[patriots] Re: Letter to Heads of UK Public Authorities [Councils, Police, Courts, Universities, Gov't Departments etc]

  • From: john TIMBRELL <johntimbrell@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Chris Pead <cpead@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:35:09 +0000

Chris Please pass this from whence it came.When you sign an affidavit (sworn
statement) in front of commissioner for oaths and then serve it the named
person in it they have 30 days to reply in the form of an affidavit. If they
do not reply or try another legal process the maxim (unchangeable legal truth)
in law is that an unrebutted affidavit is an acceptance that the original
affidavit is accepted as a truth. Obviously, if kept within the time limits,
affidavits can be exchanged until there is an agreement or one party cannot
rebut the other's evidence.In the cases below, the government or whatever can
make charges on you which although are unlawful have been accepted by society
and they will use force to get their way; evictions etc. There are ways around
this but most people are too frightened to use use it. Anyway as in the case of
Tom Crawfords eviction 3 police forces used force to break into his house
illegally.
In the cases below which I call class offences i.e. the same offence against
many people. I believe the affidavit process is better. It is timely, cheap and
does not involve a court. If the evidence below is correct then an affidavit
against the CEO of the company (yes they are all companies) should be sworn. If
a commercial lien is taken out against the CEO because they will not correct
matters then the lien applies to the man or woman's personal assets not the
company they work for.For safeties sake it would be advisable for many people
to do this simultaneously. johntimbrell@xxxxxxxxxx

From: cpead@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [patriots] Letter to Heads of UK Public Authorities [Councils, Police,
Courts, Universities, Gov't Departments etc]
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 11:56:39 +0000

Letter to Heads of UK Public Authorities [Councils, Police, Courts,
Universities, Gov’t Departments etc] Tue 12:27 am UTC, 22 Dec 2015 1posted by
GordonPhoto via Flickr user The All-Nite ImagesDecember 20, 2015 by
BIOMORPHICDecember 2015Sir,
Paying taxes, fees or fines in a time of war is a crimeI recently discovered
that by demanding and collecting money in lieu of taxes, fees and fines, when
some of it is used for the purpose of waging war, public authorities are
breaking the law and acting illegally. I ask that you instruct your officers to
cease and desist from these crimes.When Parliament enacted the Terrorism Act
2000, MPs stipulated that it is a crime to ask for, collect or provide money if
a person knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used for the
purposes of terrorism. The Act defines terrorism as the threat or use of
firearms or explosives endangering life for the purpose of advancing a
political, religious, racial or ideological cause. In a recent ruling the UK
Supreme Court stated that, the definition [of terrorism] appears to extend to
the military and quasi-military activities of HM Government.As HM Forces are
currently bombing targets in Iraq and Syria causing the violent deaths of men
women and children, HM Government is violating warfare and terrorism law and
acting illegally. Consequently, to avoid criminal charges of fundraising for
the purposes of terrorism, UK citizens are duty bound to withhold all payments
of money from UK Public Authorities [HMR&C, Police, Councils, Courts,
Universities etc] until HM Government has ended its lethal use of
high-explosive weapons.I attach summaries of the law relating to the funding of
terrorism and aggressive war. Please let me know if you discover any clause
that excludes payments to public authorities from the crimes.In the meantime I
shall withhold all payments to UK public authorities pending a court ruling
that my interpretation of the crimes in the Terrorism Act 2000 is incorrect,
the use of high-explosive weapons by HM Forces in Iraq and Syria does not
contravene terrorism and warfare law, and I am granted immunity from
prosecution under terrorism and warfare lawYours faithfullyTony Rooke
Laws making the collection and payment of taxes, fees, fines etc illegalThe
Terrorism Act 2000Terrorism is the threat or use of firearms or explosives
endangering a person’s life for the purpose of advancing a political,
religious, racial or ideological cause. [summary of section 1]A person commits
an offence if he asks for, collects or provides money knowing that it may be
used for the purposes of terrorism [summary of section 15]A person commits an
offence if he enters into an arrangement as a result of which money is made
available to another for the purposes of terrorism. [summary of section 17]UK
Supreme Court ruling R ‘v’ Gul UKSC 64 [2013] [extract from para 28]“ the
definition [of terrorism] would seem to cover any violence or damage to
property if it is carried out with a view to influencing a government or IGO in
order to advance a very wide range of causes. Thus it would appear to extend to
military or quasi-military activity aimed at bringing down a foreign
government, even where that activity is approved, officially or unofficially,
by the UK Government.”The International Criminal Court Act 2001 [summary of
section 52]It is a criminal offence for a person to aid or abet the commission
of genocide, a crime against humanity, a war crime or conduct ancillary to such
crimes.The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [summary of article
25.3 (c)]A person, who aids, abets or assists in the commission of a crime of
genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, including providing the
means for its commission, shall be criminally responsible and liable for
punishment.Laws making war illegal“After the signing of the [Kellogg-Briand]
Pact, any nation resorting to war as an instrument of national policy breaks
the Pact. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an
instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such
war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a
war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so
doing…” [Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946]It is a crime against peace to
plan, initiate, wage or participate in a war in violation of international
treaties, agreements or assurances. [The Nuremburg Principles 1950 – UNGA
Resolution 177]No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly
or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of
any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of
interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or
against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of
international law.
[UN Declaration on Principles of International Law 1970 – UNGA Resolution 2625]
Chris Coverdale Make Wars History May 2015 Source:
http://www.makewarshistory.co.uk/?p=2012 Kind regards, Chris




This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected
by Avast. www.avast.com


JPEG image

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. patriots
  3. Archive
  4. 12-2015