Tag Archives: money creation

Articles, Police Constables

Hundreds of police officers sign open letter …

More than 600 serving police officers have signed a damning open letter warning another Tory-led government will “further endanger public safety” and leave the force “perilously close to collapse”.

It is the biggest ever criticism of government policy by frontline officers – despite them being banned from taking an active part in politics.

And it will further undermine David Cameron’s Tories’ credibility as the party of law and order.

The unprecedented intervention came in response to the coalition Government slashing the police budget by around 26% over the last five years, at a cost of 35,000 officers.

The letter states: “The police service is in crisis. Numbers are falling. Experienced officers are leaving (or planning to leave) in their droves.”

And it claims cuts to the force “will send a negative message about Britain being a safe place to live and do business and it will put economic recovery at risk”.

Former Met Det Chief Insp Peter Kirkham wrote the letter after reading one by business leaders outlining their concerns about a Labour government coming to power.

The letter has been signed by more than 1,000 policing professionals, including retired officers and police staff. Among them are 423 PCs and DCs, 188 sergeants, 50 inspectors up to Det Chief Insp level and four superintendents.

But senior officers have condemned the letter. Gareth Morgan, Avon and Somerset temporary Deputy Chief Constable, tweeted: “My advice to all serving officers would be to stay well clear of campaigns and lobbying. It’s the law after all.”

Full article and letter at http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hundreds-police-officers-sign-open-5562385

 

It would be nice if Constables stood shoulder to shoulder with rest of us when a house is stolen.

It will be too late when all the forces are privatised and many of you lose your jobs and then your home …

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

 

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

Something to think about ...

Would you do this?

Would you fill in an application form for a loan …

and then give a bank your money only for them to give it back and call it a loan?

Oh and then they charge you interest on your money?

Oh and pledge the house that you thought that you just bought?

No, you wouldn’t would you, or we would like to think that 11.2 million people in the country wouldn’t either.

Would you believe it for one moment that this in all likelihood is happening every time a “Loan” is carried out?

There may well be some tiny differences to this in practice but this is what is really happening.

Quite simply…Why would you borrow your own Money?

This would be classed as Mutual Intent. You never intended to borrow your own Money.

Stayed tuned for more info like this.

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

 

Something to think about ...

Deed Vs Contract Argument or S1 vs S2

The legal profession are at their wits end to obfuscate the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/contents LPA MP 1989

Its obvious why to the percentage who make their money out of house possessions.

It becomes a little more interesting when you realise that most people in the legal profession are likely to have a “Mortgage” themselves and do not deal with conveyancing.

Why then do they not join in if they could save themselves and their families and the rest of the 11.2 million people in the country a lifetime of debt called a Mortgage or Death Pledge.

Most of the arguments from court transcripts suggest that all mortgages are done by deed and that only Section 1 of LPA MP1989 applies.

They neglect to read the full sentence of the act, ie they all only read this bit …

2 Contracts for sale etc. of land to be made by signed writing.

when in fact it clearly says this,

“A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.”

They have made it a Deed vs Contract argument when in fact clearly both can and should apply.

It would be incumbent on all conveyancing solicitors to actually read this bit and get the entity who is to provide the alleged loan to comply with signing the deed.

If you do not then you are you are not giving best advice to the client who is entering into this debt obligation. You should get the entity who is to provide the alleged “loan” to sign their part first before presentment to the prospective “Mortgagor”.

So next time you do not provide best advice please be warned in advance you will be setting yourself up for all sorts of claims.

Its even more incredulous that with so much information widely available from reputable sources that solicitors and accountants cannot grasp this amazingly easy to comprehend fraud that is being perpetrated against the people of this country.

Please see this links for further info Something for Nothing and  Creation of Money

You have been told and the information is out there!

#VOIDMORTGAGE