Back Next Statment's
according to the Theft Act 1968 S2b by failing to show authority to the trustee
that the trustee and each and every beneficiary have a right to be shown by the
Home Office as Confirmed by the Lord Chancellors Department that has changed
its name to the DCA (Department for Constitutional Affairs).
Even though the Trustee has written and asked the Prime Minister 21 questions
that it would be a breach of a duty of care by him not to give legally sustainable
replies to, no legally sustainable reply has been given in spite of extraordinary
effort and the fact that we have a right to know the authority of anybody,
natural or corporate, to affect us as our own expense.
It is a criminal offence to attempt to defeat a trust and yet according
to the Theft Act 1968 S2b the Home Office is attempting to defeat the
in contravention of my Common Law TRADABLE RIGHTS as is made crystal
clear in Metropolitan Asylum District v Hill (1881) 6App Case 193 contrary
my contractual rights as made clear in Curry v Misa 1875 ….rights
being tradable property because each and every one of my rights is protected
by the below stated ICHOR TRUST Covenant.
The Crown Prosecution Service, or indeed any government agency or department,
commits theft when they unlawfully appropriate people’s property
by stealing their tradable rights.
THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE commits theft by deception of authority and
a FRAUD ON A DUTY OF CARE when it ignores its DUTY TO ADVISE CITIZENS OF ANYTHING
THAT UNDERMINES THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT. The case of the claimant is undermined
by the fact that it is impossible to PROVE THE ACCURACY OF THE SPEED CAMERA
AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEDGED SPEEDING OFFENCE AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT FRAUD
UNRAVELS EVERYTHING. The fraud we refer to is the pretence of exercising a
duty of care.
The Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury and the Home Office have
enchained themselves by operating in an illegal criminal hierarchical system
and will now be incapable of finding any authority sufficient to make me do
or suffer anything they wish me to do or suffer AT MY OWN EXPENSE.
The last Act of Parliament that we know of to have any at your own expense
authority is the Copyright Act 1911.
The web site www.ichortrust.co.uk puts in the public domain conclusive
documentary evidence that central Government has failed to comply with
their duty to know
and show to me authority they must rely on according to Metropolitan
Asylum District v Hill 1881 6App Case 193 and thus are in breach of contract
to Curry v Misa (1875) L.R.10 Exch. 153 which leaves them indebted
to us for over £900 thousand million million caused by failing to
give the Trustee legally sustainable authority requested by the trustee
who had to
as a duty of care to his beneficiaries and to which he remains entitled,
even though it has never been shown in spite of the trustee contractiong
on my and
other beneficiaries behalf for CONTINUING to go without being shown
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 |