Know The Facts

This is the correct legal advice on the illegality of war that the Attorney General should have given to Parliament, HM forces, taxpayers and the media prior to the Iraq war.

To: Parliament

From: The Attorney General                                                               March 7th 2003

Legal advice on the illegality of military action

The proposed attack on Iraq is unequivocally illegal and criminal.   If Britain joins the United States in the invasion and occupation of Iraq or any other State, injuring or killing its citizens, we will violate treaties, breach the laws of war and render ourselves, HM forces and UK taxpayers liable to prosecution and punishment by the International Criminal Court for the world’s most serious crimes.  Under no circumstances should you entertain such a course of action.

When Britain signed and ratified the Treaty for the Renunciation of War, the UN Charter, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism we gave binding promises to the international community that we would never wage aggressive war

[1], never threaten or use force

[2], never kill a person because of their nationality

[3], never fund the fatal use of firearms or explosives

[4], never intervene in other States’ affairs

[5], respect the right to life

[6], uphold the rule of law

[7], settle our international disputes peacefully

[8] and co-operate with all UN member States to maintain peace between nations

[9] I wish to make it clear that war and the funding of war are always illegal and the only occasion when the use of armed force is lawful is when it is used to defend a State from an armed attack.  As Britain has not been attacked by Iraqi military forces, the proposed invasion is illegal and criminal and if it goes ahead I will be compelled by law to initiate war crimes proceedings

[10] against all those involved in authorising, supporting, funding or using fatal armed force.

I attach extracts of the treaties and statutes on which this advice is based.  Please ensure that you read and understand these laws, with their attendant duties, prohibitions and implications, before you make decisions or publish statements associated with war or the use of force.

Attorney General

[1] The Treaty for the Renunciation of War 1928 [the Kellogg-Briand Pact]

[2] The UN Charter Articles 2.3, 2.4

[3] The Genocide Convention, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

[4] The Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism

[5] The UN Declaration on Principles of International Law 1970 [UNGAR 2625]

[6] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[7] The UN Declaration on Principles of International Law

[8] The Kellogg-Briand Pact, the UN Charter, The UN Declaration on Principles of International Law

[9] The UN Charter, The UN Declaration on Principles of International Law

[10] For offences of ‘murder’, ‘war crimes’, ‘crimes against humanity’, ‘genocide’, ‘aggression’ or ‘complicity’ in such crimes.

International and UK Law Governing War and the Use of Force

The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War 1928 [the Kellogg-Briand Pact]

 

ARTICLE  I    The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

ARTICLE  II   The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific [peaceful] means.

 

The Charter of the United Nations 1945

 

1.3   All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.

1.4   All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…

  1. The Security Council may decide what measures notinvolving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions…[i]      

 

The Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946 [Extracts]

 

“ War is essentially an evil thing.  Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.  To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole…  those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing…  individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State.   He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law…”

 

Declaration on Principles of International Law 1970 [UNGA Resolution 2625]

 

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force… Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues… armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against a State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.  Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against a State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.

 

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism [summary]

 

The States Parties to this Convention, deeply concerned about the worldwide escalation of acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations have agreed as follows:  Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and wilfully provides or collects funds knowing that they are to be used to carry out an act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [summary of article 25.3 (c)]

 

A person, who aids, abets or assists in the commission of a crime of genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, including providing the means for its commission, shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment.

The Nuremburg Principles 1950 [Principles VI and VII]

  1. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

 

(a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;  (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

 

(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

 

(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

 

VII.  Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

 

The UK Terrorism Act 2000 – [summaries of sections 1, 15 and 17]

 

  1. Terrorism is the threat or use of firearms or explosives endangering a person’s life for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
  2. A person commits an offence if he asks for, collects or provides money knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism.
  3. A person commits an offence if he enters into an arrangement as a result of which money is made available to another for the purposes of terrorism.

 

The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861

 

  1. Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.

 

Chris Coverdale  Make Wars History  July 2016

[i] HM Government’s claims that its’ use of force is authorised by the Security Council operating under Chapter VII [articles 39 – 51] of the UN Charter are false and untrue.  By ignoring the word ‘not’ in the sentence ‘not involving the use of armed force’ in Article 41, the Government misled Parliament and the public into believing that the UN had authorised war. ]

A letter for individuals to send to their council

Sir/ Madame,

Questioning the legality of collecting and paying council tax.

We have received legal advice which claims that collecting or paying tax if a Government uses it for the purposes of terrorism or war is illegal and involves us in serious crimes.Please confirm if this is correct and whether payments such as PAYE, VAT, fees and rents are excluded from the crimes.

Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000 maintains that: A person commits an offence if he asks for, receives or provides money if he suspects that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

As Parliament defined terrorism as the use of firearms and explosives endangering life for a political cause , and the Supreme Court has stated that this appears to extend to the military and quasi-military activities of HM Government, and as the Police and HM forces use firearms and explosives to endanger and take lives in the UK and the Middle East, and as we make payments to HMR&C, it appears that we are committing offences under terrorism and warfare legislation.

As there is doubt over the legality of tax collection and payment, we’ve been advised to suspend the collection and payment of taxes fees and rents until the Government’s use of firearms and explosives has ended and the Supreme Court and the International Criminal Court confirm that:
(i) Money collected by or paid to UK public authorities is excluded from the offences in sections 15 and 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000, section 52, of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, article 25 of the Rome Statute of the ICC and Nuremburg Principle VII.
(ii) If councillors collect money or residents pay money to public authorities in Britain knowing that some of it may be used for the purposes of war or terrorism we will not commit crimes under the war and terrorism laws listed in subsection (i) above.
(iii) Residents and councillors have been granted immunity from prosecution under the laws listed above if we pay taxes or transfer money to UK public authorities knowing that HM Government may use some of the money for the purposes of war or terrorism.

Yours faithfully,

 

  1. Sections 15 and 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000; section 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
  2. Section 1 Terrorism Act 2000
  3. UK Supreme Court ruling R ‘v’ Gul UKSC 64 [2013] see quotes attached.

 

Laws making the payment of tax illegal

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism[summary]

The States Parties to this Convention, deeply concerned about the worldwide escalation of acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations have agreed as follows: Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and wilfully provides or collects funds in the knowledge that they are to be used to carry out an act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian.

The UK Terrorism Act 2000 – [summaries of sections 1, 15 and 17]

1. Terrorism is the threat or use of firearms or explosives endangering a person’s life for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
15. A person commits an offence if he asks for, receives or provides money knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism.
17. A person commits an offence if he enters into an arrangement as a result of which money is made available to another, and he suspects that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

Regina ‘v’ Gul UK Supreme Court 64 (2013) extracts from paragraphs 26 and 28

26. “the legislation does not exempt, nor make an exception, nor create a defence for, nor exculpate what some would describe as terrorism in a just cause. Such a concept is foreign to the 2000 Act. Terrorism is terrorism, whatever the motives of the perpetrators… Terrorist action outside the United Kingdom which involves the use of firearms or explosives, resulting in danger to life is terrorism.”
28. “As a matter of ordinary language, the definition would seem to cover any violence or damage to property if it is carried out with a view to influencing a government or IGO in order to advance a very wide range of causes. Thus, it would appear to extend to military or quasi-military activity aimed at bringing down a foreign government, even where that activity is approved by the UK government.”

The International Criminal Court Act 2001 [summary of section 52]

It is a criminal offence for a person to aid or abet the commission of genocide, a crime against humanity, a war crime or conduct ancillary to such crimes.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [summary of article 25.3 (c)]

A person, who aids, abets or assists in the commission of a crime of genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, including providing the means for its commission, shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment.

The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861

8. Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.

Laws making the funding of war illegal

The Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946

“ War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
“ In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing… Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.”

The UN Charter 1945

1.3 All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.
1.4 All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,
41. The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions …

[ HM Government’s claims that its’ use of force is authorised by the Security Council operating under Chapter VII [articles 39 – 51] of the UN Charter are false and untrue. By ignoring the word ‘not’ in the phrase ‘not involving the use of armed force’ in Article 41, the Government misled the public into believing that the UN had authorised war. The UN can never authorise war or the use of armed force.]

UN Declaration on Principles of International Law 1970 [UN General Assembly Resolution 2625]

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State… Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.

The Nuremburg Principles 1950 [Principle VII]

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Chris Coverdale May 2016

A letter for Councillors to send to the Collector of taxes / HMR&C

All Councillors,
[Your Council,] [your address]
[Town Hall,]
[Town,]
[County / Postcode]

[Date]

Councillors,

You recently sent me a demand for the payment of (£__________) council tax. I am writing to inform you that by demanding money, knowing that some of it will be used by HM Government for the purposes of terrorism, you are, albeit unwittingly, committing crimes under war and terrorism law. Furthermore, if I pay money to you I will commit crimes under the same legislation. On no account am I willing to break the law or participate in serious crimes committed by yourselves or others.

Section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 maintains that:
A person commits an offence if he enters into an arrangement as a result of which money is made available to another, and he suspects that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

As Parliament defined terrorism as the use of firearms or explosives endangering life for a political cause , and as the Supreme Court stated that this appears to extend to the military activities of HM Government , and as HM forces use explosives to take lives in Iraq and Syria, and as you make some of the money available to the Government [PAYE, NI, VAT etc] it is clear to me that if I pay the tax, both you and I will commit serious crimes under warfare legislation and the Terrorism Act 2000.

I confirm that I am willing to pay all lawful tax demands and will pay any sums that are lawfully due to you when the High Court, the Supreme Court and the International Criminal Court:
(i) confirm that money paid to UK public authorities is excluded from the crimes in sections 15 – 17, Terrorism Act 2000, s. 52, International Criminal Court Act 2001, article 25 Rome Statute of the ICC, and Principles VI and VII of the Nuremburg Principles 1950.
(ii) confirm that if I pay money to UK public authorities knowing that some of it may be used by HM Government for the purpose of buying firearms or explosives which may be used to endanger life, I will not commit a crime under these war and terrorism laws.
(iii) grant me immunity from prosecution under any of these laws if I pay taxes or transfer money to UK public authorities knowing that HM Government plans to use, or is using, some of the money for the purposes of war or terrorism.

Yours faithfully,

[your signature]

 

  1. Sections 15 and 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000; section 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
  2. Section 1 Terrorism Act 2000
  3. UK Supreme Court ruling R ‘v’ Gul UKSC 64 [2013] see quotes attached.

Laws making war and the funding of war illegal

The Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946

“War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

“In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing… Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.”

The UN Charter 1945

1.3 All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.
1.4 All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
41. The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon members of the United Nations to apply such measures…

[NB HM Government’s claim that its’ use of force is authorised by the Security Council operating under Chapter VII [articles 39 – 51] of the UN Charter is false and untrue. By ignoring the word ‘not’ in the sentence ‘not involving the use of armed force’ in Article 41, the Government misled us into believing that the UN had authorised war. The UN can never authorise war or the use of armed force.]

UN Declaration on Principles of International Law 1970 [UNGA Resolution 2625]

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.

The Nuremburg Principles 1950 [Principle VII]

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Laws making the payment of tax illegal

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism [summary]

The States Parties to this Convention, deeply concerned about the worldwide escalation of acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations have agreed as follows: Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and wilfully provides or collects funds in the knowledge that they are to be used to carry out an act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian.

The UK Terrorism Act 2000 – [summaries of sections 1, 15 and17]

1. Terrorism is the threat or use of firearms or explosives endangering a person’s life for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
15. A person commits an offence if he asks for, receives or provides money knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism.
17. A person commits an offence if he enters into an arrangement as a result of which money is made available to another, and he knows that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

Regina ‘v’ Gul UK Supreme Court 64 (2013) extracts from paragraphs 26 and 28

26. “the legislation does not exempt, nor make an exception, nor create a defence for, nor exculpate what some would describe as terrorism in a just cause. Such a concept is foreign to the 2000 Act. Terrorism is terrorism, whatever the motives of the perpetrators… Terrorist action outside the United Kingdom which involves the use of firearms or explosives, resulting in danger to life … is terrorism.”

28. “As a matter of ordinary language, the definition [of terrorism] would seem to cover any violence or damage to property if it is carried out with a view to influencing a government or IGO in order to advance a very wide range of causes. Thus, it would appear to extend to military or quasi-military activity aimed at bringing down a foreign government, even where that activity is approved … by the UK government.”

The International Criminal Court Act 2001 [summary of section 52]

It is a criminal offence for a person to aid or abet the commission of genocide, a crime against humanity, a war crime or conduct ancillary to such crimes.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [summary of article 25.3 (c)]

A person, who aids, abets or assists in the commission of a crime of genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, including providing the means for its commission, shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment.

The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861

8. Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.

Chris Coverdale May 2016

Suggested letter for businesses to send to the Collector of Taxes at HMR&C

Sir/Madame,

Questioning the legality of collecting or paying tax

We have received legal advice which claims that collecting or paying tax if it is used for purposes of terrorism or war is illegal and involves us in serious crimes. Please confirm if this is correct and whether or not compulsory payments such as PAYE, NI and VAT are excluded from the crimes.

Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000 maintains that: A person commits an offence if he asks for, receives or provides money if he suspects that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

As Parliament defined terrorism as the use of firearms and explosives endangering life for a political cause, and the Supreme Court has stated that this appears to extend to the military and quasi-military activities of HM Government, and as the Police and HM forces use firearms and explosives to endanger and take lives in the UK and the Middle East, and as we make payments to HMR&C, it is clear to us that we are committing offences under terrorism and warfare legislation.

While there is any doubt over the legality of tax collection and payment, we are advised to suspend all financial transactions with UK public authorities until HM Government’s use of firearms and explosives has ended and the Supreme Court and the International Criminal Court confirm that:

(i) Money collected by or paid to UK public authorities is excluded from the offences in sections 15 and 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000, section 52, of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, article 25 of the Rome Statute of the ICC and Nuremburg Principle VII.
(ii) If we collect VAT on behalf of HMR&C or pay money or taxes to UK public authorities knowing that some of it may be used for the purposes of war or terrorism we will not commit crimes under the war and terrorism laws listed in subsection (i) above.
(iii) Our directors and employees have been granted immunity from prosecution under the laws listed above if we pay taxes or transfer money to UK public authorities knowing that HM Government may use some of the money for the purposes of war or terrorism.

Yours faithfully,

 

  1. Sections 15 and 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000; section 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
  2. Section 1 Terrorism Act 2000
  3. UK Supreme Court ruling R ‘v’ Gul UKSC 64 [2013] see quotes attached.

 

Laws making war and the funding of war or terrorism illegal

The Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946

“War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

“In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing… Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.”

The UN Charter 1945

1.3 All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.
1.4 All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
41. The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions.

[NB. HM Government’s claims that its’ use of force is authorised by the Security Council operating under Chapter VII [articles 39 – 51] of the UN Charter is false and untrue. By ignoring the word ‘not’ in the phrase ‘not involving the use of armed force’ in Article 41, the Government misled Parliament and the public into believing that the UN had authorised war. The UN can never authorise war or the use of armed force.]

UN Declaration on Principles of International Law 1970 [UN General Assembly Resolution 2625]

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.

The Nuremburg Principles 1950 [Principle VII]

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism [summary]

The States Parties to this Convention, deeply concerned about the worldwide escalation of acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations have agreed as follows: Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and wilfully provides or collects funds in the knowledge that they are to be used to carry out an act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian.
Laws making the payment of tax illegal

The UK Terrorism Act 2000 – [summaries of sections 1, 15, 16 and 17]

1. Terrorism Definition: Terrorism is the threat or use of firearms or explosives endangering a person’s life for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

Offences

15. A person commits an offence if he asks for, receives or provides money knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism.
16. A person commits an offence if he possesses money or other property and has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.
17. A person commits an offence if he enters into an arrangement as a result of which money is made available to another, and he knows or suspects that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

Regina ‘v’ Gul UK Supreme Court 64 (2013) extracts from paragraphs 26 and 28

26. “the legislation does not exempt, nor make an exception, nor create a defence for, nor exculpate what some would describe as terrorism in a just cause. Such a concept is foreign to the 2000 Act. Terrorism is terrorism, whatever the motives of the perpetrators… Terrorist action outside the United Kingdom which involves the use of firearms or explosives, resulting in danger to life is terrorism.”

28. “As a matter of ordinary language, the definition [of terrorism] would seem to cover any violence or damage to property if it is carried out with a view to influencing a government or IGO in order to advance a very wide range of causes. Thus, it would appear to extend to military or quasi-military activity aimed at bringing down a foreign government, even where that activity is approved by the UK government.”

The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861

8. Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.

The International Criminal Court Act 2001 [summary of s. 52]

52. It is a criminal offence for a person to aid or abet the commission of genocide, a crime against humanity, a war crime or conduct ancillary to such crimes.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [summary of article 25.3 (c)]

A person, who aids, abets or assists in the commission of a crime of genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, including providing the means for its commission, shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment.

Chris Coverdale May 2016

Letter to an employer

Dear Sir, Madame

It has been brought to my attention that British taxpayers are breaking the law. I have received legal advice that

(i) the actions of the U.K. Government in waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq causing the deaths of innocent civilians are illegal and constitute the crimes of genocide and a crime against peace and

(ii) the actions of British taxpayers in paying taxes to HM Government which uses them to finance the war and the killing of Iraqi nationals, constitute crimes of ‘conduct ancillary to genocide’ and ‘complicity in a crime against peace’. The law states that:

‘It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, or to engage in conduct ancillary to such an act. This applies to acts committed in England and Wales or outside the United Kingdom by a U.K. national, resident or person subject to U.K. service jurisdiction.

1. Genocide’ means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part..

Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence,whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to bepassed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.

2. I am advised that every employee and employer in Britain has a legal duty to withhold tax payments from the Government until the wars have ended and the crimes have ceased. As my employer, responsible for the deduction and payment of tax (P.A.Y.E) from my salary to the U.K. Government, I request that you cease herewith all payments of tax to the Government and retain and hold them until such time as the crimes have ceased and lawful payments of tax can resume.

I urge you to pursue this matter with the Collector of Taxes and your legal advisors in order to ensure that the company, its directors and all its employees are in compliance with the laws of war

Yours faithfully,

If you live in Scotland please also refer to the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001

If you live in Ireland please refer to the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ACT 2006 and look into the Irish Statute Book Produced by the Office of the Attorney General

 

____________________________________________________________

When is it a crime to pay council tax, duties, licence fees, fines, etc?

Most of us know that evading tax is a crime, but how many of us know that paying council tax can also be a crime?

Chris Coverdale, a tax resister, explains.

It is a little known but salutary fact that every time a person pays council tax we make a small but significant contribution to war, thereby rendering ourselves liable to prosecution and punishment as an accessory to war crimes.

Under the laws of war citizens are forbidden from taking part in war crimes and terrorist acts and are legally bound to disobey the orders of any Government that supports or endorses such illegal acts of aggression1. This universal duty to refuse to obey unlawful orders includes orders to pay tax [Income tax, council tax, VAT etc]. If governments use taxpayers’ money for unlawful purposes such as waging a war of aggression or engaging in acts of terrorism, the obligation of taxpayers to pay tax is reversed and becomes a legal duty to refuse to pay tax.

The legislation makes it clear that if taxpayers continue to pay tax or tax collectors continue to collect tax, knowing that some of it will be used to wage war and contribute to the deaths of innocent men women and children, they become accessories to the crimes of their Government and criminally liable for arrest, prosecution and punishment as war criminals.

Contrary to the UK Governments repeated claims of legality, each of the wars fought or supported by Britain since 2001 against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria is illegal in both international and domestic law. By using cruise missiles, rockets, bombs, drones and radioactive munitions to attack and kill thousands of civilians, Britain’s leaders violated the binding terms of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the UN Charter, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and the Terrorism Act 2000.

Many of us will find it hard to believe that British Governments could deceive Parliament, the armed forces and the public so totally over such an important issue as the illegality of war. But one only has to read the laws for one’s self to establish the truth of this assertion.

[See The Law Against Paying and Collecting Tax attached]

If you are becoming concerned that you have unwittingly supported war crimes, you will be relieved to know that the legislators provided innocent participants with a get-out clause2. As long as we end our part in the crimes and halt the payment of taxes or divert them into trust accounts to be withheld from the Government and its agents3 until it ends the fighting, we will not be punished by the International Criminal Court.

The fact, that council tax payers can be arrested, tried and punished as war criminals alongside the civil, political and military leaders responsible for the illegal wars may come as an unwelcome shock to those who are not familiar with the law, but it should be no surprise to anyone who has experienced or considered the horrific consequences of war. Waging a war of aggression, in which thousands of men women and children are injured and killed, is the world’s most evil act; so supporting aggressive war, by paying tax and providing funds which are used for unlawful purposes, ranks alongside it as a monstrous crime.

So having read this article we now have a decision to make. Do we obey and uphold the laws of war and withhold our taxes thus forcing the British Government to end its wars and atrocities, or do we continue to break the law by paying tax and thereby risk prosecution and punishment alongside our leaders as an accessory to their war crimes? Each of us must make a choice.

Chris Coverdale,                 Rye                 January 2014

 

WHEN WAR IS ILLEGAL, PAYING TAX IS A WAR CRIME, SO PAYING TAX WHILE BRITAIN SUPPORTS ILLEGAL WARS IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, LIBYA OR SYRIA MAKES TAXPAYERS WAR CRIMINALS.

1 Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946“The very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law…”

2Article 25.3(f) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

3Anyone who collects taxes, duties, licence fees, fines etc by authority of an Act of Parliament is an agent of Government and is criminally liable for their actions. This means that staff of HMR&C, councillors collecting council tax, company directors collecting PAYE as well as owners of businesses collecting VAT are accessories to war crimes and liable for arrest.

The law against paying and collecting tax

 

In 1946 The Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal convicted Germany’s leaders of waging 11 illegal wars of aggression in breach of international law – the Kellogg-Briand Pact. The Judges ruled that:

“ The solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing…”

“ The very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law…”

In Britain HM Government then issued advice to help servicemen and women understand the meaning of this law which applies to everyone on both sides of a conflict, including civilians. The legal advice states:

If a person who is bound to obey a duly constituted superior receives from the superior an order to do some act or make some omission which is manifestly illegal, he is under a legal duty to refuse to carry out the order and if he does carry it out he will be criminally responsible for what he does in doing so.1

Orders from a superior in this context include those of a government, a superior – military or civilian – or a national law or regulation. A serviceman is under a duty not to obey a manifestly unlawful order.2

In 1950 the United Nations enacted and issued the Nuremburg Principles – the international laws governing warfare and the use of armed force. Principles VI and VII state:

VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

VII.Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

In 1970 the United Nations issued 42 new rules3 on the Principles of International law relating to the meaning and interpretation of the UN Charter. They include these statements:

The principles of the Charter which are embodied in this Declaration constitute basic principles of international law, and consequently [the UN General Assembly] appeals to all States to be guided by these principles in their international conduct and to develop their mutual relations on the basis of the strict observance of these principles.

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force… Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.

In 2000 the UK Parliament enacted the Terrorism Act which includes four criminal offences associated with the funding of terrorism [summarised below]:

1 Terrorism: interpretation

“Terrorism” means the use or threat of action which involves the use of firearms or explosives, serious violence against a person, serious damage to property or endangers a person’s life and is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

15 Fund-raising.

  1. A person commits an offence if he invites another to provide money or other property, and intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.

  2. A person commits an offence if he receives money or other property, and intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.

  3. A person commits an offence if he provides money or other property, and knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

17 Funding arrangements.

A person commits an offence if he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement as a result of which money or other property is made available or is to be made available to another, and he knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

In 2001 Parliament enacted the International Criminal Court Act and in 2002 the international legislation – the Rome Statute of the International CriminalCourt came into effect. Its jurisdiction extends to 122 States which include Britain and most European States and covers the criminal offences of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and conduct ancillary to such crimes. Article 25 includes these statements:

Article 25 Individual criminal responsibility
3.   In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:

(a)   Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;

(b)   Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;

(c)   For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;

Chris Coverdale, Rye –  Make Wars History  January 2014

1MoD Manual of Military Law 1955 Chapter VI Section 24

2MoD Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict 2004, Chapter 16, Article 47

3UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 – DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

———————————————————————————————-

Legal Cause why I have not paid council tax

  1. I have not paid council tax on the grounds that the demand by Havant Borough Council is wrong in lawby requiring me to commit crimes against domestic and international law.
  1. I acknowledge that in times of peace when HM Government is acting lawfully taxpayers are bound by statute to pay taxes, including income tax, VAT and council tax.

Duty to refuse to obey unlawful orders

  1. However I maintain that every citizen is required by law to refuse to obey the orders of their government[A1], including orders to pay or collect tax, when their government acts unlawfully in violation of the laws of war [A2].
  2. I assert that the normal peacetime duties of taxpayers to pay tax and tax collectors (HMR&C, Councils, Businesses) to collect tax were reversed and became a duty to refuse to pay or collect tax no later than October 7th 2001 when HM Government began the war in Afghanistan and possibly before this had information now in the public domain about the activities of UK armed forces been known.
  1. Information recently released into the public domain by the BBC’s Panorama programme on the topic of the Military Reaction Force (MRF) employed by the British government in the early 1970s in Northern Ireland under which authority (MRF) the BBC claims that members of the British armed forces in Northern Ireland “killed unarmed civilians” in brutal surprise attacks on the streets, makes clear that at that time the British government was using terrorism (as defined by section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000).   I believe that, since the broadcast of the Panorama programme, the government has opened an official enquiry.  However, since the government has issued no renunciation of these acts and it is very likely that the British government continues to use terrorist activity in the pursuit of its goals throughout the world, I therefore, under section 15 of the Terrorism Act, have a duty to refuse to make any payments of any nature to the British government and its agents including (but not limited to) any and all local governments in the territory of the United Kingdom because I have “reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism”.
  2. Further I assert that the case made by the British government against the four accused of the terrorist bombings in London on July 7th 2007, is untenable and demonstrably false.  There is proof positive that the single photograph issued by the government alleging it as evidence of the alleged bombers arrival together at the London Terminus is a (‘photo-shopped’) forgery.  In addition, it is impossible that the four arrived on the alleged train because the train did not run as timetabled that day.  In short, they could not have been in London in time to make their connections to the targeted trains.It is incomprehensible to me how a competent police enquiry could possibly have reached the conclusions it did – and failed to review it, since – when this evidence is available.  It is my conclusion, therefore, that the British government has deliberately withheld the truth about this atrocity from the British public and it is therefore a reasonable conclusion that the government was complicit in some way, again giving me reasonable cause to suspect that the British government continues to employ or connive with terrorism – even domestically, within our own shores and against our own people.

 

Illegal war

  1. That the war with Afghanistan is illegal can be ascertained by reference to the terms of:

(i)        The Treaty for the Renunciation of War 1928 [Kellogg-Briand Pact] by which HM Government agreed never to wage war and to settle disputes peacefully [A3];

“War between nations was renounced by the signatories of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty.  This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world an illegal thing.  Hereafter, when nations engage in armed conflict, either one or both of them must be termed violators of this general treaty law…. We denounce them as law breakers.”  

      Henry Stimson, USA Secretary of State 1932

(ii)      The UN Charter in which 192 States have agreed never to threaten or use force, to respect human rights and to settle all disputes by peaceful means [A4];

(iii)    The United Nations Act 1946 which limits the deployment of HM Forces under the authority of the UN to “measures not involving the use of armed force” [A5];

(iv)     The Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946 [A6] which states:

“After the signing of the Pact, any nation resorting to war as an instrument of national policy breaks the Pact.  In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing

 

(v)      The United Nations Declaration on Principles of International Law 1970 [A7] which includes the following statement:

“No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.”

(vi)    The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court  which outlaws aggressive war, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes [A12];

  1. As the war with Afghanistan and the unlawful killings of thousands of men women and children have continued throughout the intervening years, the duty of taxpayers and tax collectors to refuse to obey illegal orders continues unabated and will carry on until:

(i)        the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan and Syria have ended,

(ii)      HM Forces have returned home,

(iii)    legal proceedings have begun against those responsible for war crimes and the unlawful deaths of men women and children, and

(iv)    HM Government and its agents are acting in full accord with the laws of war.

 

Criminal offences associated with paying (council) tax

  1. When taxpayers pay tax to a Government or its agents (Havant Borough Council), while it is acting unlawfully and waging a war of aggression, or employing terrorism they commit criminal offences and render themselves liable for prosecution in Britain or the Hague for crimes of:

(i)        ‘accessory to murder’ under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 [A8];

(ii)      ‘complicity in a crime against peace’ under Principle VII of the Nuremburg Principles [A9];

(iii)    ‘conduct ancillary to war crimescrimes against humanity and / or genocide’ under section 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 [A10];

(iv)    ‘fundraising for purposes of terrorism’ under sections 15 or 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 [A11];

(v)      genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and/or aggression under Article 25.3(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [A12] which states:

25.3   In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:

(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;

(vi)    Terrorism under section 15 (3) of the Terrorism Act 2000, which states:

A person commits an offence if he—
(a) provides money or other property, and
(b) knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

Summary

  1. The evidence in this case identifies:

(1)      errors in law by Havant Borough Council;

(2)      potential conflicts of law between the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and

(i)                 the International Criminal Court Act 2001,

(ii)               the Terrorism Act 2000 and

(iii)             the Offences Against the Person Act 1861;

(3)      criminal offences against international and domestic law by Councillors and staff of Havant Borough Council, tax collectors, taxpayers and others.

 

1. In summary I am refusing to pay council tax because it is unlawful, wrong in both domestic and international law and will involve me as an accessory to war crimes and terrorism.

2. I respectfully request that the Justices reject Havant Borough Council’s application for a liability order on the grounds that it is unlawful, wrong in law and will involve the defendant in serious criminal offences.

3. I also respectfully request that whatever the decision of the court today, the Magistrates in their private capacities seek to view:

4. The BBC’s Panorama programme referred to above and at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24987465, and

5. The video entitled, “7/7 Ripple effect” available on YouTube at;

Appendix 1

Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946

“ The very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State.  He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law…”

The Manual of Military Law [1955] – UK MOD.  Pt I, Chapter VI, Article 24

If a person, who is bound to obey a duly constituted superior, receives from the superior an order to do some act or make some omission which is manifestly illegal, he is under a legal duty to refuse to carry out the order and if he does carry it out he will be criminally responsible for what he does in doing so… 

Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict [2004] – UK MOD.  Chapter 16, Article 47.3

“Orders from a superior in this context include those of a government, a superior – military or civilian – or a national law or regulation.  A serviceman is under a duty not to obey a manifestly unlawful order.

The Nuremberg Principles

Principles of International Law recognised in the Charter and Judgement of the Nuremburg Tribunal 1946

I.  Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

II.  The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

III.  The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.


Appendix 2

The Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946

“In the opinion of the Tribunal, those who wage aggressive war are doing that which is equally illegal, and of much greater moment than a breach of one of the rules of the Hague Convention.   In interpreting the words of the [Kellogg-Briand] Pact, it must be remembered that international law is not the product of an international legislature, and that such international agreements as the Pact have to deal with general principles of law, and not with administrative matters of procedure.   The law of war is to be found not only in treaties, but in the customs and practices of states which gradually obtained universal recognition, and from the general principles of justice applied by jurists and practiced by military courts…

Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced…

 “After the signing of the Pact, any nation resorting to war as an instrument of national policy breaks the Pact. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing…”

                                                               Extracted from the Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946

 

Appendix 3

The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War 1928 (The Kellogg-Briand Pact)

This solemn and binding treaty unconditionally condemned and renounced recourse to war as an instrument of national policy, and promised that henceforth all international disputes would be settled peacefully.    This treaty is still in force and together with the London Charter provided the legal basis for the trial of Germany’s leaders at Nuremburg after the Second World War.

ARTICLE  I    The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

ARTICLE  II   The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

Appendix 4

The United Nations Charter 1945

The United Nations Charter sets out to prevent war and promote peace, justice and the rule of law throughout the world.    Its 111 articles clearly prohibit the use of armed force:

 

2.3  All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.

2.4  All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

41  The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon members of the United Nations to apply such measures.   These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

 

Appendix 5

United Nations Act 1946

1  Measures under Article 41.

(1)   If, under Article forty-one of the Charter of the United Nations signed at San Francisco on the twenty-sixth day of June, nineteen hundred and forty-five, (being the Article which relates to measures not involving the use of armed force) the Security Council of the United Nations call upon His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom to apply any measures to give effect to any decision of that Council, His Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision as appears to Him necessary or expedient for enabling those measures to be effectively applied, including (without prejudice to the generality of the preceding words) provision for the apprehension, trial and punishment of persons offending against the Order.

 

Appendix 6

The Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946

 

In the opinion of the Tribunal, those who wage aggressive war are doing that which is equally illegal, and of much greater moment than a breach of one of the rules of the Hague Convention.   In interpreting the words of the [Kellogg-Briand] Pact, it must be remembered that international law is not the product of an international legislature, and that such international agreements as the Pact have to deal with general principles of law, and not with administrative matters of procedure.   The law of war is to be found not only in treaties, but in the customs and practices of states which gradually obtained universal recognition, and from the general principles of justice applied by jurists and practiced by military courts…

Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced…

 “After the signing of the Pact, any nation resorting to war as an instrument of national policy breaks the Pact. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing

It was submitted [by the defendants] that international law is concerned with the action of sovereign states, and provides no punishment for individuals; and further, that where the act in question is an act of state, those who carry it out are not personally responsible, but are protected by the doctrine of the sovereignty of the State.  In the opinion of the Tribunal, both these submissions must be rejected.  That international law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon States has long been recognised

The very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State.   He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law…

War is essentially an evil thing.  Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.  To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole

 

Appendix 7

THE UNITED NATIONS’ DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

 

In 1962, concerned at the increase in violations of the UN Charter, the UN General Assembly asked the International Law Commission (ILC) to produce definitive legal advice on the meaning of the Charter.  In 1970 the UN General Assembly agreed and issued the Declaration on Principles of International Law (UNGAR 2625).  This Declaration, arguably the most important legal advice ever produced, includes the following:

  • The principles of the Charter which are embodied in this Declaration constitute basic principles of international law, and consequently [the UN General Assembly] appeals to all States to be guided by these principles in their international conduct and to develop their mutual relations on the basis of the strict observance of these principles. 
  • Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.  Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues. 
  • A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is [individual] responsibility under international law. 
  • Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.
  • States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.  In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.
  • No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.

 

Appendix 8

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861;

“Whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade, or endeavour to persuade, or shall propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether he be a subject of Her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen’s dominions or not, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life.”

The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861

“ Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender.” 

 

Appendix 9     The Nuremberg Principles

I.  Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

II.  The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

III.  The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

V.  Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

VI.  The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

   (a) Crimes against peace:

      (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

      (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

VII.  Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

 

Appendix 10

International Criminal Court Act 2001

51.  Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes

(1) It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime.

(2) This section applies to acts committed—

(a) in England or Wales, or

(b) outside the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national, a United Kingdom resident or a person subject to UK service jurisdiction.

 

52.  Conduct ancillary to genocide, etc. committed outside jurisdiction 

(1) It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to engage in conduct ancillary to an act to which this section applies.

(2) This section applies to an act that if committed in England or Wales would constitute—

(a)an offence under section 51 (genocide, crime against humanity or war crime), or

(b)an offence under this section,

but which, being committed (or intended to be committed) outside England and Wales, does not constitute such an offence.

(3) The reference in subsection (1) to conduct ancillary to such an act is to conduct that would constitute an ancillary offence in relation to that act if the act were committed in England or Wales.

(4) This section applies where the conduct in question consists of or includes an act committed—

(a) in England or Wales, or

(b) outside the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national, a United Kingdom resident or a person subject to UK service jurisdiction.

 

Appendix 11                                     The Terrorism Act 2000

1 Terrorism: interpretation.

(1)   In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a)    the action falls within subsection (2),

(b)    the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c)    the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

(2)   Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a) involves serious violence against a person,

(b) involves serious damage to property,

(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3)   The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

(4)   In this section—

(a)    “action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,

(b)    a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,

(c)    a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and

(d)   “the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

 

15 Fund-raising.

(1) A person commits an offence if he—

(a)invites another to provide money or other property, and

(b)intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.

(2 ) A person commits an offence if he—

(a)receives money or other property, and

(b)intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.

(3) A person commits an offence if he—

(a)provides money or other property, and

(b)knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

 

17  Funding arrangements.

A person commits an offence if—

(a)   he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement as a result of which money or other property is made available or is to be made available to another, and

(b)    he knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

 

Appendix 12             The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998. 

 

Article 25        Individual criminal responsibility

 

1.         The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute.

2.         A person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court [genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime] shall be individually responsible and liable for punishment in accordance with this Statute.

3.         In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:

 

(a)     Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;

(b)     Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;

(c)     For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;

(d)     In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either:

(i)     Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; or

(ii)     Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime;  

(e)     In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide;

(f)     Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances independent of the person’s intentions. However, a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.

 

Article 27    Irrelevance of official capacity

  1. 1.      This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
  2. 2.       Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person. 

 

__________________________________________________________

 

Tony Rooke wins his TV License case by stating the BBC were complicit in 9/11.

 

seriously, this is EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT in the sense that the BBC didn’t mention this before being taken to court by Tony Rooke: and they still haven’t talked about it.

The interesting aspect of this, for me, is that not only did Tony Rooke get away with not paying for his TV license due to his claim that the BBC were somehow ‘in league with or coordinated with the terrorists i.e. T.H.E.Y.’ on the day of 9/11 when the US Air FOrce stood down allowing two commercial airliners to fly over restricted airspace for an hour and then crash into the WTC buildings 1 and 2 after which WTC Building 7 came down AT FREEFALL SPEED without any plane having hit it late on the afternoon of September 11th 2001.

Source: http://mikephilbin.blogspot.com/2013/04/tony-rooke-wins-his-tv-license-case-by.html

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*