" of the mortgage #........, and of its journey, final
destination, and present value within the Financial System

20. The Plaintiff is required to prove that the Defendants JOHN DOE, AND
JANE DOE, are living beings, and not Corporate entities, artificial persons;
and are the same beings as the natural Man; John Doe, and the natural Woman
Jane Doe.


Court Testimony of a Banker on Bank Loans

This is the Testimony from a Banker on a Foreclosure. The Banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in.

The attorney for the plaintiff-borrower asked the Banker: "What is court exhibit A?"

The Banker responded by saying, "This is a promissory note."

The attorney then asked, "Is there an agreement between Mr. Smith (borrower) and the defendant?"

The Banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Do you believe the agreement includes a lender and a borrower?"

The Banker responded by saying, "Yes, I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the borrower."

The attorney asked, "What do you believe the agreement is?"

The Banker responded, " We have the borrower sign the note and we give the borrower a check."

The attorney asked, "Does this agreement show the words borrower, lender, loan, interest, credit, or money within the agreement?"

The Banker responded by saying, "Sure it does."

The attorney asked, `"According to your knowledge, who was to loan what to whom according to the written agreement?"

The Banker responded by saying, "The lender loaned the borrower a $50,000 check. The borrower got the money and the house and has not repaid the money."

The attorney noted that the Banker never said that the bank received the promissory note as a loan from the borrower to the bank. He asked, "Do you believe an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?"

The Banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Do you believe you or your company legally own the promissory note and have the right to enforce payment from the borrower?"

The Banker said, "Absolutely we own it and legally have the right to collect the money."

The attorney asked, "Does the $50,000 note have actual cash value of $50,000? Actual cash value means the promissory note can be sold for $50,000 cash in the ordinary course of business."

The Banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "According to your understanding of the alleged agreement, how much actual cash value must the bank loan to the borrower in order for the bank to legally fulfill the agreement and legally own the promissory note?"

The Banker said, "$50,000."

The attorney asked, "According to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank refuses to loan the borrower $50,000 actual cash value, would the bank or borrower own the promissory note?"

The Banker said, "The borrower would own it if the bank did not loan the money. The bank gave the borrower a check and that is how the borrower financed the purchase of the house."

The attorney asked, "Do you believe that the borrower agreed to provide the bank with $50,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay the bank back $50,000 plus interest?"

The Banker said, "No. If the borrower provided the $50,000 to fund the check, there was no money loaned by the bank so the bank could not charge interest on money it never loaned."

The attorney asked, "If this happened, in your opinion would the bank legally own the promissory note and be able to force Mr. Smith to pay the bank interest and principal payments?"

The Banker said, "I am not a lawyer so I cannot answer legal questions."

The attorney asked, " Is it bank policy that when a borrower receives a $50,000 bank loan, the bank receives $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, that this gives value to a $50,000 bank loan check, and this check is returned to the borrower as a bank loan which the borrower must repay?"

The Banker said, "I do not know the bookkeeping entries."

The attorney said, "I am asking you if this is the policy."

The Banker responded, "I do not recall."

The attorney again asked, "Do you believe the agreement between Mr. Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith provides the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which is used to fund a $50,000 bank loan check back to himself which he is then required to repay plus interest back to the same bank?"

The Banker said, " I am not a lawyer."

The attorney said, "Did you not say earlier that an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?"

The Banker said, "Yes."

The attorney handed the bank loan agreement marked "Exhibit B" to the Banker. He said, "Is there anything in this agreement showing the borrower had knowledge or showing where the borrower gave the bank authorization or permission for the bank to receive $50,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the $50,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $50,000 plus interest?"

The Banker said, "No."

The lawyer asked, "If the borrower provided the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which the bank used to fund the $50,000 check and returned the check back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan check, in your opinion, did the bank loan $50,000 to the borrower?"

The Banker said, "No."

The attorney asked, "If a bank customer provides actual cash value of $50,000 to the bank and the bank returns $50,000 actual cash value back to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000."

The Banker replied, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Did the agreement call for an exchange of $50,000 swapped for $50,000, or did it call for a $50,000 loan?"

The Banker said, "A $50,000 loan."

The attorney asked, "Is the bank to follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures when banks grant loans."

The Banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "What are the standard bank bookkeeping entries for granting loans according to the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures?" The attorney handed the Banker FED publication Modern Money Mechanics, marked "Exhibit C".

The Banker said, "The promissory note is recorded as a bank asset and a new matching deposit (liability) is created. Then we issue a check from the new deposit back to the borrower."

The attorney asked, "Is this not a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000?"

The Banker said, "This is the standard way to do it."

The attorney said, "Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange of $50,000 actual cash value for $50,000 actual cash value? If the note funded the check, must they not both have equal value?"

The Banker then pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

The attorney asked, "If the bank's deposits (liabilities) increase, do the bank's assets increase by an asset that has actual cash value?"

The Banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Is there any exception?"

The Banker said, "Not that I know of."

The attorney asked, "If the bank records a new deposit and records an asset on the bank's books having actual cash value, would the actual cash value always come from a customer of the bank or an investor or a lender to the bank?"

The Banker thought for a moment and said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to record the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new liability?"

The Banker said, "Yes."

The attorney said, "Does the promissory note have actual cash value equal to the amount of the bank loan check?"

The Banker said "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Does this bookkeeping entry prove that the borrower provided actual cash value to fund the bank loan check?"

The Banker said, "Yes, the bank president told us to do it this way."

The attorney asked, "How much actual cash value did the bank loan to obtain the promissory note?"

The Banker said, "Nothing."

The attorney asked, "How much actual cash value did the bank receive from the borrower?"

The Banker said, "$50,000."

The attorney said, "Is it true you received $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, plus monthly payments and then you foreclosed and never invested one cent of legal tender or other depositors' money to obtain the promissory note in the first place? Is it true that the borrower financed the whole transaction? "

The Banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Are you telling me the borrower agreed to give the bank $50,000 actual cash value for free and that the Banker returned the actual cash value back to the same person as a bank loan?"

The Banker said, "I was not there when the borrower agreed to the loan."

The attorney asked, "Do the standard FED publications show the bank receives actual cash value from the borrower for free and that the bank returns it back to the borrower as a bank loan?"

The Banker said, "Yes."

The attorney said, "Do you believe the bank does this without the borrower's knowledge or written permission or authorization? "

The Banker said, "No."

The attorney asked, "To the best of your knowledge, is there written permission or authorization for the bank to transfer $50,000 of actual cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it for free?

The Banker said, "No."

Does this allow the bank to use this $50,000 actual cash value to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, forcing the borrower to pay the bank $50,000 plus interest? "

The Banker said, "Yes."

The attorney said, "If the bank transferred $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the transaction, did the bank loan anything of value to the borrower?"

The Banker said, "No." He knew that one must first deposit something having actual cash value (cash, check, or promissory note) to fund a check.

The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to first transfer the actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the lender for the amount of the alleged loan?"

The Banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Does the bank pay IRS tax on the actual cash value transferred from the alleged borrower to the bank?"

The Banker answered, "No, because the actual cash value transferred shows up like a loan from the borrower to the bank, or a deposit which is the same thing, so it is not taxable."

The attorney asked, "If a loan is forgiven, is it taxable?"

The Banker agreed by saying, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to not return the actual cash value that they received from the alleged borrower unless it is returned as a loan from the bank to the alleged borrower?"

"Yes", the Banker replied.

The attorney said, "You never pay taxes on the actual cash value you receive from the alleged borrower and keep as the bank's property?"

"No. No tax is paid.", said the crying Banker.

The attorney asked, "When the lender receives the actual cash value from the alleged borrower, does the bank claim that it then owns it and that it is the property of the lender, without the bank loaning or risking one cent of legal tender or other depositors' money?"

The Banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Are you telling me the bank policy is that the bank owns the promissory note (actual cash value) without loaning one cent of other depositors' money or legal tender, that the alleged borrower is the one who provided the funds deposited to fund the bank loan check, and that the bank gets funds from the alleged borrower for free? Is the money then returned back to the same person as a loan which the alleged borrower repays when the bank never gave up any money to obtain the promissory note? Am I hearing this right? I give you the equivalent of $50,000, you return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $50,000 plus interest? Do you think I am stupid?"

In a shaking voice the Banker cried, saying, "All the banks are doing this. Congress allows this."

The attorney quickly responded, "Does Congress allow the banks to breach written agreements, use false and misleading advertising, act without written permission, authorization, and without the alleged borrower's knowledge to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a loan?"

The Banker said, "But the borrower got a check and the house."

The attorney said, "Is it true that the actual cash value that was used to fund the bank loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the alleged borrower for free?"

"It is true", said the Banker.

The attorney asked, "Is it the bank's policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then to keep the funds as the bank's property, which they loan out as bank loans?"

The Banker, showing tears of regret that he had been caught, confessed, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Was it the bank's intent to receive actual cash value from the borrower and return the value of the funds back to the borrower as a loan?"

The Banker said, "Yes." He knew he had to say yes because of the bank policy.

The attorney asked, "Do you believe that it was the borrower's intent to fund his own bank loan check?"

The Banker answered, "I was not there at the time and I cannot know what went through the borrower's mind."

The attorney asked, "If a lender loaned a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refused to repay the money, do you believe the lender is damaged?"

The Banker thought. If he said no, it would imply that the borrower does not have to repay. If he said yes, it would imply that the borrower is damaged for the loan to the bank of which the bank never repaid. The Banker answered, "If a loan is not repaid, the lender is damaged."

The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return the actual cash value to the borrower?"

The Banker said, "The bank returns the funds."

The attorney asked, "Was the actual cash value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as a return of the money the bank took or was it returned as a bank loan to the borrower?"

The Banker said, "As a loan."

The attorney asked, "How did the bank get the borrower's money for free?"

The Banker said, "That is how it works.". . . and thats the truth!

FALSA PERIZIA E PREFETTO PREVEGGENTE

www.orsiniemidio.it

Ascoli Piceno 03 LUGLIO 2010


*** *** *** *** ***

Una delle preveggenze di Sua Eccellenza il Prefetto Pasquale Minunni (clicca qui) si sta avverando.

E’ quella relativa al risultato al quale perverrà il Consulente Tecnico nominato dal Giudice .

Il Perito nominato dal GUP del Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno,

dott. Fabrizio Mancinelli da Fabriano (clicca qui)

sta eseguendo una FALSA PERIZIA.


Se vuoi saperne di più (clicca qui) .

Basare una perizia su un presupposto conosciuto come FALSO implica a mio avviso FARE UNA PERIZIA FALSA .

Infatti, pur in presenza di un dato, proveniente da un altro perito del Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno, il dott. Paolo Ferri, nominato dal Giudice Marangoni, il quale ha attestato come quello stesso c/c, alla stessa data del 1^ trimestre ’97, fosse a credito di + 227.713.406 Lire, questo Perito ha tuttavia manifestato l’intento di fondare il proprio elaborato sul saldo fornito unilateralmente dalla Banca, senza operare su tale dato, alcun controllo di correttezza e di veridicità .

Per completezza, l’estratto conto depositato dalla Banca, diverge sostanzialmente con la posizione di credito individuata dalla sopra menzionata perizia Ferri, ponendo addirittura un saldo negativo ammontante a Lire - 257.000.256 .

In sintesi, non si comprende perché, alla luce di due elementi, uno fornito da un terzo, imparziale, il CTU dott. FERRI appunto, ed un altro fornito dai soggetti indagati nei confronti dei quali si procede, il CTU Mancinelli, prenda per buono il dato fornito unilateralmente da questi ultimi .

Per esempio, qualora si versasse in una ipotesi di furto, è come se venisse chiesto al ladro, l’elenco della refurtiva rubata, e fondare su tali dichiarazioni l’impianto accusatorio !!!!

Questi Banchieri, di cui Vi daremo tutti i dettagli una volta definito il procedimento, sono stati prima beneficiati per TRE anni di ERRORI di NOTIFICHE ed ora traggono ulteriori vantaggi dai lavori peritali descritti che, oltre agli evidenti pregiudizi che possono arrecare ai fini processuali e di accertamento della verità, sono suscettibili verosimilmente di far dilatare in maniera ancor più esasperata i tempi giudiziari, ad esclusivo vantaggio, si ribadisce, dei soli soggetti indagati .

Ciò che sta accadendo in Ascoli Piceno è assurdo e va denunciato con forza in ogni sede competente, e prima ancora in tutti i Blog che hanno il coraggio di farlo :

- Un PREFETTO PREVEGGENTE, Dott. Pasquale Minunni (clicca qui), che ha anche rilasciato FALSE DICHIARAZIONI in ATTI PUBBLICI;

- Un Perito del Giudice, il dott. Fabrizio Mancinelli, che imposta la propria perizia su ELEMENTI FALSI, consapevole di tale Falsità, già solo per le reiterate istanze e precisazioni a lui formulate dalle persone offese, e nonostante ciò prosegue imperterrito nel proprio lavoro, nella certezza dell’impunità .

Di tali circostanze TUTTI sono stati informati .

Presto diremo anche CHI SONO I TUTTI .

Questa settimana proponiamo :

- FORUM 25 giugno 2010 - Comunicato stampa dell’Avv. Di Napoli (clicca qui) ;

- De Masi : Il Comunicato Stampa del Gruppo De Masi (clicca qui) ;

- De Masi : Il dispositivo della Sentenza della Corte di Appello di Reggio Calabria (clicca qui) ;

- De Masi : denuncia e querela la Banca d’Italia per concorso in usura e riciclaggio (clicca qui) .

- Non farti SCHIACCIARE! UNITI POSSIAMO VINCERE : Aderisci al Forum Antiusura Bancaria – Il megafono delle tue istanze (clicca qui) .

Saluti ,

EMIDIO

venerdì 2 luglio 2010

Democrats don't like to audit central banks...

Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed Fails 229-198

12 Responses

Ron Paul’s attempt to audit the Federal Reserve, which was previously co-sponsored by 320 members of the House (HR 1207), failed by a vote of 229-198. All Republicans voted in favor of the measure with 23 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans. 114 co-sponsors of HR 1207, all Democrats, jumped ship and voted against Audit the Fed.

The GOP had offered the Fed audit as the minority’s last chance to alter the financial regulation bill. The bill does have an watered-down audit provision in the conference report, but it is limited to loans made by the Fed during the height of the economic crisis. Ron Paul’s bill would have allowed a total examination of the Fed’s books.

How they voted

Democrats, Republicans, HR 1207 Co-Sponsors

YEA

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman

Boucher
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito

Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw

Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Dreier
Duncan

Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly

Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach

Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)

Grayson
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger

Hodes
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk

Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder

Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant

Markey (CO)
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry

McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers

McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes

Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence

Perriello
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam

Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson

Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)

Space
Stearns
Sullivan

Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi

Titus
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (FL)

NAY

Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire

Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow

Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)

Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boyd

Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine

Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu

Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio

DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)

Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi

Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman

Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill

Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden

Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Isra-el
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen

Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)

Kilroy
Kind
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin

Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe

Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern

McMahon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)

Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)

Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter

Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)

Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez

Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar

Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader

Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler

Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Speier
Spratt
Stark

Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko

Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz

Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch

Wilson (OH)
Wu
Yarmuth

Not Voting

Bishop (UT)
Taylor
Wamp
Woolsey
Young (AK)

  1. Ron Paul’s Bill To Audit The Federal Reserve Now Has 134 Co-Sponsors Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR 1207) now has 134 co-sponsors,...
  2. Ron Paul’s Bill To Audit The Federal Reserve Now Has 226 Co-Sponsors Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR 1207) now has 226 co-sponsors,...
  3. Ron Paul’s Bill To Audit The Federal Reserve Now Has 156 Co-Sponsors Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR 1207) now has 156 co-sponsors,...

Clemency for Wall Street Criminals, Prison for the Powerless

Clemency for Wall Street Criminals, Prison for the Powerless

by William Norman Grigg
by William Norman Grigg
LewRockwell.com


"Who the hell are these people?"

"I don't know. I used to say they were the same ones we've always had to deal with. Same ones my granddaddy had to deal with. Back then they was russlin' cattle. Now they're running dope. I ain't sure we've seen these people before. Their kind. I don't know what to do about 'em even. If you killed 'em all they'd have to build an annex on to hell."

Sheriff Bell ponders the bloody handiwork of a high-echelon criminal syndicate in Cormac McCarthy's novel No Country for Old Men.

Johnny Gaskins of Raleigh, North Carolina faces a 30-year prison term – an effective life sentence – for the supposed crime of depositing $450,000 in his own bank account. The corporate leaders of Wachovia Bank, a criminal syndicate once headquartered in the same state, won't face prosecution despite admissions that they laundered hundreds of billions of dollars on behalf of Mexican narcotics cartels.

Wachovia was deemed "too big to fail," and thus too important to prosecute. In our system, mercy is reserved exclusively for the powerful and corrupt, and Johnny Gaskins – a criminal defense attorney – was neither.

Gaskins had earned his money legitimately. As a dutiful tax victim, he reported his income to the criminal predators running the IRS. His purported offense was to make numerous deposits in amounts just under the $10,000 threshold at which banks are required to report to the IRS under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.

Displaying the proprietary blend of depraved creativity and utter dishonesty that typify their caste, federal prosecutors insisted that these innocuous acts constituted the alleged crime of "money structuring."

Dr. William Anderson, an economics professor at Maryland's Frostburg State University, notes that "money structuring" was defined as "an `ancillary crime' to give prosecutors leverage in cases where people had amassed huge amounts of cash via drug sales or other illegal activities and were trying to avoid detection as well as avoid paying taxes on their money."


In Gaskins's case, there was no predicate offense. The money was honestly earned and duly reported. Yet according to Pecksniffian federal prosecutor Randall Galyon, "The point of the law is to make sure we don't have people trying to fool the bank. The fact that he was trying is against the law."

Gaskins was trying to "fool" the bank about innocent conduct. His violations of technical statutes constituted an offense of a severity comparable to ripping the tag from a mattress.

Yet the sacred majesty of the law requires that Gaskins suffer exemplary, conspicuous punishment.

As Dr. Anderson observes, there was an unambiguous element of payback behind this vindictive prosecution: "Gaskins had success representing people accused of crimes, and the police and prosecutors paid him back with what can only be a trumped-up charge. Remember, Gaskins was convicted of depositing money in a bank. He did not evade taxes, he did not gain his cash through illegal means, he just put the money in the bank."

For reasons unstated yet deafening in their obviousness, the same corps of federal prosecutors who went after Gaskins hammer and tongs last year displayed little of the same zeal in pursuing Wachovia Bank on charges that involve both deliberate fraud and financial collaboration with Mexican narco-criminal syndicates.

Wachovia's corporate headquarters are in Charlotte, North Carolina – just a three-hour drive from Raleigh. Perhaps the heroes who brought Johnny Gaskins to book were simply too exhausted from that Herculean task to grapple with Wachovia, which was absorbed by Wells Fargo in a federally engineered takeover. The details are predictably opaque, but Wells Fargo – which initially resisted string-laden TARP subsidies – was given $25 billion by the Feds after it bought out Wachovia, which was collapsing under the accumulated weight of its rotten debts.

Although it proudly called itself "the nation's fourth-largest bank," Wachovia was actually a federally chartered criminal enterprise.

Granted, this can accurately be said of the entire fractional-reserve banking system. Wachovia distinguished itself by becoming a full-service institution to swindlers and criminals of many kinds.

In February 2008 it was revealed that Wachovia's corporate leadership "solicited business from companies it knew had been accused of telemarketing crimes," reported the New York Times. "Internal Wachovia e-mail messages, for example, show that high-ranking employees ... frequently warned colleagues about telemarketing frauds routed through its accounts."

Wachovia had been given specific warnings from investigators and from other banks regarding the scams, yet "it continued to provide banking services to multiple companies that helped steal as much as $400 million from unsuspecting victims."

A federal lawsuit against Wachovia accused the bank of accepting "fraudulent, unsigned checks that withdrew funds from the accounts of victims, often elderly," continues the Times. "Wachovia forwarded those checks to other banks that were unaware of the frauds, which in turn sent money to the swindlers."

One Wachovia executive warned in 2005 that one account being used by swindlers had received 4,500 complaints in the space of two months. "There is more," she wrote, "but nothing more that I want to put in a note."

Despite that warning and others, Wachovia continued to process the fraudulent transactions "partly because the bank charged fraud artists a large fee every time a victim spotted a bogus transaction and demanded their money back," the Times points out. "One company alone paid Wachovia about $1.5 million over 11 months...."

"We are making a ton of money from them," admitted Wachovia executive Linda Pera in 2005, referring to a company later accused of stealing $142 million through fraud.

Rather than doing what it could to stop the swindle, Wachovia profited from it as long as it could. The bank's role in that scam – as well as mortgage fraud, embezzlement, and other crimes – was known by federal regulators and prosecutors no later than February 2008. Nobody at Wachovia faced criminal prosecution. Instead, the bank was permitted to buy its way out of trouble through a $144 million settlement – and taxpayers were forced to make good on that amount and much more a few months later in the federally subsidized merger with Wells Fargo.

Last March, federal prosecutors offered an even more generous deal to the Wachovia cabal in the form of a "deferred prosecution agreement" regarding charges of laundering an estimated $300 billion for Mexican narcotics syndicates. In lieu of prosecution, Wachovia agreed to the criminal forfeiture of $110 million and a $50,000,000 fine; it also promised to "demonstrate its future good conduct and compliance in all material aspects with the Bank Secrecy Act...."

The Bank Secrecy Act, recall, is the same law Johnny Gaskins "violated" by making small bank deposits of his own honestly-earned, fully reported money. Gaskins wasn't offered a deal in which he would "forfeit" an amount equivalent to pennies on the dollar and be spared additional punishment in exchange for the promise of future "good conduct."

According to the stipulations in the federal "Factual Statement" Wachovia endorsed last March, a Miami branch maintained "correspondent bank accounts" for Mexican currency exchange houses (casas de cambio, or CDCs).

"On numerous occasions, monies were deposited into a CDC by a drug trafficking organization," recounts the "Factual Statement." "Using false identities, the CDC then wired that money through its Wachovia correspondent bank accounts for the purchase of airplanes for drug trafficking organizations."

Among the offenses to which Wachovia stipulated are "Structured Wire Transactions" intended to launder drug proceeds. Once again, Gaskins was convicted of "money structuring" despite the fact that there was no underlying criminal act. Wachovia, on the other hand, was deliberately washing drug proceeds and facilitating the purchase of aircraft that were used to smuggle at least 22 tons of cocaine.

In 2006, Martin Woods, a Wachovia compliance officer in London, became suspicious when his branch started to receive a large quantity of traveler's checks issued by Mexican CDCs. The checks – written for large denominations – were sequentially numbered and improperly endorsed.

Recognizing this as evidence of money laundering, Woods reported his findings to Britain's Serious Organised Crime Agency. A year later, Mexican investigators traced those checks to a CDC used by the Sinaloa Cartel.

Martin's reward for breaking the case, observed the March 9, 2009 issue of Barron's, was to be bullied and demoted by his superiors at Wachovia, who also threw out his reports of similar suspicious activities in Eastern Europe. As was the case with the telemarketing fraud, the dirty dealings Martin had uncovered were much too profitable to stop – and in this case, they were being overseen by people who make Anton Chigurh look like Mr. Rogers.

In September 2007, a U.S.-registered Gulfstream II jet carrying 3.3 tons of cocaine crashed in the Yucatan Peninsula. The plane was one of several purchased through a Mexican CDC with "correspondent accounts" held by Wachovia. This particular private jet – tail number N987SA was also an important link between the CIA-abetted international narcotics trade and the CIA's global torture network.

Until a few weeks before the crash, the plane's registered owner was a Florida-based pilot (and alleged CIA asset) named Greg Smith, who was reportedly involved in a series of federal operations targeting Columbian drug networks from 1997–2000.

Only those so ingenuous as to make Candide look worldly would be surprised to learn that the same individual, and the same aircraft, were involved in smuggling drugs into the United States, or that the CIA found even more repellent uses for the same vehicle.


Mr. "Smith" was the Gulfstream's owner of record between 2003 and 2005, when the plane was used by the CIA for at least three trips between the east coast of the U.S. and the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

The same plane was part of the CIA's fleet of "torture taxis" used to ferry detainees to foreign dungeons, reported The Independent of London last January.

"In 2004, another torture taxi crashed in a field in Nicaragua with a ton of cocaine aboard," the Independent recalls. "It had been identified by Britain and the European Parliament's temporary committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners as a frequent visitor in 2004 and 2005 to British, Cypriot, Czech, German, Greek, Hungarian, Spanish and other European cities with its cargo of captives for secret imprisonment and torture in Iraq, Jordan and Azerbaijan."

The gentle treatment given to Wachovia testifies of its value as a pass-through to fund criminal syndicates used by the CIA to conduct the business of perpetual war – whether it's designated the "war on drugs" or the "war on terror."

To cite Bastiat's invaluable formula yet again, both of those "wars" are exercises in creating the poison and the antidote in the same laboratory.

The "war on drugs" – which is an exercise in corrupt, murderous foolishness greater, by several orders of magnitude, than Prohibition – will not end as long as it is profitable to the criminal elite in Washington, their allies in the banking industry, and their largely interchangeable and thoroughly disposable minions in the underworld.

As Hugh O'Shaughnessy of The Independent puts it, decriminalization of drug use would impoverish "the traffickers, large and small, and those who have been making good money building and running the new prisons that help to bankrupt governments – in the US in particular, where drug offenders – principally small retailers and seldom the rich and important wholesalers – have helped to push the prison population to 1,600,000."

That population will soon include Johnnie Gaskins, a principled but powerless man who committed no crime. The majesty of the law requires nothing less. None of the criminals in Wachovia's corporate leadership will be joining him behind bars, of course, since clemency is a gift the Regime bestows exclusively on its valued accomplices in official crime.

June 28, 2010

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.