logo2

I.C.H.O.R. Trust

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

logo

 

corner

To the Chief Executive Cambridge City Council

The ICHOR Trust
Infinite Covenant for Human rights, Obligations and Reparation.
The minimum fee of The ICHOR Trustee and each and every individual beneficiary for doing or suffering anything one is not obliged to do or suffer at his own expense is £900,000,000,000,000,000.00p (nine hundred thousand million million pounds sterling ) and the minimum transmissible copyright fee for copying this document partly or wholly is another £900,000,000,000,000,000.00p (nine hundred thousand million million pounds sterling ) unless The ICHOR Trustee agrees that you seek and share truth, knowledge and wisdom, in which case the copyright fee is free. All property vested with The ICHOR Trust shall be equally shared amongst all the faithful and true who COME to be an ICHOR Business Angel (IBA) see http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ichor under the heading, "WHY NOT BECOME AN ICHOR BUSINESS ANGEL (IBA)"
© Copyright - 2003 - The ICHOR Trust.
Open letter ichortrust.co.uk

To:- Chief Executive Cambridge City Council,
Guild Hall,
Cambridge CB2 3QJ.

From: The Trustee of the ICHOR Trust
Martin Mitchell
18 Girton Road
Haverhill Suffolk CB9 0JU

DATED 5 July 2005


REQUEST FOR AUTHORITIES PURSUANT TO; METROPOLITAN ASYLUM DISTRICT V HILL (1881) 6App Cas. 193 AND ALLEN V GULF OIL REFINING LTD. (1981) AND BLADES V HIGGS (1881) 10 CBNS 713 AND CURRIE V MISA (1875) L.R.10 Exch. 153 AND THE THEFT ACT 1968 S2b AND TERRORIST LEGISLATION AND THE PREVENTION OF BULLYING BY ABUSE OF POWER AND PREVENTION OF THEFT BY DECEPTION OF AUTHORITY AND ALL IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ICHOR TRUST COVENANT.

Dear Sir/madam,

Thank you for your letters dated 29 June 2005 not posted until 4 July 2005 your reference PN/KR and your letter dated 01 July 2005. Your authority is quite clearly permissive see your own letter paragraph 51.- (2) (b). Neither of your letters show me sufficient authority to take away my right to charge fees for suffering the pollution of my environment with street clutter including Parking Meters. Either you are in terrorem of the truth because you have been hypnotized by dogma into believing the Satanic ritual incantations of a criminal ruling class mentality acting for selfish reason alien to the administration of justice ( Alien Devils) or you are Alien Devils my rights being my property and my possessions. Your pathetic statement, “We will not be continuing this correspondence”. Is like a spoilt child saying,” I’m not talking to you any more”, when it knows it has lost the argument. My right to have you show me the authority you rely on to have an honest belief in your authority to appropriate my property is tradable according to contract law and I may offer to charge whatever I wish because no one can be forced to accept an offer they can easily avoid accepting by simply stating the truth.

THE LAW OF CONTRACT.

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. 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 shewing 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 below invoking the sanctity of contract. 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.

There is no need for me to waste time, money and energy by going to Court to obtain reparation as I clearly have the right to exercise recaption and do as I please with property that becomes the property of the ICHOR TRUST due to your performance of accepting the overleaf offer by failing to show me authority IN IMPERATIVE WORDS OF EXPRESS MEANING BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER IN A PRIMARY ACT OF PARLIAMENT making it clear that I must suffer the environmental pollution of your parking meters, and other street clutter, AT MY OWN EXPENSE. Merely permissive words stating you may do one thing do not take away my right to do another. You have not shown me section 45 of the Act as numbered 51(1) in your letter to me dated 29 June 2005. In your last paragraph of the same letter you rely on The City Of Cambridge (permitted Parking And Special Parking Area)(Waiting Restrictions And Street Parking Places)(Consolidation ) Order 2004. Unfortunately, Orders, Rules , Regulations and Statutory Instruments, amongst other things, do not take away private rights only Primary legislation in the form of an Act of Parliament has authority to take away private rights when the Act states exactly what must be suffered and by whom AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE see the Copyright Act 1920.

Where are the authorities you must rely on to pollute my environment at my own expense? It is clear your employees are obtaining unjust enrichment from unlawful sources of income based on a corruption of authority and breach of ordinary people’s Common Law tradable rights because you fail to show IMPERATIVE WORDS OF EXPRESS MEANING upon which you must rely to pollute the environment with your street clutter at any affected persons own expense. You may also be considered an example of a source of terrorism and bullying.

 


THE ICHOR TRUST COVENANT.
A NON-NEGOTIABLE UNILATERAL {( ACCEPT OR GO WITHOUT) TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT} EASILY AVOIDED STANDARD FORM OFFER OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS.

For a printable copy in microsoft office format click here

 

 

 

 

 

 

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