Banks Lie !!
PLEASE CHECK THIS DOCUMENT AND MAKE SUGGESTIONS
From Chris – One of our friends from a land down under …
I have drafted a base document about Bank Lies and I am now putting it out to some people for critical improvements and accuracy issues. (see below)
This is directed to EVERYMAN – including the skeptics.
It needs to be clear, non-sensational, accurate, and provocative – to get them accepting the points and ready to do their own research.
Once I have the text nailed down I will get it dressed up into a PDF document.
TWO LEVELS OF COMMENT..
1. The Overall Document
Is the balance of content OK? Does it build the case well enough? Is there anything that spoils the effect or that really must be added in?
2. The Detail
What needs to be clarified or documented better? Are their terms that need to be simplified, or other bits that need to be added?
Chris Field, Melbourne Australia
Banks Lie! And that’s why I’m fighting my bank. And that’s why I’ve been evicted from my home. And that’s why I re-gained possession of my home and I’m still fighting my bank.
I’ve been at this for over a year now trying to get the bank to tell me the truth. They’ve had oodles of opportunity but simply won’t do it. They ignored my letters, rejected my claims in court and got an unjust judgment against me. But I haven’t given up. The truth will win and it is on my side.
But some of you won’t believe I have truth on my side. You have been brainwashed to believe that a bank always does the right thing. Maybe what follows will help you re-think what you believe.
Banks engage in lies and deception. If you have borrowed money from a bank or lender then you have been lied to and you have been cheated. That’s just the way banks do business. Banks Lie!
But the lies are so pervasive that we are not only fooled but brainwashed to think what the banks do is right and we must do this or pay that and sign over this or that, and so on.
When my protest went on national TV in Australia, claiming Macquarie Bank sold my loan contract to others and won’t tell me who they are, Macquarie said they never sell loans. Yet their own website brags that they are leaders in the securitisation of mortgages. That means they SELL the loans to investors! How’s that for bold-faced lying? And I have documents from the Securities Exchange Commission in the USA (SEC) showing parcels of mortgages sold by Macquarie to the investment market.
“We have been …. amongst the top 3 Lead Managers of Mortgage & Asset backed Securitisations each year since 1997 …. as measured by volumes issued.”
Truth in Lending
The USA created a Truth in Lending Act back in 1968 and in Australia the principles of “Truth in Lending” are promoted, including in the Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC).
Yet, for all that, the level of lies and deception, including fraud, perpetrated by banks and lending institutions is staggering. Not only do the banks lie, but they brainwash the public so intensely that many people immediately reject the truth as preposterous when it is presented to them.
For those who are prepared to investigate the matter the following pages will point you to a search for ‘truth in lending’ that goes far beyond the window dressing of the UCCC.
A basic lie at the heart of all lending is that the “loan contract” is mere “paperwork”. Instead, the document bearing your signature is a Financial Instrument worth more than your loan. The Bank/Lender takes your “paperwork” and sells it for a profit, without ever letting you know.
The fact that they can sell it proves it has value they never told you about. And that means your signature on a piece of paper has turned that piece of paper into something of great value.
So, who created the value? If it was created by your signature then YOU CREATED THE VALUE. Your signature created money.
And that means that when the bank takes the ‘paperwork’ from you, knowing it has great value, they should give you a credit for the deposit of that amazing piece of paper. Do they do that? Did they give you a receipt for the deposit of your Financial Instrument?
They never tell you that you now have a huge credit with the bank. They make you think the contract has put you under severe risk of penalty if you don’t pay. They don’t tell you that THEY are under obligation to you, for the full value of what you have created. They owe you the full value of what you deposited with them, otherwise they are stealing it from you, by Fraud.
“The Borrower is servant to the Lender” – and the bank borrowed something of great value from you. So who is the servant in the relationship?
The T Ledger
Your bank is required by the Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP or which ever applies in your country) to have a zero balance on their T ledger, showing assets that match their liabilities.
When the bank takes your “loan contract”, which is really a Financial Instrument, it is recorded as a Liability for the bank. THEY OWE YOU the full value of that deposit.
But, as we’ve said already, Banks Lie!
They never want you to see that ledger. So they create a Loan Account or similar statement which only shows your obligation to the bank to repay a ‘loan’, not their obligation to you for the full value of what they provided to you.
Banks then go to such lengths as “off balance sheet accounting” and other means to hide the truth about your deposit with them. They even bring into court the evidence of what you owe them, while hiding the fact that they owe you for depositing your Financial Instrument with them. It’s Fraud.
Selling Your Signature
To simplify an explanation for those who can’t believe their signature has created value, let’s consider what often happens between financial organizations. When you take out a loan for $100,000 over thirty years you will likely end up paying something like 250% of the loan, due to interest over that period of time. So the lender will get back the $100,000 plus another $150,000 over thirty years.
But if the lender doesn’t want to wait the full thirty years, or needs the money more quickly, they might sell the deal to an investor, and give them a discount. Let’s say they sold the ‘loan’ to someone for $180,000. The new buyer will still earn $70,000 over the thirty years, and the original lender has now made a cool $80,000 quick profit. Even if they sold it for $120,000 they have made a quick profit.
What the original lender sells to the other bank is your signature. Your guarantee to pay is worth $150,000 of clear profit.
Now, when an artist creates a painting worth $150,000 how much should he get for it? If a builder erects a structure worth $150,000 how much should he get paid for it?
When you create an asset worth $150,000 how much should you get paid for it? Nothing?
Or worse still, should you end up paying someone for what you created?
Look at Your Loan
I trust you are getting the picture that your lender is probably not telling you the whole truth about the financial relationship they entered into with you. So, let’s look at another lie they tell you.
Have a look at your “loan contract” and tell me who signed it. Most likely you (and your spouse) and a witness are the only ones who signed the document. There may be a signature from the lender on the Terms and Conditions document, but on what they call the “Loan Contract” do you see the signature of both parties? A contract is between two parties, isn’t it? So why do they not sign it too?
The reason the lender does not sign the contract is because it is NOT a Contract. It is a financial instrument, such as a Promissory Note or a Bill of Exchange. While a contract is non-transferable, the documents you sign will be sold off to others. They are “negotiable”, like a check (cheque) from your checkbook.
Why does the bank call it a “Loan Contract” if it is not a loan contract? Why do they lie to you about what the document is? Why don’t they tell you that you are creating a Financial Instrument which is worth about 250% of the money you are requesting?
If they told you that you created a valuable financial instrument you would immediately know that the transaction is NOT A LOAN. You would see that it is a financial transaction where you deposit something of value and some of that value is put into your account for you to use. You would see that there is no way in the world you should pay them interest for using your own money. You would see that they have no right to charge you interest, or fees or to take any foreclosure action to get your home off you.
Lies and Deception
Did your lender tell you they would sell your signature for a profit? Did your lender give you the impression that they were giving you money that they owned, as a true ‘loan’ to you, and your loan contract was to make sure you didn’t rip them off?
Did your lender tell you they would dispose of the loan contract for a quick profit? Did your lender tell you they had no interest in a long-term relationship with you, but wanted to make a quick buck out of stitching you up into a ‘loan’ agreement that they would sell off?
Back in the late 1980’s Operation BankWatch was created in Australia in reaction to banks taking farms off families after talking those farmers into easy loans a few years earlier.
What Operation BankWatch uncovered was that the amount of money in Australia increased each year to the same amount as the number of new loans made that year. In other words the loans CREATED the money. Bank loans were not passing one person’s money to the borrower, but involved the borrower CREATING new money which they were able to use.
Now, that means there was some hefty lying going on. If the borrower created the money then why in the world was the borrower led to believe it was someone else’s money? Why was the borrower paying interest on money he had created? Why was a bank taking the family farm as penalty for someone not paying back their own money?
Here are the official figures from the Reserve Bank of Australia's "Bulletin", (August, 1989), as quoted by Operation BankWatch. On June 30, 1988 all the Australian dollars in existence totalled 130.2 billion. Exactly one year later, June 30 1989, there were 165 billion of them. There were an extra 34.8 billion Australian dollars in existence. Where did they come from?
They were simply created in the banking system by extending extra credit to people. Well that's okay. We need a mechanism. It's a very simple, efficient, well-organised system. But should the banks then keep all the proceeds? They do now!
If you doubt whether the banks kept the money we only have to refer again to the Reserve Bank Bulletin of August, 1989. In that same financial year, at 30th, June 1988, trading and savings bank assets were $217.8 billion. At the end of the financial year, in June 1989, they totalled $267.9 billion. Bank assets, in one year, increased by $50.1 billion dollars. And the Reserve Bank tells us that loans increased by over $50 billion that year.
Got it? Banks gave $50 billion in new loans, and bank assets went UP by $50 billion.
The banks make loans and their assets INCREASE! If you loaned money to someone your assets wouldn’t increase. Why do bank assets increase when they loan money? Because they steal your financial instrument and claim it as their asset.
Your loan contract created new wealth for the bank, when that new wealth actually belongs to YOU! Why is the bank stealing your Financial Instrument and keeping it for its own profit?
We’ve Got the Money
A cute TV ad shown in Sydney decades ago had a cartoon group of singers singing “We’ve Got the Money” and inviting people to contact NRMA Finance “and ask us for the dough”. The brainwashing message is “if you want to borrow money you have to go to someone who HAS the money in the first place”. Is that true?
The truth is that YOU CREATE THE MONEY with your signature on a Promissory
Note: So the bank doesn’t need to have any money at all to offer you a huge “loan”.
When new loans are made NEW MONEY is created.
The Credit Game
My son Daniel suggested a simple way to show that loans create money. Imagine a town where there are five people and only $10 in total currency. Billy holds the $10 and is afraid to spend it, so he keeps it in his pocket.
Sally has a shop but no-one can buy anything. Joe has a workshop but no-one can buy his services. Tom has a business but no-one can be his customer. Vicky wants to buy some things but has no money. Billy has gummed up the whole economy by holding all the money in his pocket.
Sally offers Joe, Tom and Vicky $10 credit, if they will give her $10 credit too. Everyone likes this idea and they all agree to give each other credit.
At the end of the month Sally has sold $30 worth of goods and bought as much. And the same is true for Tom, Joe and Vicky. So how much money was in the economy? There is only $10 of cash money, but over $100 worth of business was done, or money was spent, without touching the $10 in Billy’s pocket.
By offering Credit NEW MONEY is created. When you take out a ‘loan’ from a bank New Money is created.
1937 Royal Commission
Operation Bankwatch of the late 1980’s pointed to a Royal Commission showing that wealth is created by credit (loans).
It has been clearly established, in Australia and other countries, that the banking system creates credit. In 1937 an Australian Royal Commission investigated Finance and Banking. In his summing up, the Chairman, Sir Mellis Napier, of the Royal Commission stated,
“That the Commonwealth Bank (Reserve) can make money available to Governments or to others on such terms as it chooses even by way of a loan without interest or even without requiring either interest or repayment of principal.”
Note that the creation of Credit did not necessitate that the “loan” was ever repaid. The idea that a created credit entry, such as modern banks give to their “borrowers”, has to be repaid is unsound, but we have all been brainwashed into thinking that not to pay that loan is criminal theft on our part.
Let me quote again that the 1937 Royal Commission into Finance and Banking found that money could be made available as a loan “without requiring either INTEREST or REPAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL”.
Imagine how we could advance productivity and our standard of living if that finding were to be put into practice.
The Power to Make things Possible
Operation Bankwatch goes on to explain that governments have the power to create the credit needed to advance their nation. They quote British historian, Sir Arthur Bryant, who had a clear understanding of the use of new credits. In “The Illustrated London News”, March 1983, Bryant wrote:
“To exercise the right inherent in every sovereign state of creating and issuing a sufficiency of money to make financially possible what is physically possible and morally desirable, would enable as much real wealth to be brought into existence as, with its immense inventive and scientific potentialities, the nation is capable of making. It would give Government a freedom of action which its present dependence on borrowed money denies it.”
This mechanism could certainly be used to relieve crippling financial burdens that threaten to destroy primary producers in times of crisis.
Money Out of Nothing
Mark Mansfield, B.Ec. wrote in his article titled “Manufacturing Money”, that “Banks grow the money supply every time they claim to lend money. I say claim to lend money, because banks do not really lend money. When money is borrowed from a bank, the bank actually creates new money or credit out of nothing.” Ref: http://www.sosnews.org/library/banks/making.htm
George Dimitriou writes in The People Vs The Banks, for Nemesis Magazine:
“The great deception that is currently strangling the Western world, and thus every man woman and child, is the over abundance of credit, or much more specifically, the creation of money 'out of thin air'. It remains as an insidious truth that the vast majority of people remain blissfully unaware of the fact that *when banks lend money, they in fact create most of it with the scribble of a pen at no cost to themselves. Adding to this already heinous fraud, they then add an inordinate interest charge for the use of that money - money which for all intents and purposes does not physically exist.
Sir Josiah Stamp, director of the Bank of England during the years 1928-1941, stated thus in regard to 'banking': “The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing*. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented.” Ref: http://nemesis.alphalink.com.au/banks.html
Mortgage Backed Securities
Banks sell off your signature to investors. This is referred to as monetising your signature or as securitisation of the loan. Home loans are sold off to investors as securities and investors find them attractive because the investments are backed by real estate. A mortgage backed security sounds like a safe investment.
Investors are so keen to have mortgage backed securities that lenders have been over eager to stitch people up with loans, which they then quickly turn over for a profit.
The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008 was triggered to large degree by lenders giving home loans worth more than the value of the house, to people who were not likely to repay. It has been said that all you had to do to get a home loan was to fog a mirror (have breath). These risky loans were called sub-prime lending. These loans were bundled into huge investment pools and sold in small bits to investors around the world.
There was such a demand for the mortgage backed securities that when the market collapsed there was a push to get people out of their homes so new buyers would take out new home loans, so there would be more mortgage backed securities to quickly sell to the hungry investor market. There was a feeding frenzy on mortgage backed securities.
Banks Did Not Lose
While the GFC led to some banks being swallowed up by others, much of the pain of the financial collapse was felt by institutional investors, such as superannuation funds and other investor groups who bought the mortgage backed securities.
Banks who had quickly on-sold their risky home loans to investors made their quick 60% or more profit, while they hand-balled the risk to institutions and to the life savings of the working man. It was a clever strategy to take money from the man on the street (through their superannuation and other investment pools) and put that into the hands of the banks.
I have heard it said, so you’ll have to check this one out yourself, that when WAMU (Washington Mutual bank) was taken over in the wash of the GFC its asset listing did not include any home mortgages. All of its mortgages had already been sold to other investors. Yet WAMU was still collecting money from those people who believed they had a mortgage with them.
Has your lender at any time disclosed to you proof that they still own your home loan? Have they ever told you that they have sold part or all of your mortgage to anyone else? Would they tell you if they had?
Do they have the right to demand interest payments, or to charge you penalty fees for late payment, or to take your home off you if you do not pay? They act as if they have those rights, but are they telling you the truth?
Since all banks make so much easy money by securitising home loans why would your bank not have done so too?
Pelma Jacinth Rajapakse is an Australian academic who gained her PhD researching securitisation in Australia. She wrote in the University of NSW Law Journal in 2006 about “the risk that borrowers might find their homes sold by downstream financial intermediaries who have ‘purchased’ their bank’s or independent mortgage provider’s mortgagee rights.” She adds “This is not because of a failure to pay on the part of the borrowers” but could be because the new ‘owner’ of the mortgage falls on hard times or otherwise needs the cash.
What Rajapakse is exposing is that most mortgages are on-sold. Yet you probably have no idea whether your mortgage has been sold, or to whom and for how much. All you know is that if you miss a payment you are hit with penalties.
Privity of Contract
Since banks call your mortgage lending arrangement a “loan contract” it is interesting to consider what happens when a ‘contract’ is sold to someone else. A key consideration is the matter of “Privity of Contract”.
“It is an elementary principle of English law — known as the doctrine of ‘Privity of Contract’
— that contractual rights and duties only affect the parties to a contract” P.S. Atiyah, An Introduction to the Law of Contract 265 (3d ed. 1981).
“The doctrine of privity means that a person cannot acquire rights or be subject to liabilities arising under a contract to which he is not a party*.” G.H. Treitel, The Law of Contract 538 (8th ed. 1991).
Your lender claims they created a ‘loan contract’ with you, but through securitisation those ‘contracts’ are sold off to others who might come and claim your house, even if you have made all the right payments to your lender.
But Privity of Contract shows that a third party cannot buy a contract and get any rights at all. They are not a party to the contract and never signed the contract document with you. So, if your lender has sold your ‘loan’ to someone else then hasn’t the whole contract been compromised?
Did your bank discuss with you what would happen if they sold your ‘loan’ to someone else?
Banks Lose Their Rights
If a lender does not retain all the rights to the original loan contract then they lose their rights under the contract. They lose their rights to demand interest payments, charge fees or to take your home from you.
In the USA there have been many court cases where the bank or lender was denied the right to make demands of a home owner if they could not prove the lender still held the original rights.
In October 2010 the 23 Judicial States in the USA froze all foreclosure actions because banks were not proving their ownership of the original rights. In fact the banks were LYING by paying people to create fake documents! And bank staff didn’t bother to check the files to see if there were any documents at all.
For several years now USA banks have claimed that they ‘lost’ the paperwork for their home loans. In reality they sold the loans to investors and that is why they could not produce the original documents. But they lied to the courts, using a “lost note affidavit” to lie that they held all the rights, but just could not find the documents. Many USA courts no longer accept this lie.
My wife recently heard of a Melbourne couple who had their home loan completely cancelled when the bank could not produce the documents to prove it held the rights to their loan contract. The lender claimed they had ‘lost’ the documents.
Sadly, many courts are in collusion with the banks. In my experience with the Supreme Court of Victoria neither the Prothonotary nor Associate Justice Neemar Mukhtar would accept my demand that Perpetual Limited prove it still held the original documents and all rights that went with them. So, injustice and treason will still stand in the way of justice and our rights.
Taking Your Home
Now, let’s talk about the ugliest end of the whole deal, where the bank comes to take your home away from you.
What normally happens is something like this. The bank/lender goes to the court and accuses you of being in breach of contract. They point out a clause or two in the contract where you have signed that they have the right to take your home if you do not make all the payments.
Most states have put in place simple procedures which create an automatic judgment against the borrower. So, thousands of people lose their home every month.
But is this lawful, or is it Fraud?
If the bank has sold or passed on the contract to others it is FRAUD!
On 11 January 2010, when Perpetual Limited filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria to get my home off me they commit Fraud. But the court would not let me challenge that. So I am patiently waiting the time when that Fraud will be tested in open court and the LIE will be exposed.
When that happens there will be thousands of families in Australia who will take courage to get the justice they deserve.
Transfer of Land Act 1958
In Victoria the banks rely on the Transfer of Land Act 1958. But to do that they have to commit Treason. The Australian Constitution says that if the parties are in different states then state law cannot be used. That’s the case for me, but they insisted on using Victorian legislation despite what the Constitution says.
And Australian Law is based on the Crown and Common Law. Thus the ancient promises of the Kings and Queens of England, including Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus (which we call Imperial Acts) are the “higher law” that has priority over every other law or court rule used in Australia.
Magna Carta says that I cannot have land taken off me without a jury trial or common law. The bank gave me neither a jury nor common law.
By attacking my rights under the Crown the bank and its lawyers committed Treason, to use Australian courts to deny the rights guaranteed by the Crown.
Common Law Claim
Australian courts must operate by the maxims of common law, due to Royal Prerogative. This means that the Queen is deemed to be present in the court, thus giving the court the right to operate. But her presence mandates that the court must operate by the maxims of common law, even if the case is in some other division of the court where it is claimed that common law does not apply (such as a court of equity, maritime jurisdiction, etc).
Check out this definition of Royal Prerogative from Halsbury’s Laws of England (which laws have not been revoked in their application in Australia).
“By virtue of the prerogative the Sovereign is the source and fountain of justice and all jurisdiction derives from her. Hence in legal contemplation, the Sovereign’s Majesty is deemed always to be present in court, and by the terms of the coronation oath, and by the maxims of the common law as also by the ancient charters and statutes confirming the liberties of the subject, the Sovereign is bound to cause law and justice in mercy to be administered in all judgments.”
A fundamental maxim of common law is the requirement of an injured party. This ancient requirement comes from the Holy Bible and traces back to the time of Moses when God instructed that justice requires an injured party and a punishment that does not go beyond the injury caused.
“And he that kills any man shall surely be put to death. And he that kills a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he has done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he has caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that kills a beast shall restore it: and he that kills a man shall be put to death.” - Leviticus 24:17-21
By the maxims of common law, when your lender goes to the court it must prove it is an injured party. Is it an injured party?
They have already sold your financial instrument for a profit. And the original money they provided to you was created out of nothing, so even if they never sold it they can’t actually lose any money, or be “injured” when you don’t pay.
No. Your lender is never an injured party. So they have no lawful right to claim in an Australian court.
But note that what is “lawful” (just and right) can be overturned (treacherously) by what is made “legal”, made into an unjust law, such as the banks use to get your home.
Treachery and Treason
Every action by the bank, its lawyers and the courts which denies me “justice” or “right” is an act of Treachery and Treason, because they are using the resources of the Crown to attack the Crown’s promise to Aussies.
The Crown’s Promise, given in Magna Carta 1215 is “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” That Promise was repeated in Magna Carta 1297 as “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”
Any action undertaken by any official in Australia, which is constituted under the Crown, must fulfil this Crown Promise. All expressions of the Commonwealth of Australia, from politicians, courts, officials or whatever, must be totally committed to deliver Justice and Rights to members of the Australian public. They cannot make you pay for justice or right, nor can they deny it or even make you wait for it.
Any such official who fails to give you justice and right has committed Treason against the Crown.
What I have repeatedly experienced in the Supreme Court of Victoria, and particularly from Associate Justice Neemar Mukhtar, is Treason. The court has repeatedly served its own interests with disregard for justice and my rights.
That is why I named my new website Justice-And-Right.com.
Web of Lies
Your bank lies to you that it has money to “lend” to you. Your bank lies to you by not telling you that your signature creates a very valuable document. Your bank lies to you by telling you that the money it provides is not your money already, or money created by you.
Your bank lies to you by telling you that you must pay interest on the money you receive. Your bank lies to you by telling you that you must pay fees and risk losing your home if you do not pay them the money they demand.
Your bank lies to you that they need security for the loan and so you must give them a mortgage over your family home. Your bank lies to you that it has lawful right to take money and your home from you.
Your bank lies to you that it has not sold or otherwise lost any rights it might have had under a true contract, by selling that financial instrument to others. Your bank lies to the court when it claims to have the right to demand money or to demand your home.
Your bank lies to the investors it sells your home loan to by not disclosing that your obligations are voided once the “loan” has been sold – thus the mortgage backed security is not truly backed by anything!
What is Truth?
All of this happens under the notion of “Truth in Lending”. Ha! Where is the truth? How is it that since 1968 in the USA, when the Truth in Lending Act was created, banks can continue to boldly lie in every direction?
Truth must mean something different in banking to what it means to ordinary
Where does all of this lead?
That is for you to answer.
It has led me and many others to challenge the lies and to demand from the lender some proof of what they are saying. Where will it lead you?
The problem for those of us who challenge the banks is that the courts are corrupted and are not likely to support someone opposing the banks. Yet we do see more situations, especially in the USA, where the courts side with the bank’s victims, rather than with the banks.
Progressively the man on the street is getting justice and the banks are losing out in their chance to lie and steal.
Australian courts are slowly coming round and making the banks prove their claims. One bank was ordered to produce the documents some six months ago. They have not produced the documents and are now seeking a new hearing so
they can get judgment in their favour. These guys are crooks!
Meanwhile a hurdle we all face is that brainwashed people become angry at us for trying to set them free. There is deep resentment in some when they see us fighting the banks. Those feelings are irrational, but they are real nonetheless. Those who investigate the matter will work through the brainwashing, but don’t be surprised if some of your family and friends don’t understand your actions.
Pointers to Follow
The Credit River case from Minnesota USA is a landmark decision dating back to 1968, showing that money is created out of nothing. It is one of the early decisions to hearten those who know the banks are lying.
The book Modern Money Mechanics by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago contains 50 pages of authoritative explanation about how banks lend out money they don’t have, lending out $1,000 for every $100 dollars they have in reserve. The book can be downloaded from various websites.
For a much more up date example, check out Darrell O’Dea in Ireland who challenged the Bank of Ireland about the things discussed here and, after about ten months (Nov. 2010), he had his mortgage wiped off, without even a court battle. Darrell has a book which you can download free which includes the text of letters he used.
My experience has not been as smooth as Darrell O’Dea. Perpetual Limited filed to get my home and the courts seemed to bend over backwards to make it easy for the bank. I wrote many letters and put my claims as best I could, with no legal training or experience. I was evicted by the Sheriffs on 21, September 2010, and I re-took possession of my own home on 28 September 2010. I am still in my home, but a new Warrant of Possession has been granted by the same Associate Justice Neemar Mukhtar who has denied my rights several times before. I have an Appeal in process that could take until mid 2011 to be heard. What we are going through is not for the faint-hearted.
Various articles about banks and legal matters can be found at: http://justice-and-right.com
Updates on my battle with Macquarie Bank and Perpetual Limited will be posted there.
Browse through my thoughts about sovereignty, law, and related topics at: http://ChrisFieldBlog.com
Check out my links to various sites and resources for info and wisdom at: http://justice-and-right.com/resources
Please pass this on to as many people as you can.
We need more people to make their own investigations and come to their own conclusions about how Banks Lie.
The more people who know what is going on and the more who do something about it, the more honest the banks will have to become and the more our rights and justice will be restored.
So, pass this on, for the sake of us all.