Statement 3 From BIG International

Many players are now requesting further knowledge of the meaning of a Humanitarian Organisation. Firstly and most importantly, it is a structure built within the laws of all faiths.

To enable BIG International to meet this level of commitment, the organisation must provide to all equally in relation to costs with no discounting, reduction sales or incentive advertising.

Before expanding on the details of what a Humanitarian Organisation represents, we will produce a current example of what we mean. On the 25th of June 1998 we sent an independent reporter to cover a hearing relating to BIG and Courtney. The hearing was at THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION in Court 40 presided over by Mr Justice Rimer.

Without any opening statement from BIG International, we now provide James Sancton’s report.

REPORT:

ON ARRIVAL at the High Court of Justice, my first feeling was of intimidation from the main entrance hall. It seemed to echo with the word “guilty”, as if it were shouting that anyone entering through these doors is guilty of something. It is designed to trick you and cause you considerable inconvenience. It makes you feel alienated and provides no feelings of compassion or comfort. The impact is that this building represents more power than is seen. I wanted to turn and leave.

The night before arriving in England, I had taken the trouble to read all the documents relating to the six defendants plus reports of what has been happening to them. My mind is not legally trained, but I felt that something was seriously wrong with the details relating to the six defendants, of whom I had no personal knowledge. I was excited at the thought of entering a major building that I had only seen via European TV ­ THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

I found the number of the court from a kind of backward reception desk. In most buildings the reception faces the visitor. In this building the reception faces inward. The two young ladies on reception were trying to be nice but with no actual feelings. They had difficulty finding the correct court but finally gave me the number and the name of the building in which the court was located; Court 40 in the QUEENS BUILDING. This conjured up a picture in my mind of an old, beautiful building provided by the Royal Family. I couldn’t wait to see it.

On finding the “QUEENS BUILDING” I felt let down. It was a square, shabby building, located in the middle of some remarkable old buildings. It was as if someone had tried to upgrade the old images of justice by using a sledge hammer. “Never mind”, I said to myself, “I’m not here as a tourist. I have a job of work to do”.

I entered the building and was confronted with two men in batman capes playing football with a mop head. They seemed oblivious to the fact that a member of the public was watching their new court activity. I asked the direction to Court 40 and was told to go through two glass doors. “The listings will be up soon” one of them shouted, and continued to play football.

I was now in a long corridor, glass down one side and courts down the other. Court 40 was the second in from the right. I peeked through the glass panel in the door. On seeing the layout I wished I had never taken this assignment. I turned and went and sat on a very uncomfortable and very dirty chair. The area felt as if someone had held a party the night before and had failed to clean up. The atmosphere was such that it did not place a non-guilty person at ease. The area was depressing and provided no compassion for those entering. It shouted out “What we say goes”, regardless.

Other court staff started to arrive. I noted one of BIG’s defendants enter the building. Though he appeared composed, he also looked determined to seek justice. The building seemed to reject him, yet he stood his ground. Then an arrogant man entered dressed in a black robe. He was followed by a much younger baby faced man. It reminded me of Tom Brown’s school days with the senior boy being followed by his fag. They were both oblivious to their surroundings. It was their area and they intended to let everyone know it. These two men were the Plaintiff’s barrister Mr Green, and what seemed to be his junior.

After a time the defendant I had noticed was approached by a younger man. He looked tired but upon meeting the defendant came more alive. He seemed a little more at home in this building than the defendant. Eventually the whole area started to fill with legal representatives and their clients chatting together. Some looked serious, others looked concerned.

I took the opportunity to watch the people around the defendant. There was a female barrister who seemed to know the building but was also oblivious to its dirty condition. She appeared very much in control of her space. There was also a gentleman dressed in a grey suit who came with her -- the defendant’s solicitor. Of course there was the defendant. His confidence hadn’t changed in relation to his space or the intimidation which seemed to be directed towards him by others who were now in the area.

We all then entered the court. The time was about ten thirty. Mr Green strode past all as if to say “Look, I’m supposed to be here”. He was followed closely by his junior. Then came a barrister (representing Mrs Rowley) who looked fed up with the idea of being there. He sat behind Mr Green. Next to Mrs Rowley’s barrister sat Mr Rowley’s barrister who looked determined to put his case across. Next to him sat the female barrister representing Mr Grant. On the next bench sat the gentleman with Mr Grant’s barrister and next to him a man who seemed more like a spy for Mr Green. Then came the Plaintiff’s representatives. On the next bench sat Mr Grant and his solicitor. Alongside Mr Grant’s solicitor sat a young couple who were there for another case. They looked subdued. Then came more plaintiff’s representatives. In front of the judges bench sat the clerk of the court, another barrister type and the usher.

The scene was set. Intimidation was in place. The judge’s bench took up about a quarter of the total area. The judge’s lower bench took up a further quarter of the total area, then a small empty floor space and the rest of us were squeezed into the remaining area. But Mr Green made sure he took up more than his fair share of space. The Plaintiff’s representatives seemed to be there to ensure there wasn’t much space left for the public. Although Mr Grant was tightly squashed in, he appeared to have more space than all of them put together.

We were all told to stand and on walks the judge, Mr Justice Rimer. His robes looked as if they needed a wash. His scruffy grey hair protruded from under a cream coloured wig. His glasses seemed like they were a permanent fixture. This was the man representing the Queens insignia situated above his chair. Everyone did a slight bending movement of their body and then all sat down, including a number of other barristers representing other cases.

The judge heard a short summary of each motion from the representing barristers, who then stated the amount of time they wished for their motion to be heard. The judge, after hearing all this (what can only be termed secret legal gobbledeygook used to protect the jobs of barristers), then listed and informed the court of the order in which each motion would be heard. BIG’s case came third.

I took this opportunity to look at the only defendant present. He seemed at peace, almost as if he knew what was going to happen. His barrister also looked relaxed and so did (what I have assumed to be) her junior. Mr Grant’s solicitor looked pensive and poised for action. Many glances were directed towards Mr Grant from the Plaintiff’s representatives, who looked as if they were out on a coach outing; in other words they were there because it was better than working.

I felt very uncomfortable because I was sitting between the Plaintiff’s representatives preparing my report. One of these representatives suffered with terrible body odour. Another looked like an anteater. Others looked like the living dead. In other words, I wasn’t welcome. Unfortunately there was no other place for me to sit.

After listening to the first two motions our case started with, you guessed it, Mr Green. He swaggered to his own vocal chords and placed his arrogant stance into motion - placing his hand upon his hip as if he were about to do a Mick Jagger impression of “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction”; though his underlying message was “I’m going to get satisfaction here, from my own importance”. The judge all but applauded his rhetoric, as Mr Green played to the better side of the judge’s nature. Mr Green had his say and down he sat, looking into the baby blue eyes of his junior who smiled so sweetly at him.

Next stood the barrister for Mr Rowley. A short thin man who could hardly see over the bench in front, he tried to make his point to have Mr Rowley removed from the list of defendants. He then tried to insist that Mr Rowley’ s statement should be left in a sealed envelope until the motion was heard to remove him from the defendants list.

What did the judge do?

He asked Mr Green what he thought about this situation. Mr Green complained that Mr Rowley had been given plenty of time to request a release and that Mr Rowley’s statement should be seen or that Mr Rowley should be held in contempt of court.

Of course, neither Mr Green nor Justice Rimer failed to take into consideration the Mr Rowley’s wife is about to give birth or that Mr Flexman of the DTI’s Insolvency Service is insisting that Mr’s Rowley should attend at his offices in London or face prison. They also failed to note the fact that Mr Rowley has an income to make. However, when it comes to the DTI, they are permitted more than a year to produce their case with the DTI’s Mr Bott and others earning each and every day. They don’t have to arrange and pay for a solicitor, meet barristers paid for by the DTI with monies paid to them from tax payers. What irony. Via your taxes you pay to have your own organisation shut down. What makes this situation even more ironic is that the defendants have nothing to do with the organisations being closed down.

[In this case one side (the plaintiff), has all the time they need to prepare, including all expenses, paid holidays, no worry about the cost of the action and the best legal representatives that money can buy. Meanwhile the other side (the defendants), most of whom don’t even know each other, have been given no time by Mr Justice Rimer (who was more concerned about the spelling of his name than he was about injustices for the six defendants), no legal costs, no true time to even look at what they are being charged with. They have been given no chance to defend the plaintiff’s original winding up order of an organisation that doesn’t even exist in the UK. These defendants don’t even have anything to do with the organisations of BIG and Courtney except to provide services requested by Courtney. (Can you smell a rat? . . . because I can).]

Mr Rowley’s barrister tried again, only to be interrupted by Mr Green who stipulated to the judge that all defendants had had plenty of time to reply. This was the first stated lie of Mr Green. The plaintiffs had taken over a year to prepare this case. Mr Justice Rimer had permitted a winding up order with no defence and receivers were going around collecting all defence documentation and finances. The whole thing then started to become obvious; they wanted this illegal action swept under the carpet. Mr Green was the spearhead chosen to go into court to represent the deceptive statement of Mr Bott, upon which the whole of the plaintiff’s case rests.

But what happened next was despicable. Mr Green made a joke about Mr’s Rowley’s sworn statement implying that she, snigger snigger, apparantly knows nothing. Justice Rimer then joined in the joke saying that he, the judge, sees that none of the defendants know anything ­ snigger, snigger. That one action by the judge proved to me that this case was seen as signed, sealed and delivered. Mr Rowley’s barrister had to accept the actions of the senior boys.

I took the opportunity to look at Mr Grant. Absolutely no change. I wondered what on earth was going through his mind? His solicitor didn’t stop writing. My attention was then drawn back to the fact that Mrs Rowley’s barrister was now on his feet. He demanded an apology from the judge, which he duly got. The judge and Mr Green now both realised their mistake; that the motion had in fact been prejudged by a show of open collusion between the two of them. Mr Justice Rimer and Mr Green, in their attempt to make nonsense of the sworn statements of the defendants, now became concerned and were very keen to play down the event. (I’m no legal brain, but I believe this was contempt of the Queens Court by Mr Justice Rimer and proved collusion between The Queens Judge and Mr Green representing the plaintiff).

When Mr Grant’s barrister finally stood, it was all very matter of fact. No play acting. No smiles. They showed the court what integrity means. They showed respect for the Queens insignia. It was almost as if Mr Grant’s barrister was talking directly to the Queen. Mr Grant’s statement was in on time, clean, direct and also very clear. Mr Grant’s whole team wasn’t there to make jokes or play cute to the judge. They respected law. Both Mr and Mrs Rowley’s barristers also paid due respect to the law, but you could see that they felt that their clients were being used as additional padding for the plaintiff’s case.

It was obvious that the plaintiffs were after one man . . . Mr Grant. Mr Hesling and Mr Stiles had been given an extension of time to prepare their sworn statements and Mr Ward, who wasn’t present, was found to be in contempt of court because he hadn’t entered a sworn statement of defence. The familiarity of relationship between Mr Green and Justice Rimer was clear. It was also clear that Mr Green would obtain whatever he wanted from this court and this judge.

Proceedings over, I couldn’t help but think to myself “what was this all about?” Let’s, for a moment, work out the estimated cost of the above fiasco. I base my figures on information from BIG’s legal dept.

Let’s say the Plaintiff’s group cost about £11,000. An estimated £4000 is included in this sum for Mr Green. Next are Mr and Mrs Rowley’s barristers who cost say £2000 each. Then Mr Grant’s barrister at say £3000 and his solicitor at a further £800. The Court and all its officialdom cost a further £20,000. Let’s forget about the plaintiffs and defendants costs of actually getting to this stage. For one day therefore, there is an estimated cost of £38,000. All this for something which could have been done by post. (If you can’t smell a rat yet then something is seriously wrong with your sense of smell).

Most people started to leave, but Mr Green and Mr Grant’s legal representatives stayed put. What was happening? Then I realised that Mr Green was pushing for Mr Grant’s committal to prison. He claimed that Mr Grant had broken a previous order made upon him, related to Inner Sanctum, by assisting BIG International with details of legal developments taking place inside Inner Sanctum which would ensure that BIG International didn’t make the same mistakes.

I took the opportunity to look at Mr Grant. Inner strength radiated from him. He was prepared to face prison for his beliefs. His barrister requested time to prepare his defence in the light of Mr Grant’s current commitments and the fact that he has a medical order to rest for at least 6 months. But now I could clearly see that this court was not interested in the other defendants or BIG International or Courtney. They were there to stop Mr Grant’s challenge to them over the illegal closure of Inner Sanctum. They wanted him silenced. At Mr Green’s constant request, Mr Justice Rimer refused time to prepare a correct defence. They all know, including the DTI, that Mr Grant has seen through their scam. A scam structured by the DTI to protect financial institutions within the United Kingdom from exposure of actions that are not in the public interest.

They must silence Mr Grant or face the courts themselves. No wonder that Mr Bott’s statement is full of lies and deceptions. No wonder that the DTI have taken two companies to court that don’t even exist in the United Kingdom. And remember, this court works upon the laws written by the financial institutions representatives. But why this court? Why have they chosen this court to silence Mr Grant and not the criminal courts? The answer is obvious. In a criminal court Mr Grant would be within his rights to demand a jury. In the present court only the judge sits ­ and who is the judge? Yes, you got it, it’s Mr Justice Rimer.

Mr Grant is the only defendant in this case who openly opposed the closure of Inner Sanctum. Mr Grant is the only defendant in this case who had his private financial assets frozen during the Inner Sanctum case. Mr Grant has constantly challenged the court and the DTI when related to the Inner Sanctum case and has constantly challenged the legality of actions taken against the members of Inner Sanctum. Mr Grant is the only defendant who assisted in the structured case now being developed against the British Government and which is to be placed the European Court of Human Rights. Mr Grant was the only person who provided details of his United Kingdom solicitors for British members of Inner Sanctum to show their level of commitment to Inner Sanctum. What happens? . . . the Serious Fraud Office makes contact with Mr Grant’s solicitors over the mail being received for Mr Grant. Yes, I was right. I did smell a rat, and one which we have all smelt before. It is the smell of the DTI doing the financial institutions dirty work and using the Closed Court Chancery Division of the HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE to do it.

For the first time I have seen what Mr Grant is fighting for. He wants to expose the closed legal system that affects individuals all over the world. He has gone to the core of the problem, a problem that enables financial institutions to rob every individual worldwide by protecting “financial robber barons” from exposure, imprisonment and public disgrace. No wonder Mr Grant researched John D Rockefeller Sr. and seventy other families who have been able to take over the lives and rights of freedom of every British citizen and millions of other citizens worldwide. Mr Grant has touched a raw nerve.

Never have I felt so angry about my own stupidity. Mr Grant’s fight since the early sixties against such corruption has certainly hit a raw nerve within the group of current “financial robber barons”. Let’s all play on this nerve. Let’s find out why financial institutions such as Lloyds didn’t receive the same action in court against them. Let’s find out about the scandal which was covered up in the Pearl Insurance developments. Let’s ask if it is morally correct for Lord Sainsbury, a close friend of Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair, to earn £3.3 billion from food. Let’s ask why the retail/wholesale corruption of Sir Stanley Kalms is not being investigated. Let’s ask why financial institutions take out billions of pounds from the United Kingdom with the profits never being returned to the United Kingdom. Let’s ask why the financial institutions are writing the rules that govern them. Let’s ask why all British Governments have ratified such rules.

Mr Grant has asked and has kept on asking all these questions, constantly researching each one and showing us what is actually happening. His lectures have related to the origination of the British Parliament and the freedoms agreed to the British People. But the document which started to give the British People freedom has now been placed into a museum and nearly all the freedoms agreed to by the Royal family of that day have been eroded by the people’s own parliamentary system.

Yes, there is a RAT, the rat of betrayal. Since the beginning of the 1900’s British MP’s have betrayed the people’s parliament to the “financial robber barons”. Why did the MP’s betray the freedoms of their own people? It was simple. Their exchequer fell into debt to the “financial robber barons” and this affected the freedoms and rights of all nationalities and cultures.

Now you see why they want Mr Grant silenced. And why they hit out at BIG International, an organisation they felt had been developed by Mr Grant. BIG International . . . an organisation which only provides FREE LOTTERY TICKETS to all who request one. Now you see why that free lottery ticket is so important to you and your future family, and why it relates to a new start for the new millennium. We must all expose the “financial robber barons” before we all enter the new era of individual development and understanding.

I never expected that such an assignment would change my direction of life so much. On the plane home I felt numb. My thoughts went out to all those who gave their lives for our freedom and rights, and to the cash starvation that governments around the world placed upon those who were injured or suffered to give us our freedom.

I felt that due to my own lack of understanding and concern, I had helped the “financial robber barons” by looking to protect my job as a reporter, employed by one of their organisations. I overlooked what I felt and reported what I was directed to so as to mislead the public. These directions were received from an accepted media centre whose name starts with the letter “R”. I now intend to put my actions right.

I now understand why Mr Grant has been set on such a path. How he has withstood the pressures, not only from his own but also those seeking to destroy his credibility, I do not know. I watched as Mr Grant left the court alone and blended into the public background. I thought, how can a man with a secondary school education, no direct wealth within his immediate family and who only wanted to be an engineer be placed upon such a path?

END OF REPORT THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED FREELY. ALL WHO WISH MAY COPY IT.

We take this opportunity to thank James for his report and refusing to accept any payment for the assignment. This report is very different for what we actually expected. The report is difficult to follow because one finds one’s mind being directed to Mr Grant’s path.

At Mr Grant’s request, we have been asked not to damage BIG International’s reputation by supporting Mr Grant’s fight. We now find this request made by Mr Grant impossible to comply with.

Fortunately, due to millions of individuals worldwide, we have the funds and assets to support such a fight.

It is now realised by all the originators of BIG International that the paths of BIG International and Mr Grant were destined to cross.

It is now our intention to provide a free lottery ticket to all individuals who have been part of any organisations or companies or sole traders that have been closed down by the DTI or other British Government departments.

The intention of BIG International is to also go much further than this. We are now going to provide a financial fund to replace all actual losses made by individuals worldwide whose financial losses are directly related to the closure of their organisation by any British Government department. This is to be considered a humanitarian cause and meets the 80% US requirement for open financial trading programmes that are currently financially enjoyed by only the few.

BIG International will now financially support the European Case currently being developed against the actions of British Government departments and the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice.

This situation doesn’t only affect the humanitarian rights of United Kingdom Citizens. It also affects the humanitarian rights of all nations by eroding the actual values and laws of the European Court of Human Rights, laws that the British Government signed and endorsed on behalf of all British Citizens.

We can now see why the British Government increased the time for releasing public papers, because these papers actually show the influence of the financial institutions over their citizens and the citizens of many other nations.

The British Government is now in contempt of court in relation to their signature that ratified their acceptance, on behalf of all British Citizens, of the laws of the European Court of Human Rights and its judgements.

Originally we were going to restrict this statement to the United Kingdom situation against BIG International. Due to the article provided by James, we find that we can no longer accept the wishes of Mr Grant for non-intervention on his behalf. Mr Grant has opened our eyes. We are on the same path and like him we must fight with every resource at our disposal.

We now have the core of our fight for humanitarian development towards the new Millennium and we believe that this was intended to be. They can’t hide the assets of life which have been stolen from all of us anymore. This is the first opportunity for Humanity to show that Usury has no place in the new millennium.

This is also the first opportunity for Humanity to show that the developers of Asset Usury were the same people who financed the development of two world wars. While the normal person in the street blamed each other and other nations for starting these world wars, the developers of Asset Usury increased their own financial standing and power of control over us all. The nations that carried the blame have now passed the blame to their younger generations who still find difficulty obtaining trust within the global picture.

We now have the opportunity to correct Usury.

BIG International is to enter this humanitarian direction. Should any player of BIG International wish to discontinue their relationship with BIG International because of this humanitarian direction then they may request a full refund and disassociate themselves from BIG International. Our doors will never be closed to you should you wish to return at a later date. This is known as individual choice within a free society, something that the British Government seems to have forgotten.

The original planned statement of release, which related directly to the current situation, will now be our next statement with some slight alterations. James’s report hit all of us hard. It hit our point of awareness so directly that we felt it was in fact time to stop looking the other way and direct our attention to the core problem of Usury which is currently entrenched in our world society.

We ask that all Humanitarian organisations work with BIG International on this one, but still maintain their own unique identities; before the “financial robber barons” get control of these lines of public communication as they have with every other form of public communications.

Again, for the first time in human history, individuals via the world wide web and email can communicate without restrictions. Governments worldwide are now attempting to take control of these lines of communication and are not far from achieving their goals. BIG, at one point, was forced off line by a British Government Department. An employee of that department, a Mr Flexman, actually sent a fax to a BIG International supplier of communications to state that BIG International was closed due to insolvency. That indicates how low a British Government Department will stoop to stop these lines of communications which are freely open for all to use.

CONCLUSION TO BIG INTERNATIONAL’S THIRD PLAYER INFORMATION STATEMENT

IT MAY NOW BE TIME FOR UNITED KINGDOM PLAYERS TO WRITE TO THEIR MP’S AND MEDIA TO FIND OUT IF THEY WILL COME OUT AGAINST USURY, AFTER ALL, 90% OF THE WORLD’S FAITHS TEACH AGAINST USURY AND ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THEIR FOLLOWERS FROM SUCH ACTION. THIS IS MORAL LAW WHICH SOME SAY DOES NOT EXIST.