top of page

Acerca de


Statement from ProbityCo on Misleading & False Claims

Dan Neidle, a former partner at Clifford Chance has made false & misleading claims about ProbityCo on Sky & social media.  We felt this should be addressed.


Neidle claims ProbityCo is ‘selling’ the NTFG campaign (see his Tweet on the right). However, nowhere on the ProbityCo site (other than here within Dan’s Tweet) is there any mention of NTFG. That would be a rather strange selling technique wouldn't it, not mentioning the thing you are allegedly selling?


Dan misleadingly suggests that the same monies held in TRUST for the government for whatever is the current financial year, are invested in the local community & thereby not held in the TRUST as promised. He’s conflating two things. The TRUST names HM Gov as Primary Beneficiary. The money is the government's so long as they can show none of it will be used for crimes against humanity, wars of aggression or genocide.


At the end of the financial year, as so many councils are corrupt, bankrupt and being asset stripped by the government, many may prefer to invest their forfeited tax directly in local community projects and groups, thereby boycotting the corrupt councils while still funding the local community.

Mr Neidle implied during an interview by Kay Burley on Sky News that Chris Coverdale went to jail in 2016 for non-payment of council tax having used the TRUST. This is false. Mr. Coverdale developed the TRUST document in 2017 as a result of being sent to jail in 2014, 2015 and 2016. He could have paid his taxes to avoid a jail sentence, but stuck to his principles.  He hasn’t been to jail since.


Mr Neidle also falsely claims that there is no mention of this on the website. However the fact that Mr. Coverdale went to jail, which led directly to him developing the TRUST mechanism, is stated on the first page in the opening titles of a short film which those visiting the page are encouraged to watch.


Mr. Neidle also claims ProbityCo 'charges'. Yet everything on the site is free. An optional contribution is not a charge.


Neidle also contends that ProbityCo is ‘inspired’ by the US sovereign citizen movement. Sorry Dan, never heard of it.


Anyone can use the TRUST, so if another company decides to do so, that’s up to them. As for Mr. Coverdale, he can consult with whomever he likes. If Dan advises two companies, it wouldn’t make them one and the same.


Mr Neidle comments on his website:

'Sovereign citizens believe that individuals should be able to freely choose to opt out of the legal system that applies to everyone else – a valid political/philosophical view. However they then make an invalid leap of logic to the position that individuals in fact are able to opt out of the legal system'.

Here again, Dan conflates two issues. The holding of taxes in a revocable trust is not a choice to willfully opt out of the legal system, nor is it a belief that the legal system wouldn't mount a challenge to such an action – it is as a direct response to a government which has itself opted to ignore both international and domestic law and therefore the legal system. If a government chooses not to follow ratified international laws and fails to represent the wishes of the people they are supposed to serve (not rule) and if they then use their powers to coerce payment (via the legislative process that they themselves write) from the taxpayer, thereby forcing others to break international law, then this tyranny - which accepts HM Government can operate above the law - should rightly be challenged.

Just as conscientious objectors should have the right to refuse to fight in a war they believe to be illegal, so a taxpayer should have the right to withhold taxes they believe will be used for criminal purposes, such as wars of aggression.

Dan also comments: Trusts are nowadays not a good way of avoiding tax, because there’s an immediate 20% inheritance tax charge when you put your property into a trust.  Nowhere on the ProbityCo site is there any suggestion these TRUSTS are for your property.

Dan is wilfully missing the point. We are not avoiding tax, we are paying it. By putting your taxes into a conditional revocable trust for HM government as the Primary Beneficiary you have paid your taxes and you can’t get them back if HM Government meets your conditions – compelling our leaders and governments to stop supporting the killings and genocides and obey, uphold and enforce the law.


The UK has been involved in multiple wars of aggression over the decades and found to be in breach of international humanitarian law (the Court of Appeal found the government broke the law over Saudi arms sales). Why should the taxpayer foot the bill or indeed be complicit in these crimes? Clearly there are those who find it acceptable to coerce others into funding wars of aggression via the legislative process, while others believe conscience trumps statute.


So long as MP's refuse to listen to their constituents and continue to operate as little more than lobbyist for corporations, so long as a Remembrancer sits in Parliament to put the needs of the City over that of the People, then the People will find other ways to voice their dissent.


Please note that there is a clear disclaimer on the ProbityCo site which states the following: The content appearing on this website is not intended as, and shall not be relied upon as, legal advice. It is general in nature and may not reflect all recent legal developments. ProbityCo is not a law firm and an attorney-client relationship is not formed through your use of this website.

bottom of page