HMRC Letter to Cease

From: adey.james78@gmail.com   
13 Bows Terrace, 
Caerphilly, 
South Wales 
[CF83 2RD] 

26th April 2021. 

To: Mr. James Alan Harra; 
Secretary and CEO HMRC, 
100 Parliament Street, 
London. 
[SW1A] 

Also via Email to: jim.harra@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk  
CC jesse.norman.mp@parliament.uk (Recipient of the attached Affidavit of Truth on 10th March 2020) 

Our Reference: HOJ–LIEN-HARRAJAMES_001 

All correspondence will be kept on file pending future legal action. 

Dear Mr James Alan HARRA 

We are writing to you in your capacity as both Secretary and Chief Executive Officer For HMRC. 

This is an instruction to cease collection of any tax, national insurance or other financial deduction made illegally, without my consent or indeed the consent of the circa 67.5million alleged governed of this country. 

We would note that no one can create law and impose that law onto another by an act of force.  

This would be recognised as an act of force without any formal or legal agreement, and as such, is a recognised act of terrorism. To this observation of fact, we would note that there is a mandatory requirement for a formal agreement as to what law is, and in the absence of this formal agreement of any valid, material evidence to this formal agreement, signed by the many, then there is no material evidence that there is any such thing as law, government or governed. 

We would further note that without this valid, material evidence by way of an agreement, law is a belief (or a concept in the abstract without any foundation in fact or merit). 

Equally, without any valid and recognised foundation in fact that anybody carries an obligation or liability under the Acts and Statutes of Parliament, there would only be a belief (a concept in the abstract) without any foundation in reality and without any credibility or merit. 

Repeatedly, we have heard the words used that people of this land have, or carry, an obligation under the Acts and Statutes of Parliament. We note that there can be no obligation, as an obligation stems from a formal agreement or contract where there has been offer and acceptance with consideration in both directions and full disclosure, without coercion or deception, and where there has been no full disclosure, any contract or agreement is void by default, therefore meaning that there are no obligations or liabilities under the Acts and Statutes of HM Parliament and Governments State (Company). 

We also note the definition of Statute in the law books is as follows: 

 STATUTE: “A legislative rule given the force of law by the consent of the governed.”  

We would note from the definition of Statute, there is a mandatory requirement that there is the consent of the governed before the legislative rule can be acted upon, or given force of law.  

Consent, in this context, would constitute an agreement to be governed, and equally, there can be no credible government with any credibility or merit, as one cannot exist in the absence of the other. 

It is fallaciously maintained, however, that we elect government, and that by this method, there is a government. To this, we look for the credibility of the election process. For any contract or formal agreement, there is always a means to terminate that contract or agreement. To this effect, we would note that there is no known and formally recognised un-election process. We would also note that this word does not exist in any known dictionaries. We have looked. This alone  

invalidates the election process and voids it of any credibility or merit. The election process is extensively known across this land, and is used every five years to elect officers into government.  

We further note that on none of these ballot papers is there an option for ‘None of the above’ and when councillors and MP’s are pressed as to the reason for its absence, it is quickly dismissed and never qualified in any way. This is strike two on the lack of credibility of the election process. Is there a third? Yes, there is. It is also extensively known that this process of election is by way of a secret ballot. This means that none of the secret ballot papers can be relied upon as evidence to validate the election process, nor can any of them be used to prove that any of the  votes were actually counted. That is strike three of the election process, as a secret ballot carries zero credibility and is not legal and binding. Therefore, none of the people of this land carry any obligations or liabilities under the Acts and Statutes of Parliament. 

We note that without any material, presentable evidence that everyone in the country has legally and formally agreed to, and signed (on and for the public record) the legal consent to be governed, the claim that HM Parliaments and Governments PLC is a valid government is fraudulent and vexatious in nature. 

We would note also, that without this formal agreement that the governed have agreed to be governed by a formal and legal process, establishing that they have given their consent to be governed in full knowledge and understanding, then it is quite clear that any group of people (by whatever means) making the claim to be a government is nothing other than a group of thugs and terrorists creating bogus legislation as they wish and using force to enforce this bogus legislation. That is a recognised act of terrorism. 

We note that these are the facts and that they have been presented as evidence by way of a recognised tribunal, where a tribunal is also a recognised due process, and the findings at that tribunal were that the appellant carried no liability to pay a penalty charge notice claimed under the Traffic Management Act 2004 by Warrington Borough Council. This was confirmed by a declaration of No Contest, which was signed by an officer of Warrington Council by the name of Scott Clark. This constitutes a formal agreement and recognition of the fact that none of the circa 67.5million people of this land carry ANY obligation or liability under any of the Acts and Statutes of Parliament, and any claim being made under any Act or Statute by any officer of the government in their respective office is fraudulent in nature, which is Fraud by Misrepresentation and a known, chargeable criminal offence. 

There is a copy of this case file under this same cover within an Affidavit of Truth and Statement of Fact, which was served upon the 657 MPs of this land by email on the 20th Day of February, 2015 (see Exhibit (B) in the Affidavit of Truth and Statement of Fact). As this Affidavit of Truth and Statement of Fact has not been contested or redressed by the 657 MPs in the office of the HM Parliaments and Governments Company, there is a formal and binding agreement through acquiescence that this Affidavit of Truth and Statement of Fact is a formally agreed foundation in fact.  

We would recommend that Mr. James Alan HARRA avail himself of the contents of the formal agreement to the facts presented within the published, legal document. 

We would note that in Exhibit (C) of the Affidavit of Truth and Statement of Fact that it is formally recognised by none other than the Rt. Hon. Lord Chief Justice Sir Jack Beatson FBA, at a speech he gave at the Nottingham and Trent Law University in 2008, that the office of the judiciary is a sub-office of the state, and we would note that this has been confirmed by the esteemed Professor Chandran Kukathas of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) that a state is a corporate entity, or a company, and by this recognition to the fact that HM  Parliament & and Government PLC is a company with no greater authority than that of  McDonald’s, that any officer or judge in the office or the sub-office of the judiciary (within this company) carries no greater authority than the janitor in the office of janitor at McDonald’s.  

The facts are known and have been presented and agreed to many times, and they are being presented here again under the same cover as this letter. It is an extensive read, as it is all valid material evidence. Enclosed under this same cover.  

LIEN_BORIS_AJ1 https://www.facebook.com/groups/527118124607307/files/  
LIEN_DRAKEFORDM_AJ1 https://www.facebook.com/groups/527118124607307/files/  

All other Welsh Assembly Members, fifty eight to date, have been charged and agreed to stand as a surety for a Security by way of a lien for criminal offences in the office. 

HOW-SPYE-LIEN-0001 http://bit.ly/1s72PlG 
HOW-MRTD-LIEN-0001 http://bit.ly/1rCwxyc  
HOW-LAS-LIEN-0001 http://bit.ly/1T6zdjY   
HOW-LIEN- MRMD-0000001 http://bit.ly/24GihTj   
HOW-MROWENS-LIEN-0001 http://bit.ly/24GiohE   
HOW-JUMC-LIEN-0001 http://bit.ly/24Giru3   
HOW-HMCTS-ACALLISTER-LIEN-0001 http://bit.ly/1T6IlSB   
HOW-HMCTS-ACALLISTER-LIEN-0002 http://bit.ly/1Tz8pms   
HOW-CEO-084-0001 http://bit.ly/1Tz8Ahq   

Professor Chandran Kukathas of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) has extensively quantified a definition of what a STATE is and is not. Professor Chandran Kukathas of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) has also extensively qualified what the interests of the STATE are and are not (see Exhibit (C) in the formally agreed Affidavit of Truth and Statement of Fact, which is an agreed foundation in fact).  

1.The state should not be viewed as a form of association that subsumes or sub-ordinates all others. 

2) The state is not an entity whose interests map closely onto the interests of the groups and individuals that fall under its authority, but has interests of its own. 

3) The state is, to some extent at least, an alien power; though it is of human construction, it is not within human control. 

4) The state is not there to secure peoples deepest interests, and it does not serve to unify them, reconcile them with one another, bring their competing interests into harmony, or realise any  important good such as justice, freedom, or peace. While its power might be harnessed from time to time, that will serve the interests of some, not the interests of all.  

5) The state is thus an institution through which individuals and groups seek to exercise power (though it is not the only such institution); but it is also an institution that exercises power over individuals and groups. 

6) The state is, ultimately, an abstraction, for it has no existence as a material object, is not confined to a particular space, and is not embodied in any person or collection of persons. Professor Chandran Kukathas of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) has made it quite clear that the STATE has no interest in the appropriation of funds by elicit means, nor does it have any interest in funds at all, so it would be appropriate to note that for an officer of the STATE to engage in the appropriation of funds by any means is an act that is not in the best interests of the STATE. 

The STATE is not there as a vehicle for personal gain. It can be concluded that where an officer of the STATE is a confirmed criminal by their own hand, they are not only not acting in the best interests of the STATE, but they are a security risk to the national security of the STATE, as well as an enemy of the STATE by default. 

This is a very serious matter, and all of the officers of the STATE have an obligation to the STATE to resolve this situation. To this end, there is a clear obligation for Mr James Alan HARRA, in the position of Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, to instruct Director of Finance to make restoration and to return any funds collected under any Act of Parliament (such as INCOMEl tax, National Insurance ), which has been transferred to HMRC by employers of Mr Adrian JAMES of 13 Bows Terrace, Caerphilly [CF83 2RD].  

For Mr James Alan HARRA, in the position of Secretary and as the Chief Executive Officer for HMRC, to fail in this clear obligation to the STATE, Mr James Alan HARRA, In the position of Secretary and Chief Executive Officer for HMRC, would be in direct violation of his obligations in the office of the STATE. We therefore recommend that Mr James Alan HARRA, in the position of Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, to make restoration of these funds with immediate effect by way of transfer of funds (or a cheque in the name of Mr Adrian James) to the address 13 Bows Terrace, Caerphilly. [CF83 2RD] 

It would also be appropriate to include in this calculation the 8.5% compound interest and to give a full breakdown as necessary. We would expect this within seven (7) days of the date of this correspondence. “An employer is vicariously liable for the wrongful or negligent acts of his or her employee committed within the Scope of their authority” 

The House of James Affidavit of Truth and Statement of Fact is attached to this email. 

Should Mr James Alan HARRA fail to execute the above written instruction then there is now a clear and noted obligation for Mr James Alan HARRA to provide the presentable and material evidence of the consent of the governed. 

For and on behalf of the Principal Legal embodiment by the title of Mr Adrian JAMES. 
For and on behalf of the Attorney General of the House of James. 
For and on behalf of Baron Adrian of the House of James. 

All rights reserved.