Paul H quite rightly criticised my circulation of the 26 points which pointed
me to reading (parts of) the Lisbon treaty. Some of the 26 points are
definitely wrong which makes the whole document useless.
However my suggestion of an affidavit to the speaker of the house still stands
and it can be put in much simpler language. To those who do not understand the
power of an affidavit, please read what Mike Watson wrote on affidavits. He and
I are using the process on other separate matters.
The process comprises:
1. The subject of the harassment (myself in this case), will write a Statement
of Truth (Affidavit), under penalty of perjury. This being the case, what I
will write will be “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, and
will thus be based on first-hand knowledge.
2. You will be sent a copy of this Affidavit, comprising my allegations. You
will have to REBUT EACH POINT in order to ward off the possibility of further
action by me. You will be given 30 (thirty) days to do so, but I can assure you
that you will not be able to rebut EVEN ONE SINGLE POINT. You will need to
rebut by means of a sworn Affidavit of your own, written under the same
criteria, namely: The Truth, the Whole Truth, and, Nothing but The Truth, from
First-hand Knowledge, and under Penalty of Perjury.
3. Any points you manage to rebut will be removed from my allegations, and the
remainder kept as my final Affidavit. The result will be witnessed by a
solicitor to confirm my identity, or three independent witnesses (who are known
to me, or, have been shown proof of my identity), to become My Statement of
Truth, which will not only become THE TRUTH, IN LAW – but will also become A
JUDGMENT, IN LAW.
4. That being the case, no Hearing will be required. Because the judgement has
already been made by the truth. (That’s Common Law!)
5. As footnotes, I should add that
a. Even if I make an honest mistake, WHICH YOU FAILED TO REBUT, my mistake
BECOMES THE TRUTH, IN LAW. You will not be able to claim ‘libel’, ‘slander’,
etc., because you were given thirty days to rebut the allegations, before
public announcement.
b. By a failure to REBUT IN SUBSTANCE you would have tacitly acquiesced to my
Statements as Truths, in Law.
Back to me. My suggestion is that some of us serve affidavits on the Speaker
pointing out that he is causing us harm by overseeing, and therefore accepting
that parliament is acting in an unlawful manner, viz Discussing giving away our
sovereignty to a foreign power which is against our constitution. Due to your
continuing acceptance of this unlawful process, and in an attempt to make you
do your duty as my servant to protect my property, my rights, I make this
without prejudice offer. If you tell MPs that parliament will from now on
enforce and follow our constitution which necessitates repealing the 1972 (?)
act I will not seek punitive damages of over£50 million.
I had no response to this yesterday.
