Independent test of the new Legal Complaints Service

This site is an invitation to submit any complaint you may have about any law firm.

The author is a professional tester with lots of experience since 1975 which can be viewed on this history page.

It is rather devastating to realise:

1. lawyers “sanction” the creation of money for the few privileged – as in the Bank of England Act 1694
2. lawyers abuse their position to make money for themselves
3. lawyers make “bad laws” as in this example by Prof. Prem Sikka.

Mervyn King’s response

We should have guessed. “Fobbing off” is the policy of anybody who gets accused or questioned. When it contains inaccuracies, it presents us with challenges:

• who gets ‘honest justice’ in a profoundly ‘dishonest money system’?
• what can parties, injured by the establishment, do when they are up against impunity of the establishment?
• who controls the controllers?

Here’s the the two-page letter that Mervyn King sent to Austin Mitchell MP:

Open Letter to the Governor of the Bank of England

This Open Letter to Mervyn King was sent by our Chairman Austin Mitchell MP today, accompanied by relevant enclosures, and illustrating three points:

a) false documents are being used to file bankruptcy
b) wealthy individuals are being bankrupted
c) Bank of England accounts are being used by The Insolvency Service.

All evidence can be viewed here.

The National Debt in a Nutshell

This petition to protect the canal properties caused me to formulate the essence of abusing the national debt here – not just for private enrichment, but to control more and more resources of the country.

The canal properties are part of a “deficit reduction plan” which is an infamous way of describing the reallocation and beneficiaries of recources, be they companies or land.

Please note that Obama, too, has been talking of such a plan.

What will it take for the world to see that

• Cash, the only medium of exchange, is issued by the State and free of interest
• “Credit money”, issued by banks, is about controlling people and resources by forcing them to find
• “Interest money” which is not issued by anybody.

In the case of the National Debt,

• “TreasuryBonds” provide “interest” over their long term of up to 30 years
• “interest money” consists of the “public debt payment” that comes from taxpayers.

Petition on “national banking”

This petition to the Prime Minister is a remarkable “nutshell expression” of what monetary reformers have been studying and saying in a million ways:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop the Bank of England from producing illegal money, stop fractional reserve banking and create a nationalised bank.

So what’s so “illegal” about the Bank of England’s money?

1. Section XXVI of the Founding Act of the Bank of England says that the Corporation is not to trade. That means: no dealings with financial “products” or “instruments”, let alone national currencies.
2. Section XXVI also foresees punishment at “treble the value” of any wrong dealings. Imagine lawyers and a judge who’d decide that the Bank of England should pay treble the value of the National Debt to the Treasury, since the Treasury seems to have “forgotten” about its right to “print money” on behalf of the Crown.

Let us also consider what is “unregulated” about the Bank of England’s money:

1. The Bank’s supervision of all other banks has been overlooking the limits set by fractional reserve banking, i.e. the ratio between deposits and loans should be strictly regulated.
2. Interest-bearing Credit created by banks, also called “broad money” (97%), has outstripped interest-free Cash created by the Treasury, also called “narrow money” (3%). I.e. the ratio between Credit and Cash should be regulated.
3. The myth is perpetuated that the Government “runs the economy”. In reality, the Government’s budget is a certain share of the total money supply. It varies from country to country and year to year. Page 8 of our submission to the Treasury Select Committee, Green Credit for Green Purposes, shows how the supply of credit rises far more than the Government’s budget between 1999 and 2006. In an economy where the older generations “supply” money to their children and children are to look after their parents, these trends should be studied and regulated on a long term basis.

The moneymasters have thus redefined not only the source of “money”, but also the process of creation and its privilege, which has been the monopoly of the Crown.

However, we live in a world where usury has been legalised, i.e. credit creation is not only legalised but also virtually unlimited. If usury were illegal, all credit creation would be illegal.

Section XXVI of the Bank of England Act 1694 has not been repealed (yet). Can HM the Queen give Her subjects the chance of being less oppressed by enforcing the Bank of England Act 1694?

See also net credit creation.

Emailing the Treasury Select Committee

I kept waiting for a reason that would trigger a letter to John McFall MP, the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee.

This letter to HM the Queen was it. Written by Thomas Palley, who advocates Economics for Democratic and Open Societies, it is based on a letter from the British Academy which describes the supposed cause of the crisis:

“a failure of the collective imagination of many bright people, both in this country and internationally, to understand the risks to the system as a whole.”

Our letter to the Chairman is here. I also sent it to all Committee Members and all MPs who signed Early Day Motion 1297 on the Enforcement of the Bank of England Act.

Video recordings on the oppression of HM subjects by the banking system

On June 23rd, 2009, Brad R Meyer, hosted our last Forum meeting, sitting next to Austin Mitchell MP who addressed EDM 1297:

Roger Lawson, Communications Director of the UK Shareholders Association made these comments:

Eva Adshead who made Case Law as a victim of RBS and the Legal Aid Board identified these problems:

Questions to the Chancellor

1. EDM 1297 advocates that the Bank of England has failed to control the greed, risk-taking and speculation of the banking system over which it presides. How does the Chancellor propose to deal with the resulting oppression of Her Majesty’s subjects, given that the Bank of England Act 1694 provides by fines three times the value of abusive trading?

2. Would the Chancellor consider rising overindebtedness, home repossessions, bankruptcies and suicides signs of Her Majesties’ subjects being oppressed by a legal and financial system that is not working for the benefit of the Nation as a whole?

3. Given that the stated aim of the Treasury “to achieve rising prosperity and a better quality of life with economic and employment opportunities for all” is getting further and further from being reached, due to the perpetuation of the crisis, would the Chancellor consider the enforcement of the Bank of England Act 1694 that was written with the intention that Their Majesties’ subjects should not be oppressed?

On the failure of supervision by the Bank of England

On June 23rd, 2009, Roger Lawson, Communications Director of the UK Shareholders Association (UKSA), contributed this to our debate:

I plan to talk about the regulatory failures and the failings in the Bank of England that created much of the turmoil in the UK banking sector. This would include the cases of Northern Rock and Royal Bank of Scotland. In the former the FSA have admitted gross errors in regulating it thus allowing them to pursue a risky business strategy, and when the company finally got into difficulties, the Bank of England acted capriciously, not in accordance with its established remit, and in a manner that undermined confidence still further – the result was the first major run on a bank for over a 100 years. In the case of Royal Bank of Scotland the company was also allowed to pursue a risky strategy with wildly excessive levels of “leverage” which resulted in this venerable institution having to be bailed out by the Government at massive cost. This has destroyed the capital and income of tens of thousands of people.

The Bank of England failed in its responsibility to properly supervise the banking sector which allowed these and other banks to pursue investment strategies that were highly risky, and to develop new “financial instruments” which nobody was regulating.

Here’s the link to the video recording of our Forum meeting on June 23rd.

On the Oppression of HM Subjects by The Banking System

Home repossessions, bankruptcies, overindebtedness – what other signs of oppression do we need in addition to unemployment, pension scandals, student loans and bailout monies?

But there are ‘cases’ that are worse: fraud, corruption and unethical / unprofessional behaviour by the legal and banking profession, besides judicial institutions.

Hence our invitation to ‘group complaints’ so that the law can be changed – via Parliament as the highest Court in the Land.