"Aussie Bankvictims go to Washington". Cc [email protected]. Dear US Department of Justice Anti-Trust Division I believe that American anti-trust laws are extraditable/extraterritorial and apply to collusive practices in foreign countries like Australia where foreign officials and bankers and banking associations got together in ways that harm Americans. I believe from news reports that quote Australia's politicians like Bill Shorten that there was collusion to limit the breadth and subject matter and timeframe of a Royal Commission into conduct that presently has, for example, US hedge funds suing Australia’s major banks for rate rigging and has US pension funds in California Colorado Texas and Massachusetts suing the Commonwealth Bank for concealing its role in violations of counterterrorism and anti-money laundering laws from the international stock market - even though the criminals involved included terrorists and international organised crime. I am part of the overall push to make certain that the Royal Commission’s terms of reference are expanded so that it can investigate many things, including those that might have harmed the US economy or US members of US pension funds et cetera. Before the Royal Commission started, the Federal Opposition Minister Bill Shorten publicly claimed that there was collusion between the Australian banking associations and bankers and the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the fellow (who became the new Prime Minister) Scotty Morrison. The scandals uncovered by the Royal Commission so far have resulted in senior management and board members resigning, and share prices plunging. Imagine if there was more. According to court proceedings filed by a US hedge fund called Sonterra Capital, the banking Association called AFMA was in cahoots with the Australian banks that were in the USA (i.e. all of them), and Sonterra Capital claimed that the Australian banks and AFMA violated the American racketeering law and American anti-trust laws. I think the US Department of Justice Anti-Trust Division has expert lawyers who could investigate if Australian politicians and bankers and banking associations deliberately drafted very limited terms of the Royal Commission for the purpose of concealing coverups by Australian regulatory authorities and politicians because the conduct might affect the USA as well. One is reminded of Ian Narev’s answers to Parliament about a year ago where he said that a Royal Commission would not be positive for regulators and policymakers (i.e. politicians) and the Australian banks. He was right and therefore one has to suspect why the Australian government party vehemently opposed any Royal Commission whatsoever, and then came up with a short underfunded and very limited inquiry that has basically ignored hearing from first-hand witnesses. I think the Australian banks packaged up doomed-2-fail predatory loans into products that was sold into the USA the same way that Royal Bank of Scotland did. The Department of Justice recently fined Royal Bank Of Scotland US$4.9 billion after the USA caught bank executives in Scotland were joking about the destruction they could cause to the US housing market by selling garbage products into the USA. I think there is a lot of things that the Royal Commission could assist US law enforcement to evaluate at a future date if the Royal Commission is expanded in its breadth of enquiries, and I suspect that the politicians bankers and their banking associations deliberately colluded so that the public could be told "Look over Here" so that no one looks "Over There". Imagine if looking "over there" handed international law enforcement agencies some cases on a silver platter that might result in extraditions of bankers and protection rackets under your extraditable extraterritorial racketeering and anti-trust laws. I also think that the Trump Administration wants to extradite foreign corrupt political bodies. Please investigate the Australian "protection racket".