Back Next Statment's
per month. And that would be reckless and clearly contrary to its duty of care
even though it pretends (fraud) that the acknowledgement was a reply.
Therefore, you are urged to find the claimant and the crown prosecution service
guilty of a fraud on a duty of care by deception of authority to prosecute
me because the Home Office has unravelled its authority to govern. The Crown
prosecution service would also be guilty of a fraud on a duty of care if it
assists the claimant a member of what now appears to be a criminal organisation
in view of the documentary evidence freely available at ichortrust.co.uk that
is sufficient evidence to prove fraud on a duty of care and deception of authority
for amongst other things authority is unravelled by the aforementioned fraud
that unravels everything flowing from it.
Those who affect you owe you a duty of care as a right. The duty of care
they must exercise is to know the authority they rely on and be able to
show it to you when you request to see it. So a fraud on a duty of care
resulting
from a deception of authority would result in a no show of authority even
when you contract to protect your right to see it for more money than exists
in
the whole country basically because it does not exist and cannot exist
because slavery is illegal and the Home Office accepted my service of forbearance
in return for my fee sent to it via the Prim Minister’s Office which also
places the Prime Ministers Office into debt with us for the same amount because
the PM’s Office did not exercise a duty of care to ensure we received
a legally sustainable reply as the letter was originally requesting the information
with our offer for continuing to go without our right was originally sent to
the PM’s Office by addressing it to the Prime Minister and First Lord
of the Treasury. Therefore, vicarious liability flows from the PM’s
Office, the Home Office and the DCA. The DCA now having vicarious liability
for the
LCD.
As the Supreme public interest and public policy consideration is to
maintain the sanctity of contract because global trade depends on it and
not just
the UK criminal ruling class terrorists and other public servants who
have twisted
their master servant role so much so that public servants and civil
servants now think they are masters over citizens who’s rights are
in reality their Sovereign Rights because everyone in a democracy has sovereign
rights
because each and everyone of us have an equal share in Crown Power
exercisable by application of the Common Law that it is the Duty of the
Judiciary by
vicarious liability to the Queen to Defend as the Queen is the Defender
of the Common
Law and the judiciary have sworn allegiance to the Queen and the Crown
having given away its power by way of the vote now means ordinary people
are sovereign
of their own rights.
Obviously when a power structure inverts to the point where the majority are
legally in control of their own rights then those rights become inalienable
tradable property possessed by the person who possess them. So if you have
a right to see be shown authority by those who claim to have it by their behaviour
then, we all have a right to offer to contract for continuing to go without
our right to be shown the authority relied on.
The Home Office and the Office of the Prime Minister and First Lord of the
Treasury are both attempting to defeat the ICHOR TRUST in a criminal manner
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 |
