[Steve]

Income Tax! Know Your Rights! 

https://drcharlieward.com/income-tax-know-your-rights/

[Steve]

FB Post (Contract Law, Commercial Liens and Controlling your Strawman)

Dealing With The Police –

Years ago, a policeman was your friend and defender. Things have changed now that Police Forces have become commercial organisations, dedicated to producing a profit by taking money from you in the form of Fixed Penalty Notices, Speeding Fines, Parking Fines and any number of other charges. Knowledge is Power, explains why;

Each individual 'Police Force' is a commercial company, it has NO AUTHORITY to enforce anything, any more than a McDonalds or a BurgerKing has.
The men & women that work under the banner of their local 'Police Force' have two separate roles. When they take up their occupation, they take an 'oath of office' pledging to uphold the 'Common Law'. That oath, and nothing else gives them the Authority to act to enforce 'Common Law' - that is, the few things which are listed in our 'Legalese - Acts & Statutes'

'Common Law' DOES NOT authorise them to do anything connected with so-called 'Government' Statutes & Acts and so they have been trained to use 'Legalese' to entrap UN-INFORMED members of the Public!
To be fair, it is highly likely that even the members or the Police Force are aware of what they are doing and do not understand the difference between 'Legal Statutes' (which are optional) and the 'Lawful' Common Law requirements which apply to EVERYONE and are NOT optional

PLEASE DONT GET US WRONG –
A lot of Policemen and Policewomen do a great job and assist members of the Public, sometimes above and beyond the requirements of there job - opposing bullying, intimidation, fraud etc. and comforting in cases of bereavement or injury. BUT, the commercial companies who control the Police Force are working extremely hard to end this sort of positive behaviour, using ridiculous Health & Safety regulations as an excuse, even to the extent that Police Officers are instructed for example to stand by and watch somebody drown and not attempt to save them!
This is not the choice of the 'Officer' but the instructions of the owners of the company.

SO, because these thousands & thousands of 'invented' offenses don’t apply to ANYBODY unless they agree to be bound via 'consent' it becomes essential for a 'Police Officer' to (possibly with out knowing) persuade a member of the Public to agree to subject him/herself to these unnecessary restrictions and agree to pay invented cash penalties to the local commercial company called the 'Police Force' or 'Constabulary'. The normal first attempt to establish this spurious dominance of the 'Police Officer' is by him asking for your name. This is NOT an INNOCENT question and it is essential that you are VERY CAREFUL in what you say as there are verbal 'Legalese' TRAPS all over the place!

One suitable reply is "The Law does not require me to provide that information" which is entirely correct and avoids the first major pitfall, and no matter how often the question is asked, the answer always remains the SAME. It is also vitally IMPORTANT not to argue with a Police Officer as that is another 'Legalese' TRAP which makes you subject to the thousands of hateful regulations solely designed to part you of your MONEY. So, only answer questions (ideally with a non aggressive question) and don’t volunteer ANY INFORMATION AT ALL

So, here are some examples to help you understand;

If a Police Officer says "you were exceeding the speed limit!" you could say "Was I?" as you DONT ARGUE, nor do you point out that 'Common Law' does not require anybody to keep to the speed limits, obey road signs, park only where directed ETC. even though that is perfectly TRUE!

Under 'Common Law' an offense has only been committed IF there is a VICTIM (somebody who has been killed or injured, had possessions damaged or stolen or who has been defrauded) SO, if the Police Officer keeps pushing you to agree to pay his company money when you DONT need to, then a good question to ask is "Who is the Victim?" or alternatively some thing like "What is the charge? or am I free to go?"
If you stick to these things, then the Police Officer has nothing to work on as you have not agreed to be bound by 'Statutes' as you have not provided a NAME and ADDRESS for him to write on an invoice/bill or 'Fixed Penalty Notice' as they like to call it! and you have not entered into a 'controversy' by arguing with him or her into 'dishonour’ refusing them point blank

AMAZING STUFF

But there is one thing, and that is, you MUST NOT be aggressive or offensive in any way, you MUST NOT do anything which he tells you to do because if you do then those charming 'Legalese' people can see that as you agreeing to 'Stand Under' them and then become subject to his 'Legal' (NOT LAWFUL) authority, and so become liable to those thousands of cunning plans called 'Statutes' carefully crafted in order to rob you in a PERFECTLY 'LEGAL' WAY!

One thing which any Police Officer needs to become aware of is the FACT that they do NOT have any security provided by the 'Police Force' which employs them. In any situation which does not involve 'Common Law' the Police Officer is on his own, acting as an individual and as such is wide open to actions against him either under 'Common Law' if he is acting unlawfully or by Civil Court action if his actions warrant it

See, it all falls flat on its face for them if they cannot establish a 'JOINDER' or more aptly named a 'Pretensive Joinder' which is where a human agrees voluntarily to represent the 'Legal Fiction / 'Strawman' and so become subject to them Legal 'Statutes'...If they cannot get 'JOINDER' then the presumed authority of a Police Officer does not exist in ANY RESPECT and he is acting solely as an individual whose only authority is to enforce 'Common Law' and NOTHING ELSE

[Steve]

Lawyers for Liberty with Kate Sherimani, Anna De Bruissert & Charlie Ward …

https://drcharlieward.com/lawyers-for-li...term=Email

[Steve]

FB Post (Contract Law, Commercial Liens and Controlling your Strawman)

All Administrative Courts are Unlawful - 

All Administrative Courts are Unlawful 

Compiled by Observation Deck

The next time you get ANY BS from the local council, police or any other revenue collection disguised as a “Charge/fine” I suggest you read the following and from these FACTS make up some pertinent questions to send prior to agreeing any invitation to appear (I’m not going to do it all for you.)
Halsbury's Laws of England are regarded as the overall authority on England’s Laws.

Under "STATUTES (VOLUME 44(1) (REISSUE))/1. NATURE OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION/(2) DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION/(iii) Particular Types of Act/ A. CONSTITUTIONAL, TREATY AND FINANCIAL ACTS/1221. Constitutional Acts", 

we see:
(iii) Particular Types of Act
A. CONSTITUTIONAL, TREATY AND FINANCIAL ACTS 1221. Constitutional Acts.
The British Constitution is said to be 'unwritten'. This only means that, unlike most countries, the United Kingdom does not possess a single comprehensive constitution and much of its constitutional principle is embodied in the common law. There are nevertheless a number of historic statutes regarded as embodying and setting forth the state's constitutional principles.

1. Any modern Act which amends or adds to these may also be regarded as a constitutional Act
   

2. The main significance of classing an Act as a constitutional Act lies in the nature of the interpretative criteria which then apply to it. In particular, the rights the Act confers, having the quality of constitutional rights, will be regarded by the courts as fundamental and not to be displaced except by clear words.
1 See eg Magna Carta (1215); the Bill of Rights (1689); the Act of Settlement (1700); the Septennial Act 1715.

2 See eg the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949; the Crown Proceedings Act 1947; the Representation of the People Acts 1949 to 1983; the House of Commons Disqualification Acts 1957 and 1975; the Crown Estate Act 1961; and the Supreme Court Act 1981.

NOTE 2--Supreme Court Act 1981 now cited as Senior Courts Act 1981: Constitutional Reform Act 2005 Sch 11 para 1 (in force on 1 October 2009: SI 2009/1604).

The Constitution derives from the Magna Carta 1215 - and also the Bill of Rights (1689); the Act of Settlement (1700); the Septennial Act 1715.- as well as Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949; the Crown Proceedings Act 1947; the Representation of the People Acts 1949 to 1983; the House of Commons Disqualification Acts 1957 and 1975; the Crown Estate Act 1961; and the Supreme Court Act 1981.
As Lord Halsbury stated:

“It is a constitutional principle that the assent of the Queen & Parliament is prerequisite to the establishment of a Court which can operate a system of administrative law in Her Majesty’s Courts in England.
This was confirmed by Lord Denning during the debates on the European Communities Amendment Bill, HL Deb 08 October 1986 vol 480 cc246-95 246 at 250:

“There is our judicial system deriving from the Crown as the source and fountain of justice. No court can be set up in England, no court can exist in England, except by the authority of the Queen and Parliament. That has been so ever since the Bill of Rights”.

So, performing administrative acts on behalf of the executive is incompatible with the terms of the Oath, which Judges take when they are created under Section 2 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, which every Judge must take. A breach of that Oath is perjury. Furthermore no authority local or otherwise especially when it is nothing more than a for-profit DUNS registered corporation has neither the right nor the judicial capacity to send out a summons, let alone attempt to enforce it.
If the argument is that Common Law has no basis in administrative law proceedings (and therefore is irrelevant), it should be noted that administrative law has not been sanctioned by Parliament.

COURTS ANY COURT WITHOUT A JURY PRESENT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT.

All Administrative Courts are UNLAWFUL “Actions which overthrow and subvert the laws and Constitution of the Kingdom and which would lead to the destruction of the Constitution are unlawful”. The case of R V Thistlewood (1820) established that “To destroy the Constitution of the country is an act of treason”.

Halsbury’s Administrative Law 2011 Halsbury’s 4th Edition of Law 2011 confirms that administrative law is (nothing more than) an arrangement between the Executive and the Judiciary. And that the Law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is NO authority for administrative courts in this country, and NO Act could be passed to legitimise them.

Lord Diplock stated ... (its recorded in HALSBURYS) “All administrative courts are illegal and can never be legislated into existence”, performing administrative acts on behalf of the executive is incompatible with the terms of the Oath, which Judges take when they are created under Section 2 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, which every Judge must take.

A breach of that Oath is perjury. (See Perjury Act 1911 Sec 5) You’ll love it!
To add: ‘Administrative Law’ (so called) forms no part of ‘the laws and usages of the realm’ – Which Judges swear to the Sovereign to uphold via Promissory Oath that binds them to a specific course of conduct – otherwise they cannot be said to perform their judicial duties impartially.

This was confirmed by Lord Denning during the debates on the European Communities Amendment Bill, HL Deb 08 October 1986 vol 480 cc246-95 246 at 250:

“There is our judicial system deriving from the Crown as the source and fountain of justice. No court can be set up in England, no court can exist in England, except by the authority of the Queen and Parliament. That has been so ever since the Bill of Rights.” OR THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF 1688 ACTIONABLE ACTIONS OF A HUMAN BEING OR CORPORATE PERSONA
 
CASE LAW OF – R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498 at 507, [1934] All ER Rep 207 at 210. In delivering the judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeal Swift J, said:-
“If an act is unlawful in the sense of being in itself a criminal act, it is plain that it cannot be rendered lawful because the person to whose detriment it is done consents to it. No person can license another to commit a crime.”

In other words no authority such as a court clerk can licence a local authority to break the law by issuing summons without a case file and due-process and thus creates misrepresentation, malfeasance and breaches the principles of public office.

One only has to ask under what parliamentary authority do you have as a corporation to issue a summons?

You might also want to ask
Where is the full and completed case file? Reminding them of the CPR part 31 https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proced...les/part31
Justice Swift is telling us that, driving without government documents such as licences, MOT’s etc., cannot be ‘of itself criminal’, as the government licences these acts and therefore they cannot be criminal. This is still a leading case, as can be seen from this document which can be found on The House of Lords’ website.
That covers so far the administrative courts and their treasonous application of the legal shenanigans but all unlawful nonetheless.

REGARDING A RIGHT OF PASSAGE

Ex parte Lewis (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 191 Wills J. said in regard to public right of passage:-
“The only ‘dedication’ in the legal sense that we are aware of is that of a public right of passage, of which the legal description is a ‘right for all Her Majesty’s subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance.”
By definition, a financial penalty procured through a pecuniary advantage, howsoever called, is diametrically opposed to “without let or hindrance”. This is operating outside of Statute, as a human being cannot be levied by the State or company; only Juristic persons (legal entities) can be so levied against. In other words, establish your living status (evidenced through affidavit) and get on with your life!

You can also add the Act of union 1707 which states our god-given right to free moment. Just check the inside cover page of your passport for confirmation, now tell me again about lockdown?

Act of Union 1707: IV That all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union have full Freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging And that there be a Communication of all other Rights Privileges and Advantages which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom except where it is otherwayes expressly agreed in these Articles
   
It goes on to say: XXV That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms.

(Lockdown?)

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Administration Courts and Trustee Positions -

In this episode, I take you through some documents that may help you establish why court summons may be unlawful. I also cover how you appoint who the trustee is in a court before you get there and establish your standing prior to any claim against.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR0...e=youtu.be

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

FB comments 

Q: Hi Everybody. I have received the Summons Letter from C/Tax. What would you recommend to do next? Thanks!

A: hi, A Summons from a Magistrates Court and a local council is an arrangement between the two parties. It has no standing in UK Law, unless it has been rubber-stamped by a High Court judge, which is highly unlikely. Clerk of The Court does not count. This is confirmed by Lord Halsbury. Hence the fact that a ‘Summons’ relies on your voluntary compliance to accept their invitation.

You could put the Clerk of The Court, the judge and the local council on notice for such a fraudulent piece of paperwork. One possible way would be to get the judge’s and Clerk of The Courts names and then write to the Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland QC that you want their oaths, their idemnity insurance numbers and you want them arrested for treason to the Queen.

Remember, the reason the paperwork is called a “Summons” is because they’re attempting to communicate with the dead - that is, your legal personality/strawman, who only exists on paper... and the entire event is described as a ‘Hearing’ because the court is based on ecclesiastic principles. They’re asking you to come in and tell them your story - come in to see the “priest” (judge), and “confess” to your “wrongdoing”, and they will administer a suitable act of penance upon you, and certify your “forgiveness” - usually through fiat currency. They want you to be the accused, accuser and witness to your own demise.

Knowing this, how you choose to deal with it, is your own personal choice. Personally I’d be asking for a Court de Jure (trial by jury) which is my birthright. Very unlikely to happen as they know their so called “court summons” is fake and it will expose the fraud.

Combining these points I’ve raised in a 3 letter process should help. I have a few template/guide notices that you can make your own and use to send to the court if you wish. PM me if needed ?

[Steve]

FB POST -

Did You Know Judges are Low-Level Magicians?

When you walk into a courtroom, you are actually walking into a game arena to play legal and magic games. This is why the judge is sometimes called the magistrate and the letter that the court used to notify you to appear in court is called a summons. What do witches do when they want to call spirits to appear in front of them? They summon them using the power of words! They did not call it a summons letter by accident.

In legal terms, the word magistrate is defined as “any individual who has the power of a public civil officer or inferior judicial officer, such as a Justice of the Peace”. Magistrate can also be defined as “a civil officer charged with the administration of the law”. To find the occult definition of the word magistrate, you need to split it into two words (magi-strate). The word you need to pay attention to is magi. One of the origins of the word magi is the Latin word magi (plural of magus), meaning “magician, learned magician”. Hence, the words magistrate, magician, magic, and magistery.

Judges are trained by the legal system to cast magic spells on you when you are in a courtroom. However, many judges may not be aware that they are casting magic spells. The hidden agenda of their magic spells is to trick you to give up your spiritual powers and natural rights. The good news is that when you learn how to rebut their claims using the right words, you can nullify their claims and put them in checkmate. Do you understand now why words rule the world?


Word Magic book by Pao Chang - It's not what you think

Esoteric Knowledge - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIoqSU6...XQWGf5ktXA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBzEHBYbvXs

[Steve]

Telegram Post (Project#1 No Mercy)

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (to give it its full name) has three separate and distinct legal systems: (i) Scotland; (ii) England and Wales; and (iii) Northern Ireland. For example, the Scottish courts and the Scottish legal profession operate separately from the courts of England. The only exception to this is that decisions of the Court of Session, the highest court in Scotland, are subject to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in London. If a contract is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of Scotland, it is not possible to start a claim in England (and vice versa).

Whilst many of the laws made by the UK Parliament in London do apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland, this is not the case in respect of all laws. In particular, since Scottish devolution in 1999 and the creation of a separate Scottish Parliament, an increasing number of laws are made that apply only to Scotland. Northern Ireland also has its own separate laws. To give a high-profile example, Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where gay marriage is not permitted.

For the most part, English, Scottish and Northern Irish law are very similar. In most disputes the interpretation of a contract will be the same whether the contract is governed by English law or Scottish law. However, this is not always the case. There are significant differences between the two legal systems in certain areas, in particular in relation to property rights. The court systems of England and Scotland are also very different. This is why a jurisdiction clause that specifies the “United Kingdom” or “Great Britain” is so problematic. The courts of England or Scotland will both seek to give effect to the intention of the parties, but this may not be clear. When a dispute arises about a contract with a defective jurisdiction or choice of law clause, a party may waste valuable time and incur significant costs establishing the proper law and the correct venue to bring a claim.

To avoid the problem, when drafting choice of law and jurisdiction clauses, no reference should ever be made to the UK or Great Britain. If parties want their dispute to be heard in London, the contract should refer to the “courts of England and Wales” or the “High Court in London” and to “English law” or the “laws of England and Wales”.

The legal distinctions between England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are confusing enough for UK lawyers to grapple with. Follow this advice and your clients will avoid having to wrestle with the intricacies of the UK constitution before they seek to enforce their contractual rights.


https://t.me/c/1169329074/204

[Steve]

FB Post (Contract Law, Commercial Liens and Controlling your Strawman)


NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST
Notice to principal is notice to agent. Notice to agent is notice to principal.
—Cease and desist all unlawful activities including but not limited to all unsolicited verbal or physical contact, harassment, assault, battery, trespassing, fraud, attempted fraud, fake claims, fake commercial charges, incriminating commercial charges, claiming commercial charges against civilians without having suffered commercial loss, unlawful arrest, and unlawful imprisonment.
—Cease and desist from infringement and deprivation of all common-law and civil rights immediately including but not limited to the pursuit of livelihood, freedom of association, assembly and travel.
—Cease and desist from all tacit, implied and expressed offers and all perceived tacit, implied and expressed contracts and malicious prosecutions.
—Cease and desist from the crime of forcing living men and women into involuntary servitude (slavery).
All implied, tacit, and expressed usury is hereby revoked forever. Any expressed, tacit, and implied contract offers by any agent or officer following the orders or directives of any body corporate will be perceived as a threat to life and rights.
I give no consent for any personal properties including but not limited to my property to be stolen, trespassed upon or personal information, including but not limited to: fingerprints, name, address, phone numbers, email addresses, date of birth certificate, drivers license, details of charges, fraudulent or legitimate, to be stored or kept or passed onto or used by any third party.
Violations of Common Law and statute law which governs conduct of public servants (such as: Police Reform Act 2002—Part 2, Part 3; Crown Proceedings Act 1947) will be prosecuted in private criminal, civil and commercial capacities.


All Rights Reserved.End of Notice. 




NOTICE OF REJECTION OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
I—a living, breathing, creation, property and servant of God—stand under the jurisdiction of God’s Law—[cause no harm or loss to others]— and do not consent to involuntary servitude (slavery).
Acts, statutes, regulations and guidance are not law, but the internal policies of a corporation, taking the “force of law” only upon fictions, legal personalities (“persons”, “bodies corporate”), through consent and contract.
I am not a “person” or a “body corporate”. I do not consent to any acts or statutes. Any implied prior consent is hereby revoked. I do not have a contract with any body corporate. All prior contracts, implied or explicit, are hereby revoked.
Tricking or forcing me to play the role of a “legal fiction”, “person” or “body corporate” by demanding a “name” and “date of berth” through threats and criminal coercion in order to apply acts and statutes for the financial enrichment of a corporation is a violation of my God-given rights and constitutes slavery.
You are further notified that I am exercising my God-given and Common Law right to obey the dictates of my conscience, which provides me with the lawful excuse to reject all forms of oppression and tyranny, for which I cannot be lawfully arrested, punished or penalized.
Be advised that should you impede me in exercising this unalienable birthright, you will be personally and criminally liable for any injury, damages, harm or loss you cause and everything you say and do will be taken as evidence that you have collaborated with fraudulent, treasonous and/or murderous policies.
Should you continue enforcing unlawful and criminal diktats which have no force of law, having been given notice of such, I will use all reasonable force necessary to resist your attempt to commit a crime ancillary to genocide and/or slavery and you will be sued in private criminal, civil and commercial capacities.
All rights reserved. End of notice.





NOTICE OF REJECTION OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
I—a living, breathing, creation, property and servant of God—stand under the jurisdiction of God’s Law—[cause no harm or loss to others]— and do not consent to involuntary servitude (slavery).
Acts, statutes, regulations and guidance are not law, but the internal policies of a corporation, taking the “force of law” only upon fictions, legal personalities (“persons”, “bodies corporate”), through consent and contract.
I am not a “person” or a “body corporate”. I do not consent to any acts or statutes. Any implied prior consent is hereby revoked. I do not have a contract with any body corporate. All prior contracts, implied or explicit, are hereby revoked.
Tricking or forcing me to play the role of a “legal fiction”, “person” or “body corporate” by demanding a “name” and “date of berth” through threats and criminal coercion in order to apply acts and statutes for the financial enrichment of a corporation is a violation of my God-given rights and constitutes slavery.
You are further notified that I am exercising my God-given and Common Law right to obey the dictates of my conscience, which provides me with the lawful excuse to reject all forms of oppression and tyranny, for which I cannot be lawfully arrested, punished or penalized.
Be advised that should you impede me in exercising this unalienable birthright, you will be personally and criminally liable for any injury, damages, harm or loss you cause and everything you say and do will be taken as evidence that you have collaborated with fraudulent, treasonous and/or murderous policies.
Should you continue enforcing unlawful and criminal diktats which have no force of law, having been given notice of such, I will use all reasonable force necessary to resist your attempt to commit a crime ancillary to genocide and/or slavery and you will be sued in private criminal, civil and commercial capacities.
All rights reserved. End of notice.



NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST
Notice to principal is notice to agent. Notice to agent is notice to principal.
—Cease and desist all unlawful activities including but not limited to all unsolicited verbal or physical contact, harassment, assault, battery, trespassing, fraud, attempted fraud, fake claims, fake commercial charges, incriminating commercial charges, claiming commercial charges against civilians without having suffered commercial loss, unlawful arrest, and unlawful imprisonment.
—Cease and desist from infringement and deprivation of all common-law and civil rights immediately including but not limited to the pursuit of livelihood, freedom of association, assembly and travel.
—Cease and desist from all tacit, implied and expressed offers and all perceived tacit, implied and expressed contracts and malicious prosecutions.
—Cease and desist from the crime of forcing living men and women into involuntary servitude (slavery).
All implied, tacit, and expressed usury is hereby revoked forever. Any expressed, tacit, and implied contract offers by any agent or officer following the orders or directives of any body corporate will be perceived as a threat to life and rights.
I give no consent for any personal properties including but not limited to my property to be stolen, trespassed upon or personal information, including but not limited to: fingerprints, name, address, phone numbers, email addresses, date of birth certificate, drivers license, details of charges, fraudulent or legitimate, to be stored or kept or passed onto or used by any third party.
Violations of Common Law and statute law which governs conduct of public servants (such as: Police Reform Act 2002—Part 2, Part 3; Crown Proceedings Act 1947) will be prosecuted in private criminal, civil and commercial capacities.
All rights reserved. End of Notice.



NOTICE OF REJECTION OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
I—a living, breathing, creation, property and servant of God—stand under the jurisdiction of the Common Law of the land—[cause no harm or loss to another]— and do not consent to involuntary servitude (slavery).
Acts, statutes, regulations and guidance are not law, but the internal policies of a corporation, taking the “force of law” only upon fictions, legal personalities (“persons”, “bodies corporate”), through consent and contract.
I am not a “person” or a “body corporate”. I do not consent to any acts or statutes. Any implied prior consent is hereby revoked. I do not have a contract with any body corporate. All prior contracts, implied or explicit, are hereby revoked.
Tricking or forcing me to play the role of a “legal fiction”, “person” or “body corporate” by demanding a “name” and “date of berth” through threats and criminal coercion in order to apply acts and statutes for the financial enrichment of a corporation is a violation of my God-given rights and constitutes slavery.
You are further notified that I am exercising my God-given and Common Law right to obey the dictates of my conscience, which provides me with the lawful excuse to reject all forms of oppression and tyranny, for which I cannot be lawfully arrested, punished or penalized.
Be advised that should you impede me in exercising this unalienable birthright, you will be personally and criminally liable for any injury, damages, harm or loss you cause and everything you say and do will be taken as evidence that you have collaborated with fraudulent, treasonous and/or murderous policies.
Should you continue enforcing unlawful and criminal diktats which have no force of law, having been given notice of such, I will use all reasonable force necessary to resist your attempt to commit a crime ancillary to genocide and/or slavery and you will be sued in private criminal, civil and commercial capacities.
All rights reserved. End of notice.

[Steve]

FB POST (strawman) 

Bailiffs at the door…

Hi All

There’s been a lot of talk regarding enforcement officers and bailiffs lately. One enforcement officer even had the cheek to walk uninvited into the home of one of our respected members, June Moore, very recently. Unbelievable.

I’ve recently come across a four-page document entitled “Bailiffs at The Door”, which I’ve tidied up a little, and turned into a downloadable pdf for members.

Most of us are aware that we shouldn’t open the door to an enforcement officer. But the unexpected can occasionally happen. Perhaps you’re arriving home and they’re already standing there. Do you know what to do? This document has case laws specific to such an interaction. They are well worth adding to your “Removal of Implied Rights of Access” Notices, especially if you ever have to write to these crooks.

Remember, an enforcement officer requires your consent to come into your home, by way of you signing a Walking Possession Order. Are you going to sign - or even hold in your hand - such a document?? No, I didn’t think so. But they rely on us not having this level of knowledge, and try to keep us in fear. Time to wake up and turn the tables on these parasites.

I hope this pdf provides some very useful information for you all.

Much love

Bailiffs at the door…

Ask the Bailiff the following questions:
Ask the caller to formally identify themselves – with card credentials. Without this, proceed no further – no further contact can be permitted.
Do NOT sign any document offered to you by the bailiff. Do not accept any paperwork. Do NOT confirm your name, identity or date of birth.
Do NOT admit the “debt”.
Questions / Statements
• What is their bailiff's certificate number?
• Which County Court certificated them?
• What their business name and address is?
• Ask for a full breakdown of their fees.
• Ask to see their warrant and take a photograph of it. Make a note of whether the warrant/order has a court stamp and/or the signature of an agent of the court. Remember - Court warrants do not show Bailiff fees – these are usually placed on a re-printed version of the warrant which is not lawful.
• Ask if they have a Walking Possession Order; if so, ask them to hold it for you while you take a photograph. (Again, do not accept it if he offers it to you! Just holding it is consent!)
• If their warrant did not have either a court stamp, the signature of a court official, or both, then tell them politely and kindly that the warrant is invalid, and why.
• Ask them to complete and sign for your records, the template letter confirming their attendance on your property. When completed, post it through your mailbox.
• Take a photograph of the bailiff with your front door in the background.
• Ask if they saw the notice at the front gate - the Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access.
• Tell them politely and kindly that they have committed the statutory offence of trespass, because they have failed to comply with your notice and you will be pursuing damages in court.
• As they depart go with them and take photographs of them leaving your property (ideally with the notice in the background).
You then have the evidence to pursue them in the County Court and need to take a small claim against them. In the UK, follow this link for more information www.moneyclaim.gov.uk
      
Ask the Bailiff the following questions:
Here is the Case Law that goes with it (also note that a Bailiff CANNOT remove the "tools of your trade" OR "your means of transport" UNLESS it is the verdict of a Jury):
A debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance [see the link, above]. 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
Otherwise a door left open is an implied license for a bailiff to enter, Faulkner v Willetts [1982] Crim LR 453 likewise a person standing back to allow the bailiff to walk through but the bailiff must not abuse this license by entering by improper means or by unusual routes, Ancaster v Milling [1823] 2 D&R 714 or Rogers v Spence [1846] M&W 571
Ringing a doorbell is not causing a disturbance, Grant v Moser [1843] 5 M&G 123 or R. v Bright 4 C&P 387 nor is refusing to leave a property causes a disturbance, Green v Bartram [1830] 4 C&P 308 or Jordan v Gibbon [1863] 8 LT 391
Permission for a bailiff to enter may be refused provided the words used are not capable of being mistaken for swear words, Bailey v Wilson [1968] Crim LR 618.
If the entry is peaceful but without permission then a request to leave should always be made first. Tullay v Reed [1823] 1 C&P 6 or an employee or other person can also request the bailiff to leave, Hall v Davis [1825] 2 C&P 33
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 (ie workmen inside a house), access by this means renders the entry unlawful, Nash v Lucas

Ask the Bailiff the following questions:
[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
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.
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 Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557, 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
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
If a police officer arrests a debtor after throwing a bailiff off the premises who had refused a request to leave, the officer is guilty of false arrest because no offence has been committed and the bailiff was there illegally: Green v Bartram [1830] 4 C&P 308.
A police officer must arrest a bailiff for breach of the peace if he places the debtor in fear of violence or harm if that offence is made in the presence of that officer: R v Howell (Errol) [1982] 1 QB 427.

Ask the Bailiff the following questions:
A person performing certificated work without a certificate commits an offence. Section 63(6) of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
A person not a certificated bailiff conducting levy is trespass, Hawes v Watson [1892] 94 LT 191 ;[1890] 29 LJ 556; contrast Varden v Shread [1890] 36 EG 449 or 25 LJ 363, Harker v Browne [1890] 36 EG 59, [1892] 40 EG 402, Thomas v Millington [1894] 2 PMR 472, Bray v Naldred [1894] 2 PMR 227 and Rodgers v Webb [1912] 20 PMR 186, Bray v Naldred [1894] 2 PMR 227
The constable must check the bailiff's certificate and his Warrant and if he is unable to show both documents then the constable is required to remove the Bailiff from site under section 125b of the County Courts Act 1984 or for a Traffic related debt, arrest him under Section 78(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 or Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 as he is required to carry them in an intelligible form when attending a debtors address. Buller's Case [1587] 1 Leonard 50 or Andrews v Bolton Borough Council [2011] HHJ Holman, Bolton county court, June 2011

[Steve]

PAYE & INCOME TAX HAVE NO ENABLING LEGISLATION …

A demand for rebuttal is asked from HMRC. [Email sent phone conversation logged] as well as HM Treasury and/or the HM Treasury solicitor
This video shows that if you pay tax you pay to participate in war. All taxation is VOLUNTARY ....yep, you saw it here in black and white and colour.
Taxes are ALL-WAYS raised to cover the costs of war and private political agendas. The banksters loan the governments money and it has to be paid back. If you are paying tax then you are paying through CHOICE not because you have to...YOU ALL COMPLAIN BUT HOW MANY OF YOU WILL EMBRACE THE FACTS HERE PRESENTED ? If knowledge is power then what do you have more of today than yesterday? Surprise us all....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR2...e=youtu.be

[Steve]

KATE SHEMRARINI SHARES VITAL HEALTH TIPS & LEGAL UPDATES -


https://www.bitchute.com/video/JCCbBCMJUxO9/


Kate is renouned for her fighting sprit and unstoppable attitude. We caught up for a very interesting chat January 2nd 2022. This is recorded as two parts. 

TO FOLLOW MAHONEY:
FOR ALL YOUR HEALTH SUPPLEMENT NEEDS USE THIS LINK
https://www.verelst-g…