Big differences to the UK? After all, former Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee John McFall is “set to become director of new bank”…
I have often felt that I learned more about our money system than I ever wanted to learn. But there are people in our society who had to learn more about The Law than they ever wanted to learn. And that is because they’ve been hurt, damaged, harassed, defrauded, tortured, bankrupted, dispossessed, you name it, it’s happened to them.
What voice do they have on their own? Where can they go when they find out that their MP is “part of the gang”?
Our meetings were attended by many such “victims turned starfighters”, and with the new government, we have hope that we can usurp the Rule of Money and let the Rule of Law re-enter. But it’s going to be a long journey!
First steps were
- a letter to Dr. Vince Cable MP in his new capacity as Secretary of State where we believe he is responsible for the Insolvency Register; it includes at least four fraudulent cases and we ask him to make amends
- a letter to the Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke QC MP whom we ask to ensure that Her Majesty’s Seal is not going to be abused any more as in the four cases cites
- an article on The Rule of Law and the Rule of Money in the new BlogPaper that publishes in print, if an article is read by more than 100 people and voted into print by at least five. It would be nice if you could register and vote to get the article into print!
And thus we hope that the new Government’s promises can be taken seriously:
- fairness in the justice system
- greater support and protection for the victims of crime.
Of course, so far, it is assumed that offenders are not among the judiciary. But the older we become the more we become disillusioned and see the emperor’s clothes for what they are…
If we had Honest Money, we would have honest bankers.
If we didn’t have Dishonest Money, we would have honest politicians.
Meanwhile, we have to live with our creativity and conscience, to survive in a system that is rotten to its core.
We are preparing for another meeting at the House of Commons on Tuesday, October 27th, at 3pm.
Please send an email if you plan to attend.
And please feel encouraged to send in your story using this EDM 1297 Case Template. We want to group cases with a view to changing the law.
03 August 2009
Dear John McFall MP
This is a belated clarification regarding myself in your letter to our Chairman Austin Mitchell MP of March 17. For I am not one of Austin’s constituents, but the organiser of a Forum that has been meeting in both Houses since 1998, as you will see on our archive site www.monies.cc. Thus it will become clear to you that my opinion is not a personal one, but that I promote the concerns of many.
In fact, our analysis is so significant that a human rights lawyer advised us to “go for Parliamentary scrutiny via the Treasury Select Committee”. Hence I’ve attended numerous Committee meetings and gave you a copy of Creating a World without Poverty by Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus.
Filed under: Challenging the Recession, Current Law, Engaging with MPs, Financial Fairness, Future laws, History, Treasury Select Committee | Tagged: Chairman, Treasury Select Committee | Leave a Comment »
Early Day Motion 1297 was tabled by Austin Mitchell MP on April 20th and has been signed by twelve other MPs.
It advocates the enforcement of the Bank of England Act 1694 and thus puts the finger on the button of the banking system and its supervisory institution: the Bank of England.
The outcome of our Forum meeting on June 23rd was this new site that gathers complaints with a view to changing the law via Parliament as the highest Court in the Land.
Here are the statements made on the day:
Austin Mitchell MP, Chairman of the Forum for Stable Currencies, next to Brad Meyer who prepared and facilitated the meeting
Roger Lawson, Communications Director, UK Shareholders Association
Eva Adshead who made Case Law as a Victim of RBS and the Legal Aid Board.
This Early Day Motion was tabled by our Austin Mitchell MP on April 20, 2009:
David Taylor MP tries to turn its message into an Amendment to the Budget.
I had sent the Act to HM Queen who sent it to Downing Street, who sent it to the Treasury which has not responded yet. But, for the first time in her reign, HM Queen has seen the Governor of the Bank of England!
That this House, observing that the intention of the founding Act of the Bank of England in 1694 was `that their Majesties’ subjects may not be oppressed by the said corporation’, notes that those subjects have been seriously oppressed by the Bank’s failure to control the greed, risk-taking and speculation of the banking system over which it presides; and therefore suggests that this oppression should be dealt with as the Act provides by fines three times the value of the abusive trading.
The first MPs have signed. Will you get your MP to sign via WriteToThem?
In our observation, oppressions through banks are due to:
1. There is now only a limited number of qualified staff in every branch. In fact, what used to be professional training for a professional body, ACIB, has become a “School of Finance“.
2. The training in “banking” is limited. It consists only of “sales”.
3. There is now little responsibility in local branches.
4. Instead, all decision making has been centralised. This results in the decision makers having little personal knowledge of the client or a perspective about a business.
5. There is little comprehension of day-to-day business issues.
6. There is no realisation of the criticality of time or expediency.
7. There is limited knowledge of supposed Government support. As an example, the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme (SFLGS) was reducing before the crisis.
8. Instead of joined-up thinking, staff are only box tickers and have no room for initiative.
9. MPs have very limited knowledge of the depth of the problems, even before the crisis.
10. Day-to-day business borrowing for “normal” clients has never been excessive. In fact, it was already very restrictive to Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and often even obstructive.
What is deplorable is the complete sell-out of the State to the banking system, no matter which Nation State we look at. National Sovereignty has been undermined to such a degree, that it will be hard to re-establish. Maybe that’s what’s meant to be… But maybe it’s here to challenge us to ‘overcome’.
I saw a poster in the tube about the famous author Paulo Coelho and his latest book “The Winner Stands Alone”. The poster says: “Success – the beautiful poison”.
And thus I am reminded of my late husband who said to me when I came to London in 1981: it depends how you measure success. The Japanese measure it in the number of risks taken… And thus I keep taking risks. For what’s the worst that can happen??? Maybe that we die. Well, that will happen no matter what! Hence I might as well do what other people might call a ‘risk’. But it’s just a decision, really.
This article in TimesOnline was written by Sir Ken Madonald, QC, who was the Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003-08.
The law making process in the UK is historic. But it has been usurped by the power of money.
How can it be redressed, if at all? Does all future power lie in the protocols of internet communications?
It’s entitled The Abolition of Freedom Act 2009…
Please note para 48 that bailiffs may enter a home to seize goods in the recovery of a fine … and use reasonable force!…
This act, for the founding of the Bank of England as a “corporation”, was written with the intention for their Majesties’ subjects not to be oppressed.
Its Sections XXVI and XXVII have not been repealed yet and say something along the following lines:
- the Bank of England may not monopolize or engross any goods, wares or merchandize
- the Bank of England may not deal or permit to deal or trade with any of the ’stock-monies’ or ‘effects’, i.e. ‘deposits’ or ‘collateral’, to buy or sell any goods, wares or merchandize
- should anybody do so anyhow, or by order or directions, such dealings or tradings are prosecuted and punished by treble the value of the goods and merchandize traded, if ‘victims’ sue for action in the High Court.