THE OUTLINE OF MY LEGAL ARGUMENT

THE OUTLINE OF MY LEGAL ARGUMENT

1. The Financial Services Authority (FSA) was created by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) to regulate the financial markets, to protect the consumer and to educate the consumer on the financial system in the UK.
2. The FSA, through its webpage MoneyMadeClear (yes, that’s name!:-)), attempts to explain what a loan, a credit card, a mortgage etc, is, but goes no further than that, i.e. it does not explain exactly how such products are financed, or to be more exact where the money comes from.
3. This cut-off in the information provided by the FSA MoneyMadeClear website hides the more important and unfair aspects of our financial system from the very consumer it is supposed to protect and educate. Who made the decision as to what information was to be related by the FSA, and why?
4. After exhaustive enquiries to the FSA, H M Treasury and The Bank of England, I have been told by them that there is no exemption on the following information, and I believe it should therefore be related by the FSA on for example its MoneyMadeClear website (the name suggests that too);
4.1. the money for such financial products does not physically exist, and is merely numbers on a computer, and can therefore be created very, very easily by the bank while the consumer works very hard for the equivalent, i.e. the repayment.
4.2. the money for such financial products does not ‘exist’ on the computer until the loan/mortgage/credit is actually issued
4.3. upon repayment the money is not destroyed (this is important, and is explained in point 10).
5. The banks offering such financial products are regulated by, and actually finance, the FSA, and should therefore have some influence over and contact with the FSA.
6. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Section 5 (1) state;
“5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.”
7. All financial contracts issued since the FSMA 2000 was passed are unfair because the banks issuing such contracts have not, even after 8 years, ensured that the FSA has fulfilled its duty under Section 4 of the FSMA 2000, thus leading to a significant imbalance in obligations to the detriment of the consumer.
8. Schedule 2 (1) (o) of the UTCCR 1999 states that an unfair term is;
“(o) obliging the consumer to fulfill all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his”.
The banks are not fulfilling their obligations by ensuring that under the FSMA 2000 Section 4 the FSA is educating the consumer on the full and unfair truth of our financial system, thus giving the banks a very significant advantage through unfair contracts. Thus all financial contracts issued since the FSMA 2000 was passed are unfair, and should therefore be annulled.
9. Section 5 (1) of the FSMA 2000 states;
“(1) The protection of consumers objective is: securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers.”.
The FSA is seriously failing in this duty because the financial system that it is hiding from the consumer, by its failure to fulfill its duty under the FSMA 2000 Section 4, is allowing a small cabal of people to take control of the world. They and their ancestors engineered and financed the two world wars of last century, which led to the creation of such global organizations as the UN, IMF, World Bank, etc, which can direct sovereign nations in their affairs. This cabal continue to exercise significant control of our political system through such semi-secret organizations as Bilderberg, The Council on Foreign Relations and The Trilateral Commission, at which our political leaders are vetted either before they enter, or during their tenure in, high office. One such member of this cabal has openly stated in his memoirs their ambition to control the world, when he wrote,
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
This man partly owns and controls several financial organizations that are regulated by the FSA, i.e. the FSA is not protecting the consumer from being ruled by this bunch of Moloch-worshipping, warmongering megalomaniacs intent on global conquest. One other telling quote from this cabal comes from James Paul Warburg;
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”
10. Furthermore, the principle of unjust enrichment states that one party should not unjustly enrich itself at the expense of another party. As I understand the financial system, banks can lend out many, many times the amount they have on deposit in a system called Fractional Reserve. This means that from a deposit base of £X the banks can lend out, for example £10X. The unwitting borrower may believe that when a bank issues a loan then the bank has effectively transferred control of the money for that loan to the borrower. That is not the case. The bank is giving the impression that such a transaction has taken place, when in fact the bank can issue several loans based on the same piece of money, giving several borrowers claim to the same piece of money while keeping the money. But the borrower believes and accepts that the issuing bank only makes its profit from the interest charged on the loan. However, in reality, the bank is in most cases making profit from the full amount of the loan itself as well as the interest, because the money for that loan did not exist until the loan was issued. This is possible due to the nature of the Fractional Reserve system, in which as explained above, £10X can be ‘created’ from £X. Thus from £X the bank can make a total profit of £9X + interest, when the borrowers believe the bank makes a profit through interest only. If the bank destroyed most of the repayments, giving itself profit from the interest from one loan only, then there is no argument. But the banks do not destroy all the repayments, and keep them so that they make profit from the full loan as well as the interest. That is surely unjust enrichment, if not unadulterated fraud and dishonesty.
11. The FSA has been shown to be incompetent during this current credit crunch when it should have been monitoring the derivatives market, which has subsequently led to bailouts of several banks for hundreds of billions of pounds, which is yet another example of the FSA failing in its duty to protect the taxpaying consumer. But I am suggesting something further, a deliberate collusion between the FSA and the banks to keep hidden from the taxpaying British public the real, fraudulent, unfair and unjust nature of our financial system to benefit of the banks and to the detriment of the British taxpaying consumer.