Bank Loan Contracts: Class Action against the Banks

To: Professor Ian Ramsay,

Director,

Centre of Corporate Law and Securities Regulation,

Melbourne Law School,

University of Melbourne,

Melbourne,

Australia.

Dear Professor Ramsay,

Re: Bank Loan Contracts.

You have recently said, in regard to lawyer John Mahoney's new class action against the Banks for not passing on benefits to customers, that "He's really trying to say that all the loan contracts that both major banks and small banks have entered into with thousands and thousands of people across the country, they are really all invalid. That's such a difficult thing for a court to order."

Why is that difficult? Common Law lays down the 8 essential elements for the creation and validity of a contract, ie: (1) offer; (2) acceptance; (3) sufficient consideration; (4) capacity to contract; (5) intention to enter legal relations; (6) legality of purpose; (7) genuine consent; and (8) certainty of terms.

A Court of Proper Jurisdiction, ie: where Trial by Jury is mandatory (unless both parties to any action consent to be without a Jury and allow a Judge to determine the case), would have no difficulty deciding what is right and what is wrong, as well as what is lawful and what is unlawful.

Where our Judicature, itself, has gone wrong is because the Judiciary have subverted and extirpated the laws and liberties of the People, by denying us our Right to Trial by Jury. This is unmitigated Treason because Trial by Jury is Democracy. Democracy literally means that People Rule, ie: that people have Sovereignty (the ultimate authority to make and impose laws) which they exercise by way of the unanimous judgments of Juries..... and those resultant Common Law Rulings nullifying any bad Statute Laws.

That is what Sir William Blackstone meant when he said: UPON these accounts the trial by jury even has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law. And, if it has so great an advantage over others in regulating civil property, how much must that advantage be heightened, when it is applied to criminal cases! But this we must refer to the ensuing book of these commentaries: only observing for the present, that it is the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy, or with for, that he cannot be affected either in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbours and equals. A constitution, that I may venture to affirm has, under providence, secured the just liberties of this nation for a long succession of ages. And therefore a celebrated French writer ^q, who concludes, that because Rome, Sparta, and Carthage have loft their liberties, therefore those of England in time must perish, should have recollected that Rome, Sparta, and Carthage, were strangers to the trial by jury.

Bank Loan Contracts ARE totally invalid...eg: variable interest rates rendering a contract void for uncertainty; including such phrases as "without your consent"; lending money which has been "created out of thin air", etc. A Jury would have no difficulty judging the facts and the law to condemn the Banks as criminals of the worst kind.

Many great men, over the last few centuries, have warned us about the evil of the Banks.

Juries, of good men and women, would have no difficulty in administering Justice.

What is the policy of the Melbourne Law School towards the subversion and extirpation of the People's Right to Trial by Jury?

Yours sincerely,

John Wilson.

http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au