Climate-Crap Lien Served On UN, IPCC, WMO & IMO
For the purposes of making a challenge to the whole Climate-Crap narrative, in accordance with the UCT Treaty’s Aims and Objectives, Carlo Weeks has been appointed as UCT Climate Change Ambassador and he has already engaged all the major players involved in peddling the international scam in an administrative process, which will terminate with Perfected Liens over the personal property of the individuals concerned.
After the failure of the parties to respond appropriately to Notice of Conditional Acceptance, Notice of Opportunity To Cure and the Notice of Default, Notice of Security Interest was duly served, which was followed by an Affidavit of Obligation, otherwise known as a Lien, over the personal assets of the Lien Debtors.
Affidavit of Obligation
Commercial Lien
A Verified Plain Statement of Fact
The Parties
Claimants:
Carlo Weeks Authorised Representative for the Indigenous peoples of the Nations within the jurisdiction of The Universal Community Trust.
MAILING LOCATION
Apex House
Thomas Street
Trethomas
Caerphilly
CF83 8DP
Hereinafter known as “Lien Claimants”
Respondents:
António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations
760 United Nations Plaza, Manhattan, New York City, New York, US
Co-Respondent
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Jim Skea IPCC Chair
c/o World Meteorological Organization
7 bis Avenue de la Paix
C.P. 2300
CH- 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Co-Respondent
The World Meteorological Organization
Celeste Saulo Sercretary-General
c/o World Meteorological Organization
7 bis Avenue de la Paix
C.P. 2300
CH- 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Co-Respondent
The International Maritime Organization
Mr. Arsenio Dominguez, Secretary-General
4, Albert Embankment
London
SE1 7SR
United Kingdom
Hereinafter known as “Lien Debtors”
The Laws of Commerce
All are equal under the law. See Exodus 21:23-25; Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt. 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25. Legal maxims: No one is above the law; Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few.
In commerce, truth is sovereign. See Exodus 20:16; Psalms 117:2; John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8. Legal maxim: To lie is to go against the mind.
Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit. See Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev. 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12.
An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce. See 1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim: He,who does not deny, admits.
An unrebutted affidavit becomes a judgment in commerce. See Heb. 6:16-17. Any proceeding in court, tribunal or arbitration forum consists of a contest of commercial affidavits, wherein the points remaining unrebutted at the end of the contest stand as the truth to which the judgment of the law is applied.
He who leaves the field of battle first (does not respond appropriately to an Affidavit) loses by default. See Book of Job; Matt 10:22. Legal maxim: He who does not repel a wrong when he can occasions it.
Sacrifice is the measure of credibility. One who is not damaged, put at risk or willing to swear an oath or make an affirmation on his full commercial liability for the truth of his statements and the legitimacy of his actions, has no basis to assert claims or charges, and forfeits all credibility and right to claim the authority to do so. See Acts 7. Legal maxim: He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit.
A lien or claim, under commercial law, can only be satisfied by one of the following actions: A full rebuttal by an Affidavit of Truth, point-by-point, supported by evidence and sworn or affirmed at the same level of commercial risk; the satisfaction of the claimant, whether by payment or mutual agreement; resolution by a jury, in accordance with the rules of common law. See Gen. 2-3; Matt 4; Revelation. Legal maxim: If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.
A party injured by the fraud of another may claim triple damages, plus the principal. “And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.” Luke 19:8.
Bouvier’s Maxims
Contra veritatem lex numquam aliquid permittit. The law never suffers anything contrary to truth. 2 Co. Inst. 252. But sometimes it allows a conclusive presumption in opposition to truth. See 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3061.
Contractus ex turpi causa, vel contra bonos mores nullus est. A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null. Hob. 167; Dig. 2, 14, 27, 4.
Culpa lata aequiparatur dolo. A concealed fault is equal to a deceit.
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies. Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Greenl. Ev. Sec. 74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. 408; 4 Bouv Inst. n. 4411.
Error qui non resistitur, approbatur. An error not resisted is approved. Doct. & Stud. c. 70.
Ex dolo malo non oritur action. Out of fraud no action arises. Cowper, 343; Broom’s Max. 349.
Ex facto jus oritur. Law arises out of fact; that is, its application must be to facts.
Ex tota materia emergat resolutio. The construction or resolution should arise out of the whole subject matter.
Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270.
Fraus latet in generalibus. Fraud lies hid in general expressions.
Idem est facere, et nolle prohibere cum possis. It is the same thing to do a thing as not to prohibit it when in your power. 3 Co. Inst. 178.
Incerta pro nullius habentur. Things uncertain are held for nothing. Dav. 33.
Incerta quantitas vitiat acium. An uncertain quantity vitiates the act. 1 Roll. R.
Invito beneficium non datur. No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide Assent.
Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur. The judge is condemned when the guilty are acquitted.
Judicium non suo judice datum nullius est momenti. A judgment given by an improper judge is of no moment. 11 Co. 76.
Manga negligentia culpa est, magna culpa dolus est. Gross negligence is a fault, gross fault is a fraud. Dig 50, 16, 226.
Magna culpa dolus est. Great neglect is equivalent to fraud. Dig. 50, 16, 226; 2 Spears, R. 256; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 646.
Peccatum peccato addit qui culpae quam facit patrocinium defensionis adjungit. He adds one offence to another, who, when he commits a crime, joins to it the protection of a defence. 5 Co. 49.
Quando do una et eadem re, duo onerabiles existunt, unus, pro insufficientia alterius, de integro
onerabitur. When two persons are liable on a joint obligation, if one makes default the other must bear the whole. 2 Co. Inst. 277.
Qui non libere veritatem pronunciat, proditor est verilatis. He, who does not willingly speak the truth, is a betrayer of the truth.
Qui non obstat quod obstare potest facere videtur. He who does not prevent what he can seems to
commit the thing. 2 Co. Inst. 146.
Qui non prohibit quod prohibere potest assentire videtur. He, who does not forbid what he can forbid, seems to assent. 2 Inst. 305.
Qui non propulsat injuriam quando potest, infert. He, who does not repel a wrong when he can, induces it. Jenk. Cent. 271.
Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.
FRAUD ACT 2006
1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed on subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
(2) The sections are –
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
Private & International Law
UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS
Article 3.8 – Fraud
A party may avoid the contract when it has been led to conclude the contract by the other party’s
fraudulent representation, including language, practices, or fraudulent nondisclosure of circumstances which, according to reasonable standards of fair dealing, the latter party should have disclosed.
Article 5.1.3 – Cooperation between the parties
Each party shall cooperate with the other party when such co-operation may reasonably be expected for the performance of that party’s obligations.
Article 7.3.4 – Adequate Assurance of Due Performance
A party who reasonably believes that there will be a fundamental non-performance by the other party may meanwhile withhold its performance. Where this assurance is not provided within a reasonable time the party demanding it may terminate the contract.
Article 7.4.1 – Right to damages
Any non-performance gives the aggrieved party a right to damages either exclusively or in conjunction with any other remedies except where the non-performance is excused under these principles.
Article 7.4.2 – Full compensation
(1) The aggrieved party is entitled to full compensation for harm sustained as a result of the non-
performance. Such harm includes both any loss which it suffered and any gain of which it was deprived, taking into account any gain to the aggrieved party resulting from its avoidance of cost or harm
(2) Such harm may be non-pecuniary and includes, for instance, physical suffering and emotional distress.
ALLEGATIONS:
The following allegations arise from the conduct of Lien Debtors & the Agents of, indirectly and/or directly, in relation to the validity of claims being used as the justification for governments to institute controls on all biological life on Earth.
Following the Lien Debtors, dishonour of Lien Claimants NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 09 July 2024, as well as NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 01 August 2024, There has been no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtors are not concealing material facts, namely:
1) There is no material and substantive evidence, of an independent (i.e. not funded directly or indirectly, by vested corporate interests) primary publication relied upon that disproves the considerable scientific evidence that Earth’s climate is in fact naturally entering a cooling phase and lien claimant believes no such evidence exists;
2) There is no material and substantive evidence, of an independent (i.e. not funded directly or indirectly, by vested corporate interests) primary publication relied upon by the IPCC, IMO and WMO, that evidences CO2 can retain and contain heat for a significant period in the atmosphere and lien claimant believes no such evidence exists;
3) There is no material and substantive evidence, of an independent (i.e. not funded directly or indirectly, by vested corporate interests) primary publication relied upon that evidences the use of the scientific method to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that aerosolised pollutants discharged by shipping, do not create an albedo effect resulting in a reduction in sea temperatures and consequently off-gassing of vital CO2, plus an acidification of the oceans and lien claimant believes no such evidence exists;
4) There is no material and substantive evidence, of an independent (i.e. not funded directly or indirectly, by vested corporate interests) primary publication and/or a primary specialist peer reviewed paper that takes into account the level and effect of all sources of atmospheric pollution, including, but not limited to railways, shipping and aircraft emissions on city air quality, and demonstrates that emissions from these modes of transport are not breaching the Clean Air Act 1993 and similar Acts world wide and lien claimant believes no such evidence exists;
5) There is no material and substantive evidence, of a primary publication and/or a primary specialist peer reviewed paper that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, since the introduction of the one fuel policy in 1988, there has been no significant increase in aerosolised pollutants discharged into the atmosphere and lien claimant believes no such evidence exists;
6) There is no material and substantive evidence, of a primary publication and/or a primary specialist peer reviewed paper that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, increased cirrus clouds that form as a result of “Climate optimised routing of flights” are not intentionally increasing the albedo effect and significantly altering the weather experienced on the ground and lien claimant believes no such evidence exists;
7) There is no material and substantive evidence, of an independent (i.e. not funded directly or indirectly, by vested corporate interests) primary publication and/or a primary specialist peer reviewed paper, that defines the percentage of pollution attributed to all modes of transport, including shipping, aviation, railways and motor vehicles, demonstrating that carbon taxes applied to motor vehicles is fair, proportionate and equitable and lien claimant believes no such evidence exists;
8) There is no material and substantive evidence, of a primary publication and/or a primary specialist peer reviewed paper that evidences that geoengineering programmes conducted and recorded internationally by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and locally by councils, in line with the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN SDG’s (Strategic Development Goals), are not giving the false impression of a ‘climate crisis’ and lien claimant believes no such evidence exists;
9) There is no material and substantive evidence, of a primary publication and/or a primary specialist peer reviewed paper that evidences Black Carbon, Calcium, Graphene, Sulphur Dioxide, Aluminium, Barium, and other aerosolised particulates from aircraft emissions discharged into the stratosphere, do not cause a whitening of the sky that reflects heat away from the earth and that the effects are not cumulative and persistent, and lien claimant believes no such evidence exists;
10) There is no material and substantive evidence, of an independent (i.e. not funded directly or indirectly, by vested corporate interests) primary publication relied upon by the IPCC, IMO and WMO that evidences the use of the scientific method used to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that;
- Aluminium (which is not naturally found in free-form) added to aircraft fuel to increase efficiency, which is now recorded in high amounts in the air we breathe, rain, soil and rivers throughout the world, are not originating primarily from aircraft and marine engines.
- Aluminium nano particles discharged into the atmosphere and inhaled with the air we breathe are not capable of entering the brain via the frontal lobe.
- Aluminium, a primary neuro free radical generator, is safe and will not set off early Apoptosis (death of the brain) which is part of the chemical matrix related to Alzheimer’s.
- There is no evidence to connect the introduction of aluminium nano particles into our atmosphere to the corresponding rise in ADD and ADHD.
- Aluminium nano particles in the atmosphere when inhaled with the air we breathe are not capable of triggering breathing problems, fatigue, insomnia and brain fog, symptoms now more commonly attributed to COVID.
- Aluminium found in our streams is not killing microbial bacteria, drastically reducing the number of aquatic insects, disrupting the entire food chain for aquatic life and major bird species, and lien claimant believes no such evidence exists
11) There is no material and substantive evidence, of an independent (i.e. not funded directly or indirectly, by vested corporate interests) primary publication relied upon by the IPCC that evidences the use of the scientific method used to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that aluminium and barium nano particles, the same materials used in nano-thermite explosives, are not small enough to get absorbed through the root structure of trees, making forest fires burn dramatically hotter and increasing the acreage lost, and lien claimant believes no such evidence exists;
12) There is no material and substantive evidence, of an independent (i.e. not funded directly or indirectly, by vested corporate interests) primary publication relied upon by the IPCC, IMO and WMO that evidences the use of the scientific method used to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that, the cumulative effect of particulates not naturally found in freeform in Earth’s atmosphere, when discharged repeatedly, will have no negative long-term health effects on all life on earth, and lien claimant believes no such evidence exists;
13) There is no material and substantive evidence, that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that consent has been given by the indigenous peoples of the Earth for weather modification programmes to be carried out by governments under the advice and direction of unelected bodies and lien claimant believes no such evidence exists;
14) There is no material and substantive evidence, that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that countries or organisations carrying out weather modification without the express consent of indigenous peoples should not be considered as hostile actors, contravening the convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1976, and lien claimant believes no such evidence exists;
15) There is no material and substantive evidence, that proves beyond all reasonable doubt, that Cognitive Warfare has not been planned and deployed at the behest of the UN and other associated non government organisations to target children’s education, intentionally instilling fear in a way that affects their future decision-making processes and ultimately their behaviour, and lien claimant believes no such evidence exists.
LEDGERING
For the avoidance of doubt, this document is a security interest expressing the value of Lien Claimants’ natural, equitable and legal rights over all the property, income and assets of Lien Debtors’, to the value expressed within. Consisting solely of the estimated initial minimum cost of reversing and repairing damage to:
1. Land, Ten Trillion GBP £10,000,000,000,000+
2. Air, Ten Trillion GBP £10,000,000,000,000+
3. Water Ten Trillion GBP £10,000,000,000,000
Lien Claimants hereby charges this instrument in the sum of TOTAL LIEN VALUE: Thirty Trillion GBP £30,000,000,000,000, subject to additional default charges.
DEFAULT CONDITIONS
Lien Debtors’ are given 21 days to deliver to Lien Claimants’ material evidence in support of an appropriate point-for-point rebuttal under oath or affirmation of the foregoing allegations. Failure to repudiate or rebut with material evidence every allegation made will result in Lien Debtors’ becoming immediately liable for the payment of Total damages of Thirty Trillion GBP £30,000,000,000,000, Triple Damages of Ninety Trillion GBP £90,000,000,000,000 will also be added to the debt if Lien Debtors’ default is not cured.
In the event that it is not cured within 90 days, Lien Debtors’ become liable for Exemplary Damages of Total Damages x 100 [Three Quadrillion GBP £3,000,000,000,000,000] following NOTICE OF DEFAULT.
AFFIRMATION
I, Carlo Weeks, Authorised Representative for the Indigenous Peoples of the Nations within the jurisdiction of The Universal Community Trust. (Lien Claimants), hereby affirm upon my own unlimited commercial liability and under penalty of perjury, that I have read all of the contents of this Affidavit of Obligation, and to the very best of my knowledge, I believe that the facts expressed herein are true, correct and complete.
Executed by: Carlo weeks, Authorised Representative for the Indigenous Peoples of the Nations within the jurisdiction of The Universal Community Trust (Lien Claimants)
All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
VERIFICATION
Affirmed, autographed and sealed before me, _________________, on the _______ day of the month of ________, in the year two thousand and ______.
Notary Public: Notary Seal:
Notary Public’s office location.
Signed & Sealed By: __________________________________________
NOTICE is hereby given that the Lien Debtors have twenty one (21) days after receipt of this Affidavit of Obligation to rebut, deny, or otherwise prove invalid the allegations contained herein. Failure to rebut, deny or otherwise disprove any of the allegations will be construed as Lien Debtors’ affirmation that said allegations have been proven to be true, correct and complete. Void where prohibited by law.