logo2

I.C.H.O.R. Trust

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

logo

 

corner

Back    Statment's

(reckless driving or careless or inconsiderate driving).

(5) In Scotland a person may be convicted of an offence under section 2 of that Act by virtue of section 23(1) or (2) of this Act notwithstanding that the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act has not been satisfied as respects that offence.

(6) A person may be convicted of an offence under section 3 or 29 of that Act (careless and inconsiderate driving or careless and inconsiderate cycling) notwithstanding that the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act has not been satisfied as respects that offence where-
(a) the charge for the offence has been preferred against him by virtue of section 24(3) of this Act, and
(b) that requirement has been satisfied as respects the alleged offence under section 2 or, as the case may be, 28 of that Act (reckless driving or reckless cycling).

Metropolitan Asylum District v Hill 1881 6App Cas.193 makes clear that authority needs to be shown by those relying on it

A permissive authority that states central government and or in the alternative local government and other state institutions and organizations MAY do something is not a sufficient authority to charge citizens fees according to a persons Common Law tradable rights as made clear by Curry v Misa (1875) L.R.10 Exch. 153 because a Common Law Right is tradable property and therefore the right in question is only subject to a mandatory statute given full and proper royal Assent that states exactly what a person must do and or in the alternative suffer at their own expense.

For an example of the AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE wording see the Copyright Act 1920 which I hereby claim is an example of the wording required to make a act enforceable at a persons own expense and I am entitled to use the Copyright Act 1920 to show the way an Act of Parliament must be drawn in order take away what is otherwise everyone’s private right to charge as much as they wish for complying with.

If the crown prosecution cannot show sufficient authority then it can no longer have an honest belief in its authority to appropriate other people’s property AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE namely those persons money in fines and their time and effort in being forced to attend Court in terror of having their property damaged by what can only be establishment terrorists attempting to maintain what may be called a criminal ruling class terrorist society that has infiltrated central and local Government institutions and organizations.

Back    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