This website belongs to BIG Agent #2211694 (Build Freedom). Click here to download BIOS and join BIG.
Please ensure that "2211694" is specified as your Agent.
When you complete the BIOS New Player Application form, please check the top item to
ensure that "Introducing Agents Player Number" is entered as
"2211694." If it is all zeros (or anything else), please change it to
"2211694." Thank you.
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
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
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
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 couldnt 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, Im not here as a tourist. I have a job of work
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 BIGs 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 Browns 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 Plaintiffs barrister Mr Green, and what seemed to be
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
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 defendants solicitor. Of course there was the
defendant. His confidence hadnt 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, Im 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 Rowleys barrister sat Mr
Rowleys 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
Grants barrister and next to him a man who seemed more like a spy for Mr Green. Then
came the Plaintiffs representatives. On the next bench sat Mr Grant and his
solicitor. Alongside Mr Grants solicitor sat a young couple who were there for
another case. They looked subdued. Then came more plaintiffs representatives. In
front of the judges bench sat the clerk of the court, another barrister type and the
The scene was set. Intimidation was in place. The judges bench took up about a
quarter of the total area. The judges 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
Plaintiffs representatives seemed to be there to ensure there wasnt 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
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. BIGs 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 Grants solicitor looked pensive and
poised for action. Many glances were directed towards Mr Grant from the Plaintiffs
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 Plaintiffs
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 wasnt 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 Cant Get No Satisfaction; though his underlying message was
Im 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 judges
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 Rowleys
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
Rowleys wife is about to give birth or that Mr Flexman of the DTIs Insolvency
Service is insisting that Mrs 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 DTIs Mr Bott and others earning each and every day. They dont 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 dont 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 plaintiffs original winding up
order of an organisation that doesnt even exist in the UK. These defendants
dont 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 Rowleys 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 plaintiffs case rests.
But what happened next was despicable. Mr Green made a joke about Mrs
Rowleys 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 Rowleys 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 didnt stop writing. My attention was
then drawn back to the fact that Mrs Rowleys 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. (Im 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 Grants 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 Grants barrister was talking directly to the
Queen. Mr Grants statement was in on time, clean, direct and also very clear. Mr
Grants whole team wasnt there to make jokes or play cute to the judge. They
respected law. Both Mr and Mrs Rowleys 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 plaintiffs 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 wasnt present, was found to be in contempt of court because he hadnt
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 couldnt help but think to myself what was this all
about? Lets, for a moment, work out the estimated cost of the above fiasco. I
base my figures on information from BIGs legal dept.
Lets say the Plaintiffs group cost about £11,000. An estimated £4000 is
included in this sum for Mr Green. Next are Mr and Mrs Rowleys barristers who cost
say £2000 each. Then Mr Grants barrister at say £3000 and his solicitor at a
further £800. The Court and all its officialdom cost a further £20,000. Lets
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 cant smell a rat yet then something is
seriously wrong with your sense of smell).
Most people started to leave, but Mr Green and Mr Grants legal representatives
stayed put. What was happening? Then I realised that Mr Green was pushing for Mr
Grants 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 didnt 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 Grants 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 Grants challenge to them over the illegal closure of Inner Sanctum.
They wanted him silenced. At Mr Greens 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 Botts
statement is full of lies and deceptions. No wonder that the DTI have taken two companies
to court that dont 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,
its 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 Grants 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
Never have I felt so angry about my own stupidity. Mr Grants fight since the
early sixties against such corruption has certainly hit a raw nerve within the group of
current financial robber barons. Lets all play on this nerve. Lets
find out why financial institutions such as Lloyds didnt receive the same action in
court against them. Lets find out about the scandal which was covered up in the
Pearl Insurance developments. Lets ask if it is morally correct for Lord Sainsbury,
a close friend of Britains Prime Minister Tony Blair, to earn £3.3 billion from
food. Lets ask why the retail/wholesale corruption of Sir Stanley Kalms is not being
investigated. Lets ask why financial institutions take out billions of pounds from
the United Kingdom with the profits never being returned to the United Kingdom. Lets
ask why the financial institutions are writing the rules that govern them. Lets 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 peoples own parliamentary system.
Yes, there is a RAT, the rat of betrayal. Since the beginning of the 1900s
British MPs have betrayed the peoples parliament to the financial robber
barons. Why did the MPs 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
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
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
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 ones mind being directed to Mr
At Mr Grants request, we have been asked not to damage BIG Internationals
reputation by supporting Mr Grants 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 doesnt 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
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 cant 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. Jamess
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
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 INTERNATIONALS THIRD PLAYER INFORMATION STATEMENT
IT MAY NOW BE TIME FOR UNITED KINGDOM PLAYERS TO WRITE TO THEIR MPS AND MEDIA TO
FIND OUT IF THEY WILL COME OUT AGAINST USURY, AFTER ALL, 90% OF THE WORLDS FAITHS
TEACH AGAINST USURY AND ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THEIR FOLLOWERS FROM SUCH ACTION. THIS IS
MORAL LAW WHICH SOME SAY DOES NOT EXIST.