Tag Archives: lender

Bank/Building Society Staff, Legislation, Police Constables, Solicitors & Barristers

Protection from Harassment

Harassment

In this legal guidance, the term harassment is used to cover the ‘causing alarm or distress’ offences under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended (PHA), and ‘putting people in fear of violence’ offences under section 4 of the PHA. The term can also include harassment by two or more defendants against an individual or harassment against more than one victim.

Although harassment is not specifically defined in section 7(2) of the PHA, it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person.

The definition of harassment was considered in Plavelil v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] EWHC 736 (Admin), in which it was held that the repeated making of false and malicious assertions against a doctor in connection with an investigation by the GMC could amount to a course of harassment. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that malicious allegations could not be oppressive if they could easily be rebutted.

A prosecution under section 2 or 4 requires proof of harassment. In addition, there must be evidence to prove the conduct was targeted at an individual, was calculated to alarm or cause him/her distress, and was oppressive and unreasonable.

Closely connected groups may also be subjected to ‘collective’ harassment. The primary intention of this type of harassment is not generally directed at an individual but rather at members of a group. This could include: members of the same family; residents of a particular neighbourhood; groups of a specific identity including ethnicity or sexuality, for example, the racial harassment of the users of a specific ethnic community centre; harassment of a group of disabled people; harassment of gay clubs; or of those engaged in a specific trade or profession.

Harassment of an individual can also occur when a person is harassing others connected with the individual, knowing that this behaviour will affect their victim as well as the other people that the person appears to be targeting their actions towards. This is known as ‘stalking by proxy’. Family members, friends and employees of the victim may be subjected to this.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stalking_and_harassment/#a02a

Continued requests for money to be paid back on a false loan agreement would amount to Harassment

 

Section 2 offence – Harassment

The elements of section 2 offence are:

  • a course of conduct;
  • which amounts to harassment of another; and
  • which the defendant knows, or ought to know amounts to harassment of another.

The bank or building society will therefore know first hand whether they “LOANED” any money or not and this evidence can be produced from the “Full and Complete Accounting” of the company involved.

 

#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/

Money Creation

Something for Nothing?

Money out of thin air?

Well it would appear they (the banks) cannot just do that.

There must be something to monetise in the first place.

Where can these items be verified?

Bank Of England state as per their quarterly bulletins
Quarterly Bulletin 2008 Q1 Volume 48 No. 1
Steve Baker MP house of commons debate and Hansard

Steve Baker MP at the historic debate in UK Parliament on Money Creation

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/backbench-business-committee/news/mps-debate-money-creation-and-society/

The full text of the debate is here

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141120/debtext/141120-0001.htm#14112048000001

and here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141120/debtext/141120-0002.htm
These are verifiable statements on the record in the public domain.

We need to look at how the equitable arrangements of a mortgage come about.

If it can be proved as a fact that zero loan existed when your freehold was purchased, how can the alleged lender make any claim AT ALL?

What is the most that an alleged lender can claim?

Even using case law that they can take the house back before the ink is dry? (link required)

We would suggest that in “Equity” this figure could be a MAXIMUM of 50% of any alleged loan and then 100% if in fact a loan did actually take place with facts, evidence and full accounting.

This is based on an exchange of items or a swap. Your paperwork for their advance.

Where someone has been in their home for 10 years with a £100,000 “Mortgage” paying £500 per months they may have fallen behind by 2 months payments.

This is enough for the alleged lender to take possession proceedings.

As Loyd Grossman would say…..” Lets have a look at the evidence!”

If NO LOAN takes place, then any “Money” (credit) that came out of thin air because someone wrote something on a piece of paper, who is entitled to make a claim and for what?

This is where we get our 50% from. A swap or exchange of two items having the same value but a different specie of “MONEY”.

Paying the £500 per month soon tots up. That is £6000 per year and after 10 years £60,000.
The £120,000 house is now probably worth £200,000.

The alleged lender now claims that due to the fact you have not paid TWO months of £500, they want “their” house back.

In equity, where are we with this and the accounting?

I’m guessing that you already worked out that you put in quite a bit more than the bank.

Even IF they made any loan at all!

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Money Creation

Presumption of a “Loan”

Many people think that a “mortgage” is a loan of money to buy their house.

This is the problem with presumptions.

Terminology is everything.

A “Hoover” is a tradename for a vacuum cleaner, therefore not all vacuum cleaners are “Hoovers”.

What is a Loan?

A “Loan” is normally one of 2 things.

1) Something you do or supply for free, normally to a friend who will return the thing,money or the favour.

2)The other is a commercial activity where the “Loan” has conditions attached, normally a contract and where you pay a commercial rate for the provision of a “Loan”

 

A Loan could be described as the particular loss of an asset for a period of time until it is returned, with or without any commercial rates attached.

For a Loan to have taken place therefore:

The amount “Loaned” MUST cause a deficit in the accounting of the “LENDER”

If this simple transaction does not occur it therefore cannot be classified as a “LOAN”