IF YOU DIDN’T BUY IT LEGALLY, YOU DON’T REALLY HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.
By Tom Dennen
Usury is compound interest, “the most powerful force in the universe (Albert Einstein),
‘Odious Debt’ is usurious debt incurred by others but which you are paying off.
When you took out a mortgage bond on your house you signed a debt agreement that bound you for at least twenty years of debt – the most productive years of your life, incidentally – but also possibly bonded you to an illegal usurious practice which is being examined around the world in the light of the sub-prime lending bubble that ‘set off’ the current global financial crisis – the ‘Mortgage’ or Odious ‘Death Cage’ Hostile bond agreement.
Odious (or Hostile-to-the-borrower) Debt is a legal theory which holds that “debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the interest of the nation … should not be enforceable as the debt was not incurred by the nation or (by or for) its people, but by the interests of the regime, whether elected or not.”
Odious (hostile-to-the-borrower) Debt as defined herein, is similar to mortgage debt incurred by you from fraud-ridden ‘predatory lending’ practitioners.
“Several years ago state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders,” said New York State Governor Elliot Spitzer in 2007.
“Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers’ ability to repay, making loans with deceptive “teaser” rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks.
“These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.” – Elliot Spitzer was politically assassinated by the Bush regime.
The concept is analogous to the invalidity of any contract signed under coercion, including torture, which gives rise to the question, ‘can conscience be coerced?’
No. Every torture victim recants if s/he survives.
The Argentina Baring Collapse, an ABC of Predatory or hostile-to-the-borrower banking explains how Odious Debt may be the vehicle that is robbing you of your pension because by extension, debt incurred by homeowners through predatory lenders who do not inform borrowers of the extent of the (compounded) debt being signed for is odious and hostile to borrowers.
Former U.S. President Taft ruled against a private loan to Cuba being paid back out of public funds (medical aid and pension funds) which were odiously transferred private funds illegally nationalized as in the U.S. today, saying: “If the public did not benefit, then there is no public debt”.
In 1824 Barings Bank signed a deal with Argentina’s first president, Bernardino Rivadavio, which ended after the ratification of debt as an economic policy (Capitalism) in 1979 by a military dictatorship, in the financial collapse of one of South America’s richest countries after almost two hundred years of impoverishment and debt.
The debt was used to control the country’s finances, enrich the country’s bankers and empty the country of its wealth, much the same as in the U.S. of A today, the ‘debt-ridden’ African colonies, including my home, South Africa, in America’s sub prime borrowers who are today’s everyday, 20-year mortgage (death cage) debt owners, ordinary borrowers across the planet, the former tenants of now-empty huge office spaces and mall shop spaces, the next ‘bubble’.
Regardless of monetary theories, only facts count: Indebtedness as a financial, political and economic policy needs the collusion of the political and economic leaders of those sectors of society which produce generations of politicians, technocrats, bureaucrats (and bankers) who favour banks and international institutions over the people (who are the sole producers of wealth adding value to Nature’s commodities or providing services) in their own countries, the results of which we are now seeing worldwide: The collapse of a financial system based on debt rather than shared resources.
The ‘Odious Debt’ doctrine was formalized by an émigré Russian legal theorist Alexander Sack in1927.
According to Sack: “When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection” (for instance) “this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the rulers, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime.
(It follows that) lenders have also committed a hostile act against the people, (and) “they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the rulers.”
It also follows that, if a banking system such as the private, for-profit American Federal Reserve or the privately owned Bank of England contracts and utilizes public monies for its own interests, and contrary to the needs and interests of the borrowing peoples of the nation, then those debts are hostile (odious), and cannot be held binding on the holders of their mortgages.
The picture above is quiet clear: On the one side of Main Street, America there are hundreds of thousands of homeless people. On the other side there are hundreds of thousands of people-less homes with bank foreclosure signs on their front lawns, homes that the banks are now buying up at ‘a dime on the dollar’
And it has landed here, in South Africa after years of bankrupting other less wealthy African States, in the form of our financial exposure to the toxic wastes sold into the ‘global meltdown’ and our persistence with Capitalism’s debt-base economic policy of the perennial transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.
Patricia Adams, executive director of Probe International, an environmental and public policy advocacy organization in Canada, and author of Odious Debts: Loose Lending, Corruption, and the Third World’s Environmental Legacy (from which came much of the content herein), says there is a solution: Which Obama should look at through his global banking position.
“…by giving creditors an incentive to lend only for purposes that are transparent and of public benefit, future tyrants will lose their ability to finance their armies, and thus the wars on terror and poverty (in) the cause of world peace will be better served.”
In other words, hold the moneylenders accountable.
On the other hand, she adds, “If the repayment of interest on legitimate, non-odious debt was applied to a reduction of the original capital by national, federal or international law or (any) other regulatory lending system, the problem would at the very least be minimized, depending on the regularity and amount of capital recovered as part of interest payments.
“Also, if ‘pooling’ or accumulation of non-working capital were limited and any excess of earnings or profit be forced into use as in corporate social consciousness programs” (like services to the shack lands in this country), “the processes involved in the alleviation of poverty could also be better served.“
But, really, why should they stop lending to both sides of the warrior states when it’s so profitable?
Filed under: Banks and Bankers |