Supportive Residents & Carers Action Group Inc

Registered with the Justice Department of Victoria, Consumer Affairs Victoria and the US SEC’s Mr McKessy

“American banks have nearly $280 trillion of derivatives on their books, and they earn some of their biggest profits from trading in them. But

the 2008 crisis revealed how flaws in the market had allowed for dangerous build-ups of risk at large Wall Street firms and worsened the run on

the banking system.” New York Times 3 Sept 2014

Dear Senators,

Bank/Lawyer tactics to save a bank from its $24,000 mistake imperils the Barrister Pro Bono Scheme & Legal Aid, and puts $300,000 from the home into the bank lawyer’s pockets….thereby ’robbing shareholders’.

The following case ‘as seen on The Business, ABC TV’, is about a bank that borrowed an extra $4.5b from the US Fed Reserve to fill its tellers’ machines – and demanded an extra $24,000 more at the last minute from a home seller. The ripple effects affected third parties too, and now the bank’s $24,000 blunder will effectively make the house pay the bank’s lawyers’ $300k. Bank shareholders are effectively ‘robbed’ as well because the security is worth less than the loan and the legal fees.

We’ve seen this before as banks add ‘unsecured’ card debt or ‘semi secured car loan debt’ to home loan payouts. In fact we’ve seen banks reneg at the last minute from advancing money.

In one case, Amex pulled the old “so sue us” stunt, and now their CEO testified in terror:

Here is Eliott’s substantiated claims of bank ‘legal’ spin. Something has to be done. Perhaps a lawyer-free VCAT Tribunal is the way to go.

Thank you,

We have been stuck in this battle with the NAB for 6 years. The stress and anxiety of this matter has caused serious health implications to me and my wife, so much so she was required to have our baby just recently, earlier than planned via caesarean unfortunately due to the stress levels, being obviously aware

NAB are now taking our families house away on the 24 October 2013, upon a judgment they obtained via perjurious and deceptive conduct.

Where circumstantiality held more validity than overwhelming evidence, fact and truth. Where inferences and dishonest affirmations and declarations by NAB were shockingly believed and ruled over actuality and direct application of legislation. Where statistics show that close to 0% of self-represented individuals are successful in litigation (irrespective to the evidence, facts, truth etc.).

The judgment would have been rectified if we had an actual appeal hearing that addressed all the flaws and errors in that judgment, however the court provided pro bono barrister – Paul Hayes apparently abandoned all the submissions and arguments that were filed,…so the appeal judges say. However as per attached identified court transcripts we can’t locate anywhere of him abandoning anything, in fact quite the opposite.

He clearly states they are not to be abandoned time and time again.

Fortunately though the one and only matter that Paul Hayes - pro bono barrister had time to argue (because as it tuned out the scheme did not provide enough retainer for him to argue anything else) was that NAB in fact did receive the payment of $299,000, which they tried extensively to conceal in trial. (see attached files EDS3 and EDSF).

Every single hearing, trial etc. has had judges presiding who have stockholding with NAB. Every single one.

8 Pro Bono barristers confirm there is no doubt NAB broke the law, however there has been no other case like this before the court in order for them to draw clear reference for determination. Pat Zappia (one of the 8 barristers) compiled the Notice Of Appeal with another pro bono barrister graciously spent way more time and resource than what the scheme allowed for, articulating and identifying specifically the issues and errors the trial judge had made. It is important to note that these barristers are on a tight pro bono basis, their duty of care is community focused, the guideless are strict and they will only proceed on a matter if there is extensive and overwhelming issues and evidence available. Thus was the case with us.

NAB and I entered in to a settlement deed in February 2013 after 5 long years of dispute to apparently resolve. So I thought.

The deed was that badly written by Gadens & NAB (although lawyers/barristers that read it, state it may have been a deliberate ploy) that it actually caused a whole new dispute that now superseded the actual matter of the payout dispute. Incredibly. The constant lying and covering up of truth and facts, which is clearly evidenced is stifling… However it appears that if you can use legal argument and circumstantiality to lie and conceal truth in our justice system then that’s a-ok. If you can get away with it via deception then all the power to you…that’s a job well done! The pursuit for truth, fact and honour just all wash away..

Luckily though the court of appeal at least, at minimum essentially found that NAB did lie, by determining that they did in fact receive payment in accordance with the deed...

In very brief summary see attached EDS18 and here below on what we have endured…

NAB Counsel – Adam Segal declares in trial that:

1. The settlement deed that the parties entered into to resolve a 5 year long dispute was potentially available at 20 March 2013. But,

2. I did not tender or make payment of $299,000 in accordance with this deed on the 20 March 2013 or any time before the 15 April 2013 deadline. (See court transcript attached EDS3 – referenced made)

NAB Official - Ms Melissa Thomas

1. Ms Melissa Thomas declares under oath that I did not pay the NAB $299,000.

2. Ms Melissa Thomas declares she is in charge of this matter and she would most certainly know if it occurred. (See court transcript attached EDS5F – referenced made)

Court Of Appeal – Determination made that payment of $299,000 was in fact made to NAB.

(See court transcript attached EDS4 – referenced made)

NAB :: FALSE & MISLEADING CONDUCT - PAYOUT NOTICE.

Summation/Evidence: NAB provided a payout notice (see attached PN1) which was used by another bank, conveyancer, solicitors and vendors and purchasers in order to arrange payouts on loans and property transactions.

Trial Judgment: Applied the wrong legislation regarding unconscionable conduct (see attached PN12). The breach here is in regard to negligence and false and misleading representation, thus a breach of the ACL. It was never contend that this was unconscionable, it was always about negligence and issuing of false material, thus seems bizarre the judgment got this wrong. Appeal Judgment: No regard – Paul Hayes didn’t argue it, so abandoned. Even though it was in my submissions and previous barristers Notice Of Appeal filed. (see attached AP5)

NAB :: NO PAYOUT NOTICE – BREACH NCCP SEC.83

Summation/Evidence: Other than the above payout notice, which NAB state it was not a payout notice, NAB therefore did not provide any other written payout notice in accordance with this legislation. See attached court transcript of NAB – Ms Melissa Thomas declaring that no other payout notice was ever provided. (see attached PN14)

Trial Judgment: NAB did receive a written request for a formal payout notice, however they did provide one over a phone call the eve of settlement, so that is ok. Appeal Judgment: No regard – Paul Hayes didn’t argue it, so abandoned. Even though it was in my submissions and previous barristers Notice Of Appeal filed.

NAB :: UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT – PERJURY

Summation/Evidence: - NAB declare the deed was available on 20 March 2013 in open court in trial. NAB proceed to argue it wasn’t available at 20 March 2013 in the appeal hearing. - NAB declare that no payment was ever made to them. Court of appeal determined that payment was made to them.

- NAB legals affirm that they had the terms of 2.1a of the deed back on 8 February 2013, but did not honestly or reasonably provide them to Sgargetta. - NAB affirm 3 sets of varying conditions of 2.1a, thus were never honest or reasonable in disclosing and giving Sgargetta a fair and clear chance to comply with 2.1a.

Trial Judgment: Essentially and erred and missed these, so the pro bono barristers compiled the evidence and the Notice Of Appeal, which… Appeal Judgment: No regard made – Paul Hayes didn’t argue them, so abandoned. Even though it was in my submissions and previous barristers Notice Of Appeal filed.

Yours sincerely,

Elliot

To add insult to injury ANZ’s Mike Smith tell David Murray on 3 Oct 2014 that the bank capitalisation rules

are ok, despite globally the banks owing ~ $700 trillion just in derivatives. And they want

to grab kiddies passbook accounts if the banks go under.

As reported in the NY Times 3rd Sept 2014: “American banks have nearly $280 trillion of

derivatives on their books, and they earn some of their biggest profits from trading in them. But

the 2008 crisis revealed how flaws in the market had allowed for dangerous buildups of risk at

large Wall Street firms and worsened the run on the banking system.”

This is the CBA’s pledge of “all” assets – including kiddies’ bank books - to the US Fed Reserve. What would you think if dad stole his kid’s piggy bank for his gambling habit?

Here is an article about the RBA needing $53 billion in 6 months and NAB and Westpac also ‘tapped’ the US Fed for cash to pay out of ATMs etc. Westpac got $1b and pledged $3.3b of kiddies passbooks etc. Nab grabbed $4.5 billion.

Westpac became a ‘atm’ for JP Morgan.

The global derivatives are massive.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/regulators-propose-rule-to-reduce-risk-of-derivatives/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

Investment Banking | Legal/Regulatory

Regulators Propose Rule to Reduce Risk of

Derivatives By Peter Eavis

September 3, 2014 8:47 pm September 3, 2014 8:47 pm

Photo

Thomas Curry, comptroller of the currency, called the proposal “significant progress.”

Credit Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

Federal regulators announced on Wednesday an overhaul of a murky Wall Street market that gained infamy during

the financial crisis of 2008.

The Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, as well as three other agencies, proposed a

rule that would apply to over-the-counter derivatives, the financial instruments that banks and other financial

entities use to speculate or hedge their risks.

American banks have nearly $280 trillion of derivatives on their books, and they earn some of their biggest profits

from trading in them. But the 2008 crisis revealed how flaws in the market had allowed for dangerous buildups of

risk at large Wall Street firms and worsened the run on the banking system. …

Please tell Mike Smith …

Leave capital levels alone ANZ chief tells

Murray 3 October 2014

PUBLISHED: 19 hours 36 MINUTES AGO

http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/leave_capital_levels_alone_anz_chief_nEPLh3WWBoXxnhHke58SPK

ANZ Banking Group chief executive Mike Smith told David Murray on Thursday the final report of his financial system inquiry should stay broad and not make recommendations on precise levels of bank capital.that banks should hold.

As a flurry of equity research from banking analysts over the past month points to the liklihood of higher bank capital after a series of speeches by Mr. Murray suggesting the financial system needed to be made more resilient, Mr. Smith said capital levels should be determined by financial regulators, not by Mr. Murray.

Regulators already had sufficient power to increase bank capital if they became concerned about specific costs within a bank or systemic risk, Mr. Smith argued at the meeting, which was also attended by Westpac Banking Corp chief executive, Gail Kelly.

"APRA already have all the powers necessary to impose whatever capital that they wish on the banking systems" Mr. Smith told the Australian Financial Review before the meeting.

"It is a system inquiry at the end of the day, and we shouln't get bogged down in little things - it is important to have a broader perspective"".

The inquiry's rhetoric about making the financial system safer blindsided the banks; a report by PWC attached to the second round submission of the Australian Bankers Association argued the big four banks "are at or above the 75th percentile of bank capital relative

to the most appropriate comparator set of global banks, not "in the middle range" as suggested by the inquiry's interim report..............

read more http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/leave_capital_levels_alone_anz_chief_nEPLh3WWBoXxnhHke58SPK

Good God! If Australian Banks are in the 50% to 75% range of bank capital, they’d get C on a

school report card.

Yours

Supportive Residents & Carers Action Group Inc