اکنون در دسترس! پژوهش تلگرام ۲۰۲۵ — مهمترین بینشهای سال 
The UK Freedom Alliance
رفتن به کانال در Telegram
2 917
مشترکین
-224 ساعت
-157 روز
-5130 روز
در حال بارگیری داده...
کانالهای مشابه
ابر برچسبها
اشارات ورودی و خروجی
---
---
---
---
---
---
جذب مشترکین
ژوئن '26
ژوئن '26
+1
در 0 کانالها
مه '26
+18
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
آوریل '26
+14
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
مارس '26
+10
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
فوریه '26
+9
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
ژانویه '26
+3
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
دسامبر '25
+5
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
نوامبر '25
+17
در 2 کانالها
Get PRO
اکتبر '25
+14
در 1 کانالها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '25
+6
در 2 کانالها
Get PRO
اوت '25
+3
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '25
+5
در 1 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئن '25
+3
در 1 کانالها
Get PRO
مه '25
+12
در 1 کانالها
Get PRO
آوریل '25
+8
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
مارس '25
+8
در 1 کانالها
Get PRO
فوریه '25
+13
در 1 کانالها
Get PRO
ژانویه '25
+63
در 6 کانالها
Get PRO
دسامبر '24
+8
در 4 کانالها
Get PRO
نوامبر '24
+9
در 1 کانالها
Get PRO
اکتبر '24
+12
در 5 کانالها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '24
+15
در 3 کانالها
Get PRO
اوت '24
+39
در 1 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '24
+36
در 4 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئن '24
+47
در 5 کانالها
Get PRO
مه '24
+44
در 3 کانالها
Get PRO
آوریل '24
+40
در 5 کانالها
Get PRO
مارس '24
+34
در 5 کانالها
Get PRO
فوریه '24
+36
در 3 کانالها
Get PRO
ژانویه '24
+30
در 3 کانالها
Get PRO
دسامبر '23
+16
در 4 کانالها
Get PRO
نوامبر '23
+13
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
اکتبر '23
+14
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '23
+16
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
اوت '23
+25
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '23
+20
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئن '23
+28
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
مه '23
+67
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
آوریل '23
+68
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
مارس '23
+19
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
فوریه '23
+24
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
ژانویه '23
+42
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
دسامبر '22
+45
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
نوامبر '22
+53
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
اکتبر '22
+65
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '22
+55
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
اوت '22
+38
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '22
+38
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئن '22
+53
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
مه '22
+108
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
آوریل '22
+70
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
مارس '22
+43
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
فوریه '22
+66
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
ژانویه '22
+108
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
دسامبر '21
+120
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
نوامبر '21
+122
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
اکتبر '21
+158
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '21
+284
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
اوت '21
+916
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '21
+1 381
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئن '21
+638
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
مه '21
+701
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
آوریل '21
+1 129
در 0 کانالها
| تاریخ | رشد مشترکین | اشارات | کانالها | |
| 07 ژوئن | +1 | |||
| 06 ژوئن | 0 | |||
| 05 ژوئن | 0 | |||
| 04 ژوئن | 0 | |||
| 03 ژوئن | 0 | |||
| 02 ژوئن | 0 | |||
| 01 ژوئن | 0 |
پستهای کانال
| 2 |  This is a major signal.
The United Nations has scrapped its “worst‑case” climate scenario.
The climate hoax is officially dead.
Our children are still being indoctrinated with this damaging nonsense in school - it’s a form of child abuse.
Please watch and share
https://t.me/ABridgen | 286 |
| 3 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcAxnu1Ijis | 281 |
| 4 | Hidden GMO ingredients to look out for.
No wonder people have so many health problems. Make sure to share this post.
My motto is always eat as close as it is to what nature intended.
Subscribe and share >> S E E | Secret History
I found a hidden channel: "Banned Truth" check it out before it disappears! | 291 |
| 5 | 🥴 chuffin ekk Norah (Notts) https://t.me/+er40PDeJAd1iZDBk, [May 24, 2026 at 8:19 AM]
judge refuses to give his name in council tax court case :Simon- christopher:, [May 24, 2026 at 4:51 PM]
In the County Court at Medway
Claim numbers L20YX136 / LO1ME926
Between Medway Council and Mark Anthony Wilson.
Judge Pryor today, 21MAY26, discharged the charging orders and struck out the claim for an order of sale.
On 24FEB26 Deputy District Judge Nahil-MacDonald identified the liability order issue as likely to be dispositive and required Medway Council to prove any such orders existed by:
a) the names and titles of the judicial office-holders;
b) The dates of the orders; and
c) that the copies were stamped by an officer of the court and certified true copies.
The claimant was unable to present the evidence as per CPR 40.2.
Their claim for a sales order has been struck out, the interim and final charging orders have been discharged.
Thank you to Paul Morris who reported the good news.
A further case you may use, although I do not have the claim numbers, is Ashford Borough Council v Ross (Canterbury County Court, DDJ Caiels, 20 February 2026)
It would be helpful if people would share similar wins whereby the county court judges are requesting the liability orders from the magistrates courts prior to placing charges and orders of sale upon our homes.
If we can build a list of these wins then we will be able to evoke equity, stare decisis and judicial comity. :Simon- christopher:, [May 24, 2026 at 4:52 PM]
Just added these notes to the handbook:
March 2026 Another Breakthrough Ruling
Success in challenging the council liability order has been achieved by Leslie Ross (former attendee on this course) in Ross v Ashford Borough Council.
Leslie challenged a charging order by requesting the county court judge to order disclosure and inspection of the physical liability order. The council applied for a strike out of that application. The judge refused the strike-out application and also refused the council leave to appeal against that decision.
This leaves us in stalemate. The council cannot proceed until they disclose a document that does not exist.
The judge in this case referred to the relevance of Jamie Merchant v Maidstone Borough Council, which upheld Leighton v Bristow and Sutor from 2025. In effect the ruling is simple: no charging order, no enforcement.
In fact, if we look at the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 Reg 35(3), we can see that, even if a liability order actually existed, (which they do not), it would not be enforceable as a recoverable debt at Law.
We are closing in on the councils!
If you have had a charging order against your property, then use Regulation 51(4) of the CT (A & E) Regs 1992 to have that charging order varied or discharged, using the above case law precedent and statutory references. Satnam Boll, [May 24, 2026 at 9:31 PM]
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1683287039464425
I also found this video. Interesting to say the least. https://t.me/boycottcounciltaxgroup/178317
Council tax wins | 327 |
| 6 | where the signature is;
where the seal is;
where the statement of truth is;
where the evidential foundation is—
before eventually concluding that the process increasingly resembles a long-running administrative comedy in which:
everyone relies on the previous assumption;
nobody accepts visible responsibility;
and constitutional safeguards stand quietly in the corner like forgotten museum exhibits while the sacred spreadsheet continues its majestic journey toward a family home.
After five years of attempting to locate the actual human beings, evidence, signatures, seals, court records, judicial reasoning, lawful accountability, and transparent due process supposedly standing behind the threatened sale of a family home, I appear instead to have discovered an extraordinary constitutional ecosystem in which sacred spreadsheets wander majestically between anonymous departments, invisible judicial figures silently bless administrative assumptions from undisclosed locations, missing records achieve near-mythical status, and legal abstractions confidently interact with one another while the only flesh-and-blood participant in the entire process is apparently expected to quietly surrender property and common sense on the basis that “the system says so.” One almost feels guilty for interrupting such a beautifully choreographed bureaucratic ballet by repeatedly asking the deeply unreasonable question: “Yes, but where is the actual proof?”
Accordingly, the repeated themes throughout this notice are entirely deliberate.
Because after years of unanswered questions, missing records, invisible accountability, and assumption-based enforcement, one is left with only two realistic options:
either laugh at the absurdity of the process…
or be crushed by it.
The reader may decide which response is more proportionate.
8. POSITION
Accordingly:
liability remains disputed;
all presumptions are expressly challenged;
all rights are reserved;
and any payment extracted shall be regarded strictly as made under protest, under duress, and vi coactus.
Because when:
unnamed claimants;
unidentified judicial officers;
unsigned processes;
missing records;
sacred spreadsheets;
invisible determinations;
and constitutional protections apparently overridden by administrative optimism—
are accepted as sufficient foundation to threaten the sale of a family home…
one really has no option left but to laugh.
Otherwise one might cry.
“If this notice appears exaggerated, I respectfully suggest that is only because the process itself appears increasingly indistinguishable from satire.”
Yours faithfully,
:Darren
:A living man.
All Rights Reserved; Without Prejudice; Vi Coactus | 367 |
| 7 | and everyone involved suddenly develops an intense emotional attachment to administrative presumption over direct proof.
A truly resilient legal ecosystem.
The Law of Property Act 1925 contemplates serious legal formalities surrounding property rights and legal interests.
One might therefore naïvely assume that interference with a family home would involve:
transparent judicial acts;
identifiable authority;
authenticated orders;
visible seals;
accountable decision-makers;
and something marginally more sophisticated than a council spreadsheet travelling through the administrative food chain gathering mystical powers as it goes.
Apparently not.
Instead, the modern process appears to function more like an interpretive dance performed by invisible administrators carrying spreadsheets while constitutional safeguards stand quietly in the background wondering what exactly happened to due process.
Quite the legal spectacle.
Judges swear under the Promissory Oaths Act to:
“do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour…”
One assumes this noble constitutional oath did not originally contemplate:
unsigned processes;
unidentified judicial actors;
invisible determinations;
and records vanishing with the efficiency of a Cold War intelligence operation the precise moment disclosure is requested.
Still, perhaps this is simply the exciting modern interpretation of constitutional accountability.
The courts frequently remind the public that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.
In this matter, however, justice appears less “seen” and more rumoured to have occurred somewhere behind the administrative curtain while everyone politely agrees not to look too closely at the machinery.
A remarkable system indeed.
CPR disclosure principles contemplate that parties relying upon documents should generally be capable of producing them.
A charmingly old-fashioned concept, sadly overtaken by the modern constitutional doctrine of:
“Trust us. The paperwork definitely existed at some point.”
One cannot help but admire the efficiency of a system where:
the records cannot be located;
the judicial officer cannot be identified;
the order lacks transparent authentication;
yet enforcement confidence remains heroically unshaken.
Truly inspirational administrative optimism.
7. LEGAL FICTION AND THE LIVING MAN
The distinction repeatedly ignored remains painfully obvious:
A legal fiction is an administrative construct used for accounting, processing, and enforcement convenience.
A living man is the actual flesh-and-blood individual expected to surrender property, peace, money, and security on the basis of assumptions generated by that construct.
Yet throughout this matter the legal fiction appears to possess greater authority than:
transparency;
accountability;
constitutional safeguards;
observable evidence;
or common sense itself.
A living man
A truly fascinating development in modern jurisprudence.
7A. WHY THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN THIS MANNER
If the tone of this notice occasionally appears satirical, repetitive, or incredulous, that is because after approximately five years of attempting to engage respectfully with the alleged process through:
ordinary correspondence;
formal objections;
requests for evidence;
DSAR requests;
FOI requests;
procedural challenges;
and repeated attempts to obtain transparent judicial proof—
the responses received have consistently revolved around:
assumptions;
administrative repetition;
circular referrals;
missing records;
unidentified decision-makers;
unsigned or unauthenticated acts;
exemptions;
and the remarkable constitutional doctrine that proof itself becomes unnecessary once enough departments repeat the same assertion.
At some stage the process becomes so objectively absurd that satire begins writing itself.
After all, there are only so many times one can politely ask:
who made the claim;
where the court record is;
where the identifiable judicial determination is; | 240 |
| 8 | “As long as enough departments repeat the same assumption confidently enough, constitutional scrutiny merely becomes an administrative inconvenience.”
A remarkable legal breakthrough.
It is genuinely impressive that in a supposedly advanced legal society:
governed by constitutional principles;
centuries of common law development;
procedural safeguards;
Magna Carta;
the Bill of Rights;
the Charter of the Forest;
the Statute of Marlborough—
the process apparently still boils down to:
“Trust us. The spreadsheet knows what it’s doing.”
One almost feels proud.
After all, surely no modern constitutional system could possibly permit a family home to be threatened through layers of unidentified administrative assumptions resting upon invisible accountability and mysteriously unavailable records.
Would they?
Surely not.
And yet here we are.
4. THE MIRACLE OF THE MISSING RECORDS
Particular appreciation must also be expressed toward the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS responses indicating records allegedly cannot be located.
This is genuinely extraordinary.
Modern justice now appears capable of:
creating liabilities;
imposing charging orders;
escalating enforcement;
threatening forced sale—
all while simultaneously maintaining a charming uncertainty regarding whether the underlying individualized judicial records actually exist in any identifiable form afterwards.
One almost wonders whether future criminal proceedings may follow the same format:
“Unfortunately Your Honour, the evidence, witness statements, judicial record, and conviction cannot presently be located… but everyone involved feels extremely confident it definitely happened.”
Efficiency at its finest.
5. THE CHARGING ORDER MIRACLE
The Charging Orders Act 1979 speaks solemnly of judgments and sums adjudged.
Meanwhile, in this matter, what appears to have happened is:
a council generated allegations;
assumptions became schedules;
schedules became liabilities;
liabilities became charges;
and somehow all constitutional safeguards quietly left the building halfway through the performance.
Quite the legal magic trick.
David Copperfield would be proud.
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights speaks of the right to a fair hearing.
One assumes fairness now includes:
unidentified judicial acts;
unsigned processes;
and mysteriously evaporating records.
Article 8 protects respect for home and family life.
Apparently family life is now constitutionally subordinate to the unquestionable supremacy of administrative spreadsheets.
Article 1 Protocol 1 protects peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
An ancient principle now bravely resisting extinction against the unstoppable advance of council-generated schedules.
6. PRESUMPTION — THE NEW KING OF EVIDENCE
The constitutional doctrine now appears refreshingly simple:
If:
the council presumes it;
the solicitors repeat it;
the court administratively processes it;
the registry records it;
and enforcement agents rely upon it—
then proof itself becomes an outdated medieval superstition.
Apparently evidence is now entirely optional provided institutional confidence remains sufficiently high.
Remarkable.
One almost feels embarrassed for continuing to ask:
Who made the claim?
Where is the statement of truth?
Where is the identifiable judicial determination?
Where is the signature?
Where is the seal?
Where is the verified court record?
Where is the proof?
Clearly I have failed to embrace the exciting new constitutional principle that:
“administrative certainty is superior to observable reality.”
One also encounters the fascinating constitutional doctrine of “presumed regularity”, whereby official acts are presumed lawful unless properly challenged.
An understandable principle in moderation.
Less understandable, however, is the modern procedural adaptation whereby:
once challenged,
the records disappear;
the signatories become unidentified;
the judicial acts become invisible; | 206 |
| 9 | and property rights quietly disappear into the Bermuda Triangle of due process.
Apparently this is what is now meant by “streamlined justice”.
One also encounters the fascinating constitutional phenomenon whereby the more serious the consequences become, the less visible the underlying accountability appears to be.
A parking ticket contains names.
A supermarket receipt contains names.
A takeaway pizza order contains more transparent tracking information than the alleged judicial foundation presently relied upon against a family home.
Yet somehow this is presented as the gold standard of modern due process.
One almost expects the next charging order to arrive with:
“Your liability is very important to us. Please continue holding while accountability is transferred to another department.”
CPR 1.1 speaks nobly of the “overriding objective” and dealing with matters justly, fairly, and proportionately.
Apparently modern interpretation now includes threatening sale of a family home while the underlying judicial records play an extended game of hide-and-seek with HMCTS.
A bold procedural innovation.
Halsbury’s Laws discusses natural justice and the principle that no person should be condemned unheard.
Modern bulk processing, however, appears to have significantly streamlined the “heard” portion of the exercise.
One imagines Section 51 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act rocking gently in the corner clutching Halsbury’s Laws while whispering:
“individual judicial consideration… individual judicial consideration…”
3. MAGNA CARTA — NOW FEATURING MICROSOFT EXCEL
Magna Carta 1215 famously declared:
“To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”
A beautiful constitutional principle.
Fast forward 800 years and the modern administrative translation now appears to read:
“To no one will we provide the underlying proof, but we may still threaten sale of their home based upon a spreadsheet, a missing record, and collective institutional optimism.”
Progress truly is magnificent.
The Charter of the Forest sought to restrain arbitrary interference.
The Statute of Marlborough restrained abuses of distraint and process.
Meanwhile modern administrative enforcement appears to have courageously asked:
“What if we simply automated the presumption instead?”
An extraordinary constitutional evolution.
The men who drafted Magna Carta could never have imagined that centuries later the greatest threat to property rights would not arrive:
on horseback;
carrying swords;
beneath banners of conquest—
but instead through an email attachment and a council-generated spreadsheet.
History truly is beautiful.
3A. THE BILL OF RIGHTS 1689 — NOW WITH ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE UPGRADES
The Bill of Rights 1689 emerged following widespread concern regarding abuses of power, unlawful authority, and rulers behaving as though legality was whatever they said it was before breakfast.
A controversial position apparently.
The constitutional principle seemed straightforward enough:
If power is exercised against the people, there should probably exist:
lawful authority;
accountability;
transparent process;
and actual evidence.
A wildly ambitious concept, admittedly.
Thankfully modern administrative enforcement has evolved far beyond such primitive constitutional limitations.
Today, apparently, a family home may be threatened through the combined constitutional majesty of:
assumptions;
unsigned documents;
unidentified decision-makers;
disappearing records;
and collective institutional confidence.
One must admire the efficiency.
Former Speaker Betty Boothroyd publicly affirmed that the Bill of Rights remains in force today exactly as enacted.
One suspects she perhaps imagined this would involve constitutional safeguards retaining practical meaning rather than standing politely in the background while Microsoft Excel quietly annexes due process.
The Bill of Rights restrained arbitrary exercises of power.
Modern administrative interpretation appears instead to operate on the principle that: | 167 |
| 10 | One might naturally assume this means identifiable judicial records actually exist somewhere within the kingdom.
However, the Internal Review then entered the theatre production with the equally fascinating revelation that my data, “if held”, could not actually be located with the information provided at the time.
Thus the public is invited to accept the following constitutional masterpiece simultaneously:
The records exist;
The records are exempt because they exist;
The records cannot be located;
But enforcement against one’s home may nevertheless continue with absolute confidence.
At this stage, even Schrödinger’s cat is requesting disclosure.
One might respectfully suggest that if a process is sufficiently powerful to interfere with property rights, register charges against land, threaten possession proceedings, and potentially remove families from their homes, then the underlying judicial instruments should perhaps exist in a form more tangible than a mystical administrative rumour passed between departments like a medieval relic no one is permitted to see.
It is also reassuring to know that threats involving the potential sale of a family home may now apparently be issued by semi-anonymous departments operating under collective administrative consciousness, without any visibly accountable individual willing to place their own name prominently upon the machinery they seek to operate.
One assumes identifiable accountability has simply become another charming constitutional relic now quietly retired alongside transparent process and visible judicial scrutiny.
Curiously, throughout this extraordinary process involving threats against a family home, no identifiable living claimant appears willing to stand openly behind the alleged liability as a fully accountable injured party.
Instead, the process seems to operate almost entirely through:
departments;
entities;
administrative labels;
legal abstractions;
and institutional presumptions—
all confidently asserting authority while no actual individual appears willing to step forward and state:
“I personally verify these claims, these sums, these records, and this process as true and lawful.”
A fascinating development in modern justice.
The ordinary man might once have imagined that before taking a home:
someone identifiable would make the claim;
someone accountable would verify the facts;
someone visible would accept responsibility;
and someone with lawful authority would openly stand behind the process.
Instead, the alleged liability appears to drift mysteriously through the administrative universe under the protective guidance of the ever-sacred legal fiction, while identifiable accountability remains safely hidden behind departmental curtains.
Quite the constitutional magic trick.
2. THE SACRED LIABILITY ORDER SCHEDULE
Special recognition must also be given to the now legendary liability order schedule.
A document so powerful that despite:
lacking transparent individualized judicial reasoning;
lacking identifiable judicial accountability;
lacking sworn evidence;
lacking statements of truth;
and apparently lacking any need whatsoever for proper evidential scrutiny—
it nonetheless acquires legal powers previously reserved for actual court orders.
One can only assume the schedule is stored somewhere between:
the Ark of the Covenant;
the Holy Grail;
and Lord Denning’s missing patience.
The Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 contemplates judicial consideration.
The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 contemplate lawful process before a Magistrates’ Court.
The Civil Procedure Rules speak enthusiastically about fairness, proportionality, transparency, and the overriding objective.
Halsbury’s Laws of England discusses lawful authority, procedural fairness, and the administration of justice according to law rather than administrative convenience.
Meanwhile, in practical reality:
spreadsheets glide majestically through administrative corridors;
assumptions are lovingly stamped into existence; | 212 |
| 11 | satirical letter to the council solicitors.....cant make it any more clearer than stating to obvious and hopefully it will make it as plain as possible for everyone to see the corruption that is being forced onto all off us.....Please repost this to all social media....let people see the under handed lies that they go to to get what they want....
NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE, DISPUTE, AND CHALLENGE TO PRESUMED LIABILITY
WITHOUT PREJUDICE | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED | VI COACTUS
From:
: ; a living man.
:Executor & Beneficiary.
All Rights Reserved
To:
Solicitors
Erewash Borough Council
Any and all agents, officers, administrative departments, invisible judicial entities, and custodians of sacred spreadsheets
Re: Alleged Council Tax Liability / Charging Order / Threatened Order for Sale
Dear Sirs,
After approximately five years attempting to obtain actual proof before the threatened sale of a family home, I have finally come to appreciate that I have been approaching this entirely the wrong way.
Like a fool, I believed:
evidence mattered;
court records existed;
judges signed orders;
seals authenticated documents;
claimants identified themselves;
and due process involved something more sophisticated than “because the council said so.”
Clearly I have been hopelessly old-fashioned.
I now recognise that modern administrative justice operates on a much higher plane of existence where:
unidentified people issue unsigned documents;
invisible judicial officers secretly authorise liabilities;
court records mysteriously evaporate;
and constitutional protections survive mainly as ceremonial ornaments wheeled out for anniversaries and law lectures.
A truly breathtaking legal evolution.
1. THE INCREDIBLE INVISIBLE JUDGE
Particular admiration must be extended toward the mysterious judicial figure apparently responsible for authorising life-altering liabilities while remaining completely unidentified throughout the process.
A remarkable achievement.
In ordinary life, if:
a doctor prescribed surgery;
a pilot flew an aircraft;
or a builder signed off structural works—
one would normally expect to know their identity.
Not here.
Modern administrative enforcement appears to operate more like a medieval ghost story where unnamed judicial spirits descend silently in the night to bless council spreadsheets with mystical legal authority before vanishing back into the constitutional mist.
One almost expects the liability order to arrive by owl from Hogwarts bearing the words:
“Signed somewhere… by someone… trust us.”
Quite reassuring when family homes are involved.
Even CPR 40.2 contemplates proper drawing, sealing, and authentication of orders.
Yet apparently modern constitutional practice has evolved beyond such antique formalities.
One imagines the ghost of Lord Denning gently peering over his spectacles asking:
“You are threatening the sale of a family home… and nobody thought signatures might be useful?”
One is therefore left attempting to navigate the truly remarkable phenomenon of the modern administrative liability order: a creature so advanced in constitutional evolution that it apparently both exists and does not exist simultaneously.
The Ministry of Justice first confirmed that it “holds personal data” relating to liability orders, summonses, recovery orders and warrant proceedings involving me. Admirably reassuring — until the same correspondence then explained that such records could not be disclosed because they were allegedly exempt under judicial processing provisions. | 259 |
| 12 | https://youtu.be/qZOiN1cC-QE?si=YCN5qsNdm0psWmbx | 323 |
| 13 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXiKnQpOi0I&t=242s | 507 |
| 14 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKnZuhKekj4 | 546 |
| 15 | GREAT NEWS ABOUT THE BATTLE AGAINST CHEMTRAILS
Dear Friends,
For years, millions of people have looked up at the skies and asked the same questions:
What are those trails spreading across the atmosphere? Why do some disappear quickly while others expand into massive white haze that blankets the sky? Why has the public never received clear answers? And why have governments and regulatory agencies consistently avoided addressing this directly?
For the past two years, researchers, legal experts, public health advocates, and environmental investigators have conducted one of the most extensive independent investigations ever undertaken into these questions.
What we uncovered is far bigger than most people realize.
After hundreds of hours of scientific analysis, federal regulatory review, atmospheric data investigation, and legal research, we are now prepared to publicly reveal what we found.
This is not speculation. This is not internet rumor.
This is a formal federal legal action backed by peer-reviewed science, government data, documented atmospheric evidence, and the government’s own records.
A landmark Petition for Rulemaking has now been formally filed with the EPA. For the first time, a comprehensive legal and scientific case regarding atmospheric aerosol operations and emissions has been placed directly into the federal record.
The EPA is now legally required to respond.
The clock has started.
The agency has 180 days to answer. If it refuses to act, the next step is federal court.
This changes everything.
For over twenty years, citizens, researchers, legislators, and environmental activists have asked the right questions while lacking a complete legal and scientific framework to force accountability.
Now that framework exists.
For the first time, the science, legal mechanisms, regulatory pathways, documented evidence, and accountability structure have all been unified into one coordinated federal action.
We are no longer merely asking questions.
We are demanding answers.
And this time, those answers cannot simply be ignored.
What we uncovered challenges many assumptions people have held for years. Some findings may surprise even longtime researchers. But the evidence speaks for itself.
This is not a replay of old debates.
This is entirely new ground.
And it is historic.
Joining this effort are leading researchers and advocates including James Franklin Lee Jr. of ClimateViewer News LLC, Reinette Senum of GenSeven and SaveOurSkies.org, Leslie Manookian of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, Michael Hogan of Missouri Clean Skies, and Valerie Ferrell of Stand for Health Freedom.
During the public webinar, the coalition will present:
• Scientific evidence and atmospheric data
• Federal documents exposing regulatory failures
• The legal strategy now in motion
• What this means for state-level efforts nationwide
• The path forward toward genuine atmospheric accountability and clean skies
Monday, May 4, 2026
5:00 PM Pacific
Streaming live on YouTube, Rumble, and X.
A live Q&A will follow.
Bring your questions. Bring your skepticism. Bring your evidence.
We will bring ours.
Two years ago, this investigation began with questions. What was uncovered revealed a much larger picture involving atmospheric operations, regulatory failures, environmental consequences, and institutional silence that can no longer be ignored.
The era of vague speculation is ending.
The era of evidence, legal accountability, and direct federal challenge has begun.
Monday night, the public will finally see the full picture.
https://www.youtube.com/live/jGlVChXfNk0?si=BlqoiA7mCtIsmqYU | 622 |
| 16 |  +1بدون متن... | 404 |
| 17 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaMMcDbmDHM | 433 |
| 18 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKTuf5WSW7w | 0 |
| 19 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdThScj7VPs | 0 |
| 20 |  Flashback to 2020 .. It was all so obviously BS 🐂 💩
“Clinicians, if the test is negative, ask for another test, or if you believe the patient has Covid-19, just tell the patient they have it.” -
Dr. Mandy Cohen, sec of NC HHS. | 0 |
