EcoTort Videos

Loading...

Monday, 22 February 2016

MINDS.com ~ the new internetwork for activists :)

~ this is my profile there, come and join us, no ID necessary, encrypted messages, a fine community awaits you :)

https://www.minds.com/reclaimthelaw

Thursday, 2 May 2013

THE DUTY OF CARE

THE DUTY OF CARE

There is a Universal Law of social behaviour which always applies, to any group of creatures, at any time; in the past, and in the present, and in the future; in any place, in any possible universe.
The Universal Law is quite simply that any creatures living in a group do not, as a general rule, injure each other.
If the members of a group injure each other, then that group will get smaller and smaller, until, at the end, if the members continue to injure eachother, there is only one creature left, which is not a group!
It is quite natural in many groups for members to establish pecking-orders and during this process some injury may be done, but once the pecking-order has been established and each group member knows hir place, very little further conflict is seen.
This Law may be applied to any group of creatures, living at any time, in any place; anywhere, in any conceivable Universe.
Therefore, if we are to believe in a Divine Architect who created the Universe, this is a Universal and Divine Principle Of Law, which any religious, political, financial, or industrial leader HAS TO AGREE WITH, or look very foolish!.
Even if we do not believe in a Divinity of any kind, the principle still holds good according to both common-sense and simple logic, so atheists, anarchists, and agnostics have to accept it too...

In British Law today there is a "Duty of Care" which states that:

"YOU MUST TAKE REASONABLE CARE
TO AVOID ACTS OR OMISSIONS,
WHICH YOU CAN REASONABLY FORESEE,
WOULD BE LIKELY TO INJURE YOUR NEIGHBOUR "

This reasonable standard of care,
as outlined in the "Duty of Care" above,
is applied to all persons in the UK
including the Government, the Bankers,
and the Legal System itself...

The failure to uphold the 'Duty of Care' is either:

(1)NEGLIGENT
which is doing something likely to injure your neighbour in circumstances when you would not reasonably be expected to know that the thing you are doing is likely to injure your neighbour, (this is not a criminal offence, one may only be liable for damages in a civil court),
or
(2)RECKLESS
which is doing something you KNOW is likely to injure your neighbour and yet doing it anyway (which IS a criminal offence where one may be arrested, and fined or imprisoned and be liable for damages),
or
(3)INTENTIONAL
which is to intend by your act or omission to injure your neighbour (this is the most serious type of criminal offence which is generally punished with the full weight of the criminal law ).
Not only is the Duty of Care arguably a Divine Principle of Law, it is also used in legal practice today to create precedent or new law. If you can show that your behaviour is "reasonable, prudent and well-intentioned" in the circumstances which you find yourself in, then you are not generally guilty of any crime even if you have broken a particular statute or statutes.
For instance, there are times when it may be seen as "reasonable, prudent and well-intentioned" to disregard a particular law "in order to serve a greater interest." Therefore we may argue that the Duty of Care is both the most fundamental and underlying principle of British law and also that it will over-ride any previous precedents or statutes in certain circumstances.
Indeed we may argue that the Duty of Care is the Law!

 

THE DUTY OF CARE - EXAMPLES

The Duty of Care is used in court every day to determine the guilt or innocence of every defendant who appears in the dock. Two examples will serve to clarify the point.
 1).
(a). A person is driving a car who has no mechanical knowlege, this person has had the car serviced and maintained by qualified personnel and has the service history in the glove box of the car. The tax, MoT and insurance are all up to date. This person has done all that can be REASONABLY expected to ensure that the car is safe, yet when stopped by the police in a routine road check, it is found that they have defective brakes. This is doing something which is likely to injure their neighbour yet having taken all REASONABLE steps to insure that what they were doing was NOT LIKELY to cause injury. The person is still responsible in a civil court for the payment of damages should they injure someone as a result, but they have NOT behaved CRIMINALLY.
(b). The same person is driving the same car along the same piece of road at the same speed and is stopped by the same police officer who, this time, forms the REASONABLY HELD BELIEF that the person KNEW that the brakes were defective. This time the person will very likely be tried in a criminal court for doing something which is likely to injure their neighbour KNOWINGLY, if it is found that the person DID KNOW that the brakes were defective, this is RECKLESS behaviour as such is CRIMINAL.
(c). The same person is driving the same car along the same piece of road at the same speed and is stopped by the same police officer who, this time, forms the REASONABLY HELD BELIEF that the person was AIMING TO HIT someone. This time the person will very likely be tried in a criminal court for doing something which is likely to injure their neighbour INTENTIONALLY, if it is found that the person DID INTEND TO HIT SOMEONE WITH THE CAR then this is obviously a SERIOUSLY CRIMINAL matter.
It may be seen from the above that not only does there have to be an unlawful ACT (the 'actus reus') COMMITTED (i.e. driving the car with defective brakes); for a defendant to be found guilty of a crime, the MENTAL STATE (the 'mens rea') OF THE ACCUSED PERSON HAS ALSO TO BE OF A CRIMINAL NATURE.
 
(2). The other example is rather heavy, but it does prove the point:
In the case of Micheal Ryan, who you may remember shot around 30 people at Hungerford a few years ago, and then shot himself (rest his soul!); if a REASONABLE, PRUDENT, and WELL-INTENTIONED person had been present and had shot him, (to prevent him from shooting anyone else), they would NOT BE FOUND GUILTY OF A CRIME, even if the person had had to use REASONABLE FORCE to take a gun from someone else or from a shop. In ordinary circumstances, a person who stole a gun, and then shot someone with it would (almost certainly) be found guilty of assault, battery, theft of a firearm, unlawful posession and use of a firearm, and murder, and would receive a heavy gaol sentance (around 30 years).
It is therefore apparent that:-
(1). From the first example: For a defendant to be convicted of crime there has to be both:
            (a) an unlawful act or omission, (the 'actus reus') AND
(b) the state of mind (the 'mens rea') of the accused has to be of a criminal nature,

(2). And from the second example that:
Reasonable, Prudent Well-Intentioned Behaviour is not criminal,           (notwithstanding any acts of parliament, previous case law, or common law).
Or to put it another way, if a person can show that they upheld the Duty Of Care In the circumstances they found themselves in, then they are not guilty of a crime.

There have been many cases which are relevant on the eco front, the most dramatic of which was that of the Ploughshares Women who broke into British Aerospace and damaged combat aircraft which were to be exported to the Indonesian Government in order to subjugate the natives who were (and still are!) trying to resist the encroachment of western hotel complexes (etc etc) into the forests which are their home.
Normally, to break into British Aerospace and damage combat aircraft would, I believe, be a treasonable offence which is still punnishable by death. However, when it was found that prior to this action the women had taken all REASONABLE steps to make their point known (they wrote petitions and staged peaceful demonstrations etc), and it was realised that the matter was genuinely felt to be of sufficient urgence to justify such an action, the women (after serving several months remanded in custody) were found NOT GUILTY of any crime.
Another case in point is that many thousands of eco-activists have been arrested under the Criminal Justice And Public Order Acts, eg. for "Criminal Damage" to GM modified crops, yet only a very few have been found guilty of any crime.
This is because it is unarguably the case that in the face of the threat due to UUEDD being of a similar magnitude to the threat that a war would pose, it is REASONAVLE, PRUDENT AND WELL-INTENTIONED and thererfore NOT CRIMINAL to take Non-Violent-Direct-Action on Environmental Issues.


THE DUTY OF CARE APPLIED TO Unnecessary Unreasonable Environmental Damage & Destruction

Bearing in mind the huge increase in public awareness of UUEDD over the last five or ten years, it is no longer possible for anyone in a position of responsibility to claim that they are unaware of the threat of UUEDD to the nation's (not to mention the planet's) well-being and security.
Therefore, any acts or omissions leading to further UUEDD, committed by person(s) in positions of responsibility are done in the full knowledge that such acts and omissions are already injuring all of us, on a massive scale, physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually.
THEREFORE ANY ACTS OR OMISSIONS LEADING TO FURTHER UUEDD
COMMITTED BY PERSONS IN POSITIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY
ARE RECKLESS AND
CRIMINAL.

THE 'DUTY OF CARE' APPLIED TO GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

It would appear that successive Governments have (knowingly) both acted, i.e. passed UNLAWFUL ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (which are supposed to be enactments of the law) to allow UUEDD, and have omitted to control it, which they ought to have done according to law.
Therefore it would appear that such Governments are manifestly reckless and CRIMINAL, by act and omission in their duty of care for us and our environment.
The British Government is voted in, and paid, by the British People to serve the best interests of the British People. To this end therefore the Government is the servant of the British People, and the People are the Masters of the Government.
It is UNLAWFUL for a master to employ a servant to commit a reckless act (the vicarious responsibility of a master for the act of a servant); so if the British Government is reckless in it's duty of care for the environment, then it is unlawful for the British People to employ -i.e. pay tax to- the Government as long as the Government continues to be reckless.
Our intention is not to persuade people to withhold their taxes (desirable as that may be to a great many of us); to do so would hardly be seen as reasonable, prudent and well intentioned.
It is our intention to inform the people of this country of the facts and thereby to exert as much political pressure as we may upon the Government to cease their apparent recklessness.
The only way the government can cease this apparent environmental recklessness is to provide:
ALL REASONABLY AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR GREEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,

-anything less being an omission which is reasonably foreseeable as likely to cause further physical, emotional, mental and spiritual injury to us, the neighbours of the apparently reckless government.
The question which then arises is `What are these "all reasonably available resources"?'
When asked, most people will agree that the threat of UUEDD is of a similar magnitude to the threat of war, therefore, we may assert that the resources reasonably available to fight such a threat are of similar magnitude to those which would be made available if we were to have to fight a war.
In other words, it would appear that according to law we should declare a state of national emergency in order to mobilise (without unreasonable financial constraint) our collective resources to fight this most serious threat to our well-being and security; after all, we cannot have a healthy economy when our workforce is suffering from the effects of an unreasonably unhealthy environment!


 PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY MAY BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The 'Divine Right of Kings' was a doctrine which asserted that the King at any given time was naturally God's Representative on Earth.
As time went by the Kings started to abuse their powers and this gave rise to discontent in the country and eventually the King's ministers grouped together and over-ruled the King, forming the first Parliament and thereby ending the Divine Right of Kings.
The original purpose in creating a Parliament was thus to end the Divine Right of Kings.
Therefore, even though we do not have a written constitution in Britain, it would seem that it must be unconstitutional for Parliament to assume what would appear to be a “Divine Right of Parliament” by enacting: the Public 'Order' Act; the Criminal 'Justice' Act; and now the Anti 'Terrorist' Act, which effectively say that Parliament can now make up any further acts they choose, and we are only allowed to protest against the acts if the Government allows us to do so.

English (and American) Law - Dr. Bonham's Case

Sunday, 14 April 2013

THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE IS THE HIGHEST LAW.


Protect LIFE and PROPERTY Uphold the LAW.

THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE IS THE HIGHEST LAW !

WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE MANY AND VARIOUS SOVEREIGN  DEMOCRATIC NATIONS OF THE PLANET EARTH, UNITED IN OUR DIVERSITY, HEREBY ACCUSE OUR RESPECTIVE NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS OF COMMITTING SERIOUS CRIMES AGAINST US, AMOUNTING TO SEDITION AND TREASON BY ALLOWING AND CONTINUING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINALLY FRAUDULENT INTERNATIONAL BANKING INDUSTRY (A 'FOREIGN POWER') TO UNLAWFULLY USURP UNLAWFUL FINANCIAL SOVEREIGNTY OVER US.

WE ASSERT THAT THIS SITUATION IS REPUGNANT TO US, IT IS AGAINST COMMON RIGHT AND REASON, AND IT IS CERTAINLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE PERFORMED BY VIRTUE OF THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE INTEREST UPON THE FRAUDULENTLY CREATED LOANS (BY MEANS OF WHICH THE CRIMINAL INTERNATIONAL BANKING INDUSTRY HAS UNLAWFULLY USURPED OUR VARIOUS NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTIES) IS DEMONSTRABLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE PAID.

WE ARE THEREFORE IN LAWFUL REBELLION AGAINST THIS UNTENNABLE STATE OF AFFAIRS AS REQUIRED OF US ACCORDING TO UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND EQUITY.

NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW!

WE HEREBY DEMAND ACCORDING TO UNIVERSAL LAW AND EQUITY, THAT OUR VARIOUS NATIONAL LEGAL CONSTITUTIONS BE IMMEDIATELY RESTORED TO THEIR PROPER LAWFUL & SOVEREIGN POSITION ABOVE OUR GOVERNMENTS AND ABOVE THE CRIMINAL INTERNATIONAL BANKING INDUSTRY - THEREBY EXPEDITING AN IMMEDIATE END TO CRIMINALLY USURIOUS MULTINATIONAL BANKING PRACTICES & COMMENSURATE  CRIMINAL CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION; WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY INITIATING A HEALTH-GIVING GLOBAL REVOLUTION FOR OUR VARIOUS PEOPLES AND OUR ONE PLANET WITHOUT UNDUE FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT.



HOW MORE THAN HALF OF Y-OUR WAGES or INCOME
IS BEING STOLEN BY CRIMINALLY FRAUDULENT PRIVATE BANKSTERS:

ROUGHLY:

one third of a person's wages goes to pay the mortgage,
one third is tax,
and the remaining third you get to spend...



APPROXIMATE PROPORTION OF Y-OUR MORTGAGE OR RENT PAYMENTS WHICH IS INTEREST PAID TO PRIVATE BANKSTERS.

if you borrow, say £100,000 @ 7.5% over 40 years as a mortgage to buy a house,
you will have to pay back roughly £300,000 with interest....

this means that roughly two thirds of the third of your wages which is paying the mortgage is paying interest on that loan.

(if you are paying rent, you are probably paying the land-lord’s mortgage on the property you are renting . . .)




APPROXIMATE PROPORTION OF Y-OUR INCOME TAX WHICH IS PAID AS INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT PAID TO PRIVATE BANKSTERS.

The Bank of England is a privately owned company.

The UK Government has granted AN UNLAWFUL LICENSE to the PRIVATELY OWNED ‘Banksters of England’ to FRAUDULENTLY PRINT VIRTUAL MONEY OUT OF NOTHING!

The government then borrows this FRAUDULENTLY CREATED VIRTUAL MONEY from the Bank of England,

and THE GOVERNMENT PAYS INTEREST ON THAT LOAN which is called the ‘National Debt’.


THE INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT IS PAID OUT OF THE THIRD OF YOUR WAGES WHICH IS PAYING TAX TO THE GOVERNMENT.

UK National Debt Clock

(and for those in the USA:
USA Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding





All the wages of the people who work for the Government are also paid out of Y-OUR tax,  

and almost everyone who works for the Government has a mortgage (or is paying rent which is probably paying someone else’s mortgage)

so the interest on the mortgages of all the people who work for the Government are ALSO PAID OUT OF Y-OUR TAX AS INTEREST TO PRIVATE BANKSTERS.


This ammounts to something like another 10% of Y-OUR TAX which is being PAID AS INTEREST TO PRIVATE BANKSTERS.

Furthermore, everyone who works for the government is spending about one third of their wages as they choose in the shops; but as will be shown below, roughly half of THAT money is also PAID AS INTEREST TO PRIVATE BANKSTERS, which probably ammounts to at least another 10% of Y-OUR tax which is being PAID AS INTEREST TO PRIVATE BANKSTERS.



APPROXIMATE PROPORTION OF INTEREST PAID AS INTEREST TO PRIVATE BANKSTERS OUT OF THE PRICE OF ANY PRODUCT BOUGHT IN THE SHOPS.


if you buy (for example) a china cup in a shop:-

a) someone has borrowed money from a bank to set up a quarry to extract the china clay from the earth: they are paying interest to the bank on that loan

b) someone has borrowed money from a bank to buy a lorry to transport the china clay to the factory which makes the cups:
they are paying interest to the bank on that loan

c) someone has borrowed money from a bank to set up the factory which makes the cups:
they are paying interest to the bank on that loan

d) someone has borrowed money from a bank to buy a lorry to transport the cups to the wholesaler:
they are paying interest to the bank on that loan

e) someone has borrowed money from a bank to set up the wholesale business:
they are paying interest to the bank on that loan

f) someone has borrowed money from a bank to buy a lorry to transport the cups to the retailer:
they are paying interest to the bank on that loan

g) someone has borrowed money from a bank to set up the retail business:
they are paying interest to the bank on that loan

h) all of those people from a) to g) above...
are paying interest to the bank on their mortgages.

all these interest payments to the banks are coming out of the purchase price of the china cup....

if we add all these interest payments together we find that at least 50% of the price of ANY item we buy is INTEREST BEING PAID TO PRIVATE BANKSTERS.


ABOUT 66% OF YOUR MORTGAGE OR RENT PAYMENTS IS PAYING INTEREST TO PRIVATE BANKSTERS…
AROUND 50-60% OF THE TAX YOU ARE PAYING TO THE GOVERNMENT IS PAYING INTEREST TO PRIVATE BANKSTERS…
AROUND 50-60% OF THE PRICE OF ANYTHING YOU BUY IN THE SHOPS IS PAYING INTEREST TO PRIVATE BANKSTERS…


If we add these all together:

INTEREST PAID ON THE MORTGAGE OR RENT (66%),
+
INTEREST PAID OUT OF TAX (50-60%)
+
INTEREST PAID ON PURCHASES (50-60%
=
MORE THAN HALF OF YOUR WAGES IS BEING STOLEN BY THE BANKS.




WE FIND THAT WELL OVER HALF OF EVERYONE'S WAGES ON THIS PLANET

IS PAYING INTEREST TO CRIMINAL PRIVATE BANKSTERS

ON LOANS OF FRAUDULENTLY CREATED VIRTUAL MONEY . . .




.
THERE IS NO REAL ECONOMIC REASON FOR ANYTHING IN THE WORLD . . . THERE IS NO REAL ECONOMIC REASON WHY WE CANNOT IMMEDIATELY FEED, CLOTHE, HOUSE, EDUCATE AND EMPLOY EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD, AND BE 100% ECO-FRIENDLY AT THE SAME TIME.


EXPLAINED SIMPLY, FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING IS A CRIMINAL FRAUD . . .

In LAW, “CRIMINAL FRAUD” is “pretending something is something which it is not, intending thereby to gain financially, or to make another person lose financially”.

“Fractional Reserve Banking” happens when a banker pretends that he has more gold than he actually has, by printing more paper, or virtual “money” than he has gold ‘in reserve’. . .

He is pretending that the gold he has in reserve is more than it is, and when he lends this paper or virtual money to another person, he is obviously GAINING FINANCIALLY which constitutes CRIMINAL FRAUD in Common Law.

The crime is compounded when the banker charges INTERST (commits USURY) on LOANING that FRAUDULENTLY CREATED money, thereby the customer is also LOSING FINANCIALLY which COMPOUNDS the CRIMINAL FRAUD in Common Law . . .


In order to comprehend the magnitude of this heinous crime, we have to make an approximate model of the bankers’ behaviour:

Imagine a banker (Rothschild!), who has a piece of gold; he opens a bank, and the first customer comes to the bank, who wants to borrow some money to build (for instance) a local factory.

The banker says “Sure, you can borrow the piece of gold, but it is very heavy to carry around, and more important, someone could easily steal it from you . . . what we can do is, I will write you a note (the first “promisory note”) saying that you now own the gold, and I will charge you (say) 105 per annum to borrow the piece of gold”

The banker and the customer both sign the note, and the customer takes the note to the builder, and gives it to him . . . the builder builds the factory, the factory opens, and the banker receives his 10% per annum . . . everyone is happy.

The banker is sitting in his bank, when a second customer enters the bank, who also wants to borrow some money to open another factory.

Say the banker only has ONE piece of gold, but he knows that the first customer will only come to see it perhaps once a year, so he writes another piece of paper to the second customer (FRAUD!), promising him the SAME piece of gold, and also charges the second customer 10% per annum to borrow it.

The banker is now “earning” 20% per annum from ONE piece of gold . . .

Over a short period of time, the banker found that he could write up to TEN PIECES of paper for each piece of gold he actually owned (which is why it is called FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING).

Ten pieces of paper each earning 10% per annum, comes to 10 times 10%, per annum = 100% (ANOTHER PIECE OF GOLD).

At this rate, by the end of one year, the banker has the original piece of gold, PLUS another piece = TWO pieces of gold (one of which is paper representing the second piece of gold).

In other words the original piece of gold has DOUBLED in ONE YEAR.

The banker can now write 10 pieces of paper on each of those two pieces of gold, at the end of the second year, each one has doubled, and now the banker has FOUR pieces of gold.

He can now write 10 pieces of paper on each of those FOUR pieces of gold . . . and after another year, each one of those four pieces has DOUBLED, and he now has EIGHT pieces of gold.

The banker is DOUBLING HIS WEALTH EVERY YEAR.

SO, starting with a single piece of gold, and doubling each year, the banker gets wealthier like this:
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024 . . .

After TEN years the banker has wealth equivalent to 1024 pieces of gold. Let’s call it 1000 to keep the maths simple…

If he starts with one piece, and after 10 years he has 100 pieces, then starting with that 1000, after another 10 years, he will have 1000 times 1000 = 1 000 000 (ONE MILLION) pieces of gold.

After another ten years (30 years of banking) he will have 1 000 000 times 1000 = 1 000 000 000 (A THOUSAND MILLION) pieces of gold.

After ANOTHER TEN YEARS (FORTY YEARS OF BANKING) HE WILL HAVE 1000 TIMES 1 000 000 000 PIECES OF GOLD = 1 000 000 000 000 ( A BILLION) PIECES OF GOLD.

After 40 years of banking, starting with a SINGLE piece of gold, the banker now has 1 000 000 000 000 pieces of gold, this is a HUGE number, and it is approximately the same as EVERY SECOND IN TIME FOR 39000 YEARS !

THIS IS AFTER ONLY FORTY YEARS

THE BANKS HAVE BEEN DOUBLING THEIR MONEY (give or take a few % per year) in this way for the last 200 years.

THIS IS WHY, before 911, there were only SEVEN National Banks IN THE WORLD which were NOT either OWNED or CONTROLLED by the Rothschild Bankster Cartel.

the situation we now face is that LESS than 2% of the money in the world is GOLD; between 3-5% is paper and coins; and the remainiing 93% is made of nothing more substantial than FRAUDULENTLY CREATED VIRTUAL MONEY which is represented by millivolts of electricity in a computer in a bank somewhere.

93% of the money in the world is FRAUDULENTLY CREATED virtual money, OF NO REAL CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER !

THIS MEANS THAT THERE IS NO REAL ECONOMIC REASON FOR ANYTHING IN THE WORLD . . . THERE IS NO REAL ECONOMIC REASON WHY WE CANNOT IMMEDIATELY FEED, CLOTHE, HOUSE, EDUCATE AND EMPLOY EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD, AND BE 100% ECO-FRIENDLY AT THE SAME TIME.

I PROPOSE A GLOBAL “STATE OF EMERGENCY” FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, MONEY NO OBJECT, EVERYONE WORKING TOGETHER AND USING ALL OUR SPLENDID AND AMAZING TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF HUMANITY, AS INTENDED BY THE INVENTORS.

www.ecotort.blogspot.co.uk




Saturday, 10 December 2011

THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE IS THE HIGHEST LAW.


Protect LIFE and PROPERTY Uphold the LAW.

THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE IS THE HIGHEST LAW !

WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE MANY AND VARIOUS SOVEREIGN  DEMOCRATIC NATIONS OF THE PLANET EARTH, UNITED IN OUR DIVERSITY, HEREBY ACCUSE OUR RESPECTIVE NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS OF COMMITTING SERIOUS CRIMES AGAINST US, AMOUNTING TO SEDITION AND TREASON BY ALLOWING AND CONTINUING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINALLY FRAUDULENT INTERNATIONAL BANKING INDUSTRY (A 'FOREIGN POWER') TO UNLAWFULLY USURP UNLAWFUL FINANCIAL SOVEREIGNTY OVER US.

WE ASSERT THAT THIS SITUATION IS REPUGNANT TO US, IT IS AGAINST COMMON RIGHT AND REASON, AND IT IS CERTAINLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE PERFORMED BY VIRTUE OF THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE INTEREST UPON THE FRAUDULENTLY CREATED LOANS (BY MEANS OF WHICH THE CRIMINAL INTERNATIONAL BANKING INDUSTRY HAS UNLAWFULLY USURPED OUR VARIOUS NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTIES) IS DEMONSTRABLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE PAID.

WE ARE THEREFORE IN LAWFUL REBELLION AGAINST THIS UNTENNABLE STATE OF AFFAIRS AS REQUIRED OF US ACCORDING TO UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND EQUITY.

NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW!

WE HEREBY DEMAND ACCORDING TO UNIVERSAL LAW AND EQUITY, THAT OUR VARIOUS NATIONAL LEGAL CONSTITUTIONS BE IMMEDIATELY RESTORED TO THEIR PROPER LAWFUL & SOVEREIGN POSITION ABOVE OUR GOVERNMENTS AND ABOVE THE CRIMINAL INTERNATIONAL BANKING INDUSTRY - THEREBY EXPEDITING AN IMMEDIATE END TO CRIMINALLY USURIOUS MULTINATIONAL BANKING PRACTICES & COMMENSURATE  CRIMINAL CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION; WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY INITIATING A HEALTH-GIVING GLOBAL REVOLUTION FOR OUR VARIOUS PEOPLES AND OUR ONE PLANET WITHOUT UNDUE FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT.

FREEDOM IS UNDER THE LAW !  
                                           
                                                - pass it on !

COPYLEFT by EcoTort Theatre

Wednesday, 23 November 2011

WE ACCUSE OUR GOVERNMENT . . . .

Noblesse Oblige!

WE THE BRITISH PEOPLE HEREBY ACCUSE OUR BRITISH GOVERNMENT OF COMMITTING SERIOUS CRIMES AMOUNTING TO SEDITION AND HIGH TREASON AT COMMON LAW AGAINST US, BY ALLOWING AND CONTINUING TO ALLOW THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING INDUSTRY (A 'FOREIGN POWER') TO UNLAWFULLY GAIN UNLAWFUL FINANCIAL SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE BRITISH PEOPLE. 

WE HEREBY ASSERT THAT THIS SITUATION IS REPUGNANT TO US, IT IS AGAINST COMMON RIGHT AND REASON, AND IT IS CERTAINLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE PERFORMED BY VIRTUE OF THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE INTEREST UPON THE FRAUDULENTLY CREATED LOANS BY MEANS OF WHICH THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING INDUSTRY HAS UNLAWFULLY USURPED BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IS DEMONSTRABLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE PAID.

WE ARE THEREFORE IN LAWFUL REBELLION AGAINST THIS UNTENNABLE STATE OF AFFAIRS AS REQUIRED OF US IN LAW BY THE MAGNA CARTA, AN IRREVOCABLE TREATY BETWEEN US THE BRITISH PEOPLE, OUR GOVERNMENT, AND OUR SOVEREIGN LADY THE QUEEN. 

NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW!

WE LAWFULLY DEMAND THAT THE ENGLISH LEGAL CONSTITUTION BE RESTORED TO ITS LAWFUL POSITION ABOVE OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING INDUSTRY ACCORDING TO THE MAGNA CARTA, COMMON LAW, AND EQUITY - THEREBY EXPEDITING A SWIFT END TO USURIOUS GLOBAL BANKING PRACTICES, AND INITIATING A WORLD REVOLUTION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT UNDUE FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT.

FREEDOM UNDER THE LAW !                        

                                                   pass it on ! !