May 31, 2019 at 7:33 pm #22083AdministratorKeymaster
Money does not exist, it is a figment of our imagination and is backed by nothing, if you borrow money from a bank they dont take it from their vault and give it straight to you, instead you fill out an agreement type this into their computers and suddenly the money appears, it has just been brought into existence, for a contract to be legal it must have equal worth, the bank basically gives you nothing then expects you to use your valuable time and labour to worjk to pay it back, this alone renders the contract void.
contracts and debt can never be rendered by force….
Debt collectors and bailiffs have no powers except in very extreme circumstances, and can only be used as a last resort. So whenever you see a bailiff breaking in to a premise or using force is totally illegal as it any police officer helping these people to do so,
Even when force is authorised it is classified as reasonable force and can not be used against a human as per the tribunal courts and enforcement act regulation 12
Regulation 12 is what bailiffs/ enforcement officers think gives them powers to do what they want whenever they want including the use of force… but i will say this again it can not be against another human being….
and section 24 1 and 2 explicitly state
24(1)The power to enter and any power to use force are subject to any restriction imposed by or under regulations.
(2)A power to use force does not include power to use force against persons
amongst other things this is aggravated assault….
and of course the warrant must be legal, before force can be used…and again in 99% of cases it is a digital copy usully isued by a non legal entity…
people wrongly assume that when a debt collector calls that have powers when in fact they have no power whatsoever… they only have the power that you give to them…
it is also stated in the criminal law act of 1997 which states
6 Violence for securing entry.
(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, any person who, without lawful authority, uses or threatens violence for the purpose of securing entry into any premises for himself or for any other person is guilty of an offence, provided that—
(a)there is someone present on those premises at the time who is opposed to the entry which the violence is intended to secure; and
(b)the person using or threatening the violence knows that that is the case.
[F1(1A)Subsection (1) above does not apply to a person who is a displaced residential occupier or a protected intending occupier of the premises in question or who is acting on behalf of such an occupier; and if the accused adduces sufficient evidence that he was, or was acting on behalf of, such an occupier he shall be presumed to be, or to be acting on behalf of, such an occupier unless the contrary is proved by the prosecution.]
(2)[F2Subject to subsection (1A) above,] the fact that a person has any interest in or right to possession or occupation of any premises shall not for the purposes of subsection (1) above constitute lawful authority for the use or threat of violence by him or anyone else for the purpose of securing his entry into those premises.
(a)whether the violence in question is directed against the person or against property; and
(b)whether the entry which the violence is intended to secure is for the purpose of acquiring possession of the premises in question or for any other purpose.
(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding [F4level 5 on the standard scale] or to both.
(7)Section 12 below contains provisions which apply for determining when any person is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part of this Act as a displaced residential occupier of any premises or of any access to any premises [F6and section 12A below contains provisions which apply for determining when any person is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part of this Act as a protected intending occupier of any premises or of any access to any premises.].
Now a bailiff will show a police officer if presentpart of schedule 12 of the control of goods act NOW Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. it states
68(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to—
(a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or
(b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or
So the police will arrest you under this act if you breach the peace by not allowing them entry…
You are a human being, your human rights are absoloute only unto the law.
You are a man or a woman and you have the highest authority as you are only trying to protect your property
the bailiff works for a corporation, has a fictional title and is representing a fiction, he or she has no rights to use force against a human being,
the policeofficer is a public servant and you are the public and the bailiff/ enforcement officer is not,
I have hopefully shown that force can not be used except in exceptional circumstances, and only then can it be reasonable…
Now Now if you are standing in front of your door pacefully resisting and refusing to move you can not be moved out of the way!
For an arrest under a breach of the peace there is massive amounts of caselaw which shows the agressor is the one that should be arrested,,, The main definition of this comes from rv howe 1981 case law and the following case laws define who should be arrested for a breach of the peace..
- Only a real ans sufficient breach of the peace should deprive a citizen not at the time acting unlawfully of his liberty..
foulkes v the chief constable of merseyside.
- The threat must come from the person to be arrested…
redmond-bate vs the director of public prosecution 1988
- the conduct must clearly interfere with the rights of others and its natural consequence must be ” not wholely unreasonable violence” from a third party.
redmond-bate vs the director of public prosecution 1988
- The conduct of the person to be arrested must be unreasonable
Nicole and selvanayagam vs director of public prosecution 1996
- The debtor cannot use violence but the degree of resistance may be marched to the force being used to try and get in
simpson v morris 1831
the law allowy you to peacefully resist the possession of your home or property
if the bailiff is there for a debt or a non criminal fine than it is a civil matter and the police must be impartial nomatter what the paperwork says…
What is now held s the authority for determining a breach of the peace is as follows…
There is a breach of the peace when a harm is to be done or likely to be done to a person or in his prescence to his property otr ma berson being in fear of being so harmed through an assault, affray or riot unlawfull assembly ordisturbance…
To all police officers
The threat must come from the person to be arrested,,,, which means if a bailiff touv#ches you or moves you out of the way, they are the ones that should be arrested…
Another very important thing here is what sir lexander Cockburn stated
the officer has no right to force himself into the respondents house, which was the respondents castle, wether the officer was known or not this was illegal, and therefore he was not in the execution of his duty at all when he was assaulted, he seems to have provoked the assault.
lord jush commented
every mans house is his castle and a bailiff cannot force his way inside to force execution of a debt..
A person is entitled to resist entry to their property against their will and if force is used they can oppose it with reasonable force themselves…
A bailiff plcing a foot in the door is trespass and any levy attempted after this is invalid and the entry to the premises may be resisted…