Civil Dis:Guy takes 500,000 "loan" from bank uses money make new monetary system

[thinkliberty]

From website:
I have "robbed" 492,000 euros to whom most rob us in order to denounce them and build some alternatives for the society
Submitted by enric on Fri, 17/10/2008 - 04:18
I am writing down this pages to announce that I have expropriated 492,000 euros to 39 banks through 68 loan deals. If we include interest on arrears, the present amount of debt is over 500,000 euros which I will not pay.

http://www.enricduran.cat/en

[KBCraig]

Sounds more like stealing than civil disobedience. He's defrauding banks, not disobeying bad laws.

[Mike Barskey]

Sounds more like stealing than civil disobedience. He's defrauding banks, not disobeying bad laws.

I agree. I didn't read the article, but from the excerpt above, he's taking loans and claiming he will not repay them. Theft.

[thinkliberty]

I agree. I didn't read the article, but from the excerpt above, he's taking loans and claiming he will not repay them. Theft.

Unless he is taking back money the government stole from him and gave to the banks.

If I steal your car and give it to a bank, if you take your car back is it stealing?

What if the only way to get your car back is to not pay back a "loan" from the bank? Is it theft, if you don't repay the loan?

[Mike Barskey]

If I steal your car and give it to a bank, if you take your car back is it stealing?

Yes, I think it is. In your example, you might be able to prove the car is yours and was stolen (i.e., the bank received property that the thief had no right to give it), and then you'd have to deal with who should continue ownership - you, the original owner, or the bank, who did nothing wrong and obtained the car through proper means (a gift or purchase).

However, theft is taking someone else's property without permission. This guy made agreements with banks to borrow money now and return it later. If he reneges on his agreement, he has stolen money. The govt having stolen money from him has nothing to do with the loan-giving banks, even though banks are so tied to govt.

[thinkliberty]

Yes, I think it is. In your example, you might be able to prove the car is yours and was stolen (i.e., the bank received property that the thief had no right to give it), and then you'd have to deal with who should continue ownership - you, the original owner, or the bank, who did nothing wrong and obtained the car through proper means (a gift or purchase).

What if the bank worked with me to steal your car, like it worked with the government to steal his money?

The bank does not care who the rightful owner was, all it cares about is that the bank owns your car now, because I stole it from you and gave it to them. They knew it was stolen when they accepted ownership of the car.

However, theft is taking someone else's property without permission. This guy made agreements with banks to borrow money now and return it later. If he reneges on his agreement, he has stolen money. The govt having stolen money from him has nothing to do with the loan-giving banks, even though banks are so tied to govt.

I agree that theft is taking someone else's property without permission, but can you steal your own property?

This guy made agreements with the banks to get his money back. He had to tell them he would return it later so they would give it back to him.

The bank is an agent of the government. It is only used to launder the government's stolen money. With out the government's blessing and stolen money the bank would not exist.

Is it ok to commit fraud to get back property that was stolen from you, if you only commit fraud to the ones that worked together to steal your property?

It's against the law to accept stolen property, unless the government gives you the stolen property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receipt_of_stolen_property

Should we work to change stolen property laws so that it's ok for everyone to buy and sale stolen property? I would open a pawnshop!

[Keyser Soce]

Sounds more like stealing than civil disobedience. He's defrauding banks, not disobeying bad laws.

I agree. I didn't read the article, but from the excerpt above, he's taking loans and claiming he will not repay them. Theft.

Two words.. ok, one name...

Ragnar Danneskjold.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Two words
One name
Unknown number of syllables

[John Edward Mercier]

First the banks didn't work with the government to steal anything.
The government didn't give the banks anything.
If I give you something I am not expecting repayment, control over you, nor a return of that thing with interest.

And lastly, no... he is not stealing. Part of capitalism is the risk involved in the loan of such. Its the banks' responsibility before lending capital to assess the risk of non-repayment and the possible means of restitution should that repayment not occur.
He is of course openly stating that he should not be trusted to honor contractual obligations...

[thinkliberty]

First the banks didn't work with the government to steal anything.
The government didn't give the banks anything.
If I give you something I am not expecting repayment, control over you, nor a return of that thing with interest.

So if I take your car and let someone use it and tell them they have to return the car to you sometime in the future, without your permission: That is not giving someone your car?  BTW you still have to make payments on the car that someone else is using, because I did not give it to them.

If the person knows the car does not belong to me thats fine, it's not stealing, because I did not give them the car. I am expecting them to return it to you when they feel like they can.

[John Edward Mercier]

Its more like you took my car... force someone else to store it in their garage... then forced them to pay you for the privilege of housing the car.

[thinkliberty]

Only no one *forced* any one to store anything in their garage. The banks all *wanted* the money.

They are using the money. (to buy up smaller banks) So the car is not in a garage either. 

[John Edward Mercier]

No they didn't.

Unlike the auto makers sent their CEOs to Congress and begged in open public hearing for capital to keep their business open. Some of the major banks sent their CEOs to Congress and begged to return the TARP money.

They explained the original intent of Paulson was to hide those major banks that were weak... and stop a  run on them.
While it was impossible to hide the weakness from the investors, who would remove their capital... the main cause of concern.

Berkshire Hathaway used it to their advantage in Wells Fargo.
While TPG investors didn't and took a bath in Wachovia.

Even the testimony of those CEOs gave public investors the chance to pick up vital information without ever reading the corporate financials. Why? Because CitiBank was missing from the table.

[thinkliberty]

Some of the major banks sent their CEOs to Congress and begged to return the TARP money.

They explained the original intent of Paulson was to hide those major banks that were weak... and stop a  run on them.
While it was impossible to hide the weakness from the investors, who would remove their capital... the main cause of concern.

Berkshire Hathaway used it to their advantage in Wells Fargo.
While TPG investors didn't and took a bath in Wachovia.

Even the testimony of those CEOs gave public investors the chance to pick up vital information without ever reading the corporate financials. Why? Because CitiBank was missing from the table.

That begging was a political show. The banks were not forced to take the money. They can sue to let the government pay them back at any time. The government would cave in at that point. They have an agreement not to go to court and the banks keep the money for now.

[John Edward Mercier]

Congress changed the provisions after the hearing requiring that the banks pass a 'stress test' prior to returning the money. Some of the smaller banks have already returned the money.
If they fail to pass the 'stress test' they must hold the money for three years at a premium under the original law.

Why would a bank wish to give the money back?
Simple, doing so would make the bank appear stronger... and allow it to raise capital without any premium.

After the Wells Fargo CEO worked up the courage he complained that the TARP was imposed to hide CitiBank's financial position, and the 'premium' was going to be used to cover taxpayer losses in CitiBank.
It didn't go over well with some members of the congressional committee... but he was being honest.

AIG on the other hand was the protection of foreign banks and the credit swap market... and taxpayers will be taking a wash on that one... in that the Congress did not get the same provisions that the FED got.