OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED

This is as brief a summary of my legal argument as I can give.

But what I want to know is what official documentation or evidence can be used to support this?

1. FSMA 2000 [FSA financed by The City of London]
Section 3 Market Confidence (General rule that FSA has failed completely possibly due to corruption and/or incompetent personnel due to relatively low wages which are paid by The City of London)
Section 4 Public Awareness (FSA should be telling us not just about the distinction between differentt financial products but also how the UK financial system works, i.e. fractional reserve banking in private hands)
Section 5 Consumer Protection (FSA should protect the consumer)

2. Fraud Act 2006
Section 4 Fraud by Abuse of Position (Banks abused their position by deliberately inflating a credit bubble, which they could do because they can create money out of thin air, but then claim bailouts which they were given thanks to Bilderbergers, and also call for world government due to the crisis that they engineered while we suffer austerity)

3. UTCCR 1999
Section 5 (1) (states a term is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer, e.g. banks could inflate a credit bubble due to fractional reserve banking in private hands and then call for world government due to the engineered crisis, and that world government would exterminate at least 90% of the population).
Schedule 2 (1) (o) (an unfair term is expecting the consumer to fulfil his obligation, i.e. repay a loan, while the lender does not fulfil their obligations, i.e. get the FSA to fulfill their duties regarding education on the true functioning of the UK financial system as stated in FSMA 2000 Section 4).

4. Principle of Unjust Enrichment
According to Peter Birks in Unjust Enrichment,
"Every problem in unjust enrichment can be unlocked by asking these five questions:
1. was the defendant enriched?
2. was it at the expense of the claimant?
3. was it unjust?
4. what kind of right did the claimant acquire?
5. does the defendant have a defence?"