Tag Archives: intermeddling

Bailiffs & High Court Enforcement Officers, Bank/Building Society Staff, Case Law, Court Staff, Court System, Estate Agents, Legislation, LPA Receiver, Police Constables

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015

Dear Constables please wake up to this NOW

 

26Corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges

(1)A police constable listed in subsection (3) commits an offence if he or she—

(a)exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly, and

(b)knows or ought to know that the exercise is improper.

(2)A police constable guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).

(3)The police constables referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a)a constable of a police force in England and Wales;

(b)a special constable for a police area in England and Wales;

(c)a constable or special constable of the British Transport Police Force;

(d)a constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;

(e)a constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;

(f)a National Crime Agency officer designated under section 9 or 10 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 as having the powers and privileges of a constable.

(4)For the purposes of this section, a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly if—

(a)he or she exercises a power or privilege of a constable for the purpose of achieving—

(i)a benefit for himself or herself, or

(ii)a benefit or a detriment for another person, and

(b)a reasonable person would not expect the power or privilege to be exercised for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(5)For the purposes of this section, a police constable is to be treated as exercising the powers and privileges of a constable improperly in the cases described in subsections (6) and (7).

(6)The first case is where—

(a)the police constable fails to exercise a power or privilege of a constable,

(b)the purpose of the failure is to achieve a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and

(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to fail to exercise the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(7)The second case is where—

(a)the police constable threatens to exercise, or not to exercise, a power or privilege of a constable,

(b)the threat is made for the purpose of achieving a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and

(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to threaten to exercise, or not to exercise, the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(8)An offence is committed under this section if the act or omission in question takes place in the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom waters.

(9)In this section—

  • “benefit” and “detriment” mean any benefit or detriment, whether or not in money or other property and whether temporary or permanent;

  • “United Kingdom waters” means the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the United Kingdom’s territorial sea.

(10)References in this section to exercising, or not exercising, the powers and privileges of a constable include performing, or not performing, the duties of a constable.

(11)Nothing in this section affects what constitutes the offence of misconduct in public office at common law in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/section/26/enacted

There is nothing in the Oath of a Constable which allows the protection of a Bank/Building Society for using an invalid court document that was obtained by fraud as there was NEVER any money loaned.

Read your Oath of Office today and then carry out an investigation as to the facts and evidence in these matters.

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Accountants, Bailiffs & High Court Enforcement Officers, Bank/Building Society Staff, Case Law, Court Staff, Legislation, Police Constables

Misconduct in Public Office

Refusing to investigate the theft of someone’s home WILL lead to this

Principle

Scope of the offence

Misconduct in public office is an offence at common law triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It is an offence confined to those who are public office holders and is committed when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.

The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the offence should be strictly confined. It can raise complex and sometimes sensitive issues. Prosecutors should therefore consider seeking the advice of the Principal Legal Advisor to resolve any uncertainty as to whether it would be appropriate to bring a prosecution for such an offence.

 

Definition of the offence

The elements of the offence are summarised in Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868. The offence is committed when:

  • a public officer acting as such
  • wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself
  •  to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder
  • without reasonable excuse or justification

 

Where there is a statutory offence but it would be difficult or inappropriate to use it. This might arise because of evidential difficulties in proving the statutory offence in the particular circumstances;

  • because the maximum sentence for the statutory offence would be entirely insufficient for the seriousness of the misconduct.

A Public OfficerThe prosecution must have evidence to show that the suspect is a ‘public officer’. There is no simple definition and each case must be assessed individually, taking into account the nature of the role, the duties carried out and the level of public trust involved.

The courts have been reluctant to provide a detailed definition of a public officer. The case-law contains an element of circularity, in that the cases tend to define a public officer as a person who carries out a public duty or has an office of trust. What may constitute a public duty or an office of trust must therefore be inferred from the facts of particular cases.

The judgment of Lord Mansfield in R v Bembridge (1783) 3 Doug KB 32 refers to a public officer having:

‘ an office of trust concerning the public, especially if attended with profit … by whomever and in whatever way the officer is appointed’.

It does not seem that the person concerned must be the holder of an ‘office’ in a narrow or technical sense. The authorities suggest that it is the nature of the duties and the level of public trust involved that are relevant, rather than the manner or nature of appointment.

In R v Whitaker (1914) KB 1283 the court said:

‘A public office holder is an officer who discharges any duty in the discharge of which the public are interested, more clearly so if he is paid out of a fund provided by the public.’

This approach was followed in a series of cases from other common law jurisdictions: R v Williams (1986) 39 WIR 129; R v Sacks [1943] SALR 413; R v Boston (1923) 33 CLR 386.

In R v Dytham (1979) 1 QB 723 Lord Widgery CJ talked of ‘a public officer who has an obligation to perform a duty’.

Remuneration is a significant factor, but not an essential element. In R v Belton [2010] WLR (D) 283 the defendant was an unpaid voluntary member of the Independent Monitoring Board. The Court of Appeal held that remuneration was not an indispensable requirement for the holding of a public office, or for liability to prosecution for the offence of misconduct in a public office.

The fact that an individual was a volunteer might have a bearing on whether there had been wilful misconduct, but was only indicative rather than determinative of whether an individual held a public office.

The court in Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868 referred to the unfairness that could arise where people who carry out similar duties may or may not be liable to prosecution depending on whether they can be defined as ‘public officers’. What were once purely public functions are now frequently carried out by employees in private employment. An example is the role of the court security officer.

The court declined to define a public officer, however, but said:
‘This potential unfairness adds weight, in our view, to the conclusion that the offence should be strictly confined but we do not propose to develop the point or to consider further the question of what, for present purposes, constitutes a public office.’

The following have been accepted as holding a public office by the courts over several centuries:

  • Coroner (1675) R v Parker 2 Lev 140
  • Constable (1703) R v Wyatt 1 Salk 380
  • Accountant in the office of the Paymaster General (1783) R v Bembridge 3 Doug K.B. 32
  • Justice of the Peace (1791) R v Sainsbury 4 T.R 451
  • Executive or ministerial officer (1819) R v Friar 1 Chit.Rep (KB) 702
  • Gaoler (1827) R v Cope 6 A%E 226
  • Mayor or burgess (1828) Henly v Mayor of Lyme 5 Bing 91
  • Overseer of the poor (1891) R v Hall 1 QB 747
  • Army officer (1914) R v Whitaker 10 Cr.App.R.245
  • County Court registrar (district judge) (1968) R v Llewellyn-Jones 1 Q.B.429
  • Police officer (1979) R v Dytham 69 Cr.App.R.387
  • Council maintenance officer (1995) R v Bowden 4 All E.R 505
  • Local councillor (2004) R v Speechley [2004] EWCA Crim 3067
  • Member of the Independent Monitoring Board for prisons (2010) R v Belton R v Belton [2010] EWCA Crim 2857

So Police Constables take note,

A refusal to carry out an investigation into the theft of a home will amount to Misconduct in Office.

As the Office of Constable being a Public Servant has a position of trust concerning the Public and the Public of these lands have a legitimate expectation that you will do your job which is in essence an agreement or contract with us.

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

Source: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/

Accountants, Bailiffs & High Court Enforcement Officers, Bank/Building Society Staff, Court Staff, Legislation, Locksmiths, Police Constables, Something to think about ...

Police Powers Trespass & Squatting

Dear Police Constables,
We implore you to read this post and ensure that you comprehend the contents in its entirety.
Anyone who is entering back into their property to defend it from unlawful possession has a full and complete defence if you were to investigate the matter IN ADVANCE!
Do not just follow orders to evict trespassers on someone’s say so.
Make accurate inquiries as to whether the people have re-entered THEIR home to defend it first and check the details at the Land Registry.
Where mortgage repossessions are concerned, Police Constables are being psychologically reframed to regard evictee’s as squatters or trespassers, whom they can remove using police powers.
This power therefore can not be used if by investigation, IN ADVANCE, you can prove there was no loan by the bank or the building society.If they cannot prove they suffered a loss then they never made a loan … SIMPLE!
This power would then be an abuse of power if it doesn’t go hand in hand with a prior investigation to comply with your IMPARTIALITY.
Therefore any claim made in court would therefore be VOID AB INITIO and a Fraud upon the Court.
What you are doing is removing the lawful right of the owner by extreme force and against their will to defend their property which you as a Police Constable have no right to do before carrying out that investigation.
By removing and displacing real People you remove their base their home their life and you are doing it under orders with ZERO investigation as to the facts and evidence in the case in which you could obtain yourself if you remembered your oath of Office as a Constable.
Just doing your job has no defence in this country.
It could be seen as Misfeasance in Public Office for not carrying out your duties as a Public Servant as per YOUR Oath. This will open you personally to a civil claim if you do not do your job properly and have a dereliction of duty.
If you get asked to attend an incident like this, make inquiries as to whether the bank lent any money and ask to see where the loss of the purported “Mortgage Loan” occurred by insisting on seeing all the entries in the Bankers Books as per this legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/42-43/11/contents Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879.
Elements of the offence – points to prove
6.
Subsection (1) of section 144 sets out the elements of the offence. The offence is committed when:
  • a person is in a residential building as a trespasser having entered it as such;
  • the person knows or ought to know that they are a trespasser; AND
  • the person is living in the building or intends to live there for any period.

 

You see if the real owner re-enters they know they are not a trespasser and the Full Accounting will prove their case. If you remove them first without investigating the facts of the case presented to you, you will become liable.

OFFENCE OF SQUATTING IN A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Introduction
1.
Section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act
2012 creates a new offence of squatting in a residential building, which will apply throughout England and Wales. The offence is set out in full in
Annex A

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Bailiffs & High Court Enforcement Officers, Bank/Building Society Staff, Estate Agents, Locksmiths, Police Constables, Solicitors & Barristers

The Law of Agency

The law of agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a set of contractual, quasi-contractual and non-contractual fiduciary relationships that involve a person, called the agent, that is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the principal) to create legal relations with a third party.[1] Succinctly, it may be referred to as the equal relationship between a principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or implicitly, authorizes the agent to work under his or her control and on his or her behalf. The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or bring him or her and third parties into contractual relationship. This branch of law separates and regulates the relationships between:

  • agents and principals (internal relationship), known as the principal-agent relationship;
  • agents and the third parties with whom they deal on their principals’ behalf (external relationship); and
  • principals and the third parties when the agents deal.

In 1986, the European Communities enacted Directive 86/653/EEC on self-employed commercial agents. In the UK, this was implemented into national law in the Commercial Agents Regulations 1993.[2]

The reciprocal rights and liabilities between a principal and an agent reflect commercial and legal realities. A business owner often relies on an employee or another person to conduct a business. In the case of a corporation, since a corporation is a fictitious legal person, it can only act through human agents. The principal is bound by the contract entered into by the agent, so long as the agent performs within the scope of the agency.

A third party may rely in good faith on the representation by a person who identifies himself as an agent for another. It is not always cost effective to check whether someone who is represented as having the authority to act for another actually has such authority. If it is subsequently found that the alleged agent was acting without necessary authority, the agent will generally be held liable.

THEREFORE ARE YOU ACTING AS AN AGENT?

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Bailiffs & High Court Enforcement Officers, Bank/Building Society Staff, Case Law, Court Staff, Estate Agents, Locksmiths, Police Constables, Solicitors & Barristers

Fisher and Lightwoods: Taking Possession

Fisher and Lightwood’s
Law of Mortgages
13 th Edition page # 588 paragraph # 29.9
Taking peaceable possession
29.9 If physical possession is to be taken, it must be taken peaceably.

If violence is used to secure entry, the mortgagee may be liable to prosecution under the criminal law, although the mortgagor will have no civil remedy against the mortgagee.
Violence need not only be against the person, but may also be in the manner of entry, as by breaking open the doors of a house.
Consequently, save where the mortgagor consents to the mortgagee taking actual possession, which will be rare, the occasions where a physical taking of possession is possible will be rare. It will generally only be possible where the mortgagor (and any tenant of the mortgagor) has abandoned the premises.

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Locksmiths

Locksmiths

Do you act act as agents for the “Repossession of houses?”

If you do, do you really know where you stand when it comes to the paperwork and the law?

Are you acting as the agent?

What actual documents are you relying on for you not being charged with a “TORT”?

Trespass, aiding abbeting fraud, theft, grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm, damage to property?

Those are all Torts.

These and probably many more …

The only thing that MAY be stopping a claim against YOU direct and not YOUR company is a bit of paper that is now showing increasing signs of being unlawful and invalid and therefore VOID.

If YOU are acting under a VOID order, then YOU will be personally liable for YOUR actions, not your boss.

Please take time to ensure that YOU as the one breaking the windows, drilling the locks, have sufficient knowledge and backup to stop any claims against YOU.

 

Bailiffs & High Court Enforcement Officers, Bank/Building Society Staff, Court Staff, Estate Agents, Police Constables, Solicitors & Barristers

#TGBMS The Great British Mortgage Swindle

TGBMS

“BBT Films has been formed for the purposes of granting into private trust the worldwide rights of the film for the benefit of the filmmakers, as well as the men and woman whose unlawful evictions are featured in The Great British Mortgage Swindle.

Any and all monies generated by the international release of the film across all media will be shared by the producers with the featured protagonists who have their properties stolen from them in the film; as well as those courageous, committed and knowledgeable banksterbusters who stood on the front line with them in concerted efforts to resist each unlawful eviction.

The film features several deeply harrowing and profoundly emotive unlawful evictions by county court bailiffs and high court enforcement officers, aided and abetted by members of her majesty’s constabulary” who are all acting on paperwork known to have no lawful effect but are carried out by the use of force.

The people who assist in these unlawful procedures will have no lawful excuse if they continue to ignore the facts of how a possession order arises.

As a minimum people acting under this paperwork should ensure that they know all the actual elements required.

  • Court Seal
  • Judges name and signature

This subject will be covered in detail on the Knowldgebase

#TGBMS

#VOIDMORTGAGE

http://www.thegreatbritishmortgageswindle.net/movie-trailer/

 

Court Staff, Police Constables, Solicitors & Barristers

Breach Of The Peace

One of the actual parts of the Oath of Office for the British Bobby.

As we are concerned with England and Wales on this site, here is an extract of the Police Constables Oath

England and Wales

Territorial police constables

The 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales are responsible for general policing. Members of the police forces are attested under section 29 of the Police Act 1996.[1] The prescribed form of words is that given by schedule 4 to the Act (inserted by section 83 of the Police Reform Act 2002[2]), as follows:

English

I, … of … do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.

Welsh

Rwyf i…o…yn datgan ac yn cadarnhau yn ddifrifol ac yn ddiffuant y byddaf yn gwasanaethu’r Frenhines yn dda ac yn gywir yn fy swydd o heddwas (heddferch), yn deg, yn onest, yn ddiwyd ac yn ddiduedd, gan gynnal hawliau dynol sylfaenol a chan roddi’r un parch i bob person; ac y byddaf i, hyd eithaf fy ngallu, yn achosi i’r heddwch gael ei gadw a’i ddiogelu ac yn atal pob trosedd yn erbyn pobl ac eiddo; a thra byddaf yn parhau i ddal y swydd ddywededig y byddaf i, hyd eithaf fy sgil a’m gwybodaeth, yn cyflawni’r holl ddyletswyddau sy’n gysylltiedig â hi yn ffyddlon yn unol â’r gyfraith.

So what actually is a “Breach of the Peace”?

Its important that we have this issue entirely correct with case law and any other evidence and facts to ensure that the People of this Land have access to the same information as a Police Constable.

Any information that you may have please let us have the links so this info can be placed up here

Definitions

Negligence

Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally “not to pick up something”) is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.[1] The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

According to Jay M. Feinman of the Rutgers University School of Law;

The core idea of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people.”[2]

those who go personally or bring property where they know that they or it may come into collision with the persons or property of others have by law a duty cast upon them to use reasonable care and skill to avoid such a collision.”

—Fletcher v Rylands ([1866] LR 1 Ex 265)

Through civil litigation, if an injured person proves that another person acted negligently to cause their injury, they can recover damages to compensate for their harm. Proving a case for negligence can potentially entitle the injured plaintiff to compensation for harm to their body, property, mental well-being, financial status, or intimate relationships. However, because negligence cases are very fact-specific, this general definition does not fully explain the concept of when the law will require one person to compensate another for losses caused by accidental injury. Further, the law of negligence at common law is only one aspect of the law of liability. Although resulting damages must be proven in order to recover compensation in a negligence action, the nature and extent of those damages are not the primary focus of negligence cases.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

Definitions

Trespass

Trespass is an area of criminal law or tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels and trespass to land.

Trespass to the person historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem, and maiming.[1] Through the evolution of the common law in various jurisdictions, and the codification of common law torts, most jurisdictions now broadly recognize three trespasses to the person: assault, which is “any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of battery”;[2] battery, “any intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff’s person or anything attached to it and practically identified with it”;[2] and false imprisonment, the “unlaw[ful] obstruct[ion] or depriv[ation] of freedom from restraint of movement”.[3]

Trespass to chattels, also known as trespass to goods or trespass to personal property, is defined as “an intentional interference with the possession of personal property … proximately caus[ing] injury”.[4] Trespass to chattel does not require a showing of damages. Simply the “intermeddling with or use of … the personal property” of another gives cause of action for trespass.[5][6] Since CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions,[7] various courts have applied the principles of trespass to chattel to resolve cases involving unsolicited bulk e-mail and unauthorized server usage.[8][9][10][11]

Trespass to land is today the tort most commonly associated with the term trespass; it takes the form of “wrongful interference with one’s possessory rights in [real] property”.[12] Generally, it is not necessary to prove harm to a possessor’s legally protected interest; liability for unintentional trespass varies by jurisdiction. “[A]t common law, every unauthorized entry upon the soil of another was a trespasser”, however, under the tort scheme established by the Restatement of Torts, liability for unintentional intrusions arises only under circumstances evincing negligence or where the intrusion involved a highly dangerous activity.[13]

Trespass has also been treated as a common law offense in some countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letang_v_Cooper

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE