Help needed to locate old article................ V

[Ponce]

Some time ago I read something about the money that you give to the bank (checking or savings) is no longer yours and that the bank can steal it from you, if they want to....... I need to make a copy of the article.......thanks......... V

[ximmy]

There are several websites that mention things similar to that effect.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/money-in-the-bank-no-longer-belongs-to-you/
Few people realize that governments and banks no longer believe that your money belongs to you. The world is deep in debt and what money a person thinks they have could, at some point, simply be confiscated, the moment it goes into a bank account.


http://www.occupycorporatism.com/customer-deposits-are-property-of-the-bank-close-your-account-now/
When a banking customer deposits their money into their bank account, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (http://www.fdic.gov/) (FDIC) and Securities Investor Protection Corporation (http://www.sipc.org/) (SPIC) are in place to protect the customer from fraud or theft. The ruling from the CCA means that these regulatory systems will not insure customer funds, investments, depositors and retirees who hold accounts in banks. In fact, the banking institution is now legally allowed to use those customer funds deposited as collateral, payment on debts for loans made, or free use on the stock market to purchase investments as the bank sees fit.

[mick silver]

missed you ximmy glad your home ........your part of this place like us all

[Ponce]

Hey, hey, hey, hey, HEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ........ stop messing around with ximmy.....she only came back because she missed her old Cuban.........

V

[madfranks]

Hey, hey, hey, hey, HEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ........ stop messing around with ximmy.....she only came back because she missed her old Cuban.........

V

Ximmy, confirm please. :)

[expat4ever]

Look up rehypothecation. I belive thats the term you are looking for.

[osoab]

Look up rehypothecation. I belive thats the term you are looking for.

No, basically the accounts are on demand. The accounts make you a non-secured creditor to the bank. Us peons will be the last to be paid pennies on the dollar for deposits held.

[Ponce]

Hey people? with this stupid land line that I have I cannot download most of the articles and no videos........will someone please post it for me? thanks.

V

[Hitch]

No, basically the accounts are on demand. The accounts make you a non-secured creditor to the bank. Us peons will be the last to be paid pennies on the dollar for deposits held.

Correct, but don't worry....FDIC will save you. :rolleyes:

[expat4ever]

No, basically the accounts are on demand. The accounts make you a non-secured creditor to the bank. Us peons will be the last to be paid pennies on the dollar for deposits held.
Only if you use a bank. :)

[Ponce]

Will someone PLEASE copy and paste the article for me.........my bank manager says that I am full of shit......I want to shovel the article up her ass.......together with a roll of tp...........OUCHHHHHHHHH.

V

[Hatha Sunahara]

The opersative search term here is 'bail-in'. Here's an article that gives an explanation for the justification for bail-ins: http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/12/30/american-bank-bail-ins-beginning/

Here's another on on how to protect yourself:: https://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2013/11/04/plans-in-place-for-a-us-bank-bail-in.html

If you do a search on 'bail-ins' you will probably find the article you're looking for fairly easily.

Glad to see you return Ximmy.



Hatha

[mick silver]

Customer Deposits Are Property of the Bank: Close Your Account NOW In June of 2012, Eric Bloom, former chief executive, and Charles Mosely, head trader of Sentinel Management Group (http://www.linkedin.com/company/sentinel-management-group-inc) (SMG) were indicted (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-02/business/ct-biz-0602-sentinel-indict-20120602_1_philip-bloom-wire-fraud-indictment) for stealing $500 million in customer secured funds. Both Mosely and Bloom were accused of “exposing” customer segregated funds “to a portfolio of highly risky derivatives.”

These customer funds were used to “back up personal investments” which were part of “collateral for a loan from Bank of New York Mellon” (BNYM). This loan derived from stolen customer monies was “used to purchase millions of dollars worth of high-risk, illiquid securities, including collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, for a trading portfolio that benefited Sentinel’s officers, including Mosley, Bloom and certain Bloom family members.”
Fast forward to August 9th of 2012, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (CCA) rules (http://www.knowledgemosaic.com/gateway/courtcase/Sentinel.080912.pdf) that BNYM can be moved to first in line of creditors over the customers that had their funds stolen by SMG.
When a banking customer deposits their money into their bank account, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (http://www.fdic.gov/) (FDIC) and Securities Investor Protection Corporation (http://www.sipc.org/) (SPIC) are in place to protect the customer from fraud or theft. The ruling from the CCA means that these regulatory systems will not insure customer funds, investments, depositors and retirees who hold accounts in banks. In fact, the banking institution is now legally allowed to use those customer funds deposited as collateral, payment on debts for loans made, or free use on the stock market to purchase investments as the bank sees fit.
Fred Grede, SMG trustee, explained (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/10/us-sentinel-appeals-decision-idUSBRE87900T20120810) that brokers are no longer required to keep customer money separate from their own. “It does not bode well for the protection of customer funds.”
Since the ruling gives banks the right to co-mingle customer funds with their own, no crime can be committed for the use of customer deposited monies.
According to Walker Todd (http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-08-20/how-congress-helps-tbtf-banks-steal-your-money-impunity), former lawyer for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Cleveland: “Basically, there is a new 7th Circuit opinion saying that there is no reason to impose a constructive trust on a lender’s takings of customers’ funds from client commodity firms that were used (inappropriately) to secure the firms’ borrowings, as long as the lender can say that it did not know WITH CERTAINTY that customers’ funds were being repledged. Negligence and misappropriation (vs. knowing criminal intent) are now a sufficient excuse for letting the lender keep the money and go to the head of the line for distributions in bankruptcies of the client commodity firms.”
When a customer deposits money into a bank, the bank essentially issues a promise (http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/can-a-bank-steal-my-money/) to have those funds available when the customer returns to withdraw the deposited amount. When the same customer withdraws funds from their account (whether checking or savings) the customer assumes that the bank has enough funds to cover their withdrawal; including the presumption that their monies are separate from the bank’s assets.
Now, those funds are up for grabs by the bank at their discretion without explanation to the customer – nor is the bank obligated to recoup the customer should they “lose” those funds due to bad loans, bankruptcy or stock market loss.
In Texas, Pamela Cobb, manager of Bank of America (BoA), stole (http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/03/28/3843405/dfw-bank-of-america-manager-pleads.html) an estimated $2 million from customer funds for personal use. Cobb had been taking customer segregated funds since 2002.
Customers have complained (http://drx.typepad.com/psychotherapyblog/2012/06/bank-of-america-stealing.html) of fraudulent charges placed on their accounts that BoA cannot explain. When the customer brings these charges to the in-house fraud department, they are given the run-around until they acquiesce.
Other customers have had their private possessions stolen right out of their safety deposit box (http://youtu.be/ygG29W0DQno) held at BoA. The safety deposit box was drilled into and the contents shipped to the BoA corporate holding center in South Carolina.
In 1992 to 2003, Citibank called their theft (http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1602) of customer funds “account sweeping” wherein they stole more than $14 million from customers nationally. Using computerized credit card processes to remove positive and negative balances from customers, the scheme included double payments or funds paid out on returned purchases that were then attributed back to the customer.
At Chase bank, an anonymous employee (http://blog.aarp.org/2012/07/10/jpmorgan-chase-employee-accused-of-stealing-100000-from-customer-with-alzheimers/) opened an account under a customer name (targeting an Alzheimer’s sufferer), complete with a personal debit card. An estimated $300 per day was withdrawn on the fraudulent account. When family representing the victim alerted Chase, they brushed them off with an internal investigation claim – even as the family sought legal action.
Banking fraud against the elderly has risen of late, since banks realize they can steal massive amounts of cash from their aging customers with little to no repercussions.
The recent ruling on SMG has given the banking industry the legal backing they have been lacking when stealing from their customers.
Our financial institutions have been planning for a financial collapse wherein the US government will not offer assistance. The resolution plans (http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/resolution-plans.htm) required by the Federal Reserve Bank, described schemes to have the major domestic banks remain afloat by selling off assets, finding alternative sources of funding, reducing risky measures that make a quick buck. These strategies were to be perfected with “no assumption of extraordinary support from the public sector.”
Of recent, when withdrawing cash from an ATM, the daily allotted amount has decreased with some banks, thereby forcing the customer to go into the branch and extract the difference with a teller. At this point, according to (http://occupycorporatism.com/banks-can-legally-steal-customer-funds-from-private-checking-accounts/) anonymous informants, the customer is taken into a backroom to be questioned as to why they want the cash, what they are purchasing with the cash, why they are not choosing to use a debit card or another form of digital trade to make the purchase. These questions are not only intrusive, they are illegal.
Some anonymous sources have said that banking representatives who conduct the integrations are directed to keep a record of customer responses on an online application that will be sent to the FBI in conjunction with Patriot Act mandates on tracking banking activity.
Customer funds are no longer secure, no longer backed by the FDIC or other insurance corporations, and banks are legally allowed to be co-mingled with other funds of the bank. The only safe place for your money is with you.
Now is the time to close your bank account.

[mick silver]

Money in the Bank No Longer Belongs to You
Read more at http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/money-in-the-bank-no-longer-belongs-to-you/#lD2Em1mguMsMQqDZ.99
Few people realize that governments and banks no longer believe that your money belongs to you. The world is deep in debt and what money a person thinks they have could, at some point, simply be confiscated, the moment it goes into a bank account. Whilst it is true that, for the majority of people, a trip to the bank to make a withdrawal is a simple process, there may soon come a time when the banks decide that ordinary people cannot simply withdraw their money without providing a good reason, as customers of HSBC recently discovered.

HSBC Bank quietly made a change to their policy in November 2013. Customers were not told about this change but they are beginning to find out about it now; withdrawals of large amounts are only permitted once the customer provides justification for needing the funds. This is being done in the name of protecting the customer from fraudulent transactions. “we have an obligation to protect our customers, and to minimise [sic] the opportunity for financial crime.” HSBC says. “We ask our customers about the purpose of large cash withdrawals when they are unusual and out of keeping with the normal running of their account.” The bank stated, additionally, that it may require customers to provide “evidence” of what the money will be used for.
Stephen Cotton attempted to withdraw £7,000, a little over $11,500, from his HSBC account in the United Kingdom. Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 program Money Box, he recounted how staff at the branch refused to allow him to withdraw the money without an explanation of why he needed it, in addition to proof. In this case, Mr. Cotton intended to repay a loan from his mother. The bank demanded he produce a letter from her, verifying this. Cotton then found himself in the position of haggling with staff over how much he could actually withdraw; finally, he was allowed to take out £3,000.

image: http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/HSBC-Bank-e1390674416270.jpg
http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/HSBC-Bank-e1390674416270.jpgThis was not an isolated case. The truly disturbing aspect of these incidents, however, is that HSBC is not being honest about the reason behind its new policy. Customers are always required to produce identification when making a withdrawal; were the bank skeptical about the true identity of the individual attempting to withdraw funds and concerned that the withdrawal might be fraudulent, it would surely not even allow the individual to take out even $100 – or $50. The real reason behind such policies is that banks – and the governments that control them through regulation – do not believe that private citizens actually have any right to claim that the money in question belongs to them. According to a BBC News report, Douglas Carswell, a British Conservative Member of Parliament, says that such regulation of banks “…basically infantilises [sic] the customer. In a sense your money becomes pocket money and the bank becomes your parent.”In reality, private citizens are being conditioned to believe that, once their money is in the bank, it really no longer belongs to them and they do not have the right to simply withdraw as much as they want, anytime they choose. If there were ever a better argument for American citizens to retain the right to keep and bear arms, it is difficult to think of.


Former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, is credited with once pointing out that the problem with Socialism is that, eventually, “you run out of other people’s’ money.” The truth of this has been proven over and over again and, as Europe and North America sink further into debt, as a result of burgeoning government spending on social welfare programs, public-sector employee pensions and benefits, as well massive corruption and misuse of public funds, governments are seeking to shore up their financial positions by appropriating what money private citizens still retain after taxes. Nations facing bankruptcy have to find more money somewhere. In the United States, the policy has been to simply print more and more money which, of course, devalues all dollars in circulation. The unavoidable end result of this policy is massive inflation which is, in reality, a tax on every individual. Other nations, such as Cyprus, have already made the decision that they can simply take a percentage of the money deposited in the accounts of private citizens. In 2013, European Finance Ministers gave the go-ahead for the Cypriot government to levy private bank accounts up to almost 10 percent, as a condition to a financial bailout.
The printing of money – ingeniously termed “quantitative easing” – pumps money into the financial system which, in turn, artificially boosts the stock markets. The fact that, in the US, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has recently hit record highs bears no relation to an improving economy – since the US economy is not, by any indication, improving – but, rather, is a direct result of money-printing. Ultimately, therefore, only the wealthiest benefit from such policies, whilst everyone else struggles with an ever-increasing cost of living. The economy enters a downward spiral as companies lay off more employees, leading to fewer and fewer people participating in – and contributing to – economic activity. In the United States, an increasing number of Americans are now living in poverty – more than 47 million; a similar number now receive food stamps, paid for with money that has no real value; more than 19 million people are no longer in the labor force, which allows the government to pretend that unemployment is falling, since they no longer count these people in the statistics; no longer in the labor force is not the same thing as officially “unemployed.”
Additionally, median household income has declined every year since 2007, according to figures from the US Census ACS data. It is worth noting that, whilst President Barack Obama and his supporters continue to insist that United States’ latest economic woes began under his predecessor, the downward trend has continued every year of Obama’s term in office, despite massively increased government spending which, the nation was promised, would stimulate the economy and put the country back on track. Claims that the problems were of someone else’s making ring hollow when one’s own actions continue to make those problems worse and even more unsolvable.

image: http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Real-Median-Household-Income-e1390674922778.jpg
http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Real-Median-Household-Income-e1390674922778.jpgIn the five years that Barack Obama has been President of the United States, the US national debt has risen by some 6.7 trillion dollars, compared to a rise of around 4.9 trillion during the eight years of George W. Bush’s Presidency. Ultimately, there must come a time when nations such as China decide that they are unwilling – or unable – to lend the US any additional money; at that point, further printing of dollars will immediately lead to unthinkable rates of inflation and the federal government will have no choice but to acquire dollars from other sources. America is the depository for much of the gold currently in existence, above ground. Much of that gold, however, belongs – in theory – to other nations. Germany has already requested that its gold be repatriated but the Federal Reserve has been unable to hand it all over. The truth is, every nation’s gold reserves have been traded over and over again, on paper, and it is virtually impossible, now, to determine who’s gold belongs to who.World governments, collectively, are in debt to the tune of almost $54 trillion. The US national debt is now $17.3 trillion; the United Kingdom owes just short of $2 trillion; China, $2.4 trillion; Germany, $2.8 trillion. US debt, as demonstrated by these numbers, is staggering and completely unsustainable. Every American should be truly terrified every time they hear a politician arguing against spending cuts.
With no ability to continue to print money, no gold reserves to sell and no more loans, the United States government will – at some future time – have no other choice but to confiscate the wealth of private citizens. For the wise private citizen, credit unions, coffee jars or mattresses may become the depository of choice for his or her hard-earned dollars. One should think carefully before filling out that next deposit slip; unless government spending, borrowing and printing are not severely curtailed, there may well come a time when the money you put in the bank may no longer belong to you.

Editorial by Graham J Noble
Sources:
BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25861717)
The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/16/why-germany-wants-its-674-tons-of-gold-back/)
Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-16/euro-area-takes-aim-at-depositors-in-cyprus-bailout.html)


Read more at http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/money-in-the-bank-no-longer-belongs-to-you/#vIRhGDJS24P4DvSg.99

[mick silver]

is that what you want ponce

[Ponce]

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAA, I now print it and take it to her on Monday, than a million pesos (more valuable than dollars).

V