Found this on another site. It may be useful.
===========================================
Forced entry into your home. Rented or Private it dosent matter.
No one under any conditions can force entry into your Home.
So lets Keep this simple. Are you at War? No. Has there been a declaration of War? No.
So this is a civil matter.
No Force can be used in a Civil matter. That would be an Act of terrorism.
Can a utility Company force entry into your Home. NO. This is a cival matter.
This is a cival matter. NO force can be used in a cival matter.
Anyone using force in a Cival Matter is a TERRORIST by default.
The Police soon back away when you say this. They cannot use force in a Cival matter. You cannot be held in contempt of Court in a Cival matter. The Judge or Justice of the piece can go swivel. This is a civil matter and NO force can be used as it is an act of terrorism to do so.
It's that simple. Just keep your cool.
The Police cannot adjudicate either. The police cannot argue that the paper is real they cannot adjudicate. So if the Locksmith opens the door. You stand your ground and if the Monkey from the utility company pushes past you. Then THAT is the use of force which is a wilful and belligerent act of terrorism. At that Point the police officer has got to arrest and charge the utility company Monkey-boy.
The utility company never make a claim for breach of contract do they? Think about that. 67.5 million people do not have a valid contract with any of the utility companies. Keep thinking. This is a shitload of fraud country wide by every utility company. Gas, Electric, Water. An Englishman’s Home is his castle and any use of force is an act of War.
So the piece of paper they are waving around with a claim under an Act.... IS the valid material evidence that there is NO VALID CONTRACT. The application In Court is vexatious and fraudulent claim. There is no Contract where the claim under the Act can be implemented. No One has a Contract with a utility company.
Is this getting big now? All the Utility Companies Guilty of fraud By default as there is no Valid Contract. WE would think That 350,000 Police officers and Gold Commanders would be interested in this FACT because they are getting screwed as well.
What about the Banks? Is that a civil matter? Yes.
Do the Banks ever make claim in court for Breach of Contract? No
You CANNOT be held in Contempt of Court in a Civil Matter. If they did then they would have to arrest you for Contempt of Court and that would be the use of force in a cival matter which would be an act of terrorism by default.
You CANNOT be held in contempt of Court in a Civil matter. The Court Judge would be guilty of an Act of terrorism by default.
Here is the cool part.
Listen very carefully.
The office of the police Cannot adjudicate. The role of the police is to use force... "Police FORCE" The Police have Jurisdictional Boundaries to comply with as well.
This is where it gets really exciting.
The office of the police FORCE is not only crime prevention but it is also to use FORCE to suppress a wilful and belligerent act of terrorism UNDER their Jurisdictional boundaries. That would include the office of the Judiciary. Any Government officer. Any Third party company by way of licence by HM Parliaments and Governments.
The office of the Police FORCE has full and unconditional discretionary powers to use FORCE where needed which falls under their Jurisdiction.
However we do not fall under their Jurisdiction. We are not on the public Parole. We are NOT members of the Public ON the public Payroll. We are in the Private at all times by this fact and the office of the Police FORCE Jurisdiction Does NOT extend into the private.
Knowledge is power. A civil Matter is a Civil matter. The County Court District Judge who grants a warrant for repossession to the Banks can go Swivel. You cannot be in contempt of court in a Civil Matter.
How many more times do I have to use the words..
CIVAL MATTER before the penny drops and the light goes on.
How simple is that ?
Case Law in the UK Queens Bench.
http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk
Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557 if the debtor strikes the bailiff over the head with a full milk bottle after making a forced entry, the debtor is not guilty of assault because the bailiff was there illegally, likewise R. v Tucker at Hove Trial Centre Crown Court, December 2012 if the debtor gives the bailiff a good slap.
If a person strikes a trespasser who has refused to leave is not guilty of an offence: Davis v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434
License to enter must be refused BEFORE the process of levy starts, Kay v Hibbert [1977] Crim LR 226 or Matthews v Dwan [1949] NZLR 1037 .......... Aha send a denial of implied right of access before the Bailiff comes in advance.
A bailiff rendered a trespasser is liable for penalties in tort and the entry may be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights if entry is not made in accordance with the law, Jokinen v Finland [2009] 37233/07
http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk
A debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance. This was endorsed by Lord Justice Donaldson in the case of Lambert v Roberts [1981] 72 Cr App R 223 - and placing such a notice is akin to a closed door but it also prevents a bailiff entering the garden or driveway, Knox v Anderton [1983] Crim LR 115 or R. v Leroy Roberts [2003] EWCA Crim 2753
Debtors can also remove implied right of access to property by telling him to leave: Davis v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434 similarly, McArdle v Wallace [1964] 108 Sol Jo 483
A person having been told to leave is now under a duty to withdraw from the property with all due reasonable speed and failure to do so he is not thereafter acting in the execution of his duty and becomes a trespasser with any subsequent levy made being invalid and attracts a liability under a claim for damages, Morris v Beardmore [1980] 71 Cr App 256.
Bailiffs cannot force their way into a private dwelling, Grove v Eastern Gas [1952] 1 KB 77
Excessive force must be avoided, Gregory v Hall [1799] 8 TR 299 or Oakes v Wood [1837] 2 M&W 791 A debtor can use an equal amount of force to resist a bailiff from gaining entry, Weaver v Bush [1795] 8TR, Simpson v Morris [1813] 4 Taunt 821, Polkinhorne v Wright [1845] 8QB 197. Another occupier of the premises or an employee may also take these steps: Hall v Davis [1825] 2 C&P 33.
Also wrongful would be an attempt at forcible entry despite resistance, Ingle v Bell [1836] 1 M&W 516
Bailiffs cannot apply force to a door to gain entry, and if he does so he is not in the execution of his duty, Broughton v Wilkerson [1880] 44 JP 781
A Bailiff may not encourage a third party to allow the bailiff access to a property (i.e. workmen inside a house), access by this means renders the entry unlawful, Nash v Lucas [1867] 2 QB 590.
The debtor's home and all buildings within the boundary of the premises are protected against forced entry, Munroe & Munroe v Woodspring District Council [1979] Weston-Super-Mare County Court
A Bailiff may not encourage a third party to allow the bailiff access to a property (i.e. workmen inside a house), access by this means renders the entry unlawful, Nash v Lucas [1867] 2 QB 590.
Contrast: A bailiff may climb over a wall or a fence or walk across a garden or yard provided that no damage occurs, Long v Clarke & another [1894] 1 QB 119.
It is not contempt to assault a bailiff trying to climb over a locked gate after being refused entry, Lewis v Owen [1893] The Times November 6 p.36b (QBD)
If a bailiff enters by force he is there unlawfully and you can treat him as a trespasser. Curlewis v Laurie [1848] or Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557.
A debtor cannot be sued if a person enters a property uninvited and injures himself because he had no legal right to enter, Great Central Railway Co v Bates [1921] 3 KB 578.
If a bailiff jams his boot into a debtors door to stop him closing, any levy that is subsequently made is not valid: Rai & Rai v Birmingham City Council [1993] or Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557 or Broughton v Wilkerson [1880] 44 JP 781
If a bailiff refuses to leave the property after being requested to do so or starts trying to force entry then he is causing a disturbance, Howell v Jackson [1834] 6 C&P 723 - but it is unreasonable for a police officer to arrest the bailiff unless he makes a threat, Bibby v Constable of Essex [2000] Court of Appeal April 2000.
The very presence of the Bailiff or third part company who is engaged in a recognised Act of war is an assault on the castle and it is reasonable for the police officer to arrest the bailiff where there is a recognised Act of War. If the police officer does not arrest the Bailiff on request then the police officer is guilty by default of an offence against legislation which is the offence of Malfeasance in a public office. The police officer is also guilty by default of an act of fraud as he is on duty and being paid for his inaction. The penalty under legislation for these offences are as follows: 25 years’ incarceration for the offence of Malfeasance in a public office and 7 to 10 years’ incarceration for the offence of fraud under current legislation for which the police officer is culpable.
No comments:
Post a Comment