Search This Blog



woensdag 9 mei 2012

Michael Tellinger has filed his 1,100 page notice of motion against Standard Bank in the Constitutional Court

Author, researcher and scientist, Michael Tellinger has just filed his 1,100 page notice of motion against Standard Bank in the Constitutional Court, accusing the bank of "unlawful and unconstitutional activity". He also served the notice on the Reserve Bank and the Minister of Finance.

Michael Tellinger joins ABN's Samantha Loring in studio to give us more details.

Source: ABNdigital

Michael Tellinger Launches Constitutional Court Action Against Standard Bank; and The South African Reserve Bank; and The Minister of Finance.

After a slight technical hiccup last Friday at the Constitutional Court, regarding the binding of a substantially long legal document, Michael Tellinger made global history on the 23rd & 24th April 2012, in Johannesburg when he filed his 1100-page NOTICE OF MOTION against Standard Bank in the Constitutional Court of South Africa, accusing the bank of unlawful and unconstitutional activity. The case number allocated by the Constitutional Court is CCT 28/12.

Tellinger also served the NOTICE OF MOTION on the RESERVE BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA and the MINISTER OF FINANCE, alleging that they are jointly and consciously implicated in the unscrupulous and devious activity that has led to unimaginable financial hardship of the South African people.

There is hardly any South African who has not been harmed in some way by the actions of the banks. For too long have banking giants been unassailable and untouchable by the common man.

It is now official and it can be claimed that never before has such a case been brought against any of these corporations at this level anywhere in the world, where for the first time a layperson has been given direct access to the Constitutional Court regarding the devious activities of the banks.

This case may have started as a matter of principle for Michael Tellinger against STD Bank, but it has escalated to such a degree that every South African and everyone in the world could be affected, because a positive outcome will result in a major public policy shift and the changing of the laws that govern the banks and bringing economic justice to the people.

Tellinger will argue that the lack of control and intervention by the MINISTER OF FINANCE has allowed the banks and the RESERVE BANK to do as they please with impunity and without recourse, and in the process have enslaved millions of honest, hard-working South Africans to a life of misery and debt through the banks’ unconstitutional and unlawful activities.

This historic case will attempt to redress the imbalance that has taken place for centuries by the few that have been called the banking elite. The Constitutional Court is the highest court on constitutional matters, its very foundation being the protector of human rights and its mandate to protect the people.

The Court is mandated to bring legislation in par with the constitutional framework principles and to develop common law principles. The legacy follows Nelson Mandela’s vision, that no matter who or what you represent, equality, justice and the people’s voice shall be harmonised before an independent, unbiased judicial system founded on the principles of rights enshrined in the Constitution.

This case will be a challenge for the Constitutional Court, and Tellinger trusts that it will make its findings properly, considering all the facts to redress the laws and do whatever it needs to do, to redress the hardship of the people caused by financial abuse.

Tellinger appeals to every South African that has been harmed by their bank to join this important action, so that it truly represents millions of honest, hardworking and trusting citizens who have been unable to do so for themselves.

Thousands have been repeatedly frustrated by the invisible protective legal shield around the banks, and the legal system that seems to support the banks.

“Many people carry severe personal grudges against the banks that have done them financial harm, but are powerless to do anything about it.” Said Tellinger

He added that “People are completely oblivious to how they have been conned and deceived by their banks about money and how it is created, but once they find out the terrible truth about how banks really operate and how they use our signature to profiteer on us, and how they make money out of thin air, they will be very angry and realise how important this action against the banks is” he added.

Tellinger urges each and every South African to read as much about this case as possible to inform themselves and to join the petition of signatures that will represent the rest of South Africa in the loudest voice ever presented at the Constitutional Court. Please go to and sign the petition page.

Details of the hearing will follow as soon as we have been allocated a date by the court. We will keep everyone informed on the above website .

For more information contact Michael Tellinger at


The New Economic Rights Alliance ( is preparing for a Constitutional.
Court Case that aims to obtain transparency in banking (case number CCT38/12). This is a.
once-in-history opportunity.
For the first time, a full bench of 11 judges, 22 registrars, eight clerks, four joined advocates.
and four additional researchers will hear a case that goes to the heart of the banking system.
With so much financial turmoil overseas, a case like this has been destined to break. We
believe that South Africa is the one country that has the right mix of variables to make a case.
like this possible.
This is an enormous undertaking and we require 20,000 signatures to have the desired impact.
Please sign this online petition: and.
ask everyone you know to do the same. The time for truth in banking is now.

The following outlines the reasons behind this action:

1. Banks do not “loan” money as their prolific advertisements claim. Money loaned is.
actually money created, via an elaborate scheme of paper shifting and number.
crunching. This involves the use of loan application forms and negotiable instruments,
the result being debit and credit book entries that have no liquid money value. It can be.
said that banks make money out-of-thin-air under the “pretence” of a loan, but in.
reality it is not a loan at all. This is deceptive and misleading as very few South Africans.
know the truth.

2. It is a common legal principle in our law that one must possess that which one loans.
For reasons above, the banks are unable to meet this, a fundamental criteria for a valid.
borrower / lender contract.
3. Banks are failing to provide simple information to their customers that should be easy.
to access. Examples include a certificate of balance, audited proof that a lawful.
“deposit” was actually made and the physical location of original documents, promissory.
notes and other negotiable instruments. Instead of providing the customer with this.
information, they choose to take legal action, and foreclose on homes and assets with.
remarkable alacrity.
4. The banks are acting as intermediary / agent between the customer and other parties.
It is a requirement that an agency relationship be fully disclosed up front to the.
customer. The banks do not disclose this relationship and, as a result, most people are.
under the complete illusion that they are borrowing from their bank in the ordinary.
sense of the word.

5. Banks engage in a widespread and common practice called securitisation. Instead of
borrowing from the Reserve Bank on our behalf, banks bundle many loans together and.
then sell these bundles to investors whereby the loans become securities. This process
caused the stock market crash of 2008 and threatens the global economy as we speak.
In fact, the betting game being played by the banks, called the derivatives market, is.
currently estimated to be 20 times larger than the GDP of the entire planet. Rather than
slowing down, its sheer propensity for profit has led to a rampant growth of the.
industry in South Africa. The Banks Act makes it crystal clear that securitisation falls.
outside the business of a bank. Therefore, it is a blatant breach of the Bank Act for a.
bank to engage in this practice, and rightly so.
6. Banks refuse to disclose the securitisation process to the customer, who has a legal.
right to this information. When a customer asks for disclosure, the banks do not even.
bother responding, or respond using unintelligible legal jargon. The entire securitisation.
process is kept tightly secret while it provides huge profits to those behind the scenes.
Instead of securitisation providing a benefit to the customer by way of lower interest.
rates, the reverse occurs: banks swiftly and relentlessly foreclose on assets in order to.
satisfy the needs of their investors. It should also be mentioned that banks have been.
known to securitise a debt several times, and that should a person default those.
investors are protected by an insurance policy.
7. We have written confirmation from the South African Reserve Bank that, once a bank.
sells a loan into a securitisation pool, they lose the legal right to that asset. This means
that literally tens, if not hundreds of thousands of homes and other assets have been.
taken away from South Africans illegally because the wrong entity is suing in court.
8. Banks do not use “money,” they use negotiable instruments. These instruments are.
defined clearly in the Bills of Exchange Act and have been used by trading merchants.
for thousands of years. It is the constitutional right of every South African to have an.
explanation of how our instruments are being used, traded, and exploited by the banks.
9. Banks are foreclosing on people’s homes and assets by using the contract as a shield.
Their argument is simple: “you signed a contract, so you must pay.” By sticking to the.
age old axiom: the-agreement-is-king, anyone attempting to look behind the shield is.
prohibited from doing so. This loan agreement, which is a series of one-way payments.
with absolutely no risk whatsoever to the bank, is somehow enough to allow them to.
win in court. We believe that granting summary judgment in such a manner, without.
the courts listening to the counter argument that the contract is not valid due to.
malicious deception, is unconstitutional.
10. It is illegal for banks to claim more than double the amount loaned from any borrower.
(the in duplum rule). However, banks are not only breaking this rule, but they are also.
forcing people to pay the interest on loans up front. In other words, the interest is paid.
back first, before the principal. This is plainly illegal.
11. The collection processes in banks have become so extreme, that call centre operators.
have been known to verbally abuse customers. The customer believes, quite wrongly,
that the bank is running at a loss and is simply doing its best to get its money back.
This illusion is maintained by the banks who continue to refine their well-oiled, clinical.
machine of repossession and foreclosure.
12. If a bank employee dispenses with an affidavit, it is a legal requirement that the.
directors of that bank first dispense with a Special Resolution granting permission for.
that employee to make such an affidavit. This rule is currently being circumvented.
Somehow, half-hearted affidavits, made by just about anyone in the bank, are being.
successfully used to obtain judgment and foreclosures.

Source: Facebook

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten