This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

No BaNK DePoSiTS WiLL Be SPaReD FRoM CoNFiSCaTioN

williambanzai7's picture




 

As alert Zero Hedge readers are aware, this week the EURO Politburo is busy debating the dodgy subject of deposit "bail-ins."

The following article very succinctly explains this odious mode of fractal fractional reserve end-game chicanery.

The author encourages all of you to share it with others.

WB7

 

NO BANK DEPOSITS WILL BE SPARED FROM CONFISCATION

By Matthias Chang Esq, futurefastforward.com (with author's permission)

 

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong that confiscation of bank deposits is legalized daylight robbery

Bank depositors in the UK and USA may think that their bank deposits would not be confiscated as they are insured and no government would dare embark on such a drastic action to bail out insolvent banks.

Before I explain why confiscation of bank deposits in the UK and US is a certainty and absolutely legal, I need all readers of this article to do the following:

Ask your local police, sheriffs, lawyers, judges the following questions:

1) If I place my money with a lawyer as a stake-holder and he uses the money without my consent, has the lawyer committed a crime?

2) If I store a bushel of wheat or cotton in a warehouse and the owner of the warehouse sold my wheat/cotton without my consent or authority, has the warehouse owner committed a crime?

3) If I place monies with my broker (stock or commodity) and the broker uses my monies for other purposes and or contrary to my instructions, has the broker committed a crime?

I am confident that the answer to the above questions is a Yes!

However, for the purposes of this article, I would like to first highlight the situation of the deposit / storage of wheat with a warehouse owner in relation to the deposit of money / storage with a banker.

First, you will notice that all wheat is the same i.e. the wheat in one bushel is no different from the wheat in another bushel. Likewise with cotton, it is indistinguishable. The deposit of a bushel of wheat with the warehouse owner in law constitutes a bailment. Ownership of the bushel of wheat remains with you and there is no transfer of ownership at all to the warehouse owner.

And as stated above, if the owner sells the bushel of wheat without your consent or authority, he has committed a crime as well as having committed a civil wrong (a tort) of conversion – converting your property to his own use and he can be sued.

Let me use another analogy. If a cashier in a supermarket removes $100 from the till on Friday to have a frolic on Saturday, he has committed theft, even though he may replace the $100 on Monday without the knowledge of the owner / manager of the supermarket. The $100 the cashier stole on Friday is also indistinguishable from the $100 he put back in the till on Monday. In both situations – the wheat in the warehouse and the $100 dollar bill in the till, which have been unlawfully misappropriated would constitute a crime.

Keep this principle and issue at the back of your mind.

Now we shall proceed with the money that you have deposited with your banker.

I am sure that most of you have little or no knowledge about banking, specifically fractional reserve banking.

Since you were a little kid, your parents have encouraged you to save some money to instil in you the good habit of money management.

And when you grew up and got married, you in turn instilled the same discipline in your children. Your faith in the integrity of the bank is almost absolute. Your money in the bank would earn an interest income.

And when you want your money back, all you needed to do is to withdraw the money together with the accumulated interest. Never for a moment did you think that you had transferred ownership of your money to the bank. Your belief was grounded in like manner as the owner of the bushel of wheat stored in the warehouse.

However, this belief is and has always been a lie. You were led to believe this lie because of savvy advertisements by the banks and government assurances that your money is safe and is protected by deposit insurance.

But, the insurance does not cover all the monies that you have deposited in the bank, but to a limited amount e.g. $250,000 in the US by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Germany €100,000, UK £85,000 etc.

But, unlike the owner of the bushel of wheat who has deposited the wheat with the warehouse owner, your ownership of the monies that you have deposited with the bank is transferred to the bank and all you have is the right to demand its repayment. And, if the bank fails to repay your monies (e.g. $100), your only remedy is to sue the bank and if the bank is insolvent you get nothing.

You may recover some of your money if your deposit is covered by an insurance scheme as referred to earlier but in a fixed amount. But, there is a catch here. Most insurance schemes whether backed by the government or not do not have sufficient monies to cover all the deposits in the banking system.

So, in the worst case scenario – a systemic collapse, there is no way for you to get your money back.

In fact, and as illustrated in the Cyprus banking fiasco, the authorities went to the extent of confiscating your deposits to pay the banks’ creditors. When that happened, ordinary citizens and financial analysts cried out that such confiscation was daylight robbery. But, is it?

Surprise, surprise!

It will come as a shock to all of you to know that such daylight robbery is perfectly legal and this has been so for hundreds of years.

Let me explain.

The reason is that unlike the owner of the bushel of wheat whose ownership of the wheat WAS NEVER TRANSFERRED to the warehouse owner when the same was deposited, the moment you deposited your money with the bank, the ownership is transferred to the bank.

Your status is that of A CREDITOR TO THE BANK and the BANK IS IN LAW A DEBTOR to you. You are deemed to have “lent” your money to the bank for the bank to apply to its banking business (even to gamble in the biggest casino in the world – the global derivatives casino).

You have become a creditor, AN UNSECURED CREDITOR. Therefore, by law, in the insolvency of a bank, you as an unsecured creditor stand last in the queue of creditors to be paid out of any funds and or assets which the bank has to pay its creditors. The secured creditors are always first in line to be paid. It is only after secured creditors have been paid and there are still some funds left (usually, not much, more often zilch!) that unsecured creditors are paid and the sums pro-rated among all the unsecured creditors.

This is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The law has been in existence for hundreds of years and was established in England by the House of Lords in the case Foley v Hill in 1848.

When a customer deposits money with his banker, the relationship that arises is one of creditor and debtor, with the banker liable to repay the money deposited when demanded by the customer. Once money has been paid to the banker, it belongs to the banker and he is free to use the money for his own purpose.

I will now quote the relevant portion of the judgment of the House of Lords handed down by Lord Cottenham, the Lord Chancellor. He stated thus:

Money when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal… it is then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it.

The money paid into the banker’s, is money known by the principal to be placed there for the purpose of being under the control of the banker; it is then the banker’s money; he is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit of it he can, which profit he retains himself,…

The money placed in the custody of the banker is, to all intent and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable TO THE PRINCIPAL IF HE PUTS IT INTO JEOPARDY, IF HE ENGAGES IN A HAZARDOUS SPECULATION; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of the principal, but he is of course answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands.” (quoted in UK Law Essays,  Relationship Between A Banker And Customer,That Of A Creditor/Debtor, emphasis added,)

Holding that the relationship between a banker and his customer was one of debtor and creditor and not one of trusteeship, Lord Brougham said: 

“This trade of a banker is to receive money, and use it as if it were his own, he becoming debtor to the person who has lent or deposited with him the money to use as his own, and for which money he is accountable as a debtor. I cannot at all confound the situation of a banker with that of a trustee, and conclude that the banker is a debtor with a fiduciary character.”

In plain simple English – bankers cannot be prosecuted for breach of trust, because it owes no fiduciary duty to the depositor / customer, as he is deemed to be using his own money to speculate etc. There is absolutely no criminal liability.

The trillion dollar question is, Why has no one in the Justice Department or other government agencies mentioned this legal principle?

The reason why no one dare speak this legal truth is because there would be a run on the banks when all the Joe Six-Packs wise up to the fact that their deposits with the bankers CONSTITUTE IN LAW A LOAN TO THE BANK and the bank can do whatever it likes even to indulge in hazardous speculation such as gambling in the global derivative casino.

The Joe Six-Packs always consider the bank the creditor even when he deposits money in the bank. No depositor ever considers himself as the creditor!

Yes, Eric Holder, the US Attorney-General is right when he said that bankers cannot be prosecuted for the losses suffered by the bank. This is because a banker cannot be prosecuted for losing his “own money” as stated by the House of Lords. This is because when money is deposited with the bank, that money belongs to the banker.

The reason that if a banker is prosecuted it would collapse the entire banking system is a big lie.

The US Attorney-General could not and would not state the legal principle because it would cause a run on the banks when people discover that their monies are not safe with bankers as they can in law use the monies deposited as their own even to speculate.

What is worrisome is that your right to be repaid arises only when you demand payment.

Obviously, when you demand payment, the bank must pay you. But, if you demand payment after the bank has collapsed and is insolvent, it is too late. Your entitlement to be repaid is that of a lonely unsecured creditor and only if there are funds left after liquidation to be paid out to all the unsecured creditors and the remaining funds to be pro-rated. You would be lucky to get ten cents on the dollar.

So, when the Bank of England, the FED and the BIS issued the guidelines which became the template for the Cyprus “bail-in” (which was endorsed by the G-20 Cannes Summit in 2011), it was merely a circuitous way of stating the legal position without arousing the wrath of the people, as they well knew that if the truth was out, there would be a revolution and blood on the streets. It is therefore not surprising that the global central bankers came out with this nonsensical advisory:

“The objective of an effective resolution regime is to make feasible the resolution of financial institutions without severe systemic disruption and without exposing taxpayers to losses, while protecting vital economic functions through mechanisms which make it possible for shareholders and unsecured and uninsured creditors to absorb losses in a manner that respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation.”(quoted in  FSB Consultative Document: Effective Resolution of Systemically …)

This is the kind of complex technical jargon used by bankers to confuse the people, especially depositors and to cover up what I have stated in plain and simple English in the foregoing paragraphs.

The key words of the BIS guideline are:

“without severe systemic disruptions” (i.e. bank runs),

“while protecting vital economic functions” (i.e. protecting vested interests – bankers),

“unsecured creditors” (i.e. your monies, you are the dummy),

“respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation” (i.e. you are last in the queue to be paid, after all secured creditors have been paid).

This means all depositors are losers!

Please read this article carefully and spread it far and wide.

You will be doing a favour to all your fellow country men and women and more importantly, your family and relatives.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 05/15/2013 - 19:29 | 3567099 Monedas
Monedas's picture

Leave Turgid out of this .... he's busy with his metals report !

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 02:05 | 3568018 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

LOL!

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 12:06 | 3565102 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Good point.

It's amazing how many people form opinions on a subject on which they have no information.

I was explaining to my brother in law how fractional reserve banking and money in general work and his reply was "Bullshit! That would be illegal!"

Go google says I...

Later he said "Wow! That SHOULD be illegal."

He's not a dumb guy by any measure but he has a very strong normalcy bias to 'out of sight, out of mind'.

 

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 12:17 | 3565170 the grateful un...
the grateful unemployed's picture

except its a technicality, and sometimes people get caught up in these things, without considering how the whole system works, fdic is there to prevent losses, and address malfeasance. (rather than regulating the banks directly in the first place, and the reason for this is no one wants to politicize the banking system)  we should be more concerned about capital controls, and their rather uneven application. there's a big difference between your legal rights in a trading account at MF global, (the rule of pooled assets) and a savings account at a national bank. you can read Prechters books. and to that end, few people understand how the government monetizes debt, and Greenspan once said he didn't understand how it works. they have their hands on the levers of power, and levers are connected in order to make things work. trying to over analyze things is what we low brow zero hedgers do.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 12:02 | 3565099 the grateful un...
the grateful unemployed's picture

A few years ago when China was threatening to repatriot its UST bonds, the Fed printed a trillion in cash, just in case. they're ready and willing to call anyones bluff [that knowledge is like a double edge sword] should China repatriot their bonds, the dollars they received in payment would lose a great deal of value before they even received them, and it would complete the US policy makers unofficial goal of trashing the USD, and allow them to inflate away the debt. i am sure they were saying bring it on. depositors are really small potatoes in this game. bank depositors can't repatriot money, but they can repatriot bonds, and of course in a highly inflationary situation the par value of those bonds would plummet, and then what do they do? they haircut the bond holders, [which deflates the currency] and save the stock market, the Argentina solution.  buy stocks save yourself. more truth than fiction

and for the us consumer the cost of domestic goods and services would be less affected than the cost of imports (natgas appeals to me in that regard) you will get your FDIC money, its just a question of what can you buy with it?

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 11:28 | 3564913 WHATDIFFERENCED...
WHATDIFFERENCEDOESITMAKE's picture

I also leave very little in the bank, enough to cover my unsecured debt and future known taxes. You have now confirmed my position as a "creditor," for my argument when the SHTF, I will point them to my bankster account as payment in full. That being said, as a so called "creditor," I don't seem to have much of a say on my earnings (.25-.50%) for  funding these days, that in itself is the only sign I need to tell me the Banksters are in deep doodoo. 

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 11:08 | 3564769 Agent P
Agent P's picture

Good article.  It reminds me of my first day of a Bank Management class I took as an undergrad elective (taught by the Econ dept vs. the business school, which I've always thought to be weird, but oh well).  Prof comes in an introduces himself, then says something along the following lines to the class:

"Who has the tallest buildings in every city you've ever been to?  (long pause) Banks.  Ever wonder why?  (another long pause) I'm going to teach you a lot of things this semester, but I'm going to teach you the most important three right now.

1) A deposit is a loan from you to the bank (he repeated this several times).  The bank takes your money and lends it out to other people.  Because of this, the bank never has enough money in the bank to cover deposits should everyone try to pull their money out at the same time, not even close.

2) Banks make money by lending money back to you at a higher rate of interest than you lend it to them (again, several repeats).  This is the basis for something called Net Interest Margin, which we're going to talk about a lot this semester.  The bank borrows from you at 3% and lends it back to you at 7% (yes, this was a while ago), so you can buy a car or a house or whatever, and they earn that 4% spread.  Now, you might be asking yourself, 'how can the bank lend me a couple hundred thousand dollars to buy a house, when I only lent them a few thousand dollars in my checking or savings account?'  Well, here's the magic, and this by the way is why banks have the tallest buildings in all the cities (and he wrote and underlined the following three words on the chalkboard)...

3) Fractional Reserve Banking (very long pause looking back at the class, before spending the rest of the time explaining how it works)"

It was an eye opening class.

 

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 05:07 | 3575417 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

So the incomplete argument advanced above could be made with the limited experience of 1 day in Banking Management class - now imagine the discussion possible with a room full of people who actually had the full semester and experience managing a bank...

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 20:29 | 3567332 orez65
orez65's picture

A simpler explanation:

In general banks can, legally, countefeit multiples of the inverse of the reserve requirement.

For example, if the reserve requirement is 5% they can turn a $1 deposit into $20:

$1/.05 = $20

$1 goes into reserves and they can lend $19.

That's why deposits, even small ones, are so important to banks.

If you want to break the banks all we have to do is withdraw any and all deposits from our banks.

Then exchange our fiat money for gold and silver.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 11:37 | 3564975 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

In Econ that is a bug.

In Business it's a feature.

I would like to see a class like this in every high school before a kid becomes 18 and can sign contracts.

Most kids can't balance a simple checking acct.

 

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 20:33 | 3567350 orez65
orez65's picture

You'll never see a class explaining fiat money and fractional reserve banking in public schools.

Because it would expose the unimaginable fraud of the world's financial system.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 23:02 | 3567758 Graph
Graph's picture

2008 crash was an eye opener for me, so in a sense, as crazy as it sounds,  I am glad that it happened.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 13:55 | 3565568 Agent P
Agent P's picture

Throw in a lesson on compound interest...definitely something everyone should understand before entering the borrowing/investing portion of their life.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 11:52 | 3565056 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 I would like to see a class like this in every high school before a kid becomes 18 and can sign contracts.

Yup, understanding this is right up there with reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic.

But, no, what we actually get in schools is more 'history' about the 'great' presidents - you know, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR... ie, all the ones who expanded the State. And the certainty of AGW, of course, no well-rounded individual can leave school without believing that CO2 is a deadly pollutant.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 11:32 | 3564934 the grateful un...
the grateful unemployed's picture

2) Banks make money by accepting reserves from the Federal Reserve and then lending the money back to them

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 10:53 | 3564702 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Where can I get $250,001 to worry about?

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 20:37 | 3567364 orez65
orez65's picture

Worry about your $1,000 deposit that is allowing your bankster to, legally, counterfeit $19,000

Tue, 06/25/2013 - 19:45 | 3692814 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Will Rogers was WAY ahead of his time when it came to banks, and investments.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 11:03 | 3564777 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

Are you a Wall Street fiduciary? ;-)

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 18:35 | 3566841 noob
noob's picture

sark! :)

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 18:33 | 3566828 noob
noob's picture

wut? no duty, no trust, pffft "fiduciary" means shit

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 10:26 | 3564565 madbraz
madbraz's picture

I really, really wish there was a grassroots movement that educated people to take their deposits out the top 5 TBTF banks.  If you have any idea how the world (unfortunately) works, you would have to be insane to keep your money in such banks.  

 

It wouldn't take much to drive one of these banks into having to sell assets to compensate for a rather large takedown of liabilities (deposits).  Once that happened, the problem would take care of itself as most of the derivatives insanity of these banks is settled against one another - they would go down together in a heap.

 

The only problem is that our lovely president would obviously be instructed by his masters Rubin and Summers to bail them out.  Even when he does, one of them has to be thrown to the garbage can, for sacrifice.

 

That may be enough to change the dynamics of banking.  Or not.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 12:07 | 3564834 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

True education requires a curiosity as to the nature of things or by direct experience.

If the former is lacking then the latter is inevitable.

It's a horses and water kind of thing.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 10:20 | 3564536 Simulacra10
Simulacra10's picture

Challenge accepted. 

There is no need to confiscate money in the US since they have the Ctl + P button. They can print to infinity.

Sat, 05/18/2013 - 05:43 | 3575410 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

It's NOT  "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." It's only part of the truth.

The UK case dealt with an INTEREST BEARING account.  If the bank is paying interest regardless of whether the US or UK has territorial jurisdiction, then the depositor is a creditor of the bank.

However, in the event the account is NON INTEREST BEARING ACCOUNT, then whether the account is a "deposit" account or a "safekeeping" account is the determining factor.  Not that most sheeple read their account agreements and disclosures in the first place, much less understand them.  (Rules for Retards - if it is called a "Depository Agreement" it's probably a "deposit" account)

However, in both the US & UK - there are "safekeeping" accounts, usually opened for corporate or HNW customers through Trust & Custodial services.  

If you want a bank to pay you interest on a deposit, that's a risk you take as a "depositor".  If you think otherwise - you are ignorant.  If you want to receive interest from a bank, then become a secured creditor to the bank, although since the Cyprus model included fleecing since the secured depositors right along with the sheeple- lending to banks is now unattractive.

The problem in the US is the apparent lack of case law regarding bank custodial assets and how NIBs are treated in a liquidation (Non-Interest Bearing accounts), especially since the FDIC (and the implied indenture of US debt serfs) no longer provides an unlimited backstop for NIBs as of 12/31/2012.  If a judicial precedent is lacking, then one will be determined based on the language used in the current NIB account agreements (see warning above).

What's ironic is that corporates with millions of dollars in unisured deposits should have the institutional knowledge and professional staff to know better and understand the ramifications of the contracts they enter into with banks, but most don't, and since the bank customers have not demanded custodial arrangements they will likely get fleeced along with depositors seeking interest.

So by using the term "deposits" generally to refer to all the the monetary assets in Customer Accounts, of which not all are interest bearing deposit accountsMatthias Chang is creating an (at best) misleading argument & challenge, but I suspect IGNORANCE, as he uses bailment (custodial) examples such as wheat or assets in the custody of a lawyer (I'm not touching #3 brokers - which in light of MF Global - would prove him wrong - unless there's a missing qualification that MF Global customers instructions to their broker included allowances for what MF Global did with their account assets) - but it reinforces my suspicion of an IGNORANT error. 

Tue, 06/25/2013 - 19:42 | 3692808 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Either way, it's a NO WIN proposition.

As soon as people remove their cash,the Feds already have planned and ready in the wings to introduce a NEW currency.And my $ is on that when you go to trade in the OLD, your not going to get close to LIKE value.Maybe you can at least get SOME of your cash back.

Converting USD's into AUD, or Loonie,or Yuan, or CHF is the only close to protection you have, and that is scant at best.

 

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 21:41 | 3567534 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Fuck need. If they want to, they will.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 20:40 | 3567371 orez65
orez65's picture

There is no need to collect taxes, just print the money!

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 11:46 | 3565033 BigJim
BigJim's picture

The problem with this is that it is highly inflationary... and compresses the difference between 'us' and 'them'. Whereas confiscation mops up a lot of the excess dollars and maintains the 'correct' disparity between the 99.9 and remaining 0.1%.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 01:39 | 3568004 MrPalladium
MrPalladium's picture

Brilliant insight +1000!!

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 10:20 | 3564534 aerojet
aerojet's picture

So is something happening soon or is this just another ZH scare article about something that might happen at some unknown juncture in the future?

Tue, 06/25/2013 - 19:58 | 3692843 DosZap
DosZap's picture

So is something happening soon or is this just another ZH scare article about something that might happen at some unknown juncture in the future?

NO, it's history 101, and the UK, and Canada have already accepted it.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 02:41 | 3568037 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

Better to be ten years early than ten minutes late, pal.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 21:49 | 3567552 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

The bank won't take your rmoney unless they need it to pay back their richest shareholders. Like for example, if they make some crazy investments and speculations and lose a bunch of money. And what is the chance of that happening?

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 10:39 | 3564581 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

Seeing what happened in Cyprus in March/April and taking into consideration what is being discussed in Brussels this week and what is on the wires today (for example: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/euro-style-bail-in-plan-means-b...), one can only characterize your remark as vapid.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 10:16 | 3564526 ptoemmes
ptoemmes's picture

If your wages/salary are paid by check - as most probably are - then one should cash said checks and then....

I like the idea of no more money in a bank account than to pay off credit cards at the end of month (assuming that one uses credit cards (or debit cards) as a convenience for not carrying cash and pay them off each month - as I do)

Probably slightly more difficuly as a small business where the only way to get credit card transcations from merchant services is via e-transfer into a bank account.

May be kind of hard as a business owner to totally sidestep the banking system.  I'm sure that's by design...

 

Pete

 

 

 

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 10:13 | 3564514 svc101
svc101's picture

Murray Rothbard's classic treatise on banking (http://mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf‎) pointed this out.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 10:56 | 3564728 Variance Doc
Variance Doc's picture

+1 Yes, an excellent read.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 10:17 | 3564488 malikai
malikai's picture

How could Christine be angry with such a dove as bounty?!

Also, love how Merkel just chills. Enjoying the evening's festivities.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 10:06 | 3564479 stiler
stiler's picture

US Citizenism go worldwide. Americanism by any other name robbery.

 

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 10:03 | 3564464 SnatchnGrab
SnatchnGrab's picture

Combine this scary article with what's happening in Argentina. Somebody on this site has mentioned that the gubment is looking at seizing TRILLIONS in IRAs and other long-term investment vehicles and giving out a pittance annually.

 

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 20:52 | 3567390 orez65
orez65's picture

Why is that so hard to believe?!

The Government has already stolen about $4 TRILLION from the Social Security TRUST FUND.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 09:56 | 3564431 arnoldsimage
arnoldsimage's picture

martin armstrong... "People forget, but Holder was in charge of WACO under Janet Reno. They could have simply waited and arrested the leader who went to town all the time. No, Holder wanted to arrest everyone associated with him and that resulted in the death of all those children. Now, he is demonstrating again that whatever he wants to do, they just do. The Constitution is worthless. It restrains nobody and to enforce any pretended right you have, well it will cost a fortune since lawyers suck every penny out of people who are desperate. So between the Justice Department ignoring all rights and lawyers demanding a kidney to bring a suit they know they will lose against the Feds anyway, there is nothing really left worth cherishing.There is no “free press” anymore. In my own case, on April 24, 2000, the court illegally threw the press out. ONLY the Associated Press entered despite the sign on the door that said the courtroom was closed. When I got there, the judge ordered the Marshals to interrogate every person in the room and see if any were from the press. Upon discovering the Associated Press reporter, she was told to “get out”. She walked right past everyone right up to the bench and looked at the judge square in his eye. She said“We are the associated press. You cannot through us out.” Judge Richard Owen raised his arm and yelled – this was “my courtroom” and he could do as he pleased despite the fact the constitution said everyone was entitled to a “PUBLIC TRIAL” which was obviously not going to take place when the court was protecting the NY Bankers. God help us if anyone ever reported the truth!

 

The AP reported that the hearing was closed and questioned if there would ever be a “fair trial” in NYC. The transcript was altered to remove anything that took place in this regard so the “official” record was changed to cover the whole thing up. The word quickly spread among the press. But the New York Times and Bloomberg News yielded to the requests of government. Neither one would report what took place or that the government alters the court documents to cover up its illegal activity in New York City. The AP wrote on 4/27/2000 reporting what took place despite the court transcript omits the events. It was not that I was “allowed” to represent myself, Judge Owen ruled civilly I was not entitled to lawyers nor the corporations and he was freezing all funds so no lawyers could be hired. The latest targeting of the Associated Press seems to be largely because they do not yield or shut up as most of the other mainstream press seems to do. This is why real news is taking place on the internet and newspapers are in a slow death. This does not even take into consideration the Bloomberg Scandal where they are acting like the Department of Justice invading the privacy of their readers. The “mainstream” press will never be real again until (1) there is no income tax to be able to threaten reporters, and (2) they are free from corporate and government bias.


 


Wed, 05/15/2013 - 09:50 | 3564415 e-recep
e-recep's picture

they say gold is down today, i say who cares. bank confiscations make gold's fiat price irrelevant. cypriots should know it better than anyone else by now.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 09:46 | 3564399 drdolittle
drdolittle's picture

Are the rulse different for credit unions?

Worth it to move my digital money?

Tue, 06/25/2013 - 19:36 | 3692800 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Are the rulse different for credit unions?

Worth it to move my digital money?

 

 

NO, backed by same FDIC, under a differnt name.And your deposits are loaned out to the tune of at least 9-1.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 10:54 | 3564714 dhengineer
dhengineer's picture

Credit unions usually credit you with money market shares, rather than dollars, where one share equals a dollar.  Money markets can freeze and there have been one or two MM's that "broke the buck" during the 2008 fiasco, returning less than a dollar per share.  I decided to use a small local bank for my funds for that reason.

There really aren't any good places to keep funds.  I guess you have to pick your poison...

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 09:40 | 3564383 RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

Bankstering, good duty, if you can get it.

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 09:33 | 3564361 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

Good Read, thank you for posting this! 

Wed, 05/15/2013 - 09:33 | 3564358 Downtoolong
Downtoolong's picture

OK, I get the whole unsecured debtor / creditor thing. Can we talk about counterfeiting in the next article?

Side note: In practice, I keep a balance in my checking account approximately equal to the amount I charge on my credit card each month. In other words, I owe the bank as much as they owe me, and that’s the best defense against a corrupt system I can think of.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!