1. On 14th July 2014 a hearing was scheduled regarding the possession of my property with District Judge Ellington sitting at Wakefield Civil justice Centre. 2. As you can see in (Annex 1a) deputy District Judge MYERS conducted the trial which I was not allowed any participation in, the alleged order states “”and upon MR David John Clapham not attending” 3. At Wakefield Civil Justice Centre on 14th July 2014 I was told at 10.04 that the hearing had already taken place in my absence? 4. The Human Rights Act Article 6 right to fair trial clearly states “the right to a fair trial is and cannot be limited. It requires a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The right applies to both criminal and civil cases; the right to a fair trial is absolute”. 5. THE SUPREME COURT CLEARLY STATES:- • “jurisdiction you have to have someone at some point in time before judgment raise their hand and testify under oath and subject to cross examination or its nonsense” • “subject matter jurisdiction is having the facts in front of the court to make a judgment” • “a judgment rendered has to show witness testimony” • “statements of council in brief or argument are not sufficient for summary judgments” • “actual facts not mere allegations of complaint are determinative of jurisdiction” • “No witness, No facts, no jurisdiction, it’s the law” 6. The claimant has not produced any factual information/evidence or proof to substantiate their claim or proved their legal standing in this matter. Moreover, the claimant is a Fictitious Claimant: A person appearing in the writ, complaint, or record as the plaintiff in a suit, but who in reality does not exist, or who is ignorant of the suit and of the use of his name in it. I believe it is contempt of court to sue in the name of a fictitious party. 7. Legal maxim “he who asserts must prove” however, the court appears to be ignoring this fact. 8. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct states 2.1 ” A judge shall perform his or her judicial duties without favour, bias or prejudice”.4.3. “A judge shall, in his or her personal relations with individual members of the legal Profession who practise regularly in the judges court, avoid situations which might Reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of favouritism or partiality”. 9. I believe both judges are guilty of: • Acting in clear absence of Jurisdiction and are denied immunity and, • Have commissioned an act that is completely unlawful. 10. As I understand there are two jurisdictions common law and Admiralty jurisdiction. 11. I do not believe I have been under any International Maritime contracts so I would deny one exists, I would have to demand that such a contract, if it did exist, be placed in evidence, so that I may contest it, but surely Wakefield Civil Justice centre is not operating under Admiralty jurisdiction? 12. As I understand the United kingdom comes under one Law the Law of the Land 13. ... lawful judgement of his equals ... means a Jury of 12; ... by the law-of the-land means The Common Law, which is documented therein. There was no Parliament in 1215, and hence no Statutes. Consequently NO STATUTE can ever be The Law-of-the-Land, can it? 14. The renowned English jurist Sir William Blackstone famously stated, “No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.” 15. I believe the eviction that took place on 12th August 2014 was both illegal and unlawful, and a severe miss- carriage of justice. 16. Spring advice centre in Wakefield have also confirmed the eviction to be illegal and unlawful, on 14th August 2014. 17. I have enclosed a DVD with evidence proof and fact that West Yorkshire police did indeed, assist bailiffs to force their way into my home both illegally and unlawfully. 18. I delivered a refusal of all implied right of access Notice to the court bailiff on 7th August 2014 after contacting the court. (copy enclosed) furthermore a copy was also attached to the car on the driveway, and displayed in the room window near the door. I undertand:- “License to enter must be refused BEFORE the process of levy starts, Kay v Hibbert [1977] Cr 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 dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk im LR 226 or Matthews v Dwan [1949] NZLR 1037” 19. At around 11.20 the bailiff and police arrived and access was denied. “By common law police officers owe to the general public a duty to enforce the criminal law,” 1968 CA Lord Denning re: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn [1968] 2 QB 118 20. I Asked over the gate for the Bailiffs certificate and was told she didn’t need one See……. I understand:- “The constable must check the bailiffs certificate and his/her warrant, and if he/she is unable to show both documents then the constable is required to place the person under arrest for committing an offence under Section 125b of the County Courts Act 1984 or Section 78(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 or Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, as he/she is required to carry them in an intelligible form when attending a debtors address. Bullers Case [1587] 1 Leonard 50 or Andrews v Bolton Borough Council [2011] HHJ Holman, Bolton county court, June 2011.” 21. I Asked to see the warrant; nothing signed by a judge was a copy and I disputed the authenticity of the document and pointed this out to PC 6321 (Still refusing to identify himself) 22. I understand that a warrant has to have a wet ink signature by a magistrate and they have to show you a copy otherwise this is not valid. “Michael Doherty S.15(7) & (8) of PACE Act 1984 required that two copies be made of a warrant which should be clearly certified as copies: this was the courts responsibility. The net result was a breach of s.16(5)(c),- a copy to be supplied to the occupier. The Chief Constable accepted this but argued that the replacement of the original schedule by a photocopy had been authorised by the Judge. That would not do: when the Act referred to a warrant issued by a Judge it meant the whole of the original document seen and approved by him”. R v CC of Lancashire Police, ex Parte Parker and McGrath [1993] Crim LR , 204 QBD. 23. The Police assisted the bailiff and forced their way into the garden against my requests to leave which placed me in fear of violence or harm “A bailiff may not encourage a third party to allow the bailiff access to a property (i.e. Workmen inside a house or a police officer), access by this means renders everything that follows invalid”, Nash v Lucas [1867] 2 QB 590 1. Police assisted and forced into garden against my requests to leave which placed me in fear, violence, intimidation and extremely threatened. “If a police officer is in attendance and assists the bailiff to gain entry or persuades the debtor to open the door then any levy the bailiff makes is void and the debtor can sue for damages. Skidmore v Booth [1834] 6 C&P 777” 24. Please see the enclosed DVD where Pc 6321 admits that the police were there as he put it “ “what we are doing to assist the bailiffs” this can be found on the enclosed DVD clip number SUN P0036 @00:14) 25. Then @ 1:17 the Bank Representative also confirms that the court order they are enforcing is not a court order. (See annex 1) 26. As you can see from the letter dated 30th July from Amber Homeloan (claimant) solicitors sgh Martineau letter (annex 1 para 4) states “We enclose a further copy of the courts order” however, the Bank Representative said in the above ‘@ 1:01 and he repeats this @ 1:07 “the court order will be signed by a judge a sitting judge” …..@ 1:16 the bank representative confirms “that’s not a court order is it” “no its not” “that’s a letter telling you the possession of this order” 1. (Annex 2) is a court order sent from Wakefield Justice Centre dated 22nd July 2014 before District judge Ellington which has some sort of stamp/seal attached 2. However when we look at (Annex 3) this court order clearly shows an order from V Bibby which is signed. 3. In (Annex 4) we can actually see what appears to be a proper court stamp which certainly does not resemble (Annex 2) in any shape or form? the print has come out green but in reality it is red. 4. Annex 5 shows a Notice of Appointment (with bailiff) which as you can see has not been filled in at all by the Claimant (or his/her Authorised representative) 5. Annex 6 explains securitisation. 6. Annex 7 shows a letter from Elmsleys Solicitors dated 8th February 2007from Karen Moynihan, this letter at the last paragraph, second line up it states “work carried out in arranging an indemnity insurance policy” this confirms the mortgage was paid off after 90 days default. 7. Richard at Amber Homeloans (credit management) confirmed on 11th August 2014 the mortgage was securitised from the onset (sold) I have recorded the conversation and an independent witness was present thought the telephone conversation. Who is willing to swear on affidavit to the fact. 8. Annex 8 is a copy of the unexecuted deed provided by Amber Homeloans for your perusal and when we compare it to Annex 9 we appear to see a completely different deed which is executed correctly in 1990. Moreover, the deed should be one complete document together with the note. 9. Annex 10 is a Deed of revocation of power of Attorney dated 19th August 2014 sent to the Claimant, their agents and Land registry because all the obligations of the mortgage have been fulfilled and the claimant has no standing to execute the said deed. Furthermore, Halsburys law 2011 states administrative courts unlawful. “The law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is no authority for administrative courts in the country and no Act can be passed to legitimise them because of constitutional restraint placed upon her Majesty at her coronation. The collection of revenue by such means is extortion, and extortion has been found reprehensible since ancient times”. 10. I am about to pursue private prosecutions regarding this matter and expose this fraud to the media including police gross misconduct and misfeasance in a public office. I accept the oaths of all good men bind them too it and remind them they have a fiduciary duty to me and I David John (man) require immediate restoration of my property. I claim my body, mind and soul, the blood flows and I am not incompetent, nor lost at sea I AM A LIVING BREATHING MAN, IN-FACT, NOT A LEGAL FICTION, CORPORATE FICTION, OR FICTION OF LAW, THIS MAN IS THE VALUE AND THE CREDIT FOR THE TRUST AND HE SIGNS IN CAPACITY TO ADMINISTER THE TRUST AND IS TO BE HELD HARMLESS AND FREE FROM LIEN AND LEAVY, AND DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS REMEDIES OR CURES.. I look forward to your response/assistance in putting things right “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.
Posted on: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 06:09:02 +0000