Date of Action: 09 August 2025

Incident Type: Codification and Creation of the “Unlawful Domestic Warfare” Doctrine Affidavit.

Action Taken By: Myself (:Waseem: Malik. – from the :OFFICE of the MAN.)

Action Directed To: The High Court of Justice (King’s Bench Division) and all named Defendants.

Details of Legal Action Taken:

I have executed a sworn affidavit titled:

“AFFIDAVIT ON THE NATURE OF THE CONFLICT: THE DOCTRINE OF UNLAWFUL DOMESTIC WARFARE.”

This affidavit:

1. Recharacterizes the Conflict — It reframes the matter from isolated complaints or procedural grievances to a unified, ongoing campaign of Unlawful Domestic Warfare directed against a peaceful civilian by state and corporate actors.

2. Legal Foundations:

   • Constitutional Authority: Bill of Rights 1689 (prohibition of cruel or unusual punishment; limits on arbitrary executive power).
   • Domestic Statute: Human Rights Act 1998 (Articles 3, 6, 8); Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (prohibitions on targeting civilians); International Criminal Court Act 2001 (domestic application of Rome Statute crimes).
   • Landmark Case Law: Including R v Bow Street Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet (No. 3) [2000] 1 AC 147 (absolute prohibition on torture and state impunity) and A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 71 (non-derogable rights under Article 3 ECHR).
   • Maxims of Law: Ubi jus ibi remedium (Where there is a right, there is a remedy); Ex injuria jus non oritur (No right can arise from a wrong).

3. Conclusion:

   The affidavit declares that the Defendants’ actions—when assessed cumulatively—meet the moral and legal threshold for grave breaches under international humanitarian law. Accordingly, all remedies sought are to be assessed in that light, including but not limited to: punitive damages, personal liability of agents, and potential referral for investigation as War Crimes and/or Crimes Against Humanity.

My Perception of Purpose & Impact:

This submission escalates the legal framework of the dispute to its true gravity. By placing the Defendants’ conduct in the same legal category as internationally condemned abuses, it destroys the viability of defenses based on “administrative error” or “ordinary procedure.” It also opens the door to extraordinary remedies and ensures the matter is seen in a global human rights context, not merely a local civil dispute.