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
