Click on our Secret Library of Evidence ------>

    BANKILEAKS Secret Library

Loan Application Forms (LAF's)  

    Bank Emails to Brokers  

    Then Click on 'VIEW NOTEBOOK'

Join us on facebook

facebook3           facebook2 


What BFCSA Does...

BFCSA investigates fraud involving lenders, spruikers and financial planners worldwide.  Full Doc, Low Doc, No Doc loans, Lines of Credit and Buffer loans appear to be normal profit making financial products, however, these loans are set to implode within seven years.  For the past two decades, Ms Brailey, President of BFCSA (Inc), has been a tireless campaigner, championing the cause of older and low income people around the Globe who have fallen victim to banking and finance scams.  She has found that people of all ages are being targeted by Bankers offering faulty lending products. BFCSA warn that anyone who has signed up for one of these financial products, is in grave danger of losing their home.


Articles View Hits

Whistleblowers' Corner!

To all mortgage brokers, BDMs and loan approval officers! 
Pls Call Denise: 0401 642 344 

"Confidentiality is assured."

Cartoon Corner

Lighten your load today and "Laugh all the way to the bank!"

Lee Doyle

Led by award-winning consumer advocate Denise Brailey, BFCSA (Inc) are a group of people who are concerned about the appalling growth of Loan Fraud around the world. BFCSA (Inc) is a not for profit organisation in the spirit of global community concern and justice.

Click on the Cluster Map.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Royal Commission: To Continue The Conversation - " Food for Thought "

  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 1660
  • Print

Royal Commission(ASAP): To Continue The Conversation "Food for Thought"


Q1 Are the banks motivated to wind-up mortgagors in 'default' to crystallise an unjust &/or in fact, an illegal 30c in $dollar ATO "tax-offset" on every $dollar "shortfall"?


Q2: What will be actually revealed by way of a Royal Commission("Commission"), if such Commission were to indeed deconstruct and peel back layer by layer the labyrinth RMBS packaged up for consumption.


Q3: Is "Racketeering" in play orchestrated by $1000+ an hour legal eagles, engineering the offending complex legal "instruments of fraud" between all the active "players" during the completion of this sham perpetrated on the ordinary, honest & reasonable "living" citizen and/or disturbingly instances "posthumous", whereby the offending parent-lender morphs into a "de-facto beneficiary" in waiting engaging the "stale mate" scenario whereby 100 BFCSA members are subject to this converse form of "expectant treatment", applying maximum silent stress to accelerate the demise of their prey (pensioners & the vulnerable); 


# At page 483, Andrews SPJ (as he then was) quoted from Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v Luna Park (NSW) 632 at page 644 where Jordan CJ said --


"It needs to be remembered also that if a party who becomes entitled to put an end to a contract by reason of a breach of an essential promise does not exercise this right, and is remitted to his remedy by way of damages only, in the following events: (1) if, notwithstanding knowledge of the breach, he proceeds to do some act, referable to the contract, which could only be properly done by him by virtue of the contract treated as a subsidising contract: O'Connor v S.P Gray Ltd 36 SR 248 at 261-2; 52 WN 72; Franklin v Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Ltd 37 SR 76 at 81-2; 53 WN 17; or (2)if the party in default proceeds to carry on with the performance of the contract at the request or with the permission, express or tacit, of the innocent party, made or given in knowledge of the breach; ibid: Fullers' Theatres Ltd v Musgrove 31 CLR 524 at 540-1 ; 4 Austin Digest 685."


> I assert, Notice of Termination was effected "tacitly" (over 4years); "act or lose your right", indeed the offending bank has not acted over a considerable time, effectively abandoning their contrived product of fraud affirmed by recent High Court decision re 'Tonto'. 


Q4: Has their been an act of "Perverting the Course of Justice" carried out by the offending parent-lender "Commander-in-Chief", knowingly obstructing and/or preventing critical documents and/or the contrived "arrangements" in this sham process, from ever seeing the light of day other than by way of an urgently convened Commission?


Q5: Has the lender received due consideration on the contrived mortgage account, simultaneous to settlement by way of unlawfully derived RMBS funds?


Q5: Did the lender deliberately separate itself from "real exposure" pertaining to potential future "shortfall" losses that may arise from time to time due to any mortgage default event? and if yes;


Q6: Does the parent-lender/servicer have no real "skin" in the game and are merely purportedly relegated to the title "Mortgage Servicer" under their agreements? and if yes;


Q7: Would it not be an act of "double-dipping" on the part of the parent-lender to pretend it has occurred a real loss for the purposes of ATO "tax-offset" provisions by conducting their accounting procedures in such a way only the in privilege auditors sight both sets of books to the detriment of the tax payer in Australia, hence motivating banks to foreclose on properties under the guise of a contrived authority expressed by way of a "Service Agreement"? and if yes;


Q8: If the mortgage "instrument" assignment was only "deemed" to have been effected by the parent-lender to the "dummy trustee",(unlike their US counterparts), it must follow that any purported authority stemming from the "dummy trustee" to the contrived purported "servicer" (not @ arms length) must be treated as ineffective at law, as the passing of any real authority to the "dummy trustee" was never properly expressed as a consequence of incomplete assignment of any purported loan agreement?


Q9: :Has the "dummy trustees'" inception been corrupted by the in conflict parent-lender's lawyers?


Q10: Has all related relevant parties failed to properly inform the ignorant asset lender ("YOU") of all things reasonably expected to know and prior to the act of "lending" their property to the parent-lender; who in turn only "deemed" to assign and/or "on-sell" it via a SPV into the RMBS "colourable" secondary market? 


Q11: Is it indeed the case that the parent lender only deceptively purported to "on-sell" the loan agreement to the "dummy trustee" by way of assignment and/or novation of the loan contract, as such no assignment was truly effected, lest generating a "Title Perfection Event" , hence collapsing the Trust Special Purpose Vehicle("SPV"). 


# We must be permitted (inter alia) complete & comprehensive "discovery" of all parent-lender/dummy trustee instructed legal agreements between all "linked" participants in the parent-lender

contrived fraudulent "chain of command" structure. 


# We know the banks "set-up" a second set of books not unlike what the Mafia do!  


# We know the properties are moved to an alternate "off balance sheet" third party entity and we are entitled to know in what manner the RMBS disgorged funds are treated at settlement and/or at "deemed" closure of the initial loan account!


# We know at the precise moment funds were made available to settle on "YOUR" property the parent-lender was dutifully reimbursed, in fact the bank only created a loan account out of thin air as it didn't put up any "hurt money" from the outset, the parent-lender was always a glorified "middle-man" purportedly acting between "YOU" and the "Secondary Market".


#We know however, the myriad of "crafty"(read > unlawful) non-transparent inter-party related legal ('eagle') agreements devised by criminal mastermind lawyers covering the full breadth of the parent-lender chain of command from "YOUR" home to ultimately the RMBS secondary market is and was from the outset a sham to steal 100,000 Australian homes and we need, in fact we DEMAND a Royal Commission with broad terms of reference conducted over adequate allocated time frames. ASAP


Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:


  • No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment

Leave your comment

Guest Thursday, 21 January 2021