David (well, Michael) vs Goliath ..actually Standard Bank

B

bdt

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
7,001
Reaction score
823
Location
Mama Randburg, middle of everywhere
Heard on 702 with Udo Carelse this morning: Michael Tellinger taking Std Bank on in the ConCourt; sample from the page (pdf)

The New Economic Rights Alliance (www.newera.org.za) is preparing for a Constitutional Court Case that aims to obtain transparency in banking (case number CCT38/12). This is a once-in-history opportunity.

For the first time, a full bench of 11 judges, 22 registrars, eight clerks, four joined advocates and four additional researchers will hear a case that goes to the heart of the banking system. With so much financial turmoil overseas, a case like this has been destined to break. We believe that South Africa is the one country that has the right mix of variables to make a case like this possible.

This is an enormous undertaking and we require 20,000 signatures to have the desired impact. Please sign this online petition: http://micro2.majesticinteractive.co.za/bf.php?fid=1151 and ask everyone you know to do the same. The time for truth in banking is now.

The following outlines the reasons behind this action:

1. Banks do not “loan” money as their prolific advertisements claim. Money loaned is actually money created, via an elaborate scheme of paper shifting and number crunching. This involves the use of loan application forms and negotiable instruments,
the result being debit and credit book entries that have no liquid money value. It can be said that banks make money out-of-thin-air under the “pretence” of a loan, but in reality it is not a loan at all. This is deceptive and misleading as very few South Africans know the truth.

2. It is a common legal principle in our law that one must possess that which one loans. For reasons above, the banks are unable to meet this, a fundamental criteria for a valid borrower / lender contract.

3. Banks are failing to provide simple information to their customers that should be easy to access. Examples include a certificate of balance, audited proof that a lawful “deposit” was actually made and the physical location of original documents, promissory notes and other negotiable instruments. Instead of providing the customer with this information, they choose to take legal action, and foreclose on homes and assets with remarkable alacrity.
Click to expand...
Many more points in the pdf, don't want to kick tl;dr here.
 
Is this the same loopy UFO nutcase Tellinger?

Of course banks create money - I'm sure I learned that in Economics 101.
 
I thought banks where allowed to create money, based on the reserve requirement in place.

In south africa the reserve requirement is 2.5%, meaning that if the bank only has to keep
2.5% in reserves what it lends out, even though interest is charged on every thing they lend out.

Not saying that I agree with the bank practices, but its just been this way for a real long time.
As long as what they do is approved by government, what can be done?

I hope this case doesn't get thrown out for some reason, considering the bank has quite alot
of money it can throw at lawyers..

I will be keeping a close eye on this one.
 
rwenzori said:
Of course banks create money - I'm sure I learned that in Economics 101.
Click to expand...

Ditto, we did this in Ecos 101. The main thing we had to know back then was that "Banks create money by making/giving out loans in the economy".

In Ecos 201 you go on to learn:
 
There is actually a dispute whether or not fractional reserve banking inflates the currency. The amount of money in circulation usually stays constant, however banks do create 'agreements' that can inflate the economy (for example the loan on your house). This is not really different from buying stocks in corporations.
 
Ok, if every one who has cash in the banks wants it now. What will happen
 
Thugscub said:
Ok, if every one who has cash in the banks wants it now. What will happen
Click to expand...

Then you'd see a run on the banks. Could drive a bank to bankruptcy (no pun intended).

Edit: To begin with, your local branch will never have enough $$$s to fulfill a sudden depositor withdrawal spree. You have to make special arrangement with your bank if you plan to withdraw over a certain amount of cash.
 
Last edited:
I read the email updates that get sent out.. and I honestly am still trying to figure out exactly what this guys end goal is?
 
Well, I suppose this guy has guts To challenge the capitalist mind. He has a point which but one which might be useless given that banks and insurance are simply legalised robbers who does nothing but create money out of thin air. All they need is. A licence and the law literally nudges to hand over the little peanuts you have so that banks can make money from it

Sent from South Africas most popular smartphone BlackBerry
 
I would love for him to answer why he applied for a home loan with Standard Bank in the first place and why he paid of a number of instalments of the loan and then decided to stop, based on the hogwash reasons he gives in this court case.

What utter rubbish. You cannot agree to abide by someone's rules when you want the loan .... and then change your mind when you do not feel like paying anymore.

If he did not believe that Standard Bank loaned him actual money to begin with, why did he take the loan??????
 
blunomore said:
I would love for him to answer why he applied for a home loan with Standard Bank in the first place and why he paid of a number of instalments of the loan and then decided to stop, based on the hogwash reasons he gives in this court case.

What utter rubbish. You cannot agree to abide by someone's rules when you want the loan .... and then change your mind when you do not feel like paying anymore.

If he did not believe that Standard Bank loaned him actual money to begin with, why did he take the loan??????
Click to expand...

So he fraudulently acquired a house? I assume he 'paid' for it with the non-money he got from Standard Bank.
 
No he became aware of the perceived fraud afterwards and now wants to expose it. In principal I have no problem with that.
 
Freshy-ZN said:
No he became aware of the perceived fraud afterwards and now wants to expose it. In principal I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...

So when he (someone with loony ideas on UFOs which tells you a lot about his frame of mind already) applied for a home loan with Standard Bank, he thought all banks were angelic and the transaction was perfectly legitimate in his eyes then? Once he found out "the ugly truth", he then decided to stop paying? How ridiculous!
 
blunomore said:
So when he (someone with loony ideas on UFOs which tells you a lot about his frame of mind already) applied for a home loan with Standard Bank, he thought all banks were angelic and the transaction was perfectly legitimate in his eyes then? Once he found out "the ugly truth", he then decided to stop paying? How ridiculous!
Click to expand...

Clearly you have not gone into his argument in depth. Theres a 2hr recording of his High Court presentation should you be interested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X