Acenden capstone spml pml lmc sppl

[applecart]

"From the case provided by spot

 

"This notice does, however, go on to make an inaccurate statement. It says that, "Notice of this Assignment has already been given to you". But, as Davies LJ said in the course of the argument, that is merely an inaccurate surplusage. It can be ignored.

 

In my opinion, therefore, the notice of the assignment was good."

 

The determining factor in this case is as stated above.

 

Except in the case of I believe SPPL there are no claims of notice of assignment (in writing) being either sent or received. Therefore, the case quoted has little if any bearing on this matter."

 

If I understand the quote correctly - then, SPPL borrowers have not been given notice of the assignment in writing - it just 'happened' - that means that without notice tp the borrower - there is no effect at Law on the borrower in relation to the mortgage - but with regard to registration of the dispositions effected back in 2007 - at HMLR, there is effect at Law to rights to possession of the property - strange one that - no notice to borrowers - but registered at HMLR - hmmmmmm

 

Applecart

Edited January 8, 2012 by applecart
to distinguish the quote from the post

[applecart]

The case of Wellstead is a Judicial Review so is it binding as a legal precedent on securitisation? It was a JR which was refused.

 

Hi Tifo

 

Judicial review suggests as it says - the case was considered outside of the actual judgment in the case

 

If Judicial review was refused - then the case was not reviewed and the judgment in the case stands as the authority to be used.

 

(if I am wrong, then perhaps someone will be kind enough to correct me)

 

My reference to the usefulness of additional 'resources' was meant to be with regard to the source of information i.e the website detail - not necessarily the information that was kindly posted by Vin D of the matters in the case that were referred to....purely on the basis that I have an inert tendency to immediately and totally dis-regard any case Law that does not work in the favor of a borrower : )

 

Applecart

[applecart]

If I have read your above submission correctly, I must apologise for the wording of my previous post and for any resulting misunderstanding.

 

My intention was to show that only SPPL (of the lenders named in the title of this thread) has been shown to have provided notice of assignment of any description.

 

ooooh, I see - could have had detrimental consequences if the former understanding was taken into account - Thanks for immediately correcting my interpretation.

 

(I see you are a vampire too - we go for the jugular in the wee hours of the morning.... LOL)

 

Being as we are both night owls - Can I ask your thoughts on something Vin D?

 

If it is true what caggers are suggesting, that SPPL sold their mortgages - how lawful would the written notice be .... that after all would give legal effect to the disposition ...... many years after the event?

 

 

 

Applecart : )

Edited January 8, 2012 by applecart
to make the question easier to interpret

[applecart]

I fear that the arguments presented in this thread to support the loss of legal title by the original lender, if proven would still not provide you with the resolution that you seek.

 

That's why, I've registered with some letting agencies to sort myself out some rented accommodation LOL

 

As shown by Southern Pacific Personal Loans Ltd v Walker & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1218 (12 November 2009) / Securities 05-2 Plc v Walker & Anor [2010] UKSC 32 (07 July 2010), the SPV can and has been substituted into the place of the original lender.

 

Again, this is why I can't get into the letting Agencies soon enough : )

 

Any arguments made and proven that the original lender has lost legal title will at best only delay the outcome. Once a single judgement has been passed down in favour of the original lender lossing legal title, notice of assignments will be sent and further proceedings will progress with the SPV as claimant.

 

Hang on a wee moment, this suggests that there may be a glimmer of hope to keep my house after all - I could delay the outcome... ummm, I wonder if the delay would take me to the end of the term of my mortgage or at least 6 years in relation to the arrears and then, 12 years in relation to the mortgage, I could zoom in to protect the house for the kids on the back of the Limitaions Act.... ummmm.... oh, wait a minute I have to consider the effect of delaying the outcome... to overcome the fact that I may get judgment in my favor.... getting a notice of assignment could put a spanner in the works, better continue on with looking for that rental accommodation after all - dratt!!

 

However, there remains arguments that could be made in terms of the resulting fairness to the borrower resulting from securitisation. Those arguments are both seperate and distinct to those for and against legal title.

 

ummmmm, unfair contract terms hey... nah, that won't keep the house - if I rely on that given the authorities I will end up back to where I started, which is the position I want to get out of... I don't want a mortgage that cannot be redeemed so that my kids inherit nothing... at least if I start renting from now, the kids might be able to rely on some form of inheritance right... oh forgot, those rights were abolished under Housing Law too - dratt!!

 

(No offence is intended by the above submission)

 

No offence has been taken : ) a reality check is always as good as a slap in the face LOL

 

Applecart : )

[applecart]

On the contrary, in the first instance, I respectfully refer you back to the contributions of GLC that you previously dismissed and in the second to the blog operated by GLC.

 

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/?m=1

 

Apologies Vin D, I did not 'dismiss' GLC's contributions at all - I simply do not feel that redress en-mass or otherwise in relation to staving off the lenders purported possession rights is enough to provide me with the peace of mind that this will deter the lender from seeking possession at a a later date.

 

We cannot ignore the current economic climate, where we are more likely to fall into arrears, so, the lender securing outright possession is only a matter of time, how many times must I go to court to defend before a Judge grants the lender a possession order of the back of a suspended possession order? 2? 3? and what period of time are we realistically talking about? 6 months? a year?

 

I can imagine that the scenario works for Solicitors - when borrowers go running with their tail between their legs, paying them for the 'privilege' of 'defending' the property - when in reality - they are not actually defending a borrowers property at all (IMO), all they are doing is defending your right to maintain payments at a level you can afford to bolster the coffers of beneficiaries who purportedly own the rights to your house.

 

But, like I say, I do not knock the work that the GLC does, more power to their elbow, in fact, the type of intended action they look to take has worked well in other instances in relation to a lenders charges - it is not new - they should succeed - but I want more - I want to keep my house too, and it must be on the terms that are in relation to the conventional mortgage that I entered into - and if I can't keep the house - then I will not subscribe to any mechanism that causes me to be a mental slave (thanks to Furian) to a system of things that is not moral, ethical, or legal and certainly not when I had no actual knowledge prior to entering into....

 

IF the mortgage was a conventional mortgage, then of course, I would not argue for the moral, ethical or legal ground and I would be the first to totally support any Solicitor in keeping me in any house that retains a right to redemption intact....and support them all the way where charges may be considered extortionate.

 

Whoops... fell off me' soap box!!!! - LOL

 

 

 

Applecart

[applecart]

Whilst legislation does not specify a time frame in which notice is provided, it does state

 

Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

(a)the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b)all legal and other remedies for the same; and

 

 

"any absolute assignment of any debt is effectual in law to pass and transfer from the date of such notice the legal right to such debt and all legal and other remedies for the same"

 

This would mean that prior to the date of such notice the assignment would operate in equity. Both Paratus AMC Ltd & Anor v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd [2011] EWHC 3307 (Ch) (14 December 2011) and Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 760 (27 June 2005) show that an assignment that operates in equity does not prevent the original lender exercising a course of action which would pass to the SPV as a result of a legal assignment, prior to the date of such notice.

 

*The above is my own personal view and is provided with no assurances or guarantees.

 

I like your personal view : )

 

so, if I understand you correctly, a lender can back date the registration of the disposition - so that its effect is legal from the date of the sale and it will be registered by staff at HMLR without question that they are receiving the notice 'late', they only have to give effect to the date confirmed as the date of disposition. So Legal effect is granted.

 

and... on the basis that the Law does not specify a time when notice can be given to the borrower - the lender can serve such notice on the borrower at any time.... ummmmm... this is amazing, totally amazing legislation that works well for the lender.

 

I suppose this means that all SPPL customers who have had the disposition registered at HMLR are now obliged to treat the SPV as their bonafide lender and of course, were obliged to do so since the date of the original sale, albeit some 4 years earlier.....so that every penny that they paid toward their mortgages was and is duly made to and entitled to be claimed by the SPV.....

 

Applecart

[applecart]

Apologies Applecart. Dismissed was the incorrect term for me to have used.

 

May I make one suggestion ?

 

Go to bed.

 

That is where I am now going.

 

I respectfully agree : )

 

My head hurts - ever since I fell off that soap box - yours must too - what with all these questions you are too tired to answer right now...

 

Gudnight

 

Applecart

[Sappho54]

What brought about this case? Countrywide are known to be involved in repossessions acting for Acenden (SPPL et al) what were the grounds of GMAC's litigation?

[CPSBarmyArmy]

It is nice to see this thread 're-appear' having been lost all day long. It would be even better to have the rest of the posts put back as well.

 

Have we offended someone?

[applecart]

It is nice to see this thread 're-appear' having been lost all day long. It would be even better to have the rest of the posts put back as well.

 

Have we offended someone?

 

Hi CPS

 

What I know is my post count has dropped - and Vin D has dissappeared along with all his posts and my hundred and one questions posted off the back of his posts - oh well, at least they kept my post/s in regard to my search for rented accommodation!!!.... LOL

 

Seriously though - Vin D said something that should interest all those who follow all things securitisation - he said that 'legislation does not specify a time frame in which notice is provided' .... this being of course, in relation to the time when SPPL customers were served notice of the trasnsfer of their mortgages to the SPV....

 

But then - the very legislation that he relied upon to make his point in brackets stated "subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee"

 

Any one with the knowledge will know exactly what difference that bracketed information will mean - BINGO!!!! : )

 

Applecart

[applecart]

What brought about this case? Countrywide are known to be involved in repossessions acting for Acenden (SPPL et al) what were the grounds of GMAC's litigation?

 

Hi Sappho

 

The posts were presented by Vin D - he is no longer here by the looks of things : ( (he'll probably re-appear tho.. who knows?)

 

To be fair, the case law he posted, whilst it made interesting reading, did not further the consumers cause (IMO)

 

Best to stick to what we know works and just be aware that the case law he posted may be used against you in a court of law and know that it cannot impede on what are known facts that will work in the favour of consumers : )

 

Applecart

Edited January 9, 2012 by applecart
changed the word 'case' to 'court' in last paragraph

[caro]

Hi CPS

 

What I know is my post count has dropped - and Vin D has dissappeared along with all his posts and my hundred and one questions posted off the back of his posts - oh well, at least they kept my post/s in regard to my search for rented accommodation!!!.... LOL

 

Seriously though - Vin D said something that should interest all those who follow all things securitisation - he said that 'legislation does not specify a time frame in which notice is provided' .... this being of course, in relation to the time when SPPL customers were served notice of the trasnsfer of their mortgages to the SPV....

 

But then - the very legislation that he relied upon to make his point in brackets stated "subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee"

 

Any one with the knowledge will know exactly what difference that bracketed information will mean - BINGO!!!! : )

 

Applecart

 

If you have any queries about why your posts may have disappeared please address them to [email protected]. uk . This will help to ensure that the thread remains on topic.

Edited January 9, 2012 by caro
typos

[Sappho54]

I tried to respond to Spot's post three times yesterday, but couldn't post. None are here on this thread today. This is what i was trying to say.

 

This is a Lord Denning appeal and as is the case with his judgments it is admirably clear. Why this case is relevant to our situation is that he is saying that when a debt has been assigned the relevant date is the notice date when the borrower received the notice that the debt has been assigned and the actual date given on the paper is irrelevant as if its "wrong" for whatever reason then the fact the notice has a wrong date on it does not invalidate the assignment. In our case when the SPV notified us of the assignment what mattered was that we have received it not that the date was not contemporary with the actual sale of the loan, and was a "wrong date" being of course up to four years before. In other words it is no business of the borrowers when the loan was transferred, we now know we have to pay the SPV; prior to the notice we were paying the SPV but we did not know it.

 

What this Denning judgment does not shed any light on is the following. It is the case that the borrower has to be notified for an assigment to be legal and the converse is true that if they don't notify the borrower, the assignment stays as a beneficial interest. How has notice to be given? Should it be the assignor (in my case SPPL) ? Can the assignee give notice - eg the SPV? Can a third party give notice, as in effect this is what the acendenaction group did when they publicised the sales on their site long before the borrowers were given notice? This does puzzle me because if the assignee (transferee) can give notice what is to stop us writing to random householders and give notice their debt will be assigned to us and they should make their mortgage payments to our accounts. Wouldn't thehouseholder require notice from the alleged assignor- their mortgage company? You might argue that the LR entry is conclusive proof of title but it is the case that the SPV appears on the Transfer document (the TR4) as both transferor and transferree with the same guy signing for both.

[applecart]

I tried to respond to Spot's post three times yesterday, but couldn't post. None are here on this thread today. This is what i was trying to say.

 

I looked at the first ever post that 'spot' posted and the grammar in his first post was considerably different to later posts - the first post was more 'layman' type grammar - then remarkably later posts were all almost 'Queens English' - not sure how this happened - he must have taken elocution lessons - no offence 'spot' : )

 

This is a Lord Denning appeal and as is the case with his judgments it is admirably clear. Why this case is relevant to our situation is that he is saying that when a debt has been assigned the relevant date is the notice date when the borrower received the notice that the debt has been assigned and the actual date given on the paper is irrelevant as if its "wrong" for whatever reason then the fact the notice has a wrong date on it does not invalidate the assignment. In our case when the SPV notified us of the assignment what mattered was that we have received it not that the date was not contemporary with the actual sale of the loan, and was a "wrong date" being of course up to four years before. In other words it is no business of the borrowers when the loan was transferred, we now know we have to pay the SPV; prior to the notice we were paying the SPV but we did not know it.

 

Thank you Sappho, I see where you are coming from on this very valid point - however, the assignment will be effective at Law in relation to the assignee and the assignor, but I fail to see how it stands effective at Law against the borrower - this distinction is most important to be made - the registered date of the assignment tells the 'world at large' that the assignee and the assignors interests are effective at Law from the date shown in the register - the underlying issue is that the borrower was not privy to their collateral arrangement and cannot Lawfully be made liable to their personal agreement without notice....

 

What this Denning judgment does not shed any light on is the following. It is the case that the borrower has to be notified for an assigment to be legal and the converse is true that if they don't notify the borrower, the assignment stays as a beneficial interest.

 

This is true, but it is the term 'beneficial interest' that is the most important words you state here - consider the position of the parties as regards the granting of a beneficial interest ....before the sale?... and then consider the position if the beneficial interest is granted ..... after the sale? ....... and then once notice has been served - what is the effect of serving of notice in each instance? ..... Does the original beneficial interest granted simply disappear? and what effect does it have on the borrower in each instant? Is the assignment effective at Law against the borrower if the notice is given 'before the sale' occurs or 'after the sale' occurs? ..............

 

How has notice to be given? Should it be the assignor (in my case SPPL) ? Can the assignee give notice - eg the SPV? Can a third party give notice, as in effect this is what the acendenaction group did when they publicised the sales on their site long before the borrowers were given notice?

 

It is my understanding that on principle the debtor is only bound to perform in favor of the assignee if he receives written notice from the assignor , which reasonably identifies the claim which has been assigned and requires the debtor to give performance to the assignee - However, if such notice is given by the assignee, the debtor may within a reasonable time request the assignee to provide reliable evidence of the assignment...

 

This does puzzle me because if the assignee (transferee) can give notice what is to stop us writing to random householders and give notice their debt will be assigned to us and they should make their mortgage payments to our accounts. Wouldn't thehouseholder require notice from the alleged assignor- their mortgage company?

 

Your reasoning is spot on given the interpretation of the principles stated above : )

 

You might argue that the LR entry is conclusive proof of title but it is the case that the SPV appears on the Transfer document (the TR4) as both transferor and transferree with the same guy signing for both.

 

Interesting point, the LR is conclusive of title as you know under the provisions of the LPA 1925 s.58 - but I do wonder how both transferor and transferee can claim conclusive proof of what can only be referred to as independent rights to the same property and at the same time??

 

There is without doubt underlying implications for the assignee and assignor in circumstances where a sale has occurred prior to the registration of the interest at HMLR - and this is to do with the interests of both the assignee and the assignor being equitable as soon as the sale occurred. The LPA 1925 s.136 says that assignments are 'subject to equities' for legal effect - hope this makes sense?....

 

 

Apple : )

[CPSBarmyArmy]

Hi all,

 

I appreciate what is being debated up here but does it all not refer back to subrogated rights? I.E., whatever the assinment, notice or not, the originator is exerting rights for and behalf of whomever. This princliple of law balances the threat of 2 parties obtaining more than what they are entitled to but elso ensures they do not claim more, for example double recovery from the same party for the same debt.

 

To refer to the Land Registry, I have an extremely basic example. 1 property is registered with one owner, no charges. However, within that property lives husband and wife (or whatever similar relationship given these times). 1 party is not listed on the register but that does not deminish their interest should there be a dispute and the 'other' party would quite successfull argue they hold a monetary interest in the value of the property.

 

Not trying to be objectionable, just playing devil's advocate.

 

CPS

[applecart]

Hi all,

 

I appreciate what is being debated up here but does it all not refer back to subrogated rights? I.E., whatever the assinment, notice or not, the originator is exerting rights for and behalf of whomever.

 

Subrogated rights are not based on application of the Law, it is derived by way of equitable remedy between competing parties. If you apply the strict application of the Law after a mortgage has been securitised, there will be an underlying borrower - the lenders will be contesting at court that they have the right to be ranked as priority over another lenders charge (this is not the same as the rights of the underlying borrower - who's rights, in relation to a securitised mortgage will remain intact within the provisions of the applicable Law).

But let's say the borrower contests in court that the lender seeking possession has no 'title to sue', such as we saw in 'Paragon v Pender - we know that the Judge made it clear (in those circumstances) that it made no difference which lender sought to stake claim to the right to possession - the Administration Agreements were enough to convince the Judge (in the circumstances and given the evidence before him) that the Lender retained rights to possession - the borrower was still found to be liable regardless of 'subrogation' rights of competing lenders ...... but let's assume that the borrower in Paragon v Pender, was able to make the distinction between he's/her rights after the sale of the mortgage occurred ....... and was then able to show that the applicable Law protected his/her rights against the purported right to possession of competeing interests of the lenders??..... You have to beg the question - would the outcome have been different?? Would the equitable remedy with regard to 'subrogation' be an issue??

 

This princliple of law balances the threat of 2 parties obtaining more than what they are entitled to but elso ensures they do not claim more, for example double recovery from the same party for the same debt.

 

I see 'subrogation' as an equitable remedy, Subrogation is not catered for within the provision of the applicable Law per se.... Sure, where parties seek redress to a claim, then a court can look to what has become known as an equitable remedy of subrogation (an equitable right or remedy would not override the applicable Law) - it is the underlying circumstances that can either give rise to a claim by way of subrogation or NOT as the case may be - Where the applicable Laws make it clear that subrogation remedy neither applies or can apply, there is no need for the court to give consideration to such a remedy.

 

It is the borrowers right to ensure that the remedy by way of subrogation does not step in to cause a situation where the Lender is unjustly enriched and given the opportunity to 'double recovery' of the same debt (especially where the lenders are one and the same company, as was the case in Paragon), Knowing the applicable Law provides the LEGAL remedy for the borrower to prevent this from happening.

To refer to the Land Registry, I have an extremely basic example. 1 property is registered with one owner, no charges. However, within that property lives husband and wife (or whatever similar relationship given these times). 1 party is not listed on the register but that does not deminish their interest should there be a dispute and the 'other' party would quite successfull argue they hold a monetary interest in the value of the property.

 

Are you referring to matrimonial rights here?... this is different from rights secured by way of Deed - two parties living together can at all times claim a beneficial interest - as between husband and wife, girlfriend and boyfriend etc etc - something to do with 'occupation rights' (not the same as the topic of this thread) - where mortgages are concerned, they are created by way of Deed, the Deed grants an 'external' party rights in the estate/property - quite a different type of beneficial interest altogether ....and quite a different legal battle in the event that one party asserts rights against the other - expulsion of your partner from the relationship does not necessarily detach your partners interests in the property - if the lender gains an order for possession -then without doubt this means you lose your rights/interests in the property and have to leave.

Not trying to be objectionable, just playing devil's advocate.

 

If we had a few more 'devil's advocates', perhaps the whole issue could have been solved years ago and there would be no need for us to be debating this issue right now : )

 

CPS

 

Applecart

[applecart]

Hi Caro

 

I did respond to the 'admin@' you posted, but my mail came right back at me as undelivered : (

 

Applecart

[determindator]

Great posts! It's all about whats right and what's wrong. I remember the adverts for this industry which i'm glad to say has dried up. That is a message in itself.

[applecart]

Hi Caro

 

Tried to respond to your PM... your box is full : (

 

Applecart

[applecart]

credit to 'jackbetal' :

 

audio

 

of the court hearing, 2 hours long and by a South African borrower,

 

discussing the fraud & theft of homes through the sham of securitisation.

 

 

STD Bank VS Tellinger & Cundill, under SA law, Tellinger wants it to go to trial and

 

the judgment for that is to be made this February.

 

 

in the audio, Tellinger speaks of 'Advocate Blackbeared', stating when a loan is securitised the lender relinquishes any ownership of it, and the SPV becomes the legal owner. see after 1hr 30min on the mp3.

 

 

if anyone can find what Advocate Blackbeared?(47min) said, post it up if possible, would be useful to discuss.

 

 

 

comments?

 

Hi Furian

 

What a fantastic post - you've certainly pulled the stops out with this one : )

 

I've listened to 'some' not 'all' of the audio... my thoughts on what I've listened to are this:

 

The defendants extensive knowledge and submissions of the workings of the banking system and securitisation will not be enough to stave off possession.

 

At no point did I hear him rely on any aspect of the Law

 

At no point did I hear him quote any Law (i.e legal grounds) that deny the Lender a right to possession despite having securitised the mortgage loan/note.

 

Without this... the defence is liable to fail (IMO)

 

 

Applecart

[applecart]

What on earth is going on?

 

Posts being deleted, edited, monitored and checked before being posted or not as the case may be.... what next?

 

Seems like the CAG is protecting lenders as well!!!!!!

 

Applecart

[bustthematrix]

Furian

What's happend to your post about the Tellinger South African case? I got the usual CAG email alert to it since I'm subbed to this thread. It was dated 12 Jan 2012. When I clicked on it, planning to comment about it, I was brought here but it appears that particular post has disappeared?

 

Indeed it appears there are/were no posts at all for this thread on 12 Jan 2012? Is this correct?

 

Mods any thoughts on this please?

[42man]

I think it was removed as it was South African Law, and as Applecart said

 

The defendants extensive knowledge and submissions of the workings of the banking system and securitisation will not be enough to stave off possession.

 

At no point did I hear him rely on any aspect of the Law

 

At no point did I hear him quote any Law (i.e legal grounds) that deny the Lender a right to possession despite having securitised the mortgage loan/note.

[bustthematrix]

I think it was removed as it was South African Law Think? Should you not know why?, and as Applecart said

 

The defendants extensive knowledge and submissions of the workings of the banking system and securitisation will not be enough to stave off possession.

Perhaps, but who's to know for sure? It may not stop repossession per se but who's to know what we can or cannot learn from that case and it's outcomes going forward? My own reading of the facts is that Tellinger actually has the funds to settle the arrears on that mortgage. He stopped 'paying' when his 'research' led him down the path he was now taking hence the lenders taking him to court. The property in question appears to be an investment not his 'home' should he 'lose' this case, I suspect it will be an acceptable loss, or he could just pay the arrears + costs to stop the repossession anyway as he claims to have the money.

 

At no point did I hear him rely on any aspect of the Law

Really? I did!

 

At no point did I hear him quote any Law (i.e legal grounds) that deny the Lender a right to possession despite having securitised the mortgage loan/note.

True. But that was NOT the basis of his defence. His objective, as he repeatedly stated, was to create enough doubt that the judge could not rule against him as is but that the matter would go to trial. Personally, I found the fact that the lender NEVER accepted or DENIED the very specific allegations he was making about fraud, monetisations of promissory note, bills of exchange acts, endorsement, double-entry book keeping etc VERY telling!!! If that stuff's not true, denying it should be first order of business!

I find this quite surprising. Surely, a more tempered and educational (and therefore helpful) approach, in a forum such as this, would have been to add comments and warnings about your concerns, whilst allowing members & guests to review the material (and related posts) and make up their own mind? Or if you felt it was way too off topic for this thread, to move it elsewhere where interested parties can discuss it?

 

I'm a bit disappointed on this one...a potentially very educational matter has simply been ejected from the debate. Let's hope it doesn't end here.

Edited January 13, 2012 by bustthematrix
typos

[andrew1]

I sat through this 2 + hours this morning. My first reaction was that Tellinger obviously had 'wired himself up' to record all this. I wonder if the Judge or the court were aware of this or even if it is allowed?

 

I have a particular interest in this securitisation issue and the complexities are way over my head, but there were a number of things which caught my ear.

 

I think there is a general acceptance that securitisation practices are the cause for the banking melt-down but that the banks and many governments are in denial this is the case for obvious reasons.

 

The bankers earn their bonuses from this shifting of numbers across the globe, they don't make anything, just shift numbers about into bonds and people with more money than sense buy into the rewards on offer from investing in dodgy loans and mortgages. If the bond is AAA, the return is average, when it goes further up the risk table then the rewards are huge.

 

What Tellinger did was try to tell the court that HIS SIGNATURE, was the key to banks making huge profits and putting leverage on peoples security in their homes and he wanted some of the returns they earn from his signature. Contrary to what busthematrix said about money, Tellinger is saying there's no such thing as money, it's all just pieces of paper and the average man or woman on the street have no idea what will happen once their signature is on that piece of paper.

 

There can't be too many of us who don't agree with that can there? Just look at what happened to Northern rock in detail and you'll know why the banks went into melt-down.

 

I have followed over the years the various debates over the securitisation following the Lehmans collapse and whilst Superslueth and Suetonious battled it was obvious there are differences of opinion as to the effect of securitisation in the UK by comparison with the USA with the LOP 1925 Act and I have no idea what the law is in South Africa so it maybe not so all encompassing as it seems Tellinger makes out across the world.

 

BUT, I do believe he has a point,many actually, even if the establishment throws up smoke screens due to the financial crisis that would follow his being proved correct or, might I say, the people on here who so vehmenantly believe in the same argument. I do know one thing though, it is the splitting of hairs that we uninitiated people do so well often out of ignorance that eventually prove that KEEPING IT SIMPLE finds the very heart of the issue and deals appropriately with it's quarry.

 

Keep digging my friends, Mr Tellinger and all you folk who are being accused of being wrong because one day your day will hit the nerve that disables the rot.

 

A1