HSBC has recently been charged with money laundering by drug cartels
and terrorists all over the world. HSBC was forced to apologize publicly
before the US Senate and its compliance chief resigned over
facilitating a multi-billion-dollar money-laundering operation for the drug gangs, terrorists and rogue nations worldwide.
LONDON (AP) — HSBC bank has told dozens of foreign missions in London
that will close their bank accounts, an official said Sunday, news that
has sent diplomats across the capital scrambling to find a new place to
put their money.
Bernard Silver, an ex-honorary consul who serves as president of the
Consular Corps of London, said he’d been told by British officials that
more than 40 different embassies, consulates, and high commissions had
been affected.
‘‘The majority of missions are finding it very difficult for other banks to accept them,’’ he said in a telephone interview.
Silver declined to name any specific missions, but the Mail on Sunday
newspaper said that the Papal Nunciature — the Vatican’s mission to
London — was affected, as was the Papua New Guinea High Commission and
the honorary consul from Benin.
Attempts to reach the Vatican’s mission, Benin’s honorary consul, and
Papua New Guinea’s high commissioner were not immediately successful,
but the newspaper cited an official at the latter as expressing shock at
the move.
‘‘We’ve been banking with HSBC for 22 years,’’ John Belavu was quoted
as saying. ‘‘For them to throw us off in this way was a bombshell.’’
Below Is The Generic White Wash Media Spiel
HSBC spokesman Will McSheehy said Sunday that the move was taking
part of a wider reassessment of its business started by chief executive
Stuart Gulliver in 2011. As of May, the bank’s retrenchment strategy has
seen 52 peripheral or underperforming units close and a loss of roughly
40,000 staff.
McSheehy said the changes had translated into a ‘‘significantly
diminished appetite for the embassy business,’’ although he declined to
reveal how many U.K. missions had their accounts pulled.
Foreign missions traditionally deal in large amounts of cash,
something which may have raised uncomfortable questions at a bank that
has been buffeted by money laundering scandals. In 2012 HSBC was slapped
with a record fine after U.S. officials revealed that its bankers had
been handling assets belonging to Iran, Libya, and Mexico’s murderous
drug cartels. HSBC is still struggling to clear its name, including in
one case revolving around a former employee who claims to have evidence
showing ‘‘scandalous’’ levels of tax evasion and money-laundering at the
company.
McSheehy said that compliance issues were just one of many factors —
such as profitability or efficiency — which the bank had assessed.
‘‘There’s no one single reason,’’ he said.
Britain’s Foreign Office declined to confirm the number of missions
involved, saying only that it had sent an unspecified number of
diplomats advice on finding a new U.K. bank. A spokeswoman said there
was little more for the British government to do.
‘‘This is a commercial matter,’’ she said, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with office policy.
Boston.Com
BASEL III
DODD-FRANK KILLS: BASEL III KILLS:
Here’s a great ole video telling you just how Rothschild was started and its all from a red shield.
HOW U.S. 1776 FREEDOM WAS SEDITIOUSLY ABSCONDED
AND SIGNED OVER TO
THE ROTHSCHILD’S INTERNATIONAL BRITISH BANK OF ENGLAND July 2013
THE TREASONOUS BAIL-IN REGIME OF BASEL III.
Rothschild British Burning The White House ~ 1814
Rothschild/Monarchy Machination Began In Earnest Around 1913 To Return The United States Back Under Subservient British Control.
Woodrow Wilson ~ The President who signed the bill allowing Rothschild’s private federal reserve in the United States.
The
28th President’s mother was born in Carlisle, Cumberland, England.
Rothschild Banking Cabal England – Woodrow Wilson England – Hmmmmmm!
WATCH A VIDEO ON THE ACTIONS OF WILSON
HERE.
In 1913 the Rothschild Federal Reserve Bank was born, with Paul Warburg its first Governor.
Four years later the US entered World War I, after a secret society known as the Black Hand assassinated Archduke Ferdinand and his Hapsburg wife.
The Archduke’s friend Count Czerin later said,
“A year before the war he informed me that the Masons had resolved upon his death.” [5]
That same year, Bolsheviks overthrew the Hohehzollern monarchy in Russia with help from Max Warburg and Jacob Schiff, while the Balfour Declaration leading to the creation of Israel was penned to Zionist Second Lord Rothschild.
- Did Woodrow Wilson REALLY REGRET Handing AMERICA To The Rothschild BANKSTERS?
- Public Regret Announcement: John Boehner Regrets, Woodrow Wilson Regrets! What Sedition Looks Like!
- Roman
Catholic Popes Have All Denounced Free Mason’s New World Order: If You
Believe Otherwise You’re A Victim Of The Banker’s Propaganda.
Rothschild/Monarchy Controlled British Army Sets Fire To The White House 1814.
Fourth Of July 2013 Treason
Release Date: July 2, 2013
For immediate release:
The Federal Reserve Board on Tuesday approved
a final rule to help ensure banks maintain strong capital positions
that will enable them to continue lending to creditworthy households and
businesses even after unforeseen losses and during severe economic
downturns.
The corruption of the Congress is as old as the institution itself.
What was done and can now be enacted under the new authorities
established in
Dodd-Frank’s Title II, is of a different class.
Dodd – Leftist Rothschild Nazi Muffin
TREASON
There is little to no recognition of the key fact
of Dodd-Frank Act. Namely, Title II of the Act to establish an Orderly
Liquidation Authority, vests the FDIC with the authority to conduct a
European-style bail-in.
Hearings continue taking place in the House and Senate to
review what exactly was voted into law with the 2010 Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act) even as the rules for
implementing the law are still being written.
SAVE THE BANKS ~ KILL YOURSELF MESSAGE!
- On December 10, 2012, a joint strategy paper was drafted by the
[BOE] Bank of England Owned By The Rothschild Mafia and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) titled, Resolving Globally Active,
Systemically Important, Financial Institutions.7
- The paper compares the resolution regime established by Title II’s
Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA) to the Prudent Regulation Authority
(PRA), a similar resolution authority in the United Kingdom.
- The regime in the U.K. was established April 1, 2013 following the dismantling of the Financial Services Authority.
- Beginning in June the PRA will be overseen by Bank of Canada
governor and former head of the Financial Stability Board, Mark Carney,
when he becomes head of the Rothschild [BOE] Bank of England.8
- After expropriating the material wealth of the United States Of
America, the aforementioned international syndicate will
have THEIR financial stability after years of bilking wealth through
murder, sabotage, swindling, blackmail, etc etc.
The final rule minimizes burden on smaller, less complex financial
institutions.; It establishes an integrated regulatory capital framework
that addresses shortcomings in capital requirements, particularly for
larger, internationally active banking organizations, that became
apparent during the recent financial crisis.
The rule will implement in the United
States the Basel III regulatory capital reforms from the Basel Committee
on Banking Supervision and certain changes required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Read More Here
Save The United States From Sedition / Treason ~ Shut Down Rothschild
Mafia By Enacting The Glass Steagall Act And Enforcing The Anti Trust
Laws Against Rothschild And Other Corporations That Are Merging Into A
One Fascist Statism.
- Read the full text of the Glass-Steagall Act (a.k.a. the Banking Act of 1933)
- 1999 REPEAL OF GLASS-STEAGALL: Bill Clinton Opened The Door For Creating $Trillions Of Derivative Debt & Bailout
- Jeff
Steinberg On Bill Clinton’s Repeal of Glass-Steagall In 1999: This Was
Rothschild’s Mechanism To Overload America With Debt Subservience!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Leandra Bernstein
2013
From Bail Out To Bail In ~ Rothschild Plays Both Sides Always => This Is Controlled by murder/bribery etc. vs Law Abiding Supply Demand.
The preamble to the Dodd-Frank Act
claims “to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts.” This is done, however,
through bail-in,
a critical feature of the internationally established regime of what is called cross-border bank resolution.
Bail-in,
in its simplest terms, is the
inverse policy of what was done under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Glass-Steagall Act and the 1933 Banking Act generally. Under bail-in
the bank survives, the depositors do not.
As is stated in an IMF review of the policy from April 2012,
“The statutory bail-in power is intended to achieve a prompt recapitalization and restructuring of the distressed institution.”
In the case of resolving a distressed globally active, systemically
important, financial institution (GSIFI), bank creditors, specifically
those whose assets exceed the FDIC insurance cap, will be subject to
expropriation.
- This is not normal bankruptcy.
- Accounts and assets are seized and/or converted to stock under the resolution authority.
- The institution is prevented from failing.
- Values of securities are not written down through sale on the open market.
- And this is done to guarantee the continued operation of the financial institution and the “stability” of the financial system.
This
report provides the evidence, primarily using the text of laws,
charters, and the language of the administrators of the bail-in regime,
to demonstrate that the United States of America is being subject to the
premeditated scheme of an international syndicate to establish laws and
treaties contrary both to the interests of the United States, and the
spirit and the law of the U.S. Constitution.
- The Dodd-Frank Act, as currently written, has no evident provision that would prevent the overall effect of mass economic deprivation of the targeted subjects, the American citizenry.
- Such deprivation across the spectrum of economic activity would invariably lead to a sharp increase in the nation’s death rate, as a direct consequence of the enactment of this law.
Barney Frank of the Dodd Frank Act!
- If this Act is not nullified, the result of its enactment will be the mass destruction of U.S. citizens through economic means.
- The fact that this has not been stated openly, other than in the
following report, does not improve the arguments of those who fail to
annul this law.
As a result of any among a vast variety
of financial crises waiting to happen, the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act must be
nullified immediately by its repeal and the simultaneous passage of the
Glass-Steagall Act as drafted in Senate Bill 985 and and House of Representatives Bill 129.
RESOLUTION:
- As passed, Dodd-Frank took up 848 pages and contained 383,013 words.
- According to the financial law firm Davis Polk, as of July 2012 an additional 8,843 pages of rules were added, representing only 30% of the rules to-be-written.
- The estimate for the final length of the Act is 30,000 pages.2
- Additionally, the six largest banks in the U.S. spent $29.4 million
lobbying Congress in 2010, and flooded Capitol Hill with about 3,000
lobbyists–a ratio of 5 lobbyists per 1 congressman.3
Hearings continue taking place in
the House and Senate to review what exactly was voted into law with the
2010 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act)
even as the rules for implementing the law are still being written.
- The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
currently stands as the single longest bill ever passed by the U.S.
government.4
- It has been argued that the length of the bill itself was intended to intimidate members of Congress.
- There has been public commentary suggesting that few congressmen
even read the bill, but were cowed into voting for it strictly on the
basis of party loyalty under a first-term President Barack Obama who
kept his party in line using whatever means were at his disposal.5
- In the first House vote, not a single Republican voted for the bill.
- In the final House vote of 237-192, three Republicans joined the ayes and only 19 Democrats voted against the bill.
- In the final Senate vote, 55 Democrats were joined by 3 Republicans
and both Independents to pass the bill which was then signed into law by
President Obama on July 21, 2010.
- More of the implications of Dodd-Frank have been revealed, but only after its passage.
- There has been an inadequate response from members of the U.S.
government who presumably voted for the Act, or failed to defeat it.
- Even after witnessing the fallout from the resurgent European crisis, little has been done.
- Moreover, for freshman members of Congress, there is a new wave of
financial interests descending on Capitol Hill to scope out the best
candidates for campaign contributions, as veteran members submit and pass bills literally written by financial institutions.6
This is why McCain wants to invade Iran.
The Executive Overview of the joint report states:
The financial crisis that began in 2007 has driven home the
importance of an orderly resolution process for globally active,
systemically important, financial institutions (G-SIFIs)… These
strategies have been designed to enable large and complex cross-border
firms to be resolved without threatening financial stability and without
putting public funds at risk…
- In the U.S., the strategy has been developed in the context of the
powers provided by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act of 2010.
- Such a strategy would apply a single receivership at the top-tier
holding company, assign losses to shareholders and unsecured creditors
of the holding company, and transfer sound operating subsidiaries to a
new solvent entity or entities.9
- Prior to resolution, a financial entity is entitled to petition the
U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia if it is believed that
the decision to resolve is erroneous or capricious.
- But at the court level, such a decision is made, “On a strictly confidential basis, and without any prior public disclosure…”
Banks Protected Into A Destructive Matrix ~ Supported By Rothschild Czar SCOTUS Judge John Roberts.
- This means there is to be no disclosure to unsecured creditors, or other affected parties.
- Under the law, premature or “reckless” disclosure can result in
fines up to $250,000, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. (Title
II, Sec. 202, 1, A.)
- Moreover, if a creditor objects to resolution, they have a limited amount of time to petition for redress.
- For example, if a state government with its state workers’ pensions
invested in the distressed institution, objects to the terms or the
triggering of resolution and wishes to exempt its funds from ,bailing-in the institution, they have 24 hours to petition the courts.
Rothschild
Czar & Card Tricks For Corporatism Control Of The United States Of
America In Flagrant Violation Of The United States Constitution.
In June 2012 an official lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia
challenging the constitutionality of the Dodd-Frank Act on a number of
counts, including the failure to allow for due process of law.10
LAWSUIT => Unchecked
Power of Rothschild Using Innocuous Frank-Dodd Scheme To Centralize
America’s Finances To [BOE] Bank Of England Unconstitutional.
The original suit was filed by the State
National Bank of Big Spring, Texas; the 60 Plus Association; and the
Competitive Enterprise Institute.
This suit has been joined by the attorneys general of 11 states:
- Michigan
- Alabama
- Georgia
- Nebraska
- Kansas
- South Carolina
- Oklahoma
- West Virginia
- Texas
- Montana
- Ohio
From the Introduction, Legislative frameworks for implementing the strategy:
- Title I of the Dodd-Frank Act requires each G-SIFI to periodically
submit to the FDIC and the Federal Reserve a resolution plan that must
address the company’s plans for its rapid and orderly resolution under
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.11 …
- Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act provides the FDIC with new powers to
resolve SIFIs by establishing the orderly liquidation authority (OLA).
- Under the OLA, the FDIC may be appointed receiver for any U.S.
financial company that meets specified criteria, including being in
default or in danger of default, and whose resolution under the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code (or other relevant insolvency process) would likely
create systemic instability.12
- Title II requires that the losses of any financial company placed
into receivership will not be borne by taxpayers, but by common and
preferred stockholders, debt holders, and other unsecured creditors, and
that management responsible for the condition of the financial company
will be replaced.
- Gov.
Mitch Daniels: U.S. Debt Is Accumulating At A Terrifying Rate: Obama
Prints $110 Billion Each MonthFor U.S. Taxpayers To Pay back!
- Once appointed receiver for a failed financial company, the FDIC
would be required to carry out a resolution of the company in a manner
that mitigates risk to financial stability and minimizes moral hazard.
- Any costs borne by the U.S. authorities in resolving the institution
not paid from proceeds of the resolution will be recovered from the
industry.
Lizzy II, Georgi Soros, Barry Soetoro, Jacob Rothschild
PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER,
PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER,
PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER,
PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER,
PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER,
PAPER,
Obama’s Web Of Debt: Its The PAPER Derivatives Stupid.
- The above statement assumes that the costs of resolution will be
covered by those creditors slated to bear the losses as well as an
Orderly Liquidation Fund to bear the administrative costs of resolution.
- What is further proposed for those creditors whose claims are not
liquidated, is their conversion to shareholders, the debt becomes stock
acting to prop up the value of the resolved institution.
- What would otherwise occur in bankruptcy, meting out claims to creditors based on priority, does not happen.
Rather, the liquidation of the firm does not occur, it is kept operational, and is in that way bailed-in by its creditors.
A crucial clarification of what constitutes a bank creditor was made
in a March 28, 2013 review of the BOE-FDIC paper by chairwoman of the
Public Banking Institute, Ellen Brown.
Ellen 1 Ellen 2
In the course of explaining why the
bail-in, confiscation of 40% of unsecured deposits in Cyprus was not a one-time event, she clarifies:
- Although few depositors realize it, legally the banks owns the depositor’s funds as soon as they are put in the bank.
- Our money becomes the bank’s, and we become unsecured creditors holding IOUs or promises to pay. …
- Under the FDIC-BOE plan, our IOUs will be converted into “bank equity.” …
- With any luck we may be able to sell the stock to someone else, but when and at what price?13
As will be illustrated in the following section, any form of creditor
with money in the bank, from $1 to $250,000 and everything above, can
be converted from having their account immediately available to them, to
becoming a stockholder.
As with the triggering of OLA, this can be done quite literally overnight.
To retrieve the value of what was formerly assumed to be the depositor’s account balance, the stock must be sold.
For example, a former depositor with an account balance of $250,000,
who now owns that amount in bank stock, owns that amount of stock in a
bank that just underwent a major, cross-border, government restructuring
because it was in imminent distress.
The receiver, the FDIC, determines which values in the bank must be
upheld in the interest of “financial stability,” and this undoubtedly
includes financial derivatives, and other debt instruments, which, if
sold off in the course of orderly liquidation would cause a panic.
The obvious question is, how much will the depositor be able to sell his stock for?
EBT ~ FOOD STAMP CARDS
UNSECURED CREDITORS:
According to the April 24, 2012 IMF report,
14 conversion of bank debt to stock is an essential element of bail-in included in Dodd-Frank.
“The contribution of new capital will come from debt
conversion and/or issuance of new equity, with an elimination or
significant dilution of the pre-bail in shareholders. …Some measures
might be necessary to reduce the risk of a ‘death spiral’ in share
prices.”
In the language of Dodd-Frank, this will:
“ensure that unsecured creditors bear losses.”
- Such a conversion of deposits into equity already had its test-run
under the terms of bankruptcy reorganization of Bankia and four other
Spanish banks earlier this year.
- The conditions of a July 2012 Memorandum of Understanding between
the Troika (EC, ECB, and IMF) and Spain, resulted in over 1 million
small depositors becoming stockholders in Bankia when they were sold
“preferentes” (preferred stock) in exchange for their deposits.
- Following the conversion, the preferentes took an initial write-down of 30-70%.
- Soon after, they were converted into common stock originally valued
at EU2 per share, which was further devalued to EU0.1 after the March
restructuring of Bankia.15
The likelihood of this
write-down of assets is stated outright in the BOE-FDIC joint report and readily acknowledged otherwise.
Dodd’s House Cushioned In The Rothschild’s U.K.
Following the triggering of Dodd-Frank’s Title II
authorities, and the FDIC taking receivership at the top tier parent
holding company of a GSIFI, assets will be transferred to recapitalize
the parent company, in its original and other incarnations, and written
down.
To capitalize the new operations–one or more new private entities–the
FDIC expects that it will have to look to subordinated debt or even
senior unsecured debt claims as the immediate source of capital. The
original debt holders can thus expect that their claims will be written
down to reflect any losses in the receivership of the parent that the
shareholders cannot cover…
PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER,
PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER,
PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER,
PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER,
PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER,
PAPER,
Obama’s Web Of Debt: Its The PAPER Derivatives Stupid.
- This is not simply a hair-cut to bond holders, creditors, and
others, but a guarantee that those who are invested in the institution,
with money in the depository branch of the institution (understood as
depositors), will be made responsible for the continued operation of the
institution.
- Depositors as well as creditors become financially responsible for
keeping the institution open and operating, instead of being allowed to
go bankrupt, as would be the case for a non-GSIFI.
- The depository and investment branches are, in this way, called upon equally to bail-in.
Economist, Nouriel Roubini writes in an online briefing, Bank Resolution Regimes:
- Under the existing legislation, the FDIC has the power to impose
losses on unsecured creditors in the process of resolving failing banks.
- For example, the FDIC resolved Washington Mutual under the
least-cost resolution method in 2008 and imposed serious losses on the
unsecured creditors and uninsured depositors (deposit amount above USD
100,000).
- The Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA) established under the Dodd-Frank Act further expands the resolution authority of FDIC.
- Subject to certain conditions, the FDIC now also has the powers to
cherry-pick which assets and liabilities to transfer to a third party
and treating similarly situated creditors differently, eg: favoring
short-term creditors over long-term creditors or favoring operating
creditors over lenders or bondholders.16
BOE ~ Rothschild’s Bank Of England.
INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK IN PLACE:
They key issue taken up by Dodd-Frank in its drafting and passage was
cross-border
resolution
of the so-called global systemically important financial institutions
also called GSIBs, or global systemically important banks in other
locations.
- This obviously necessitates cooperation with other nations.
- Provisions of Dodd-Frank explicitly
authorize this coordination with foreign authorities to take action to
resolve those institutions whose collapse threatens financial stability.
- As is stated in Title II, Sec. 210, N, the FDIC, acting as the
receiver for such a financial institution in distress, “shall
coordinate, to the maximum extent possible, with the appropriate foreign
financial authorities regarding the orderly liquidation of any covered
financial company that has assets or operations in a country other than
the United States.”
- RollingStone The Fed’s aka; Rothschild’s Magic Money-Printing Machine: Usurping U.S. Gold Backed Currency!
- Chairman of the FDIC, Martin Gruenberg, elaborated on the cross-border strategies codified under Dodd-Frank in a June 9, 2012 speech in Chicago.
- He stated that since the passage of Dodd-Frank, the FDIC has taken
action to carry out its new resolution authorities, including
increasingly coordinating cross-border resolution with foreign
regulators, in particular the United Kingdom, where “the operations of U.S. SIFIs are concentrated.”
- As I mentioned earlier, the type of firm we would need to resolve will likely have significant international operations.
- This creates a number of challenges…
- The FDIC has participated in the work of the Financial Stability
Board through its membership on the Resolution Steering Group, which
produced the Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for
Financial Institutions.
The Indebting Of The World Through Basel 2007
- We have also participated in the Cross-border Crisis Management Group and a number of technical working groups, and have co-chaired the Basel Committee’s Cross-border Bank Resolution Group since its inception in 2007. …
BIS Basel Bank In Switzerland
These
5 crooks are the ones most responsible for the financial corruption
presently in motion. These 5 crooks undermined The Glass Steagall Act
which protected Americans from Bank exploitation thru derivative fraud.
Later in 1999 they got Bill Clinton to sign the repeal of The Glass
Steagall Act.
The Elites Responsible For Orchestrating The Destruction Of The Glass Steagall Act Of 1933:
- Goldman Sachs:
- Alan Greenspan
- Rothschild Federal Reserve:
- Alan Greenspan
- Larry Summers
- Citibank:
- Sandy Weill
- John Reed
- Robert Rubin
- Traveller’s Insurance:
This sea change in regulation was
orchestrated by Sanford Weill and assisted by Robert Rubin, who became
the second in command at Citibank after his stint at The U.S.Treasury.
Rubin, was Clinton’s Secretary of Treasury and was
instrumental in getting The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed. Larry
Summers, was then his current Secretary Of Treasury who is now one of
Obama’s economic “advisors”. What goes around comes around, they are all
culpable.
“Commercial banks are not supposed to be high-risk
ventures; they are supposed to manage other people’s money very
conservatively,” writes Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
“It is with this understanding that the government agrees to pick up the
tab should they fail. Investment banks, on the other hand, have
traditionally managed rich people’s money — people who can take bigger
risks in order to get bigger returns. When repeal of Glass-Steagall
brought investment and commercial banks together, the investment-bank
culture came out on top.
Common Dreams
The Stooges That Wrote The Gramm-Leach-Bliley ‘Bill’
aka; Financial Services Modernization Act that is presently destroying
the World.
Wall Street Bankers & Insurance Companies Got Stooges To Write A Bill To Repeal The Glass Steagall And Thus Loot The U.S. Citizens Depository Earnings Into Speculative High Risk Investments Were:
No need to study the Senate Or House Records to see if it
was Democrat Or Republican as Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed with
bi-partisan support. Those who clandestinely supported the bankers, and
knew the *bill* would pass like Charles Schumer, would vote against the
*bill* to maintain a “for the people image” for re-election.
- We conducted a heat-map exercise that determined that the operations
of U.S. SIFIs are concentrated in a relatively small number of
jurisdictions, particularly the United Kingdom (U.K.).
- Working with the authorities in the U.K., we have made substantial
progress in understanding how possible U.S. resolution structures might
be treated under existing U.K. legal and policy frameworks.
- We’ve examined potential impediments to efficient resolutions in
depth, and are on a cooperative basis in the process exploring methods
of resolving them.17
- It is accurate to say that the first
incarnation of a serious cross-border resolution regime was established
at the April 2009 G20 summit in London, the first summit attended by
the newly elected President Barack Obama.
- At that time, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) emerged as an
entity “with a broadened mandate to promote financial stability.”
- The board currently consists of all G20 member nations’ central
financial institutions, a handful of other nations, international
organizations, and international financial standard-setting bodies.18
- In October of 2011, the Financial Stability Board published a
document reflecting the agreement among the participating bodies of the
FSB to conduct cross-border resolutions of financial institutions.
That document features extensive discussion of the establishment of cross-border resolution authorities within the law of each participating nation.
Building The Rothschild Matrix
At the outset of the report it is recommended:
- In order to facilitate the coordinated resolution of firms active in multiple countries, jurisdictions should
seek convergence of their resolution regimes through the legislative
changes needed to incorporate the tools and powers set out in these Key
Attributes into their national regimes.
- The report goes on to enumerate the requirements of a domestic,
legal and active authority to resolve “any financial institution that
could be systemically significant if it fails.”
- Given the similarity of the language of Dodd-Frank and the FSB
report, it would be a worthwhile venture to analyze whether it is the
case that all of the requirements in the FSB report are also contained
explicitly in the 2010 U.S. legislation.
- What is most significant in the FSB Key Attributes is the strict emphasis on coordinating the bail-in regimes above and beyond national borders.
- The report reflects a sincere dedication to establish active authorities in each jurisdiction where a parent holding company or its subsidiaries are located.
The following is quoted from Section 7. Legal framework conditions for cross-border cooperation:
7.1 The statutory mandate of a resolution authority should empower
and strongly encourage the authority wherever possible to act to achieve
a cooperative solution with
foreign resolution authorities.
7.2 Legislation and regulations in jurisdictions should not contain
provisions that trigger automatic action in that jurisdiction as a
result of official intervention or the initiation of resolution or
insolvency proceedings in another jurisdiction, while reserving the
right of discretionary national action if necessary to achieve domestic
stability in the
absence of effective international cooperation and information sharing.
Where a
resolution authority takes discretionary national action it should consider the impact on financial stability in
other jurisdictions.
Christopher
Dodd & Barney Frank’s bill BLOCKED The Glass Steagall Act that
would protect American retirement & banking accounts.
7.3 The resolution authority should have resolution powers over local
branches of foreign firms and the capacity to use its powers either to
support a resolution carried out by a foreign home authority (for
example, by ordering a transfer of property located in its jurisdiction
to a bridge institution established by the foreign home authority) or,
in exceptional cases, to take measures on its own initiative where the
home jurisdiction is not taking action or acts in a manner that does not
take sufficient account of the need to preserve the local
jurisdiction’s financial stability.
Where
a resolution authority acting as host authority takes discretionary
national action, it should give prior notification and consult the
foreign home authority.
Christopher Dodd
As stated in 7.3, it is entirely conceivable for resolution to be
triggered by the bank holding company of a foreign nation, necessitating
the steps of resolution, including
bail-in, to be enacted within a host nation of that bank.
In the case of the United States, for example, if resolution were to
be triggered by a large British bank, such as HSBC, Barclays, or a
European bank, such as Deutsche Bank, UBS, etc., the United States
would be obligated, based on the FSB agreements, to take part in resolution.
19
Under the provisions of Dodd-Frank, the resolution authorities are already established in law, in fact.
Such a coordinated regime was agreed to by the Heads of State and
Government of the Group of Twenty in establishing the Charter of the
Financial Stability Board in April 2009, reflecting the interests of
that body:
“to coordinate at the international
level the work of national financial authorities and international
standard setting bodies (SSBs) in order to develop and promote the
implementation of effective regulatory, supervisory and other financial
sector policies.”20
FIRST IN LINE:
- There have been numerous documents written comparing Dodd-Frank’s
orderly liquidation authority to regular bankruptcy under U.S. law. What
is most notable in the comparisons is who gets priority during resolution, and on what basis that is determined.
- The Cornell University Legal Information Institute, writes that
Title II is aimed at “ensuring that payout to claimants is at least as
much as the claimants would have received under bankruptcy liquidation.”
- Impartial as it may seem, the problem that arises from that statement is that
liquidation during resolution is done at the discretion of the
receiver, the FDIC, on the basis of salvaging what is, in its view, most important for financial stability.
Under Title II, Sec. 9 E, it is stated that the FDIC:
“shall, to the greatest extent practicable, conduct its operations in a manner that –
…(iii) mitigates the potential for serious adverse effects —-
—to the financial system.”
The current financial
system, GSIFIs most
emphatically, are highly leveraged, hugely undercapitalized, and rely on
classes of assets in the form of securities contracts, collateralized
debt obligations, derivatives, and other debt instruments, to maintain
the appearance of solvency.
PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER,
PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER,
PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER,
PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER,
PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER, PAPER,
PAPER,
Obama’s Web Of Debt: Its The PAPER Derivatives Stupid.
Uncertainty in the value of a category of such assets triggered by
any outstanding event, for example, the announcement of bank resolution,
would create an across-the-board devaluation among all holders of those
assets, thereby guaranteeing “adverse effects to the financial system.”
Creating these effects would constitute “disorderly liquidation.” Preventing these effects constitutes “orderly liquidation.”
As stated in the IMF report, From
Bailout to Bail-In, disorderly liquidation can create risks to overall financial stability:
i. through direct counterparty risks when the failing institution fails to meet its financial obligations
ii. through liquidity risks and fire-sale effects in asset markets, when
the distressed institution is forced into asset sales to obtain
liquidity which further depresses asset prices (and thus raises demand
for higher “margin”)
iii. through contagion risks when the panic caused by the failure of one institution spreads to other financial institutions.
21
IOWs, They want Rothschild Banking To
Control All Wealth Going Up Or Down Without Any Risk As They Now Portray
The World As Theirs To Define.
Again, if these three risks are to be avoided effectively, the assets
of the institution, regardless of their legitimacy or actual market
value, would have to be
bailed-in.
Their values would have to be preserved, presumably within the bridge
financial company, to ensure that similar assets held by other
institutions do not suffer the “contagion effect” seen in the Lehman
Brothers crash of 2008 and its aftermath.
Moreover, under the Bankruptcy Reform laws of 2005, securitized
derivatives counterparties are
given priority status in the event of bankruptcy.
22
Winner Takes All: The Super-priority Status of Derivatives
- This is highly consequential for GSIFIs, as it is the case that the
majority of the world’s derivatives are concentrated in those
institutions.
- By popularly quoted estimates, as of 2010 the total world derivatives had a notional value of $1.2 quadrillion, approximately 20 times the world GDP.
- Because of the opacity of the derivatives market, the exact numbers are virtually impossible to produce.
- However, the Bank for International Settlements quoted global OTC
derivatives–derivatives that have a paper-trail–at $632 trillion as of
December 2012.23
- If it is the case, as indicated by the Legal Information Institute
that payouts to claimants would be equivalent to what they would receive
under liquidation in bankruptcy, despite the priority of payments listed in Dodd-Frank,24 –> securitized derivatives
counterparties would be first to recoup their money followed by those
asset holders whose claims, if exposed to be valueless, would create a
disorderly, chain-reaction collapse.
REASSERTING U.S. LAW:
The case has been made and put on the record using facts that
virtually every member of government did not find pressing or compelling
enough to take into consideration in the course of making national law.
What has been presented is now available to American lawmakers and
members of governments internationally.
This report itself, in the days
following its publication, is being distributed to the same, and is
widely available to the public at large.
The point that has been made implicitly throughout this documentation must be made explicit at this time.
The consequences of enforcing the provisions of Dodd-Frank, or the
agreements under the Charter of the Financial Stability Board as
discussed above, amount to a violation of the spirit and the law of the
United States of America.
The preceding provisions of law and international agreements have
been made in such a way that places the interests of “financial
stability” above the interests of the people of the United States and
their Government.
The very definition of what is meant by financial stability has been
codified by those whose present and future positions of power and
authority depend upon that definition.
Moreover, what is established through this legislation will result in
the mass destruction of the citizens of the United States through
economic deprivation, through the collection and extraction of funds
done in such a way as to leave the targeted subjects of the law
desperate to the point of extermination.
Within the texts cited above, there appears to be no evidence suggesting the contrary to be true.
The establishment of the United States of America, as a free and sovereign nation, was premised upon a foundation of law.
What underlies the founding laws of the nation is the issue of Right.
The right of the nation to govern itself and to govern in a way that
upholds the right of each citizen to his or her life, that most
fundamental value in law.
Enacting the resolution authority (OLA) at the holding company level
of a GSIFI in the event of a crisis, as it is written and intended in
Dodd-Frank, will deprive the citizens of the United States of those
rights guaranteed to them under national law, most emphatically, their
right to life.
They will be deprived of their right to petition their government,
they will be deprived materially, and as a result, it is a certainty
that many will be deprived of their lives–whether by violence, poverty,
starvation, extreme want, or suicide.
However, after expropriating the material wealth of the nation, the aforementioned international syndicate will have financial stability.
Rothschild Banking Mafia Developed Keynesian Economics To Swindle!
![THIS IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE RIGHT NOW! NIXON ILLEGALLY DROPPED OUR GOLD BACKING FOR ROTHSCHILD TO PILFER THE U.S. WITH PAPER. NOW THAT THE U.S. IS SMOTHERED WITH FORCED PAPER [ARTIFICIAL] DEBT ~ ROTHSCHILD HAS BEEN [MERGING] THE GOLD FROM LIBYA TO HIS VAULTS. ONE OF ROTHSCHILD'S VAULTS IS NOW BAGHDAD. THIS IS WHY ROTHSCHILD'S COMEX HAS ALSO BEEN ARTIFICIALLY DUMPING THE GOLD/SILVER CHARTS -> TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF THE GOLD/SILVER MARKET -> JUST REMEMBER SILVER IS 5Xs MORE SCARCE THAN GOLD AND INDUSTRY USES SILVER FAR MORE SO THAN GOLD. JUST WAIT UNTIL THE BOTTOM IS HIT ON THIS ONE ~ THE PRECIOUS METALS MARKET WILL SKY ROCKET INTO INFINITY AND THOSE MESMERIZED BY FOOTBALL GAMES AND PARIS HILTON WILL BE EATING CAT FOOD IN THE ALLEYS I AM VERY SORRY TO SAY THIS IS THE ELITIST GAME AND THATS HOW THESE SOCIOPATHS THINK AND THIS IS ALSO HOW WE AMERICANS GAVE UP ON OUT THINKING THESE VIGILANT PARASITES. ~ Click To Enlarge ~](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sjJb1PtKPbsNanRTpNkCaf_xLa9DmiucgpBcchARUtVsOg90M_UEuSUorZlv3-hnrho0ygbV9r7cPviWotu2q5v7CxSi3h3BN1Ralo5uvEG4kGWdM8YRDNDY1u7g6vuypoki2w40Mfp955=s0-d)
THIS
IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE RIGHT NOW! NIXON ILLEGALLY DROPPED OUR
GOLD BACKING FOR ROTHSCHILD TO PILFER THE U.S.
WITH PAPER.
~ Click To Enlarge ~
NOW THAT THE U.S. IS SMOTHERED WITH FORCED PAPER [ARTIFICIAL] DEBT ~
ROTHSCHILD HAS BEEN [MERGING] THE GOLD FROM LIBYA TO HIS VAULTS.
ONE OF ROTHSCHILD’S VAULTS IS NOW BAGHDAD.
THIS IS WHY ROTHSCHILD’S COMEX HAS ALSO BEEN ARTIFICIALLY DUMPING THE GOLD/SILVER CHARTS ->
TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF THE GOLD/SILVER MARKET
JUST REMEMBER SILVER IS 5Xs MORE SCARCE THAN GOLD AND INDUSTRY USES SILVER FAR MORE SO THAN GOLD.
JUST WAIT UNTIL THE BOTTOM IS HIT ON THIS ONE ~ THE PRECIOUS METALS
MARKET WILL SKY ROCKET INTO INFINITY AND THOSE MESMERIZED BY FOOTBALL
GAMES AND PARIS HILTON WILL BE EATING CAT FOOD IN THE ALLEYS.
I AM VERY SORRY TO SAY THIS BUT IT IS TRUE -> THIS IS THE ELITIST GAME AND THATS HOW THESE SOCIOPATHS THINK & ACT!
THIS IS ALSO HOW WE AMERICANS GAVE UP ON THINKING AND THIS IS THE M.O. OF THESE VIGILANT PARASITES.
~ ITS ALL A GAME TO THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE BOUGHT THE PICK & CHOOSE ESTABLISHED LAW FOR THEMSELVES ~
~ BUT IT IS LIFE & DEATH TO US! ~
![THIS IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE RIGHT NOW! NIXON ILLEGALLY DROPPED OUR GOLD BACKING FOR ROTHSCHILD TO PILFER THE U.S. WITH PAPER. NOW THAT THE U.S. IS SMOTHERED WITH FORCED PAPER [ARTIFICIAL] DEBT ~ ROTHSCHILD HAS BEEN [MERGING] THE GOLD FROM LIBYA TO HIS VAULTS. ONE OF ROTHSCHILD'S VAULTS IS NOW BAGHDAD. THIS IS WHY ROTHSCHILD'S COMEX HAS ALSO BEEN ARTIFICIALLY DUMPING THE GOLD/SILVER CHARTS -> TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF THE GOLD/SILVER MARKET -> JUST REMEMBER SILVER IS 5Xs MORE SCARCE THAN GOLD AND INDUSTRY USES SILVER FAR MORE SO THAN GOLD. JUST WAIT UNTIL THE BOTTOM IS HIT ON THIS ONE ~ THE PRECIOUS METALS MARKET WILL SKY ROCKET INTO INFINITY AND THOSE MESMERIZED BY FOOTBALL GAMES AND PARIS HILTON WILL BE EATING CAT FOOD IN THE ALLEYS I AM VERY SORRY TO SAY THIS IS THE ELITIST GAME AND THATS HOW THESE SOCIOPATHS THINK AND THIS IS ALSO HOW WE AMERICANS GAVE UP ON OUT THINKING THESE VIGILANT PARASITES. ~ Click To Enlarge ~](http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/bank-oligarchy-green.jpg)
