top of page

Basic DEED plus sample HMRC Letters and the Laws Governing War & Genocide document
Download the DEED, use the template letter as a guide (make the words your own) and don't forget to include the Laws Governing Wars document when you send your signed, witnessed D&D by registered post. You hold onto the Promissory Note which can make up 90% of the monies held in trust for HM Government.

Basic DEED for all taxes (not PAYE/NI)

HMRC Sample Letter 2

HMRC Sample Letter 1

Promissory Note

The money you hold in TRUST for the Council or HMRC no longer belongs to you. So you cannot touch it. Place 10% of the money in cash and 90% as a promissory note or cheque in a safe place. You do not send this to HMG. The money MUST be available for HMG in the unlikely event HMG changes it's ways and starts to abide by International Law.

You can of course put it in a separate account in the bank, but only if you trust the bank. As the aim is to centralise all banks, it might be more prudent to keep it where you can guarantee it will remain in trust for HMG.



Understandably the most frequently expressed inquiry concerns the risks one runs if one faces HMRC and Councils with one’s individual Declaration and Deed. What is the success rate, if there is one?

So far, nobody has been brought to court on the basis of that deed.

What is becoming clear is that authorities are ignoring this document and proceeding with tax collection, especially with council tax, presumably because council staff believe that council tax does not go into the Consolidated Fund. One need only to point out to councils that all the PAYE, NI Contributions and pension contributions based on council staff salaries, are mandated straight to the Consolidated Fund to demolish that misconception.

Regardless, all revenue streams form part of the Consolidated Fund. For those determined to push through with Probity in Taxation, the councils’ counter-activities could even lead to aggravated damages payable to residents forced to pay under duress, as in the case of Leighton v Bristow & Sutor 2023. The council instructed debt collectors to act without providing them with a valid authority in the shape of a court order, rendering the debt collectors impotent. On 21st September, the High Court in KBD Swansea ruled in favour of Mr. Leighton, awarding him £4,000 against debt collectors Bristow & Sutor, who were acting in conjunction with the City of York Council. The case exposed an unlawful Council Tax debt collection process for which Mr. Leighton was entitled to damages. This is now case law.

Depending on circumstances, HMRC seems to not react, nor does it seem to pursue the matter. The big issue for HMRC is winning this matter in court, especially if legal actions filed against the UK government regarding their actions in Gaza and Yemen find them in breach of international law. As for collection of the debt, the law is now clear.

The long-term aim is not just to defund illegal wars of aggression, but to eventually segue the monies into local multi-stakeholder community co-ops which will fund the communities in place of the unitary councils. Part of the remedy for those who work at the council, could be to ‘jump in’ with this new local community decentralisation initiative and help tip the balance in favour of a peaceful tax resistance and an understood duty to respect international law. For the will of the people to be the law, we need numbers. ‘I am but a lonely voice’ said 7.8 billion people.

Never forget – it is the government that is breaking International Law. Those putting their taxes aside in a DEED are not wilfully refusing to pay tax (HM Government is after all the Primary Beneficiary, so the money is theirs so long as they can show they are upholding international law) but are insisting the Government abides by those international agreements they have signed up to. As per the Nuremberg Defence, ‘just following orders’ does not offer a get out clause to escape punishment.

UK Law (legislation) Governing War and Genocide and their Funding by Taxation


In 2001 the UK Government ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court by enacting the International Criminal Court Act, and the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act. These two laws make it a criminal offence in the UK for any person to engage in war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or conduct ancillary to such crimes. The International Criminal Court Act 2001 stipulates:

51.  It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime.

52.  It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to engage in conduct ancillary to genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime …

55.  Meaning of “ancillary offence”. References in this Part to an ancillary offence under the law of England and Wales are to (a) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence, (b) inciting a person to commit an offence, (c) attempting or conspiring to commit an offence, or (d) assisting an offender or concealing the commission of an offence.

66.  Mental element … a person is regarded as committing such an act or crime only if the material elements are committed with intent and knowledge. … A person has intent in relation to conduct, where he means to engage in the conduct, and in relation to a consequence, where he means to cause the consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events; and “knowledge” means awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events.

78.  Crown application. This Act binds the Crown and applies to persons in the public service of the Crown, and property held for purposes of the public service of the Crown, as it applies to other persons and property.


The International Criminal Court Act 2001 [Elements of Crimes] Regulations specify in Article 6(a) Genocide by killing the four elements of genocide that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in court if a jury is to find a person guilty of ‘genocide’ or ‘conduct ancillary to genocide’:

  1. The perpetrator killed or caused the death of one or more persons.

  2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

  3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national … group as such.

  4. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.


Parliament ratified the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism by enacting the Terrorism Act 2000 in which it ruled in sections 1, 15, 17 and 19 that:

  1. Terrorism is the threat or use of firearms or explosives endangering life for a political or ideological cause,

15 (1) A person commits an offence if he invites another to provide money or other property, and intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.

(2) A person commits an offence if he receives money or other property, and intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

(3) A person commits an offence if he provides money or other property, and knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

(4) In this section a reference to the provision of money or other property is a reference to its being given, lent or otherwise made available, .


17. A person commits an offence if he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement as a result of which money or other property is made available or is to be made available to another, and he knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

19. Disclosure of information: duty.

(1) This section applies where a person believes or suspects that another person has committed an offence under any of sections 15 to 18, and bases his belief or suspicion on information which comes to his attention in the course of a trade, profession or business, or in the course of his employment …

(2) The person commits an offence if he does not disclose to a constable as soon as is reasonably practicable his belief or suspicion, and the information on which it is based


In 1861 Parliament enacted The Accessories and Abettors Act in which it ruled that:

  1. Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.


bottom of page