Why would a government chartered by the constitution to protect the people be so reluctant for a Royal Commission into Australian banking when overwhelming public evidence suggests a pungent smell of endemic criminal corruption is abundant, reflecting a vested political interest.
You may find the attached paper of interest.
We thank Betty Luks of Australian League of Rights for presenting this paper to sosnews for our readers to review. The International Review of Financial Analysis published by Elsevier Inc was invited to present a submission to the Iceland government in the aftermath of the banking collapses in 2008.
The big four taxpayer protected banks have developed their unchallenged rule book void of all serious accountability and shrouded in government protection that now rides on shaky ground.
There is escalating support in the upper house to investigate banks with extremely wide terms of reference reporting back to the parliament, not the Executive. This does not apply to a Royal Commission which is implemented by the Cabinet which can appoint allied commissioners and terms of reference, which is then reviewed from behind closed doors of the executive alleviating any input from the people’s parliament.
Harry Palmer, Editor
International Review of Financial Analysis Introduction
Thanks to the recent banking crises interest has grown in banks and how they operate.
In the past, the empirical and institutional market micro-structure of the operation of banks had not been a primary focus for investigations by researchers, which is why they are not well covered in the literature.
One neglected detail is the banks’ function as the creators and allocators of about 97% of the money supply (Werner, 1997, 2005), which has recently attracted attention (Bank of England, 2014a,b; Werner, 2014b,c).
It is the purpose of this paper International Review of Financial Analysis published by Elsevier Inc to investigate precisely how banks create money, and why or whether companies cannot do the same.
Since the implementation of banking operations takes place within a corporate accounting framework, this paper is based upon a comparative accounting analysis perspective. By breaking the accounting treatment of lending into two steps, the difference in the accounting operation by bank and non-bank corporations can be isolated.
As a result, it can be established precisely why banks are different and what it is that makes them different: They are exempted from the Client Money Rules and thus, unlike other firms, do not have to segregate client money. This enables banks to classify their accounts payable liabilities arising from bank loan contracts as a different type of liability called ‘customer deposits’.
The finding is important for many reasons, including for modelling the banking sector accurately in economic models, bank regulation and also for monetary reform proposals that aim at taking away the privilege of money creation from banks.
The paper thus adds to the growing literature on the institutional details and market micro-structure of our financial and monetary system, and in particular offers a new contribution to the literature on ‘what makes banks different’, from an accounting and regulatory perspective, solving the puzzle of why banks combine lending and deposit-taking operations under one roof.
Click on picture to download/read the document
David Walter appeared in the Cairns Magistrates Court on January 24 to appeal against his bankruptcy. The former police prosecutor has battled long and hard against what he says is a failed legal system spawned by an unlawful system of government, since at least 1973 or as he probably since 1966, the year decimal currency was introduced to Australia.
He was bankrupted by four shire councils as a non-party to actions taken by the councils against ratepayers for refusing to pay rates. In what was a first ever action of this nature, Walter experienced judicial and political corruption on a scale not seen in Queensland.
The letter to the Magistrates Court is largely self-explanatory. In a letter to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth he says the political parties have formed Parliaments of Australia, to create Corporations Registered in Washington DC, using a foreign currency and measurements in contradiction of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
That has left the assets of the people and our Common Law rights and the laws of God in the hands of private people inside the Preamble of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act to form Corporations across the Commonwealth of Australia, some 20 years ago.
As you are totally aware that was done by the Members of the Registered Political Parties inside the Legislative Assembly of the Constitution Act 1867 Qld.
David has lost his property, stolen by corrupt courts and even more corrupt solicitors and barristers. After the Culleton debacle and an unlawful property seizure west of Townsville last week, the people are finally waking up there is no Common Law and no legal redress for civil or criminal matters in Australia, only political party policies developed by members of registered political parties inside the Legislative Assembly of the Constitution Act 1867 Qld.
David Walter has urged readers to tell political party members that the system has failed miserably and should be rectified.
Rod has achieved more to restructure the illicit banking industry in his short tenure as a senator for Western Australia than most other politicians have in a lifetime. The banks have targeted him with the aid of the political parties and sections of the judiciary. The moves made by Rodney, such as getting the High Court of Australia to admit its rules were faulty by reinstating process under the Queen and the latest manoeuvre to summons Senate President Stephen Parry and Attorney General Brandis to the High Court will force it to determine if only the senate can remove one of its members, as stated in the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia.
Please dig deep to help Rodney, he is fighting for you, your family and your property. Rod described the banks yesterday as the “biggest asset strippers in our history.” Unfortunately making a deposit into a bank account is at present the only method of getting funds to help with court costs.
Maitland Lawyers Trust Account:
From the Cairns News team across Australia, thank you.
What’s the Price Of A Hooker?
Robert J Lee in Sydney
Prospective buyers of a 160 acre Atherton farm listed for auction on March 28, have been warned by a bank watch group that any sale would be “buyer beware”.
Sydney- based SafeBank spokesman Peter Adler said the Atherton case was one of the worst examples of financial fraud the group had seen.
“Our legal team has perused the file relating to the impending auction of the property and has found the forced sale to be unlawful, due in part to the financiers refusal to provide any substantiating documentation,” Mr Adler said.
“How a court has overlooked this basic accounting requirement is remarkable.”
A plight of human tragedy unfolds
When a dodgy real estate agent hops into bed with peccant financiers to scam farms from desperate landowners a legal remedy is expensive and if you reside in Queensland, impossible to achieve.
There is a woeful tale of illegal financial dealings, fraud, real estate malpractice and human tragedy reverberating around the Far Northern town of Atherton.
The main player is, not surprisingly, the Dalrymple electorate Chairman of the Liberal National Party and L.J Hooker franchisee Kevin (Rambo) Ramke, who has made it his life’s mission to undermine and asset-strip a Tablelands’ pioneering family.
L. J Hooker Atherton office
The saga began six years ago when Upper Barron dairy farmers Ron and Sue Ford sought alternative finance after the price of milk fell below sustainable levels and they were left high and dry by their trading bank.
Private financial company and payday lenders, G B Investments of Adelaide took up the Ford’s loan after the National Australia Bank refused to extend more credit on their dairy business.
Over a lifetime the Fords have accumulated a number of adjoining properties and other small farms left to Ron, 65, by his father, providing ample security for another loan until two smaller properties were sold.
Had these two separate blocks been sold the debt would have been paid.
In 2007 the rural property market on the Tablelands collapsed and their loan to property value ratio was significantly affected. The two properties failed to sell at auction, then Hookers best and not-so-brightest, Rambo, stepped into action, selling the remaining three properties for whatever price he could get. They eventually discovered one block was sold for $150,000 under market value.
The Fords maintain that they had never given Ramke a mandatory, signed ‘authority to sell’ agreement for a real estate agent, authorising him to market any property on their behalf.
The errant agent sold six of their properties, over the past five years, taking commission each time.
How he was able to sell them remains a quirk of the law. When Ramke first learnt the Fords were in trouble with their new lenders, he contacted the company without the Ford’s permission or knowledge, claiming he had a buyer for one of the properties. The properties failed to sell privately, according to the Fords because Ramke had no buyer. He then advertised them at auction, without the Ford’s authority.
Sue Ford said the first thing she knew about the impending auction sale was when she saw her property advertised in the local newspaper.
Initially G B Investments sought an order in the Cairns District Court to sell the main property to cover the alleged debt. An order was granted to sell the farm that had the dairy. It was subsequently sold and Mrs Ford maintains the sale should have covered the debt.
Here’s the crunch. Neither the Fords nor their lawyers have ever been presented with a statement of account from any property sale showing how much they actually owed or if in fact the alleged $1.8m debt had been discharged.
G B Investments has simply sold each property using the one and only order ever granted by a court for the initial sale. The Fords do not know how much the properties made at private sale or how much they allegedly owe the company.
They have never signed a contract of sale.
G B Investments had never been granted mortgagee in possession from any court to sell any property.
In spite of repeated requests to G B Investments from the Ford’s solicitors and from personal approaches, at no time have the desperate landowners been given a statement of account.
In February the Fords took their plight to the Supreme Court in Brisbane expecting justice for what legal opinion said was a strong case.
They had no chance in Queensland as many other bank litigants have discovered, especially when they have been allocated the allegedly arrogant and incompetent Judge Deborah Mullins.
She threw the case out, much to the chagrin and despair of the Fords. Their last vestige of self-esteem, independence and their home has been cast aside by a nefarious and notorious legal system where only banks can win.
Their legal fees topped $60,000.
The case preparation was meticulous. Mrs Ford had kept a copy of the scant paperwork relevant to the sales and all dealings with the company; the only missing piece of the jigsaw was a statement from the financiers showing how much was allegedly owed.
Their 160 acre retirement home and land that director John Barry told Mrs Ford would “never be sold” has been advertised for auction by Hookers on March 28.
Directors of G B Investments, Bob Holyoak, Albanian John Barry and similarly Kevin Ramke, have refused to answer emails from Cairns News requesting their comments.
Mrs Ford said the activities of GB Investments and L J Hooker would be tabled next week in Federal Parliament and then State Parliament in its first sittings.