Supportive Residents & Carers Action Group Inc

Registered with the

Justice Department of Victoria, Consumer Affairs Victoria and the US SECs 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 lawyers 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 banks $24,000 blunder will effectively
make the house pay the banks lawyers $300k. Bank shareholders are effectively robbed as well because the
security is worth less than the loan and the legal fees.
Weve seen this before as banks add unsecured card debt or semi secured car loan debt to home loan
payouts. In fact weve 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 Eliotts 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 cant 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 thats a-ok. If you can get away with it via deception then all the power to youthats
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 didnt 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 didnt 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
wasnt 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 didnt 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 ANZs Mike Smith tell David Murray on 3 Oct 2014 that the bank capitalisation rules

$700 trillion just in derivatives. And they want

are ok, despite globally the banks owing ~

to grab kiddies passbook accounts if the banks go under.

As reported in the NY Times 3rd Sept 2014: American

$280 trillion

banks have nearly

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 CBAs pledge of all assets including kiddies bank books - to the US Fed Reserve. What would you
think if dad stole his kids 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=tr
ue&_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

"in the middle range" as suggested

by the inquiry's interim report..............
to the most appropriate comparator set of global banks, not

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, theyd get C on a
school report card.

Yours
Supportive Residents & Carers Action Group Inc