No Paper Is Safe From a Bail-In

VANCOUVER, Canada (Bullions Bull Canada) -- Ever since our governments perpetrated the "Cyprus steal" roughly three weeks ago (the first of their "bail-ins"), I have been exploring the ramifications of this crime. My apologies to readers for any redundancy since then; however it has been necessary to cover this subject in a methodical manner in order to precisely and conclusively illustrate that:

1. The Cyprus Steal was a premeditated act, plotted (at least) 18 months in advance; which included warning the big money to move its wealth out of harm's way

2. Many/most other Western regimes already have their own "bail-in" rules firmly in place.

3. The entire premise of the "bail-in" (i.e., confiscating money from people's accounts) is flawed and fraudulent, meaning there could never be any rational or legitimate reason for this policy -- making it a simple act of theft

Having established each of these points in previous commentaries, it's now time to bring this analysis (in general terms) to a culmination that points out that the "bail-in" rules already in place do not merely contemplate stealing from bank accounts, but rather stealing any/every kind of paper asset from "the financial system more widely."

The language used is unequivocal, the intentions beyond doubt. Why is it so much easier in retrospect to point out a "crime" plotted (at least) 18 months in advance? Because the bankers put out "policy papers" the way most people pass wind. Few if any of us have the luxury of wading through the endless pages of these documents merely to separate "hot air" from more of their devious (and illegal) plans.

It is now clear that the "centerpiece" of this planning is a policy paper issued by the Financial Stability Board in October 2011, titled "Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions." The relevant language is spelled out in Section 6:
6.3 Jurisdictions should have in place privately-financed deposit insurance or...a funding mechanism for ex post recovery from the industry of the costs of providing temporary financing to facilitate the resolution of the firm. i.e., continuing to prop-up insolvent banks

Obviously the only possible way in which deposit insurance could be a "mechanism for ex post recovery" is if these bankers/governments are stealing from peoples' bank deposits. However, lest anyone holding bonds, pension funds, or other (paper) financial assets has been lulled into a false sense of security in thinking that only bank accounts are at risk, Section 6.5 should instantly torpedo that complacency:
6.5 As a last resort the expression the Banksters began using back in 2008 when they began all this monetary insanity...some countries may decide to have a power to...recover any losses incurred by the state from unsecured creditors or, if necessary, the financial system more widely. emphasis mine

The "financial system more widely" means any bank account, any bond, any pension, any equity; or more simply any paper one has in any financial institution.

Who/what is the "Financial Stability Board"? It is a very exclusive club. How exclusive? You can only join if you're a Western central banker. It is the (official) voice of Western central banks, and thus it is above the mere "laws" enacted by our subordinate governments.

How do we know the authority of these central banks is supreme to the laws governing the little people (i.e., us)? The central banks themselves make this unequivocally clear. When we have the audacity to even suggest an audit of our financial system, they (and their apologists in the corporate media) tell us it "threatens their independence."

If the central banks are independent, what does that make our governments? That's right, the dependents. As a tautology, they can't both be "independent." And only one entity in this relationship is allowed to say to the other, "No, I won't let you do this."

However, if even this tautological argument doesn't convince readers that central banks are above the law, our puppet politicians make this explicitly clear in official documents, such as the Canadian budget. Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of Canada and chairman of the Financial Stability Board, decreed that "bail-ins" should be the new law for the little people of Canada.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper heard. Stephen Harper obeyed. From page 154 of Canada's 2013 Budget:
...The Government intends to implement a comprehensive risk management framework for Canada's systemically important banks. This framework will be consistent with reforms in other countries i.e. the Cyprus Steal and key international standards, such as the Financial Stability Board's Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions, and will work alongside the existing Canadian regulatory capital regime. emphasis mine

In case any Canadians weren't sure whether this included stealing, Prime Minister Harper erases any ambiguity there (in the Budget's next bullet-point):
...The Government proposes to implement a "bail-in" regime for systemically important banks.

Still not convinced that the central banks are our financial overlords, entirely above the law; who regularly tell our subordinate governments what to do? Let me introduce you to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

The BIS is the "supreme" (Western) central bank: the central bank of/for other central banks. It is located within the geographic boundaries of Switzerland, but it's not a part of "Swiss territory." Instead, it is its own sovereign soil - virtually identical to the above-the-law status of the Vatican within the geographic boundaries of Italy.

No "Swiss authority" (police/political/military) is allowed to set foot on "BIS territory" without the written permission of one of two executives within the BIS. It is completely immune to any/all Swiss law. Or put more simply, it's also "independent."

In a somewhat less-lofty context, the BIS is known as the lynchpin for the trillions of dollars in money laundering in which Western big banks engage every year mostly drug money or terrorist money. These big banks are caught engaging in their money laundering on a now virtually weekly basis, and thus the routine is painfully familiar.

No banker is ever even arrested, let alone charged with a crime. The bank itself is never required to even admit wrongdoing, no matter how many billions of dollars are involved, or how many times the bank has previously been caught laundering money. The "fine" is inevitably some fraction of 1% of the actual quantity of money laundering. It is such a pathetically microscopic sum that we can't even call it a "cut" in return for our governments being the junior accomplices in this organized crime.

Our big banks are nothing but a crime syndicate. The central bankers are the crime bosses. This crime syndicate has now issued a decree to our puppet politicians that they wish to engage in a new form of crime, and to simply change our laws (the laws of the little people) so that their stealing is now "legal." The politicians have obeyed.

When I wrote How Your Bank Account Could Disappear back in July, 2012; it was in specific response to the even less legal, more heavy-handed "bank robbery" that had occurred in the "MF Global" heist. I pointed out at that time that ¼ of Wall Street executives had already confessed to believing that crime was a way of life for big banks.

At that time, I summed up in general terms the only attitude which any rational individual can have when it comes to entrusting any of their wealth to this crime syndicate:
What the large financial institutions of the 21st century have taught us (through the cruel "lessons" of their serial crimes) is that there is no one in the world whom you can trust less with your money than a banker.

This article was written by an independent contributor, separate from TheStreet's regular news coverage.

This commentary comes from an independent investor or market observer as part of TheStreet guest contributor program. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of TheStreet or its management.

More from Opinion

It's Just Not Smart For Investors to Ignore the Threat of a Trade War

It's Just Not Smart For Investors to Ignore the Threat of a Trade War

To Think a Trade War's Still Just a Threat Is the Dumbest Thing on Wall Street

To Think a Trade War's Still Just a Threat Is the Dumbest Thing on Wall Street

Flashback Friday in Politics: Trade Wars, Manafort, Immigration Dominate Minds

Flashback Friday in Politics: Trade Wars, Manafort, Immigration Dominate Minds

Microsoft and Sony's Rumored Game Console Plans Bode Well for AMD

Microsoft and Sony's Rumored Game Console Plans Bode Well for AMD

Apple Supplier Jabil Is Tumbling, But Its Sales Momentum Remains Strong

Apple Supplier Jabil Is Tumbling, But Its Sales Momentum Remains Strong