“DAVOS, Switzerland — Eight years ago, Davos Man mocked Donald Trump. Five years ago, he despised Trump. But in 2025, the mood at the World Economic Forum has completely changed.”
Applied I F Limited, Non-Political Investigation into Voting Integrity at U.K. General Election held on 7 May 2015 and Since, the Electoral Commission Corrupted Its Own Voting Count Model which has 3 Primary Voting Categories Missing, which is NOT Compliant with Electoral Laws, nor indeed, is it Compliant with the Electoral Commission Own Voting " Count Model for Counting Officers " which the Electoral Commission produced in 2010 to Regulate Elections and used up until November / December 2014 , the Electoral Commission by Corrupting Its Own Voting Count Model has caused a Constitutional Crisis, making the House of Commons an Unelected House, which has been happening across many countries in the Western part of the World. The fact therefore remains, any Laws enacted are "Null and Void" "Ultra Vires" Stealing Your Vote = Stealing Your Fundamental Freedoms = Enslavement. The Seventeenth Century Doctrine " Fundamental Law " Bill of Rights 1688/89 cannot be tampered with , while Sovereignty remains the Central Function. The U.S. enshrined the Doctrine Bill of Rights into there Constitution in 1776. The Bill of Rights includes Freedoms, Free and Fair Elections and forbids invasion of the shores. The Magna Carta 1215 is also a Doctrine. The Secret Ballot Act 1872 was enacted to allow the electorate to Vote on a Ballot Paper, instead of a show of hands, which meant they could not lose their job or home, because of who they voted for. The Representation of the People Act was enacted which also includes postal voting, The E.U. has elected MEP's , but they do not run the E.U. the EU top positions who want to rule the world, is run by the WEF, IMF , WHO , NATO and the list goes on, who are not elected by the people? While the One World Government has a Depopulation Agenda, Climate Change Agenda and many laws, rules and regulations which are thousands of pages, which is a nonsense in itself, as it restricts the Freedoms of the People. One has to question whether the One World Government is abiding by the Magna Carta 1215, the Bill of Rights 1688/89, the Representation of the People Act 1983, the Nuremberg Code 1947, the Geneva Protocol, the Prorogation Act which is also part of the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011? One also has to question a One World Government which has a Depopulation Agenda, how many people have had adverse reactions, how many people have died and are dying, does any of their actions, bare any resemblance to what happened in WWII ? ARCHBOLD 2013
SWEET & MAXWELL
II NATURE OF INDICTABLE OFFENCES
A. WHEN AN INDICTMENT LIES
(1) GENERAL
1-2 An indictment is the ordinary common law remedy for all treasons,
misprisions of treasons and offences of a public nature:
2 Hawk. c. 25, ss.1, 4. It is also the means by which certain
offences created by or under statute are brought before the Crown
Court for trial
(2) Breach of common law duty
1-3 An indictment lies at common law for a breach of duty which is not
a mere private injury but an outrage on the moral duties of society,
e.g. neglect to provide sufficient food, medical aid or other
necessaries, for a person unable to provide for himself, and for
whom the defendant is obliged by duty or contract to provide, where
such neglect injures the health of that person, whether the person
injured is of extreme age (R. v. Instan [1893] 1 Q.B. 450), or of
tender years (R. v. Senior [1899] 1 Q.B. 283 at 289), or is the
defendant or servant (R. v. Smith (1865) L. & C. 607), or an
apprentice (R. v. Smith (1837) 8 C. & P. 153), or is a person of
unsound mind (R. v. Pelham [1846] 8 Q.B. 959). See also post, 19-22
et seq. (manslaughter). The common law is strengthened by statutory
provisions, e.g. Offences against the Person Act 1861, s.26 (servants
and apprentices); CYPA 1933, s.1 (persons under 16); MHA 1983, s.127
(persons of unsound mind).It being a democratic principle, however,
that it is for Parliament and not the executive or judges to
determine whether conduct not previously regarded as criminal should
be treated as such, statute is now to be regarded as the sole source
of new offences: R. v. Jones; Ayliffe v. DPP; Swain v. Same [2007]
1 A.C. 136, HL; and R. (Gentle) v. Prime Minister [2008] 1 A.C. 1356,
HL (at [40]) (and see post, 1-5).
Unless a statute specifically so provides, or the case is one
in which the common law, in the criminal context, imposes a duty or
responsibility on one person to act in a particular way towards
another, then a mere omission to act cannot make the person, who so
fails to do something, guilty of a criminal offence: see R. v. Miller
[1983] 2 A.C. 161, HL, where the appellant was held liable for his
reckless omission to take steps to nullify a risk of damage to
property which had been created by his own earlier inadvertent act
(see furth post, 23-10, 23-31). The House of Lords approached the
facts on the basis that-unlike the case of the mere bystander-the
appellant had a duty to act.
(3) Acts prejudicing the public
1-4 An indictment lies at common law for any act of wilful negligence
which endangers human life or health: Williams v. East India Co.
(1802) 3 East 192; Shillito v. Thompson (1875) 1 Q.B.D. 12; or
against an innkeeper for failing to provide traveller with food and
lodging without reasonable excuse, on being tendered a reasonable
price; the question of what amounts to a reasonable excuse being a
question of fact for the jury: R. v. Higgins (1948) 1 K.B. 165 32
Applied I F Limited, Non-Political Investigation into Voting Integrity at U.K. General Election held on 7 May 2015 and Since, the Electoral Commission Corrupted Its Own Voting Count Model which has 3 Primary Voting Categories Missing, which is NOT Compliant with Electoral Laws, nor indeed, is it Compliant with the Electoral Commission Own Voting " Count Model for Counting Officers " which the Electoral Commission produced in 2010 to Regulate Elections and used up until November / December 2014 , the Electoral Commission by Corrupting Its Own Voting Count Model has caused a Constitutional Crisis, making the House of Commons an Unelected House, which has been happening across many countries in the Western part of the World. The fact therefore remains, any Laws enacted are "Null and Void" "Ultra Vires" Stealing Your Vote = Stealing Your Fundamental Freedoms = Enslavement. The Seventeenth Century Doctrine " Fundamental Law " Bill of Rights 1688/89 cannot be tampered with , while Sovereignty remains the Central Function. The U.S. enshrined the Doctrine Bill of Rights into there Constitution in 1776. The Bill of Rights includes Freedoms, Free and Fair Elections and forbids invasion of the shores. The Magna Carta 1215 is also a Doctrine. The Secret Ballot Act 1872 was enacted to allow the electorate to Vote on a Ballot Paper, instead of a show of hands, which meant they could not lose their job or home, because of who they voted for. The Representation of the People Act was enacted which also includes postal voting, The E.U. has elected MEP's , but they do not run the E.U. the EU top positions who want to rule the world, is run by the WEF, IMF , WHO , NATO and the list goes on, who are not elected by the people? While the One World Government has a Depopulation Agenda, Climate Change Agenda and many laws, rules and regulations which are thousands of pages, which is a nonsense in itself, as it restricts the Freedoms of the People. One has to question whether the One World Government is abiding by the Magna Carta 1215, the Bill of Rights 1688/89, the Representation of the People Act 1983, the Nuremberg Code 1947, the Geneva Protocol, the Prorogation Act which is also part of the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011? One also has to question a One World Government which has a Depopulation Agenda, how many people have had adverse reactions, how many people have died and are dying, does any of their actions, bare any resemblance to what happened in WWII ? ARCHBOLD 2013
SWEET & MAXWELL
II NATURE OF INDICTABLE OFFENCES
A. WHEN AN INDICTMENT LIES
(1) GENERAL
1-2 An indictment is the ordinary common law remedy for all treasons,
misprisions of treasons and offences of a public nature:
2 Hawk. c. 25, ss.1, 4. It is also the means by which certain
offences created by or under statute are brought before the Crown
Court for trial
(2) Breach of common law duty
1-3 An indictment lies at common law for a breach of duty which is not
a mere private injury but an outrage on the moral duties of society,
e.g. neglect to provide sufficient food, medical aid or other
necessaries, for a person unable to provide for himself, and for
whom the defendant is obliged by duty or contract to provide, where
such neglect injures the health of that person, whether the person
injured is of extreme age (R. v. Instan [1893] 1 Q.B. 450), or of
tender years (R. v. Senior [1899] 1 Q.B. 283 at 289), or is the
defendant or servant (R. v. Smith (1865) L. & C. 607), or an
apprentice (R. v. Smith (1837) 8 C. & P. 153), or is a person of
unsound mind (R. v. Pelham [1846] 8 Q.B. 959). See also post, 19-22
et seq. (manslaughter). The common law is strengthened by statutory
provisions, e.g. Offences against the Person Act 1861, s.26 (servants
and apprentices); CYPA 1933, s.1 (persons under 16); MHA 1983, s.127
(persons of unsound mind).It being a democratic principle, however,
that it is for Parliament and not the executive or judges to
determine whether conduct not previously regarded as criminal should
be treated as such, statute is now to be regarded as the sole source
of new offences: R. v. Jones; Ayliffe v. DPP; Swain v. Same [2007]
1 A.C. 136, HL; and R. (Gentle) v. Prime Minister [2008] 1 A.C. 1356,
HL (at [40]) (and see post, 1-5).
Unless a statute specifically so provides, or the case is one
in which the common law, in the criminal context, imposes a duty or
responsibility on one person to act in a particular way towards
another, then a mere omission to act cannot make the person, who so
fails to do something, guilty of a criminal offence: see R. v. Miller
[1983] 2 A.C. 161, HL, where the appellant was held liable for his
reckless omission to take steps to nullify a risk of damage to
property which had been created by his own earlier inadvertent act
(see furth post, 23-10, 23-31). The House of Lords approached the
facts on the basis that-unlike the case of the mere bystander-the
appellant had a duty to act.
(3) Acts prejudicing the public
1-4 An indictment lies at common law for any act of wilful negligence
which endangers human life or health: Williams v. East India Co.
(1802) 3 East 192; Shillito v. Thompson (1875) 1 Q.B.D. 12; or
against an innkeeper for failing to provide traveller with food and
lodging without reasonable excuse, on being tendered a reasonable
price; the question of what amounts to a reasonable excuse being a
question of fact for the jury: R. v. Higgins (1948) 1 K.B. 165 32
Cr.App.R. 113, CCA.
An indictment also lies for all nuisances of a public
nature, though occasioned by an act in itself innocent, if the
creation of the nuisance is the probable consequence of the act:
R. v. Moore (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 184; and see 1 Hawk. c. 75 ss.6, 7.
As to the offence of public nuisance generally, see paos, 31-40 et
seq.
How to Check Disclosure of Vote Rigging on an Industrial Scale. www.Sleazeexpo.wordpress.com