TLC Private Trust :
The applicable law is the exclusive jurisdiction of equity!
Portsmouth & Local News Click the Links Below...
Trust Created and Back dated to 1st Jan 2019, Published 6 April 2022! Private Trust :
The applicable law is the exclusive jurisdiction of equity. Publication Link below-
Senior Courts Act 1981
Wherever there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail. See Senior Courts Act below at the bottom of this page!
Living In The Private, Private Trusts And The Money Scam Video
Click the link below to view...
Trust History
Unam Sanctam and the 3 Crowns of Baal
For the video click the link below...
For Peter's Youtube Channel and His Facebook group click the links below...
Click the link below for the video...
Bailiffs and Clowns Put in Their Place
The term castle doctrine refers to the legal right of a person to defend himself against an intruder in his home or other property, even should the use of deadly force be required.
Under this legal theory, the homeowner is not required to retreat, but may stand his ground to defend himself, his home, or his property.
The Castle Doctrine: click the link below...
Click the link below to watch the video"
Private Trusts Power of Attorney and Living In Private with :darren and :peter"
Good cop: Fair one!
Rice vs Connolly 1966
To view click the link below!
Senior Courts Act 1981
49Concurrent administration of law and equity.
(1)Subject to the provisions of this or any other Act, every court exercising jurisdiction in England or Wales in any civil cause or matter shall continue to administer law and equity on the basis that, wherever there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail.
Regarding equity and the senior courts act 1981 section 49, this is from the high court and ALL courts have a duty to do what the high court tells them to do To have a trust recognised under the trust recognition act 1987 article 3 it must be written down and under article 6 the settlor (that is you) chooses the law of the trust. (Article 3. (3)This Act binds the Crown). So you choose the jurisdiction exclusively in equity.
Chapter II—Applicable Law Article 6A trust shall be governed by the law chosen by the settlor. The choice must be express or be implied in the terms of the instrument creating or the writing evidencing the trust, interpreted, if necessary, in the light of the circumstances of the case.Where the law chosen under the previous paragraph does not provide for trusts or the category of trust involved, the choice shall not be effective and the law specified in Article 7 shall apply.
Seizure of goods Para 9 (1 -3) Courts Act 2003, Schedule 7, section 99
Seizure of goods9(1) This paragraph applies where an enforcement officer or other person who is under a duty to execute the writ is executing it.
(2)The officer may, by virtue of the writ, seize-
(a)any goods of the execution debtor that are not exempt goods, and
(b)any money, banknotes, bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds, specialties or securities for money belonging to the execution debtor.
(3)"Exempt goods" means-
(a)such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to the execution debtor for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation;
(b)such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of the execution debtor and his family.
Sale of goods seized.
Private Trust Created and Back dated to 1st Jan 2019, Published 6 April 2022! Private Trust : The applicable law is the exclusive jurisdiction of equity. Link below-
The 3 Most Important Principles of Equity? 🔥🔥🔥
Peace Keepers Video below.
Law: Principles of Equity are Honesty, Good Faith and Clean Hands
Peace Keepers video
The court of Equity - Equity Law Supersedes common law and statute law when there is a conflict between the two and neither can appropriately bring the correct verdict.
Equity the conscience fair and just
References:
Charlotte Crilly Teaching Fellow university of London
Judicature Act 1873 source www about the judiciary/ history of the judiciary
Legislation.gov.uk senior courts act 1981 section 49
"(1)Subject to the provisions of this or any other Act, every court exercising jurisdiction in England or Wales in any civil cause or matter shall continue to administer law and equity on the basis that, wherever there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/54/section/49#:~:text=49<br>
Equity above common law and above legislation
founding case: The Earl of Oxford 1615
REAFFIRMED | Coronation Oath Has Stood For Centuries And Is Enshrined in LAW!
Maxims of Law
Protection from Eviction Act 1977
(If you do not consent to eviction and it is still acted upon makes it unlawful as it is a statute.)
Kings Bench etc.
William Pitt:
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be Frail ail - - the wind may blow through it - its roof may shake - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter!
speech, March 1763, in Lord Brougham Historical Sketches of Statesmen in the Time of George III First Series (1845) vol. 1br>
The Castle doctrine from coke - an English mans home is his caste, which was Recently reaffirmed in 2022
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tees-60260155.amp
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
https://www.forgottenbooks.com/.../CollectionofLegalMaxim...
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.forgottenbooks.com%2Fen%2Fdownload%2FCollectionofLegalMaximsinLawandEquity_10057415.pdf%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0gOc0KJWTLPRoG8d4F9D5UXNdsZIZoGtEnKb8ElJjlTSkn24sIuebb_hI&h=AT0su4EYXyseOwRxMI0JAfbU4XA0m0BoP8Co9tsgyPKYYBW4nZgS-svJN40hGM5ki2UoErY9Lpkb9XjA-eO8kXDboKsms0P-tJnuEMPh9DbjUdoMamCcZqpqF6eI-fgU9eII&__tn__=R]-R&c[0]=AT0_UBS8NOG9FY3rdZwzXKOrTm-oziTk3qkAbqsA54MJatprTFL_yzl29IPvysXHNF5pD_xxw1Xscy0ILThJ83gp1AhfgZJTNtoceXKzT3nIUBh4CEb2CjSESK2EdEOP57XskORSzCyK6bs1MdO8U1IqasX5uobq<br>
Observance of due Process of Law (1368)
1368 CHAPTER 3 42 Edw 3
- by due Process and Writ original, according to the old Law of the Land
Protection from Eviction Act 1977
(If you do not consent to eviction and it is still acted upon makes it unlawful as it is a statute.)
Remove implied rights of access Case Law - Source From peter wilson:
CASE LAW
Remove implied rights of access
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
If you don't remove a Implied rights of access, a door left open is an implied license for a bailiff to enter, Faulkner v Willetts [1982] Crim LR 453
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.
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
Bailiffs cannot force their way into a private dwelling, Grove v Eastern Gas [1952] 1 KB 77.
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 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 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
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
A person (from 2014 onwards - without a warrant of control) 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
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
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
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 a person strikes a trespasser who has refused to leave is not guilty of an offence: Davis v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434