Stockholm, the 25 april 2013 To: Highest Court PO Box 2066 103 12 Stockholm via Gta Court Of Appeal

Box 2223 550 02 Jnkping By fax: 036 15 65 36

T 2379--12 Nt and T 627--13 Gh

Application to leave and appeal
Complainant: Rechtsanwalt and EU- Lawyer Dr. Henning Witte Box 1342 181 25 Liding Counterparty: SEB Card AB, 556574--6624, c/o the Collections Department, Magnus Ladulsgatan 2, 103 85 Stockholm Agent: Christina P--Kankainen, same address Appeal decisions of the Gta Court of appeal and the judgment of the District Court of Norrkping: The Norrkping District Court judgment of 7 February 2013, Gta Court of appeal decision of 3 april 2013, T

2379--T 12

627-to-13

The point: Unique test case against serious abuses in the private banking system which are causing severe damage to society in Sweden: unemployment, inflation, high taxes, Treasury, etc.

Translation by: Oliver Troll

CLAIMS: The appellant argues that: 1. The Supreme Court eliminates the Gta Court of appeal decision T 627-of-13 on 3 april 2013 and notifies the leave to appeal for the goal of the referral back to the Gta Court of appeal hearing of the case. 2. Alternatively, the Supreme Court takes up the case directly yourself by informing leave to appeal as well as eliminating the Norrkping District Court judgment T-2379 12 of February 7 2013 in its entirety and dislike the other party's actions. 3. The respondent will pay all legal costs with the amount that later will specified. 4. The Supreme Court rate dispute that simplified civil litigation. LEAVE TO APPEAL This goal is one of the most important civil cases ever brought in Sweden, more important than Neurosedyn-case in the 1960 's. Never before has the private banking system been challenged legally on their most tender point: banks manufacture money itself and, moreover, without the support of the law. Most people think that it is only the Riksbank makes money and that private banks lending money they already have, either through deposits or that they themselves borrowed money from the Bank or another. The private banks ' surreptitiously taken privilege to be able to produce money (which is why a license is so expensive), causing great damage to society. Not only that, it allows a smygexpropriering of seven different levels, it causes mass unemployment, inflation, high taxes and public debt, unnecessarily expensive products and much more. If only the Riksbank had the opportunity to make money, would all these social problems not exist, then it would only be legal tender in circulation. A Court ascertains that the digital money that private banks manufactures, are illegal tender, and therefore not refundable, is of central importance for Swedish society as a whole and can be the starting point for a monetary reform which introduces stable and honest relationships in Sweden. It is of the utmost importance for the management of the law that this case be tried by the Supreme Court, because private banks ' illegal ways of issuing money along with the Riksbank is damaging and shakes the entire community in its foundations. Moreover, the Norrkping District Court judgment is a large mistake, due to the District Court treat for the banks most central rule in the Constitution as if it does not exist. A District Court may not take the liberty to change the Swedish Constitution!

Translation by: Oliver Troll

In one of the most important cases ever brought in Sweden, the Gta hovrtt did not refuse leave to appeal. The case has already garnered a lot of attention on the Internet. DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACTION 1. Amendment of the Basic Law 9: 14 Constitution Act The Norrkping District Court behaves as if 9: 14 second clause of the Constitution does not exist. The rule is called: "the provisions on monetary and payment system will be notified otherwise by the law." It aims not only to the Riksbank's monopoly to issue banknotes and coins, but to the whole monetary and payment system as a post office, Bank, FSA, banks, savings banks, financial, and payment institutions, etc. "the Riksbank Act also says that the Riksbank will promote a safe and efficient payment system. Simply put, it is that work in different ways to the financial system is stable and working well. "the Riksbank states on it's website. In their reasoning for 2379- 12 writes the Norrkping District Court at page 15 "Illegal money? Of Chapter 9. section 14 of the Constitution states that only the Riksbank may issue banknotes and coins. Already the wording indicates that this provision refers only to banknotes and coins, i.e. some physical carriers of monetary worth, and not money or a monetary value as such. ... Overall, lacks the legislation relating to the Riksbank's banknote and coin monopoly fully supports Henning Witte's understanding that the Riksbank has a monopoly for the creation or use of monetary value as such. " Henning Witte, however, has never relied on the basic legal rules governing the Riksbank has a monopoly to produce banknotes and coins but at the second movement in 9: 14 RF, which requires that everything to do with money, and the payment system to make, must be regulated by law. It's absolutely preposterous to suggest that this provision would only relate to banknotes and coins. The most important part of the monetary system is the issuance of money. Therefore, this is regulated by a law. Then SEB has manufactured digital money through its loans to Henning Witte, which the bank confirms the evidence submitted in the case, it requires a law which legitimizes SEB to make money. SEB has not been able to mention such a law, because it is neither in Sweden or the EU. Therefore, SEB has given out illegal money which means that they do not have the right to demand them back. By SEB's illegal money production, the Bank has caused major damage in Sweden that mass unemployment, high inflation, surreptitious expropriation, high taxes, excessive public debt, etc., see Henning Witte's submissions to the Court.

Translation by: Oliver Troll

2. Narrow interpretation of pyramid schemes under the Lottery Act A pyramid scheme is that those who begin the game gains fraudulently riches at the expense of those who later involved in the game and that game will have all the time recruit new participants to generate new values and avoid collapse. The more people that participate, the longer liver pyramid game. Then the banks pretend to lend legal tender but in practice produce the money themselves in a kind of fraud, fraudulently gives the appearance that they have lent money to genuine customer, which is not the case. Then the private banking sector, forcing the entire community to participate, it takes a long time before bank pyramid game collapses, as it has to do with mathematical necessity, when the Earth has finite resources and a limited number of people, see Henning Witte's submissions to the Court. The main driving force in the money-of-pyramid game is that private banks can manufacture their own money through lending and money supply for interest rates is not produced. 3. Henning Witte's evidence from the Riksbank is disregarded by the Norrkping District Court The verdict is already faulty on the plea, Henning Witte's crucial evidence from the Riksbank, which confirms that the SEB manufactures their own money through credit, have not been taken into account in the decision. The central issue in the case is whether there is a legal basis which allows SEB to make money. SEB has wormed itself and argued that they do not have made banknotes or coins. However, the appellant has never taken up the argument, that they would have lent the cash. The goal is solely about digital money, which is approximately 96% of the total amount of Swedish kronor. SEB has not explained what happens to money supply when they grant a loan. They have not directly acknowledged that they make money as in a similar case in the United States. Then played the evidence that this is the case a crucial role in the case. The Norrkping District Court should have adopted a position on this evidence. 4. The Norrkping District Court gives a misleading and incorrect definition of credit Not only did the District Court ignored evidence that SEB has fabricated its own money, the judges also camouflages this issue with a totally unrealistic definition of credit on the page. 15-of-16 in the sentence: "pledge (r) on the honoring of payment in the end with the Riksbank's legitimate means of payment". In the use of credit cards can store that takes the card to complete your payment does not require cash by the bank, which has issued the credit card, in this case SEB. The Bank has never given such a pledge. In addition, SEB is notorious for many of their offices now refuse to deal with cash. According to the Swedish financial supervisory authority, there is no obligation on the part of the private banks to manage cash. It is completely voluntary. So sick is Sweden's banking system.

Translation by: Oliver Troll

5. The Norrkping District Court does not take into account what legal tender is Legal tender, legal tender, is a key concept in economics. When Henning Witte believe they have the right to refuse to repay the loan with the argument, that the loan consists of illegal tender, so should the Norrkping District Court have deeper entered the question what is considered as legal tender in Sweden. 6. The Norrkping district court denies that SEB made money by lending "SEB has instead sent a value that the Bank must be able to meet, in the end, over the counter to hand over banknotes and coins issued by the Central Bank of Sweden, for the provider Henning Witte, goods and services. "The District Court in the pages. 15 of the judgment. As already mentioned, so need not meet any SEB in banknotes and coins. Such a formulation enhances the great myth that banks only lend money that already exists, as another/the Riksbank has already been made. But that is not the case. SEB must not be able to deliver anything! This was the case when Sweden had the gold standard in the late 19th century. When the Bank was forced to deliver his money against gold. Today, the Bank no longer need it. they produce money by simple button presses and posting transactions into their computers. SEB has transferred the digital money and therefore there is no need for SEB or anyone else to that money to be repaid. Achievement, similar counterfeiting and therefore is illegal, is already carried out to the fullest, to meet future obligations on something exists and is not needed in today's financial system. 7. The Norrkping District Court claiming incorrectly that the Riksbank manufactured banknotes and coins not is money. On page 15, the District Court: "Of 9. section 14 of the Constitution states that only the Riksbank may issue banknotes and coins. Already the wording indicates that this provision refers only to banknotes and coins, i.e. some physical carriers of monetary worth, and not money or a monetary value as such. " Banknotes and coins is the archetype of the money and, in addition, in contrast to the private banks ' money of legal tender, that is, legitimate money. That the district court denies that the only one in Sweden, Riksbank, which according to the Constitution and the Riksbank Act mm shall have the right to produce money, would not do so clearly shows, the Norrkping District Court has unilaterally taken party for private banks. Only this formulation should contemplate the disqualification of judges.

Translation by: Oliver Troll

8. The District Court refuses to rule on how lending works in Sweden The Norrkping District Court writes on page 15: "Although thus lending would work on it as Henning Witte stated (something which the District Court itself adjudicates on) " The goal stands or falls with it will be examined how credit works in Sweden. Only then can the Court assess whether Henning Witte is obliged to refund for the credit. If the Court refuses to do so, then the Court refuses to give Henning Witte fair treatment. In addition, the evidence that Henning Witte presented to the District Court, the Riksbank's affidavit, clearly spoken out about how credit works in Sweden and it complies with Henning Witte's claims and is to the detriment of the SEB. 9. The Norrkping District Court claiming incorrectly that the SEB must be able to deliver on credit card loans with cash to the shop, where the complainant has acted with the SEB- credit card As it has been said that SEB has no obligation to manage cash (with the small exception of a bank customer would pay a bank achievement with cash, then they are legal tender, which is very rare). The Norrkping District Court would even with this formulation give the impression, that SEB does not manufacture money when they grant a loan. It also shows how unfair and incorrect judgment is. Therefore, it must be repealed.

Translation by: Oliver Troll

BASICS 1. The Norrkping District Court has treated other clause in section 14 of the Constitution Act Chapter 9 "Regulations on money-and payment system will be notified otherwise by law. Law (2010: 1408) " as if it wasn't there and thus arbitrary change in the Constitution to the advantage of Sweden's SEB. 2. The Norrkping District Court has made a narrow interpretation of what a prohibited pyramid schemes is According to Lottery teams 3 3 paragraph "and similar games". 3. The Norrkping District Court has not taken into account or even mentioned in its judgment the appellant reasons Henning Witte's only evidence: a statement from the Central Bank noting that private banks make money by lending and thus blowing up the money supply in Sweden. 4. The Norrkping District Court gives a misleading and incorrect definition of credit: "representations concerning honouring of the payment in the end with the Riksbank's legitimate means of payment ". 5. The Norrkping District Court does not take into account or defines what is legal tender. 6. The Norrkping district court denies that SEB made money by lending, which is not in line with reality. 7. The Norrkping District Court claiming incorrectly that the Riksbank manufactured banknotes and coins is not money. 8. The District Court refuses to rule on how lending works in Sweden, despite the fact that this very issue is the most important in the whole of the goal and have been provided with evidence in the form of a certificate from the Riksbank, like the District Court, however, not taken into account. Henning Witte, the appellant considers that in this case not guilty to repay a credit card loan, when he received illegal payment. 9. The Norrkping District Court claiming incorrectly that the SEB must be able to deliver on credit card loans with cash to the shop, where the complainant has acted with the SEB- credit cards.

Translation by: Oliver Troll

10.Tthe Norrkping District Court has not incorrectly classified the goal as FT, although SEB only requires 21 083 kr, which is less than half the basic amount of 2012.

Henning Witte

Translation by: Oliver Troll