If the bailiff has already started to make a levy, he can no longer be made to leave and he cannot be assaulted: Southam v Smout [1964] 1 QB 308.

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 or Snook v Mannion [1982] Crim LR 601 or R (Roalfe) v Woking Magistrate's Court [2005] EWHC 2922 (Admin).

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:, Hall v Davis [1825] 2 C&P 33.

Excessive force must be avoided: Gregory v Hall [1799] 8 TR 299 or Oakes v Wood [1837] 2 M&W 791.

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: ~ likewise placing an arm inside the door: Rossiter v Conway [1893] 53 JP 350.

If a bailiff enters a property and makes a noise and disturbs the peace it is lawful for the occupier to eject him and if he refuses to leave the police may be called: Green v [1830] 4C&P 308 or Shaw v Chairtirie [1850] 3 C&K 21.

‘Bailiffs & Police Involvement’ ~ CASE LAW

How to Address ‘Notice’s received in the post..!

Thanks to impeccable and duly noted and honored reasoning, we can all prove which jurisdictions the courts are operating in.

There are only three three (3) choices:

1)Administrative (Corporate Tribunals addressing their own employees).

2)Admiralty (Military Law of the Sea) and;

3) Maritime (Otherwise known as Commercial Law, or the Law of Contracts).

(Excerpt from short PDF). Applicable in the USA 🇺🇸 UK 🇬🇧 and many of the Commonwealth Countries 🇦🇺 🇳🇿 🇿🇦

Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE

This website is a great resource and contains a wealth of information…

Be sure to click on the menu of the webpage to explore it’s in depth resources and information…

Applicable to both English 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 & American 🇺🇸 law…

And the Commonwealth countries… Australia 🇦🇺 New Zealand 🇳🇿 Canada 🇨🇦 etc etc etc…

https://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england

‘Legal v Lawful’... podcast interviews conducted by Crrow777... these are the full 2 hr shows.

The link at the bottom of this post takes you to a folder created in Google Drive...

The podcasts explain and cover many subjects... the difference between ‘Legal v Lawful’ surrounding the fraud our birth certificates, legal fictions, i.e. strawman & how effective lawful common law can really be to combat this corruption and take back control of our lives... etc etc etc...

These podcasts/interviews are conducted with ordinary common men & women; who’ve worked; and still are working tirelessly behind the scenes, putting together lawful documentation to help assist us to combat this attempted unlawful Tyranny in our everyday lives...

Details of websites are given within the podcasts and where you can obtain the relevant documentation needed, to help us win against the corruption.

If you’d like to access these podcasts, then please just use this link provided below... enjoy the journey..!

::PEACE:: 🌹🐝 🌈 🕊❤️

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c43168EAqQX1OEG-oLnGtw7Xk9aH8qKD

Karl Lentz talks to Brian Gerrish and explains how simple ‘common law really is and how he won back custody of his offspring (children) from the criminals in government who kidnapped them. He also explains how he used the same principles and helped others to do the same..!

An hour of your time is well worth spent, watching this very interesting, informative & important video..!

https://youtu.be/VgfBszEKsfw

John Harris... (R.I.P.) was just a commoner, an ordinary man, a humble carpenter…

John devoted a good deal of his time, to bring the truth & knowledge your about to see in this video to us all... at great personal sacrifice to himself and his family…

Sadly; John is no longer with us. A tremendous loss to us all..! 😔

It would appear, that the powers that shouldn’t be, weren’t to pleased & happy with Johns efforts, and he died under very suspicious circumstances indeed…

Many believe he was suicided... for bringing this knowledge and truth to the public’s attention...!

We should be eternally grateful for his sacrifice..! 😔

https://youtu.be/uOOF5uOcah0

i: a man; karl: of the lawful bloodline; house of lentz.

‘natural common law(s)’ are based upon the:

1. Customs;  rules ; policies ; regulations;  and procedures found within a society (see: 'Body Politic').

2. Set of beliefs; found within a people that are (suppose) to be fair and just to all of its constituents at that particular place; time.

When i: a man; exit my domestic authority, and enter the domestic authority of a society.

It would bide, i: a man; and as a 'guest'; well, to have knowledge of its ‘common law(s)’.

WORD OF THE MONTH: CAPITALISE: adj.: Gage Canadian Dictionary ~ 1983 § 4

1. "To take advantage of - to use to ones own advantage."

John Henry: Doe; known as a ‘person’ (a legal fiction) and/or a (corporation) who is his own master (sui juris). Blacks Law Dictionary 4th edition; page 1968. Provides a more comprehensive definition as follows.

‘CAPITIS DIMINUTIO’: (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalisation). In Roman law; a diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man or woman’s; status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.

‘CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MAXIMA’: (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalisation; e.g. JOHN HENRY DOE or DOE JOHN HENRY) ~ The highest or most comprehensive loss of status.

This occurred when a man or woman's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when they became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

‘CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MEDIA’: (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status.

This occurred where a man or woman loses their rights of citizenship, but without losing their liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

‘CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MINIMA’: (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John Henry Doe). This is lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status

This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed.

It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a ‘person’ who had been their own master (sui juris) [of their own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one, who had been under the ‘patria potestas’. [parental authority]. It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See: Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.

‘CAPITAL CRIME’: The term capital originates from the Latin… ‘capitalis’; literally "regarding the head". Crimes that result in a death penalty, are known as; Capital Crimes and/or Capital Offences .

Hence, a capital crime was originally punished, by severing the head from the body.

Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution, is the sentence of death upon a ‘person’ by the state as a punishment for an offence.

Codes; Rules; Regulations; Policies & Procedures… are not laws..! They are only the colour of law.

The purpose of the aforementioned, is to create a ‘fence’ around the ‘person’ (not the man or woman).

When a ‘person’ (legal fiction) strays from or goes outside of the ‘fence’ by breaking these; Codes; Rules; Regulations; Policies & Procedures… etc… it’s the ‘person’ that commits an (off-fence)… offence..! Not the man or woman.

The State looks to create joinder, with the man or woman, thereby holding them as ‘surety’ for the alleged penalty imposed.

If the man or woman accepts the ‘order’ or correspondence, and/or; the use of the ALL CAPS NAMES… e.g. JOHN HENRY DOE; John Henry DOE; and John Henry Doe..!

They accept joinder that the state is looking for and thereby default; the man or woman becomes surety and subject to the punishments deemed fit to be issued and enforced by the State…

Everything is Trusts & Contract’s created by the State.

A ‘legal fiction entity’ and/or a ‘corporation’ cannot do business with a living man or woman. It can only do business with another ‘legal fiction’ and/or ‘corporation’. Hence the reason a ‘legal fiction person name’ and/or ‘corporation’ was created by the State on your born/birth day via birth certificate.

The act of Registration of the new born babe with State, unknowingly to the parents; inadvertently gave the baby away to become a ward of the State.

Your ‘corporate vessel’ 🚢 was then built and issued a ‘birthing certificate’ in the ‘legal fiction person names’ of; JOHN HENRY DOE; John Henry DOE; and John Henry Doe.

The ‘legal fiction person name vessel’ (fraud) 🚢 was launched and was allowed to dock as a ward of the State, which in turn enabled the State to conduct commerce with the man or woman via the ‘legal fiction person names’; JOHN HENRY DOE; John Henry DOE; and John Henry Doe..!

‘Fight Your Private Parking Notices’..! Advice & help…

This Channel does NOT condone FB… and it’s nefarious hidden agendas.

However; there are on occasion, exceptions to the norm. This group on FB are worth mentioning… this is one of those exceptions..!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/fightyourprivateparkinginvoice/permalink/2706019962895052/

The Pirates 🏴‍☠️ called Councils usual tactic is to use fear to coerce you to comply.

“Fear is the old is tool of power; while you’re distracted by a fear of those around you, (CV-19: social distancing) you’re not looking up above you, to see who the real criminals are”…

This blog covers many topics to combat the pirates 🏴‍☠️

Click the link and scroll through the subjects covered…

https://awakenedgb.wordpress.com/2023/10/06/council-tax-bankruptcy-threats

‘No Due Process of Law’ (from the article /blog above ☝🏼

“Ultimately we need to challenge the Council’s and the lower Courts (Magistrate’s) in the higher Courts (Supreme Courts) for not following… ‘Due Process of Law’..!

‘Martin Geddes’… has written an excellent article, on how calling out… “the lack of due process”… can stop the council tax racket: https://newsletter.martingeddes.com/p/how-due-process-can-stop-the-council?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=2blmva&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=emai

‘Observance of Due Process of Law’ ~ Act 1368

“None shall be put to answer without due Process of Law”…

This Act currently sits on the Statute Books… and is current UK law and reads as follows:

“ITEM, At the Request of the Commons by their Petitions put forth in this Parliament, to eschew the Mischiefs and Damages done to divers of his Commons by false Accusers, which oftentimes have made their Accusations more for Revenge and singular Benefit, than for the Profit of the King, or of his People, which accused Persons, some have been taken, and sometimes caused to come before the King’s Council by Writ, and otherwise upon grievous Pain against the Law”

“It is assented and accorded, for the good Governance of the Commons, that…

“No Man be put to answer without Presentment before Justices, or Matter of Record, or by due Process and Writ original, according to the old Law of the Land”

“And if any Thing from henceforth be done to the contrary, it shall be ‘void in the Law’; and holden for Error.”

The Bill of Rights 1688/9 ~ The Coronation Oath 1688 & the Treason Act of 1351.

All continue to sit on the UK Statute Book and gave not been repealed.

Whereas: The ‘Bill of Rights Act’ 1689 clearly states:

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and null & void ‘ab initio’ ~ “from their inception, for cause”.

On 21st July 1993, Betty Boothroyd; the woman; acting in the capacity of; and doing business as; the ‘Speaker of The House of Commons’; issued a reminder to the Courts. And said:

"There has of course, been no amendment to ‘Bill of Rights’… the House is entitled to expect that the ‘Bill of Rights’ will be fully respected by all those appearing before the Courts."

This states that conviction is necessary before a fine and/or penalty and/or forfeit can be imposed.

The ‘Bill of Rights Act 1688/9’; is an Act; Declaring the Rights & Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown; it is a "Constitutional Statue" and may not be repealed impliedly.

This was stated in the case ‘Thoburn v City of Sunderland’; the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment.

This was handed down in the ‘Divisional Court’ (18 February 2002) by ‘Lord Justice Laws’ and ‘Mr Justice Crane’; (i: will paraphrase, but have included a copy herein; of the judgment's relevant sections (62 & 63).

62) "We should recognise a hierarchy of ‘Acts of Parliament’: as it were "ordinary" Statutes and "Constitutional Statues".

The special status of "Constitutional Statues" follows the Special Status of ‘Constitutional Rights’.

Examples are the ‘Bill of Rights Act 1689’

63) "Ordinary Statutes may be impliedly repealed, Constitutional Statues may not… I am not aware that the ‘Road Traffic Act 1991’ makes express reference to repealing clause (39) & (40) of the ‘Magna Carta 1215’; and the ‘Bill of Rights Act 1688/9’, therefore; there can be; “no fine & or conviction” before a ‘Trial by Jury’ and is therefore imperative and absolutely necessary that; ‘Due Process of Law’ is followed and evidenced before a; “fine, penalty and/or forfeit and/or or conviction” can be imposed.”…

“It is therefore; important to consider the implications of any attempt to override and abrogate the provisions of the said; clauses (39) & (40) of the ‘Magna Carta 1215’; and the ‘Bill of Rights Act 1688/9’; and the ‘Constitutional’ considerations of doing so.”

“It will then be necessary to understand the ‘Constitutional’ considerations of ignoring the ‘Magna Carta 1215’ ~ the ‘Declaration of Rights 1688’ & the ‘Bill of Rights Act 1688/9’. And the criminal implications of liability and consequences of doing so.”

Maxims of Law

“The Common law is superior to and overarches statute law, in every case.” ~ “A statute should be harmonious with the Common Law.” ~ “Statutes are not law, and no Act, placed on the statute books as law is valid if it waives a fundamental right in order to comply with the demands of something called the state (or government).

And; i: am; without evidence; knowledge or understanding; that any evidence to the contrary exists;

Legal or Lawful?

It is crucial to define the difference between ‘legal and lawful’…

The generic Constitution’s reference genuine common law.

The present civil authorities and their courts use the word legal…

Is there a difference in the meanings..?

The following is quoted from: “A Dictionary of Law 1893”:

“Lawful”; In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law.

“Lawful” properly implies a something conformable to; or enjoined by law.

“Legal”; a thing in the form or; after the manner of law or; binding by Law.

A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under the colour of law, is a “legal” process however defective.

“Legal” ~ Latin; ‘legalis’: Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of Law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper.

Implied or imputed in Law. Opposed to actual.

“Legal”; looks more to the letter [form/appearance].

Whereas; “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law.

“Legal”; is more appropriate for conformity, to positive Rules of Law;

“Lawful”; for accord with ethical principle.

“Legal”; imports rather, that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that the rules prescribed have been obeyed.

“Lawful”; that the right, is actful in substance, that moral equality is secured.

“Legal”; is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott’s Law Dic. 24.

“Legal”; matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules.

They are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express).

The ‘legal’ process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous post’s of ‘legal fictions’; being only the colour of law.

To be ‘legal’; a matter does not follow the law.

Instead, it conforms to, and follows the rules or form of law.

This may help you to understand why, the U.S. ~ ‘Federal & State Rules’ of Civil and Criminal Procedure’; are cited in every court petition, so as to conform to ‘legal requirements’ of the ‘specific juristic persons’ named, e.g.,

“STATE OF GEORGIA” or the “U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” that rule the courts.

Legal or Lawful?

It is crucial to define the difference between legal and lawful.

The generic Constitution’s reference genuine common law.

The present civil authorities and their courts use the word legal…

Is there a difference in the meanings..?

The following is quoted from: “A Dictionary of Law 1893”:

Lawful; In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law.

“Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law;

“Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by Law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under the colour of law, is a “legal” process however defective.

See legal. [Bold emphasis added]

“Legal” ~ Latin; ‘legalis’ Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of Law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in Law. Opposed to actual.

“Legal” looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law.

“Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law;

“Lawful” for accord with ethical principle.

“Legal” imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed;

“Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral equality is secured.

“Legal” is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott’s Law Dic. 24.

“Legal” matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules.

They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express).

A ‘legal’ process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous post’s of ‘legal fictions’ and being only the colour of law.

To be ‘legal’; a matter does not follow the law.