Chapter Five (Part B) taxation

Fraudulent and Excessive Taxation.

Evidences for everything written here are readily and freely available for anyone wishing to verify or confirm what is stated and/or implied; you only have to do the maths and check the sources. Company records are publicly available as are the rates at which governments extract revenue from those companies or individuals alike; the types of revenue deducted are also on record.

Taxation at anything over 40% in total extracted from the public and commercial sectors becomes excessive as that is the maximum threshold of legitimacy within the free market. Any authority seeking to exploit the market beyond this no longer represents free enterprise or democracy. It is unreasonable to affect a company’s ability to prosper since that undermines its ability to offer long term job security.

At 25% it is an incentive and recipe for prosperity and growth. Governments operating on this threshold clearly support and represent free enterprise in addition to democracy by placing individual interests above those of the government.

At 40% we reach a limit of what people and industry can afford to legitimately pay without incurring hardships.
Governments operating on this limit although excessively extracting revenues therefore restricting to some degree free enterprise and prosperity still represent free enterprise. They may even afford greater benefits and security to the people or nation they serve.

At 60% Tax becomes a restriction that inhibits growth and free enterprise it affects individuals by impacting upon their ability to afford or to save for a rainy day. Furthermore it affects business viability therefore limits their chances for survival and burdens society in general with high unemployment, limited economic growth, high inflation and a failing economy.
Governments operating at this juncture or beyond do not represent free enterprise and are not representative of democracy since those things are built upon freedom, virtue and justice (a recognition of people’s right to prosper). This level of taxation is restrictive inhibiting any lawful enterprises ability to succeed whilst serving only to impoverish the populace.   

At 80% what is the incentive; this is a recipe for disaster causing widespread corporate and industrial collapse. Mass unemployment, growing crime, intense poverty with people unable to afford food; suffering and hardship which result in long term illnesses that strain the system even more. Excessively high inflation coupled with long term social and economic failure. This is ultimately followed by civil war from which there is no return the impact of such is clearly evident even today.

This level of taxation is restrictive within the fact that it represents oppression which impoverishes all through the unlawful illegitimate and excessive extraction of revenue. All of which only serves to expose those unlawful authorities whose illegal ambitions threaten the stability and security of the world. Expanding their unlawful rule to demean and dominate the populace undermining the stability of the economy for political ends. (Not a conspiracy theory since didn’t the ‘Third Reich’ come about this way and resulting in ‘absolutism’.) 
 

Cromwell’s revolt was sparked in exactly this way when English politicians taxed the people of Britain to such a level they could take no more. Taxes were invented such as the tax on daylight to extract ever more resources so as to impoverish the poorest people and feed the ever increasing appetites of the politicians who where at that time doing the same as they are today, betraying this country.

Perhaps a few hundred years have passed, technology has evolved but politicians and their attitudes towards the public have not. World order and greed with little morally thin men sitting their enormous backsides behind big desks and fancy titles which only serve to highlight their own inferiority complexes.  As such the seeds and recipe for disaster have not altered and unless those attitudes are affected now; well the storm is on the horizon and the black clouds are visible to even the most ignorant or blinkered of minds.

            Excessive taxation causes recession by feeding inflation, this is done by removing so much revenue from society through excessively high taxation that there is too little left to retain stability within the economy and for people/society to survive upon. The impact is overwhelming as companies are forced to compete for business in order to survive. They fail to realise that they are competing to pay tax as everything they acquire is taken by their government and they are in essence no better off.

Individual countries with separate economies generate growth and wealth through trade, industry and commerce whilst unilateral economies fail to recognise these things. They ‘stagnate’ the pond through aggressive negative policies undermining and devouring all competition as they extract more and more from the system, re-inserting nothing. It is a fact and whilst if an individual economy collapses others could aid it; this is not the same for a unilateral system which affects everyone. A global economy affects the world and should it collapse through too much political interference and over extraction of resources through excessive taxation then it will affect the world.

A global economic collapse will affect every nation and every economy impoverishing and de-stabilising all whilst a national economic collapse only affects that one nation. It is in our own interest to remain detached from each other retaining our unique cultures, separate economies so that we can provide a greater wealth of opportunity.

Individual countries can be bound through trade finding mutual interests with these giving greater measures of security in both the long and short term. As individuals we have to take responsibility for our resources; with some people managing these well enough to provide their families with security. Often it is the case that outside influences destabilise that security, inflation brought on through excessive taxation and gross mismanagement of the nation’s resources.

Clearly Governments play with the economy so as to extract greater sums of revenue from the public with some of these policies affecting the stability of the economy. The overall extent of varied taxes, licenses and fees applied to society reflect the level of taxation extracted from each individual with those taxes impacting upon the individual’s ability to manage their resources. It is fair to state that the more you extract from the individual (by whatever means) the less they have to manage upon so the more unstable their security since their ability to remain buoyant is jeopardised through politics.

It can be within a government’s interest to undermine the economy since it gives the state an opportunity to profiteer from public hardship as such it is within their interest to generate that hardship.

House prices are affected with repossessions offering government opportunities to prosper; it can be within a government’s interest to negatively affect your credit rating since the worse that rating is the more interest you incur. Increasing your debt retains you in debt longer affording government additional sources of revenue and all this is based upon the level of interest you incur through your negative credit rating which came about through government destabilisation of your economy.

Governments now own the banks; they also retain your debt within those banks so as to profiteer from that debt. So the argument is that they got you into debt so as to profit from that debt furthermore they generated the recession so as to destabilise the financial market thereby allowing them to take over those services for profit (there is evidence to support this).

We could argue that the government not only tax you into debt but profiteer from that debt through the interest you pay. Any loans or mortgages you have are with them and they profit from these since if you borrow £100,000 to buy a house you are paying back £350 – 400,000 depending (it could be more). So in essence you are paying for the privilege to live from all sides since you have to remember you are paying ‘Outright Tax’ on wages (prior to receiving them), ‘Incidental Tax’ from those wages (cost of living) and ‘Hidden Tax’ which we will relate as ‘Interest upon Loans’ since the government hold your debt.

Fact:  Tax affects your income since it affects what you have left over after paying tax so within this it impacts upon your standard of living. Additionally what you do have left is affected by all the hidden taxes which you pay every time you purchase something. Licences are hidden taxes with all these taxes affecting your ability to retain a good credit rating. ‘Your credit rating affects your ability to borrow by affecting the levels of interest’.

The level of tax taken by the system affects the stability of the economy with this impacting upon ‘you’, ‘industry’ and the ‘financial institutions’ ultimately affecting your/their viability in addition to their ability to succeed or offer long term job security. Destabilising the economy generates ‘debt’ with that ‘debt’ generating additional sources of ‘revenue’ through ‘higher interest’ clearly people with negative credit ratings incur ‘higher interest rates’ (this being clearly visible).

The recent economic collapse allowed the government to take over financial institutions in addition to using ‘public funds’ to ‘buy up public debt’ for ‘profit’ and since said governments do indeed retain those ‘debts’ they are profiteering from this action. (Just because a politician says it is ‘legal’ does not mean to say it ‘really is legal’; there are many ways of looking at something. Firstly there has to be ‘legitimacy within the law’ therefore by using ‘public funds’ to settle those ‘public debts’ the government ‘cleared those debts’. Secondly by using public funds to bail out the banks the politicians were able to save their own ‘Pensions, Mortgages, shares and savings and incomes’ along with those other peoples ‘all of whom’ would have clearly lost these things (they therefore profited from the action). Thirdly since the funds used belonged to the ‘sum of all the public’ it is only fair that those peoples who had no ‘shares or savings’ also benefit through the ‘erasure of their debt’. In reality everyone with ‘shares and savings’ profited off the people who could ‘least afford it’ therefore a ‘clean sheet’ policy in all actuality would be the lawful policy since in reality ‘the debt is paid’.

De-stabilising the economy impacts upon business with that affecting job security; this therefore affects your ability to retain your standard of living. House repossessions also offer government opportunity to profit from loss because they ‘hold your debt’ in the form of a ‘mortgage’ which generates substantial ‘interest’. They hold the deeds to your property until it is paid for and it can be in their interest to destabilise the economy so as to increase repossessions thus allowing them to retain and profit from those properties. House auctions generate a sudden one off payment in addition to the interest generated by the new lender who is purchasing the property which was gained through destabilising the former owner’s ability to pay.

This action is easily applicable to every generation thus generating long term revenue through the ‘criminal insolvency’ of members of the public. Each generation of people being deceived into purchasing houses they will never be allowed to own since the state will string them along for years then undermine the economy so as to re-acquire the property. Compounding this is the other side of the coin where people are forced into rental agreements and state owned property which again is governed by their ability to pay.

Economies have to be flexible and viable offering incentive or they fail.

‘Companies pay tax’ not only on their ‘profits’ but also for ‘every person they employ’, they are therefore penalised for creating employment. Every individual employed by any company has tax deducted from their wages prior to receiving them. Within the United Kingdoms this is done in two forms, firstly every person pays National Insurance Tax at a rate which averages at around 32.5%. Secondly there is a National Insurance Stamp which is paid at 8% of the individual’s annual wages and increases the overall level of taxation to around 40%.

There are plans to raise National insurance tax to as much as 50% with some people paying 12% towards national insurance stamps on top of that with this making a 44% - 62% deduction from your wages in tax. Suddenly this person is only getting slightly more than half their wages (slightly less before long!) as the rest is being extorted by the government. Out of the remainder of those wages the individual has to pay numerous other taxes with each tax increasing the overall level of taxation whilst decreasing the amount of wages left to support themselves and their families upon.

Local council taxes are paid on demand by local authorities who should be paid by national governments however those governments are committing ‘fraud’ by taking revenue unlawfully without the intention of supplying ‘lawful service’. Local government has no option other than to seek payment from the individual for the services they supply (variable £1,500 - £4,500 per annum depending upon the county). Every time you use your currency you are taxed for it since tax is added to everything you buy or sell and within the price of those goods is a set amount of ‘tax’ and ‘Vat’. Within this the individual pays tax upon every item they purchase and every item they sell including fuel (Petrol and Diesel) which is taxed by the English government at a rate of 63% (plus two pence upon the barrel).

The general population have to supply their own means of travelling too and from work incurring all the costs with some amassing high mileage in the process. They are therefore being penalised by the government for ‘working’ with the government restricting employment in many cases. Fuel tax at 63% and VAT on Fuel at 20% can increase the overall level of taxes taken from your earnings exponentially by adding a further 20% worth of tax overall (generalised and may be ‘more’ or ‘less’). A good indication as to the amount of fuel you receive per £10.00 spent is to analyze the number of litres received usually around 7.70Ltr which equates to about 1¾ Gallons of Petrol.  The actual cost of a Litre of Fuel is about £1.33 with there being 5Ltrs to the gallon; however: is this figure accurate since Tax has already been deducted from the manufacturer and again from the service supplier?

            So realistically what are you actually receiving?

   Is it fair to argue that you are actually receiving only £1.80 worth of petrol with £8.20 going to the government in ‘tax’ and if so what does this equate too? Could I justify this by reverse calculating the volumes of Tax taken in proportion to the Fuel received? In essence tax becomes higher than 63% on fuel with every 10Ltr’s of petrol purchased ‘by you’ the government allows you to retain 1.8Ltr’s; they keep the rest (8.2Ltr’s). From this we can ascertain that perhaps it is within the government’s interest to feed ‘global warming’ and to ‘increase fuel prices’ since this generates greater ‘revenue’ through ‘fuel tax’. The more a litre of fuel costs the more tax you pay and the more revenue is generated; clever isn’t it.

It is fair to say that in most cases the tax on fuel may not exceed more than 10% of the individual’s wages however these days we all need to travel to the supermarkets since few small businesses remain thanks to our governments making them non-viable by encouraging larger organisations which are usually multi-national corporations. Clearly larger businesses generate greater revenues within a single source so pay more tax to the government and it is all about centralisation and revenue in the end isn’t it. ‘Corporate Tax Levels’ are high and variable between 60% to 90% depending upon the level of profit, clearly the larger the company and the more central the services it supplies the lower the cost to the company and customer coupled with a greater demand for those services. This drives smaller enterprises out of business and out of the area so people are left with no choice other than to travel hence the increase in travelling costs overall. The corporation’s profits increase through ‘mass sales’ which generate ‘higher profits’ which the government benefits from all be it at the cost of smaller enterprises.

It is fair to say that travelling costs are applicable to many other services such as schools and hospitals with governments centralising these thereby reducing cost to themselves for the provision of these services. This again incurs greater burden upon the individual who have to travel further in order to utilise the services. Additionally this process simplifies the cost to the government by reducing those revenues ‘spent’ thereby increasing those revenues ‘received’ thereby allowing them greater sums to pursue other agendas.

Smaller businesses being people orientated usually provide higher quality of service since reputation is paramount to success. It is a fact that smaller enterprises generate fewer jobs as single units however larger quantities of smaller businesses are required to provide equal volumes of merchandise or services as those of larger corporations. This allocates for greater employment overall along with greater wealth thereby economic stability within the community, region and country. The only real reason for promoting larger enterprises which require fewer employees to run them is that the services they provide in one place are greater. Mass sales reduces costs until monopolisation is established which is when costs increase dramatically; the company generates greater wealth through those mass sales. These systems are automated thereby centralising services and reducing costs to customers, the company involved and government (Revenue collection).

To compound this quality services, manufacturers and industries become non-viable enterprises as cheap produce floods the market since people are left without the ability of affording or maintaining quality industries or services. The standard and quality of living is diminished with this driving up the cost of goods exponentially and in doing so generating greater levels of revenue for governments. However despite the price increases those companies still fail since they are being undermined by the levels of revenue forced upon them which increase with the level of pricing whilst diminishing viability.

Ultimately and in order to make 10p in the £1.00 you have to sell your goods for £10.00 only the level of ‘tax increases’ with this until you realise ‘you are no better off’. Probably the only way to win is to give your product away for nothing and charge the government for the costs and losses.

Fact: Wealth generates stability through financial security, from this we can establish that in all the ‘boom’ times people had more money left over after tax. Those additional resources were spent improving the lives of the individual with that generating employment through sales and demand. The impact of this allowed the market to ‘flourish’ providing greater security and opportunity for all concerned (people, industry, government). All this came about through ‘lower taxation’ of the individual and industry which freed the hands of the people to invest within themselves through the exploitation of their own innovation.

            It is fair to state that ‘wealth generates opportunity’ however this is only for as long as it is ‘feasible’; clearly if there is no viability within inovation because there is no gain within the effort expenditure then there is no motivation.

We stand as nations upon the platform of trade and industry with this generating wealth that provides an economy but where is the motivation for any person to work or succeed if there is nothing in it for them?

Fact: A stagnant economy is a deprived economy which exists through market failures with those failings not necessarily being upon the part of people or industry. ‘Extortionate taxation limits the ability of people to produce, earn and pay and is often a sign of a failing system’. Governments desperate to support themselves extort greater sums of revenue which drive people into ever increasing levels of debt and depravation. The fact is that within a booming economy more revenue is generated through corporate and industrial success therefore taxes are lower encouraging the free market to expand.

Whilst in recession which is brought about through ‘political greed’ the opposite may be said with ‘taxation stagnating the pond’ since it limits and inhibits expansion. You judge a nations success upon the number of slums and its depth of poverty with these highlighting a nation’s greed. Lawful nations would tackle this problem by increasing the wealth within an individuals pocket thus allowing them to escape poverty.

Before that incident in Cumbria I realised that there is no profit in business and the only way to generate anything was to draw a wage which would be reduced by taxation. However all the costs of delivering my service could be passed on through that business and later recovered through ‘tax rebates?’ Although these were not necessarily great they were in essence the only profit perceived since they were extra to the wages with the addition of not having to pay for some items out of my wages.

It is not much but if it helps you to survive as an honest person look at it from a different angle.

If we calculate the tax on wages at 40% with additional individual taxes such as: VAT at 17.5% (usually a hidden tax that most people fail to see), Road Tax at £180.00 per annum, Council Taxes at 12% of your annual wages, other incidental Taxes at 15% of your annual wages (these apply to other services: Gas, Electric, Water, Tax on luxury foods, clothing, electrical, other luxuries etc) then the additional taxes would on average increase the overall level of tax to between 63%-84% of the individuals wages. That does not include the taxes paid on fuel however in the spirit of fair play lets include those within the 63%-84% margin as a level of tolerance on our part; in all I think the government is doing very well.

However the levels of tax deducted from individuals and industry alike is clearly criminal even extortionate causing widespread poverty, hardship and suffering. It is further compounded since only a small percentage of the revenue extorted from the public or from industry actually goes back into the economy since most of it is siphoned out of the country to fraudulently fund the European Parliament. This is being done at a rate of £46,000,000 per day which equates to £460,000,000 per ten days and £4,600,000,000 per one hundred days.

There are three hundred and sixty five days in a year so let’s sort this out: 46,000,000

X 365

= 16,790,000,000 million pounds per year

= 251,850,000,000 million pounds within the past 15yrs but hey maybe that’s a bit unfair perhaps the government have not defrauded the British people out of quite that amount. Over the past fifteen years lets speculate that it was only £167,900,000,000 million pounds (Wow!) so who gave them permission to do that.

At what stage did they assume they had the right to ‘steal the British tax payer’s moneys’ to fund a parliament which is ‘not British’ and was ‘not elected’ into existence by any member of the ‘British public’? Clearly this European government is not lawfully elected or funded since the revenues they have extorted were not lawfully given but ‘Rather Taken without Permission’ through a process of ‘Fraudulent Taxation’. Additionally who gave them permission to betray the nation by ‘submitting to external influences and forces with this impoverishing the people of our nation’? Coupled with this ‘The European Parliament’ is not ‘Our’ government nor has it been ‘elected’ into office by ‘Us’ (We have an Issue, Don’t We?).

So we are not really bound to it lawfully since we are an independent Nation as we stand here which begs the question: ‘Who gave the English Government the right to defraud this Nation of its resources or indeed betray us’. Clearly if the government is under the influence of another body then it is no longer our government nor are they operating with out best interests at heart since they are ‘impoverishing us, destabilising us, dissolving our nation’s right and sovereignty in addition to that theft of Our Funds’.

I have not taken into account any of the other hidden/stealth taxes such as parking meters and fines, licenses etc; in fact anything the state introduces so as to extort more money from you there by increasing their volume of revenue; decreasing yours which in turn impoverishing you even further.

It is hard to imagine that these figures could be genuine isn’t it (work it out).

Few people have savings any more since they have or are all being used to survive on, to buy essentials such as food; few people have the right to own their own houses because if you buy one the government pulls the rug out from under your feet by increasing interest rates. People are living on credit and that is ‘promise of moneys’ they clearly do not have, this clearly is an indication of governmental failures and gross mismanagement of the economy. They are clearly playing with inflation with the sole intention of extracting taxes and resources unlawfully at our expense and this is ‘criminal, exploitive and traitorous’. No person within a country such as this should have to ‘borrow moneys just to survive’; there is a clear message within the fact that ‘after tax your wages are inadequate for you to buy essentials like food’.

‘Increasing fuel prices’ is the most obvious way of ‘increasing revenues’, in fact the higher fuel prices soar the ‘more revenue the government makes’ since 63% of it is TAX. (63pence in the pound or £6.30 in every £10 which equates to £63 in every £100 the only problem is that in reality there is a further 20% in VAT works out at more than that: £83 in every £100 is tax which leaves you with £17 worth of fuel per £100 spent; and who said there is no ‘Justice’). Remember a politician’s time, expenses and costs are met by you (us), their mortgages are paid by you and they are subsidised by you; there is plenty of food on their tables since it is paid for by you. In fact let’s think about something! Out of every £10.00 we pay in petrol you receive £1.70 to travel upon whilst they get £8.30 worth of your petrol which you paid for! (Work it out).

In addition to the taxes paid by the individual, the company employing the individual also pays the government tax for that privilege. They pay an additional percentage on top of the employees (yours) and being equal to that of the employee (you). In relation to national insurance the employee pays 32.5% and the company pays and additional 38% on top of that increasing the overall percentage of tax taken by the government to around 70% overall (this is due to increase substantially). Additionally the employee pays national insurance contributions at 8% with the employer adding an additional amount to this at around 15% increasing the overall contribution to 23% non of which either the employee or the employer will ever see again since it is taken and added to the same accounts as the other 70%. In total the employer and the employee are supporting the government on an ‘equal’ or ‘above equal wage’ to that of the ‘employee’ only the ‘government does not pay tax’; furthermore he gets paid a wage for every person employed within the country. 10,000,000 (ten-million) people working equate to 20,000,000 wage packets 10,000,000 for you and 10,000,000 for the state and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

You have to perceive it this way since in essence you have and are carrying an ‘invisible evil grotesque twin’ who does not contribute a single thing in return; so it is all on you and every time you get paid they take more than half your wages BUT NO that’s not right is it. They take another equal amount off your employer so technically speaking their on more than twice what you receive without having to pay tax on top, for which ‘what have they done to earn it’?

‘You have to admit CLEVER isn’t it’.

If you think of the average wage earned is £20,000.00 per annum then that is multiplied by the number of employees nationally; in this case and as an example (only) 10,000,000 x £20,000 but with one additional 80% of your wages on top. By this I mean that they get a wage equal to yours plus 80% of yours and everyone else’s because they are not taxed but you are; you can see why politicians are always grinning, smarmy and smug.  That is not even all because it does not include what the government extracts from your employer and all the other companies such as British Petroleum from fuel sales at 63% or from profits at 60% - 83% + 2p on the barrel, if you add what they take off the company for employing you and the Invisible employee as well! It is amazing that this or any company survives to trade and this is just one company. On average 60%-90% of every company’s profits are extracted by the government unlawfully since they are A/ penalizing and inhibiting companies for their success B/ penalize companies for creating employment and, C/ giving nothing back in return.

SORRY; I just remembered all the false promises and speeches politicians make, they must be worth something; No!

The higher your wages the more tax you pay in fact the only way to turn the tables by any degree is to bill the government for your cost of living. Keep all your receipts, bills and expenses and bill them to regain your costs; include everything food & clothing even though they will dispute these they are the actual costs of living you undertake in order to perform your job of employment. If in doubt examine the accounts of Politicians to see what they are claiming then request no more and no less, so if they claim for alcohol, tailored suits, restaurant expenses etc, do the same.  Unfortunately this sounds more and more like slavery or slave labour with you working for the state; this may actually be the case it certainly is heading in that direction.

In fact if we think about it the government do actually repay people enough money so as to purchase essential foods in the form of: family credits! Perhaps they know exactly what they are doing with them causing widespread hardship through exploitative taxation this being done with ‘deliberate intent’. Tax after all are the new ‘chains of slavery’ since we are all bound within its ‘unlawful grasp’.

Governments control the financial institutions using your money, therefore they control your money (both income and debt) additionally they own the lease or mortgage upon your property and they tax you for the privilege, (terrifying isn’t it).  You have to admire the intelligence since now they not only ‘tax you to impoverish you’ they ‘profit from your debt’ since ‘all debts amass interest’.

‘YES’ your money was not used legitimately by your Government or for your best interest since then that Government would have been obligated to use those resources to remove that debt and quash those mortgages and losses gained when the banks collapsed. By this I mean ‘public resources were used to settle financial institutions debts’ and by using your money in this way the English and other Governments actually ‘settled your debts’. So; technically your moneys (public taxes) cleared your mortgages and debts with all those banks and building societies whom took support from the Governments. It is fair to state that ‘all of those institutions would have clearly failed without public funding’ that resulting in all those institutions going bankrupt.

Do you actually understand what I am saying here?

‘Every bank and building society bailed out by the government through public funding should have gone bankrupt’. The governments themselves have no right to profit from this so all the debts retained by those banks would have been written off. Furthermore by ‘bailing out’ these institutions using ‘public funds’ the authorities ‘settled your debts’ with each and every one of those institutions and since the governments themselves ‘cannot in law profit from hardship’ without ‘failing within the sum of themselves’. The debts held upon members of the public by those banks were in law settled by ‘the public’ using ‘public funds’.

In fact to dispute this claim compromises your government since the implication within that is that ‘your government sought to profit from the acquisition and retention of debts over you the public’, all of which would be unlawful since your government is a ‘law bound’ and not ‘a criminal’ institution. All Governments and authorities are bound within and upon the law less they undermine the ‘legitimacy of the law’ through their actions as that would ‘illegitimate the state or nation to include themselves’.

In point of Fact: to distort any law is to pervert that law with that action illegitimating those laws since they are no longer lawful but corrupt, within this the ‘Intention of re-interpreting the law’ undermining the ‘legitimacy of the law’ via or through an ‘act of intent’.

Fact: ‘Public funds’ settled a ‘public debt’ with ‘institutions’ who were themselves ‘in debt to the Public’ who had ‘Savings, Investments and Shares within those very Institutions’. Something else worth considering here is that when ‘your funds’ were used to ‘bail out the banks’ all those politicians salvaged their own ‘mortgages, pensions, savings, shares, wages and other investments’, so technically speaking; they all ‘prospered and profited’ from that action didn’t they. The reality of it is that ‘moneys received’ by those institutions were used to cover ‘moneys owed’ by them to their ‘savers and investors’ and in that those people ‘saving and investing’ within those institutions ‘recovered their moneys’. The institutions themselves did not lose since they are still in business with their employees retaining employment in fact they all patted themselves on the back with fat pay checks and bonuses; so they did not loose did they?

Had the government been operating lawfully they would have quashed your debts and mortgages through the use of those public funds. However they did not, yet it was your money not theirs and the savers and investors have all profited by regaining their investments and savings. The only losers in the entire incident are the people in debt or with mortgages who even though they supplied those funds; fail to receive fair justice them being the poorest of all.

Within this the government should have instituted a ‘clean sheet protocol’ thus releasing significant people from debt. Decreasing the level of burden upon them and their families and increasing their spending power thereby kick starting the economy. They criminally failed and through that failure they expose themselves for what they truly are and that they certainly do not have the publics or nations best interests at heart.

Your debts and mortgages are worth between 200-600% in interest alone to the government and that is on top of tax. In all you are paying the government for the privilege of staying in debt and that is criminal since every one of those institutions whom received moneys from your government relinquished those debts. Your government retains them on you so as to profit financially from your hardship and to imply that is not an ethical pursuit for any democratic government would be an understatement.

Profiteering and racketeering is the sort of thing some individuals and organisations are prosecuted and hounded for but for any ‘Public Body’ or ‘Authority’ to profit from hardship and suffering is an ‘Atrocious Crime’.

They used your money to take over and control your debts and by retaining those debts upon you for profit after your money was used to clear them is despicable. This was a designed event conceived so your government could increase its measure of control over you. Certainly by retaining the debts they highlight intent and there is no disputing that; furthermore I would argue that any intention to support the economy by retaining the debts would be false. The quickest way to stabilise any economy or to generate growth is through the generation of wealth, quashing those debts would have achieved that end. The sudden influx of capital from financially unburdened peoples would have averted the current financial crisis.

 It is clear to see how the government’s current measures may be used to influence and/or pressurise you; in addition to controlling, pressurising and influencing the free market. In the end it is all part of a pursuit towards ‘world order’ with your government selling you out along the way.

Totalitarianism is not Democracy and Slavery is not Freedom anymore than Starvation is Justice.

Companies pay additional taxes than people and these reach way beyond the tax on profits normally set at around 60%+. Yes they can like most business people recover their costs but even so penalising companies upon their success dis-encourages businesses and entrepreneurs overall. If there is no viability within an enterprise; no visible means of profiting then why bother. All businesses have to be viable or there is no incentive for them to exist; when governments meddle within the free market to such a degree as to restrict it from existing through the reduction of its ability to survive. Then not only are there no jobs there are no enterprises to found any economy upon but there is no wealth to exploit through taxation. Economies only exist if people trade and when there is no incentive to trade the economy fails.

No business equals no jobs and they together relate to no revenue and that equates to those over rated over paid pompous politicians being unemployable since lets face it they are all a bunch of traitorous, incompetent and useless liars anyway.

Why should a farmer grow crops or raise livestock to feed the masses of people within society when there is no viability in that. If politicians cannot see this then people are going to starve because what is the point of producing food to feed the world when there is no personal gain. Why work the land to produce food when some insignificant little man in an office somewhere decides to steal it on a regular basis with no intention of paying for what he takes. ‘Revenue is Tax’ which is ‘legal’ when it is used ‘legally’ but if it is not used ‘lawfully’ and for the ‘good of all’ then ‘tax’ becomes ‘legalised theft’ which is the crime of ‘Fraud’.

What if that greedy little man chooses to take 80% of everything you have worked to achieve begrudgingly leaving the rest for you to survive upon; do you think that is acceptable or lawful. This non-entity this in-descript minority that no longer serves the public they only serve themselves by taking, consume and destroying; where is the justice in that; extracting so much from people that there is nothing left. Clearly exploitation is unlawful yet governments such as England are pursuing this course and it is not being done lightly; it is therefore affecting our children’s futures (it is our responsibility to protect our children along with their hope of having a Future and ‘Slavery’ isn’t it).

Entrepreneurs and business people set up in business to secure and benefit their families, this can only be achieved if their enterprises are viable. Without that viability they fail no matter what that business is or how commercial they seem; if there is no prosperity then there is no point.  The backbone of life is produce; since without food to eat there are no fat self-indulgent politicians around to exploit people in the first place and all that diuretic mumbo jumbo they spray on us every day ceases because they no longer exist. Their ivory towers built on endless dribble collapse around them and they drown in their own self indulgent stupidity and greed. ‘Common sense is a much underrated commodity!’

Any government relying upon excessive taxation and restrictive even inhibitive policies no longer serves to represent free enterprise its people or democracy. The first sign and a pre-empt to inflation is an increase in price and cost cutting, job losses increase as companies streamline in order to lower their overheads. By lowering prices and cutting profits they may give false indications of revival however this is short lived. A mini business boom will ensue as they encourage people to spend what little they have pursuing bargains. However when this money is extinguished companies collapse, people are laid off in mass numbers or are forced to work for lower wages, longer hours with increased burdens of responsibility (all recognisable within recent history).

The economy stagnates to a point of social and economic collapse; false promises from corrupt politicians who cannot ‘grasp the severity of the situation’ do not resolve this. The government struggling to retain the levels of taxation are forced into declaring ‘martial law’ in order to ‘overt civil war’ and retain funding for themselves. This is short lived as social and economic breakdown ‘tests loyalties’ with those of the ‘military’ supporting ‘their families’. Social and economic collapse as a result of extortionate and fraudulent levels of taxation ensues resulting in civil war that no-one will win.

It is worth noting that ‘excessive taxation’ is implicative of ‘governmental failures’ leading to ‘gross mismanagement’. If that is the case and they fail to provide ‘lawful service’ or abide by any of their ‘lawful obligations’ to which all democratically elected government are ‘bound within the law’ to provide then they are in ‘Breach of their Contract’.

If you have a ‘Lawful dispute with your Government’ with that government failing to abide by its ‘Obligations to you’ with this resulting in a ‘Breach of Contract’ brought about through a ‘Failure’ to provide ‘Lawful Service’, it is fair to state that you have a ‘Lawful right’ to ‘Withdraw Funding’ in the form of ‘Revenue’ from that ‘Government’ until the ‘Issues are resolved’.

Clearly any failure within ‘Government’ to recognise this ‘Right in Law’ could be perceived as an ‘Abuse of Authority’ through a ‘Failure’ within that ‘Government’ to ‘Uphold’ and be ‘Bound by’ or ‘within the Legitimacy of the Law’.

Your wages like any companies profits clearly belong to you since they are ‘your Wages’ and ‘their Profits’ which ‘You or they have Earned’ therefore you have every ‘Lawful Right’ to retain and use them as you see fit (refer to the ‘common contract’ in order to understand the issues relating to tax). However and for the record ‘Tax’ is a ‘voluntary’ not a ‘mandatory’ contribution which is provided for the ‘good of all’ and to address issues in times of ‘hardship’. In a case where by you are in lawful dispute with the government that company (your employer) would be committing a crime by ‘aiding and abetting’ if they were to deducted revenues from you under such circumstances.

You would have the right to receive all your wages and in the case of a company in dispute they would have the right to retain all those profits until such dispute was or were settled. It may be the case that you could not spend them until the issue is resolved amicably and you should bare that in mind. That aside and should the government continue extracting revenues from you during said dispute they would be committing a crime by ‘fraudulently extorting moneys without your consent’ and ‘prior to resolving those issues’.

That by its very nature would be ‘unlawful’ in fact the government may appear to be ‘above the law’ but they are not; in all actuality they are ‘bound within the law’ and having to ‘comply with the law’ therefore maintain the ‘legitimacy of the law’ through their actions. Within this there is a lawful case for ‘withdrawing funds from the government’ if that individual or any company believes that their government or its subordinates have failed to provide them with lawful service.

Services may apply to what you believe the government is responsible for supplying within reason also to yours and the countries security. These issues may impact upon the economy and if that is failing as a direct result of government negligence’s you may well have a case there also. House re-possessions, impoverishment and hardships incurred through lack of employment or business failure/liquidation or insolvency caused through economic down turns if those cases can be proven to be related. (There is growing evidences for this).

There are some guidelines on what governments are obligated to provide within the ‘Common contract’ although it is not a lawful contract in as much as it has not been written until now. It is indeed a ‘lawful contract’ in as much as governments undertake to supply certain unconditional services in exchange for revenues. Since these resources are and have been extracted from you and your ancestors for some considerable period of time. Additionally since they do indeed supply certain services in most parts you can see that this is indeed a legal and lawful contract. For this reason there is a case against the government so if they are in deed in ‘Breach of Contract’ and for that to happen service has to have been denied you on some level. They would then be in ‘breach of contract’ with that being ‘dissolution of said contract’ and that would be ‘indisputable’.

Issues: You do not have to accept what they offer in compensation since if they are in breach of contract (as in they broke the contract) therefore there is no longer a contract between ‘you and them’. In essence they are no longer your government or your employee; by this I mean they are under no obligation to serve and/or to protect you or to provide you with any of the services society in general take for granted. Additionally they have no authority over you and no right to extract or demand revenues from you on any level, their authority ceases and you are free from their laws but also outside its protection.

A Fact: Any and all lawfully elected governments stand upon the lawful understanding that their actions impact upon the legitimacy of the law which they endorse through those very actions. Their nations laws which are deliberated, presented and represented by themselves establishes them through those very actions as being lawful therefore representative of the truth, fair justice, a people, the law, freedom and democracy. That they represent the very foundation upon which their nation stands to be seen by other nations as being represented and perceived as being honest lawful peoples. Within this the ‘statement of legitimacy’ is being ‘pronounced’ through and within the ‘legality’ or ‘lawfulness’ of their ‘actions’.

This being the case they need to retain majority support or they lose their lawful status as they are elected by the majority vote. It is fair to state that when the majority of people lose confidence within or no longer support that government they lose that vote therefore they lose their legitimate standing with them no longer being representative of that majority. If enough people stand against a government with that government losing their majority support then that government becomes illegitimated therefore their actions along with those authorities are unlawful with them no longer representing the people whom elected them.

In reality their authority to represent those people ends as does those peoples requirement to recognise or acknowledge the legitimacy of that government since any and all authorities are revoked. No contract or action entered into by that administration would be lawful or binding since they are entered into ‘without the consent or support of the people’ as such they are ‘illegitimated in law’.

“This is a fundamental failure within Government to provide Lawful Service”

          Everything presented above as part B: ‘Chapter Five’ (Fraudulent taxation) 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)

“Fear nothing but fear itself

            Do not shrink from your enemies

Do not quit and do not surrender

Endure against the odds

Define yourself within the moment

            For determination expresses your character

The moment is all you have

Relate the facts through the statement you make

Actuality is the truth

            Propaganda is soon realised

Your greatest strength is attested through your ability to endure

            It highlights what you endure against”.

           

By C. D. J. Maylor © 2010 (All Rights Reserved).

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.

ADDITIONAL

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’).

Statement

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 11^th century and being descendents of ‘Gruffydd Maylour 1^st’ 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)