HOW BANKERS CAUSED THE CREDIT CRUNCH AND HOW THEY CAN BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE
There has been much media coverage showing public anger, demonstrations and condemnation against the hypocrisy and outrageous behaviour of bankers who caused the banking crisis. But nothing has been done to have these bankers, who are autocratic financial terrorists, brought to justice.

The only way to have fair distribution of our nation’s wealth is to have: the bankers who caused the banking crisis brought to justice; proper banking regulation; separation of investment banking from all other banking institutions including mortgage banking; independence of the judiciary restored; control and ownership of the media to be kept independent of, private vested interests and multi-national conglomerates; a crack down on the behaviour of bankers, politicians; and on bankers excessive salaries and bonuses; cash for honours; evasion and avoidance of corporation tax. Any breach of which to be backed up by deterrents of heavy fines and jail sentences.

TO HAVE ALL THOSE INVOLVED BROUGHT TO JUSTICE REQUIRES AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORY OF THE BANKING SYSTEM, LEGISLATION AND HOW THEY CIRCUMVENTED REGULATION AND THE LAW BY CHANGING THE BANKING SYSTEM INTER ALIA.

Homeowners not to blame for accepting cheap Loans to Value Mortgages (LTV) up to 125%.

The credit crunch exposed the driving force behind Gordon Brown’s booming economy, i.e. mortgages up to 125% created a booming property market.

Britain has always been a homeowner-based economy, not like the economies of France and Germany, where the majority of people live in rented accommodation. Homeownership made Britain one of the wealthiest and stable economies in the world.
Homeownership has always been the foundation of the British economy and credit ratings upon which stability and confidence depends.

Property, since the days of Caesar, has always increased in value, any decrease in property prices is only temporary.

Scarcity of building land, difficulty in getting planning permission and the time it takes to build substantial property using bricks and mortar and with every increasing energy costs, material and labour costs, it all adds up to a very valuable asset that increases in value. Programs on how to improve one’s property, how to make a profit by increase its value for sale started to appear on television. With the availability of so much cheap Loan To Value (LTV) mortgages, why look the gift horse in the mouth, the majority of people want to get on the property ladder. Owning your home gives a sense of security, it gave many people confidence to borrow to improve their property and to keep it regularly maintained. It gave the homeowner a sense of, worth, self-esteem and pride in their achievement. These attributes and property that is well maintained, is the ingredients that gave confidence to the Banks to lend to their mortgagor-customers and to each other, the result of all this – a healthy property market, a thriving building industry, DIY, building suppliers industry and many small business - providing good housing stock and a booming economy. AVAILABILITY OF MORTGAGES UP TO 125% MADE ALL THIS POSSIBLE.

LENDING 125% TO CREATE THESE GUILT-EDGED PROPERTY ASSETS WAS NOT RECKLESS LENDING AND WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE CREDIT CRUNCH.
THE MAJORITY OF HOMEOWNERS HAD TOO MUCH TO LOSE TO BE RECKLESS.

So what went wrong?
BANKERS KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING - THEY MOST CERTAINLY WERE NO NOVICES.
The reader should keep in mind the distinction between a bank, a banker and a financial institution.
After the Wall Street crash in the nineteen twenties, in order to prevent investment bankers from using other peoples assets, in particular mortgages, to raise collateral with which to gamble on Wall Street financial market, Glass Steagall, had the common sense to introduce a fire wall, legislation which kept mortgage banking separated from investment banking better known as Casino Banking. The Glass Steagall Act was necessary to protect mortgages from criminal abuse and abuse of process.
Bankers most certainly knew the enormous value of your mortgage, backed by the secure asset of your home, and that mortgage-securities would be the driving force behind a powerful booming economy. The Bankers knew how the Johnston administration used US Government-Sponsored-Enterprises (GSEs), which were securities backed by mortgages, to raise enormous amounts of collateral to fund the Vietnam War. Bankers knew they would make a fortune, if they could trade mortgage-backed-securities on the US financial markets in the same way as (GSEs). Bankers knew mortgages couldn’t be traded unless they were taken out from under their protective regulation. So how did they get their hands on them?
Well, first, they dreamed up ingenious instruments called: a Collateral Loan Obligation (CLO), Credit Default Swap (CDS) and similar stealth products. Second, in order for their scam to work one must know, how to get rid of strict banking regulation. It required deregulation of the financial system, deregulation of mortgages and repeal of the Glass Steagall Act.
Whilst in possession of “Constructive Notice and Constructive Trust”, and with intention to defeat the Act, they repealed the Act and had President Clinton sign it off.
They repackaged mortgages in the form of (CLO’s), (CDS’s), using (Derivative Contracts Synthetic Maxine CLO Squared’s) and similar products, with which to gamble in volatile markets on US Wall Street. In short, a form of gambling using repackaged mortgages, in a global pyramid selling scam.
Here is how it worked: Financers would first set up a separate company, and borrow say, $900,000,000, typically from insurance companies and pension funds on which they paid low interest, next they added $100,000,000 of their own money, that’s a billion in total. With that billion, they bought mortgages from say a bank in Cleveland. The mortgages brought in an income of $80,000,000, that amount was more than the sum they were paying in interest, say $54,000,000. So their profit was $26,000,000 when they had only put up $100,000,000 of their own money up front. That’s like earning 26% interest on your savings account. And if it looks too good to be true – that’s because it is – But Bankers thought it a stroke of financial genius. Things like CLO’s had one major advantage, they were traded through institutions, but an institution is not a bank and therefore operated outside strict bank regulation.
No business could withstand parasites siphoning off 26%.
DEREGULATION OF MORTGAGES IN BRITAIN

When bankers in Britain saw the enormous amounts of money being made by bankers in America, they too wanted to get in on the act. This required getting rid of strict banking regulation by changing the banking system. The only one who could make that happen was, none other but, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown.
Up until 1997, the Bank of England controlled the financial system. Mortgages were protected from such abuse, under existing safeguards of regulations and the law, mortgages, in particular, were sacrosanct. Mortgages were only to be used for the purchase of property, loans for all other domestic purposes had to be through a bank loan or hire purchase, which were short term and had a higher rate of interest.
Lending banks and building societies were strictly regulated in order to protect homeowners, the security of their asset and its valuation upon which mortgage deeds depend. Lending for consumer spending on domestic and luxury goods was kept separate.
However, in 1997, Gordon Brown, Chancellor, decided that he didn’t like that anymore. So he introduced a system were we had, the Financial Services Authority, the Treasury, and the Bank of England, (the Tripartite Authorities) carving up the job amongst them. Just one big problem – when there was a crisis, ‘apparently’ nobody knew who was in control. The effect of all this - the Chancellor at the helm, in effect, handed over his possession, power and control of Britain’s economy to unscrupulous foreign bankers over which he had no jurisdiction or authority – the system ‘unregulated’.
One should keep in mind - Whose idea was it to change the banking system? Was it Gordon Brown’s? Was it the Bankers’? Or was it both?
By changing the banking system, bankers in Britain were able to raise collateral by repackaging mortgages in the form of (CLO’s) and other similar stealth products. These products were traded through institutions, but an institution is not a bank and therefore operated outside strict bank regulations. ‘This was the key to the unscrupulous bankers making a fortune’. British Bankers piled into the US subprime property market. In Britain they started lending (LTV) mortgages up to 125% on anticipation of the property asset increasing in value, the result was a booming economy.
In effect they were gambling with other people’s homes and assets in volatile markets on US Wall Street.

WHILE THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING, UNSCRUPULOUS BANKERS GOT GREEDY
To raise even more collateral to fund their greed, they borrowed funds that were short term and loaned this money on long-term mortgages which they packaged up and sold on. The more of this stuff they sold the bigger their bonuses. In the case of Northern Rock Bank this greed became unsustainable.
The credit crunch in Britain was caused by unscrupulous greedy bankers and Gordon Brown’s unregulated Laissez faire policy which left the vault door wide open for bankers to have a field day. Whilst homeowners were sleeping in their beds, bankers were undermining the financial foundations of their property asset by taking mortgages out from under strict banking regulation.
The property assets backing CLO’s were so valuable, that other loan sharks wanted to get in on the act - adverts started to appear on national television encouraging homeowners to free up equity from their home and to - Spend! Spend! Spend! Banks were handing out credit cards to people who had no assets, many of whom were in temporary employment - shopping on the high street was a wash with cash. The economy was booming, it was over heating - But what if Gordon Brown, decided to get in on the act and extend the 40% Tax on newly built homes to include second-hand property, this on top of stamp duty?
The Bankers employers, “the Banks”, could see that with increasing inflation and if other sharks were to siphon off equity from their customers mortgage-backed-securities, they would become toxic, under mining the value of the assets, against which they had loaned. Banks wanted their money back. The only way to rein in mortgages was to either take control of homeowner spending by increasing mortgage interest rates or by repossession. Banks started to ‘induce’ a credit squeeze, which had that effect. Homeowners, to pay their mortgage, cut back on spending, amongst other things they hadn’t the income to maintain their property.
When property is not protected from the elements, it becomes shabby, more likely to be vandalized. If not properly maintained it quickly deteriorates devaluing other properties in the area and so this disease spreads until the whole area is affected. This happened in Cleveland in the US. American homes, many are timber, when not properly maintained the property asset became toxic.
SPIN

Prior to 1997 British Banks and their customers were protected by long established fundamental law of strict banking regulation, designed in anticipation to prevent and protected customers from scams of unscrupulous investment casino bankers, from corruption such as we have seen and from any foreseen or unforeseen abuse. However, Gordon Brown, after, deregulating banking, by changing the banking system and when the property bubble finally burst, sending Britain’s economy into recession and having to bail out Banks to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds, Gordon Brown distanced himself from any involvement.
He then started to say that the recession in Britain was caused by the subprime market in America and by the Global downturn – But he didn’t happen to admit that had he not deregulated our banking system, shameless unscrupulous bankers would not have been able to sell off mortgage-securities in the form of (CLO’s) and other similar stealth products.
Unknown to homeowners, it was his decision that enabled unscrupulous bankers to use mortgages backed by the assets of their homes, for which he had no authority from homeowners or in principal and law, to gamble with their home asset on Wall Street to raise collateral in the Global volatile money markets putting their homes and the economy at risk.

When it all went belly-up and there was a run on the banks, they had insufficient funds to pay out. The only way for banks to increase their capital was to raise interest rates and stop lending. This induced mortgage defaults, resulting in falling house prices, negative equity and repossessions, inter alia.

Politicians and the media who live in the pockets of the Bankers and large corporations would have us believe that the risks taken by bankers was all a big mistake, their excuse is that it was all caused by the downturn in the global economy, yet it is the banker’s who control the global economy. But let’s get it clear. Bankers invented (CLO’s), (CDS’s) and all the instruments they use. They claim to know how the global financial system operates and demand outrageous high salaries and bonuses to justify their expertise in risk taking. But yet they took no risk, it was not their money that was at risk, it was the Taxpayers and Homeowners who have been forced to pick up the tab.

It is no surprise that Gordon Brown refused to have a judicial review as he was the architect who made the scam possible and during his term in office he took away the independence of the judiciary, is it no surprise that no one was ever prosecuted?

DON’T BE FOOLED BY STATEMENTS THAT A FEW BANKERS MADE MISTAKES

Don’t be fooled by statements that the credit crunch was caused by a few bankers made mistakes or that it was caused by the global economy. The bankers dreamed up CLO’s and created similar products. They knew exactly what they were doing and knew how to use them to make themselves a fortune at no risk to themselves. They most certainly were no Novices. The trick in pulling off such a scam is not to get caught. However, all those involved think that they have gotten away with their scam. When cracks appeared the back stabbing produced evidence. Just one thing the unscrupulous bankers and others involved failed to contemplate, the long established principle and fundamental basis of law and equity - the maxim - “When all else fails to bring about a conviction, a Constructive Notice and Constructive Trust will do the trick”.
NO LEGAL AUTHORITY

When Gordon Brown, became Prime Minister and Alastair Darling, Chancellor of the Exchequer, they knew that the existing strict banking regulation, legislated prior to 1997, was long established, sufficient to protect and prevent such abuse and that it was still on the statute book. The problem was that it was a barrier to Gordon’s Laissez faire policy, and to repeal it would require an act of parliament which would draw attention to why he was disposing of long established safe guards of strict banking regulation. He knew that parliament and the public would not agree to such a reckless proposal. But in order for his policy to work, he instead decided to circumvent existing legislation and strict banking regulation by change the banking system.
During his 11 year term in office, Gordon’s unregulated Laissez faire policy, left the vault door wide open for unscrupulous bankers to have a field day. When faced with the banking crisis, Gordon and Alastair, rushed emergency legislation through parliament, which, by their own admission, was covert. Their excuse for introducing their legislation was - that they didn’t have sufficient power to prevent the crisis and a run on the banks. Their statement showed that they were in desperation to keep covert the full extent of debt banks had racked up and how ubiquitous it was through out the banking system.
Their dilemma was - that the existing pre-1997 legislation was still on the statute book and had they used it during their term in office, unscrupulous bankers would not have been able to implement their scam. In order to evade being charged with negligence, inter alia, they introduced their emergency covert legislation to circumvent the existing legislation. Once they got away with that and because the law cannot act retrospectively, this is the main loophole that enabled the bankers and their politician accomplice’ to evade prosecution. This is why Sir Fred 'the Shred' Goodwin, the former chief executive of RBS, his former chairman Sir Tom McKillop, and Andy Hornby and Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, respectively the former CEO and chairman of HBOS - the four men who led two of Britain's biggest banks to the brink of collapse – when they appeared before the treasury committee (a panel of MPs investigating the origins of the banking crisis) and the nation – knew perfectly well that they would not face prosecution for saying sorry, as the law cannot and will not act retrospectively. During cross examination their contempt was that of a schadenfreude grinning from ear to ear in delight. The more they tried to defend their behavior - the more they made themselves out to be guilty. But in principle and in law, the rule of law shall not be defeated and no man or Government is above the law.
Gordon Brown may have been the Prime Minister, and Alastair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but no matter how desirable Brown and Darling’s legislation to nationalize Northern Rock may have been, they set a dangerous precedent, which is in fact, ‘unlawful’. They had no mandate, no authority from homeowners and taxpayers, and there is no authority or legal authority by which they, or any Government, have power to usurp taxpayers’ money to bail out any bank, which, by the way, are private businesses, at the expense of homeowners and the taxpayer.
In principle and in law, to initiate such covert legislation is an attempt to oust the authority of the homeowner, the taxpayer, the law and independence of the judiciary, inter alia. When a Government resorts to such practice or refuses to have a judicial review and has done nothing to have the perpetrators brought to justice, the government and its justice department have failed to exercise the checks and balances of democracy and failed in their duty of care, inter alia.

Document Legislate for US Treasury Authority, to purchase Mortgage related assets.
This document which borrows seven hundred billion dollars and more from the American Taxpayer is, in principle and in law, highly illegal inter alia where it waivers all laws, and in particular, under Sec. 8. Review.: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable discretion, may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administration.”
This legislation violates the checks and balances of all democracy, the principles of law, glass steagall and constitution of the founding fathers. Wilfully calculated with intention to defeat, it suppresses any opposing legislation, the rule of law, it even has the audacity to gag any other administration and to usurp the power of the judiciary, inter alia. It is the ultimate flagrant abuse of power and process that acts in a wednesbury and unreasonable way.
This legislation if allowed to continue to stand it will have set a dangerous precedent the effect of which is just the beginning of a process to further erode long established principles and basis of fundamental law and human rights. It has had a devastating effect on the US and British economy. Many believe, as there has been so much corruption and power wilfully calculated to suppress the true extent of the deficit and debt, that not even Almighty God could ever prove whether the hundreds of billions of Dollars and Pounds to bail out the banks will ever be paid back to the taxpayer and if they produced evidence to show it has been paid, who would believe such evidence?
The vast majority of the population in the USA and in the UK are extremely angry with the hypocrisy of these autocratic bankers, politicians and the austerity they have caused. Many members of the legal profession in the US and in the UK have been critical of the unfettered behaviour of the US administration, which they believe is a branch of Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan. Many lawyers are now calling for the judiciary to exercise its independent authority in this matter to restore the checks and balances of democracy.
This legislation has no validity in principle and in law, it is ultra vires and without jurisdiction, inter alia. I like many others do not give recognition to such legislation and therefore see it as an attempt to oust the independence of the judiciary making it subordinate to the demands of an unscrupulous autocratic regime.
There is no authority by which any Government, President or Prime Minister, can delegate such unfettered power to make such legislation. No matter how desirable an Act of legislation may be, it is, at all times, subordinate to the rule of law and law of equity. In principle and in law ‘All legislation’ must be reviewable and within a reasonable time limit, and it must make proper provision otherwise it is not worth the paper it is written on.
The authors of this legislation abused the rights circumscribed that were entrusted to them. If the rule of law is to prevail there must be an independent and proper judicial review. If the Judiciaries in the USA and UK fail to uphold their independence and to be seen with clean hands and not to find themselves a subject of the review, it would be advisable for the judiciary to initiate and exercise its power to have the perpetrators of this crime brought to justice. The concept is simple and straightforward: “If you break the law, you cannot make the law.”
PERPETRATORS TO BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE

"
In the matter of: oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by the servants of the government and oppressive action by private corporations or individuals.

Where one man is more powerful than another, it is inevitable that he will try to use his power to gain his ends; and if his power is much greater than the other's, he might, perhaps, be said to be using it oppressively. If he uses his power illegally, he must of course pay for his illegality in the ordinary way; but, he is not to be punished simply because he is the more powerful. In the case of the government it is different, for the servants of the government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service. It is true that there is something repugnant about a big man bullying a small man and, very likely, the bullying will be a source of humiliation that makes the case one for aggravated damages. Lord Devlin HOL.

In the case of private bankers it is also different, for they provide a service to the people entrusted with their money and assets, and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service.

However, The Law shall not be defeated: In principle and in law the Court has the power to impute an assumption of guilt until proved otherwise. For regulation to be proper and effective in principle and in law, it must, at all times, impute an assumption of guilt until proved otherwise, and therefore, the actions and behaviour of a banker rests upon him to prove that he is not guilty of any wrong doing.

It is both gross and obvious that the only way for the bankers scam to work and to succeed – it had to be wilfully calculated with the intention to defeat existing strict banking regulation and the law. There now is sufficient evidence to have the perpetrators of these crimes, both in the USA and UK, brought to justice on equitable grounds inter alia, and as a matter of public interest.

TAKE NOTICE that your committee has been given the chance to restore strict and proper regulation to prevent bankers from using the “retrospective loop-hole in the law” to evade prosecution. Failure to address this matter which is an abuse of process most foul, and in accordance with EU Articles, inter alia, would result in a further public inquiry being sought as to why this loop-hole has not been plugged inter alia. It is both gross and obvious that whilst there is no proper legislative-regulatory-deterrent - it will happen again resulting in a public out-cry of white-wash. It should never been allowed to happen in the first place, period.

I strongly advise you and all members of your committee, that they are in possession of the rights circumscribed and entrusted to them, and have the chance to put an end to such conduct once and for all time.