| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ENIGMA
Rank; Hector Tax Inspector
United Kingdom
41 Posts |
 Posted - 25/12/2007 : 00:06:46
|
Hello Everyone,typing this on engima's computer it has come up as ENIGMA when it was posted by ICHOR Trust.
One of your members, ENIGMA,a friend of mine, said you might be interested in my application of contract law.
Your rights are your property and because slavery is illegal you have the right to charge as much as you wish for doing or suffering anything you are not legally obliged to do or suffer at your own expense.
AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE
Is slavery illegal or not?
The legal technicalities in easy to understand English.
Extremely fundamental to law is the fact that we live in a Common Law Democracy. English Common Law is Common to everyone in England irrespective of status, class. colour, race or any other consideration. Otherwise, we would be slaves to the whim of anybody with enough power to affect the ballance of power(status quo)and of course as slavery is illegal that cannot be legal. Therefore, the onus (duty of care ) is upon those who claim your right to charge a fee for doing or suffering anything has been taken away, must prove to you that it has been taken away, by showing you the words that take it away in an Act of Parliament. see; Metropolitan Asylum District V Hill 1889 ( ) And finally you must be shown authority that states that what you must do or suffer must be done and suffered AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE. See: Copyright Act 1911 section 15 where it states exactly what must be done and suffered AT HIS OWN EXPENSE.
Therefore, if your rights are your property you have a common law right to do as you please including charging a massive fee for suffering a continued abeyance (PUTTING ASIDE) of any of your rights.
What you can charge a massif fee for is continued loss(THEY PUT IT ASIDE)of your right to be shown the authority relied on by those affecting you to affect you AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE.
If they have an honest belief in their authority they must be able to show it to you otherwise they are ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THEFT BY DECEPTION OF AUTHORITY because in order to have an honest belief in authority you must be able to produce your authority to affect me with it.
So,the authority the tax man relies on to make a CERTIFICATE in secret that overrides your Common Law Right to a fair hearing must be shown to you to avoid your allegations of a conspiracy to commit theft of citizens rights by deception of authority being sustainable according to The Theft Act 1968 Section 2b.
So lets make it clear who has an interest in conspiring to commit theft by deception of authority. ITS THE ESTABLISHMENT!! Those who make money out of your lack of knowledge. Judges who have sworn allegiance to the Queen obviously have a conflict of interest with your common law rights ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE A BENEFICIARY OF THE ICHOR TRUST, an other lawyers in general amongst others.
Its a criminal offense to attempt to defeat a trust. So we formed a Trust for ordinary people who are the victims (hosts) of the abuse of those who should exercise the balance of power with a duty of care to know the authority they rely on to affect you at your own expense.
The answer as to "Who pays us to help you for free?" Is,"The Corrupt," who according to law must pay for their corruption out of their own pockets. The way it works; is that judges having sworn allegiance to the Queen have a conflict of interest with this trust because the Queen is in breach of contract with this trust.
Now take a different aproach.
Ask the PM a question he must answer in law with a legally sustainable reply and protect your right to a legally sustainable reply in exchange for a massive fee. To save you the trouble we've already done it see www.ichortrust.co.uk all you need to do is state you are a beneficiary of the ICHOR TRUST. Any questions please make contact.
Compliments of the Trustee of the ICHOR Trust.
|
Edited by - ENIGMA on 25/12/2007 00:11:24 |
|
|
PJD
Da Purple one
United Kingdom
269 Posts |
Posted - 25/12/2007 : 01:36:26
|
hiya,
an interesting post. thank you. i must admit I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around our recent call and your site, but I'm working on it.
as i mentioned we keep running in to the issue of HMRC's unique position in law. (crown immunity i think you called it) as far has been established in court HMRC do not have a duty of care to the public. recently the Neil Martin case has called this into question, but as yet it has not been established that they have a general duty of care.
you mention that we should not have to justify ourselves at our expense, but i think in our current fights with HMRC this would just result in CCJ before we could blink. which then become un-retractable no matter who did what to who.
HMRC are stamping all over our Human Rights and civil law. they regularly contravene their own legislation (COP 26) and indeed are currently rewriting it with no ratification of it, and are even applying the new version before it is written.
i would be interested to see their response to one of your contracts, but i doubt that they would allow it to delay a overpayment dispute. i am also quite sure they would say their authority is the Crown, if not the government, as it is the treasury who 'run' the Arms Length Management Organisation that is HMRC. |
 |
|
|
familytaxcredit
Forum Admin
371 Posts |
Posted - 26/12/2007 : 03:07:27
|
There can be no harm trying, at the very least it will test hmrc resources. I have sent them a bill for £2000.00
They have to reply, if they don't I will take them to court. You need to be careful when taking hmrc to court. You need to sue for 'stress' or such like, you cannot sue them direct for damages to your company or your tax affairs.
Go for it! £67.00 is all it costs if under 20k |
|
|
|
Ali M-W
Da Tech(y ones)
3296 Posts |
Posted - 26/12/2007 : 07:51:18
|
I certainly think it wouldn't hurt to talk to a few lawyers about this, although why it isn't more widely used I don't know.
Machine god: WHAT IF YOU FAIL?
Neo: I won't
|
|
|
|
ENIGMA
Rank; Hector Tax Inspector
United Kingdom
41 Posts |
Posted - 26/12/2007 : 10:46:02
|
| Ali, I would think the reasons contract law isn't widely used,is because people don't know about it.Hopefully things will change. |
|
|
|
Ali M-W
Da Tech(y ones)
3296 Posts |
Posted - 26/12/2007 : 15:12:08
|
So let me see if I have understood this:
To protect English citizens (is it just English?) against slavery, there exists an old law which allows a citizen to charge a fee of their own choosing to anyone who forces that person to forgo their common law rights and incurs them costs? That fee, once advised, stands as a legitimate fee unless the person or agency that is breaching the individual's common law rights is willing and able to show proof of their authority to override those same rights?
If this is the case, it would seem that all we would have to do is to advise HMRC of our fees for suffering a particular outrage or personal expense, cite this law, and insist on payment of our fee unless they were able to prove to us that they had lawful authority to treat us in this way?
Now that sounds to me as though the onus then reverts to HMRC to prove under which law(s) they can negate our pre-existing rights, rather than on us to challenge them as potentially unlawful, and I like the sound of that. But it sounds too good to be true...
What can I charge for? Could I charge for data lost, information withheld, distress caused (how does that differ from claiming damages?), physical ill-health suffered through stress, time-wasting letters sent to me, harrassment for 'debt recovery' which should have been suspended pending the outcome of the dispute process, legitimate questions unanswered, letters I have had to write which have taken me hours of research/preparation, postage and stationery costs, etc.? What can't I charge for?
And aren't there any acts which directly supercede this old one and make its principles redundant?
I think we may need to get looking at the Tax Credits Act 2002 again...
Oracle: What do all men with power want? More power.
|
|
|
|
ENIGMA
Rank; Hector Tax Inspector
United Kingdom
41 Posts |
Posted - 27/12/2007 : 12:53:17
|
Hi Ali,Iv'e just spoken to Martin (ICHOR trust),and he says your understanding of his post is "spot on".
He asked me to give you his phone number,which I will PM to you. |
|
|
|
ichortrust
Rank; Hector Tax Inspector
United Kingdom
28 Posts |
Posted - 27/12/2007 : 14:05:45
|
Hello Ali,
You've got it. You live in a Common Law Democracy any anyone who states different must show you the authority they rely on.
Rights are clearly property and possessions. Under English Common Law I may do as I please and that means I may trade my rights for as much as my imagination sees fit so long as I exercise a duty of care. I exercise my duty of care by application of the ICHOR TRUST COVENANT because anyone who is not corrupt may join us for free whilst we make the corrupt work and pay for everything. To make a profit someone must lose and now it is the turn of the corrupt who have enslaved themselves by being corrupt.
THE LAW OF CONTRACT
Pursuant to Curry v Misa (1875)”…some right .. “being tradable property, Metropolitan Asylum District v. Hill (1881) 6 App. Cas. 193;42 Digest 7051222 Per Lord Blackburn “An Act is not in the absence of clear language to be construed as taking away property without compensation, and on those who seek to establish that the legislature intended to take away the private rights of individuals lies the burden of showing that such intention appears by express words or necessary implication.” When rights are protected by the sanctity of contract the necessary implication is that it takes IMPERATIVE WORDS OF EXPRESS MEANING BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER IN PRIMARY LEGISLATION to take away the rights in question. Metropolitan Asylum District v Hill (1881) 6 App. Cas. 193;42 Digest 7051222 also states, “Where the terms of a statute are not imperative, but permissive, the fair inference is that the legislature intended the discretion as to the use of the general powers thereby conferred, should be exercised in strict conformity with private rights.” My view is further supported by Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, Ltd., (1893) and Allen v. Gulf Oil Refining Ltd. (1981). Further, taking into consideration Blade v Higgs (1881) 10CBNS 713, the Theft Act 1968 s2b …rights being…..intangible property and an attempt to defeat the ICHOR TRUST being an attempt to defeat a trust according to the Theft Act 1968 and the COVENANT as stated at www.ichortrust.co.uk invoking the sanctity of contract MEANS each and every one of our rights taken on an individual basis ARE PROTECTED BY A £900 THOUSAND MILLION MILLION fee. Maintaining the sanctity of contract is the supreme public interest and supreme public policy consideration because all global trade depends on maintaining the sanctity of contract and not bringing the sanctity of contract into question. END OF THE LAW OF CONTRACT
The Law stands as it was when the contract was formed thus, because neither the Queen nor the Prime Minister have given us legally sustainable replies within 40 days we are due £900 thousand million million from each of them for each and every CONTINUED AND NEW breach of our rights. That means each and every beneficiary of the ICHOR Trust is due £900 thousand million million each and every time they fail to get a legally sustainable reply. IN PLAIN ENGLISH; it is too late now for the PM and Queen to answer the letters we wrote to them and all we need is people power (ie numbers) and because 95% of wealth is being stolen by 5% of the population. We can't lose because most people would benefit from being a beneficiary of the ICHOR Trust. The corrupt are those who are incapable of producing authority that does not exist. The victims (hosts)OF THE CORRUPT are those who have suffered the abuse of the CORRUPT AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE SINCE ALL MEN WON THE VOTE.
The easiest way to deal with your problems is simply to say you are a beneficiary of the ICHOR Trust and you refuse to communicate with any one in government including those who have SWORN ALLEGIANCE TO THE QUEEN untill you have had a legally sustainable reply to letters written by the trustee of the ICHOR Trust see www.ichortrust.co.uk
The reason the corrupt conspire to comit theft by deception of authority is that they cannot make money out of honourable people in any other way. Everything they do pollutes, mind, body and planet and we do not have to suffer their greed based pollution AT OUR OWN EXPENSE. Basically; the system of government in the UK is fundamentally extremely corrupt and based on how much power you have. Authority based on power instead of law is terrorism because your rights are your property and according to the terrorist act 2001 a threat or actual damage to property is terrorism. You might well wonder how the establishment got into such a mess. Well, the answer is simple. They have been trying to maintain a criminal ruling class terrorist system in order to prevent them paying out compensation for damaging your rights prior to democracy and so they attempt to enslave you to their will. And slavery is illegal. Thus, they cannot produce any authority and as judges have sworn allegiance to the Queen they have a Conflict of interest with all beneficiaries of this trust irrespective of any other consideration. And we aim to make them work off the debt. The next few years should be great fun because you are all beneficiaries of this trust so long as you CAN ADMIT THE TRUTH. The corrupt will not admit the truth because it is socially and financially ruinous for them to aDMIT THEY ARE DEVIANTS DEVIATING FROM DEMOCRATIC LAW TO ENSLAVE YOU TO THEIR WILL. The corrupt are in a Catch22 situation damned if they don't and damned if they do. And whats more I know there is nothing they can do about it except perhaps to die a horrible death. Thats why I can get away with what I do.
SUMMARY
Simpy refuse to communicate with any government body until you have received legally sustainable replies to letters posted at www.ichortrust.co.uk by writing and telling them that that is what you are doing. This will eventually force their hand into power sharing. Thats how it works.
Martin
Trustee ICHOR Trust.
HONESTY IS OUR POLICY |
|
|
|
sammy
Rank; Really should become a politician
690 Posts |
Posted - 27/12/2007 : 16:09:00
|
Hi ichortrust, and welcome.
It is an interesting argument and to be honest not entirely clear to me how it would stand up in court. What I do know is hmrc/government are breaching human rights issues. They seem to get round it with legal jargon and unavailable information. As in the common answer in parliament. 'That information is withheld, under the exempt from the foi act.
Anyhow I would be quite happy to test the theory. What do I need to do? whom do I write to? How should it be worded.
Could you post a template letter on your website or here?
|
|
|
|
Ali M-W
Da Tech(y ones)
3296 Posts |
Posted - 27/12/2007 : 16:21:00
|
Okay, looking at it another way, what's to stop any of us, if we so choose, using Contract Law to protect our rights and pointing out that recovery of an alleged overpayment is not in the public interest since it will not be economicially viable for HMRC to use taxpayers' money to defend the indefensible - a deviation from democratic law to enslave the innocent to their will - when we evoke the ICHOR trust covenant and insist upon their repayment to us before we repay them?
Good talking to you, by the way. And if I have badly misinterpreted this - I am twenty years behind you in terms of getting my head around it!
Oracle: What do all men with power want? More power.
|
|
|
|
Ali M-W
Da Tech(y ones)
3296 Posts |
Posted - 27/12/2007 : 16:23:03
|
Sammy, your post crossed with mine. I think you could be the ideal candidate for this, from what I've heard and (I hope) understood...
Oracle: What do all men with power want? More power.
|
|
|
|
ENIGMA
Rank; Hector Tax Inspector
United Kingdom
41 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2008 : 19:24:33
|
Hi,Sammy,Ali,Paula and everyone else,I just been talking to Martin (ICHOR trust) and he told me he had just sent me an email,he would like me to post on this site,so here it is;
Hello Paul,
I was cut off whilst speaking to Paula Deane whilst explaining the following:-
Basically; all you need to do is to copy the ICHOR Trust Covenant on to the back of every letter you send to any Government department or agency because vicarious liability flows from the PM and Queen down to their subordinates even if their subordinates are not aware of our letters. By drawing their attention to the fact that you are a beneficiary of this trust, therefore, as a beneficiary of this trust you have not received legally sustainable replies. The fact that you, as a beneficiary of this trust, have not received legally sustainable replies means therefore you have authority to do the following:
Write an acknowledgment to letters you receive from Government agencies and departments but, do not answer their questions as follows below. Never write to a person by name always write to the top dog's office never use names, never refer to a person by name only give reference numbers.
Send all letter by special delivery otherwise the recipient may attempt to deny they received it.
Now copy the ICHOR Trust Covenant onto a sheet of A4 and on the other side copy the following:-
The Office of the Prime Minister and first lord of the Treasury
10 Downing Street
London
Your address
Open Letter
Dear Sir/madam,
Please TAKE NOTICE of the overleaf offer.
Before I reply to letter reference......... dated...... from........ I respectfully advise your office that I have a prior right to a legally sustainable reply to letters sent to your office by the trustee of the ICHOR Trust. Therefore, I will only reply to letters sent by agents of the crown after you have given the trustee of the ICHOR Trust legally sustainable replies to letters received by the Office of the Prime Minister and the Queen. For copies of those letters see www.ichortrust.co.uk under the heading letters sent. As you can see under the heading letters received there is no legally sustainable reply to our letters despite numerous letters from us and others attempting to obtain legally sustainable replies from your office and we believe this exposes, amongst other things, a CONTINUED attempted theft by deception of authority of our RIGHT TO LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE REPLIES.
Further, it is a criminal offence to attempt to defeat a trust and I am a beneficiary of the ICHOR trust which you will be attempting to defeat by ignoring our right to legally sustainable replies. Our right to legally sustainable replies is protected by the ICHOR Trust Covenant. Therefore, your office and the Queen must give us legally sustainable replies before we are legally obliged to give legally sustainable replies to anyone for whom the Queen and your office have vicarious liability and that includes the Tax man because we have a prior right to legally sustainable replies.
A breach of a right is damage to that right and as rights are the property and posessions of those to whom they belong then those who damage our property that are in the form of democratically gained or God given Common Law rights are terrorists according to statute Law and according to law we must not assist and or in the alternative glorify terrorists unless they admit their mistake of failing to give us legally sustainable replies in consideration of the ICHOR Trust Covenant by blowing the whistle on those who have attempted to mislead them.
Our rights are protected by contract law which it is the supreme public policy and supreme public consideration. Maintaining the balance of power in favour of a corrupted criminal ruling class mentality is not superior to maintaining the sanctity of contract upon which all global trade depends.
Yours Sincerely
Sign your name
Practically anything can be achieved in this world,if you have the time and determination. |
Edited by - ENIGMA on 03/01/2008 23:34:21 |
|
|
|
splashin
Rank; Undercover HMRC Spy
Belize
446 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2008 : 20:41:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by PJD
hiya,
an interesting post. thank you. i must admit I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around our recent call and your site, but I'm working on it.
as i mentioned we keep running in to the issue of HMRC's unique position in law. (crown immunity i think you called it) as far has been established in court HMRC do not have a duty of care to the public. recently the Neil Martin case has called this into question, but as yet it has not been established that they have a general duty of care.
you mention that we should not have to justify ourselves at our expense, but i think in our current fights with HMRC this would just result in CCJ before we could blink. which then become un-retractable no matter who did what to who.
HMRC are stamping all over our Human Rights and civil law. they regularly contravene their own legislation (COP 26) and indeed are currently rewriting it with no ratification of it, and are even applying the new version before it is written.
i would be interested to see their response to one of your contracts, but i doubt that they would allow it to delay a overpayment dispute. i am also quite sure they would say their authority is the Crown, if not the government, as it is the treasury who 'run' the Arms Length Management Organisation that is HMRC.
Totally agree with you here PJD. I am not knocking ICHOR Trust here, as they are more than likely a very powerful player in the legal lane's, but I have seen it time and time again. HMRC area law unto themselves. I think we sometimes forget who HMRC really are. They are just the Inland Revenue with a User Friendly Name. They just laugh a law's, rules and codes of practice. Yes, it looks good, but if it means getting the job done, then it's a big BYE BYE to any of these. It sounds like a good idea, to just use the reverse of he printed ICHOR letters, who knows where it will go? I just go a little confused reading it to be honest, but that shouldn't put us off using it.
Thanks Enigma for another of your feather's, to be added to our cap's.
  
Splashin |
|
|
|
PJD
Da Purple one
United Kingdom
269 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2008 : 03:51:32
|
hiya,
lots of interest and activity on this. and although its obvious most of us have little faith in HMRC responding the way they are supposed to, we should get moving.
the problem is that the coordinators and other active members are quite busy at the moment, what with local events and publicity etc. so can we have a volunteer to act as go between with Martins site / trust and how we could use it.
i think it would need someone who has a basic understanding of the TC situation and a head for details and research. probably the best route is to go through the ICHOR website, get to grips with Legally Sustainable Authority and Contract Laws application to HMRC and report back here for further discussion.
martins put a lot of effort into bring this to our attention, and if we could have someone able to focus on this issue on behalf of us all that would be great. I'm sure martin would be up for answering questions from the volunteer, and we won't expect miracles and legal wonders in days from you either.
please have a think about it.
cheers
PJ
|
|
|
|
Alan the Geordie
Da Purple one
2787 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2008 : 00:37:56
|
Aye, well ... having ploughed through the ICHOR website, it would seem that they have handled - or are handling - two cases - one of an (alleged) parking offence and one of an (alleged) speeding offence.
Before we all go skipping off down the Yellow Brick Road, can someone please tell us what the outcome of either or both of these cases was?
Geordie: "Yon lass's gorra fyece lyke a bagga spanners!"
English: "That lady's face is rather unnatractive" |
|
|
|
Alan the Geordie
Da Purple one
2787 Posts |
Posted - 15/01/2008 : 18:13:52
|
>>Before we all go skipping off down the Yellow Brick Road, can someone please tell us what the outcome of either or both of these cases was?>>
I posted that exactly a week ago.
The silence has been deafening!
"If it seems too good to be true then it probably is!" |
Edited by - Alan the Geordie on 15/01/2008 18:15:22 |
|
|
|
ENIGMA
Rank; Hector Tax Inspector
United Kingdom
41 Posts |
Posted - 15/01/2008 : 21:01:17
|
Hi Geordie,Martin happened to ring me today.I mentioned to him,he should take a look at this site,as someone had a question.
So only time will tell.
Practically anything can be achieved in this world,if you have the time and determination. |
|
|
|
Alan the Geordie
Da Purple one
2787 Posts |
Posted - 15/01/2008 : 21:22:01
|
>>Practically anything can be achieved in this world,if you have the time and determination.>>
I agree entirely - but would add that money is one Hell of a shortcut!!
Meanwhile ... I'm still awaiting an answer to my question which in a nutshell is "was the parking fine and speeding fine paid, written-off or what??"
"Subtlety? Diplomacy? - I wouldn't know how to spell those words - but I do know how to get things done!" |
Edited by - Alan the Geordie on 15/01/2008 21:31:32 |
|
|
|
ENIGMA
Rank; Hector Tax Inspector
United Kingdom
41 Posts |
Posted - 15/01/2008 : 21:56:19
|
yea true, money certainly helps.
I hope you get answers soon,Alan.
Practically anything can be achieved in this world,if you have the time and determination. |
|
|
|
Alan the Geordie
Da Purple one
2787 Posts |
Posted - 15/01/2008 : 22:00:20
|
>> I hope you get answers soon,Alan.>>
So do I Enigma - so do I.
Geordie: "Yon lass's gorra fyece lyke a bagga spanners!"
English: "That lady's face is rather unnatractive" |
|
|
|
ENIGMA
Rank; Hector Tax Inspector
United Kingdom
41 Posts |
Posted - 15/01/2008 : 22:08:44
|
Alan,you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Practically anything can be achieved in this world,if you have the time and determination. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Protecting your RIGHTS.
