Statement 2 From BIG International

SECTION 1:

Throughout the legal developments taken against 12 British Citizens, 6 of whom are known and named to be defendants, we make the following statement:

All defendants named have never been directly associated within the structure of BIG International or the security section of Courtney Agencies, and are unable to answer questions related to either organisation.

They are like all Player agents who are given the opportunity to provide services to Courtney, (Equal Opportunity Laws) which would assist their finances to develop their own organisations which can be within any areas of development they wished to follow. For example they may have wished to develop structures within the electronics industry, entertainment industry, retailing or just used the finance from the service payments to develop themselves from debt.

Whatever their reasons, they had to serve Courtney under strictly controlled guidelines that would not break the internal development and progress of BIG International. By structuring BIG International in this fashion we have been able to provide damage limitation to our organisation and Players, by isolating the free lottery number range of 15000000 upwards, thereby continuing our services to all other number range Players.

When Player agents are in a position to reach a given level of service income from Courtney, they are requested to open a Sole Traders Account, mandated by a British Bank in the direction they wish for their future development. The reason for this is to show a clear path of personal Player agents financial development provided by Courtney, which taxation authorities can recognise within each Nation's taxation structures. Player agents are never encouraged to hide their earnings, because this can destroy the moral aspect of the Nation within which they live.

This method also provides international accounting structures to the organisation, and enables Courtney to internationally and accurately audit in relation to weekly expenditures, especially important when developing equally within all nations on Earth.

Their is NO legal aspect, even in British Law, related to the actions taken against BIG International or Courtney within the United Kingdom. The British Government has not served any orders upon either organisation, nor have they interviewed any director or manager of either organisation. In fact, they haven't taken the correct course in Law against either organisation.

The action taken against the six Defendants within the United Kingdom is also illegal and based upon the assumptions, lies, misrepresentation's and innuendoes of one man, PETER GEOFFREY BOTT, of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). A man who hasn't even had the honesty or common decency to correctly present evidence, taken from BIG International publications supplied to him or the trouble to read the international information provided by BIG International to him.

We can only state how disillusioned we feel when British Government Servant's take it upon themselves to corrupt the very basis of British and Moral law and do so supported by MARGARET BECKETT, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and The Treasury Solicitor represented by CATHY KENNEDY, STEPHEN PARKINSON- Head of Company Chancery Group and ANDREW LEITHCARD - Team Leader.

To compound this disgrace the following and well known Establishment controlled Crown Court Judges, Mr Justice Neuberger and Mr Justice Rimer, assisted the above in that they permitted a Winding-Up-Order and the provisional appointment of The Insolvency Service (which is an Executive Agency within the Department of Trade and Industry), with absolutely NO permitted defence at the hearing of the said order by the six defendants.

The Insolvency Service is represented by Mr C Flexman, Mr G C Campbell and David Peet. It was suggested to us that we simply apply to the Crown Court for the receiver to be removed, but removed from what? There is no case for BIG International or Courtney to answer within the United Kingdom because there is no service of hearing or order against our organisation.

We decided to research the cases of 49 other organisations closed down by the DTI since 1986. In all cases the same structures were used. The same media (Mail on Sunday) was used, and all had one common feature; the cases were developed to stop the actions of individuals fighting for United Kingdom Citizens established rights.

In our case it is the first defendant who has been researching the British Government and its servants since 1964. He hit an extremely raw nerve of the British Establishment when he developed the Defence Centre of Inner Sanctum and then had the audacity to assist in the preparation of a European Case against the British Government, partly based on a statement made by Mr Justice Blackburn.

The first defendant explained to us what would happen if his name was associated with BIG International. What he stated we found extremely hard to believe, because British Justice has built a worldwide reputation based upon honesty and direction of law. But now even we believe that THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION and given establishment Judges are sweeping the reputation of honesty and direction of law under the carpet. They are doing this to maintain the hidden corruption of given British Governments since the last World War against British Citizens when dealing with their Rights to Freedom. In other words, we have now experienced what others have experienced first hand. Currently we are totally astonished.

Therefore we have attempted to research why? We have found within the evidence that in basis the British Government's action against BIG International is an attempt by the British Government to have the First Defendant committed to Prison. They are attempting to do this under a closed structure, without any Jury and using appointed Establishment Judge's Mr Justice Neuberger and Mr Justice Rimer to ensure that this actually happens.

But why?

Both Judges are closely associated with a group established in 1954. Other members associated with this group currently are Henry Kissinger, billionaire chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank David Rockefeller, president of the World Bank James Wolfensohn, head of the Fiat empire Giovanni Agnelli, secretary general of Nato Javier Solana, chairman of Daimler Benz Jurgen Schrempp. Plus the chairmen or chief executives of the Xerox Corporation, BP, Reuters and many big league banks and law firms. Also former head of the CIA John Deutch, Tory leader William Hague, Kenneth Clarke, Leon Brittan; Defence Secretary George Robertson, John Bruton of Fine Gael, Telegraph boss Conrad Black and even the Chairman of the Board of the Hellenic Bottling Company. This years chairman is Lord Carrington.

The first defendant handed to us his total database and research papers in relation to this group, (which openly established itself in 1954) FOR CONTINUED SAFE KEEPING. Documents, recording's, films and the database are currently being researched for accurate release to the British Public. Documentation supplied from all around the world, back to 1932, in relation to this groups activities and desires to control your money and many other aspects of your life are totally astonishing. We can certainly now understand the current collapse of finance in the Far East which is directly related to this groups global government structures of control.

When you read some of the documents, listen to some of the recordings taken at their meetings and watch the films now structured into video form, you start to realise how naive and trusting the worlds general public really is. All the names above are just a few of who actually attended this groups last meeting, paid for with tax payers money. The central family names of this group will be released and these names will help you understand the action taken against the first defendant, or you can just ask Mr Justice Neuberger.

The first defendant has entrusted a life's work to our organisation. We certainly understand why the British Government want him committed to prison or silenced. The chances he has personally taken to protect the abuse of this information for so long, and having placed his life and family's lives at risk, has made it hard for us to comprehend such dedication to the service of humanity. The First Defendant Raymond Patrick Grant has been sitting on a time bomb, in the naive hope that this group may be sincere within their actions, but now we all know, they are not.

Within the paperwork are lists of names of individuals who have made statements against the first defendant, along with statements made by the same which show British Government intimidation of the first defendant. Some of these individuals attempted to infiltrate the location of the information now in our care. We can now understand why it was so difficult to gain the trust of the first defendant. However, this trust was finally given when he was told not to expect to leave prison other than in a box, by a British investigation official. (To be named in future statements of BIG International).

To end this first section of our statement we pay tribute to the nephew of the Rothchilds family, who was being groomed to take over the family empire. He provided vital documentation upon the aspirations of his own families actions within this group. Sadly it was reported that he took his own life, when his actions were discovered. We hope his service to humanity will be recognised by our Creator in his final Judgement.

We pay tribute to Mr Grant who's guiding hand over such information has provided structures of community defence against those who wish to control our finances and the future freedom of all generations. We pray that he will continue his fight and that now he can take the rest, that his doctors have been advising since 1989.

SECTION 2:

We now come to another serious matter relating to the life of Financial Mail On Sunday investigative reporter Mr Tony Hetherington, from information gained from the agents forum for the 15000000 number range. It must be realised the amount of good work that Mr Hetherington has done by notifying the British Public of the establishment's desire to crush any humanitarian organisation which threatens their aims. Because we know he is an establishment writer, it allows us to know when our organisation is coming under attack from British Government Departments.

But with BIG he actually provided us with our defence. He warned the British Public not to join BIG and remove all their loans to BIG. This means that within national circulation there was a Public Warning about BIG, which in turn means that each Player showed their own personal preference, when joining BIG via Courtney directly in line with Mr Justice Blackburn's statement. Therefore, all defendants served the personal preference of all Players, who then decided to take advantage of the BIG INTERNATIONAL FREE LOTTERY. What happened after, when a Player by personal preference decided to take advantage of other services provided by BIG, is private between BIG and each individual. That is known as freedom.

Mr Hetherington is in fact the best tool in understanding what the establishment is going to try next, because he reports as instructed. Don't throw this strange advantage away. He has actually helped all of you within the United Kingdom to defend the six defendants. But do take a moment to look at the actual owners of the paper that Mr Hetherington writes for, then things will become clearer.

We take this opportunity to answer Mr Hetherington's article in the Financial Mail on Sunday dated 21st June 1998.

THE ARTICLE: Questions Of Cash By Tony Hetherington Financial Mail On Sunday, June 21, 1998

A Big leap in the dark is risky with no safety net

BIG International, the unauthorised lottery and investment company, has launched attacks on the Department of Trade and Industry over moves to close it, and on Financial Mail for having blown the whistle on it activities. Though the High Court has appointed the Official Receiver to safeguard assets for the investors and creditors, the company has announced that it has 'removed all equipment assets which have been paid for by Big International to a safe location outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.' Almost unbelievably, the company added: 'We have sold or exchanged all UK currency held (œ2 billion). We have removed over œ7 billion from shares of companies incorporated within the UK.' Big says it plans to bring private prosecutions against Board of Trade President Margaret Beckett and DTI officials for allegedly lying to the High Court. It also claims its lawyers have 'prepared documents' to freeze The Mail on Sunday's assets until this newspaper compensates it for alleged inaccuracies. Last Wednesday, a Mail on Sunday photographer went to Romford, Essex, to take a picture of a house said in court documents to be a base for Big. He said 'The house is one of 10 in a cul-de-sac. As I was preparing to leave, a red BMW pulled across the road, blocking my exit.' Two men then forced him to hand over his film, though new pictures were taken later without difficulty. And Tony Hetherington was told by people linked to the company: 'If you're smart, you'll back off Big,' and: 'I think your article against Big was one of your last.' Not quite . . .

A.M. writes: You and consumer affairs minister Nigel Griffiths are in a minority of two in believing Big International to be a scam (Financial Mail report, May 31). Until the Department of Trade and Industry was aked by Financial Mail to close Big's agent, Courtney Agencies, the system worked and no money had been lost. Now money has been lost to the DTI seizure squad.

YOURS is one of the more reasonable letters I have received from people who clearly want to believe that everything in the Big International lottery and investment charade is hunky-dory. But all I can say to the idea that the DTI wants the High Court to close Big and its Courtney Agencies associate because I requested this, is that I wish it were true. Big International, which the DTI's court documents say is run by pyramid scam veterans Raymond Grant, from Romford Essex, and Paul Hesling from Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, has been operating a lottery and soliciting investments. It is not authorised to do this, its lottery is unsupervised, and its investors are not protected by any City watchdog body or compensation scheme. Nevertheless, I understand your anger. As you see it, you were receiving the 300% return Big promised on every œ60 you invested, or the 4.25% monthly interest from its banking scheme, so why the fuss? Well, this is like leaping off a skyscraper and saying 'so far, so good' until the moment you hit the pavement. Big may well have financed your returns by dipping into cash from new recruits. It may well be unable to repay your capital. We should know more on July 8, when the DTI application to wind up Big is heard in the High Court. However, Big's finances and its claims to have liquidated billions of pounds of investments in retaliation for the DTI's action have the hallmarks of a Big fantasy.

Bizarre It is worth knowing that five years ago Raymond Grant sent a fax to the international mining company RTZ, launching a œ7 billion takeover bid and claiming to have shares worth œ280 million under his belt already. RTZ rightly decided that the whole episode was bizarre. One final explanation. Perceptive supporters of Big have asked me how it can possibly be a scam when they paid to join by credit card. Surely the card companies vetted Big? The answer is that at least some, if not all, credit card payments were laundered through a Sheffield firm called Global Innovations. Card companies believed Global was selling computer equipment, not fronting for Big. So again, Big's investors have been left unprotected.

END

When you read this article you are made aware of the fact that Mr Hetherington has received a copy of Mr Bott's statement against the six Defendants. We ask Mr Hetherington who provided him with this document? Did Mr Hetherington research Mr Bott's statement for accuracy? Did Mr Hetherington request information from the Defendants to assist with the accuracy of his investigative article? How many names does Mr Hetherington use in his quest to become seen as a serious investigative writer? These are just some of the questions we would wish to ask Mr Hetherington.

Now lets turn to the accuracy of his investigative article. Firstly we have noticed and reported as accurate some of the lies and deceptions in Mr Bott's statement (who is supposed to be an investigative Civil Servant protecting Public Interest).

1) BIG International isn't an unauthorised Lottery and investment company within the United Kingdom and never has been.

2) BIG International have never launched an attack on any British Government or media structure, we have simply replied to attacks made by both upon BIG International, by providing our answers to their attacks upon the Player's organisation.

3) BIG International has never taken investments from the Public. We manage a free lottery system only, which has never failed to provide what our information package states.

4) BIG International certainly did remove all assets belonging to the Players organisation from the grips of the Official Receiver. We hold a legal obligation to our Players to protect the assets of our organisation. But more important is the fact that no legal action has been taken against BIG International or Courtney within the United Kingdom because neither organisation is structured within the United Kingdom and never has been.

What BIG International certainly provides, is open access to all within the United Kingdom to the Free Lottery system and nothing else.

5) The following words used by Mr Hetherington in paragraph two of his opening comments are 'Almost unbelievably'. For the first time we have Mr Hetherington showing doubt. He normally rams his own beliefs into the minds of his readers. Maybe some legal mind is now directing Mr Hetherington's hand more closely. We wonder who?

6) We stated that we intend an attempt to freeze the personal assets of the owners of the Mail on Sunday, for deliberately using a public media organisation to deliberately distort the reputation of their competitors. This is a totally new aspect of law in some respects, especially when the named owners of a public media machine use that media machine to distort or damage the reputation of a humanitarian organisation.

7) Last Wednesday, a Mail on Sunday photographer went to the area of the elderly mother's home of one of the defendants, under the pretence that the address was within Court Documents. The document in question is Mr Bott's statement (of the DTI), and the use of this address within Mr Botts statement clearly indicates the lies/deceptions made by Mr Bott within his statement to the High Court. This house is the private dwelling of Mr Grant's mother and has never been used as any form of Headquarters for BIG International.

Mr Grant holds two reasons for being in residence at that address, which are as follows: It is his duty to care for his Mother in ill health and old age in accordance to his beliefs. Secondly, a Court ruling forces him to be resident there, because Mr Grant took a vow of poverty in 1986 in support of his beliefs. He therefore relinquished ownership of everything and has never owned his mother's house.

This was known to Mr Bott and all British investigative agencies.

Naturally, in an area with so many small children and elderly people, individuals care for each other when suspicious people enter their area taking photographs. The photographer was asked for his film and paid ten pounds for the cost of that film. He wasn't forced to hand over the film. It was made perfectly clear to the photographer should the film contain no pornography or infringe the privacy of elderly people within the area that he could claim his film back, but it did and now the film which was developed is with our own legal team to be used in future evidence against the owners of the Mail on Sunday. What is the purpose of Neighbourhood Watch otherwise? Is it just considered a tool for neighbours to spy on each other for Government control purposes? Did the reporter notify the local police of his intended actions? Could the police respond quick enough to intercept the photographer and his film? Did the photographer call the police? Mr Hetherington confirms the evidence within his article against the owners of the Mail on Sunday. Therefore this article will be used in our evidence against the owners of the Mail on Sunday. Remember, the photographer received payment for his film from concerned citizens working within the remits of Neighbourhood Watch. And also remember that this address is an actual 'LIE' in Mr Bott's statement.

Mr Hetherington is then quick to report so called threats against him, but fails to report that such claimed threats against Mr Hetherington have been made by individuals unknown to the organisation, and are certainly not linked to the organisation of BIG International. BIG International would take their own legal action against any person pretending to represent the actions of BIG International. Mr Hetherington, provides no proof of such threats and should he take notes from the 15000000 number range agents forum, then he would see that even Courtney Agents have clearly dealt with this matter. Apparently, these so called threats against Mr Hetherington stem from a phone call that Mr Hetherington claims he had.

We would hate the thought of this being Mr Hetherington's last story, because Mr Hetherington is providing the very evidence we need of collusion between the owners of the Mail on Sunday, and the DTI.

Mr Hetherington, now publishes a letter from A.M. Who is A.M? BIG International have never accused Mr Hetherington of directing or making a complaint about our organisation to the DTI. What we have openly accused Mr Hetherington of is deliberately reporting his beliefs as actual facts when related to BIG International. The other area where we have openly accused Mr Hetherington, is related to his deliberate collusion with the owners of the Mail on Sunday to damage the financial standing of BIG International. Fortunately, the Free Lottery is Free, and doesn't depend upon any public financing, investment or public promotion.

In paragraph eight of Mr Hetherington's article he finally confirms that he holds copies of Mr Bott's statement, which he refers to as court documents. These documents are the DTI's statement to court, totally different to actual court documents. Mr Hetherington then goes on to state that "Big International, which the DTI's court documents say is run by pyramid scam veterans Raymond Grant, from Romford, Essex, and Paul Hesling, from Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, has been operating a lottery and soliciting investments." Neither of the two defendants have ever been involved within any pyramid scam. Neither of the two defendants have ever been arrested in relation to any pyramid scam. Neither of the two defendants have been in any court in relation to a pyramid scam and finally, the DTI's statement doesn't make this statement within their paperwork.

We would recommend that the British Public obtain the names of the individuals making the rules which the CITY Watchdog work by. We challenge all to find one name who isn't protecting and/or representing self-interest or the interest of financial institutions and, in our belief, are certainly working by rules which are detrimental to Public Interest.

Mr Hetherington certainly attempts to play down the returns which BIG makes to Players who financially assist the development of BIG's Humanitarian structure. We would recommend to Mr Hetherington that he checks the actual percentage of interest payments made to Mortgage Companies from individuals purchasing their homes. He will find that most pay far more than 300% over the period of their Mortgage Loan. The only difference between BIG and such organisations is that we don't take, we give.

If you wish to use Mr Hetherington's skyscraper example and apply it to national pensions paid for in the United Kingdom by United Kingdom Citizens, then you can certainly use the skyscraper example. Because if the British Government had found themselves in the same position as the Maxwell Brothers on the end of the SFO's hit list, the British Government would have certainly been found guilty for using funds for other purposes. Hence the reason why the British Government is trying to off-load the pension structure to private organisations.

BIG International doesn't make you wait for your retirement so you can then find out that your Players account loans have been misused. BIG doesn't stop you withdrawing your loan at any time from the Humanitarian Development structure. Compare this to what the British Government and financial institutions do to United Kingdom Citizens, then tell us where we have failed.

BIG International isn't an organisation of retaliation against the DTI's actions as reported by Mr Hetherington. We moved to protect our organisation's assets from the corruptive and deceptive actions made by the DTI, who based their action on untruthful statements made by one of their inspectors/investigators.

Mr Hetherington, then goes on to a totally unrelated subject relating to Mr Grant and RTZ. But if Mr Hetherington really wishes to relate Mr Grant's actions regarding RTZ, then we hold all the papers relating to this take over of RTZ. We can confirm that we have constantly developed the original idea, which was to turn the vote into a value, which certainly works during the development of bids to take over an organisation for all to share equally.

But should you look at what actually happened, you will find that the Board of RTZ failed to notify their share holders of the BID. The Board of RTZ transferred assets to a Canadian operation. The Board of RTZ arranged for Mr Grant's home to be raided with warrants to remove all paperwork including personal paperwork. The paperwork removed has never been returned. Fortunately, we were able to obtain copies of all paperwork confirming the holdings of Mr Grant and shares available to Mr Grant.

Therefore, if Mr Grant's thinking was bizarre then (in other words workable, but not to the advantage of the financial institutions), we can confirm that it certainly works today.

Turning to the two photographs of private dwellings and Global Innovations we first confirm that we have had absolutely no dealings with either dwelling and are totally bemused at the idea that either building is the headquarters of BIG International.

Secondly, Global Innovations were provided with the opportunity of handling requested orders via Courtney. This would enable Global Innovations additional finance to develop its business, which eventually would serve all Players.

If you look into Mr Hetherington's article you will see it is not an attack on BIG International. This article is designed to discredit Mr Grant's efforts in the eyes of the British Public, by isolating Mr Grant from his supporters. This would enable British Government Departments to silence his future efforts against them, within the European Court case currently being developed against many prominent figures within financial circles and British Government Departments.

SECTION 3:

We have received thousands of letters from the United Kingdom and other parts of the world from players and individuals asking if they can do anything to assist.

There are a number of ways Players can assist, many of which have been placed upon the Agents Forum and via email. But first you must ask yourself "Should I assist?" There is a unique situation within the United Kingdom, because the UK doesn't really have a Citizens Bill of Rights, related to the area's within which you are truly free to act.

The base of Citizens Rights within the United Kingdom seem to leave all the doors open to be closed by British Government Departments, when a Citizen's line of action is not in accordance to the way the financial institutions wish things to go.

The whole area of individual's rights appear to be totally controlled by financial institutions. These institutions can breach client confidentiality on a whim. They have their own investigative agencies who check and report on their clients to British Government Departments. They check, via computer, on all purchases entering any household and report back to British Government Departments. They use exactly the same methods of reporting when dealing with credit card orders. Yet most of the finances gathered in by these institutions are never invested within the development of the United Kingdom.

The financial gains made by these financial institutions from British Citizens savings over and above the miserable interest they pay to their clients are rarely seen back in the United Kingdom. When these gains do return to the United Kingdom they return as loans to British Citizens and companies, who are then forced to pay high interest upon loans which really should have been their money in the first place. Now lets ask the question again, "Can I do anything to assist?"

You could write to your MP, but what good would that really do? The Party your MP belongs to is more than likely in debt to the financial institutions. The MP could also be in debt to the financial institutions. Who can tell, with all of you writing to your MP's we may just find one who will see your point.

Let's say we do find one MP. Then that MP is up against one of the most powerful lobbies in the House of Commons, the one that represents the financial institutions. So is this really a good use of energy?

Some have suggested using the Media. Well, who do you think owns the majority of the media within the United Kingdom? - the same owners who are behind some of the financial institutions. Media companies that are not owned by such individuals are certainly in debt to the financial institutions. So is it really worth their while to rock the comfort zone they enjoy with the financial institutions? The independent media companies normal attitude is "There'll be a story just as good tomorrow, and I will still be around to print it. If I tell the truth now of what's happening within the financial institutions, then maybe I won't."

Well surely Britain has Government Departments or Law Courts? There must be something or someone that the British Citizen can turn to? Yes, well, umm.

The financial institutions make the rules behind closed doors (basically to protect their markets) which government then ratifies; after all they are the experts. And how often do British Citizens really check to see if their rights have been taken away, or their privacy infringed? - only when they want to use them.

So what you're saying is we need a Bill of Rights? Yes, well, umm.

Who will write them? Who will vote for them? We already know that British Governments only hold referendums when it's on a subject that may affect the popularity of any particular party in any particular region of the United Kingdom. Or the British Government will appoint a committee to investigate that normally takes up to five years and costs a few million. By that time most of the original support has drifted away and the government is off the hook, especially when you consider that the face of each government changes every five years.

Law must be the answer? Yes, well, umm, you would think so.

We have already seen law in action. We have seen evidence suppressed. We have seen government representatives lie on sworn statements. We have seen government representatives threaten and intimidate. We have seen a judge permit a winding up order without any opportunity of defence; except to be told that we can come back on the 8th July 1998 to defend our organisation that a British Government has discredited. Oh and by the way, it will take British Government departments a considerable amount of time to pass back documents, moneys etc., because another government department will certainly wish to see them.

"So what you are saying is what I have been thinking all along?"

"What's that?"

"That they will close the opportunity of BIG International regardless of my individual rights, and I will lose all."

Well that is exactly what has happened in the past and the only ones who profit are the solicitors and receivers, leaving the financial institutions in control, and in control of your rights to Freedom. But don't feel too bad. The British Government Departments will present someone for you to hate and place into prison. That should make you feel better and I'm sure British Government Departments will say that they have acted in your interest and take the credit.

You see the answer is really in your hands. Only you can close down your section of BIG International in the United Kingdom by not supporting BIG with continued development. BIG is not within the United Kingdom, and now you may understand why.

BIG's assets are controlled by many organisations owned by Players, which enables us to move them when the assets become the target of attack. For example, the recent illegal attacks upon individuals wishing to provide services to United Kingdom Citizens.

"But surely if BIG International understood all this why haven't you protected us better?"

Well we have.

One of the problems was that the winding up order ensures that all of your assets go to the receiver, which means any payment to you made by BIG International must go to the receiver.

"Yes! Yes! I understand all this but surely BIG International can do something?"

We have and it was called BIG International 97.

"What's that?"

In August of 1997 we officially opened BIG International 97. It wasn't a very noisy affair, quite reserved in fact. Each time a Player obtained a free ticket or purchased a PR, BIG International sold the asset of the Player to BIG International 97, who legally meet the payments to the Player. BIG International 97 hasn't been placed into an illegal winding up order, therefore money, cheques, letters, which the British Government Departments have illegally taken, are in fact the property of those individuals until they are delivered and have never been receipted via free lottery number allocation by BIG International.

BIG International 97 isn't running a free lottery. BIG International 97 isn't running any form of investment. (Neither, was BIG International but in British law, if the financial institutions say that it is a financial investment, the law agrees). BIG International 97 is a publishing house that was used to publish information for BIG International and many other organisations worldwide. Because BIG International 97 wants all Players of the 15000000 number range to continue reading their publications, they will continue to meet your commitments and maintain your asset base for continued growth. This directly in line with Mr Justice Blackburn's statement that all British Citizens hold the right to subscribe to any international publication.

Your new subscription packs will be sent to you and gains from the organisation will continually be shared equally by all and in line with MORAL LAW.

The question we ask is, "How can the defendants obtain a lawful trial when the total base of the Plaintiffs case is based upon lie's, deception and collusion between British Government Departments?"

If British Citizens are truly concerned about the erosion of their human rights when related to their personal freedom, they could attend the court on the 8th July 1998 in support of the six defendants, but this attendance must be shown with peace of action. For example, hold a religious document from your faith, which will show the unification of all faiths, when law doesn't or isn't respectful of Moral Law.

Within British History we have seen that change was only brought about via violence which was basically due to the intolerance of the British Government to allow the development of its own Citizens. Some examples were votes for woman, education for all, health care for all, equal opportunity for all, relationships of equal development between the regions of the United Kingdom. Even the Mother of all Parliaments was developed from civil war.

British Citizens have been very loyal to their Parliament, which has made them one of the most highly taxed nations in the world. But their own Parliamentary system has sold them out to the financial institutions. This is the fact of today's fight, which is currently being lost by the hour. We are told that many World Citizens will be travelling to the United Kingdom to see British Justice first hand and that certain international journalists also intend to attend.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, WITHIN ALL FAITHS, HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN BY OUR CREATOR. ONE EXAMPLE OF THIS IS THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. WITH THE CORRECT USE OF THESE COMMANDMENTS NO HUMAN COULD BE ACCUSED OF WRITING A DOCUMENT RELATING TO A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR SELF INTEREST.

BIG International's Humanitarian Development Centre