Tag Archives: mutual intent

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

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

 

 

Case Law, Definitions

Unjust Enrichment

English unjust enrichment law is part of the English law of obligations, alongside contract and tort, and property. A claim in unjust enrichment requires benefits that have been obtained by someone to be given up if it would be “unjust” to retain them. The enrichment must be “unjust” if no valid legal transaction is present, such as a contract, trust, gift or estoppel. “Restitution“, or restoration of the unjust gain, to the party to whom the enrichment came from is the main right that follows from an unjust enrichment. English courts have recognised that to found a claim there are four steps: (1) someone has to be enriched, (2) at the expense of someone else, (3) the enrichment must be unjust, and (4) there must be no defence, such as the defendant changing its position on the strength of the enrichment. Around 10 major “unjust factors” are typically recognised in English law, many of which are typically understood in contract as “vitiating factors”. If someone receives an enrichment at another’s expense, and this is a mistake, it happens with the claimant’s ignorance of the transfer, after a failure of consideration, under duress, under undue influence or exploitation, through legal compulsion, out of necessity, when the transaction is illegal, or the claimant lacks capacity or acts ultra vires, then this will found a claim, so long as no defence operates. Unjust enrichment is an action based on strict liability to return the enrichment, and may frequently work concurrently with a claim in tort. For example, if someone is forced to make a contract to transfer property, the “unjust factor” of duress will vitiate the contract. The claimant will be entitled to have their property returned, and will also have a claim in tort against the one who made the threat.

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

Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1988] UKHL 12 is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of change of position. This secured unjust enrichment English law as the third pillar of the law of obligations, along with contract and tort.

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

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

Money Creation

Offer of Loan vs Contract to be in Debt?

Which one do you believe you entered into?

What do all your offer documents refer to?

What are the elements of THE contract or YOUR deed?

If all the elements of a contract do exist then the actual content of those documents will form the primae facie case that should be put forward in any claim against you.

What is it therefore that is ACTUALLY being claimed from you?

If you had an offer of a loan where is the evidence of that completion of the contract and the bargaining that took place?

Or were you offered a deed whereby that you may have been misled by your agent which is in fact a contract to be in debt for an amount of money and this is backed up by a security placed on the property.

This being known as a type of disposition called a mortgage.

The paperwork will speak for itself if you can prove produce and identify all the elements.

You see, anyone can do a good deed for another, some may even sign a deed to confirm they will do it …

CONTRACT OR DEED?

 

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Money Creation

MONEY VS MONIES WORTH

MONEY VS MONIES WORTH?

What does this mean and what were you actually loaned?

It really is as different as apples and pears.

If someone wanted some apples and could only complete the bargain by providing pears then that exchange would be complete. (If accepted of course.)

If you wanted apples but completed the bargain with “Money”(1) then that exchange would be complete.

In both scenarios the person had to have the apples.

If you go to the Post Office to get your Euros you pay over “Money” (1).

That exchange is complete as you agreed to it but the PO took a cut for providing the service of “Exchange” (3).

In this case the PO had to have the Euro’s.

If you wanted “Credit” (2) and the only thing you had access to was a “Promise to pay” (3).

When do you think this transaction completes the bargain?
So what happens when you get a “Mortgage” (4)?

You think that someone is going to lend you the money that they have and you agree to paying this money back with interest because that is how it is in a commercial transaction.

For a contract or agreement to take place there has to be a number of elements.

If you thought that “Money” (1) was being lent, as opposed to be advanced “Credit” (2) would you have had the same intent or could it be argued that “Mutual Intent” (5) never existed in the transaction for the bargain to complete?

(1) Money =
(2) Credit =
(3) Exchange =
(4) Mortgage =
(5) Mutual Intent =
(6) Monies Worth =

Therefore in what circumstances does Money EQUAL Monies worth?

Answers on a postcard …