Every Chartered Bank in Canada Being Sued for Fraud! American Banks Next!

[Massivecock]

http://politics.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20...eb/prweb276608

Hearings are set for September 12 and 13 at the Supreme Court in Vancouver. The statement of claim alleges among other things, creation of money out of nothing, fraudulent misrepresentation, money laundering, fraud, charging of criminal interest rates and breach of contract. A copy of the Statement of Claim is available for download through http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/

People of Canada versus Envision Credit Union, Laurentian Bank, CIBC, Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, TD Canada Trust, The Canadian Payment Association.


"This without a doubt will be a precedent setting case that is sure to change the face of the banking system in Canada forever. Without even taking into consideration the potential damages, the sheer numbers of people alone who potentially can participate in this action, will in my estimation make this case the largest lawsuit ever filed for Class Certification in this nation", stated John Ruiz Dempsey.

The answer is no. As long as you fit any one of the five criteria listed below, you can apply for registration for class participation. While we would like those interested in becoming involved to do so on a timely basis, as it adds strength to our efforts, a cut-off date for participation will be established (I believe by the court at a future date).

The criteria for participation is as follows:

1. If you have been involved in any kind of loan transaction with any bank or financial institution you are eligible to participate;

2. If you did not know that banks and financial institutions are engaged in illegal creation of money, you are eligible to participate;

3. If you were told by your bank or financial institution they loaned you money without receiving "cash" or "legal tender" money or currency, you are eligible to participate;

4. If you were unaware that the bank or financial institution made you sign a promissory note or loan application form and "monetized" the said note or form by way of your signature, you are eligible to participate;

5. If you or your family have suffered or are facing foreclosure or seizure of property or debt collection by banks or financial institutions as a result of any loan or debt transactions with any bank or financial institution, you are eligible to participate.
It is important to note that you do not have to be object or victim of any debt collection, foreclosure or any other legal proceeding to participate.

It is also important to note that having your "debts" to any bank or financial institution, does not preclude you from registering to participate in this legal action.

If your reason for participation is as a result of your situation falling into category 3) or 5) above, please provide full details.

How to Register:
Information is available from our Web site: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction .

[Massivecock]

You go to the bank to borrow 'money'. Or you think you do. In fact, the 'money' is merely figures typed into your computer account. It does not exist, except as figures in a computer program. The banks are allowed to 'lend' at least ten times what they have on deposit - but this 'deposit', too, is only figures on a screen. There is no 'money', it's all an illusion.

But in return for 'borrowing' this created-out-of-nothing 'money' you must sign over your property, land or business, which is then owned by the bank until you have paid them back the nothing they 'loaned' you, plus interest. If you don't pay back the nothing the banks get your property, land or business.

And even while you are paying back the 'loan' this property - YOUR property - is considered an asset of the bank and they can 'lend' ten times its value to anyone else who wants a loan. In any other language it is called 'fraud'.

[ronaldo]

The hotmail account on his press release is very convincing.

http://www.abbotsfordtimes.com/issue...112204nn3.html

Legal consumers beware, warns society

By Christina Toth - Times

The Law Society of British Columbia wants to make it clear to legal consumers that John Ruiz Dempsey is not a lawyer.

"He is not a lawyer. He is not a member of the Law Society of B.C.," said Brad Daisley, public affairs officer for the society. He said Dempsey should not be representing himself as a lawyer, nor should he be taking fees for legal services. Such actions are prohibited by the Legal Profession Act.

Daisley said the society is investigating complaints made against Dempsey and his involvement in three cases. But because he is not a lawyer, the society has no regulatory power over him, Daisley said Monday.

"We're reviewing the situation and we haven't decided yet what to do," he said.

One of the cases under law society review is a class action suit filed this fall, involving Mission resident Lynda Parrish as the primary plaintiff, against the province of British Columbia for claims of abuses and neglect while she was in the care of Willingdon School for Girls. She alleges she was physically, sexually and emotionally abused and had a baby taken away from her.

Another class action suit also filed this fall names Abbotsford resident Dan Larsen as the primary plaintiff, who claims physical and sexual abuse and negligence by the B.C. government while he was in Brannan Lake School for Boys. After years of alleged abuses and no education, he was sterilized to control his tendency to escape.

A third case involves a class action suit against the B.C. Ministry of Revenue by Burnaby resident Daniela Gabric and Richmond resident Malkait Dosanjh.

The women are seeking reimbursement of money they paid to Victoria for defaulting on their sponsorship commitments to support their immigrant family members.

However, that case is on hold. Victoria is questioning the women's legal counsel, Dempsey, since he is not a practising lawyer.

Charan Gill, executive director of the Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society, which is supporting the women's class action suit, said Victoria told them Dempsey could not represent them as he was a not a practising lawyer nor a member of the British Columbia Law Society.

In 2004, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled Dempsey as a vexatious litigant, saying he "persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious legal proceedings in the Supreme Court." The Appeal Court ordered him to stop filing writs against Nigel and Sharon Peart and other parties. Dempsey cannot take legal action against those parties unless he is granted permission by a judge.

Parrish, meanwhile, has ended her contact with Dempsey and is hoping a lawyer will take up the case. She said she is being contacted by more women who had been in Willingdon.

"I want to see this through. It's not just for me but for all the girls," she said last week.

[Vlad]

woah , interesting ...

[strats]

Canadian 'shools for girls' raping little girls, abusing them, probably eating the babies they infact steal from them (or keeping them as sex slaves in dungeons or given to foster families or raised by some crazy nutcase leading so called 'school for girls', and who cares if the stolen babies are tortured or killed? I mean, they are WORTHLESS scum right!? I mean hey, some sick n1gger creep employees working at the school didn't violenly abuse and torture the girls there, and impregnate them or anything.).

Then the school for boys. That shit is great. More abuse, but they also 'sterilize' the individual? Lock them in a hole? chain to floor? locked on premesis? ball/chain? drugs? shock collar? what? Go canada. That shit is fucked.

By the way, good find and I hope those n1ggers fry

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ronaldo

The hotmail account on his press release is very convincing.

http://www.abbotsfordtimes.com/issue...112204nn3.html

Legal consumers beware, warns society

By Christina Toth - Times

The Law Society of British Columbia wants to make it clear to legal consumers that John Ruiz Dempsey is not a lawyer.

"He is not a lawyer. He is not a member of the Law Society of B.C.," said Brad Daisley, public affairs officer for the society. He said Dempsey should not be representing himself as a lawyer, nor should he be taking fees for legal services. Such actions are prohibited by the Legal Profession Act.

Daisley said the society is investigating complaints made against Dempsey and his involvement in three cases. But because he is not a lawyer, the society has no regulatory power over him, Daisley said Monday.

"We're reviewing the situation and we haven't decided yet what to do," he said.

One of the cases under law society review is a class action suit filed this fall, involving Mission resident Lynda Parrish as the primary plaintiff, against the province of British Columbia for claims of abuses and neglect while she was in the care of Willingdon School for Girls. She alleges she was physically, sexually and emotionally abused and had a baby taken away from her.

Another class action suit also filed this fall names Abbotsford resident Dan Larsen as the primary plaintiff, who claims physical and sexual abuse and negligence by the B.C. government while he was in Brannan Lake School for Boys. After years of alleged abuses and no education, he was sterilized to control his tendency to escape.

A third case involves a class action suit against the B.C. Ministry of Revenue by Burnaby resident Daniela Gabric and Richmond resident Malkait Dosanjh.

The women are seeking reimbursement of money they paid to Victoria for defaulting on their sponsorship commitments to support their immigrant family members.

However, that case is on hold. Victoria is questioning the women's legal counsel, Dempsey, since he is not a practising lawyer.

Charan Gill, executive director of the Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society, which is supporting the women's class action suit, said Victoria told them Dempsey could not represent them as he was a not a practising lawyer nor a member of the British Columbia Law Society.

In 2004, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled Dempsey as a vexatious litigant, saying he "persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious legal proceedings in the Supreme Court." The Appeal Court ordered him to stop filing writs against Nigel and Sharon Peart and other parties. Dempsey cannot take legal action against those parties unless he is granted permission by a judge.

Parrish, meanwhile, has ended her contact with Dempsey and is hoping a lawyer will take up the case. She said she is being contacted by more women who had been in Willingdon.

"I want to see this through. It's not just for me but for all the girls," she said last week.

Don't be making fun of my city man! Abbie is so behind the interweb thing, it's not even funny.

[xuron]

I have read about this and its pretty simple that its fraud. The whole federal reserve system is fraud also. anyways, any person that mounts a case against the bankers will most likely be killed or have billions of dollars against him in disinformation, defamation, you name it... plus not to mention bribes to any official/judge... I think this is how the rothchilds became rich... its the biggest scam in history... it started I think when people would deposit their gold with secure storage houses and they would give the person depositing the gold a ticket saying they had so many ounces of gold in storage, well the people started trading tickets instead of the actual gold itself so the gold storage house just started printing tickets (I.E. Created money out of nothing)... and started using it to buy/sell things...

if you really understand what money is, then this whole scam is so genius that it would make your dick hard. however it makes virtually everyone a slave to the banks... grr.

[Shoehorn!]

Originally Posted by Massivecock

You go to the bank to borrow 'money'. Or you think you do. In fact, the 'money' is merely figures typed into your computer account. It does not exist, except as figures in a computer program. The banks are allowed to 'lend' at least ten times what they have on deposit - but this 'deposit', too, is only figures on a screen. There is no 'money', it's all an illusion.

But in return for 'borrowing' this created-out-of-nothing 'money' you must sign over your property, land or business, which is then owned by the bank until you have paid them back the nothing they 'loaned' you, plus interest. If you don't pay back the nothing the banks get your property, land or business.

And even while you are paying back the 'loan' this property - YOUR property - is considered an asset of the bank and they can 'lend' ten times its value to anyone else who wants a loan. In any other language it is called 'fraud'.

For every $1 you deposit between $12 and $25 are loaned out.

[Massivecock]

Originally Posted by xuron

I have read about this and its pretty simple that its fraud. The whole federal reserve system is fraud also. anyways, any person that mounts a case against the bankers will most likely be killed or have billions of dollars against him in disinformation, defamation, you name it... plus not to mention bribes to any official/judge... I think this is how the rothchilds became rich... its the biggest scam in history... it started I think when people would deposit their gold with secure storage houses and they would give the person depositing the gold a ticket saying they had so many ounces of gold in storage, well the people started trading tickets instead of the actual gold itself so the gold storage house just started printing tickets (I.E. Created money out of nothing)... and started using it to buy/sell things...

if you really understand what money is, then this whole scam is so genius that it would make your dick hard. however it makes virtually everyone a slave to the banks... grr.

Right on!

[strats]

Ronaldo, your post is completely not related to the thread. I showed how I felt about it, but could 'have' used its own thread. The bank thing; I have nothing to say about it, but hope the n1ggers die

[rickholio]

"Illegal currency creation" my ass.

What this guy doesn't get is that, yes, when a bank lends you money it promises to deliver a certain amount of money at a certain time. This isn't 'currency creation'. When you get your money, you're getting it direct from the vault.

Where does the bank get that money from? Why, from YOU. And every other person that borrows at interest. THAT'S where the currency comes from: from interest being paid on loans made by the bank. The bank doesn't create that wealth... YOU DO. The bank just accumulates it for providing the service of lending you money, and it can (and will) lend out money based on what it expects to collect in the future.

What this guy is pissing and moaning about is GAAP (generally accepted accounting practices), the banks writing down future paybacks as present assets, and the fact that many loans don't actually involve people walking out of a bank with briefcases full of money. Seems like one of those guys who wants everyone to return to a commodity-backed currency system (gold, silver, oil, whatever).

To whit:

At all material times, these defendant banks and all of them have no legal standing to lend any money to borrowers, because: 1) these banks and credit unions did not have the money to lend, and therefore they did not have any capacity to enter into a binding contract;

Bullshit. I can enter my company into a binding contract with damn near anyone to promise damn near anything. If my company doesn't FULFILL the terms of contract, then I'm in breach and problems start. This guy is trying to claim that a corporate entity can't enter into a contract because it can't meet all its requirements immediately. Perhaps he thinks companies with temporary cashflow problems shouldn't be allowed to hire subcontractors then, as they may not have all the cash necessary to pay for the work up front. :rolleyes:

2) the defendants did not have any cash reserve, they are not legally permitted to lend their depositor?s or member?s money without expressed written authorization form the depositors,

There is a glimmer of hope for him on this point, but I believe that any financial institution worth its salt explicitly takes the right to use the money you deposited at their bank to make investments and loans. I can't honestly say I've read the fine print to that level of detail when opening an account... I've always just presumed that the banks would use my deposit money to make loans, cuz THAT'S WHAT BANKS DO.

3) the defendants have no tangible assets of their own to lend and all their ?assets? are ?paper assets? which are mainly in the form of ?receivables? created by them out of ?thin air,? derived out of loans whereas the monies loaned out were also created out of thin air.

Also bullshit. Those 'paper assets' are promises from bank's loan customers to repay their loans with interest. The money may not be in a bank's vault, but it surely does belong to the bank, plus interest. That's like saying that, although I paid into a retirement fund, it's not really money because I'm not going to get it until I'm 65 or whatever.

There's plenty of scams being run in this world. The banking system undoubtably houses a great many of them... but to my eyes, the only way this is a scam is if you invalidate the entire fiat currency system and have us all back to gold and silver coins on a string.

[american pervert]

Hey massivecock, how's that tinfoil hat?

[Massivecock]

Originally Posted by rickholio

"Illegal currency creation" my ass.

What this guy doesn't get is that, yes, when a bank lends you money it promises to deliver a certain amount of money at a certain time. This isn't 'currency creation'. When you get your money, you're getting it direct from the vault.

Where does the bank get that money from? Why, from YOU. And every other person that borrows at interest. THAT'S where the currency comes from: from interest being paid on loans made by the bank. The bank doesn't create that wealth... YOU DO. The bank just accumulates it for providing the service of lending you money, and it can (and will) lend out money based on what it expects to collect in the future.

What this guy is pissing and moaning about is GAAP (generally accepted accounting practices), the banks writing down future paybacks as present assets, and the fact that many loans don't actually involve people walking out of a bank with briefcases full of money. Seems like one of those guys who wants everyone to return to a commodity-backed currency system (gold, silver, oil, whatever).

To whit:

Bullshit. I can enter my company into a binding contract with damn near anyone to promise damn near anything. If my company doesn't FULFILL the terms of contract, then I'm in breach and problems start. This guy is trying to claim that a corporate entity can't enter into a contract because it can't meet all its requirements immediately. Perhaps he thinks companies with temporary cashflow problems shouldn't be allowed to hire subcontractors then, as they may not have all the cash necessary to pay for the work up front. :rolleyes:


There is a glimmer of hope for him on this point, but I believe that any financial institution worth its salt explicitly takes the right to use the money you deposited at their bank to make investments and loans. I can't honestly say I've read the fine print to that level of detail when opening an account... I've always just presumed that the banks would use my deposit money to make loans, cuz THAT'S WHAT BANKS DO.


Also bullshit. Those 'paper assets' are promises from bank's loan customers to repay their loans with interest. The money may not be in a bank's vault, but it surely does belong to the bank, plus interest. That's like saying that, although I paid into a retirement fund, it's not really money because I'm not going to get it until I'm 65 or whatever.

There's plenty of scams being run in this world. The banking system undoubtably houses a great many of them... but to my eyes, the only way this is a scam is if you invalidate the entire fiat currency system and have us all back to gold and silver coins on a string.

---
Getting it from a vault?? what!!?
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
We are in a debt based society.
All Federal Reserve Notes & Bank of Canada Notes you call cash or money is borrowed into existance. So the more cash you have the more debt you have in your hand. In 1990 the Banking act lifted all reserves on the fractional banking system they had, meaning they could lend out as much electronically created funds as they wanted, with no reserves in stock.
Funds are created specifically for you upon your signature on a loan document, there is no money. The cash is only a representation of the debt.
---

--
The Bank lends out funds that are merely electronic entries in a ledger.
It lends out approx according to sources $70 to every $1 dollar you deposit.
and then charges interest on that $70 that does not exist. And if you dont pay it, they take your REAL property. Because you didnt pay back the Money they never really gave you. How does $1.00 = $70.00? it doesnt.. Fictional creation of credits. Fraud.
--

--
He is not talking about claiming recieiveables as current assests.
which is totally legit.
Of course hardly any loans dont involve people walking out of the bank with breifcases of money... Thats the problem!!! The Funds transferred to their account, came out of thin air, with the bank risking nothing, and you losing everything, and if you dont pay back those funds created out of thin air.. your fucked!
--


---
That makes no sense.
We are talking about disclosure here.
---

--
Thats the problem... Presumption!
--

--
The money does not belong to the indivdual bank.
It belongs to the Federal Reserve or Bank of Canada
All paper money are called promisary notes.. So they promise to promise to promise...to infinity.


---
not so.... you really need to check out the money masters videos.
http://www.themoneymasters.com/

[Massivecock]

Originally Posted by american perv

Hey massivecock, how's that tinfoil hat?

Its providing me vast amounts of understanding!
Thanks for asking.
Take care.

[woj]

are you serious? or just trying to stir shit up?

[jayeff]

In the reasoning behind the suit, there are parallels with many other nations, including the US. Americans, living in the richest nation on earth, always seem to be short of money. Wives work, husbands hope for overtime. Even children look for odd jobs to earn spending money. Yet family debt keeps increasing and money problems are the biggest cause of family breakups. This is a direct result of our "debt-money" system and the creation of the Federal Reserve Corporation in December 1913.

When the Federal Government spends more than it collects in taxes, it has to go to the Federal Reserve to make up the difference. This deceptively named private corporation doesn't give money away, but loans it to the government in exchange for an agreement to pay it back with interest. Congress authorizes the Treasury Department to print the required value of US Bonds which are then delivered to the Federal Reserve bankers. They in turn print a matching amount of new money and hand it over to the government to pay its bills. However each time this process is repeated, the US taxpayer goes deeper and deeper into debt (we are the ones ultimately responsible for debts that the government undertakes), such that we are now paying over $100 billion a year in interest alone, with no hope of ever paying off the principal.

The "Fed's" license to print money, generating profits thousands of times greater than its printing costs, is an even bigger scam than it first appears. The Fed can treat those US Bonds, the promissory notes it exchanges as security for its loans to government, as assets. It is allowed to loan up to 15 times their value to states, municipalities, businesses and individuals.

The really pernicious aspect of this system is that new money only enters the system as loans, and for every dollar that is loaned, a much larger debt is created. For example, a 30-year mortage of $100,000 even at a rate as low as 5% pa means total repayments of close to $200,000. In other words, over the lifetime of the loan, almost $100,000 will be taken back out of the system. And guess what that means at regular intervals? Yep. The government has to go back to the Fed and ask it to issue more money...

Oh and remember that until that mortgage is fully repaid, the bank owns "your" property. Thus if you default, it gets real property in exchange for the paper it initially issued. Meanwhile, local banks, like the Fed, are allowed to treat promises to pay as assets and make further loans based on their face value.

Thomas Jefferson warned: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

[Massivecock]

Originally Posted by woj

are you serious? or just trying to stir shit up?

Am i serious about what?
Have you not read the articles or followed the links?

[woj]

Originally Posted by Massivecock

Am i serious about what?
Have you not read the articles or followed the links?

Yea, I read what you wrote, but the validity of the claims is about the same as the "taxation is illegal" idea.

[Massivecock]

Originally Posted by woj

Yea, I read what you wrote, but the validity of the claims is about the same as the "taxation is illegal" idea.

LOL!!!!!!
Now that is funny!
Research my friend, educate yourself, seek and you shall find, understanding to everything you want.

Peace.

[BuggyG]

Originally Posted by ronaldo

The hotmail account on his press release is very convincing.

[

yup.. one of the first things I noticed

[Dollarmansteve]

man.. i'll repeat what I've said before. Eco101 should be mandatory for everyone on GFY. Its called fractional banking folks and its pretty much the basis of western civilization.

All fiat currencies are 'created out of nothing' - that's the whole point. Is this some weirdo gold-bug conspiracy theory?

here's a link to some online economics textbooks.

[Manowar]

Originally Posted by strats

Canadian 'shools for girls' raping little girls, abusing them, probably eating the babies they infact steal from them (or keeping them as sex slaves in dungeons or given to foster families or raised by some crazy nutcase leading so called 'school for girls', and who cares if the stolen babies are tortured or killed? I mean, they are WORTHLESS scum right!? I mean hey, some sick n1gger creep employees working at the school didn't violenly abuse and torture the girls there, and impregnate them or anything.).

Then the school for boys. That shit is great. More abuse, but they also 'sterilize' the individual? Lock them in a hole? chain to floor? locked on premesis? ball/chain? drugs? shock collar? what? Go canada. That shit is fucked.

By the way, good find and I hope those n1ggers fry

[NetRodent]

This thread is a perfect example of why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[RogerV]

what a great thread.. One of the best so far this year.

I never even really looked into banking this deep Now I know I'm in the wrong business LOL

[rickholio]

Originally Posted by Massivecock

---
Getting it from a vault?? what!!?
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

I just built a house. An awful lot of cash (I'm talking banknotes here, as well as cheques) was laid out. All that cash came from a home loan, from a local bank branch. So at least part of it came from a vault, the part that was needed, and the rest of it is promised to my creditors. My creditors believe the bank's promise, and are therefore satisfied.

So yes, banks on a federal reserve system may not have as much tangible money (if you consider banknotes 'tangible', as opposed to a commodity backing) as on their books, but they have enough to process the day-to-day transactions and that's all that's really needed. Well, they also get given bills to moderate interest rates, but that's tangental to this conversation.

I have funds in bank accounts, and funds in RRSP, etc. By this guy (and apparently your) reckoning, those funds don't really exist and I'm being defrauded because I don't have $xxx thousands sitting in my hands in either banknotes or boullion. Yet strangely enough, any time I go to my bank to pay a bill, hit a bank machine to pull out some cash, put a dinner on my bank card everyone ends up happy... and so long as there isn't a massive panic and everyone tries to pull all thier assets out of a bank simultaneously, it'll stay that way.

We are in a debt based society.
All Federal Reserve Notes & Bank of Canada Notes you call cash or money is borrowed into existance. So the more cash you have the more debt you have in your hand. In 1990 the Banking act lifted all reserves on the fractional banking system they had, meaning they could lend out as much electronically created funds as they wanted, with no reserves in stock.

Of course. So long as banks can yield up currency when demanded, then the situation is entirely acceptable. The federal reserves send what paper currencies needed to the banks (and in turn to their branches) as required. It isn't rocket science.

Funds are created specifically for you upon your signature on a loan document, there is no money. The cash is only a representation of the debt.

Now this is where the bullshit starts.

A $100 dollar bill is basically just a cheque. There is no intrinsic value to it. The only value attached is that which society agrees to honor it for.

A bank making a loan is no different. They're writing you a cheque, and so long as it's transferrable to the goods and services you're seeking, it's perfectly acceptable to all parties.

As an individual, I can write as many cheques as I like. The only time it becomes fraud is if I do it deliberately with the intent of NOT PAYING. If I have $1000 in my account and I write a cheque for $10k, it's not fraud if I have a reasonable expectation of having the other 9k in my account by the time that cheque comes due. I can pass these cheques out as many and as much as I like, and they're all valid so long as the people I give them to have trust in my ability to honour the promise at some later date.

The Bank lends out funds that are merely electronic entries in a ledger.
It lends out approx according to sources $70 to every $1 dollar you deposit.
and then charges interest on that $70 that does not exist. And if you dont pay it, they take your REAL property. Because you didnt pay back the Money they never really gave you. How does $1.00 = $70.00? it doesnt.. Fictional creation of credits. Fraud.

So long as a bank meets its feduciary responsibility to provide people with tangible assets upon demand (ie: when people come to 'cash their cheques') the system works. Many people write rent cheques for the start of the month but know they don't have money in their accounts until a few days before that cheque comes due at end-of-month payday. Are they 'fraudulent'?

He is not talking about claiming recieiveables as current assests.
which is totally legit.
Of course hardly any loans dont involve people walking out of the bank with breifcases of money... Thats the problem!!! The Funds transferred to their account, came out of thin air, with the bank risking nothing, and you losing everything, and if you dont pay back those funds created out of thin air.. your fucked!

The bank assumes a number of risks. For example, you may default on your loan and make it impossible to reclaim the asset (a car that they can't repossess, for instance). It also runs the risk that many people simultaneously will demand tangible assets (banknotes or boullion) and be incapable of supplying them.

These risks are, admittedly, quite small compared to the 'little guy' who has much more to lose. When you have billions of assets at your command, losing a $100k on the books is going to sting a lot less than having $120k in assets and losing $100k on your home.

But those assets are no more created out of 'thin air' than your guarantee of paying the rent at the end of the month by writing a cheque today, earning the money tomorrow, and having the landlord cash it on the 31st.

That makes no sense.
We are talking about disclosure here.

Disclosure of what? How banking systems work? It's not some super double top secret shit we're talking here. If people can't be bothered to take some simple economics and find out how thier world works its their own lookout.

Thats the problem... Presumption!

As I said, this is the only point that guy may have some traction on... but honestly, bringing a whole system crashing down because a bank neglected to add the line: "Oh, by the way, you're giving us express permission to loan your money to other people, perhaps at many mulitples of your deposit because we've run the numbers and we have an excellent expectation of making back many multiples when we invest it" is inane.

The money does not belong to the indivdual bank.
It belongs to the Federal Reserve or Bank of Canada
All paper money are called promisary notes.. So they promise to promise to promise...to infinity.

Hey, you're starting to get it!

Yes, the whole system is based on trust. Trust that the banks will honor exchanges of your money for the goods and services you need, trust that the people banks lend money to will faithfully repay their loans with interest, trust that a banknote with a particular value attached will be accepted uniformly with the backing of the BoC, etc etc. If the trust breaks down, the system breaks down.

not so.... you really need to check out the money masters videos.
http://www.themoneymasters.com/

I've not seen these, but I've seen others like it. Good luck pounding your head against THAT brick wall, when basically everyone with money (such as it is) and power have vested interests in keeping that wall up.

[Ecksent]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Don't be making fun of my city man! Abbie is so behind the interweb thing, it's not even funny.

Dude your from Abby? I thought I was the only perv out here! LOL It is the Bible belt of Canada for fucks sake!

[jimmyf]

Originally Posted by woj

are you serious? or just trying to stir shit up?

sure he's serious, and I'm serious when I say that

[Gottis]

This thread gave me a fucking headache, can we please go back to pics and drama?

[rickholio]

Originally Posted by Ecksent

Dude your from Abby? I thought I was the only perv out here! LOL It is the Bible belt of Canada for fucks sake!

I used to live in Maple Ridge, but went to the Abbotsford Gun Club to lay off a few rounds from time to time. It's bizarre driving across the bridge and suddenly every vehicle is a dirt-encrusted pickup and no head is without a ball cap.

[CDSmith]

Neither of the banks I deal with were mentioned in that guy's article.

Damn, I was hoping to sue them.

[warlock5]

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

man.. i'll repeat what I've said before. Eco101 should be mandatory for everyone on GFY. Its called fractional banking folks and its pretty much the basis of western civilization.

All fiat currencies are 'created out of nothing' - that's the whole point. Is this some weirdo gold-bug conspiracy theory?

here's a link to some online economics textbooks.

It should also be mandatory that people know the difference between a press release and an actual news article (especially from PRweb.)

[jimmyf]

In the United States we have to re-educate each generation in the fundamentals of self government and in the principles of sound finance. And we must have leaders able to defend the faith that is in them. When such masses of people are all too ready to run after a professed miracle-worker, it is essential that we have trained minds to confront the ignorant, to show to the credulous the error of their ways, and to keep alive and fresh the true tradition of democracy in which this country was cradled and brought to maturity.

New York times 1935

[Monk]

Originally Posted by rickholio

Yet strangely enough, any time I go to my bank to pay a bill, hit a bank machine to pull out some cash, put a dinner on my bank card everyone ends up happy... and so long as there isn't a massive panic and everyone tries to pull all thier assets out of a bank simultaneously, it'll stay that way.

Therein lies the rub.

[Screaming]

wow thats nuts

[sixxxthsense]

this shit is fake for sure...

[Doctor Dre]

Rick is one smart man in this thread ...

The Thomas Jefferson quote is visionarry

[Spunky]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Neither of the banks I deal with were mentioned in that guy's article.

Damn, I was hoping to sue them.

Mine is and I have had a few loans with them..It's worth a try