Pavlomanolakos v National Australia Bank Limited

[1994] HCATrans 471

_Jin	-I;_ AUSTHALl~
~~',((~ ,.1:•

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Adelaide No A14 of 1993

B e t w e e n -

EVANGELOS ROBERT PAVLOMANOLAKOS

Applicant

and

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED

First Respondent

and

ESTATE OF MURRAY LONGMUIR

Second Respondent

and

BRENTON JOHN CLARK

Third Respondent

Pavlomanolakos 26/8/94

Application for special leave

to appeal

MASON CJ TOOHEY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT ADELAIDE ON FRIDAY, 26 AUGUST 1994, AT 10.55 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MASON CJ:	Mr Pavlomanolakos, you seek to appear in person?
MR E.R. PAVLOMANOLAKOS:	Yes please, Your Honours.
MASON CJ:	You need to make out a case of exceptional

circumstances in order to secure leave to present

the case in that way.

MR PAVLOMANOLAKOS:  Thank you, Your Honour. Could I speak

now, freely?

MASON CJ: Yes. First of all, we will receive Mr Lander's

appearance.

MR B.T. LANDER, QC:  I appear with my learned friend

MR C.M. HARFORD for all respondents.	(instructed
by Finlaysons)

MR PAVLOMANOLAKOS:  Today the Court, for the last time, in

the case of Pavlomanolakos v National

Australia Bank, will be given the opportunity and

responsibility to open the door to address an

important issue which is of national importance,

and also, with respect, to remind the Court that

the applicant carries that same responsibility.

Now, I am not a lawyer, as you can gather, so

I prepared two and a half pages of words. It would

compress into - give you sort of a clear picture,

enough to make a decision upon today.

MASON CJ:  But we are familiar with the point you want to

raise.

MR PAVLOMANOLAKOS:  Yes, and I am just going to read out two

and a half pages - - -

MASON CJ: Very well.

MR PAVLOMANOLAKOS:  Today we are learning that money,

whether it be plastic cards, book entry numbers or

actual currency, first comes into existence and put

into circulation as debt, by borrowing it through

loans from the debt system that every bank is a

party. We are also learning that the system

operates on the following equation: that is the

system collectively creates and issues out of
nothing, through loans, 1000 units principal as

debt. In return the system wants the principal, 1000 units it created and issued out of nothing plus 10 per cent, 100 units, in interest or, more

correctly, usury.	The extra 10 per cent,
100 units, are not in existence.	The only way for

the system to retrieve the 100 units is to

repossess people's assets, and the community

collectively will still be 100 units in debt to the

system.

Pavlomanolakos 26/8/94

This is totally unnecessary and the system can

be corrected. Just as it costs nothing by the

stroke of a pen or blips of a computer for the

system to create and issue 100 units, similarly it

will cost nothing to create and issue 1100 units.

Upon return of payment the system cancels

1000 units and keeps the 100 units for its profits.

By correcting the system it will enable everyone to

pay their debts. People who genuinely want to pay

their debts and want to keep their assets currently

are unable to do so, not because of want but

because the system has let them down.

However, it has now become prevalent and

highly questionable whether banking institutions

should be allowed to continue to create and issue

money out of nothing backed by the public credits

and earn interest for themselves. This power

inherently belongs, and should be restored, to the

government. In other words, bank institutions

should lend money already in existence, earned and

deposited in their institutions by the public,

money which has been originally created and issued

by the government and put into circulation debt

free at no cost to anyone through its expenditure

or any worthwhile approved public project.

We institute institutions and organizations to

protect the interests and well-being of our

society, yet the debt system is willing and ready

to undermine and pull them down. On one hand we

have law institutions that state you must pay your

debts. On the other hand we have a monetary system

that makes it impossible for you to do so.

As an illustration, the equation the monetary

system operates is that it creates and issues

$1 billion in loans. At the end of the year the

system wants, with 10 per cent interest,

$1.1 billion.	The $.1 billion is not created and
not in existence. People who hold the $.1 billion

worth of debt will lose their assets, and the

community collectively will still be $.1 billion in

debt to the system.

Here we have the law and the debt system in

conflict with each other. The law states you must

pay your debts, but the debt system makes it
impossible for people collectively to pay their
debts. In this case the debt was $.1 billion; the
system, however, created and issued to pay the

debt, only $1 billion. People can only repay

whatever the system has created and issued in

existence.

The moral question we have to ask is: how can

one make just laws alongside such a system? Also,

Pavlomanolakos 3 26/8/94

how is one to justify allowing an institution to

create money out of nothing and earn interest, and

be party to a system that compels people to pay

something that is not in existence and in its place

repossess people's assets? Another question

arises:  how can one be in debt into something that

was never created and issued in the first place by

the system and is not in existence?

These issues, but not expressed in the same

manner, were placed before the Federal Court of

Australia, and for the past three years all efforts

have failed to raise them and argue them before a

jury trial.	The court's attitude so far has been,
"You just want to avoid paying your debts."	As a

result people were prevented from arguing issues
that are of national importance. It has been

customary too long and perhaps warranted for the

courts always to think and assume and put onus on

the people that they cannot, or will not, pay their
debts, to think otherwise. It has never occurred
to the courts, after 300 years of continuous

bankruptcies, to question that there may be

something wrong and fault of the system.

Today we are learning some extraordinary

aspects about the debt money system. We are

learning that the system is largely responsible for

the upheaval around us. Why high rank officials

are blind to this fact and have failed to act is

beyond comprehension. The anomaly that exists in

the money system must be corrected if we are to reverse the present economic and social tyranny

against humanity. The problems that have derived

from the debt system, which is fostered by greed

and ignorance, are too numerous to state here.

A community suffers because the public purse

has been abused from all directions. Currently the

public purse is in custody of banking institutions

which unlawfully has been usurped from the

community. If the government and the community

borrow from the debt system $1 billion at

10 per cent per year over 20 years, conservatively

it will cost $2 billion in interest and still owe

$1 billion. The money they borrowed will buy and

sell goods and services worth only $1 billion.	If,
however, the government created and issued into

circulation $1 billion worth of currency, debt free

as an asset for and on behalf of the community, it

will circulate within the community over 20 years

and can buy and sell goods and services worth

$20 billion. It will cost the government and the

community absolutely nothing and still have an

asset of $1 billion.

Pavlomanolakos 26/8/94

Under such a scheme the government needs to

legislate. If anyone hoards the money and becomes

a money lender, face the death penalty,

particularly when he becomes a usurer and lends

more money than he has by issuing worthless

receipts. If that is too harsh the borrower

reserves the right to keep the interest, principal
and confiscate the usurer's personal assets because
in the end that is exactly what the usurer will do,

by the very nature of the equation where debts

exceed money supply. Whatever the equity or

collateral may be, he will confiscate interest,

principal and the asset.

Now, if the government and the community

borrowed the $20 billion from the debt system over

20 years, it will cost the government and the

community $40 billion in interest and they will

still owe $20 billion. The $40 billion is paid to

a small number of people who have shares in the

system. The above is not necessarily recommended,

but is just simply to illustrate the abuse of
public credit and the difference between debt

money, currently in use, and debt-free money.

At the moment we are paying two lots of

interest. We are paying usury to bring money into

existence and also interest to depositors' funds,

which are not lent out but serve only as fractional

reserves to support the debt system's fictitious
money they create out of nothing. Under the

Constitution it is the role of the government given

by the government to create and issue money debt

free into existence. In doing so the system will

be corrected, as there will always be debt-free

money into existence for people to pay the interest

on depositors' funds lent by the banking

institutions.

It will correct and reverse the destructive

equation now in use from "debt always exceeds money

in existence" to ''money always exceeds debt in

existence". Hence, collectively it will enable all

the people to pay their debts. The benefits to the

community will be enormous. The government will

never be in debt, and the community will be paying

interest only on depositors' funds, as usury will

be removed from the system. One of many highly

recommended ways to achieve this objective and

correct the system is found in many publications,

but particular in chapter 4 in The Truth in Money

book.

Now, when we first entered an agreement and

got a loan from the National Australia Bank, and by

the way our statement of claim is not - we are not

actually attacking the National Australia Bank.

Pavlomanolakos 5 26/8/94

The National Australia Bank just happens to be the

bank that we are dealing with. But when we entered

an agreement with the National Australia Bank I

believe, and evidence does show, that that is

illegally and unconstitutionally. In order to lend

something it must be in existence. The bank did

not lend something that was in existence, so in

other words it used government powers, privilege

powers, and created the money.

This power is not available to private

institutions, nor the government can delegate such

powers to private institutions unless there is a

referendum before the people of Australia. So it is not only a matter of questioning the authority

of a banking system which the National which they distribute those loans into the community through loans, and in order to find the

flaws which exist in the money system that is

causing havoc, it makes it difficult for borrowers

to repay the debts collectively. Now, this is an

important word, "collectively". It needs to be

stripped, and the only way to do that is through

a ..... process before a jury trial, and it is for

these reasons today I seek leave before

Your Honours to present this case.	Thank you,
Your Honours.

MASON CJ:  The Court need not trouble you, Mr Lander.

In the view of the Court, the decision of the

Full Court of the Federal Court is plainly right, and the proposed appeal is therefore bound to fail.

Accordingly, there are no exceptional circumstances

which would justify the grant of leave under

rule 11 of the old Order 69A, and the application

for that leave must fail. The application for leave and the application for special leave to

appeal are both refused.

MR LANDER:	We would ask for costs, if the Court pleases.
MASON CJ:	What do you say about costs?
MR PAVLOMANOLAKOS:	What can I say?
MASON CJ:	The application is refused with costs.

AT 11.12 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Pavlomanolakos 26/8/94