Forwarded from Beat the Bailiffs Extra
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👏13👍2❤1
No Need for Legal Process 💫
Ian Update | 15/11/22
"Here is the law from Halsbury's Law
"A distress in its ancient form may, therefore, be deemed as
- The taking without legal process of a personal chattel from the possession of the wrongdoer or defaulter into the hands of the party grieved, to be hold as a pledge for the redress, performance, or satisfaction required."
Halsbury's Laws of
England/DISTRESS (VOLUME 13 (2007 REISSUE))/ 1. NATURE OF THE REMEDY OF DISTRESS/901.
Meaning of distress. DISTRESS (VOLUME 13 (2007 REISSUE)) 1. NATURE OF THE REMEDY OF DISTRESS
901.
Meaning of distress. The term 'distress' primarily connotes a summary remedy by which a person is entitled without legal process to take into his possession the personal chattels of another person, to be
held as a pledge to compel the performance of a duty, or the satisfaction of a debt or demand. By almost universal sanction the term 'dis-tress' is now used to designate both the process of taking, and the chattels taken, though originally it applied only to the taking.
Note : It does NOT require a legal process
🔗Treason
Ian Update | 15/11/22
"Here is the law from Halsbury's Law
"A distress in its ancient form may, therefore, be deemed as
- The taking without legal process of a personal chattel from the possession of the wrongdoer or defaulter into the hands of the party grieved, to be hold as a pledge for the redress, performance, or satisfaction required."
Halsbury's Laws of
England/DISTRESS (VOLUME 13 (2007 REISSUE))/ 1. NATURE OF THE REMEDY OF DISTRESS/901.
Meaning of distress. DISTRESS (VOLUME 13 (2007 REISSUE)) 1. NATURE OF THE REMEDY OF DISTRESS
901.
Meaning of distress. The term 'distress' primarily connotes a summary remedy by which a person is entitled without legal process to take into his possession the personal chattels of another person, to be
held as a pledge to compel the performance of a duty, or the satisfaction of a debt or demand. By almost universal sanction the term 'dis-tress' is now used to designate both the process of taking, and the chattels taken, though originally it applied only to the taking.
Note : It does NOT require a legal process
🔗Treason
❤7👍3
When psychopaths of the state attack:
If the basis of the attack against you is the 'Act/Statute/Legislative Rule/Regulation' etc, and you don't challenge them on the facts proving that the Act (etc) is applicable, then you are effectively dropping on the floor and curling up into a ball whilst they kick you.
If you are being attacked by any agent of the state, then ask that individual if they would have jurisdiction if their (so called) "laws" were not applicable; they should eventually admit they wouldn't. This tends to freak them out. They get very upset at the idea their "law" may not apply to someone. They will likely accuse you of 'arguing'/debating with them.
Other questions to challenge jurisdiction:
•What facts does one asserting jurisdiction rely on?
•Beyond your opinion what facts does one rely on to prove where, when, why and how this alleged jurisdiction was acquired?
•Is your jurisdiction based on your job?
•Do you still have this power over me when you go home?
•Do I have to be within the country to be subject to these "laws"?
•Am I your slave?
•Other than aggression and threats of violence, please explain to me exactly what you mean by your claim that you have jurisdiction over me?
These State representatives are unable to provide any proof their sacred "laws" apply to anyone. So set the stage, ask the question and let the state employee make a fool of themself:
"What evidence do you have proving the Acts and Statutes apply just because I am physically in the UK?"
'The ramblings of the insane' (Legislation, Acts, Statutes of Parliament, Decrees, etc) are not necessary to know because they are irrelevant without the physical presentable material evidence they apply at all. Do not let them move past step one and jump to what the Act says; who cares what the act says when it is not applicable in the first place.
Application comes first, if there is evidence the Act applies, then and only then is it logical to discuss what a particular section says.
Anyone claiming to be defending
Part 2
If the basis of the attack against you is the 'Act/Statute/Legislative Rule/Regulation' etc, and you don't challenge them on the facts proving that the Act (etc) is applicable, then you are effectively dropping on the floor and curling up into a ball whilst they kick you.
If you are being attacked by any agent of the state, then ask that individual if they would have jurisdiction if their (so called) "laws" were not applicable; they should eventually admit they wouldn't. This tends to freak them out. They get very upset at the idea their "law" may not apply to someone. They will likely accuse you of 'arguing'/debating with them.
Other questions to challenge jurisdiction:
•What facts does one asserting jurisdiction rely on?
•Beyond your opinion what facts does one rely on to prove where, when, why and how this alleged jurisdiction was acquired?
•Is your jurisdiction based on your job?
•Do you still have this power over me when you go home?
•Do I have to be within the country to be subject to these "laws"?
•Am I your slave?
•Other than aggression and threats of violence, please explain to me exactly what you mean by your claim that you have jurisdiction over me?
These State representatives are unable to provide any proof their sacred "laws" apply to anyone. So set the stage, ask the question and let the state employee make a fool of themself:
"What evidence do you have proving the Acts and Statutes apply just because I am physically in the UK?"
'The ramblings of the insane' (Legislation, Acts, Statutes of Parliament, Decrees, etc) are not necessary to know because they are irrelevant without the physical presentable material evidence they apply at all. Do not let them move past step one and jump to what the Act says; who cares what the act says when it is not applicable in the first place.
Application comes first, if there is evidence the Act applies, then and only then is it logical to discuss what a particular section says.
Anyone claiming to be defending
Part 2
👍33❤12
Part 2 When Psychopaths of the State’ attack …you who does not challenge the foundation of the attack against you isn't really defending you. And if they criticise attacking the foundation of the attack, then they are actually advocating for those attacking you.
Often a State Representative will claim their jurisdiction comes from the "government".
The "power" to extort us, harm us, or throw us in a cage is allegedly from where?
A legal embodiment (fiction) called 'the government. Any claim of jurisdiction is defeated by asking for "the material evidence of the consent of the governed". There is no evidence that any piece of paper authored by the legislature applies to anyone unless it has your wet ink signature on it and the wet ink signature of the author of the document, where both parties agreed in full disclosure to its content, this should be done in front of a witness who also signed the document.
Does anybody remember signing a contract in wet ink with any man or woman from 'the government' agreeing to be governed?
Does anybody remember signing a power of attorney agreeing to let some man or woman (acting as) 'the government' represent you?
I highly doubt it.
The Acts and Statutes of HM Parliaments and Governments PLC can only be given the FORCE of law BY the consent of the governed. That word BY creates a legal dependency which MUST be fulfilled. Never in 800 years have the people given their individual formal and legal consent to be governed, so there are no governed people; without the governed people there can be NO GOVERNMENT, because one cannot exist without the other.
NO CONTRACT = NO OBLIGATION.
The words OBLIGATION and LIABILITY cannot exist outside of a legally binding contractual agreement. So you are under no contractual obligation to adhere to the written will of the representatives of the Private Limited Company known as HM Parliaments and Governments PLC. You are not liable under the Acts and Statutes (written will) of those men and women prancing around as a so-called "State", where a State is a Company no different to McDonald's.
The FACTS are the FACTS, have a nice day.
By Stacey Grace Evans
Ian x
🔗 Part 1
🔗 Treason
Often a State Representative will claim their jurisdiction comes from the "government".
The "power" to extort us, harm us, or throw us in a cage is allegedly from where?
A legal embodiment (fiction) called 'the government. Any claim of jurisdiction is defeated by asking for "the material evidence of the consent of the governed". There is no evidence that any piece of paper authored by the legislature applies to anyone unless it has your wet ink signature on it and the wet ink signature of the author of the document, where both parties agreed in full disclosure to its content, this should be done in front of a witness who also signed the document.
Does anybody remember signing a contract in wet ink with any man or woman from 'the government' agreeing to be governed?
Does anybody remember signing a power of attorney agreeing to let some man or woman (acting as) 'the government' represent you?
I highly doubt it.
The Acts and Statutes of HM Parliaments and Governments PLC can only be given the FORCE of law BY the consent of the governed. That word BY creates a legal dependency which MUST be fulfilled. Never in 800 years have the people given their individual formal and legal consent to be governed, so there are no governed people; without the governed people there can be NO GOVERNMENT, because one cannot exist without the other.
NO CONTRACT = NO OBLIGATION.
The words OBLIGATION and LIABILITY cannot exist outside of a legally binding contractual agreement. So you are under no contractual obligation to adhere to the written will of the representatives of the Private Limited Company known as HM Parliaments and Governments PLC. You are not liable under the Acts and Statutes (written will) of those men and women prancing around as a so-called "State", where a State is a Company no different to McDonald's.
The FACTS are the FACTS, have a nice day.
By Stacey Grace Evans
Ian x
🔗 Part 1
🔗 Treason
Telegram
TREASON
When psychopaths of the state attack:
If the basis of the attack against you is the 'Act/Statute/Legislative Rule/Regulation' etc, and you don't challenge them on the facts proving that the Act (etc) is applicable, then you are effectively dropping on the…
If the basis of the attack against you is the 'Act/Statute/Legislative Rule/Regulation' etc, and you don't challenge them on the facts proving that the Act (etc) is applicable, then you are effectively dropping on the…
👍31❤10🎉1
THE VOID ORDER
If an 'ORDER' in an illegitimate court was made because the Judge or any party to the judgment:
- Had no jurisdiction
- Broke the law
- Ignored due process
that order is VOID.
Anything AFTER the point when the person acted ultra vires is void
AB INITIO - ie IT
DIDN"T HAPPEN.
You can apply to have that VOID ORDER nullified.
The interesting and important nature of a ‘void’ order of a Court is not fully understood and
appreciated in England and this article is written to assist the understanding of a ‘void’ order and to assist legal professionals in any concerns they may have in submitting to a Court that its order is void, if indeed it is void.
In Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 764 at 769 Fry L.J. stated on the issue of void proceedings
that:
“A plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgement at all”. (when applying a case in an illegitimate court eg parking/speeding ticket etc)
A void order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921] it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is
no real order of the Court.
In Fry v. Moore (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 395 Lindley, L.J. said of void and irregular proceedings that it may be difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity.
If a procedure is irregular it can be waived by the defendant but if it is null it cannot be waived and all that is done afterwards is void;
in general, one can easily see on which side of the line the particular case falls.
by
Shirley Lewald
Solicitor Advocate
Higher Rights (Civil and Criminal Courts),
MSc (Psych), PGDip (SocSc), PGCPSE, LLB (Hons)
Ian Update | 15.11.22
🔗 PDF Download
🔗 Treason
If an 'ORDER' in an illegitimate court was made because the Judge or any party to the judgment:
- Had no jurisdiction
- Broke the law
- Ignored due process
that order is VOID.
Anything AFTER the point when the person acted ultra vires is void
AB INITIO - ie IT
DIDN"T HAPPEN.
You can apply to have that VOID ORDER nullified.
The interesting and important nature of a ‘void’ order of a Court is not fully understood and
appreciated in England and this article is written to assist the understanding of a ‘void’ order and to assist legal professionals in any concerns they may have in submitting to a Court that its order is void, if indeed it is void.
In Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 764 at 769 Fry L.J. stated on the issue of void proceedings
that:
“A plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgement at all”. (when applying a case in an illegitimate court eg parking/speeding ticket etc)
A void order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921] it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is
no real order of the Court.
In Fry v. Moore (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 395 Lindley, L.J. said of void and irregular proceedings that it may be difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity.
If a procedure is irregular it can be waived by the defendant but if it is null it cannot be waived and all that is done afterwards is void;
in general, one can easily see on which side of the line the particular case falls.
by
Shirley Lewald
Solicitor Advocate
Higher Rights (Civil and Criminal Courts),
MSc (Psych), PGDip (SocSc), PGCPSE, LLB (Hons)
Ian Update | 15.11.22
🔗 PDF Download
🔗 Treason
❤19👍14
DWP DEDUCTIONS ILLEGAL
A High Court judge has ruled that the DWP's policy of allowing utility firms to take money directly out of people's benefits is illegal.
It follows a court case in which a Midlands woman successfully argued that water and energy firms should not be able to claw back cash from people's social security payouts without proper checks being carried out.
🔗 Read
🔗 Overpayments
Scandal
🔗 Treason
A High Court judge has ruled that the DWP's policy of allowing utility firms to take money directly out of people's benefits is illegal.
It follows a court case in which a Midlands woman successfully argued that water and energy firms should not be able to claw back cash from people's social security payouts without proper checks being carried out.
🔗 Read
🔗 Overpayments
Scandal
🔗 Treason
❤48👍10
The BIRTH-CERTIFICATE is impossible to perform as it requires YOUR DEATH!
All birth registrations are obtained by threat and coercion ? The threat being "fined" coercion is by that threat (fine) existing . This means all Birth registrations are criminally obtained and renders any certificate void as the registrar ,at the time of registration, failed to state any terms of that registration...never PRESUME always question (The registrar has broken the law to Coronation Oaths Act 1688 etc he had not therefore any jurisdiction or authority to accept such registration
Ian Update | 15.11.22
🔗 TREASON
All birth registrations are obtained by threat and coercion ? The threat being "fined" coercion is by that threat (fine) existing . This means all Birth registrations are criminally obtained and renders any certificate void as the registrar ,at the time of registration, failed to state any terms of that registration...never PRESUME always question (The registrar has broken the law to Coronation Oaths Act 1688 etc he had not therefore any jurisdiction or authority to accept such registration
Ian Update | 15.11.22
🔗 TREASON
👏32👍16
QUEENS BIRTH CERT?
Whilst we are engaged in the Birth certificate ramifications and the claims made by Vatican and the Inner City of London etc also that all are dead souls lost at Sea then if both Elizabeth and charlie boy are registered dead entities they could NOT be a constitutional monarch as this registration contravenes the laws of god and nullifies the coronation to come and all coronations since the registration of birth ...remarks invited Nita Benfield
Ian Update | 16.11.22
🔗 Treason
Whilst we are engaged in the Birth certificate ramifications and the claims made by Vatican and the Inner City of London etc also that all are dead souls lost at Sea then if both Elizabeth and charlie boy are registered dead entities they could NOT be a constitutional monarch as this registration contravenes the laws of god and nullifies the coronation to come and all coronations since the registration of birth ...remarks invited Nita Benfield
Ian Update | 16.11.22
🔗 Treason
👍36❤6😁2
Forwarded from Awakening369
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
AFRICA PAYS FRANCE
- To be immigrants?
Prime Minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni holding no punches, I bet Macron regrets picking a fight with her.
🔗 A369
- To be immigrants?
Prime Minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni holding no punches, I bet Macron regrets picking a fight with her.
🔗 A369
👍34❤26🔥8
NEW BORN BABY DEATH’s Classed as Still Born?
A COVER UP
Ian
…. approx same time as it takes a placenta (still born) to cease to function ???
🔗 NPRS Instructional Manual
TREASON Home 🏠
A COVER UP
Ian
…. approx same time as it takes a placenta (still born) to cease to function ???
🔗 NPRS Instructional Manual
TREASON Home 🏠
😢28👍3🔥3👏2👎1
Learn the Rules 1🗡️
ROTHSCHILDS DONE!
26 years ? Now I believe the camels back is broken... who/ what is the "camels back" its the stock market and Rothschilds...it all begins with the process they(Rothschilds) created in 1876 ...its called PAPERWORK and Registration then certification then under the illusion of the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the human Race
It is only by not being transparent and open that the system has carried this greatest fraud ........its all coming to you, the A-Z and what to do and what not to do.. but learn the rules and NEVER use all caps name again EVER ... Corporate police demand whats your name ...?
If you aren’t a "de facto corporation " by The BNF01 then 16 years later the NATIONAL INSURANCE NUMBER makes you all DE FACTO CORPORATIONS so they can tax you/ Imprison you... take the "chattels" from your de facto company ...bYOUR KIDS !!! Flood this country with unlawful immigrants ...the whole shebang....lose the all caps name and change it....
Ian Update| 20.11.2022
🔗 Learn the Rules 2
🔗 Learn the Rules 3
🔗Treason Home
ROTHSCHILDS DONE!
26 years ? Now I believe the camels back is broken... who/ what is the "camels back" its the stock market and Rothschilds...it all begins with the process they(Rothschilds) created in 1876 ...its called PAPERWORK and Registration then certification then under the illusion of the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the human Race
It is only by not being transparent and open that the system has carried this greatest fraud ........its all coming to you, the A-Z and what to do and what not to do.. but learn the rules and NEVER use all caps name again EVER ... Corporate police demand whats your name ...?
If you aren’t a "de facto corporation " by The BNF01 then 16 years later the NATIONAL INSURANCE NUMBER makes you all DE FACTO CORPORATIONS so they can tax you/ Imprison you... take the "chattels" from your de facto company ...bYOUR KIDS !!! Flood this country with unlawful immigrants ...the whole shebang....lose the all caps name and change it....
Ian Update| 20.11.2022
🔗 Learn the Rules 2
🔗 Learn the Rules 3
🔗Treason Home
👍11
Learn the Rules 2🗡️
How many times does the system attach your De Facto Corporation is any action ?
Example . Corporate police officer seeking your de facto corporation joinder on stopping the vehicle ?
Whats your name or "can I have your driving licence " the driving licence is ALL CAPS eg JOHN SMITH (the de facto corporation) when has any one replied " as you fill in the that ticket DO NOT apply Capitals as you are failing to reveal relevant information " (Fraud Act 2006 S3) that information is that you seek the de facto corporation to continue with the fraud you are advocating on behalf of others (corporate government etc) to "make gains " for another" This Places the Corporate Officer in aiding and abetting such fraud BEFORE they stop the vehicle. Now you have the criminal offence established by that officer and all created after that point is VOID ab Initio because he/she failed to reveal relevant information where if they did in all the application of The ALL CAPS de facto corporations (thats you all) then the system would crash and disappear
🔗 Learn the Rules 1
🔗 Learn the Rules 3
Ian Update | 20.11.2022
How many times does the system attach your De Facto Corporation is any action ?
Example . Corporate police officer seeking your de facto corporation joinder on stopping the vehicle ?
Whats your name or "can I have your driving licence " the driving licence is ALL CAPS eg JOHN SMITH (the de facto corporation) when has any one replied " as you fill in the that ticket DO NOT apply Capitals as you are failing to reveal relevant information " (Fraud Act 2006 S3) that information is that you seek the de facto corporation to continue with the fraud you are advocating on behalf of others (corporate government etc) to "make gains " for another" This Places the Corporate Officer in aiding and abetting such fraud BEFORE they stop the vehicle. Now you have the criminal offence established by that officer and all created after that point is VOID ab Initio because he/she failed to reveal relevant information where if they did in all the application of The ALL CAPS de facto corporations (thats you all) then the system would crash and disappear
🔗 Learn the Rules 1
🔗 Learn the Rules 3
Ian Update | 20.11.2022
Telegram
TREASON
Learn the Rules 1🗡️
ROTHSCHILDS DONE!
26 years ? Now I believe the camels back is broken... who/ what is the "camels back" its the stock market and Rothschilds...it all begins with the process they(Rothschilds) created in 1876 ...its called PAPERWORK and…
ROTHSCHILDS DONE!
26 years ? Now I believe the camels back is broken... who/ what is the "camels back" its the stock market and Rothschilds...it all begins with the process they(Rothschilds) created in 1876 ...its called PAPERWORK and…
👍18
Learn the Rules 3🗡️
Never once since the 1870s when parents and children could not read or write and ever since has the "system" ever disclosed in writing in a manner that could be understood of the consequences and facts of the Birth Certificate Registration and corporatisation of every individual for the ROTHSCHILDS and his puppets (Mps etc) to commercialise living beings FOR PROFIT ...the offence is (at Common law , wrongdoing in Tort (civil action) or at Fraud Act 2006 S3 "failure to provide "relevant information" that an individual is being corporatised for profit and that the SUPERIOR Statutes (Coronation Oaths Act 1688 etc are being disobeyed and an indictable offence is established against every corporate officer regardless of the corporation (eg Police/government/Councils) and an interesting fact and one that can be relied on in any court is that even QE11 and Fat fingers Charlie are/was REGISTERED by BIRTH CERTIFICATE and as such they were de facto corporations in breach of the 1688 Act...so there has been no legitimate monarch where BC Registrations took place of alleged Monarchs since the 1870s as they were claimed by the Vatican and The Foreign agents BAR counsel from the foreign state of The Inner City of London...quite a scam eh...no meeting of the minds therefore has happened and by that there can be no contract
For legal purposes no one on this planet,by first hand knowledge can swear under oath to any name or D.O.B
until a name is established an
interview nor charge can happen....
Ian Update |20/11/2022
🔗 Learn the Rules 1
🔗 Learn the Rules 2
Never once since the 1870s when parents and children could not read or write and ever since has the "system" ever disclosed in writing in a manner that could be understood of the consequences and facts of the Birth Certificate Registration and corporatisation of every individual for the ROTHSCHILDS and his puppets (Mps etc) to commercialise living beings FOR PROFIT ...the offence is (at Common law , wrongdoing in Tort (civil action) or at Fraud Act 2006 S3 "failure to provide "relevant information" that an individual is being corporatised for profit and that the SUPERIOR Statutes (Coronation Oaths Act 1688 etc are being disobeyed and an indictable offence is established against every corporate officer regardless of the corporation (eg Police/government/Councils) and an interesting fact and one that can be relied on in any court is that even QE11 and Fat fingers Charlie are/was REGISTERED by BIRTH CERTIFICATE and as such they were de facto corporations in breach of the 1688 Act...so there has been no legitimate monarch where BC Registrations took place of alleged Monarchs since the 1870s as they were claimed by the Vatican and The Foreign agents BAR counsel from the foreign state of The Inner City of London...quite a scam eh...no meeting of the minds therefore has happened and by that there can be no contract
For legal purposes no one on this planet,by first hand knowledge can swear under oath to any name or D.O.B
until a name is established an
interview nor charge can happen....
Ian Update |20/11/2022
🔗 Learn the Rules 1
🔗 Learn the Rules 2
Telegram
TREASON
Learn the Rules 1🗡️
ROTHSCHILDS DONE!
26 years ? Now I believe the camels back is broken... who/ what is the "camels back" its the stock market and Rothschilds...it all begins with the process they(Rothschilds) created in 1876 ...its called PAPERWORK and…
ROTHSCHILDS DONE!
26 years ? Now I believe the camels back is broken... who/ what is the "camels back" its the stock market and Rothschilds...it all begins with the process they(Rothschilds) created in 1876 ...its called PAPERWORK and…
👍27
Learn the Rules Cont..
Now we raise the issue of the "informant" where The Birth Certificate Registration is concerned legally.If you apply the hearsay argument of "I was but 6 weeks old" and you question the registration only by the INFORMANT being called to give evidence of signator can it be established to be YOUR NAME (in my case,being 66 years old they will have a job on as my mother and father (informants) are no longer here therefore nothing can be brought ,as evidence in court against you to prove you are you...just make no admissions of joinder...let them take you to a police station but STAND YOUR GROUND as you will be stating a falsity remember it is the INFORMANTS name ....
Now we raise the issue of the "informant" where The Birth Certificate Registration is concerned legally.If you apply the hearsay argument of "I was but 6 weeks old" and you question the registration only by the INFORMANT being called to give evidence of signator can it be established to be YOUR NAME (in my case,being 66 years old they will have a job on as my mother and father (informants) are no longer here therefore nothing can be brought ,as evidence in court against you to prove you are you...just make no admissions of joinder...let them take you to a police station but STAND YOUR GROUND as you will be stating a falsity remember it is the INFORMANTS name ....
👍26