Back Next Statment's
HOW PUBLIC AND CIVIL SERVANTS BRING THEIR OFFICES INTO DISREPUTE.
Only a corrupted capitalist terrorist attempting to damage proprietary rights
could disagree that a terrorist is one who either threatens to seriously damage
property or actually seriously damages property.
Those same corrupted members of society might also try to disagree with the
fact that Common Law rights are obviously the property and possessions of the
person to whom they belong unless an Act of Parliament given full and proper
Royal Assent states in mandatory words which when given a strict and literal
meaning state exactly what must be done and or in the alternative must be suffered
AT MY OWN EXPENSE.
It is obviously serious damage to property and disreputable to deny a person
their tradable rights because rights are the property and possessions of those
to whom they belong and those who attempt to steal rights by deception of authority
are now finding they are being criminalised and quite rightly too because they
are criminals committing theft and terrorism by fraud and or in the alternative
deception of authority.
There is also the question of a fraud on a duty of care being practised against
ordinary people contrary to their tradable rights.
We exercise a duty of care by giving everyone we consider to be an honourable
truth seeker and sharer automatic beneficiary status of the ICHOR Trust even
without their knowledge. The deployment of deception technology linked to Artificial
Intelligence will prove beyond reasonable doubt that we are not attempting
to deceive anyone whilst corrupt and selfish people may attempt to claim that
deception technology does not work because they are too brain damaged to know
when they have been beaten, medical science confirms telling lies causes brain
damage, and so the corrupt members of national and international institutions
and organisations of government are either incapable of thinking straight or
are knowingly and deliberately corrupt.
The police can not have an honest belief in their authority to prosecute
an individual for exceeding speed limits when they know from experience that
they cannot prove the accuracy of the calibration of their equipment on each
and every occasion that an individual is purported to have exceeded a legally
enforceable speed limit and will find it impossible to show they have an honest
belief that the relevant Highways authority have an obligatory authority ordering
the deployment of safety/speed/traffic cameras of sufficient authority to make
me suffer them at my own expense.
Subordinate legislation, rules, regulations and orders do not override the
sanctity of contract only Primary Legislation in the form of an Enabling Act
of Parliament given full and proper royal assent with financial provision for
its execution that clearly states who must suffer what AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE
is sufficient to take away private tradable rights and no one has shown any
such authority even though it has been asked for via the Prime Ministers Office
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 |