www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Click sign for larger image

- 

"To Noone shall we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice" (Magna Carta [1215] ) "Whatever happened to Magna Carta. Did she die in vain?" (Tony Hancock)

 -  GOTCHA !!! - APPELATE JUDGES CAUGHT  RED HANDED FAVOURING BANKSIN FLOODGATE-CLOSING CONSUMER CREDIT PRECEDENT-National Westminster Bank PLC -V - Story & Pallister (CA 7 May 1999)-Parliamentary draftsman, Mr Francis Bennion, speaks out against the ruling [below]-The UK Court of Appeal denies any wrongdoing, (Well, they would, wouldn't they?)butTHE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES-Inevitable (?) £300 BILLIONS' +   COVER-UP  AT  COURT OF APPEAL  (UK)-Section 8 (Regulated Agreements) Consumer Credit Act (1974) ("The CCA") - Judges conceal the material fact that Section 8protects the consumer in order to favour a bank that iscaught defying the lawin everyday debt refinancing transactions-CREDIT RATINGS' AGENCIES MISLED BY THE COURT(where "TRIPLE - A  RATINGS"  subsequently assigned to (dis)affected securities) -CONSUMER CREDIT LAW- THE PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS IN UK LAWAGAINST THE MISCHIEF OF UNWRITTEN CONSUMER CREDIT (refinancing) AGREEMENTS (and/or debt consolidation agreements) IS REMOVED BY AN UNAUTHORISED APPELLATE COURT (Material fact of existing protection is deliberately concealed by Court)- THE COURT  CONCEALS DETERMINATIVE MATERIAL FACT IN ORDER TO  PROTECT A STATUTE-DEFIANT BANK FROM INVESTIGATION BY THE OFT AND BANK OF ENGLAND FOR UNACCEPTABLE PRACTICE & POLICY-At Issue here: LEGALITY : The Court has, in reality, ruled in the general law that 3 existing regulated (protected) agreements lose their protection when refinanced by a replacement agreement. We say "in reality" because in achieving and maintaining what is an unlawful and discriminatory position (that, contrary to provisions within primary legislation, regulated agreements may become unregulated by contracting-out of the law) the Court conceals the material fact that the 3 existing agreements that feature in this case are regulated agreements, as defined by Section 8 Consumer Credit Act (1974) ("CCA") and the regulation remains no matter how a clever credit trader may attempt to compromise the consumer's legal position.  Regulated Agreements are protected in perpetuity from abuse of any kind, including the common law itself (the Judges) where Section 173 of the 1974 CCA forbids the Court (and the contracting parties) to "Contract-Out" of the CCA once terms of the kind regulated by Section 8 CCA are agreed by the parties. -By concealing material fact to favour a wrongdoer the Court acts unlawfully. The material fact in question, (that regulated agreements feature), requires the Court to give way to the Statute because a conflict arises between the common law and the Statute, and the law requires the Court to uphold the overriding principle of the CCA - the protection of the weaker party where the bank sought to profit from not documenting terms. This is for reasons of social policy, to combat what is termed "inequality of bargaining power" eg where a dispute arises over undocumented terms that affect a regulated agreement, (here, 3 such agreements) the weaker party has otherwise to fund a fight against a bank. - The legal costs here exceeded £1.5 million pounds.-Mr Francis Bennion, draftsman of the 1974 CCA speaks out, terming the ruling "wholly mistaken" and "Incorrect" that the Court "reveals an uncertain judicial grasp....." (see below - follow creditlaw link)---------------------------- "Concealment and perverting the Course of Justice"

 The complained-of Judgment and Orders of the Court of Appeal in National Westminster bank PLC V Story & Pallister  reveal, to the independent, fair minded and informed tribunal, the Court engaging in political activism - ie where it chooses to suppress, to conceal material evidence that the Court knows is determinative of an Appeal but for the Court's conscious concealment of that evidence. It is with great regret therefore that the Court of Equity should stand accused of most inequitous behaviour; protectionism. The Court cannot argue other than that National Westminster Bank PLC is shown by Section 8 CCA to defy Parliament's efforts to regulate its lending practices in consumer credit agreements.-  We are indebted to our colonial cousins at Yahoo! for upholding the right to protest peacefully to seek redress of grievances

where both Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights Act (1689), (building blocks in the US constitution),

remind us all that laws made by an elected Parliament are constitutionally superior to law made

by unelected Judges,

where The Bill of Rights Act provides, but which provision the UK Court of Appeal refuses, 

"The Common Law must not defeat the Statute"

-

 The first defendant (Story) was warned, forthrightly and unambiguously, by leading counsel, Peter Smith QC, before trial at first instance, (Bristol High Court) on 1 May 1997, that "the Judge will Fudge" and that "Truth and Justice will be early casualties in this case", because the outcome would otherwise be "potentially disastrous for Natwest".