Wildife and Countryside Act (the defunct act)

Dear Sir or Madam,

In the attestation DEFRA officers take it states you are to uphold
fundamental human rights, this oath is then broken by any
enforcement of the wildlife and countryside act which contradicts
human rights by stating that a suspect is guilty until he proves
himself innocent. The most significant clause of the Statute of
Tallage is Chapter Four, where the Crown promises never to impose
laws that infringe any common law rights or liberties, the wildlife
and countryside act also contradicts this law.
Furthermore "We will and grant for us and our heirs," states King
Edward’s Act, "that all clerks and laymen of our land shall have
all their laws, liberties and free customs as largely and wholly as
they have used to have the same at any time when they had them best
and most fully; and if any statutes have been made by us or our
ancestors, or any customs brought in contrary to them, or any
manner of article contained in this present charter, we will and
grant that each manner of statutes and customs shall be void and
frustrate for evermore." That clearly states the wildlife and
countryside act is void. It does not apply!
To take this further there is the fact that DEFRA is a COMPANY,
registered to the companies house (registration numbers found are:
UC6035210, UC6248538 and UC4631666) which means they can only have
authority over any member of public through form of contract. This
means that defra enforcement officers who claim right to enter
private property do not unless you give them consent. enforcement
of the wildlife and countryside act also needs consent, not only
for you to have authority but also for the statute to have "force
of law". this means that the wildlife and countryside act is
defunct and has to lawful power!
Can you please confirm this or prove otherwise.

Yours faithfully,

ben addison

Dear Rumble, Christine (Biodiversity),

Before i take this any further i would appreciate you reply on oath
that what you state will be correct and leave no room for error.
With you being a civil servant i think this is more than
acceptable.
If you claim that DEFRA officers indeed take no oath of allegiance
then who grants you [DEFRA] the authority which you claim?
You also state you are obliged to act Lawfully, this therefore does
not include statutes, which are not law, merely given force of law
(hence the difference between Legal and Lawful.) Does this mean you
will enforce law over statutes?
Also it is in common law (see many common law books i.e Odger s The
Common Law of England volume 1) that a man is innocent until his
guilt is proven, this being law over-rules statute making the
contradiction of it in the Wildlife and countryside Act void, is
this not correct?
Although you state that the reverse burden is purely an "evidential
burden" that still contradicts law, including the fact that
"Equality before the law is paramount and mandatory" (a maxim in
law)and also the stigmatism and damage to a mans reputation is
unlawful too, is this not correct?
If it is also nothing more than an evidential burden then why is
property siezed and privacy broken before a trial by jury, this is
unlawful and contradicts our unalienable rights which again
over-rule statute law?
Before i go any further i again wish to confirm that you reply on
oath and leave no room for error, Do you understand the use of
"legal fictions"?
Do you understand what a "person" is?
As for Defra being a company i would have expected a thorough
search by yourself, you did not search the full name of the company
[Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] which will
turn up with a positive result.
As you then go on to state "a “body corporate” for the purposes of
giving that office legal personality" this confuses me, you need a
legal fiction to prosecute a legal fiction (i.e a legal
personality, persons.) A legal Personality is itself a corporation,
which therefore follows company law, contracts, joinders are needed
to enact any authority on another legal fiction (i.e Mr Benjamin
Addison) which again confirms what i stated. Is this not correct?
Also if any prosecution under the Wildlife and countryside act is
taken is it not a criminal case?
If it is then who is the injured party? The state is not injured by
a limited take of birds of prey as the american system of wild-take
has proven?
Also given the fact i have never voted surely no statute law can
apply to me especially unless i consent and understand (legalese-
stand-under) as i have not consented to any statute or to be
governed by the current government (again see definition of statute
in blacks law dictionary)?

For the last time i wish to state the reply should be written on
oath and all information contained should be in plain english as
opposed to legalese or any other coded communication. You are a
civil servant who works for every member of public and these
requests are in the public interest.

Sincerely and without malice, ill will, vexation or frivolity,

ben addison

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs's handling of my FOI request
'Wildife and Countryside Act (the defunct act)'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wi...

Yours faithfully,

ben addison