Ineos have applied and got an injunction out for persons unknown essentially against thought crimes – yes limited to “protestors” but basically if they feel you interfering with their profits they can have you arrested and fined! This would set precedence against ANYONE WHO MIGHT CHALLENGE a company or government!!!! So well worth trying out my stuff on!!!
They do not have documentation for original claim and order obtained by a private hearing on their website…
Amended claim submission from Ineos 1 August 2017
So what to do but to claim a defence as a “Person Unknown”. This tests the Civil Procedure Rules as I have not been served in accordance with the rules and hence acceptance of my defence is outside of the time…. but as it was not served on me I can only respond when it comes to my attention….. and really that does not matter either as to throw any defence out based on procedure where the procedure was not followed in the first place is not fair and just anyway!
Considering the judge said it was not made in Equity (see paragraph 143)and had the defence been made so he could not have issued this judgement!!!! This highlights my belief as to how do people justify unconscionable behaviour to themselves so that they can sleep…. but that aspect is dealt with later.
The claim is a simple misunderstanding by the claimants of Rights, Lawful, Legal, Jurisdiction, Relationships and Responsibilities.
Firstly humans must understand the limits of their authority. What is it to be human. Knowing who and what you are.
Now that we know who and what we are we need to understand our position in any social group. If you join a company you fall under their policies (rules, laws what ever you want to call them)! Governments are no different so to know where one stands you need to know how it works ….
This proves there is absolutely no contractual relationship between the people of the UK and the Government!
So if it is not a contractual relationship what the heck is it? There is the rules of Equity which stand above the Law and most people are not aware of this! Simply put Equity is between living humans and not pieces of legal paper. However they have been “merged” so that people think they are the same! Equity looks at substance whilst at law look at procedure!
This is the biggest “con” if there is one as “Laws” as we understand them from a scientific view are deducible through observation, testing and reason. So laws stand the test of time. However this is to be found under the Rules of Equity! So if I use the word Lawful it means this as opposed to the word Legal which is the result of Positive Law, being that made by man and that includes church law, commercial law, international law, admiralty law, UCC, common law and roman law etc…
Every living person in the UK is a Settlor (Grantor amongst many other terms). Additionally they are also the beneficiaries of the Trust agreement. Simply put “the creator” who or what ever that may be has given us authority to use “its” creations for our benefit.
To managed the communal resources from creation we have “governments” who are the Trustees (Administrators amongst many other terms), and that means they are under obligation to fulfil (they have no say in this!) the objective of the trust which is determined by the people who created the trust.
They just need reminding and that forces the system to either live as a civilised society under the rule of law, or tyranny and violence! This is done by expressing the Trust.
So now come the test….. are we living in a civilised society or are we doomed due to our apathy to live as slaves?
I will post updates as they come……
In theory the judge has no choice but to withdraw the injunction and Ineos withdraw their claim. However as a company can make rules and if you choose not to contract in then those rules do not apply to you….. so you need to know how to navigate between Civil and Criminal.
However as the intent is to cause harm and it is done with that knowledge so really there is no choice!
The harm is using public money to provide private policing to allow a privileged few to benefit unequitably from communal resources, whereas we should all derive equal benefit as we are equal “shareholders” of the communal resources and until Ineos can prove that they do not have a valid claim!