Latest / UK Column Radio / Tax Resistance And A Declaration Of Sovereignty With Chris Coverdale

Transcript

Tax Resistance And A Declaration Of Sovereignty With Chris Coverdale · UK Column Radio

0:06
Speaker 1: Hello.
0:07
Speaker 2: I'm Charles Mallett and this is a UK column interview today.
0:11
Speaker 2: I'm joined by Chris Coverdale, who is a behavioral scientist
0:15
Speaker 2: and a peace campaigner. He's been imprisoned three times for
0:20
Speaker 2: sticking to the principle of observing the law as it's written. Chris,
0:26
Speaker 2: A very warm welcome to UK column. Thank you for
0:29
Speaker 2: joining me.
0:30
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Charles, Not at all.
0:32
Speaker 3: Now.
0:32
Speaker 2: There's going to be a huge amount to get through,
0:34
Speaker 2: and some of the audience will be aware of you
0:37
Speaker 2: and of your terrific work over the years. What I'd
0:40
Speaker 2: like to do for the benefit of those that both
0:42
Speaker 2: know you and don't know you. It's just to go
0:45
Speaker 2: back a little bit to the time where, in effect
0:50
Speaker 2: you were campaigning on the basis of the pursuit of peace,
0:55
Speaker 2: but the element of tax resistance had not yet been introduced.
1:00
Speaker 2: How as a piece campaigner in that state, would you
1:04
Speaker 2: hope to achieve the desired effect?
1:07
Speaker 1: Good point, all right.
1:09
Speaker 3: It really started for me in two thousand and two
1:15
Speaker 3: when the Afghanistan War was on by about six seven
1:19
Speaker 3: months and I started to get very concerned about the
1:25
Speaker 3: legality of what was going on, so I investigated.
1:28
Speaker 1: I was investigating fraud.
1:30
Speaker 3: And corruption in the Foreign Commonwealth Office and discovered to
1:35
Speaker 3: my horror that we had been deceived, the whole British
1:40
Speaker 3: public and everybody had been deceived for seventy or seventy
1:45
Speaker 3: years or so over the illegality of war. It was
1:50
Speaker 3: quite illegal, and our leaders Tony Blair at the time
1:55
Speaker 3: and Lord Goldsmith were saying the upcoming war with Iraq
2:01
Speaker 3: would be legal and the war with Afghanistan was legal.
2:06
Speaker 3: And I was appalled by this and so started to
2:09
Speaker 3: see what actions we could take to get our government
2:13
Speaker 3: to uphold and enforce the law. So we started an
2:17
Speaker 3: injunction against the High Court in the High Court against
2:22
Speaker 3: the government to try and prevent the upcoming war with Iraq.
2:28
Speaker 3: It didn't work, so unfortunately we lost and the war
2:33
Speaker 3: went ahead in March two thousand and three. So that
2:38
Speaker 3: was my introduction to trying to stop the government breaking
2:42
Speaker 3: international law.
2:45
Speaker 1: Now. Then later as.
2:47
Speaker 3: Part of that, I started to look at the criminal
2:51
Speaker 3: offenses that have been introduced into Britain in two thousand
2:56
Speaker 3: and one in the International Criminal Court at two thousand
3:01
Speaker 3: and one. Now this was a it had started off
3:05
Speaker 3: as an international statute and that the world had agreed
3:10
Speaker 3: in Rome in nineteen ninety eight to set up the
3:15
Speaker 3: law enforcement Authority in the Hague to prosecute leaders who
3:20
Speaker 3: took us to war and committed the worst crimes known
3:23
Speaker 3: to mankind, mainly war crimes, crimes against humanity, in genocide.
3:29
Speaker 3: So it was starting to look at that in detail.
3:32
Speaker 3: I realized that the criminal offense our leaders were committing
3:38
Speaker 3: was not actually genocide, but conduct ancillary to genocide. And
3:44
Speaker 3: I started to look at that in detail and realized
3:48
Speaker 3: after a while that aiding and abetting genocide was the
3:54
Speaker 3: crime that I was.
3:55
Speaker 1: Committing by paying tax.
3:57
Speaker 3: It struck me then, and I'm still totally committed to
4:02
Speaker 3: the issue that if you pay tax to a government
4:06
Speaker 3: which uses the money for a criminal purpose, you are
4:10
Speaker 3: complicit in the crime. You are aiding and abetting the crime.
4:14
Speaker 3: And that's when I first started to realize that I
4:19
Speaker 3: must withhold taxes on the ground that it is a
4:22
Speaker 3: criminal offense to hand them over knowing some of it
4:26
Speaker 3: be used to murder men, women and children in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
4:31
Speaker 3: Syria and now in the Gaza and the Yemen and
4:37
Speaker 3: the Ukraine.
4:39
Speaker 2: That's an excellent sort of summary of how you've got
4:43
Speaker 2: to into some of the areas that you're now fully immersed.
4:48
Speaker 2: What I'd like to do, though, is just to go
4:49
Speaker 2: back because obviously a lot of what we're talking about
4:51
Speaker 2: concerns law and treaty. But you refer to the injunction
4:56
Speaker 2: in two thousand and two. In your eyes, if the
5:01
Speaker 2: process had been conducted properly, might be the right word
5:05
Speaker 2: to use. How would it have turned out? On what
5:08
Speaker 2: basis was your challenge made?
5:11
Speaker 3: Well, basically it's on the laws of war the UN Charter.
5:16
Speaker 3: The main relation say, laws governing relationships between states are
5:24
Speaker 3: international statutes agreed mainly in the UN Charter. And it's
5:31
Speaker 3: very important in a sense to understand that when we
5:37
Speaker 3: signed and ratified the UN Charter, we agreed quite clearly
5:42
Speaker 3: with the rest of the world and all people of
5:44
Speaker 3: the world, through their governments, never to threaten or to
5:49
Speaker 3: use force, and to settle all disputes peacefully. Now, those
5:54
Speaker 3: are the two primary agreements in the UN Charter, which
5:58
Speaker 3: is the law underpin the activities of the United Nations,
6:04
Speaker 3: and nobody in Britain seemed.
6:07
Speaker 1: To be upholding it and enforcing it.
6:09
Speaker 3: So it became clear to me that we needed to
6:14
Speaker 3: not only educate our MPs and others, but everybody in
6:18
Speaker 3: the country. And one of the best ways of doing
6:21
Speaker 3: that was by taking it to court and asking the
6:25
Speaker 3: judges to define the law. What does it mean you know,
6:30
Speaker 3: to my mind, never threaten nor use force and settle
6:34
Speaker 3: all disputes peacefully is a very clear statement that we
6:38
Speaker 3: have been breaking for sixty years or whatever it was
6:43
Speaker 3: at that time.
6:44
Speaker 2: And by what mechanism did the High Court dismiss your.
6:49
Speaker 3: Well, it's through a judicial review. We started and try
6:53
Speaker 3: to get an injunction. Myself and three colleagues tried to
6:58
Speaker 3: get an injunction, forcing or compelling Tony Blair and the
7:03
Speaker 3: cabinet to not start a war with it up. But
7:09
Speaker 3: unfortunately the judges they always find the way around this,
7:14
Speaker 3: and they said, well, it won't be a genocide, it
7:17
Speaker 3: cannot possibly be genocide. And our other argument at the
7:22
Speaker 3: time was that we were likely to get attacked in Britain,
7:26
Speaker 3: and the judge said, no, that is most unlikely, it
7:30
Speaker 3: will not happen, and therefore I dismissed this application. So,
7:36
Speaker 3: I mean, I didn't know much about the processes of
7:39
Speaker 3: law at the time. We were just doing our best
7:41
Speaker 3: to try to get somebody.
7:43
Speaker 1: To uphold and enforce the law as we saw it.
7:47
Speaker 3: And in particular the law under the International Criminal Court
7:50
Speaker 3: Act two thousand and one, which had been introduced just
7:53
Speaker 3: two years before, and which introduced six crimes into English law.
8:00
Speaker 3: Those crimes were important to remember. They were war crimes,
8:06
Speaker 3: crimes against humanity and genocide and conduct ancillary the war crimes,
8:11
Speaker 3: crimes against humanity and genocide, and those six crimes are
8:15
Speaker 3: the most important criminal offenses the world has ever agreed.
8:20
Speaker 3: And it was quite clear to me that we were
8:23
Speaker 3: not only not upholding them, we were violating them and
8:26
Speaker 3: breaking them and committing the worst offenses known to mankind,
8:31
Speaker 3: and that not only was our government, but our taxpayers
8:34
Speaker 3: and tax collectors were doing the same. So we tried
8:38
Speaker 3: to persuade the court to do this. I then try
8:41
Speaker 3: to get a judicial review of the Attorney General's advice
8:48
Speaker 3: to Parliament and to the government because it was totally
8:52
Speaker 3: wrong and completely ignored the laws of war that we
8:56
Speaker 3: were signed up to as a nation. So a number
8:59
Speaker 3: of things there that started the ball rolling for me
9:03
Speaker 3: and started to realize. I realized that I just needed
9:08
Speaker 3: to take action, personal action to stop paying contributing money
9:15
Speaker 3: to certainly a small amount, but obviously every small amount
9:20
Speaker 3: that we pay to the government we give our tacit
9:23
Speaker 3: consent to how the money has been used by the
9:26
Speaker 3: government and we have to stop that. So that's how
9:29
Speaker 3: it happened then. But of course the courts themselves, I
9:33
Speaker 3: have to say, the courts in this country are so
9:36
Speaker 3: corrupt they don't abide by.
9:38
Speaker 2: The law indeed, and I think that's been made abundantly
9:41
Speaker 2: clear over the course of this year in particular, I mean,
9:44
Speaker 2: it seems to be a problem that's worsening and worsening.
9:47
Speaker 2: Just to clarify, because of course what you've talked about
9:50
Speaker 2: is the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and things effectively
9:56
Speaker 2: following the Roman Statute of nineteen ninety eight. Just in
10:00
Speaker 2: the wider context, let's say, going back to the Second
10:03
Speaker 2: World War and the interventions that the United Kingdom has
10:05
Speaker 2: been involved in, is there a case that may be
10:09
Speaker 2: made at all for any of the overseas engagements that
10:13
Speaker 2: the United Kingdom has been involved in since the Second
10:16
Speaker 2: World War?
10:17
Speaker 1: To your mind, there is.
10:21
Speaker 3: One example, as I understand it, certainly declassified UK reckon
10:27
Speaker 3: that there's been eighty three military conflicts up until last
10:34
Speaker 3: year after the Second World War, and Britain has initiated
10:39
Speaker 3: and taken part in eighty three military conflicts. That's a
10:43
Speaker 3: horrendous number of wars, mini wars, the small wild wars,
10:48
Speaker 3: but they are wars. And the only one, as far
10:52
Speaker 3: as I can find out, that may have been partly
10:56
Speaker 3: lawful was the Folks War when we were attacked by Argentina.
11:04
Speaker 3: And Article fifty one of the UN Charter does allow
11:08
Speaker 3: a nation to use armed force on the sole occasion
11:14
Speaker 3: if it is attacked by another state and by the
11:19
Speaker 3: use of armed force the armed forces of another state,
11:23
Speaker 3: so that would be the only occasion that may have
11:26
Speaker 3: been partly lawful. However, the way Missus Satcha approached it
11:33
Speaker 3: and the sinking of the Belgrano outside of the two
11:36
Speaker 3: hundred mile exclusions was a horrendous war crime. So there
11:43
Speaker 3: was only partly lawful in what we did with during
11:50
Speaker 3: the Falklands War.
11:51
Speaker 2: Absolutely no. You know, we've given some background now and
11:55
Speaker 2: you've talked about the when in which you became aware
11:58
Speaker 2: of your factually your belief that you were breaking the
12:02
Speaker 2: law in sponsoring such activities. Will you just provide a
12:07
Speaker 2: bit more detail as to the legislative background to that position.
12:13
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, indeed tis important to understand the legislation, and
12:20
Speaker 3: in this particular case I've started to read through the
12:23
Speaker 3: whole of the International Criminal Court Act two thousand and one.
12:29
Speaker 3: And by the way, there are two legal systems in Britain.
12:34
Speaker 3: The legal system that applies to England and Wales is
12:38
Speaker 3: separate from the legal system that applies in Scotland, and
12:42
Speaker 3: so we had two acts of Parliament. One was the
12:45
Speaker 3: International Criminal Court Act two thousand and one for England
12:49
Speaker 3: and Wales and Northern Ireland, and the second one was
12:54
Speaker 3: the International Criminal Court Scotland Act two thousand and one.
12:59
Speaker 3: Now both of them really say the same thing, but
13:02
Speaker 3: in slightly different wording in the Scottish thing from the
13:06
Speaker 3: England and Wales legislation. And the important sections in the
13:14
Speaker 3: England and Wales legislation are sections fifty one and fifty two. Now,
13:20
Speaker 3: just before I go into detail on those, the purpose
13:23
Speaker 3: of the Act was not only to set up, for
13:28
Speaker 3: the first time in history and international law enforcement authority
13:32
Speaker 3: in the Hague, but also to agree the criminal offenses
13:39
Speaker 3: for which that caught in the Hague would have jurisdiction
13:46
Speaker 3: and I'm sorry to say that for the first time
13:49
Speaker 3: in sixteen hundred years, our government signed up to an
13:55
Speaker 3: external legal, lawful jurisdiction and so gave away jurisdiction over
14:03
Speaker 3: those crimes to every member, every resident of Britain, including
14:08
Speaker 3: the Queen and the Prime Minister and everybody else for
14:11
Speaker 3: the first time since we had the Romans around. We
14:16
Speaker 3: are subject to and outside legal jurisdiction. So it is
14:22
Speaker 3: important to keep that in mind. That was signed and
14:25
Speaker 3: agreed in two thousand and one, but nobody in Britain
14:29
Speaker 3: seems to know that, which is extraordinary really. However, the
14:35
Speaker 3: crimes included, as I've mentioned, were six war crimes, crimes
14:40
Speaker 3: against human in genocide and aiding and vetting. Those crimes
14:44
Speaker 3: and those crimes are laid out in the International Statute
14:50
Speaker 3: in Article twenty five three of the International rome Statute
14:56
Speaker 3: of the International Criminal Court, and they are translated into
15:00
Speaker 3: and ratified by the British government in articles fifty and
15:04
Speaker 3: fifty one, sorry fifty to fifty one and fifty two.
15:08
Speaker 3: The main one is at fifty one of the International
15:11
Speaker 3: Criminal Court Act and fifty two. Section fifty one says
15:16
Speaker 3: it's a crime to commit genocide crimes against humanity in
15:20
Speaker 3: war crimes, and section fifty two says it's a crime
15:25
Speaker 3: to engage in conduct ancillary the genocide, crimes against humanity
15:30
Speaker 3: and war crimes, and those are the two most important
15:33
Speaker 3: laws this country has ever signed up to. And when
15:37
Speaker 3: you look at the detail, and cillary offense is laid
15:42
Speaker 3: out in the legislation and it is aiding and abetting
15:47
Speaker 3: the crime in the same way that we have in
15:51
Speaker 3: the Accessories and a Betters Act in eighteen sixty one.
15:55
Speaker 3: We've always had this aiding and abetting crimes is a
15:58
Speaker 3: crime itself, and that is repeated in the Article fifty
16:02
Speaker 3: two of the International Criminal Court Act.
16:05
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I think appoint to note, and I should say
16:08
Speaker 2: at this point there's a lot of technical detail coming out,
16:10
Speaker 2: all of which will be referenced in the notes attached
16:13
Speaker 2: to this interview. So don't worry if you've got your
16:16
Speaker 2: note and pennant already. This will be provided later. But
16:20
Speaker 2: I think something worth saying first of all on the
16:23
Speaker 2: you know who is a signatory to this and who
16:26
Speaker 2: has ratified the Rome statutes notable in life of current
16:30
Speaker 2: circumstances that the United States have not ratified. It Israel
16:34
Speaker 2: has not ratified it. And also, you know, i'd like
16:38
Speaker 2: your comment on this. The ICC itself has only achieved
16:43
Speaker 2: ten convictions in the past twenty something years. So I
16:47
Speaker 2: suppose the question is to what degree do you think
16:50
Speaker 2: that its establishment was sincere?
16:54
Speaker 3: I think in the eyes of the world, its establishment
16:58
Speaker 3: was sincere, and they have been working for it for
17:01
Speaker 3: nearly sixty years. It took nearly sixty years to get
17:04
Speaker 3: a law enforcement authority set up, so most of the
17:08
Speaker 3: nations of the world, and most of the signatories to
17:12
Speaker 3: the rem Statue, we're very keen to have it around
17:17
Speaker 3: and still are.
17:18
Speaker 1: And it's only one.
17:19
Speaker 3: Or two who are operating behind the scenes to ensure
17:24
Speaker 3: it doesn't work effectively, and Britain and America and Israel
17:28
Speaker 3: are primary examples of that. So it is our leaders
17:34
Speaker 3: who are making sure that the International Criminal Court only
17:40
Speaker 3: convicts people in Africa and maybe others in one and two.
17:44
Speaker 3: But unfortunately, although the law applies to all of us,
17:50
Speaker 3: we haven't yet to get one of our leaders into
17:54
Speaker 3: court at the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
17:57
Speaker 2: And I think this could be a difficult one to
17:59
Speaker 2: knock in to a condensed answer, But what do well
18:04
Speaker 2: I mean what factors do you attribute that to in
18:07
Speaker 2: terms of external influences.
18:10
Speaker 1: Oh, gosh, I mean, it's very difficult.
18:12
Speaker 3: The more I have investigated what goes on in the
18:16
Speaker 3: British government, the more I realize that we are all
18:20
Speaker 3: manipulated all the time by forces behind the scenes, and
18:26
Speaker 3: that includes our justice system. I have been investigating fraud,
18:35
Speaker 3: corruption and corruption corrupt practice in the justice system ever
18:41
Speaker 3: since I was first turned down in two thousand and three,
18:46
Speaker 3: and everywhere I look.
18:48
Speaker 1: I find it quite.
18:49
Speaker 3: Incredible that our judges and lawyers and prosecutors and everyone
18:57
Speaker 3: involved with the justice system are just not following the
19:02
Speaker 3: law but following instructions from somewhere, and I don't quite
19:07
Speaker 3: know where to rake in the money, regardless of the
19:13
Speaker 3: criminal offenses that are being committed, and to ignore the crimes.
19:19
Speaker 3: It is horrendous. I even discovered it in the Supreme Court.
19:25
Speaker 3: It's extraordinary that it's openly out in the open corrupt
19:31
Speaker 3: practice in the Supreme Court. In the case of Regina
19:36
Speaker 3: versus Gul Mohammed Ghul was imprisoned for posting a video
19:44
Speaker 3: on the Internet taken by the Taliban have a successful
19:50
Speaker 3: attack on British soldiers, for which he was given five
19:54
Speaker 3: years prison sentence. But the case went right up to
19:58
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court and it was all about the definition
20:02
Speaker 3: of terrorism. What do we mean by the definition of terrorism?
20:06
Speaker 3: And so the Supreme Court had it. Now, in most
20:09
Speaker 3: Supreme Court cases where it is questioning the meaning of
20:13
Speaker 3: the law, they will go through the definition of the
20:16
Speaker 3: law in the statute. In this case, the International the
20:21
Speaker 3: Terrorism at two thousand and their definition, they sort of said, okay,
20:30
Speaker 3: in paragraph four I think it was they said, well,
20:33
Speaker 3: what the definition is is as follows, and it said
20:37
Speaker 3: section one one, Section one two, Section one four and
20:43
Speaker 3: section one five.
20:45
Speaker 1: Now I found that incredible.
20:47
Speaker 3: They left out section one three and if they kept
20:51
Speaker 3: it in, they could not have made the argument that
20:54
Speaker 3: they were making to keep Muhammed Ghul in prison and
20:59
Speaker 3: on the terrorism. That is right out in the open,
21:03
Speaker 3: and nobody in the justice system pointed it out.
21:08
Speaker 1: I mean, it's incredible.
21:10
Speaker 3: So that's the sort of thing, and it happens at
21:12
Speaker 3: every level, and you know, the magistrates court, county courts,
21:19
Speaker 3: the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court,
21:23
Speaker 3: they're all in this together, and that it's just unbelievable, unbelievable.
21:30
Speaker 2: I think is exactly the right word. And we see
21:32
Speaker 2: time again not just in this area, but the cherry
21:35
Speaker 2: picking that is effectively conducted. And of course, now with
21:39
Speaker 2: regard to what you've been speaking about, particularly the use
21:42
Speaker 2: of the UN Charter, and of course with reference to
21:45
Speaker 2: let's say Israel at the moment, the use of the
21:47
Speaker 2: phrase self defense, because of course that is an enormous
21:52
Speaker 2: justification of untoward acts. What I'd like to do, you've
21:56
Speaker 2: talked about the Terrorism Act, just to go on to
22:01
Speaker 2: continue the thread of having established that there is in
22:04
Speaker 2: effect no basis for war and that the government and
22:08
Speaker 2: those that are supporting these activities are effectively in contravention
22:14
Speaker 2: of the International Criminal Courts at two thousand and one,
22:17
Speaker 2: sections fifty one and fifty two. But going back to
22:20
Speaker 2: how that pertains to you or I the individual in
22:24
Speaker 2: terms of paying tax and the terrorism, where does that
22:27
Speaker 2: get us to right?
22:30
Speaker 3: And it is important thank you Charles for raising that.
22:34
Speaker 3: In two sorry nineteen ninety nine, after again many many
22:39
Speaker 3: years of attempting to get it agreed, there was an
22:43
Speaker 3: international convention agreed called the Convention for the Suppression of
22:48
Speaker 3: the Financing of Terrorism. Now this is probably the second
22:53
Speaker 3: most important term international convention or statute that we've got
22:59
Speaker 3: it is now or ratified by one hundred and eighty
23:02
Speaker 3: eight nations. Ratification means bringing an international statute into domestic law,
23:12
Speaker 3: so domestic law of England and Wales or the domestic
23:15
Speaker 3: law of Scotland. Yes, we ratified that international convention with
23:20
Speaker 3: the Terrorism Act two thousands in this country and that
23:23
Speaker 3: applies throughout Britain. And what it is is it makes
23:29
Speaker 3: a criminal offense for one person to ask for money,
23:34
Speaker 3: to collect money, or to transfer money to another person
23:38
Speaker 3: or organization if you suspect it may be used for
23:43
Speaker 3: the purposes of terrorism. And it defines terrorism as the
23:47
Speaker 3: use of firearms or explosives endangering life for a political
23:53
Speaker 3: or ideological cause. So that was the law brought into
23:59
Speaker 3: this And what I realized straight away was that any
24:05
Speaker 3: tax collector who was asking for money, demanding council tax
24:10
Speaker 3: or demanding income tax, whatever it was, inheritance tax, it
24:15
Speaker 3: was committing a criminal offense. And if they collected the money,
24:19
Speaker 3: that was a second criminal offense. And if I handed
24:22
Speaker 3: the money over, or if they having collected it, handed
24:26
Speaker 3: it to the Revenue and Customs, then that was a
24:29
Speaker 3: third criminal offense. So it was not only a criminal
24:32
Speaker 3: offense for me to pay the tax, but a criminal
24:36
Speaker 3: offense for them to ask for it.
24:38
Speaker 1: And it was when I started.
24:39
Speaker 3: To realize and go through the detail of that legislation,
24:44
Speaker 3: I realized how important it was that we use this
24:49
Speaker 3: legislation to ensure that our government uses all our money
24:56
Speaker 3: were lawful, legitimate purposes that never involve the use of
25:01
Speaker 3: firearms or explosives endangering life. Now, there was a very
25:06
Speaker 3: useful case which I just referred to earlier, which was
25:10
Speaker 3: Mohammed gul Re Universus gaul in which the Supreme Court said,
25:18
Speaker 3: looking at the definition of terrorism, this appears to apply
25:23
Speaker 3: to the military and quasi military activities of the British government.
25:28
Speaker 3: Now this is the Supreme Court saying, you know, basically
25:31
Speaker 3: we are the British government is commit committing acts of
25:36
Speaker 3: terrorism and funding terrorism when it gives orders to its
25:43
Speaker 3: military forces or the police to use armed force against
25:48
Speaker 3: anybody else.
25:50
Speaker 2: I don't want to sort of derail where we're going
25:52
Speaker 2: with it, but that does bring a very interesting issue
25:55
Speaker 2: to the form, which of course is the payment for
25:58
Speaker 2: and procurement of weaponry for the Ministry of Defense and
26:03
Speaker 2: everything that comes underneath it, and indeed the police forces
26:06
Speaker 2: of in Wales, Scotwell, I mean, the whole of the
26:09
Speaker 2: United Kingdom. Is that something that has been challenged, either
26:13
Speaker 2: by you or elsewhere.
26:15
Speaker 3: I'll try to bring it to tension of the courts.
26:18
Speaker 3: I'm not very effective. I have just going back over.
26:22
Speaker 3: Once we started to realize what was going on as
26:25
Speaker 3: illegal back in two thousand and three, we started reporting
26:30
Speaker 3: crimes to the police. We started with Lord Stevens and
26:34
Speaker 3: then Sirian Blair in the Metropolitan Police, and then we
26:42
Speaker 3: approached every police force in the country, all forty four
26:46
Speaker 3: I think there were at that time, saying look, these
26:49
Speaker 3: are criminal offenses. Would you please investigate members local people
26:56
Speaker 3: who are breaking the law under these actsliment, including the
27:01
Speaker 3: International Criminal Court Act and the Terrorism Act. And we
27:05
Speaker 3: reported these crimes more than three hundred times, I suppose,
27:09
Speaker 3: in Parliament, in police stations, by letters to chieve constables
27:15
Speaker 3: and so on. And of those five attempts, sorry, of
27:21
Speaker 3: those three hundred and thirty attempts, five of them got
27:25
Speaker 3: as far as the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
27:29
Speaker 3: Unit at Scotland Yard. Now initially I didn't know about
27:34
Speaker 3: that unit, but They are the police unit as part
27:37
Speaker 3: of the fifteen the Terrorism Mappit in Scotland Yard who
27:44
Speaker 3: are responsible for investigating war crimes crimes against humanity in
27:49
Speaker 3: genocide under the International Criminal Court Act. So we did
27:55
Speaker 3: get material to them. And as a result from a
27:59
Speaker 3: lucky incident in Marriban Police station, two of my colleagues
28:04
Speaker 3: had gone in to report crimes, war crimes and crimes
28:09
Speaker 3: against humanity in genocide and the desk officer that and
28:14
Speaker 3: Marabon was a Danish woman who was over here for
28:18
Speaker 3: a year on a transfer deal. She said okay and
28:24
Speaker 3: got on with it and passed it on to her
28:26
Speaker 3: inspector who had just come on duty. And he was
28:29
Speaker 3: an Irishman who had been was just about to retire
28:33
Speaker 3: from the Metropolitan Police, but was delighted to have the
28:37
Speaker 3: opportunity to pass this forward. So he put it to
28:40
Speaker 3: the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Unit, which is
28:45
Speaker 3: the process that most police forces are supposed to operate
28:48
Speaker 3: when you report serious crimes of this nature. Anyway, that
28:55
Speaker 3: happened and I was calling to Belgravia Police station. I
29:00
Speaker 3: went there on five occasions for three hours and went
29:03
Speaker 3: through all the detailed evidence we had of our leaders
29:07
Speaker 3: twenty five of our leaders committing these crimes in detail,
29:12
Speaker 3: and went through the law, the International UN Charter, the
29:16
Speaker 3: International Criminal Court Act, Geneva Conventions and all the rest
29:22
Speaker 3: of it, and the Terrorism Act two thousand and Eventually
29:27
Speaker 3: the police officers in that unit were quite convinced. They understood,
29:31
Speaker 3: this is what the law says, this is what is happening,
29:36
Speaker 3: This is quite obviously a criminal offense. And so they
29:39
Speaker 3: put it to the Crown Prosecution Service and they had
29:42
Speaker 3: it for about a month and the woman who was
29:45
Speaker 3: dealing with it, a senior prosecutor, was we moved to
29:51
Speaker 3: North Lancashire or something like that and promoted, and they
29:56
Speaker 3: gave the job to one of the most junior people
29:58
Speaker 3: in the office, ludget Hill. And six weeks later we
30:03
Speaker 3: got a letter from them saying that the Crown Prosecution
30:07
Speaker 3: Service would not be going ahead with the prosecution of
30:11
Speaker 3: Tony Blair, Jackstraw, Jeffhoon, Lord Goldsmith and all the rest
30:15
Speaker 3: of them, on the grounds that we had not provided
30:20
Speaker 3: evidence of intent to commit war crimes, evidence of intent
30:25
Speaker 3: to commit crimes against humanity, or evidence of intent to
30:30
Speaker 3: commit genocide. Now, in fact, we had provided masses of evidence,
30:35
Speaker 3: and I'm happy to go through some examples of it
30:38
Speaker 3: in a minute or two. But we provided all this
30:41
Speaker 3: evidence to them and they just ignored it completely. And
30:46
Speaker 3: the strange thing is that it's not up to the
30:49
Speaker 3: witnesses to the ordinary public to prove intent. That is,
30:54
Speaker 3: for the Crown Prosecution Service to prove to a jury
30:58
Speaker 3: in court, you have to they have to gather the
31:02
Speaker 3: police gather the information that proves intent to commit genocide.
31:09
Speaker 3: So anyway that we've had a number of attempts at
31:12
Speaker 3: trying to get this in front of the police, the
31:17
Speaker 3: MPs and others and so on, were always unsuccessful. So
31:21
Speaker 3: we will keep trying because the important thing about a
31:26
Speaker 3: crime of genocide is that there's no time restraint to
31:29
Speaker 3: it at all restriction. And you know, until the day
31:35
Speaker 3: Tony Blair passes on to another place we can charge,
31:42
Speaker 3: try and charge him in front of a jury of
31:46
Speaker 3: crimes of genocide, crimes against humaniting, war.
31:48
Speaker 1: Crimes, along with all his colleagues. So we'll keep trying
31:54
Speaker 1: at that.
31:56
Speaker 2: There was just one thing to extend extrapolate from that,
31:59
Speaker 2: and I think I don't have the sections in front
32:02
Speaker 2: of me, but I think I'm right in saying that
32:04
Speaker 2: on that specific point of law within articles, sorry, sections
32:09
Speaker 2: fifty one and fifty two of the International Criminal Courts Act.
32:12
Speaker 2: But actually intent does not form part of the offense
32:15
Speaker 2: or are the offense is complete without intent needing to
32:18
Speaker 2: be demonstrated. So it's in terms of liability, it's in
32:23
Speaker 2: actual fact whether or not the whether or not the
32:27
Speaker 2: act took place, regardless of whether there was intent or
32:30
Speaker 2: indeed recklessness. And so again I think we might have
32:34
Speaker 2: an instance where the law is not being adhered to
32:36
Speaker 2: in the way that you would have expected.
32:40
Speaker 3: Well, I'm not quite sure about that, Charles. I've been
32:44
Speaker 3: into this in some depth, and there is First of all,
32:48
Speaker 3: I think it's section fifty five or sixty six of
32:55
Speaker 3: the International Criminal Court Act, which does define intent and
33:02
Speaker 3: you must have intent and knowledge in order to convict
33:05
Speaker 3: the person of a crime of genocide. Now, the second
33:09
Speaker 3: bit of information that's important is that they're a statutory
33:13
Speaker 3: instrument defining all the criteria that have to be met
33:18
Speaker 3: in order to charge anybody, convict anybody of these crimes.
33:23
Speaker 3: We're all laid out in the International Criminal Court Act
33:28
Speaker 3: Elements of Crimes Regulations two thousand and one. Now that
33:33
Speaker 3: is important. It does specify quite clearly the elements of
33:39
Speaker 3: the crime of genocide by killing that have to be
33:42
Speaker 3: proved in court, and there are four of them. If
33:45
Speaker 3: you are to convict anybody of a crime of genocide. Similarly,
33:52
Speaker 3: you have to prove all four of those if you
33:56
Speaker 3: are to convict a person of conduct considery the side.
34:01
Speaker 3: So it is all laid out in the legislation, but
34:04
Speaker 3: nobody pays any attention to it. Unfortunately, the genocide by
34:08
Speaker 3: killing has got four very clear criteria. The first thing
34:13
Speaker 3: is that the perpetrator whoever you are accusing of perpetrating
34:17
Speaker 3: the crime, killed or caused the death of one or
34:21
Speaker 3: more persons, and that's very clear. The second one is
34:27
Speaker 3: that they are victims the person's killed were members of
34:32
Speaker 3: a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The third one
34:37
Speaker 3: is that you intended to kill them because of their
34:41
Speaker 3: membership of that group. And the fourth one is that
34:45
Speaker 3: it all occurred as part of a widespread policy or
34:51
Speaker 3: wide widespread policy. So if you can prove all four
34:56
Speaker 3: of those things in court, then you can convict of
34:59
Speaker 3: someone of genocide. Now, the important bit about genocide is
35:05
Speaker 3: that the people who can be convicted of genocide are
35:09
Speaker 3: the people who actually drop the bombs or fire the missiles,
35:15
Speaker 3: and not the people who order them to do so.
35:19
Speaker 1: So it's the aria.
35:22
Speaker 3: Pilots or the submarine commander who can be convicted of
35:27
Speaker 3: genocide if they fire a cruise missile that causes death
35:31
Speaker 3: or injury to one or more persons because of their
35:34
Speaker 3: nationality who they are basically, and so that's it now,
35:41
Speaker 3: compact considerator genocide is to do with Everything goes up
35:47
Speaker 3: to that command. So the person who commands the submarine
35:51
Speaker 3: commander to take that action, eventually the commander in chief
35:58
Speaker 3: actually commits I am of conduct ancillary genocide and not
36:03
Speaker 3: the crime of genocide. So we need to keep that
36:07
Speaker 3: in mind when prosecuting our leaders. And of course the
36:11
Speaker 3: Queen who was commander in chief at the time and
36:16
Speaker 3: authorized our troops to go to war with Iraq and
36:20
Speaker 3: Afghanistan and Libera and Syrians on committed crimes of conduct
36:27
Speaker 3: ancillary to genocide by signing the order taking our troops
36:31
Speaker 3: to war because she knew and everybody knew that deaths
36:36
Speaker 3: were occurring and would occur, and injuries and destruction and
36:40
Speaker 3: everything else, all of which is laid out in the
36:44
Speaker 3: legislation under genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. So
36:50
Speaker 3: going back to just the difficult one to prove in
36:54
Speaker 3: court is the intent. As you pointed out now, example
37:00
Speaker 3: of intent to commit genocide was by Jack Straw in
37:07
Speaker 3: the debate in Parliament on March eighteen, two thousand and three,
37:13
Speaker 3: which is all laid out in Hansard.
37:16
Speaker 1: There was a debate six.
37:18
Speaker 3: Or seven hours something like that. A lot of people
37:21
Speaker 3: spoke and it was started by initiated by Tony Blair
37:27
Speaker 3: and closed by Jack Straw that he Foreign Secretary at
37:32
Speaker 3: the time, and he said in his closing speech, well,
37:36
Speaker 3: we've had a good debate tonight. The decision we take
37:41
Speaker 3: tonight will have consequences. There will be consequences to our decision.
37:46
Speaker 3: Some of our troops will be killed, so too will
37:50
Speaker 3: innocent Iraqi civilians. I urge you to vote with the
37:56
Speaker 3: government tonight. Now that statements intent to commit genocide. He
38:03
Speaker 3: was killing innocent Iraqi civilians, not because of anything they'd
38:08
Speaker 3: done to us, any crimes they had committeed or anything else.
38:12
Speaker 3: We were just killing them because they were Iraqis living
38:15
Speaker 3: in Iraq. That is a crime of genocide. So that's
38:19
Speaker 3: an example of proof of intent to commit genocide. I
38:24
Speaker 3: think the worst one was Tony Blair in two thousand
38:29
Speaker 3: and seven. He was about to hand over to Gordon
38:34
Speaker 3: Brown the premiership and he did a trip around Afghanistan
38:40
Speaker 3: and Iraq to thank the troops. And he was talking
38:44
Speaker 3: to a group of officers and men in Basra and
38:48
Speaker 3: they were complaining about the deaths and injuries and lack
38:52
Speaker 3: of to their own people as well as to local people,
38:56
Speaker 3: local civilians, and Tony Blair he probably didn't know what
39:03
Speaker 3: to say, but what he said was very instructive.
39:06
Speaker 1: He said, we're.
39:08
Speaker 3: Killing more of them than they are killing us. You're
39:12
Speaker 3: getting back out there after them. That's brilliant. Actually. Now
39:19
Speaker 3: for Tony Blair to say that four years after he
39:23
Speaker 3: had started the killing with the war in Iraq, four
39:28
Speaker 3: years later he was still urging the troops to go
39:31
Speaker 3: out there and kill. That is a crime of genocide
39:36
Speaker 3: by killing and proof of intent to commit genocide by king.
39:43
Speaker 3: Now there's lots of examples of what people say and
39:46
Speaker 3: do that can be brought up in court to prove genocide,
39:50
Speaker 3: and that's where we're at and we need to carry
39:53
Speaker 3: on giving those examples to the police to the crime
39:59
Speaker 3: Prosecutor Service to ensure that at some point in the
40:03
Speaker 3: near future, one or more of our leaders gets convicted
40:08
Speaker 3: of genocide for what they are doing overseas. And that
40:13
Speaker 3: that's really where I'm working at it all the time,
40:16
Speaker 3: to try and see if we can get somebody convicted
40:18
Speaker 3: of a crime, because if they are, if a leader
40:22
Speaker 3: or major taxpayer is convicted of a crime of genocide
40:26
Speaker 3: or conduct ancenery to genocide, that will have reverberations around
40:31
Speaker 3: the world. It would, I hope, stop our involvement in
40:38
Speaker 3: warfare and mass murder and genocide.
40:42
Speaker 2: Indeed, it would be an extraordinary precedent. And I think,
40:45
Speaker 2: just to continue from what you were saying, specifically, when
40:47
Speaker 2: we consider the individuals mentioned Blair, Tony Blair in particular
40:53
Speaker 2: and Jack Straw, I think I'm right in saying that
40:57
Speaker 2: when we're talking about the Crime Prosecution Service that the
41:00
Speaker 2: holder of the post of Director of Public Prosecutions at
41:03
Speaker 2: the time is extremely relevant.
41:07
Speaker 3: You're so right. It was Keir Starmer. He was the
41:11
Speaker 3: one who organized the that they would not be prosecuted
41:16
Speaker 3: for these crimes, even though the evidence was absolutely clear.
41:21
Speaker 3: He turned it down. He was the DPP at the time,
41:25
Speaker 3: and what interested me. Was that three or four years
41:28
Speaker 3: ago when he was in the Labor Party. He said
41:31
Speaker 3: he knew at the time that the war of whether
41:34
Speaker 3: ar it was illegal, but he was the one person
41:37
Speaker 3: in the country that could have started a prosecution and
41:40
Speaker 3: stopped it all. And it's just appalling.
41:45
Speaker 2: As you say, it really is appalling and a stain
41:50
Speaker 2: that of course continues to blight the landscape with Starmer
41:54
Speaker 2: of course now Prime Minister and Blair very much on
41:56
Speaker 2: his shoulder. But as you say, you know, fortune there
42:00
Speaker 2: is no time limit on such prosecutions being brought, so
42:05
Speaker 2: we do have to remain hopeful. Now, what I'd like
42:07
Speaker 2: to do, Chris, is to take you into the area
42:10
Speaker 2: of what you have been doing and are doing with
42:14
Speaker 2: regard to the specifics of your tax resistance and how
42:18
Speaker 2: that has played out.
42:20
Speaker 3: Right, thanks, Yes, very briefly, when I started in two
42:25
Speaker 3: thousand and three to not pay council tax, which was
42:30
Speaker 3: the biggest personal cash payment that I was making at time,
42:37
Speaker 3: and for the next ten years I around South London,
42:42
Speaker 3: I was living in London, and I went to court
42:46
Speaker 3: in a number of places.
42:47
Speaker 1: But they never.
42:50
Speaker 3: It didn't never paid any attention to my argument, and
42:54
Speaker 3: I didn't pay any money, and that was really where
42:57
Speaker 3: it rested until twenty thirteen when I moved to Rye
43:03
Speaker 3: in Sussex, and things changed. When I went to Rye,
43:09
Speaker 3: I joined a small group looking into what was going
43:14
Speaker 3: on in Rye and at a public meeting pointed some
43:21
Speaker 3: of these things out. I did a short report on
43:23
Speaker 3: some of the crimes I was identifying in and around
43:27
Speaker 3: the Rother District Council Righttown Council r MP, who at
43:33
Speaker 3: that time was Amber rud and so on, and within
43:37
Speaker 3: a few days of making that report, I was taken
43:41
Speaker 3: to court and put in prison, really for non payment
43:45
Speaker 3: council tax. It's exactly the same argument I had been using.
43:49
Speaker 1: All the time, was that.
43:53
Speaker 3: It's a criminal offense to handover money knowing that it
43:56
Speaker 3: will be used for mass murder and genocide. But the
43:59
Speaker 3: court's paying no attention to that at all, so they
44:03
Speaker 3: put me in prison. I was released that year very quickly,
44:09
Speaker 3: within the day or at the end of the day.
44:13
Speaker 3: Then the following year they put me in prison for
44:15
Speaker 3: forty two days, and the third year they put me
44:19
Speaker 3: in prison for eight days before I was released by
44:23
Speaker 3: someone paying my bill. So I thought at that time
44:29
Speaker 3: I can't go on like this is ridiculous. I know
44:33
Speaker 3: that it's a criminal offense to hand the money over,
44:36
Speaker 3: So I've got to find another way of ensuring that
44:41
Speaker 3: I don't get sent to prison and somebody pays attention
44:44
Speaker 3: to the law. So what I did was to look
44:48
Speaker 3: at the whole issue of how our leaders get away
44:51
Speaker 3: with spending maybe hundreds of thousands of their money millions.
44:58
Speaker 3: Sometimes they put it in trusts overseas escape taxation. As
45:03
Speaker 3: a result of that, now when you put money in trust,
45:07
Speaker 3: it no longer belongs to you, so you can ask
45:12
Speaker 3: your trustees to do what you like with the money.
45:15
Speaker 3: It's an escape route really for the rich and powerful.
45:19
Speaker 3: They've been using for many years, and I thought, well, okay,
45:22
Speaker 3: let's use this for ordinary taxpayers.
45:25
Speaker 1: What we need to.
45:25
Speaker 3: Do is to put all our taxes in trust in
45:29
Speaker 3: a conditional trust until the end of the financial year
45:35
Speaker 3: for the government, on condition that they use the money
45:39
Speaker 3: for lawful purposes only and never a piny of it
45:43
Speaker 3: goes for crimes, crimes against humanity, in genocide. So I
45:47
Speaker 3: started to do that in twenty I thought about it
45:51
Speaker 3: in twenty sixteen, and in twenty seventeen was the first
45:54
Speaker 3: year I set up my own taxation trust, and I've
45:58
Speaker 3: been doing it ever since then on a personal basis, saying,
46:03
Speaker 3: of course you can have my money if you prove
46:06
Speaker 3: to me and to the International Criminal Court and to
46:11
Speaker 3: the High Court and to others that none of the
46:14
Speaker 3: money is or will be used for purposes of terrorism, warfare,
46:21
Speaker 3: crimes against humanity, genocide so on. But of course they've
46:25
Speaker 3: never been able to prove that, because we know that
46:28
Speaker 3: ten to fifteen percent of all our taxes goes for
46:31
Speaker 3: that every year, and we have now murdered somewhere around
46:36
Speaker 3: two point for two point five million people, which includes
46:42
Speaker 3: three quarters of a million, even eight hundred thousand children,
46:46
Speaker 3: in the last twenty years.
46:48
Speaker 2: Yes, indeed, I mean absolutely terrible outcome under continuation. Really,
46:54
Speaker 2: we don't see any change in policy despite all your
46:58
Speaker 2: efforts in the campaigning of others.
47:00
Speaker 1: One gray area.
47:01
Speaker 2: I think that it would be really helpful to have
47:03
Speaker 2: clarification on specifically with regard to council tax, but also
47:07
Speaker 2: all tax is where it goes, and this idea that
47:12
Speaker 2: things may or may not be centralized, and how it
47:15
Speaker 2: is that you can be sure that action taken is
47:18
Speaker 2: effectively having the effect that you would desire.
47:22
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, a good point.
47:25
Speaker 3: It's important to realize that we have a system in
47:28
Speaker 3: Britain that has been in place since seventeen eighty seven,
47:32
Speaker 3: and that is called the Consolidated Fund. And so what
47:37
Speaker 3: they've been doing since then is to put all income
47:41
Speaker 3: into one pot, which is called the Consolidated Fund, out
47:45
Speaker 3: of which comes all expenditure. So what we do know,
47:51
Speaker 3: and if you look at the Office for Budget Responsibility website,
47:55
Speaker 3: you can see all the different types of money that
47:57
Speaker 3: are going in there and know that, for instance, last
48:01
Speaker 3: year forty four billion of council tax went into the
48:06
Speaker 3: Consolidated Fund. We also know that out of the Consolidated Fund,
48:13
Speaker 3: the Ministry of Defense, so called Defense, in fact, the Ministry.
48:18
Speaker 1: Of War.
48:20
Speaker 3: Takes very large sums of money and both for its
48:24
Speaker 3: operating expenses and for capital expenses. And so you can
48:31
Speaker 3: reckon that perhaps ten percent of our money every year
48:34
Speaker 3: has been devoted to warfare of one sort or another,
48:39
Speaker 3: either fighting a war, supporting somebody else's wars, or preparing
48:44
Speaker 3: for the next war, buying weapons and ships and aircraft
48:48
Speaker 3: and everything else. So it's a very large sum of
48:52
Speaker 3: money that we know goes automatically every year because of
49:00
Speaker 3: the vote by Parliament to put money in every year
49:05
Speaker 3: into so called defense. And what worries me is that
49:10
Speaker 3: it hasn't been defensive except that one occasion with the
49:15
Speaker 3: forfence war. All of it is offensive and a criminal
49:22
Speaker 3: offense in international law.
49:25
Speaker 1: Quite so.
49:26
Speaker 2: And now to continue in terms of your personal actions,
49:31
Speaker 2: what you've done is to consolidate all that we've talked
49:34
Speaker 2: about so far and all that you've explained into a
49:37
Speaker 2: declaration of sovereignty, which I'd like you to just describe
49:42
Speaker 2: and then we can take a look at various bits
49:45
Speaker 2: of it.
49:45
Speaker 3: Yeah, lovely, Well, basically, what I realized was that by
49:50
Speaker 3: putting money in trust, it no longer belongs to me.
49:54
Speaker 3: And that's why our leaders one hundred thousand people put
49:59
Speaker 3: all their money over or nearly all of it in
50:02
Speaker 3: taxation in trusts. So when one sets up a trust,
50:09
Speaker 3: you are declaring your right, your deed of trust, to
50:16
Speaker 3: hand the money to somebody else, your trustee, to act
50:20
Speaker 3: on your behalf. And so we have. I've set up
50:23
Speaker 3: a declaration of sovereignty and the deed of revocable conditional
50:29
Speaker 3: trust and withdrawal of consent to mandatory taxation and this
50:34
Speaker 3: is for England and Wales as a separate one for Scotland.
50:38
Speaker 3: So basically what this does is it does the equivalent
50:43
Speaker 3: of what many people do when making a will. They say,
50:47
Speaker 3: after I die, I want my money to go to
50:50
Speaker 3: my grandchildren or to some charity, whatever it is, and
50:56
Speaker 3: you can put conditions on that, and some people put
50:59
Speaker 3: it on so I could make a will out for
51:02
Speaker 3: my grandson saying okay, well he can have my one
51:05
Speaker 3: hundred thousand pounds of my money if he doesn't marry
51:10
Speaker 3: Sally and if he joins the family firm by the
51:15
Speaker 3: age of twenty five. Now, if you put conditions on
51:20
Speaker 3: a trust, then your trustees have to meet those conditions
51:24
Speaker 3: and they will check that Charlie boy didn't marry Sally
51:30
Speaker 3: and has joined the family firm, and in that case
51:33
Speaker 3: he gets the money. If he doesn't and he marries
51:37
Speaker 3: Sally and he doesn't join the family firm, then the
51:41
Speaker 3: money will go to somebody else that you have written
51:44
Speaker 3: into your declaration and deed that would be the secondary
51:50
Speaker 3: beneficiary or other beneficiaries of your choice. So what I've
51:55
Speaker 3: done here is to say, right, I'm going to put
51:58
Speaker 3: all my taxes whatever they are, I'm going to pay them,
52:02
Speaker 3: but I will pay them into trust on condition the
52:06
Speaker 3: government uses the money solely.
52:09
Speaker 1: For lawful purposes. And that government.
52:11
Speaker 3: Includes councils, includes the energy companies, and virtually every organization
52:19
Speaker 3: and institution in this country that passes money to the
52:24
Speaker 3: Revenue and customs. So I agree to pay the money
52:30
Speaker 3: to them during this financial year if they can prove
52:35
Speaker 3: to me it'll be used lawfully. On the last air
52:38
Speaker 3: of the financial year, my trustee has to revoke their
52:44
Speaker 3: right to the money on the grounds that they have
52:47
Speaker 3: been using it for criminal purposes and I do not
52:51
Speaker 3: at any point want to take part in their crimes.
52:56
Speaker 3: And so on the sixth of April that the first
53:00
Speaker 3: the next financial heir, then my trustee can pass the
53:04
Speaker 3: money to the secondary beneficiary. The secondary beneficiary is you,
53:10
Speaker 3: so in a sense, you get the money back, and
53:14
Speaker 3: it can be anybody you want, but in this case
53:18
Speaker 3: it is you. So that you take total charge of
53:21
Speaker 3: the money going to the government in relation to taxes
53:26
Speaker 3: of all sorts. And it's not just things that are
53:30
Speaker 3: called taxed, but it is all the other payments of
53:34
Speaker 3: money that go to the government, like repayment of student loans.
53:40
Speaker 3: For instance, it is a criminal offense for students to
53:45
Speaker 3: repay the loan that they were given for their education,
53:49
Speaker 3: because we know that some of it will go to
53:53
Speaker 3: the government and be used for criminal purposes. So don't
53:57
Speaker 3: repay your student loans, repaid council tax, don't pay inheritance
54:04
Speaker 3: tax or stab duty or the two hundred and thirty
54:11
Speaker 3: sources of money that the government has from the general
54:15
Speaker 3: public in this country. So that's the overall process, and
54:20
Speaker 3: it's a very powerful document. What we found is that
54:22
Speaker 3: the deed of trust is actually the highest form of
54:26
Speaker 3: law in this country. Equity law and trusts in equity
54:32
Speaker 3: are a fundamental that have been operating in this country
54:37
Speaker 3: for hundreds of years.
54:39
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I mean, it is a very thorough and comprehensive document.
54:43
Speaker 2: And again for the audience, this will be linked to
54:47
Speaker 2: in the notes for this interview, but I will just
54:49
Speaker 2: go through a little bit of it just to draw
54:50
Speaker 2: out some the clause to say that people get a
54:52
Speaker 2: flavor of it. And it begins by saying, this document
54:55
Speaker 2: is my formal declaration of sovereignty and deed of conditional
54:59
Speaker 2: revocable trust and withdrawal of consent to mandatory taxation, and
55:04
Speaker 2: then not long after you state that I know that
55:08
Speaker 2: if I pay money brackets, taxes, clothed brackets to Parliament,
55:12
Speaker 2: the UK Government, public authorities, institutions, corporations or their agents,
55:17
Speaker 2: knowing that some of it may be used for the
55:19
Speaker 2: purposes of war, terrorism or genocide, I will be personally
55:23
Speaker 2: liable for arrest, prosecution and imprisonment under the Terrorism Act
55:28
Speaker 2: two thousand and the International Criminal Court Act two thousand
55:31
Speaker 2: and one for the criminal offenses of fundraising for purposes
55:35
Speaker 2: of terrorism and conduct ancillary to war crimes and genocide.
55:40
Speaker 2: So it's very clear in so far as what you're
55:43
Speaker 2: setting out to prefix your position by explaining exactly what
55:49
Speaker 2: laws are being contravened. And I think I'm right in
55:53
Speaker 2: saying that as a result of this, you have not
55:55
Speaker 2: faced challenge to what you've written.
55:59
Speaker 1: Is the fair summary or yes?
56:01
Speaker 3: I think the important bit is that they can't take
56:05
Speaker 3: it to court because if they do, they will lose.
56:09
Speaker 3: I mean, it's based on the most important laws Britain
56:13
Speaker 3: has ever signed up to, both internationally and domestically, and
56:19
Speaker 3: they know they're breaking them. And so if they take
56:23
Speaker 3: it to court and challenge the legality illegality of it
56:29
Speaker 3: or legality of the.
56:31
Speaker 1: Deed, then they will lose.
56:34
Speaker 3: And therefore they can't afford to do that, so they
56:36
Speaker 3: don't take me to court.
56:38
Speaker 1: They don't.
56:38
Speaker 3: They find all sorts of other things to do. They
56:40
Speaker 3: try and send around the bailiffs, and they tell us
56:43
Speaker 3: that this doesn't apply and so on. But of course
56:46
Speaker 3: it applies. It's the fundamental law, both internationally and in
56:50
Speaker 3: this country.
56:52
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And I think this, you know, if this brings
56:54
Speaker 2: us to the sort of well multifaceted aspect of it first,
57:00
Speaker 2: or we've got the issue of your individual withholding of tax.
57:05
Speaker 2: But obviously your position, as you set out at the start,
57:08
Speaker 2: is to campaign for peace and to prevent war. Now,
57:12
Speaker 2: on the one hand, you're not going to, well, you're
57:16
Speaker 2: unlikely to and have not faced a challenge on the
57:18
Speaker 2: basis of your declaration of sovereignty. But clearly to affect
57:22
Speaker 2: change in so far as war is regarded, it would
57:26
Speaker 2: require a greater number of people to take the same
57:30
Speaker 2: or similar action. What's your view of that as a
57:34
Speaker 2: likely outcome.
57:36
Speaker 3: I totally agree with you, Charles. It's fundamental that a
57:41
Speaker 3: lot of us start to realize that.
57:44
Speaker 1: We have a legal duty to act by not paying
57:48
Speaker 1: for what's going on.
57:50
Speaker 3: And now, Unfortunately, in this country, although five or six
57:56
Speaker 3: percent of our taxes are paid by every individual, all
58:00
Speaker 3: the majority of taxes come through corporations. You know, VAT
58:05
Speaker 3: and in contact PAYE and national insurance and things like
58:09
Speaker 3: that are taken from people before they know it and
58:14
Speaker 3: pass straight to the government. So what we've got to
58:16
Speaker 3: do is to start some corporate taxation trusts as well
58:22
Speaker 3: as individual taxation trusts. And on our website on probertycode
58:28
Speaker 3: dot com, there is a corporate trust that people can
58:32
Speaker 3: download and they can write to their employer saying, look,
58:36
Speaker 3: we've discovered it's a criminal offense. I don't want to
58:39
Speaker 3: participate in these crimes, and I don't want you to
58:44
Speaker 3: take my money or automatically pass it on to the
58:47
Speaker 3: Revenue and Customs. Therefore, I suggest that you, the directors
58:53
Speaker 3: of the company, set up a trust on behalf.
58:56
Speaker 1: Of all employees.
59:00
Speaker 3: The money in trust or the government or the council
59:04
Speaker 3: or the other bodies raising the money until the end
59:09
Speaker 3: of our financial year. And when you take my PAYE
59:13
Speaker 3: and national insurance payments, don't pay them to the Revenue customs,
59:18
Speaker 3: but put them into our corporate trust and at the
59:22
Speaker 3: end of the year, if the government hasn't met the
59:25
Speaker 3: conditions of the trust, which are exactly the same as
59:28
Speaker 3: in the individual deed, then the trustees, the independent trustees,
59:37
Speaker 3: must pass the money to the secondary beneficiaries. And the
59:41
Speaker 3: secondary beneficiaries are all the employees who have the money
59:44
Speaker 3: adapted from them in the first place. One benefit, of
59:49
Speaker 3: course is that on top of getting back their own
59:53
Speaker 3: national insurance and contribution and the paye, they should also
1:00:00
Speaker 3: perhaps get back the twelve and a half percent that
1:00:04
Speaker 3: the company has to pay in addition to the individual thing,
1:00:09
Speaker 3: so you may get more back at the end of
1:00:12
Speaker 3: the year then you start at in the first place.
1:00:16
Speaker 1: So there are lots of benefits to it.
1:00:17
Speaker 3: And the important thing to remember is that the directors
1:00:20
Speaker 3: or employees as well, and so they will benefit from
1:00:24
Speaker 3: doing this and they will not have to commct criminal offenses.
1:00:29
Speaker 3: Now it's a very clear criminal offense for a director
1:00:33
Speaker 3: to hand the money to the government for the revenue
1:00:37
Speaker 3: and customs, and some of our companies are I mean,
1:00:41
Speaker 3: there's a hospitality company I've been having a look at
1:00:44
Speaker 3: that pays seven hundred and sixty million pounds in tax
1:00:48
Speaker 3: last year, and.
1:00:50
Speaker 1: That's an incredible amount of money.
1:00:52
Speaker 3: And what we know is that seventy six million of that,
1:00:56
Speaker 3: at least ten percent and maybe one hundred million of
1:00:59
Speaker 3: it will be used for mass murder and genocide. And
1:01:03
Speaker 3: the directors of that hospitality company need to start taking
1:01:07
Speaker 3: action on behalf of all of us to stop the
1:01:12
Speaker 3: money going to the Revenue and customs and from there
1:01:15
Speaker 3: to Parliament and from there to the mod and from
1:01:18
Speaker 3: there to murder men, women and children.
1:01:22
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think I think, you know, we talk
1:01:24
Speaker 2: about people's ignorance of law in general, but specifically you
1:01:28
Speaker 2: spoke earlier about people being ignorant of the provisions within
1:01:31
Speaker 2: the International Criminal Courts Acts specifically. However, of course, we
1:01:37
Speaker 2: live in a world where corporations are now not shy
1:01:40
Speaker 2: about coming out with political views or you know, specifically
1:01:44
Speaker 2: campaign issues, and I think this is something that absolutely
1:01:47
Speaker 2: would be put forward, but with ignorance in mind. You know,
1:01:51
Speaker 2: how is it that we go about communicating this message,
1:01:54
Speaker 2: particularly to younger people who should be in a position
1:01:58
Speaker 2: to influence the future.
1:02:00
Speaker 3: Well, I think there's two or three ways of doing it.
1:02:02
Speaker 3: One is, we've got a lot of letters on the
1:02:05
Speaker 3: website that go along with the deed to various organizations
1:02:10
Speaker 3: like Jim Harrah who is the chief executive of the HMRC,
1:02:17
Speaker 3: or to other individuals in councils around the country, in
1:02:22
Speaker 3: companies and others. So download a few of those or
1:02:27
Speaker 3: one or two of them, and write your own version
1:02:30
Speaker 3: of it along with a copy of the corporate deed.
1:02:35
Speaker 3: And we need to get our leaders to understand that.
1:02:38
Speaker 1: Now.
1:02:39
Speaker 3: Another thing we can do is to start by giving examples.
1:02:43
Speaker 3: So there are already one or two small companies, several
1:02:47
Speaker 3: small companies who are doing this and are withholding pay
1:02:53
Speaker 3: and national insurance from the Revenue and Customs until the
1:02:57
Speaker 3: end of their financial yeir or to the end of
1:02:59
Speaker 3: the taxiar and hopefully they so far they haven't been prosecuted.
1:03:07
Speaker 3: They've been trying various things to get at their money.
1:03:10
Speaker 3: But again, if the Revenue and Customs takes them to court,
1:03:15
Speaker 3: then they will lose on the basis that the Revenue
1:03:18
Speaker 3: and Customs are committing the worst crimes known to mankind
1:03:22
Speaker 3: and they don't want that in court. So a good
1:03:26
Speaker 3: example is we need to get one or two largest
1:03:29
Speaker 3: companies to start the ball rolling. We've got the small
1:03:32
Speaker 3: companies starting, so now let's get a few of the
1:03:35
Speaker 3: bigger ones doing And of course it may be quite
1:03:39
Speaker 3: possible for us, say a UK Column members to have
1:03:43
Speaker 3: a corporate trust or UK Column members and all of
1:03:47
Speaker 3: you join and then the risk is less and the
1:03:50
Speaker 3: power is greater. So it's that sort of thing. So
1:03:54
Speaker 3: for different organizations can set up corporate trusts on behalf
1:03:58
Speaker 3: of their members there, employees, shareholders, whoever. So I think
1:04:05
Speaker 3: there's lots of ways of doing it and we just
1:04:07
Speaker 3: need to keep trying all of them.
1:04:10
Speaker 2: It does, indeed, and I think that will deserve an
1:04:12
Speaker 2: enormous amount of consideration for the UK Column audience, and
1:04:15
Speaker 2: I think this will be.
1:04:16
Speaker 1: Sent far and wide. Chris.
1:04:19
Speaker 2: We have covered an awful lot of ground with a
1:04:22
Speaker 2: huge amount of detail, and I know people will want
1:04:24
Speaker 2: to research further. So please tell us where exactly people
1:04:30
Speaker 2: can go, which, as I say, will be written in
1:04:31
Speaker 2: the notes. And also how can people get in touch
1:04:34
Speaker 2: with you?
1:04:35
Speaker 1: Right?
1:04:35
Speaker 3: Yes, So the moment, we have got a website called
1:04:39
Speaker 3: probertyc dot com. That's pro biyco dot com. Go to
1:04:50
Speaker 3: that website and on that website there are videos explaining things.
1:04:54
Speaker 3: There are forms and deeds to download both individual and
1:04:58
Speaker 3: corporate letters to go along with them, and we have
1:05:03
Speaker 3: a fortnightly Q and A for members to ask any
1:05:07
Speaker 3: questions and to so that we can answer it as
1:05:10
Speaker 3: best we can and share successes. And there are successes,
1:05:14
Speaker 3: so it's important to know about those.
1:05:17
Speaker 1: The particular one that.
1:05:18
Speaker 3: I've been keen on is that well, since twenty seventeen
1:05:23
Speaker 3: I have not paid any well I haven't paid council
1:05:25
Speaker 3: tax since two thousand and three, but since twenty seventeen
1:05:29
Speaker 3: they have not sent it to prison. They can't do
1:05:32
Speaker 3: that anymore because I have paid the tax. And that's
1:05:37
Speaker 3: the great advantage of paying it into a trust is
1:05:40
Speaker 3: you have paid it and you can't get it back
1:05:45
Speaker 3: until the trust terminates on the last day of the
1:05:48
Speaker 3: financial year.
1:05:51
Speaker 1: So there are.
1:05:52
Speaker 3: Lots of ways and keep going, and that's the best
1:05:54
Speaker 3: place to go before it. We're also setting up a
1:05:57
Speaker 3: website called make War's History, but that's not play it
1:06:00
Speaker 3: up and running just yet. It will be rather soon anyway,
1:06:04
Speaker 3: in the next three or four weeks.
1:06:06
Speaker 2: Good excellent, Well, do keep in touch on that score,
1:06:09
Speaker 2: and as I say, all the notes and all the
1:06:12
Speaker 2: links will be posted alongside this interview at UK column
1:06:16
Speaker 2: dot org. I must just add that if you are
1:06:20
Speaker 2: in a position to support UK column financially, then please
1:06:23
Speaker 2: do consider doing so, either via a membership or indeed
1:06:27
Speaker 2: a donation. And it just remains for me to thank
1:06:31
Speaker 2: Chris Coverdale very much indeed for what's been a completely
1:06:35
Speaker 2: enlightening and inspiring interview. Chris, thanks very much, indeed, thank you, Charles,