Former Canadian Defense Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Hellyer delivers a fantastic speech at his public book launch event for ‘The Money Mafia: A World in Crisis” – Toronto, Sept. 25, 2014
Ben talks about the banking and government changes that are becoming more and more visible, each and every day. This is exciting! -LW
Thanks for the heads-up, BP! Paul Hellyer makes full disclosure in this video. I can hardly wait for the Disclosure Canada tour! -LW
Note from Mr. Hellyer:
PLEASE DOWNLOAD AND SHARE WIDELY.
UPLOAD TO YOUR CHANNEL.
Use the REMIX video option located in the Licence description on this video to bring the video to your YouTube Channel
THESE WORDS ARE FOR EVERYONE
What You Don’t See Is What You Will Get!
Paul T. Hellyer, Former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence of Canada, discusses the origin of the New World Order, and the Cabal that have run the United States and much of the world for many decades. He also looks at issues such as the Cabal’s connection to extraterrestrials, their technology, nuclear weapons tampering and national security issues related to this association. Finally, Mr. Hellyer reviews the Plan for a New American Century, and the military-industrial complex and its blueprint for perpetual war leading to complete dominance of Planet Earth – and what, if anything, can be done to stop it.
Is the lid about to come off the entire US-based banking system? Could this be precursor to rolling out the new banking system? This case went to court on Monday and is expected to be completed within one month. Could it be? -LW
By David Dayen
The trial of the century—a long-awaited determination of the damage perpetrated by Wall Street institutions in the financial crisis—began Monday in New York. But it’s only happening because one bank—unlike Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Bank of America—refused to settle out of court. The Japanese firm Nomura stands accused of lying to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac about the quality of mortgages pooled into securities during the housing bubble. The case will finally reveal hard data on just how much money Nomura, and the rest of the industry, made through fraud.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, sued 18 of the biggest banks in the world in 2011. As an investor, Fannie and Freddie purchased $196 billion in mortgage-backed securities from 2005 to 2007, filled with loans that did not meet specific underwriting guidelines. Sixteen of the 18 banks settled with FHFA, netting the agency $18.2 billion. One suit with the Royal Bank of Scotland remains in limbo. Only Nomura pushed FHFA into trial.1
FHFA purchased seven mortgage-backed security deals worth about $2 billion from Nomura, just 1 percent of the total mortgage-backed securities it purchased. But the trial will force the agency to actually show its work. Unlike in the settlements, which offered no details beyond the names of the securities, FHFA must explain why they’re asking for $1.1 billion in damages, over half of what it spent.
In its opening statement, FHFA alleged Nomura prospectuses about the quality of the mortgage pools were materially false. It stated that 68 percent of a sample of loans in Nomura securities had underwriting standards below what the bank advertised. That resembles the findings of Clayton Holdings, a third-party reviewer of mortgage pools for Wall Street banks (FHFA used Clayton estimates in their complaint). FHFA also charged that home appraisals were inflated by an average of 11 percent. Tellingly, Nomura tried to block John Kilpatrick, the FHFA’s expert witness on appraisals, from testifying.
This small set of facts brings sharper focus to the securitization scheme. For context, banks proffered over 1,800 mortgage-backed securities deals during the housing bubble. But all the securitizations were structurally, more or less, the same as Nomura’s; that’s why FHFA sued 18 banks. Under representation and warranty agreements, if the underwriting did not match the securities issuers’ claims, investors like Fannie and Freddie could demand that the bank repurchase the bad loans. That means that FHFA could have stuffed over two-thirds of its securities back into Nomura’s pockets. Federal judge Jed Rakoff made a similar determination in the Countrywide “Hustle” case last year when he ordered damages of $1.3 billion on defective mortgage sales to Fannie and Freddie, based on the percentage of loans that were poorly underwritten.
How much money are we talking about overall? Let’s just look at 2005 and 2006, the two years at issue in the FHFA case, and the biggest years for mortgage-backed securitizations. Banks sold over $1 trillion in mortgage-backed securities each of those years. So, if Nomura’s behavior was typical, then banks would be legally liable to repurchase over $680 billion in securities per year. And if appraisals were inflated by 11 percent on loans in securitization pools in 2005 and 2006, that means that the banks issuing the securities stole over $100 billion a year from investors who purchased the puffed-up mortgage bonds.
This gives a sense of the magnitude of the deception during this period. And if the contractual obligations and relevant laws around mortgage-backed securities were adhered to, the result would have been a complete overhaul of the financial industry. Instead, the Justice Department settled for pennies on the dollar over these same securities violations with banks like with Bank of America, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase.
Nomura, for its part, has a ready defense. The bank argues that falling housing prices, not its actions, caused the diminished value of mortgage-backed securities, ignoring how the shoddy underwriting pumped up prices before they collapsed. The bank also argues that Fannie and Freddie were highly sophisticated investors that could not be duped into purchasing mortgage bonds. The Wall Street Journal editorial page went further, saying Fannie and Freddie received loan-level data to ensure the mortgage bonds satisfied affordable housing requirements. But this misses FHFA’s point: The loan-level data was untrue, regardless of why Fannie and Freddie made the purchase.
U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote, whose rulings in FHFA cases have so angered banks that they tried to sue her in an appeals court for “gravely prejudicial” rulings, will decide this case. And her verdict will set precedent on how to deal with banks that rip off investors.
If FHFA wins, it will at long last confirm the scale of the fraud, something we’ve only known through anecdote. And it will show that regulators and law enforcement extracted a tiny price for bank misconduct. In the future, it allows investors to use the court system as a deterrent against future swindles. That could make the securities arena safer.
If Nomura succeeds, banks will likely be emboldened to make more misrepresentations in their sales presentations, and investors will find themselves virtually powerless to stop it. Government regulators will probably feel like they cannot enforce securities laws against financial institutions. We could easily see another round of fraud, with banks secure that they can make clever enough arguments in court to get off the hook.
The trial should last a month, and we’ll know shortly thereafter. But it’s positive that we’re finally asking the question, after so many years: How much did the banks make from their securitization frenzy, and how much do they owe those who they wronged?
This Op-Ed piece offers more information in the case to re-instate the Bank of Canada. It mentions a report about “Postal Banking” in Canada that PM Harper apparently killed the day before it was to be released. According to the report, Canada Post would offer more locations than the existing banks–small wonder, since so many Shoppers Drug Mart stores now include post offices. Could banking reform be just around the corner? -LW
Jacob Kearey-Moreland, Special to the Packet
Friday, January 30, 2015 7:27:35 EST PM
“I’m the bad guy,” I overheard the government lawyer say jokingly, introducing himself to former minister of defence Paul Hellyer in the Federal Court of Appeal this week.
Why do Canadians allow private banks to profit off our public debt when the Bank of Canada is legislated to provide low- or no-interest loans for human capital and infrastructure spending? The Bank of Canada has not issued such loans since 1974, after it funded Canada out of the Great Depression, the Second World War, the infrastructure boom, universal health care, universities and colleges, CBC and more. Monday, three judges upheld the previous ruling of justiciability. The next step is to determine the statutes of the Bank of Canada Act and if they have been subverted by conspiracy.
The monopoly of private banks’ exclusive privilege of lending money to governments will, for the second time in our history, soon be put on trial. The first time it was debated in the House of Commons, it led to the creation of the Bank of Canada. It’s time to restore the Bank of Canada and jail the banksters.
We are in a perpetual-debt crisis because we’ve allowed foreign private interests to control the creation of money and, by extension, federal economic and social policy for their private interests. Banks are guaranteed billions in profits every year as families slide deeper into debt. Forget income splitting; imagine the tax relief once we escape debt bondage and compound-interest payments.
Arguing for the plaintiffs — Ann Emmett, centenarian William Krehm and the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (comer.org) — is perhaps Canada’s most prominent constitutional lawyer, Rocco Galati. Galati, who consistently undermines and reverses government decisions and actions, is not shy in declaring Canada “a quiet dictatorship.” The erosion of democracy is not complete without the erosion of justice and the independence of the judiciary, for which this government has received international condemnation. Galati has reason to believe there is a government-issued media blackout on this case. Sorry, Harper; I didn’t get the memo.
Saturday prior to the hearing, there was a five-hour seminar in Toronto City Hall chambers on the subject of money, tax, poverty and public banking, with the keynote speech delivered by Toronto Coun. Kristyn Wong-Tam on the creation of the Toronto Public Bank. We heard from a renowned investigative accountant, Al Rosen, who described the existence of “hundreds of Nortels” that go un-investigated because of a lack of resources to address white-collar crime, tax evasion and more, as the Canada Revenue Agency has been co-opted for partisan purposes to attack charities and birdwatchers critical of the Harper government.
The report Banking: A Proven Diversification Strategy, commissioned by Canada Post, was killed by the Harper government a day before it eviscerated the public institution. After access-to-information requests, the report was released, with more than 701 of 811 pages redacted. The report detailed the win-win nature of postal banking, given Canada Post is the largest distribution network in the country, with branches in more than 6,300 communities, more than all banks combined, said Mike Palecek, the representative from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. Even grocery stores have their own banks, from which they make hundreds of millions a year. With a few simple software upgrades and ATMs, Canadians from coast to coast to coast could have low-cost, accessible banking services, among 700 pages of other benefits the Harper government doesn’t want you to know about.
Chew on that, Grandma, when you’re trudging through snow to get your mail.
Jacob Kearey-Moreland is a local resident and gardener. He can be contacted at email@example.com.
And 2015 has only just begun… There will probably be more as the elite try to turn the Internet into a medium with closed access, just like they did to newspapers, radio, TV, and cable… -LW
Move over Jon Rappoport and Michael Rivero, Dave Hodges joins you as the latest victim of Facebook censorship. Facebook has banned my participation. I am, and have been an outspoken critic of FACEBOOK and its intrusive violations of privacy. However, it was a way to enlighten people as to the current state of our country and world.
FACEBOOK did not list a reason as to why they banned me. I only posted articles to groups for which I was a member. This is not a violation of FACEBOOK’s rules and is clearly a case of flagrant of censorship.
And what was I writing about? I have been writing about the rash of dead bankers and who is behind the killings. It is no accident that FACEBOOK owner MARK ZUCKERBERG IS DAVID ROCKEFELLER’S GRANDSON, WHO CONTROLS ONE OF THE BIGGEST BANKING INTERESTS ON THE PLANET!
It is important to have social groups to spread the word. I will be in search for a FACEBOOK alternative and will be publishing alternatives on this site.
Have you heard of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?
It’s a secret international trade deal that has been dubbed, “NAFTA on Steroids” (ie. very bad for the people)
Watch and learn . . .