Back Next Statment's
The Court is comprised of all in attendance including the public who witness
the process. The Court and the Crown prosecution service have been given a copy
of this statement.
The Claimant is an employee of the Home Office attempting to commit theft
of rights by deception of authority and by a FRAUD ON A DUTY OF CARE.
The Claimant is an employee of the Home Office and the Home Office is committing
a fraud on a duty of care by failing to give legally sustainable replies to
letters it is their duty to give and my right to be shown by them because I
am a beneficiary of this trust. Therefore, the claimant having vicarious liability
(liability that flows both up to his superiors and down from his superiors
to him) pretends to exercise a duty of care when in reality he must first prove
he is a FIT PERSON TO MAKE THE CLAIM HE MAKES AGAINST ME because if he cannot
produce the authorities the trustee of the ICHOR Trust has made public that
he wishes to see at ichortrust.co.uk then a fraud of authority will have unravelled
the claimants authority to prosecute me for anything. And the Fraud they both
commit is best explained as follows:-
When you are affected by something irrespective of whatever it is that is
affecting you, you may request to be shown by the body affecting you the authority
they need to affect you at your own expense.
Otherwise, it is obvious that for the service of being affected you may offer
to contract unless sufficient authority is shown to make you suffer the affect
in question at your own expense. Otherwise, you would be a slave forced to
suffer an effect at your own expense and slavery is illegal. Therefore as rights
are property one must have a right to contract for continuing to go without
being shown what one has a right to see. That right, the right to see authority
requested, is obviously tradable for as much as one may wish to trade it because
it is a right and rights are property and possessions all in one.
A fraud on a duty of care and deception of authority is proven when authorities
relied on cannot be shown because they do not exist. And if they do
exist but, are not produced fraud on a duty of care is proven when the
to admit a mistake within 40 days and so gets into debt for £900
thousand million million by accepting our take it or leave it offer
for CONTINUING to
go without our right to be shown by those who rely on them the authorities
they must rely on.
The Crime of a fraud on a duty of care is made even more serious when victims
of fraud wait almost nine years and then ask government what they have done
about it and still do not get a legally sustainable reply even though they
can prove fraud beyond any doubt whatsoever with documentary evidence which
victims (Hosts) have put in the public domain at www.ichortrust.co.uk.
The Lord Chancellors Department actually states in a letter that it is
the duty of the Home Office to reply and obviously a legally sustainable
must be more than a mere acknowledgement because to exercise a duty
of care the Home Office must answer the questions raised other wise it
remain liable under contract law for £900 thousand million million
plus 2% compound interest
Back Next Statment's
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |