Tag Archives: Unjust Enrichment

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/

Estate Agents

Estate Agents

Do you realise that you may have been caught up in the biggest fraud known to the people of this country?

Do you ever act as an agent in a “Repossession”?

Do you sell “Repossessed” properties?

Do you ever check the real title?

Do your branches give “Mortgage Advice”?

Do you in fact have a “Mortgage” yourselves?

Answer yes to any of the above and you will find more info here about why you may assisting fraud and thefT.

Knowledgebase base required

#VOIDMORTGAGE

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/

 

Case Law, Definitions, Money Creation

Unconscionability

Unconscionability in English law is a field of contract law and the law of trusts, which precludes the enforcement of consent based obligations. “Inequality of bargaining power” is another term used to express essentially the same idea for the same area of law, which can in turn be further broken down into cases on duress, undue influence and exploitation of weakness. In these cases, where someone’s consent to a bargain was only procured through duress, out of undue influence or under severe external pressure that another person exploited, courts have felt it was unconscionable (i.e., contrary to good conscience) to enforce agreements. Any transfers of goods or money may be claimed back in restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment subject to certain defences.

Considerable controversy is still present over whether “iniquitous pressure” must actually be exercised by a defendant in order for a consent based obligation to be voidable. While it seems clear that in cases of undue influence the pressure need not come from the person who may lose the contract[1] it is open to debate whether circumstances exist where an obligation should be voidable simply because the person was pressured by circumstances wholly outside a defendant’s control.

One of the most prominent cases in this area is Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy[2] where Lord Denning MR advocated that there be a general principle to govern this entire area. He called the concept “inequality of bargaining power“, while the American case espousing an equivalent doctrine, Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.[3] termed the issue one of “unconscionability”. Note that Lord Denning’s approach was later rejected by the House of Lords in National Westminster Bank v Morgan.

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

 

#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