Category: Opinion & Commentaries Written by Bassey Utip Hits: 1291
EVIDENCE THAT CHANCELLOR OSBORNE AND PRIME MINISTER CAMERON ARE AWARE OF, AND PARTY TO, AN ATTEMPT TO MURDER A BLACK MAN AS PART OF AN ENTERPRISE OF INVENTION ROBBERY AND ATTEMPTED ENSLAVEMENT.
It is a given fact that you cannot impose a twelve year long criminal blockade and sabotage of every aspect of a personâ€™s life and endeavour, as has been done to me, unless you intend, and attempt, to kill or drive them to suicide.
I have been the target of just such a blockade which begun during the Premiership of Tony Blair. My letter of 1st February 2007 to Margaret Hodge MP, documents and substantiates a phase of that criminal blockade during which private and public organisations engaged in a coordinated enterprise to â€˜stripâ€™ me of everything that I owned. That same letter of 1st February 2007 substantiates how successive employers refused to pay me monies which they accepted I had earned and they owed to me, whilst in the same breath informing me that they valued my services and did not want me to leave, and at the same time also threatening me that I would be ill-advised to terminate my employment with them - I did of course terminate and found that each subsequent employer made sure to pay me less than the one before.
The outcome of that desperation to force me into a state of dependence is that I have, through a sequence of events that was deliberately and unlawfully initiated and facilitated by Gordon Brown, been deliberately placed in circumstance in which I am without money, without accommodation, and without means of sustaining myself or rebuilding my life - all because British politicians want something from me, have nothing to offer in return, and so have laid a criminal siege on my life in attempt, by deceit and coercion, to force me into handing them what they want and surrendering rights to what they have already stolen from me.
Communications with British Government Officials in endeavour to gain address and redress:
I attach previously emailed copy of my open letter of 13th December 2011 to Prime Minister David Cameron. In it I raised:
(a) the British Governments duty to effect cessation of a twelve-year long criminal campaign which, begun by the Government of Tony Blair and facilitated by Mr Blair himself, has been used to molest my person, rob me of three lucrative inventions (map-based Satellite Navigation, automatic number-plate recognition systems, and a hand-held Mini-cab operating system) and used to facilitate further attempts to rob me of a fourth and published invention (â€œManipulator Apparatus and Drive Elements Therefore - WO2006082369â€œ) which provides means of performing the automated manufacture of garments and lampshades: organisations connected to the Office of Mayor of London, the DTI, and the London Olympics, sabotaged my attempts to commercialise that invention and did so for the sole reason of stopping me. Events, and information provided to me, confirm that the same organisations used the same invention, without my knowledge or participation, to fraudulently obtain EU grant funding.
(b) the British government, in satisfaction of its duty of care, to pay me damages which are due to me as a result of a criminally intended and criminally orchestrated detention, under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. During his term as Prime Minister, Mr Gordon Brown committed a criminal offence in order to have me unlawfully subjected to that detention and did so as part of attempts to coerce from me control of the above mentioned fourth and published manufacturing invention. I raised the issue of payment because, as confirmed by my letter of 1st February 2007 to Margaret Hodge MP, an established trend of the criminal campaign that has been waged against me is of the determined sabotage and blockade of my every attempt to gain payment of the financial damages that are due to me because of the many acts of damage which have been deliberately inflicted to my person.
(c) the Cameron Government, in satisfaction of its statutory obligations to, to provide me means of placing this case and its facts, before a British court of law, for adjudication under British law.
The sequence and nature of incidents that have been contrived to damage me confirm that one of the many irrefutable objectives of that criminal campaign has been to use financial deprivation as means of forcing me into a state of complete dependence on British politicians and those that are answerable to them as part of effort to coerce me into handing over control of my private affairs: the only motivation being entirely financial.
Proven Ministerial Knowledge and consequential statutory duty to resolve: Given the provable fact that Government Ministers know of this case, having in some cases been involved in facilitating the damage that has been inflicted on me, the history and facts of this case show this to have been little more than a vendetta against my person and motivated by intent to rob me and desire to prevent me from recovering inventions that have already been stolen from me. That vendetta has now placed me in circumstance which threatens my life.
Regarding assertion that Government Ministers know about and have been involved in facilitating the wanton criminal damage that has been inflicted on me, I attach the following to this email:
(1) Copy of my letter of 13th December 2011 to Prime Minister Cameron, with addendum which includes copy of my letter of 19th December 2007 to David Cameron when he was Leader of the Opposition, my letter of 22nd November 2007 to Mr Chancellor Osborne, Mr Osborneâ€˜s letter to me of 30th November 2007, my letters of 18th January and 2nd December 2008 to Mr David Burrowes. . The letter of 19th December 2007, which I wrote to David Cameron when he was Leader of the Opposition, refers to facts which confirm that, as Leader of the Opposition, he discussed my case with Mr Osborne and with David Burrowes MP. The outcome of those discussions was that decision was taken which, against my interest and logically as part of a deal with Gordon Brown, resulted in the refusal by David Burrowes to honour his commitment to obtain answers from Mr Brown about my allegations of Mr Brown's criminal harassment of my person - as Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, gave up a clear need to remove the Government of the day on grounds of its abuse of office and must have done so on anticipation of â€˜profitâ€˜- that profit is consistent with the attempts to coerce me into handing over shares/ownership of my fourth and published invention.
(2) Copies of my emails, to and from Chancellor Osborne, during the month of December 2011 (13th, 14th, 22nd, 29th, and 30th December 2011). Those emails, along with my further emails of 3rd and 5th January 2012, confirm that Chancellor Osborneâ€™s Office and staff are well aware of this case and of the present circumstance which it has been used to force on me. Mr Osborne is not entitled to, on the one hand breach protocol in order to use his ministerial and shadow ministerial position to facilitate a crime and then take refuge behind non-applicable aspects of the protocols of Office when duty calls and payment falls due - especially when he does so at somebody else's personal risk and cost.
The attached copy of my email of 15th December 2011 to Chancellor Osborneâ€™s Parliamentary assistant (Lisa M Buckland) followed telephone conversation which I held with her on that day during which conversation she provided me with her own email address and asked that I forward the information to her at her own email address and that she would bring the matter to Chancellor Osborneâ€™s personal attention. On 22nd December 2011 I again sent email to Chancellor Osborneâ€™s Parliamentary and ministerial email accounts and copied Mr Gordon Brown into those emails. I have not received any response from Mr Brown and have only received acknowledgements from Chancellor Osborne's office. No response has come from 10 Downing Street.
Connection between Gordon Brown and the Cameron leadership: The attached documents, and emails to Chancellor Osborne, relay and substantiate facts which confirm that, in 2007/8, Prime Minister Cameron and his Chancellor (Mr Osborne) were both aware of, and personally involved in, this case; that they discussed it in detail with David Burrowes MP and with the then Prime Minister, Mr Gordon Brown; that the outcome of those discussions was decision by Messrs Cameron and Osborne to abandon their statutory duties to raise question about Mr Brown's abuse of Prime Ministerial office, and the blockade (by David Burrowes) of my attempt to gain answer from Mr Brown to my allegations of his criminal harassment of my person which I had raised with David Burrowes MP and Ministerial address of this case. These public officers clearly did not do so pursuant to their statutory responsibilities and duties since the matter concerned criminal offences and the abuse of office.
In November 2007 I raised with David Burrowes the fact that I was the target of a criminal campaign of harassment that was being waged against my person by Gordon Brown. In the same November 2007 Mr Brown abandoned his plans to call a general election: my contention is that Mr Brown had not, at that time reached agreement with your party regarding this case and abandoned those election plans out of concern that your party make this case an election issue. In January 2008 David Burrowes then wrote to me deceiving me with declaration his intent to gain for me responses from three government Ministers, of which one was Gordon Brown. Events suggest that David Burrowes did so partly in threat to Gordon Brown - since Burrowesâ€™ referel of this case to Gordon Brown would have forced Mr Brown to do what he did not want to do which is resolve this case. Events suggest that following Burrowesâ€™ letter of 14 January 2008, that by February 2008 David Cameron had struck a deal with Gordon Brown. Notwithstanding whether or not it was Burrowesâ€™ intention to inform me of a deal between yourselves and Gordon Brown, the fact that your collective communications and confirm that such a deal did take place.
I maintain that it was in honour of that deal that Gordon Brown, a seasoned political campaigner and renowned control addict who had not let an inappropriate word slip during his ten years at the Treasury, sabotaged his own 2010 general election campaign in order to effectively put your party back in the position that it would have been in in 2007, had it called him to account in respect of this case when I first raised it with David Burrowes.
Those discussions (between Chancellor Osborne, Prime Minister Cameron, and David Burrowes) which brought about the above-mentioned deal do not support current attempt, by the Chancellor and his Parliamentary Office, to take refuge behind protocol: as per facts contained in my letter of 19th December 2007 to David Cameron, Mr Osborne broke protocol in 2007/8 by engaging in detailed discussion of a constituent's [my] affairs with that constituent's MP and did so without having first obtained that constituent's permission and, being a member of the Shadow Government, then used that constituent's personal affairs as foundation for a party political 'trade' that was in breach of British law.
Connection between Mr Brown and the criminally orchestrated detention under the Mental Health Act: Irrespective of whatever back room political dealings ook place between Mr Brown and Mr Cameron, facts and subsequent events confirm that the result of that 'trade' between Mr Cameron and then Prime Minister Brown was my subjection to the criminally orchestrated and unlawful detention, under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, to which then Prime Minister Brown committed a criminal act to achieve: Mr Brown handed, to Enfield Council, law compliant and Data Protection Act protected letters which I had written to him regarding his statutory and public duties. Enfield Council then untenably used the same letters as part of excuse on which I was detained under the Mental Health Act: Enfield Council was unable to identify what in the letters satisfied the definition of a mental disorder within the definition of section 1 of the Mental Health Act.
Enfield Council, in attempt to protect Mr Brown, claimed to have been provided those letters by a fictitious organisation called FTAC - FTAC cannot exist, not least because the manner in which it is claimed to operate would require that each government minister be a qualified and practicing psychiatrist in order that said minister stand any prospect of carrying out the impossible task of discerning, from a letter, that its author suffers from a mental disorder within the definition of section 1 of the Mental Health Act. Evidence of Gordon Brownâ€™s criminal culpability, and legal reasons why FTAC cannot exist, are provided in document which can be downloaded from this link: [https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5vlPoH38tfUYmM3NjUzMDctYmE1Ni00OTAzLTlhNWItZGYwN2VjNmU3NWFk] and at [http://basseyutip.wordpress.com]. The same document deals with the more evil aspects of the inhumane and criminal campaign that has been waged against me.
Connection between the criminally orchestrated detention and my present circumstance: The foregoing facts, followed by Enfield Council's refusal to pay me the damages that were due to me, and that Council's decision to then evict me, confirm that the present circumstance, of pennilessness and homelessness, into which I have been deliberately placed and which threatens my life was pre-planned. As confirmed by facts, that were relayed in my letter of 12th November 2007 to Gordon Brown, that sequence of deliberately damaging incidents, relentlessly visited upon one man over a twelve year period, must be viewed as intended, and in attempt, to secure my death.
Absence of tenable and lawful reason or logic: To date, and in respect of my person, every rule and law in the book has been broken, ignored, or evaded, and every aspect of due process trampled on - by successive British Prime Ministers and their administrations. To date no individual, or organisation, has been able to provide a tenable or lawful reason, justification, or cause, for this criminal campaign that has been waged against my person - although it is well known that it is part of attempt by British politicians to manipulate and control me into providing specific performance in delivery of agreements which they entered into, in respect of my property, knowing that they did so without my knowledge or prior consent, to my disadvantage, and in deliberate contravention of my wishes and rights.
That absence of reason and logic is evidenced by the fact that I have yet to lose an argument on points of law or governing principle. Yet, on each occasion when the politicians and statutory authorities have lost the argument - even on grounds which they themselves put forward - they have simply abandoned the conversation (as did Gordon Brown MP; former MPs Joan Ryan, Andrew MacKinlay and Tony McNulty; David Burrowes MP, the OPHSO, DVLA, Margaret Hodge MP, Enfield Council, BEH-MHT, Metropolitan Police, University of East London, Companies House, St Annâ€™s Hospital, and every firm of solicitors that has represented me), effectively declared â€œso whatâ€, and made untenable demand that we hold the same discussion all over again, presumably in hope that they might, the second time round, manage to get the outcome that they want.
Having repeatedly made clear that I have no desire or intention of involvement with any political party, or in the business of government and government policy, it becomes logical that the sole reason for the criminal campaign against me is money - what British politicians actually want is an outcome which enables them to rob me: it is the reason why David Cameron, Chancellor Osborne, and Gordon Brown, to this date remain unable to respond directly to the facts and serious allegations that are set out in my letter of 13th December 2011 to Prime Minister Cameron.
I have stated that the twelve year long criminal campaign of robbery that has been waged against me was begun by Tony Blair, during his term as British Prime Minister. I believe it pertinent that:
(3) Evidence suggests the criminal campaign against me to be the brain-child of Tony Blair who has a vested interset in the continuation of this criminal campaign:
(a) in 2005/6 the OPHSO, having reached a finding of maladministration in my favour against the DVLA, then proceeded to break the law, and due process, in order to frustrate and sabotage my receipt of payment of the damages that were due to me; the OPHSO would not have done so without being subjected to political influence. The OPHSO would have sought, through consultation with the highest political office in the land, to establish the authenticity of that political influence - Tony Blair was the holder of that office at that time.
(b) statements and fact that are relayed in my letter of 7th August 2007 to Mr Jack Straw at the MoJ and letter of 20th February 2007 from 10 Downing Street, confirm Tony Blair's personal knowledge of, and deliberate facilitation of, the criminal campaign that has been waged against me. Examination of the timing, sequence of events and incidents, and the identities of those that have been involved, leads me to conclude that this criminal campaign against me has been the brain child of Tony Blair, and that the three lucrative inventions that have been stolen from me are likely in his hands, or else in hands close to his.
(c) beginning in 2007 the Blair government evaded address of this case and, through Margaret Hodge and others, was closely connected to the numerous attempts to rob me of said fourth and published invention. Between 2007 and 2009 the Blair and Brown governments did all they could to magnify the quantum of liability which results from this case and I suggest did so in a Blair-ite hedge of their options: the intention (confirmed by the repeated interference with my legal representation and attempts to push me into dependence on my disowned paternal relatives) was that Labour Ministers would, through my disowned nearest relative, purloin a share of my damages and thereby ensure that they were â€˜compensatedâ€™ in the event that I recovered the three inventions that were stolen from me during the Blair Premiership. It is, in part, pursuant to that criminal reason that Enfield Council deliberately breached its duty to consult the person â€œappearingâ€ to be the nearest relative.
(4) it has repeatedly been asserted that I need a â€œsupport structureâ€. Events suggest this to be reason why I have found myself constantly under attack and subjected to constant and unlawful government sponsored interference in, and sabotage of, my private life and affairs: intended to force me into needing an â€˜armyâ€™ if I am to be able to fight back and survive. Those who have made that suggestion deliberately evaded the fact that every incident that makes up the unprovoked criminal campaign that has been waged against me is one in which the organisations that are intended to provide citizens with that support structure have, in my case and without reason, turned in attempt to rob or damage me. Contention that I need a support structure is intended to entrap me into having a support structure with a composition that is determined, and thus controlled, by the perpetrators of the criminal campaign against me - the objective being to place spies in my life and is evidenced by the repeated third party interference in my affairs including interference with my legal representation. That makes this case one of intent to murder.
(5) The following are significant facts and worthy of note:
(a) This case has provably come to the direct and personal knowledge of three Prime Ministers - Tony Blair who marched the country into a war that it did not want, Gordon Brown who "summoned" the world for a 'financial crisis', and David Cameron. Yet each of these Prime Ministers has so far feigned inability to address this single case on its legal merit - even though dealing with it falls within their statutory duties and responsibilities. Is this case bigger than the Iraq war and the â€˜global financial crises or is it that the sums involved are too large for politicians to â€˜let goâ€™?
(b) Given that I do not constitute an unlawful threat and sought to contribute to the British economy, one must question why successive Prime Ministers , and their administrations, have adopted this unofficial and unlawful policy towards my person when all concerned claim to want the same thing. I suggest the answer to lie in the inventions that have already been stolen from me, and want of control of any further inventions that I might have - as means of controlling and containing me. I believe it is clear that I will not, in respect of my property and rights, honour any agreements that have not been negotiated by me or with my personal, prior, and specific, consent.
(c) Mr Gordon Brown MP is personally responsible by virtue of his collusion with Enfield Council and others to have me subjected to a criminally orchestrated and unlawful detention of my person under the Mental Health Act; an act of collusion which attempt was made to conceal through false claim of the existence of a fictitious entity called FTAC. By virtue of his unlawful collusion with Enfield Council and others to have that criminally orchestrated unlawful detention inflicted on me, in law Mr Brown is deemed to be aware of and party to every unlawful act which Enfield Council and the BEH-MHT inflicted on me.
(d) James Rolfe of Enfield Council is personally responsible by virtue of his refusal, contrary to section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, to pay me damages properly due to me in respect of a duly proven case that Enfield Council subjected me to a criminally orchestrated and unlawful detention of my person and by reason of his eviction of my person into circumstances which he accepted constituted his engagement in a â€œmurderous enterpriseâ€.
(e) Chancellor George Osborne is personally responsible by virtue of the fact that, being a Minister of State, he has personal knowledge of this case - having previously been personally involved in facilitating the events which have placed me in my present circumstance. The attached documents confirm that you knew of this criminal campaign against my person and, despite the damage which it caused to efforts to contribute to the UK economy and loss which it also posed to the taxpayer, decided to ignore it and facilitated continuation of that criminal campaign. I contend that he did so for personal gain.
(f) Prime Minister David Cameron is personally responsible by virtue, as confirmed by my letter to him of 19th December 2007, of the fact that he was himself aware of this case during his term as Leader of the Opposition, was aware that it involved criminal allegations of abuse of the highest government office in the land by his predecessor in office, but elected to use it for his own personal political betterment and to that end refused to act when the potential quantum of damages was much lower.
Conclusion: The foregoing fact confirm this to be the de facto covert attempt to murder a black man, of African birth and parentage and holder of a British passport, in order to stop him from regaining inventions that have been stolen from him and in continuing attempt to rob/coerce same into handing over control of a fourth and published invention for satisfaction of the personal wants of named politicians. It is a criminal campaign which satisfies the description of a racist hate crime, and is motivated entirely by greed and personal gratification: David Cameron currently holds me hostage, I suggest as part of the agreement which he reached with Gordon Brown in 2007/8, to coerce from me control and use of my invention and the financial benefits that might accrue from it. That is against British law and will not happen. For cogent reasons of safety, I will not issue human rights proceedings prior to being paid by the British government.
Nonetheless, and irrespective of what has gone before, statutory responsibility for the consequences of this case fall on Prime Minister David Cameron, Chancellor George Osborne, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and James Rolfe of Enfield Council.
Duty to resolve and pay: The British Government has a statutory and moral duty to pay me in respect of the damage that has been wantonly and unlawfully inflicted on me by its agents, officials, and Prime Ministers. That duty is magnified by the fact that officials and agents of the British government have unlawfully, and criminally, interfered in my affairs in order to prevent me from achieving a lawful resolution.
I am, as I made known to Chancellor Osborneâ€™s office, without money and without accommodation.
You cannot impose a twelve year long unlawful and criminal blockade and sabotage of every aspect of a personâ€™s life and endeavour, as has been done to me, unless you intend, and attempt, to kill or drive that person to suicide. Equally, you do not obtain something by deceit and coercion unless you fully intend to retain it - by deceit and coercion!