THE Banks WILL CARSH and You MONEY Will BE TARPPED In THE BANK!

tarptard

I need a timeline here; 1 month? 1 year? At least give me a month, then I'll get my tax refund and will have it spent before 30 days are up.

You put my money to sleep, now I put your brain to sleep

It could be tomorrow! Don't be left behind!

:bankstadude:

if the banks crash, the money not in the bank is worth nothing anyway, so ummmmm. what are you saying exactly? you mean buy food and gold

no shit; why do you think they want this nk war so bad.

Indeed...the bankers need a war soon or the gig is up. Hope it doesn't happen though.

Gosh. You guys stagger from crisis to crisis. Last week it was Cyprus. This week NK. Next week, the price of canned corn.

Oh well, 10 out of 10 for being consistent.

What are we gonna do about this fucking tarp we're facing? godddamnit

all your bank are belong to us

Eating glue again?

You see, the ones who post this stuff are either children under 5, or they are adults with the mentality of under 5. To them, GLP slang is funny and cool...its as if they think its the coolest thing since sliced bread.

They embrace their stupidity very much like the movie "Idiocracy." Guys like the OP are just perfect examples of regression.

Its a maturity thing...and GLP certainly isn't filled with bursting examples of evolution.

So? What good will it be "outside" if that were to happen? Be worthless anyway

the moment you deposited your money with the bank, the ownership is transferred to the bank.

Your status is that of A CREDITOR TO THE BANK and the BANK IS IN LAW A DEBTOR to you. You are deemed to have “lent” your money to the bank for the bank to apply to its banking business (even to gamble in the biggest casino in the world – the global derivatives casino).

You have become a creditor, AN UNSECURED CREDITOR. Therefore, by law, in the insolvency of a bank, you as an unsecured creditor stand last in the queue of creditors to be paid out of any funds and or assets which the bank has to pay its creditors. The secured creditors are always first in line to be paid. It is only after secured creditors have been paid and there are still some funds left (usually, not much, more often zilch!) that unsecured creditors are paid and the sums pro-rated among all the unsecured creditors.

This is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The law has been in existence for hundreds of years and was established in England by the House of Lords in the case Foley v Hill in 1848.

When a customer deposits money with his banker, the relationship that arises is one of creditor and debtor, with the banker liable to repay the money deposited when demanded by the customer. Once money has been paid to the banker, it belongs to the banker and he is free to use the money for his own purpose.

I will now quote the relevant portion of the judgment of #3b4d81;">the House of Lords handed down by Lord Cottenham, the Lord Chancellor. He stated thus:

“Money when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal… it is then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it.

The money paid into the banker’s, is money known by the principal to be placed there for the purpose of being under the control of the banker; it is then the banker’s money; he is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit of it he can, which profit he retains himself,…

The money placed in the custody of the banker is, to all intent and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable TO THE PRINCIPAL IF HE PUTS IT INTO JEOPARDY, IF HE ENGAGES IN A HAZARDOUS SPECULATION; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of the principal, but he is of course answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands.” (quoted in UK Law Essays, #3b4d81;">Relationship Between A Banker And Customer,That Of A Creditor/Debtor, emphasis added,)

bankers cannot be prosecuted for the losses suffered by the bank. This is because a banker cannot be prosecuted for losing his “own money” as stated by the House of Lords. This is because when money is deposited with the bank, that money belongs to the banker.

The reason that if a banker is prosecuted it would collapse the entire banking system is a big lie.

“The objective of an effective resolution regime is to make feasible the resolution of financial institutions without severe systemic disruption and without exposing taxpayers to losses, while protecting vital economic functions through mechanisms which make it possible for shareholders and unsecured and uninsured creditors to absorb losses in a manner that respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation.”(quoted in #3b4d81;"> #3b4d81;">FSB Consultative Document: Effective Resolution of Systemically …)

This is the kind of complex technical jargon used by bankers to confuse the people, especially depositors and to cover up what I have stated in plain and simple English in the foregoing paragraphs.

The key words of the BIS guideline are:

“without severe systemic disruptions” (i.ea bank runs),

“while protecting vital economic functions” (i.e. protecting vested interests – bankers),

“unsecured creditors” (i.e. your monies, you are the dummy),

“respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation” (i.e. you are last in the queue to be paid, after all secured creditors have been paid).

This means all depositors are losers!

Lolz at the one who is out of the loop, and thinks correct spelling is the key to all existence.. For us, it Carshes... And it will.. Carsh very hard...

So, in the worst case scenario – a systemic collapse, there is no way for you to get your money back.

Pretty cool that GLP made a smilie just for you:

Link please

Nick@