Statement 5 From BIG International

PART 1:

To start this statement for the world to read, takes the same courage as that shown by those individuals who originally faced death and gave their lives for your freedom.

This includes all the allied nations of the United Kingdom, whose citizens lost their lives through many wars, to support the then stated beliefs of the British Government which were freedom and human rights for all equally.

Should the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) continue to support and conspire with British Government Departments in their actions against BIG International, then the blood of those who died or were injured in the name of freedom and justice will stain the hands of the Judges, who know they have taken away those rights of freedom.

In the last two World Wars one nation's citizen's have continued to carry the blame for the criminal slaughter, which took place in relation to human life. The blame of war should have been attributed to those who actually structured and financed these wars for their own ends.

If we take the actions of Germany during both periods of war, it can be seen and proven today, that they were truly fighting for what they believed to be right. The actions of German citizens, since the last war have shown their belief in a European people working together, from within their own cultural development and national assets, which they have structured and used in the fight against those who take the rights of others away.

So why have British citizens allowed the British Government and the British legal system the opportunity to remove the rights to freedom, that their ancestors originally died for?

How can British Ministers attend Remembrance Sunday at the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior, when they have allowed the human rights of the citizens they serve to be removed in such a shabby way? Their attendance is an insult to all the brave warrior's who died or were injured from all nations.

When I was a young boy growing up in America, I could not understand at that time why, whilst listening to a broadcast from London, my father would make us stand in silence for what seemed to be a life time. When I became older I questioned why? He told me that The Tomb of the Unknown Warrior represented to him all those who had given their lives for freedom. He told me that the silence of that moment was in the heart of all survivors from all nations.

Not until I became involved with the development of BIG International, did I truly realise the value of his words.

The date is the 7th July 1998. We who have carried the development of BIG International decided to meet at BIG International's central office. The new European Office system for the 15000000 number range is about to come on-line. Nearly all of BIG International's physical assets within the United Kingdom have been removed.

The removal of physical assets from the United Kingdom made us sad but also determined to correct the situation as quickly as possible. All of us have read many of the messages of support from nations around the world which have been sent by e-mail, via other organisations internet systems, letter format, recorded format and discussion groups, such as the agents forum and the Friday conference calls.

We also looked over BIG International letters sent out to one hundred and forty eight United Kingdom Citizens. These letters regrettably confirmed our removal of funding for the development of their new projects or businesses. This has been forced upon us because all funding entering the United Kingdom would be considered receivable assets to the winding up order of a company, which doesn't exist in the United Kingdom.

BIG International have made an alternative suggestion to all these concerned British Citizens. We are prepared to fund their developments within the legal jurisdiction of another nation of their choice. This letter was sent on the 19th June 1998 to all the concerned United Kingdom Citizens.

Some have already replied. They stated that they and their families are seriously considering the move so as to enable them to achieve their goals in life. Can you imagine how hard it must be for these individuals to come away from their nation of birth and their own families to develop something, which they originally wished to proceed with in their own nation? We at BIG International can.

Consider that the whole of the Plaintiffs actions are founded upon the lies and assumptions of one public servant (Peter Bott), within the Department of Trade and Industry, a British Government Department. How can any international organisation trust anything, which comes from the Department of Trade and Industry, when they treat their own Citizens with such contempt?

One of the hardest burdens we have been carrying has been to maintain the privacy required of financial trading via our broker network. These highly confidential structures which are used through / by the United Kingdom in financial dealings with other nations, are now going to be released. This release will include copies of highly confidential British Government Departments papers, letters and reports which have condoned such Bank Trading Instruments via the Exchequer's Department within the United Kingdom.

This release will be in book form titled 'The Little BIG Book', which will layout details of the groupings behind these financial dealings and the income generated. Then all will see if the finances generated on our core trading fund, can meet the commitments stated within all our publications.

At the same time the book will explain / expose the generated incomes and profits of all United Kingdom banks, internally and externally to the United Kingdom, upon such financial instruments, which will show the miserable returns the banks actually give to British Citizens, who have trusted and banked with them. We will show you how all those millions of small account holders actually earn the major percentage of the Banks income.

The major part of the book, will establish how the United Kingdom Government, permits the United Kingdom to be used as a tax haven by forty seven of the wealthiest men within the trading of financial instruments. This situation ensures that billions of pounds paid by British Citizens in taxes, never see the shores of the United Kingdom again. Unless they are provided as a loan to the United Kingdom, against given financial documents supplied by the exchequer through the Bank of England.

The book will go onto explain the reasons why North Sea gas and oil revenue have never been enjoyed by British Citizens. The book will expose how and why British manufacturing industry (via private, interrelated bank client relationship deals with the support of the British Government and various government departments and the five leading British Banks), has basically been wiped off the world map.

One example which British Citizens can investigate for themselves, is the true reason behind the closure of the British shipyards, and all the resulting hardship caused to thousands of British citizens. The first question to ask in relation to this issue is: Why is it that the United Kingdom can now only build ships related to the Royal Navy?

Just find out, which British Government agreement brought this situation about, and the answers will tell you the true value of 'The Little BIG Book', which will be published and provided freely by BIG International for all British Citizens and players who request a copy.

The steps above have been established to protect and enhance the global image of BIG International's determination to fight for and protect the humanitarian rights of all citizens in accordance to cultural and religious development.

The financial budget which has been developed for United Kingdom Projects is to be placed into BIG International's core fund for regeneration. The British finance will remain in the core fund until the legal situation between BIG International and the British Government are resolved.

The additional financial profits gained from this financial trading, will constantly increase the future value of finance available for future projects to be developed by British Citizens.

PART 2:

BIG International now provide James Sancton's second court report relating to the winding-up-order of Courtney / BIG within the United Kingdom dated July 8 1998.

England. Why am I back in this depressing building again? I didn't even see the court football game this time. To my delight I realised that I didn't have to return to the depressing 'Queen's Building'. The new location was court six of the main building, which at first made me happy.

I stood around the main entrance to see if I could recognise anyone. As expected there was Mr Grant. He was looking at the oil paintings of past judges.

He spoke with many people who seemed to be asking him directions. He walked one elderly lady over to the court listings table, then over to reception. She looked pleased with his help, then they parted. Mr Grant the went over to one of the attendants, who after talking with Mr Grant quickly followed this elderly lady and helped her find the court she was looking for.

After about fifteen minutes of observing Mr Grant, another gentleman arrived on the scene. Mr Grant seemed to know this man and warmly greeted him (I learnt latter this was Mr Hesling). They then both headed in the direction of the court.

Well! what can I say about the dreary intimidating walk to the court? Hard stone patterned floors, cold stone walls, appalling lighting and some display cabinets containing dummies in court regalia. I stopped to look at the displays and a funny thing happened (no, they didn't get up and walk). One of the court attendants came over and said "That's the judges in their chambers. I hope you don't get the one on the right today, he's a bit upset. The cleaning lady forgot to dust him off."

We both had a school boy giggle, and I went on my way down this horrible cold stone corridor. It felt like one of England's medieval castles. I felt as if metal gates were going to slam shut behind me, barring my escape from the building.

Ahead, I could see Mr Grant and Mr Hesling entering the court presided over by Registrar Buckley. The layout was basically the same as before but without the Queens emblem. The physical structure of the court was as if they were still sending criminals, accused of stealing apples, to the colonies for hard labour. This time it was even more cold and intimidating. It was as if I had arrived in a time machine to experience the past.

The Courtney and BIG cases were at the end of that days listings so I decided to sit and watch the actions of the court in relation to the other cases. We were all told to stand and Registrar Buckley entered. He was five minutes late according to the sad old clock which overlooked the gathering.

I smiled, because the Registrar had a passing resemblance to the Judge in the display case, who had missed his dusting by the cleaning lady. All present bent their bodies towards the Registrar and he did likewise in return and all were seated.

The proceedings started. The registrar's clerk of the court, a red faced man, read out each case. As he finished each one, a barrister would pop-up and make a request for an adjournment, dismissal or some other order. I noticed that in these communications, each barrister always ensured that their personal costs were paid.

This went on case after case after case. Some times the petition had to advertised, other times the petition would have to be re-presented due to say a misspelling of the name or lack of correct service, which I found to be an interesting point.

People were coming and going all the time. The poor acoustics of the court appear to be deliberately balanced to ensure that the statements made by the registrar are difficult to hear. Forewarned of this, I had take a hearing aid which also recorded all that was stated in the court via a case situated with my assistant outside in the corridor.

Sitting there, listening to individuals wash away the efforts of other individuals, via barristers who are only their to earn as much as they can from the misery and efforts of others, is hard to take. The barristers attitude to each of the petitions they handled showed little or no sensitivity to the efforts people had given in their belief that they could build something, which would employ Citizens of the United Kingdom.

What I was seeing, was a cash generating machine in action for the benefit of all those involved within the closure business. Solicitors, barristers and receivers all profited and all gave the banks the opportunity to remove competition from their master clients. The barristers in court were smug and arrogant.

Have you ever been in a class were the teacher sits all the favourites down the front? That was what this situation reminded me of. This was an old school class, working as one to ensure that other British Citizens didn't obtain their true legal rights. How any of those involved can live with themselves is beyond me. They have absolutely no understanding of the struggle or fight for Human Rights and if they did, they have abandoned that belief for money.

The plaintiffs barrister Mr Green was not yet to be seen, but down the front I saw again his assistant with the baby face. I thought maybe Mr Green was going to leave this to him. When he saw that two of the defendants were sitting there and, in another part of the court, one of the defendants solicitors, he headed for the door.

Next to arrive on the scene was Mr Peter Bott, the man from the DTI who produced the fictitious statement. He was accompanied by others but did not look well. He looked ill and under pressure; the look of a man afraid of being found out.

I took time to look at the two defendants who did attend. Mr Grant, a man I know is in need of rest, looked poised for action. Mr Hesling on the other hand looked as if he was going through a difficult learning process.

Looking around the court I then noticed Mr Hetherington, the investigative reporter from the Mail On Sunday, sitting near to Mr Grant. Then a stream of people walked into the court, many of whom were from other nations. I assumed they must be there for other cases.

I took a quick look at Registrar Buckley. He was engrossed with the idea of getting home as quickly as possible. His constant glances at the clock showed his true interest in the actions taking place before him. He was just a rubber stamp to the instructions he had been given.

The doors of the court then opened and in walked Mr Green, the barrister for the plaintiff. It was a grand entrance. Finally the registrars clerk read out the name of Courtney. Mr Green rose quickly to his feet and confirmed that he would deal with Courtney and BIG together The court then went into hush mode.

Mr Green then takes the registrar through the paperwork, but forgets to tell the court that NONE of the evidence, including PETER BOTT's statement, has been proven in a British Court of Law. He forgets to tell the registrar that the companies to be closed are not even within the legal jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. He forgets to inform the court of the intimidation and fear tactics used against the six defendants by British Government departments. He forgets to tell the registrar that they have no complaint against either company in relation to meeting commitments. He forgets to tell the court that his earnings are from the bounty that the receivers are illegally collecting. He forgets that he actually knows the truth. But what did right and truth mean anymore within the British legal system? . . absolutely nothing.

Mr Green went on but not, I noticed, with the same enthusiasm as before. It was like the truth of the situation was getting to him. He then sat down just as the registrar tried to quickly rubber stamp the proceedings. Mr Grant then stood up.

In a clear voice, Mr Grant made the important point that to the best of his understanding the winding up petition could never have been served upon the two companies. His statement was unexpected. The registrar shuffled in his seat, the clerk looked perturbed and Mr Green stood to defend the service after sitting down again. Mr Grant then stood and stated that Mr Bott in his statement, had declared that the home of an elderly lady in Romford, living in a two up two down which she purchased from the council, was the head quarters of BIG.

Mr Green then stood to challenge Mr Grant's statement. He said, "If you know that the service is incorrect then you must be responsible for the company." Mr Green then sat and Mr Grant stood and stated "Without being responsible for the company, I can tell you that your service was served upon my mothers home, which indicates to me that you haven't served your paperwork upon the companies concerned. If you are in fact saying you have served the papers on the company, then produce them to this court, and release the six defendants from the Department of Trade and Industries illegal action against them."

Mr Green no longer lookled to be in control. He didn't like to be challenged knowing that he wasn't representing the truth and also knowing that the petition hadn't in fact been served.

The registrar in all other such situations that morning had instructed additional time for service to be made correctly, advertised correctly or he had dismissed the petition. This time however, he waved all procedures related in law and rubber stamped the Plaintiffs Petition to the winding up order.

If this isn't proof of the old boy network working against the Public Interest via conspiracy to disrupt true justice against the Human Right of British Citizens, I don't know what is. The blatant action of the registrar was beyond belief. But I knew, as did all others in the court, that Mr Grant was not only right but that he had told the truth in its simplest form.

Something much more important also happened in court that day. Registrar Buckley removed the legal and human rights of 58 million UK citizens to use their free right of choice upon how they use their earned income. What a legacy to hand down to future generations of the United Kingdom.

I'm not a British Citizen but my nation sends a Christmas present every year to all British citizens, to say thank you for fighting for my nation's Human Rights and Freedoms during the last World War.

I wanted to get out of that court as quickly as possible. I went and sat in the corridor by my assistant with the case. I noticed others leaving the court. Mr Grant and Mr Hesling were surrounded by individuals from other nations introducing themselves to them. You could see they were moved and surprised by their actions of support.

Then Tony Hetherington from the Mail on Sunday appeared. Initially he stood close to the group, then out of politeness went and sat on a seat further away, allowing Mr Grant and Mr Hesling to talk with the individuals who came to support the organisation they belong to.

For a moment Mr Grant excused himself and went to speak to his solicitor. Mr Grant thanked him for coming. They parted and Mr Grant returned to the other group. He looked very tired.

Finally Mr Grant and Mr Hesling left the group and started towards the entrance, but Mr Hetherington stepped forward and introduced himself. Neither Mr Grant or Mr Hesling showed any anger towards him. They spoke with him as if they had understood each other for years. They all walked towards the entrance together where many photographers took many pictures. That was the last I saw of them all.

CONCLUSION
From a personal point of view, I still haven't come to terms with what actually happened. When I arrived home in my native land, all I wanted to do wasinhale the wonderful clean air and sit down. I felt I would never see the United Kingdom in the same way. I have always respected the English, maybe because my Great Great Grandfather was English, but the fight for humanity and law only seems to remain in the few. The majority of English citizens now seem under control or have little or no fight or understanding left within them. I find it hard to report that the English citizens I knew and respected appear to have died out.

END

PART 3:

This report came five days after celebrating our own Independence Day from the rule of Great Britain. The report made us all realise the value of our Independence Day and why this day is so very important to all free people.

When we talk about Independence from Great Britain we are actually talking about Independence from England, which was one of the most remarkable nations upon earth. We can understand more clearly now why Ireland, Scotland and Wales are looking for their cultural rights, after so many years of sustained control.

But what of the English themselves? Unlike James, we find it hard to believe that they are going to stand idly by and have a major chapter of their human rights illegally removed. Mr Grant has done a great deal to alert the British Public of what is actually happening. Are they actually going to allow the British Government to silence him by imprisonment without a correct trial? . . . because that is what is planned to happen on July 22nd 1998.

Mr Grant is to be brought to trial before one Judge and refused the opportunity of a Jury. He is to be refused required time to prepare a Defence, and to be given restricted court time of three days. What is happening in England, when other British Citizens fail to realise the misuse of British Justice to silence a difference of understanding.

The British Government and the British Legal System have lost total touch with reality. They are no longer representing the British People, they are representing the interests of the financial institutions which are now their masters.

We are no longer dealing with the British People, we are dealing with the Master of the British Government. Our continued development of our free lottery around the world and to the British people, will expose the UK situation and enable us all to learn from the lessons of bully boy tactics of control.

It is no wonder that the British Government is trying to place controls over the internet system of media, within the United Kingdom. And why the British receivers department attempted to pull BIG's International telephone lines, interfered with international mail, placed monies received into their own hands and are attempting to have Mr Grant silenced. They are trying to plug the dam of injustices, because if they don't the truth will rush out.

Where does the Church of England stand on this issue? Are they going to stand silently by and hope that this situation of injustices and affront to Moral Law will go away?

And finally, without wishing to bring more pressures upon a family which the majority of the world still respects, will Her Majesty allow Her Majesty's Government to continue to work in a way which is certainly not in Her Majesty's Subjects best interests, or will she use her powers to dissolve government for a new election to take place?

Will Her Majesty, who is head of the Church of England, not question Her Majesty's Church Leaders on why British Law has come so far away from Moral Law as taught by the Church of England for generations?

An attack has been mounted by a department of the British Government upon Her Majesty's Subjects, removing the Human Right of choice, when acting as an individual to enter a free lottery or making a personal loan to an international organisation. ALL this is based upon one Civil Servants Statement which is clearly incorrect, and written in a style which would definitely mislead the courts.

When will Her Majesty's Privy Council, who advise upon such matters, realise that they hold a duty to all Her Majesty's Subjects and not just to the financial institutions which most of them appear to be connected with via other family members.

It is the Queen of England, a human being who has been given one of the most difficult times in history to rule over. It is the advisors who seem to be ensuring that British Citizens lose their freely given respect for such a remarkable woman of our time. We have noticed that Her Majesty hasn't received the Nobel Prize for Peace. Why? Probably because it appears that the Worlds Citizens have failed to recognise her dedicated work and Duty to Democracy as a WOMAN.

We have all forgotten that Her Majesty is a Mother (a woman who has given birth) and a Grandmother who cares deeply. A woman who has worked hard to maintain a distance between Family Duty and Her Majesty's Personal Duty to Her Majesty's Subjects.

Why is it that the English turn on those who hold themselves in duty to them, fight for their Human Rights and wait right until their backs are dented against the wall like trapped cats, before doing anything? The answer is simple. They have held blind belief in their Parliament, a Parliament which sold them out to the financial institutions, after World War Two. They have forgotten what Oliver Cromwell actually gave to them during their fight for freedom. "A FREE PEOPLES PARLIAMENT".

We believe that the rest of the world hasn't forgotten the British Citizens who helped them obtain the structures of Human Rights, structures which must lead us all into the new Millennium where individuals take back control of their lives and finances.

Banking must be turned back to what it actually is, an accounting system by which we trade equally with each other. It can no longer be maintained as a profit structure which removes our hard earned income and the future lives of our children.

There is a lot of work ahead for all BIG International Players now. We all know the situation. It is our turn to do what we believe is right. Together we will place the 15000000 number range back on track. Together we will ensure that British Players will maintain their Human Rights. Together we will take the British Government to the European Court of Human rights and together we will learn to recognise the various cultures and faiths, not as the one which is right or wrong, but with the goal that all paths to our Creator eventually meet in peace and understanding.

BIG International has never failed to meet any one of its published commitments world-wide. Together we have found something which has taken us all time to understand. The British financial rules have said that we are a grouping or a collective. This is untrue. We are individuals who have decided to do something, which influences our futures and the futures of our children. Since when has such a situation been a collective investment?

The British Government has stated that the organisation is insolvent. How can this be? BIG International hasn't failed to meet any one commitment, it holds no creditors and is owned by all who wish to freely take part.

There's a story from the bible, where a father is teaching his wayward son why it is important to work and share together. He takes his son to a stream and picks up a broken reed, giving it to his son and asking him to break it. The son being a man full of strength, takes it and breaks it with ease. Each time the father gives his son a further reed to break, he adds another one. The son who can't resist the challenge, gladly accepts each bundle and breaks them, until eventually he comes to the bundle he cannot break. The bundle that cannot be broken is Humanity working together under moral law. Before the son was just a bully, with no right to break even one individual reed and he would never hold that right, within a moral society. But Financial Institutions currently do.

The British Government has stated that the organisation is a collective investment system. How, when no one invests their money and no one has ever lost money?

The British Government has stated that our information is incentive advertising. How, when all our publications are actually requested by individuals to enable each individual to obtain more knowledge of our ideas and direction and by giving them the freedom to choose?

The British Government has attempted to destroy the organisation's reputation world wide, supported by only the assumptions and mis-representations of one Civil Servant, 'Peter Bott'. Why? Because BIG International have dared to show British Citizens an alternative financial structure, which shares all generated finance, removes interest, turns the banking service back into an accounting system and maintains the privacy of individuals financial transactions.

We believe that the British Government felt they could kill two birds with one stone. That of Mr Grant who constantly fights for the Human Rights of Individuals and that of BIG International who have shown a working alternative.

We will continue to build and fight from belief and asset strength, which enables BIG International to hold the whole organisation together. In other words, solid foundation of actions based upon Moral Law.

PART 4:

ARTICLE - FINANCIAL MAIL ON SUNDAY, JULY 12 1998
If Mr Grant will not defend himself against attacks, then it is about time that we the players do, when the lies of a Public Servant (Peter Geoffrey Bott) attempt to disrupt the lives of millions of Players worldwide. BIG International will not tolerate such misuse of Justice which should protect us all equally.

We are prepared to state that we are proud to know Mr Grant and that we are proud to know and recognise the office service provided by Mr Hesling and others.

We will take the article printed by the Financial Mail On Sunday July 12 1998, and provide answers line by line so as to enable all players the opportunity of seeing both sides.

When British Justice, based on lies from Peter Geoffrey Bott, can remove the legal rights of 58 million people living within the United Kingdom, it indicates an establishment cover up.

The first paragraph of Mr Hetherington's article state's: (Presuming that the lead article was written by Mr Hetherington and not the editorial team)

FMS THESE men learned last week that their association with an illegal lottery and investment company exposed by Financial Mail is at an end.

REPLY At long last part of the truth is printed with the word "association", but the meaning and use of this word within the article could mislead.

The "association" that Mr Hesling holds with BIG International is that he provided an office service via Courtney Agencies within the United Kingdom, end of association.

The "association" that we have with Mr Grant is that he has trusted a life's work of information technology along with in-depth files related to the corruption within the society of the United Kingdom. This was freely given without one request for payment.

BIG International run an internationally "totally free lottery" only, which isn't illegal in any format. BIG International have never run any form of "investment company".

In relation to being exposed by the Financial Mail, what was actually exposed? Did they expose one individual who had not received the stated commitment from BIG International?

NO.

Did they expose one creditor who hasn't received payment?

NO.

Did they expose that a free lottery is an illegal lottery?

NO.

Have they provided any facts or proof related to their exposure?

NO.

Therefore the exposure claimed by the Financial Mail was in itself illegal, and will form part of our compensation claim against the owners of the Financial Mail, who we believe have deliberately misled the British Public and other world-wide citizens, in bringing about the prosecution of BIG International and six defendants, that only provided given services to BIG International, at the request of Courtney.

FMS A High Court Judge ordered the winding up of Big International, a mysterious money circulation scheme said to have more than a million recruits.

REPLY The High Court Judge was listed as Registrar Buckley. All referred to him as Sir, not Lord. But the word 'Registrar' doesn't look so impressive as High Court Judge in print. All Registrar Buckley was required to do was a rubber stamping exercise, to close BIG and Courtney as quickly and quietly as possible. Also, to ensure the original illegal order given within a closed court, with no defence permitted, was brushed quietly under the carpet.

Thanks to Mr Grant this wasn't to be. He stated one clear point of law with proof. That NO service of legal documentation had been served upon either BIG International or Courtney. His proof was that the only known service was upon himself at his mothers home. (Falsely claimed by Mr Bott to be the headquarters of BIG International, within his false statement). Registrar Buckley at this point broke British Law, by not permitting either a dismissal or an adjournment. Mr Green confirmed that service had not been made by not providing any proof of service required by law as requested by Mr Grant, to the court.

Have any Players come forward in relation to a mysterious money circulation scheme in their lives? They haven't, because there is no money circulation scheme, mysterious or otherwise to be exposed. Just clear statements of commitments from BIG International. Again, the truth makes the reported statement clear.

To recruit, you have to have a profit or a motive. BIG International isn't structured for company profit, but it certainly has a motive. That motive is a total belief in moral law when related to all Cultural Faiths and Humanitarian Rights. Our motives are extremely clear and that is why the free lottery structure was systematically developed over many years, with one base principal, that it remained totally FREE TO ALL.

FMS Raymond Grant, left, and Paul Hesling deny involvement with the company, but were named as defendants in an action brought by the Department of Trade and Industry.

REPLY All defendants are right to deny involvement with BIG International, because they have no involvement with BIG International. Yes, Mr Hesling provided services to Courtney by his own office service structure, but he holds no directive or development involvement. Yes, we have listened to Mr Grant, but he holds no directive or development involvement. And yes, Mr Grant is entitled to considerable remuneration. His life's work, which he provided to us freely, cannot be accepted without payment. Therefore we based a percentage payment to him based on all new developments. The current value of this fund is forty three million pounds of totally untouched finances. This money will now be used to advance the philosophy behind Mr Grants dedication to duty when related to Humanity, and titled "Grant Trust" which is to be administered separately to BIG International.

British Citizens have not had such a rallying point since the last world war in relation to Human Rights. The "Grant Trust" and Mr Grant's philosophy and structures are now that rallying point. It provides an opportunity for British Citizens to respond to the removal of their Human Rights and Civil Liberties.

There are two key steps which can be taken freely by British Citizens. One is to write to Mr Grant at his home address with your support and encouragement. The other is to apply for your free lottery ticket from BIG International, 25% of all winnings on these special issue tickets will go to the "Grant Trust", until the humanitarian rights in accordance to British Law are returned.

We would also point out that there are six defendants that have illegally brought into this action by the British Government, not two.

Now we come to the main article:

FMS HIGH COURT ORDERS THE WINDING UP OF ILLEGAL LOTTERY FIRM

REPLY Interesting use of words. Firstly, there isn't an illegal lottery firm to wind up and secondly BIG International (that's who we believe they refer to with the word use of firm) isn't within the legal jurisdiction of the High Court Orders and never has been. Some of BIG International's assets were but are no more. Then we have the next sub headline:

FMS 'Mr Big' is cut down to size by the law'.

REPLY Again another set of interesting words which have been placed so cleverly by Mr Grant's photograph, providing the misleading appearance that Mr Grant is in fact Mr Big. Again the picture was taken outside the main entrance while Mr Grant and Mr Hesling were with Mr Hetherington. And as for being cut down to size, lets see what this actually means.

Mr Grant had a secondary modern education. (Nothing to cut down there). Mr Grant was born in the East End of London and was moved with his Mother to a council housing estate due to his Mothers recovery from TB in 1951, a house within which Mr Grant still resides. (Nothing to cut down there). Mr Grant started his working life as an apprentice instrument maker. (Nothing to cut down there) Mr Grant as always faced what he believed in. (Nothing to cut down there). In 1986 Mr Grant took a vow of poverty. (Nothing to cut down there). Therefore, this is a totally corrupted sub headline to commit readers to an inaccurate belief that Mr Grant is Mr Big.

We understand that Mr Hetherington always states that he bases his articles upon truthful investigations, backed with proof of statement. Then let's ask Mr Hetherington to publish a report of his investigation with supporting proof to this suggested connection, or a simple apology. It's not hard to say sorry when you have done something wrong. Mr Grants own life proves this.

FMS RAYMOND Grant has spent years trading in the financial dreams of other people.

REPLY What an interesting opening line. What does Mr Hetherigton actually mean by this paragraph?

If someone approaches Mr Grant for help and he is in a position to provide it, then he will freely give it. Does Mr Hetherington refer to the fact that Mr Grant has assisted past offenders to get their lives started again, when no one else would give them a chance? Some of these are now highly successful businessmen within British Society. Is this trading in the financial dreams of other's? Well I suppose it would be, if Mr Grant financially profited from such situations, but that isn't the case.

So lets look at another avenue. Did Mr Grant take money from British Citizens to place into a financial dream? We have seen no such evidence of such a situation. If he had, that would be a matter for the Criminal Courts, but no such charge has been placed at Mr Grant's door. To the contrary, Mr Grant's own income from 1984 has been placed into the development of his beliefs for everyone.

Therefore, what does Mr Hetherington actually mean and can he show one such case?

FMS But the man alleged to be 'Mr Big'' lived through his own nightmare last week.

REPLY What emotive gibberish. Neither Mr Grant, Mr Hesling or any of the other four defendants, had to appear within Registrar Buckley's court. They appeared because they had the right to be there, when accused wrongly by Mr Bott of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). In the court Mr Grant raised an important point of Law for the advantage of all British Citizens, only to see it totally ignored by Registrar Buckley, who actually broke British Law by his actions.

FMS Department of Trade and Industry watchdogs won a legal fight to close down Big International - the unauthorised lottery and investment company said to have recruited more than one million people worldwide.

REPLY The first six words of this paragraph are interesting. It states that the watchdogs are those of the DTI, but in the opening of this article it refers to the Financial Mail exposing BIG International. Are we to assume that they are the watchdogs? Or is he referring to Mr Bott who produced the statement of lies against six United Kingdoms defendants.

Now it would appear from Mr Hetherington's article that these watchdogs won a legal battle. If they did then we should be told how, because BIG International has never been served with any legal documents from the watchdogs to defend. Unless the watchdogs have dreamed up something within the United Kingdom, which they assumed to be BIG International, which they then decided to close down. But they certainly haven't won any legal action against BIG International or closed it down.

How can a 'Free Lottery' be an unauthorised lottery, when there are NO British Laws relating to a free lottery such as the one developed by BIG International. And as for being an investment company, then show us one investor. It's impossible because BIG International isn't an investment company.

FMS The company claims to offer free lottery tickets with weekly prizes totalling œ66 million.

REPLY BIG International doesn't claim to issue free lottery tickets, we do issue free lottery tickets, and manage a varying lottery fund weekly. It's as simple as that. No individual is forced to apply for a free ticket. BIG International are slowly placing the financial markets back into the hands of the worlds citizens and away from the financial institutions. This is not a claim, it is positive action, which the financial institutions owners do not like.

FMS How these are financed is still a mystery, but applicants for tickets are encouraged by local agents to invest from œ60 to œ6,000 in a variety of schemes including units with an annual return of over 300%, and offshore bank accounts which yield 4.2% per MONTH.

REPLY Oh, Mr Hetherington what shall we do, which will make things clear to you? To our knowledge, no one encourages anyone to do anything. Our published documents explain exactly what happens. If Mr Hetherington were to eally read our documentation it is quite explicit. Anyone who lends œ60 to our core fund receives a stated return. (Every Single Commitment Met). If someone wishes to join in a Project Development, they place a minimum of œ6000 into an account under their control for one year. At the end of one year a sum of œ20,000 is allocated to them from our core fund for investment into their selected project.

BIG International have issued no offshore accounts to any Player from the United Kingdom.

FMS In the High Court on Wednesday, DTI counsel Michael Green said Big and its administrative arm - Courtney should be wound up to protect the public.

REPLY You cannot close something in the United Kingdom, that doesn't exist within the United Kingdom without taking away the human rights of all British Citizens, when wishing to belong to an International Organisation. The illegal action's which took place on Wednesday (July 8 1998) means the following:

EVERY BRITISH CITIZEN OF THEIR OWN FREE CHOICE, BELONGING TO AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION ARE BREAKING THE LAW, UNTIL THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT STATES THAT IT IS LEGAL TO BELONG TO THAT ORGANISATION.

IN OTHER WORDS, CENSURED ABILITY TO JOIN INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS. SINCE JULY 8TH 1998, THOUSANDS IF NOT MILLIONS OF BRITISH CITIZENS ARE CURRENTLY BREAKING THE LAW.

BEING THAT NO SUCH LIST HAS BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT, YOU NOW HAVE NO RIGHT TO BELONG TO ANY INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION, WHICH HASN'T BEEN APPROVED BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.

FMS Sub heading: "Survive"

REPLY - ?

FMS Their investment schemes were unlawful, he said, since they were not authorised under the Financial Services Act.

REPLY We have never provided any investment schemes.

FMS The lottery was also unauthorised and unlawful. Big, he said, was actually a money circulation 'snowball' scheme.

REPLY No British law states that a totally free lottery must be registered, therefore it cannot be illegal. Mr Green obviously doesn't understand the law when related to a money circulation 'snowball' scheme, otherwise he would not have made such an irresponsible comment or link BIG International to such a scheme.

FMS The High Court ruling followed four warnings by Financial Mail on Sundays Question of cash column.

REPLY We really do wish the Financial Mail on Sunday would make up their minds. It was either the watchdogs or the Financial Mail on Sunday (FMS) who alerted the direction of attention towards BIG International. Or was it a situation of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours?

The most important point here is that the British Public were warned by either the DTI or the FMS about something which they assumed to be BIG International. We would state fabricated lies, but they would expect us to say that.

Currently our track record confirms our Public Commitments. All the others have is law by assumption, which is not acceptable in a modern democracy. In other words they have not proven one of their assumptions. We are certainly pleased that we don't take advice from either on financial matters.

FMS Last August we warned that Big was not licensed to offer lottery tickets or investments.

REPLY We do not offer lottery tickets, we give them away to who ever wants them, and again we are not an investment organisation. Therefore, there was/is no need for a license from any British Government Authority.

When will the British People wake up to the crap going on around them? It would seem that most of the licensing authorities are actually brain dead, placed there to stop the British Public from achieving anything in their lives. Or is it just a case of jobs for the boys, you know, the ones who couldn't make the grade?

We phoned the British authority in relation to the free lottery, and were advised as follows: "There is no licence required, but it's a good idea to register because it shows the British Public a structure of authority."

It is our belief that the British Government have really lost the plot. They are elected to enhance the quality of life for the British, not rob them of it. BIG International made an open commitment to the British and their own Government, an elected government, then attempt to take a commitment of an International organisation, away! Hold up here, what is democracy all about in the UK? It now seems that the British Government's interpretation of Democracy, is you are free providing you do as we say.

FMS Last January we identified one of Big's agents as Elizabeth Marsh, who had been jailed for falsely describing herself as a doctor and advertising a 'wonder cure' for cancer.

REPLY Hasn't anyone in the media or authority learnt anything about BIG International? Here we have a person who has faced a crime and paid her debt to society, then chosen BIG for a new direction in life. No wonder the re-offend rate is so high in the United Kingdom. Media and authority, never allow anyone to correct their past mistakes. Well BIG International does because we know we all face Judgement before our Creator, and we are each capable of wrong directions which will offend.

To be totally honest, if I believed that I had found a wonder cure for cancer I would be jumping for joy and providing it to who ever wanted it freely or at cost. Can you imagine what the BMA would do to me if I done such a thing? The drug companies wouldn't be able to make its huge profits assisted by the British Government. All those dependant for their livelihood would be condemning my actions as irresponsible, and people would be being cured. I'll most likely be closed down as not being in the 'Public Interest'.

We don't know the ramifications of this specific case, and even if we did, we couldn't judge, but we can provide an opportunity to start a new direction. Do you really believe that anyone could set out, to rob the most ill within society then have no feelings, which will live within them for the rest of their lives? We believe there is more in this than meets the eye. Maybe Elizabeth Marsh will tell us all her part of this situation one day, so that we can all understand what can go wrong when you believe in something which will help other's. Who knows we all may learn an extremely valuable lesson.

BIG International have over three thousand agents in the United Kingdom, why pick on this one? Do you think the Financial Mail is trying to portray something, to provide their article with more impact and assist the DTI's illegal action? We don't know. In fact, who does know the thinking behind such human minds? Again there is something seriously wrong within the United Kingdom, when such minds hold such responsible positions of authoritative writing.

FMS We said then: Anyone who has bought the company's œ60 shares should try to reclaim their money ...... this business will not survive.

REPLY Well what do you make of this warning? Note the first word "We". It's no longer just Mr Hetherington saying it, it is now WE. Therefore we have to ask the questions, does the WE refer to him and the DTI, or him and the Financial Mail on Sunday or a combination of all three? Who joined in the illegal action taken out against BIG International? WE are certain that our attorneys will be asking this question in court.

BIG International would also like to meet anyone who as purchased œ60 shares in BIG International, because no such item currently operates within BIG International.

HEY! You bet no business would survive in the United Kingdom, when such a warning is given, supported by illegal actions from a British Government Department. Now what we ask is what came first the horse or the cart? Who was actually telling who what, for such a warning to be printed in a National News Paper? We can smell a rat again.

FMS Last May we reported that Consumer Affairs Minister Nigel Griffiths planned to ask the High Court to put Big out of business.

REPLY How interesting. Here we are actually told that a Minister of the Crown, planned to ask the High Court to put BIG International out of business. Now the collusion trail gets longer. We now have a Minister of the Crown, Department of Consumer Affairs, Department for Trade and Industry and the Courts involved in collusion to pervert the course of justices. This isn't us saying this, it is the Financial Mail on Sunday reporting it.

So lets look at the Minister who publicly stated 'put BIG out of business'. There you have your first port of call. Write to your Minister upon what proven grounds he made this statement, and also request from him a copy of his declared interests both within the United Kingdom and abroad. But also notice another government department has come to light - Consumer Affairs.

FMS And only last month we revealed that Big and Courtney Agencies had laundered credit card payments through a front company in Sheffield.

REPLY How low can the Financial Mail sink? Read the statement again. BIG International is attempting to take this article seriously to stimulate public debate, just in case we have presented a misleading image. Could it be these investigative reporters just lie? But we now have that WE back. Therefore, it could be that the investigative reporter is told what to write. This constant 'we' is really irritating, because it is impossible for us to know who is included in the WE.

When BIG International use the word 'we' it represents all the Players equally.

Then it goes onto laundered credit card payments. How on earth do you launder a credit card? Either we are totally dimwitted or some one's telling lies. Therefore we will tell you what we do with credit cards.

Currently we have over eight hundred outlets clearing our credit cards world-wide, using exactly the same procedure. We use the payments made to us by credit cards to open new opportunities for players. We pay a flat fee for clearance to selected agents, who are also developing business which could be of future benefit to our Players. This provides additional funding for development to the agents business, which is tax declared. If this isn't a Humanitarian use of our funding opportunities WHAT IS?

Then to attempt to destroy a British Sheffield company by slander is below contempt. But then who made this attempt was it the WE or the 'I' of this media report? The mind boggles.

A "front company". Look at the word 'front' and the context within which the word is used. It is attempting to state that BIG International is setting up front companies. For what purpose and based upon what proof? It must be an assumption. Because we have never developed such a situation, therefore there can be no proof in law. What on earth is this guy on?

FMS The judge at last week's hearing, Mr Registrar Buckley, asked the DTI counsel how much money was involved in the investment schemes.

REPLY Registrar Buckley condemned himself when he used the words 'investment schemes'. What Investment schemes? There is no proof in British law that relates against BIG International's structure being any form of investment scheme. The registrar's words confirm what we have stated from the beginning, the order is pre-judged.

But something not reported by the Financial Mail, was what the Registrar said about the Americans, "suppose this is one of those American things with most of the money coming from there". The tone used was derogatory to all Americans. Well just to put the record straight, my Grandfather was one of those American's who died assisting what we believed to be a true allies. American money and lives were OK then, what's changed? My Grandfathers mother was German. That shows the depth of feeling for believing in what is right from within my own family, something that the Registrar seems to have forgotten, when he applies his actions and words to British Law.

FMS He was told that no firm figures were known. But Green explained: 'Over one million people world-wide have been recruited,'

REPLY This shows in total that no in-depth investigation as been completed by Mr Bott. They go into court with no firm figures in relation to what they claim. How can this be? In British Law you have to provide proof of your claim to show there is an actual claim.

FMS and added: 'According to Grant, very, very substantial amounts have been paid into the system.'

REPLY What on earth is Mr Green talking about? It's waffle. How can anything be according to Mr Grant? Mr Grant can give what he believes if asked, but that's not legal proof of anything to do with BIG International. Talk about clutching at straws. This is law trying to find the straw and we are pleased that we are the needled. What system?

FMS Grant had told DTI officials that Big owed him more than œ20 million in commission.

REPLY This has been totally denied by Mr Grant. He explained his vow of poverty when asked, then went onto explain about the core fund.

FMS Then, in a dramatic interruption from the public benches, where he had been sitting unrecognised, Raymond Grant jumped to his feet, identified himself and told the judge: 'I request that this petition be dismissed, because it has not been served on the two companies concerned. It has been served on six defendants who have no connection with the companies.'

REPLY Well! Well! Well! From where our reporter was sitting he certainly didn't see Mr Grant interrupt or jump up dramatically or otherwise. He did see Mr Grant wait till Mr Green sat down after his opening statement. Then Mr Grant introduced himself and made his valid point of law. Mr Grant didn't tell the judge. He requested the judge on a point of British Law. (We have prepared transcripts of the whole days proceedings from tape recordings).

The papers for the two companies had been served on him and five other defendants, not the companies. This is a totally true statement, and on this point alone the registrar should have dismissed the action against BIG International.

Mr Grant "unrecognised". We find that hard to believe. Mr Hesling, Mr Grants solicitor, Mr Green, Mr Bott and the DTI team, would have certainly recognised him, and more than likely the investigative reporter would have known. After all, he seems to know all Mr Grants other private details.

FMS Michael Green hit back: "I don't know how Mr Grant knows the petitions have not been served on the companies. Unless he is saying he represents them how does he know this?'

REPLY "Hit back". What with, a powder puff? Surely even Mr Green can see common sense in action (maybe not, he wouldn't have taken the DTI's case). If you receive a petition related to an organisation which doesn't have anything to do with you, then surely you would believe that the petitions had been served incorrectly. Mr Grant tried to notify the correct authority the DTI, but they chose to ignore the little fact that Mr Grant had nothing to do with BIG International.

But what isn't reported is that Mr Grant made this very point to the registrar who chose to ignore it. Therefore, Mr Grant requested that the service on the company be shown but Mr Green could not. The registrar chose to ignore it. Mr Grant pushed the point again, "If you have served the petition upon which address?". Mr Green couldn't produce again. The registrar chose to ignore it.

FMS Ruling that the petitions had been properly served on the six people who appear to be the companies' principals in Britain, the judge ordered that both companies be wound up.

FMS Look at the words "who appear". No evidence, no proof, no proven connection to BIG International. They appear to be so they are. Is that what BRITISH LAW STATES? We don't believe so.

The ruling registrar ignores several valid points of law. Refuses to allow the defendants to see Mr Green's proof of his statements. Then goes on to close organisations which do not exist within the United Kingdom. (Forget what the reporters on, lets find out what the registrar's on first.)

A human being such as Mr Buckley can reside over a court of British law, and then ignore that law when he chooses, or if it doesn't fit in with a given plan. Again, something tells you there is something seriously wrong within the United Kingdom, when a registrar representing British law, acts in this type of way to remove the Human Rights of all British Citizens. I keep asking why?

FMS Later, outside the court, Grant, from Romford, Essex, denied that he was the man behind Big International. He said: 'I do not have anything to do with BIG.'

REPLY Well Mr Grant stated it twice in the above statement, how many more times must Mr Grant state the truth? Mr Grant stated the truth at the beginning of the investigation to the DTI. Mr Grants solicitors stated the truth also to the DTI. It would appear that authority within the United Kingdom hears someone state something which is not in accordance with their plan, and then totally ignore the simple principal of what was stated. Then go on to hang the person on their beliefs, supported with absolutely no evidence.

FMS The financial establishment writes the rules in this court.

REPLY Good point.

FMS 'Every British citizen has had a major right removed - the right to join or trade with an international organisation.'

REPLY Also true.

FMS Sub-heading: Threat

FMS Another defendant, Paul Hesling, of Kingston upon Thames Surrey, who traded as Courtney Agencies, said: 'To the best of my knowledge, Big is Based in the USA. I have no direct contact with them.'

REPLY TRUE, but we only have legal offices within the United States. There is no reason for direct contact between BIG International and an organisation which provides office services, for a number range.

FMS When describing Raymond Grant, the words 'Walter Mitty' spring to mind. He says he owns nothing after taking a vow of poverty in 1986, but five years ago he faxed the huge mining company RTZ, making a œ7 billion take-over offer.

REPLY This as already been explained in a previous statement. The structure developed still makes it possible to take over RTZ. Time and truth will tell. We wonder who sprang the thought of linking MR Grant with 'Walter Mitty'.

Mr Grant is extremely different in his thinking, but also accurate. He is the first to show his own limitations and openly confesses that he isn't a hard nose business type. If Mr Grant had been born in America he would have been snapped up, as an innovator by many corporations, but what a loss that would have been to Humanity. He is a simple man who only understands simple truths. To him, nothing appears complicated, because he uses his minds limited intelligence to the full.

All ideas are conceived within humans minds, but someone like Mr Grant, will attempt to bring the idea to life. Especially if they believe this provides an alternative for people to freely choose. Maybe the articles attempt at stigma against Mr Grant, shows just how desperate they are to silence Mr Grant.

FMS He also sees himself as a major threat to the establishment and claims to have been told by a British Government Investigator that he will 'leave prison in a box'.

REPLY How can a Man who doesn't threaten, see himself as a threat? Mr Grant openly states his beliefs, and normally this is seen as a threat. Mr Grant shows corruption. Yes, this can be seen as a threat, especially if you are behind the corruption. Yes, the data developed by Mr Grant, which is now trusted to our control, was a threat, but only when something had been executed against humanity by given individuals. It certainly is a warning to those individuals to put right, what they had done wrong.

But for Mr Grant to waste time and his limited mental ability, seeing himself as a threat against the British Government? No, I find this hard to believe. He doesn't even think about updating his wardrobe. In fact he doesn't think about himself at all. Look at his medical report, released with the previous statement. He keeps himself simply, tidy and private.

If Mr Grant stated that about the investigator then I for one take his word for it.

FMS The exact whereabouts of Big International has always been shrouded in mystery.

REPLY Ask Mr Green or the DTI. They claimed to have served legal papers upon the two organisations, and the registrar accepted this to be a proven fact. Ask Mr Green. It's his future career on the line. The DTI have always in the past shifted the blame.

FMS It can be contacted only by e-mail over the Internet, so it could be anywhere in the world.

REPLY The truth is yes, it could be anywhere, but provided it continues to meet its stated commitment to Players and the Players are happy or have accepted that situation, then what business is it of anyone else?

Normally people who do not like to see others moving forward with their lives or control others lives hate to see individuals getting away from them, and this is a major part of what's going wrong within the United Kingdom. No wonder the British Government wants Mr Grant to shut up. Yes I can really believe what the investigator said to Mr Grant, upon reflection and the data we now have.

FMS Recently, it responded to one of Financial Mail's stories by claiming to have sold UK assets worth over œ9 billion in retaliation for the DTI actions.

REPLY BIG International simply protected Players assets from the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. Otherwise they could have been lost into the hands of the receivers, never to see the light of day again, in the players accounts. The financial assets sold were related to financial trading within the United Kingdom. When we dropped them, other organisations picked them up. It's known as asset protection not retaliation. The simple fact is the DTI took illegal action and we moved to protect our Players assets, this we call simple common scenes.

FMS It also threatened legal moves to freeze The Mail on Sunday's assets.

REPLY The Mail on Sunday claim that they instigated this action against BIG International. We haven't threatened. We have started tracking all the known and unknown assets of the owners of the Mail on Sunday. Then we will see American Law in action against such instigation. The compensation value per state will be considerable. This is without the considerable compensation which may be granted within other nations against the owners of the Mail on Sunday. In some states such instigation is a criminal offence.

FMS Big also attacked me over previous articles I have written. It told supporters: 'Tony Hetherington can be proven to be a liar.

REPLY Mr Hetherington seems obsessed with the words 'attack and threat'. What he states is quite true. We can prove Tony Hetherigton a liar. There is no intention to be offensive. It is a fact from his own writing. A court of law will decide who's view is accurate.

FMS 'Big International has a file on Tony Hetherington (TH) which relates his life from the age of five and also indicates his family tree. Which provides proof of his established links and how he obtains his current position.'

REPLY When you make enemies of so many individuals, their information about you starts to build a file of events, within the life of that person. This is the case with TH. We have been supplied with details which are currently under investigation. When we are satisfied that they are accurate, such information will be used within our legal documentation.

FMS Grant also faces moves by the DTI to have him committed to prison.

REPLY We have already reported upon this. A committal trial with no jury, before judges who we have all seen break British Law in their actions against BIG International. They want Mr Grant silenced and this is the avenue the British Government intend to use. But if that's OK with the British People, its certainly not OK with BIG International. But like the Derrick Bentley trial, British people only move when its too late. Parliament refused to sit until the sentence was carried out; they hung Derick Bentley and parliament is still sitting. This is only one example of British Justice and Parliament at its worst.

We pray that at long last the Bentley Family find rest in true justice. We understand that a Full Pardon is being considered this month. Let's see if British Justice is strong enough to admit it's mistakes against an eighteen year old youth, who had the mental capacity of a child of eleven.

Parliament and the legal system were quick to carry out the punishment, but they certainly haven't been very quick in recognising the pain and loss they caused. We haven't seen very much public support from British Citizens. The British Governments hope is, "lets do it quietly and maybe this situation will go away." Only correct Justice and respect for Humanitarian Rights, on behalf of the British Citizens, by the British Government can provide the peace required.

FMS Officials allege he continued to be involved with Big International, despite an injunction baring him.

REPLY This statement isn't totally accurate, but we do not wish to jeopardise Mr Grants defences, if any is permitted, therefore at this time we will not expand. But we will point out the first two words of the above reported statement: 'Officials allege'. The whole case against BIG International was supposed to have been founded on actual proof. If this was the case, that proof would have been placed against Mr Grant. Now we learn, that their evidence is still only alleged by officials, in other words - the statement of Mr Bott, which is founded upon his assumptions and deliberately misleading lies.

This could be the one good thing to come out of Mr Grants restrictive trial. Mr Grant's legal representatives will have the opportunity to cross examine Mr Bott. The cross examination time, is expected to take two days by the defence alone. Unless the judge at the trial decides to stop the cross examination to ensure that no defence can be developed / proven or the DTI place Mr Bott under the official secrets act, which they have done in the past, when the DTI couldn't provide evidence. This time we shall make sure that the world is watching.

FMS For the man said to be 'Mr Big', the nightmare may not be over

REPLY The words used are helpful to Mr Grants case because TH uses 'said to be' thereby showing that the fact is not proven to him.

We believe that Mr Grant doesn't see this as a nightmare, just another step along the road to prove that British Citizens have had their rights removed. Such as in Mr Grants case where ther will be NO jury when they intend to take his liberty. NO time to prepare a defence by the judge who will actually sit at his trial. NO time to be granted to notify the number of witnesses required to prove Mr Grant is not guilty. Deliberately restricted court time of three days, that will have to be extended. It goes on and on. The British Public won't even notice, because they really don't seem to care.

British Courts wouldn't see justice if it came up and hit them in the face. The system is related to control not justice. In the United Kingdom the Majority of Citizens are decent, hard working people, but their efforts are stifled by the few, such as the financial institutions, who control for self interested motives.

When you see a population who have suffered so seriously to win their freedom, being kept down by their own Government, then you can understand Mr Grant's dedication to Moral law which is so important for the future of British Law.

We all want British Citizens freely back in the world of true democracy. They can make a remarkable contribution to the worlds future developments towards peace and understanding.