National Australia Bank v Walter [2004] VSC 36

In National Australia Bank v Walter [2004] VSC 36 the applicants raised a number of unorthodox arguments, including entitlement to trial by jury under Magna Carta, contended that the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) is invalid on the ground that there is no proof that Queen Elizabeth II gave it royal assent, and alleged apprehended bias of the judge, due to their disclosure of beneficial ownership of a parcel of NAB shares. The applicants contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceedings and was unlawfully constituted because certain judges and other Court officials are suspected to be Freemasons. They alleged that Freemasons administer and swear unlawful oaths, including oaths of allegiance to a foreign power, and that the Bench of the Supreme Court of Victoria was infested with Freemasons who were guilty of criminal acts, indictable offences and other unlawful conduct which contaminated the entire Court. The applicants further submitted that the practice of fractional reserve banking and credit creation was “the most evil face in this country”, (relying upon the decision of First National Bank of Montgomery v Jerome Daly, a decision of one Martin V. Mahoney, a Justice of the Peace in the Township of Credit River, State of Minnesota) that loans are made in excess of the bank’s beneficially owned funds are “artificially created” and mere book entries, that the bank gives nothing of value in making such loans, thus no consideration given by the bank in the loan transaction, which is unenforceable on the dual bases of illegality and want of consideration.

Leave a Reply