Friday, 1 June 2012

Chapter Five (Part A) 'The Common Contract'

These are the un-edited Chapters so Please ignore my Prejudiced point of view and Focus upon the Issues - they are added with best Intentions.

Purpose of Existence & The Common Contract

·                       The Policy: ‘Purpose of Existence’ In so much that, a body should state in an honest and clear manner without evasion their intentions and purpose of existing within their given field or duty.
That is to say that every organisation public and private including the individuals that compile to make them up are under an obligation to tell the public what it is that they do in addition to their intentions. If they fail to provide this clarification openly and honestly without being overly defensive and/or evasive then the implication is that their intention is to be dishonest, deceitful and evasive. The policy serves to highlight honesty over dishonesty through the clinical disclosure of intent, by that I mean the true intention of that authority, company or individual. This then relates to the fact that honest businesses, authorities and individuals have nothing to hide where as dishonest organisations, authorities and people do.

·                       It is never in the best interest of the authorities to hide the truth as that only serves to expose hidden agendas, dishonesty and corruption in addition to highlighting intent since the act of concealment is an intentional act.

·                       A judge would need to be beyond reproach as such he or she must be honest, impartial and fair-minded within his or her vocation, appearing professional and unbiased at all times. He or she may not break the laws he or she upholds and their character has to be implicitly perceived at all times in-order to maintain public confidence in both their self and the image of the law for whom he or she stands as its representative. A judge more than any other individual in any country has to maintain their integrity so as to be impeccably perceived or the public lose confidence and trust within the justice system as a whole.

               When justice fails and the public no longer maintain confidence within the law then the government falls since all lawful governments stand upon the shoulders of lawful conduct and fair justice. If a judge is virtuous and honest he or she may wish to state that: they are honest, lawful, descent human beings, representative of the law in a fair, detached, impartial and professional manner.

·                       The Policy statement ‘Purpose of Existence’ for the Police may be similar to that of a judge but referring to multiple beings and incorporating the organisations true nature. Like judges the police have to maintain public confidence by representing not only the law but honesty and integrity as without these the public lose confidence in their abilities to represent the truth, serve the public through clinical detachment which is part of their purpose of existence as impartial investigators, witnesses and enforcers. Furthermore it is arguable that without this clinical objectivity they no longer serve the public since they are no longer detached but prejudiced therefore biased within their objectivity.

·                       The policy for the police could be phrased: the investigation of complaints, crimes, allegations and incidences by honest, decent, detached police officers in a professional and impartial manner. With the intention of gathering evidence and materials in a clinical fashion for the intention of clarification of cause, procedure, prosecution and outcome, (this is just an example it may be worded differently).

·                       Members of parliament (government) as representative of the people within their own and other constituencies and being representative of the national body of people. They are therefore its captains since they steer the nation in a particular direction also have to maintain public confidence and as such also have to portray honesty as being the best policy. They have to instil confidence within the public by upholding the laws of the land, being honest and maintaining the nations integrity since they are representative of the people and the nation.

How politicians and governmental officials are perceived effects how other nations view or perceive this nation with that being the body of people whom compile or make it up.

·                       A Member of Parliament or other official within the government to include the Government itself as a whole may wish to state: That they are honest decent people who serve the public honestly and with best intention. That they serve only this nation of people with the sole intention of protecting, preserving and ensuring the stability, continuation and the integrity of this nation and the people who make it up. Their nationality and sovereignty with them being the property of the people who combine to form and give purpose to the existence of a state and a government.
That they serve to ensure their nation of people receive every available opportunity to expand as a nation. To prosper through free enterprise, higher levels of education, innovation, technology coupled with future prospects. Better standards of health and welfare ensuring their availability to all, better social and economic infrastructure, improved medical and emergency services. Additionally for the continuation and investment within the armed forces which serve and exist for the protection and benefit of this nation of people.
That the government and its officials serve to protect the rights of each and every individual, reducing poverty, hardship and suffering, reducing the financial burden upon the public through a policy of minimal taxation. That they being representative of this country serve for the benefit of the people recognising the limitations to their authority and existing for the pursuance and protection of freedom and democracy.

·        The Intelligence and Security Services: Although these services and the government would strongly argue against a policy statement ‘purpose of existence’ for these services stating it would restrict their abilities to protect the nation. It is only fair to receive a statement of clarification from those services in relation to their purpose of existence in relation to this nation. Addressing issues of concern over the misuse of these services with them being to the detriment of the people who form this nation.
                Clearly any failure here highlights an intention upon their part or that of the government to use those services unlawfully and against the best interests of the public. These individuals whom make up those services are employees of the people as are those individuals whom make up the government. They are paid by the public to serve the public interest maintain and secure the security of this nation from any and all foreign and domestic threats even if those threats stem from that government or from within their own community.
                Just like the armed forces the security and intelligence services are paid to protect and serve the people within and who give identity to this nation. To serve no other since they are paid by us, the money in their pocket is ours. This applies to the government also since it is also our employee since it too is paid by us; the monarchy is kept by us as a symbol of unity and regency. To serve and operate under the control of any other body and against the people of this nation would be treason.
                This nation of people is their first concern and their intentions and loyalty to those people are of national importance. Clarification is required upon their part so as to ensure they are indeed working for the people of this nation and no other foreign or domestic body. Treason is a crime whether it is committed by these authorities or governmental officials and if those individuals are under the influence of other authorities it is of national interest.
                Clearly clarification upon their part and upon the part of all lawful authorities in relation to this issue does not affect the abilities of those authorities other that to clarify intent and re-assure the public. Any failure here to clarify their purpose of existence without evasion highlights an intention to act against this nation. Any government official opposing this policy highlights intent, an intention to use those services unlawfully and against national interests.
                If it is a crime to stand proudly within your country of origins and identify yourself according to your nation with that nation being that country which gives you identity then there is an issue. If systems are operating against this right and to the detriment of their nation that issue has to be highlighted so that clarification is forthcoming.
·        Policy statement ‘purpose of existence’ for the security and intelligence services may be worded: Individuals and authorities employed and empowered by the nation to serve and protect that nation through the discovery and divulgence of foreign and domestic threats. The uncovering of information’s, plans, plots and intelligences which may be to the detriment of the nation and relating to public safety. A body of services dedicated to the security and safety of this nation of people and no other; serving only for the benefit of this nation and no other.
                People operating within the intelligence and security services do so anonymously with few ever receiving recognition for their contribution. It is therefore vital that they know without question that they act for the benefit and security of the nation. Not for the personal gain or hidden political agendas of ambitious jumped up politicians who operate against the nation’s interest whilst exploiting and abusing public trust and resources. To serve your country and nation is reward enough, but to be exploited by politicians who abuse that nations trust is a crime against the nation and a waste of life.
·        Breach of the policy ‘Purpose of Existence’: In so much that, any unlawful conduct on the part of the individual or authorities represented and having adverse effects upon even one member of the public damages that individual whilst undermining the image of that service or services they represent. This policy was written by you or that authority it is your statement of legitimacy and a testament to your true purpose of existence that being within the nature and pursuance of your job this in turn impacts upon your integrity. If you breach this policy which you wrote you breach your own statement of legitimacy thereby undermining your own word.
The statement to your legitimacy being held within your declaration of intent; this then serves to highlight your own honesty or dishonesty.

It is always in your best interest to recognise and resolve an issue or failing through recognition, reconciliation and repair since that through ‘deed’ is a lawful pursuit.

The Common Contract.

With reference to, an unwritten but commonly accepted and agreed contract between the Crown/State/Government and the individual.
The individual/individuals being nationals of that governing body’s authority where by the latter is employed by the prior i.e.: the party of the second part (Crown/State or Government) to act in an ad ministerial position and for the benefit of the party of the first part i.e.: (individual/individuals/the public). To which the party of the first part agrees to employ for an agreed term of office and at a fair rate of recompense the party of the second part with the provision of funding and support through revenue. Additionally and in times of crisis to physically support the party of the second part in the protection of the party of the first part and the party of the second part.
On the part of the party of the second part, it is their contractual obligation to utilize the combined revenues of each individual with each individual being both singularly and collectively the party/parties of the first part. That all the revenues gathered are for the benefit and security of the party of the first part with the rates of revenue being kept to a minimum in order  to minimise the financial burden upon the individual/individuals and society. These revenues being provided by the party of the first part for the lawful use/acquisition and supply of services; support by the party of the second part and for the benefit and security of the party of the first part.
The contract is indeed a lawful means by which a government is employed by the public in addition to the terms and conditions of employment. The foundation of the contractual obligations for a government being: services in exchange for revenue. With those services being for the benefit of the people to whom the body of administration is contractually obligated (each individual within that country).

The revenues supplied by the party of the first part are for the provision of services in the manner of health & welfare, education and commerce, social and economic infrastructure, armed forces (for the deployment and protection of the nation and the nations sovereignty), fair and impartial justice, the provision of an impartial and professional police force dedicated to the forensic and clinical gathering of evidences, the investigations of allegations, crimes, incidences and or complaints. The provision of a healthy, safe environment whereby the party of the first part may excel through commerce and industry combined with the latest and most advanced collective thinking, information, technologies along with social and economic development.
This is a fair contract whereby the government (Employee) who are the systems of administration are employed by the people (Employer) to lawfully administer to their finances. To utilize these funds and provide fundamental services all of which are for the benefit of the people (Employer) whom are the individuals that compile to form society within that given nation.
Ultimately, it is the individuals funds that the government administers, not their own therefore they are legally obligated to act lawfully and to provide lawful service.
Revenue is taken by the government and since it is widely accepted (and has been for generations) that this is in exchange for the provision of those lawful services as aforementioned with the government taking responsibility for the supply of those services the contract is unlikely to be disputed. Additionally and since the government actually do provide these services through the provision of public funding (Revenue) it must be seen that both parties do indeed complete their parts within this contract.
Therefore the ‘common contract’ is indeed a lawful contract based upon ‘services’ in exchange for ‘revenue’. This contract is fundamentally a foundation upon which Any and All Lawful or Legitimate Governments, States or Bodies of Authority should stand. A platform for Justice built upon Lawful Conduct and the recognition of what ‘IS’ Lawful as opposed to what is ‘NOT’.

The Common Contract.

Crown/State vs. Any Individual

These are the contractual obligations of both parts of this contract with these being given as parts (a) and part (b).

(Part A)

On the part of the individual: I/we the individual/individuals undertake from a reasonable age to support you the systems of administration through the supplement of revenue. Furthermore; within times of crisis we undertake to physically support those authorities in the defence of this country.

(Part B)
On the part of the systems of administration: it is that you undertake to utilise the resources provided by said individual/individuals, to better protect said individual/individuals from external as well as internal threats.  Those threats to include you as people in positions of authority sometimes abuse their positions or that authority. That you utilise those collective resources to provide a professional, well-equipped defensive system of armed forces, for the deployment and the protection of the individual/individuals and/or people of this country. Additionally that they serve for the protection of the sovereignty of our nation which is our property with them being the lands and territories upon and within which we stand as a nation.
Note: The country being the individual/individuals, the people and not the systems of administration, state and/or the crown.  Recognising that, the people’s collective identity forms and gives a name and a purpose for the existence for a state. That we the people and not you the systems of administration, the crown or the land where upon we stand; as these things are obsolete and having no identity without the people and their collective identity.

It is the people whom form the nation they in turn give identity to the land upon which they stand and purpose for there to be a government with that government’s duty being in the service of that nation.
Furthermore, that you the systems of administration also undertake to utilise the resources provided by the individual/individuals to benefit and improve the quality and quantity of life for each and every individual. Those improvements to be in the overall development and improvement of health and welfare services, social and economic infrastructure, education coupled with future prospects, the implementation and protection of civil freedom, human rights and democracy. 
The provision of a fair, impartial and lawful judicial system for the purpose of establishing the truth based upon clinically gathered evidences and facts. The provision of a professional and impartial police force dedicated to investigating without prejudice so as to establish the facts through the clinical acquisition of evidences, statements and information.
For the provision of efficient and effective emergency services and other essential support necessary to maintaining a healthy caring civilised society. That you also support and encourage free enterprise with the creation of an environment beneficial to the encouragement and growth of commerce and industry whilst recognising companies and individuals have a lawful right to prosper through and from their initiatives. (Without that one single right ‘to prosper’ from their efforts where is the motivation for any business to exist). Without business, industry and free enterprise there is no employment and without that there is no revenue.
Greater freedom for the individual coupled with the right to improve their quality of life, the right to prosper from their own skills, initiatives, innovation and enterprise. That you the systems of administration recognise that you are the employees of the people, that your purpose of existence being for the benefit and protection of the individual and the people of this country.

It should be noted: that the individual agrees to this contract through the ‘supplement of revenues’ and the system of administration through the ‘supplement of services’.  Since both parties have provided their parts to this contract i.e.: revenue is taken and services are in place for most parts, this contract must be seen as being legal and binding even though it is not written (until now) but accepted.

For the record:

Any ‘Contractual Breach’ is a ‘Breach of Contract’ and any breach of contract is a ‘Void’ of that contract therefore a relinquishment of obligation:
·        On the part of party of the first part (Part A) it is to pay revenue, recognise or be bound to the authority of the second part (Part B) coupled with the relinquishment of services.
·        On the part of party of the second part (Part B) it is to provide services coupled with the relinquishment of authority and any request for funding and/or support from the first part (part A).

It should be Noted (Example): That any system of administration or authority that taxes any individual or individuals to such an extent that they cause hardship, difficulty or suffering is impeding that individuals ‘Right to Prosper’ so is in direct breach of their purpose of existence. (I am raising issues over ‘Excessive Taxation’ recognising them as being the ‘New Bonds of Slavery’ since in reality you are working and existing to pay ‘Tax’.) Within this any system of administration and/or authority, which undermines the rights of the individual, be they civil or human are in breach of their purpose of existence.

            Any government, authority and/or system of administration that operates outside the law and against the best interest of the people to whom it ‘lawfully bound to serve’ and ‘represent’ are in direct breach of its purpose of existence (this may also be classed as ‘Treason’ since they are ‘Attacking’ the ‘Nation’).

To deny any individual any of their entitlements or rights under the common contract and/or any other lawful understanding or contractual obligation to which may be binding under either ‘The Common Contract’, ‘Common Law’ or ‘Municipal Law’ is a breach of contract.

There has to be ‘Legitimacy within the Law’ or the Law ‘Fails within the Sum of Itself’ as does all ‘Lawful Authority’.

It must be accepted that upon the part of the Government with them taking and being responsible for the provision of laws, rules and regulations which govern society. Furthermore and due to this that the complexity of services provided through those laws, rules and regulations that any failure to provide even the most menial services as denoted within their contractual obligations may be classed as a ‘Breach of Contract’.

This said ‘All Contracts’ require that all parties to each contract are given opportunities to ‘Recognise’ and ‘Repair’ their ‘Contractual Breaches’ through the ‘Recognition’ of ‘Failures’ and ‘Reconciliation’ for ‘Damages Done’.

It is widely accepted that the damaged party give two - three opportunities to the defaulting party of the contract in order for them to recognise and repair their contractual failing.

Should both parties reconcile their differences during these three attempts with one party recognising errors and/or failings and making adequate recompense to which the second party ‘Agrees’ then all is well and the contract should be accepted as being repaired? However if the defaulting party fails to reconcile their differences with the damaged party after three attempts then it is clear that the contract is broken. A breach of any contract is serious as it is ‘dissolution’ of said contract and relinquishment of obligation.

In the case of the common contract it should not be taken lightly as the impact may be far reaching.

For instance to deny any individual their right to receive fair and impartial justice under national law is to denounce that individual as not being a citizen of that nation or country therefore they are not entitled to receive national justice (Dissolution of Contract). You are placing this individual outside the protection of any and all ‘Lawful Authority’ which is called ‘Displacement’ whilst also stripping them of their ‘Nationality’ with this being classed as ‘Treason’ since you are in essence attacking the country which is made up of collection of individuals.

Remember that a denouncement of citizenship is a relinquishment of jurisdiction with this act placing that individual outside the jurisdiction of that or those countries governmental, judicial and all other authorities reaches.

If you denounce the father releasing him from any and all contractual obligations, to recognise and/or be bound by your nations laws therefore to support the state, country or authorities how can you claim authority over the son as the son descends from the father and to denounce one is to denounce the other.

A ‘Breach of Contract’ is a ‘Denouncement of that Contract’ since it is a failure within that ‘contract’ to remain ‘bound within’ it through the provision of services or funding depending upon which party has broken their contractual obligations.
Clearly any failure to recognise the breach and recover the contract through reconciliation implies ‘intent’ as in a ‘premeditated intention’ to break the contract. This would be clearly ‘fraudulent’ unless reconciliation is reached; if recognition of said breach and reconciliation is not forthcoming then that by its very nature implies intent. It would be both unacceptable and unlawful to continuously pay for services that are not supplied or indeed to supply services that are not paid for and where by those services or payments are not intended.

For the Government to breach the common contract would place that individual in a state of limbo outside the domain of society or that of the law. It also compromises the authority if they are indeed the defaulting party recognising that they have ‘committed a crime’ which in turn undermines their legitimacy in law as well as the minds of the public. With them as the defaulting party it is to deny the individual the right to survive within the confines of the law and society. It releases the individual from any requirement or obligation to support the state through the supplement of revenue and/or to comply with any of that nation’s laws and/or its authorities.

In short, it releases the individual from any contractual obligations to support or defend the state or to recognise and comply with that states laws and authority. Leaving said state with no authority to act should crimes be committed or indeed for the benefit of the individual should they be the victim of crimes. This in turn allocates for crimes to be committed to which the state has to ‘accept accountability’.
The individual would have no right to seek help or support; they would be left defenceless without the ability to acquire food, health or medical care. They would not have the right to seek employment since they would be outside the system and incapable of being paid using the monetary system.

Any person offering them work would be committing a crime, they could not be employed lawfully and to employ them unlawfully is a crime. To attempt to employ them lawfully would be a crime as they would not be within the system and the system would not be able to lawfully retain information upon them or extract taxes or funding from them. To tax them would be unlawful since the state would be committing the crime of ‘extortion’, the individual could not purchase anything since most things are taxed therefore the state would be extorting moneys unlawfully which again is a crime. The threads of problems stemming from a breach of the common contract by the government and its authorities are immense ultimately undermining its or their legality as a lawful and public body.

Situations such as this arising within modern society are not only unreasonable they are totally unlawful and unacceptable?
 The above issues relate to the state failing just one individual but could a failure to provide any or all of these services to a multiple of people be a breach of contract or is that something more?

Serious breaches which affect numerous individuals may be considered as being not only as a breach of contract but also by intent they are an act of treason. The state has no authority to deny even one individual service and they certainly have no right to deny a multitude under any circumstances. No government has a right to attack or harm its own electorate as that is an attack upon the nation and their primary obligation is to protect you and the nation including your nationality, to do otherwise is treason.

Although it may be arguable that one individual may have been denied services through a failure within the system. To deny more than one individual services is to highlight an intention to commit crimes by withdrawing or withholding services. It is fair to say systems fail but when they fail to recognise those failures or act unlawfully by covering up so as to evade responsibility and justice this is from where the real issues stem.

Crimes against humanity are crimes against everyone and that includes you and your children.

I have been denied justice within a crown court when the chief constable of Cumbria and his superior from London held a secret meeting with the judge to which my solicitors and barrister where not invited to attend. They were not informed this meeting was taking place and no attempt to inform them was made until it was too late.

The prosecution were informed and knew all about this meeting with that highlighting intent upon the part of the crown. My accuser and three police officers who admitted to committing numerous crimes under oath where allowed to change their stories and walk away Scott free as a direct result of this meeting.

A racial argument which goes unchallenged affecting justice to this degree is not justice; I was denied that even though I was proven innocent beyond question. Things like this affect every person’s right to receive justice ‘without prejudice’. They affect every solicitor and barrister, every impartial judge who stands upon the virtues of justice in order to preserve justice. These issues undermine the legitimacy of the law, justice system, governments and their authority, even their best and lawful intentions because they have no credibility.

I have no human rights because of this event so for me there is no justice without prejudice only prejudicial justice that conspires to cover up thereby evades the truth. Justice can only stand if it stands upon legitimacy and in that it must recognise ‘innocence’ for what innocence is; clearly if it cannot do that then this highlights a problem.

Fact: I was proven to be unanimously innocent in Carlisle Crown Court therefore Innocent beyond question so within this recognition what is the motivation for stating any of the things I am stating within this book. The book is ‘free’ and for ‘gratis’ therefore ‘costs nothing’ since it is not about ‘self gain’, the allegation is ‘detrimental’ in as much as it is ‘discrediting’ and ‘humiliating’ so it is not about ‘self-promotion’. I have no job, business or income as all those things were destroyed through the allegations which were deliberately intended to keep me down thereby diminish me. Even if I could start a new business I would be ‘fraudulently taxed’ upon every penny ‘earned’ or ‘spent’ whilst unlawfully supporting an ‘illegal state’. Where for me is the motivation in supporting corrupt authorities who have ‘denied me lawful service’ by ‘denouncing me in law’. My better half supports our family by holding down a part time job and in doing so feeds that ‘fraudulent government’ who stands so ‘unlawfully’ within ‘English Law’. My duty in the end is to my family ‘first’ and to my nation ‘second’ with them being the ‘Indigenous Britons’ now called ‘Welsh, Brythig’ and ‘Scots’ who are a compilation of the ‘Picts’ (Peith) and ‘Scotti Tribe’ (descendants of Heber Scott).

Within this it is fair to ‘State’ for the ‘Record’:

That England along with the English peoples are not my nation nor am I bound to them having been ‘denounced in law by them’ and having ‘no lawful obligation’ to ‘support’ or ‘recognise them’ or their ‘state’ since they are my ‘persecutors’ in addition to being ‘foreign invaders of my country’ who stand here upon ‘genocide’ and ‘atrocity’ which they legitimate as being a lawful right ‘Right to Conquest’.

I am an indigenous Britain called ‘Welsh’ which is a Saxon word meaning ‘Stranger’ and ‘Walnut’; my nation of people have been persecuted virtually out of existence. The last concentration of Briton’s within Britain are in ‘Wales’ however so many other foreign non-indigenous peoples have been directed into this region and who now reside here ‘we no longer exist as a nation’. In all actuality we are a diluted and fragmented people ‘without the right to exist’ because of external influences that make it politically unacceptable to retain our identity.

Without the right to retain your identity you have no rights, I do not have the right to write this book or to disclose the issues within it because in reality I stand in opposition so as to highlight the truth.

Wales is only a small fragment of ‘Cambria’ which was the true extent of the country with us being the ‘Cymbric’ peoples, ‘Britain’ is a corruption of ‘Prytain’ (my direct ancestor) and ‘Cambria’ (Cymru) takes its name from ‘Camber’ (Also a direct ancestor).  My reason for disclosing this is that I have a lawful claim to stand within this country since I am a legitimate descendant of those people.

The English are not legitimate Britons they have no claim here beyond ‘Right to Conquest’ which is the ‘Self-Legitimisation’ of a crime. In this case they claim that it is ‘Legal’ for them to commit ‘Mass murder, Rape, Theft and Atrocity’ so long as ‘they or you’ commit these crimes against ‘Others’ and ‘On Mass’ so as to remove any witnesses. Furthermore they claim the ‘Right’ to ‘Theft by Murder’ which is how they ‘Acquired’ our ancestral lands: ‘Mailoria, Bromfield, Powys and Iâl’ through a ‘Fraudulent War of Wales’ and the ‘Murder’ of two little boy’s: ‘Gruffydd and Llywelyn Maylor’ of ‘Dinas Bran’ with this being but a ‘Fragment of the True crime’.

“Lest We Forget”
‘Maylor’ and ‘Maelor’ have been established and identified with the ‘Lords of Dinas Bran’ since the 11th century and being descendents of ‘Gruffydd Maylour 1st’ who was the son of ‘Madog ap Maredudd ap Bleddyn ap Cynfyn’ the ‘Legitimate Kings’ and ‘Princes’ of the ‘Britons’ being descendants of ‘Casner Casnar Wledig High King of Cambria’ descended from the bloodline of ‘Peredur’.

Here is a fragment of our ancestry and this is nothing: ‘The Brutus Scroll’

The ‘Danius’ scroll presented above, he was the father of a daughter called: Danae and a son: Mordivus.
The Romans, Saxons and Normans (Black Danes) in addition to all those other foreign peoples are not here lawfully they stand upon multiple acts of ‘genocide’ (the continuous and repetitive annihilation of a race). You sanction these crimes through your presence here upon this island since you are supporting the perpetrator of those crimes. Beneath your feet lay our ancestors all of whom opposed both Rome and England with many of them suffering the same fate beneath the heel of ‘Unlawful Law’. Their heads hoisted upon English shafts between the English people and God ‘a testament to atrocity’. Within the above is ‘Revelation’ and everything stemming from this is part of that ‘Revelation’.
Lets be honest here the English have been resident in ‘Cymru’ since 1260AD speaking our language and passing themselves off as being us. What happens if there actually are no concentrations of legitimate indigenous Britain’s left in existence; clearly that becomes an extinction event with England being both ‘Guilty’ and ‘Responsible’ for the complete ‘Extermination’ of the British people. The total eradication of our race which is ‘Annihilation’ and with this all other countries become accomplices by sanctioning this crime.
These islands take their name from the British peoples with them being the ‘Native Britons’ only without these peoples it is no longer Britain. ‘Britain’ loses its identity since in all actuality it no longer exists with that identity being lost and must therefore be recognised as being ‘England’. That action would legitimate the crime of ‘totally exterminating other races of people in law’ since it makes it ‘acceptable to commit the crime’. The argument here is that other nations have accepted ‘Right to Conquest’ as a lawful claim with the action applying and resulting in ‘Annihilation‘. Within this Britain was unable to defend from the Roman, Saxon and Norman  invasions which followed on one from another so one could argue that the ‘Dissolution of Nations’ which is the mergence of states gives an ideal opportunity to discretely erase other peoples over long periods of time after all we have been occupied for over 2,000years. Compounding the above is the fact that without an adequate number of indigenous Britain’s it would be unlawful to state that the ‘Welsh’ are a true race therefore to declare ‘Wales’ free would be a crime highlighting an ‘intention’ to cover up ‘Annihilation’ by passing other races off as being ‘the Welsh’.
Clearly this exposes a crime through the ‘action’ since the legitimate ‘Welsh’ are the ‘True Britons’ which can be established through their DNA, thus identifying them. The English who now claim to be British are not since God did not place them here and their DNA clearly establishes them for whom they are. Additionally it could explain why ‘England’ relates to and identifies the ‘British people’ as being ‘Welsh’ so as to hide the ‘Fact’ that they are the ‘Legitimate British inhabitants’ thus concealing a ‘Crime’ which allows the ‘English to usurp our Identity’.
Well it is an honest observation isn’t it!
It is still a crime to speak our native language in ‘Wales’ and although we are no longer ‘tortured’ we can face penalties for speaking our native language in front of English speaking peoples. Clearly it is legal for any other race of people to speak their languages despite whom they are; the last person to be tortured for speaking ‘Welsh’ was a woman in Caernarfon shire about 80yrs ago, she had the soles of her feet beaten (they used to cut peoples tongues out).

If the ‘British’ do not have the right in law to exist ‘free and independent’ of every other race on earth (that is if we could establish enough of them still exist through their DNA); what right does any other nation of people have. Without an identity who are you and what ‘rights’ do you perceive you have in law. In the end I may be speaking as one of the last indigenous Britons and having no human rights upon this planet because of the ‘Satanic’ nature of our masters who pass themselves off as being ‘British’ every day. However unless they can prove that they are a true Briton through their DNA these English people are simply not standing here legitimately since we are still an ‘occupied’ and ‘dominated’ race that has been overwhelmed and diluted through that occupation.
Just because you break into a person’s house, murder, torture and rape its occupants then evade responsibility for committing that crime; does not make that property yours or it legal to commit the crime. No matter how long you stand there self-proclaiming you are ‘still standing upon a crime’ with that crime being ‘murder, torture, rape and theft’. This along with ‘genocide’ is the foundation upon which England as a nation stands.

My DNA establishes me as do my genealogies therefore proof is plentiful and for the record I have so far placed nothing upon the table ’that is still to come’; in the end you must decide.

            Everything presented above as part A: ‘Chapter Five (The Common Contract) is taken from the book: ‘The State of Injustice
Author and Copyrights: Christopher D, J, Maylor
© 2005 – 2012 (All rights are reserved).

            This chapter is offered as is the book with best intentions due to the interest within this aspect of the ‘Blog’; I genuinely hope this will help someone win some measure of ‘Human Justice’. The chapter includes references to the case and elements of my own ‘Nationalism’ however these are included so as to ‘Project the Issues’ in such a manner that you may perceive a ‘Relevance’ of how they may be applied in ‘Practice’ through ‘Prejudice’ however it is only fair to point out the ‘Actual Facts’ within ‘Relevant History’.

            I hope that if you read the book you will realise that it is not a story relating to what happened but a case that brings aspects of the system into scrutiny. I have not edited this chapter other than placing the section relating to ‘Fraudulent Taxation’ within a separate ‘Blog’ (Part B: Fraudulent Taxation) and this is done to help people perceive and understand the issues. One of these was not addressed within the book however I have noted it upon the ‘Blog’ with it relating to ‘Public Servants Expenses’ their ‘Claims against the Public’ and whether the ‘Receipts’ for these ‘Claims’ are recovered by ‘Public Servants’ through the ‘Tax Office’. The argument here is that the ‘Public Purchased’ the ‘Item’ therefore any recompense through the ‘Department of Taxation’ should be used to ‘Reimburse’ the ‘Public’.

            I hope this helps.

Christopher © Copyright 01/06/2012 (All Rights Reserved)

No comments:

Post a comment