logo2

I.C.H.O.R. Trust

(I)nfinite (C)ovenant for (H)uman rights, (O)bligations and (R)eparation

logo

 

corner

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 |

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home | Law of contractThe CovenantStatementsLetters to | Letters from | Links | Contact Us |
You can contact the trustee at trustee@ichortrust.co.uk or
Aabbex© Computers WebMaster on 0870 803 1720 or click here