Reasonable Force: The Fraudulent Predication for Unlawful Aggression

maxresdefault

Reasonable Force

The amount of force necessary to protect oneself or one’s property. Reasonable force is a term associated with defending one’s person or property from a violent attack, theft, or other type of unlawful aggression. It may be used as a defense in a criminal trial or to defend oneself in a suit alleging tortious conduct. If one uses excessive force, or more than the force necessary for such protection, he or she may be considered to have forfeited the right to defense. Reasonable force is also known as legal force.

A person is generally justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. The person is also generally justified in using such extreme force to prevent or terminate another’s unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling, if: (1) the entry is made or attempted in a violent manner and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent personal violence to himself or another then in the dwelling, or (2) he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

Notwithstanding this well-established principle of the Common Law; namely, that anybody has the right to use reasonable force as a defence in a criminal trial, if it can be demonstrated that, in the heat of the moment, they had reason to believe that the safety and well-being of their person, property or other individuals in their care were under the threat of unlawful aggression, or they genuinely felt they had to take such action to prevent a crime; her majesty’s government negligently drafted the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which states in section 76:

76 – Reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc.

(1)This section applies where in proceedings for an offence—

(a)an issue arises as to whether a person charged with the offence (“D”) is entitled to rely on a defence within subsection (2), and

(b)the question arises whether the degree of force used by D against a person (“V”) was reasonable in the circumstances.

(2)The defences are—

(a)the common law defence of self-defence; and

(b)the defences provided by section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) or section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (c. 18 (N.I.)) (use of force in prevention of crime or making arrest).

(3)The question whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be, and subsections (4) to (8) also apply in connection with deciding that question.

(4)If D claims to have held a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances—

(a)the reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question whether D genuinely held it; but

(b)if it is determined that D did genuinely hold it, D is entitled to rely on it for the purposes of subsection (3), whether or not—

(i)it was mistaken, or

(ii)(if it was mistaken) the mistake was a reasonable one to have made.

(5)But subsection (4)(b) does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced.

(6)The degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances.

(7)In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3) the following considerations are to be taken into account (so far as relevant in the circumstances of the case)—

(a)that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and

(b)that evidence of a person’s having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.

(8)Subsection (7) is not to be read as preventing other matters from being taken into account where they are relevant to deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3).

(9)This section is intended to clarify the operation of the existing defences mentioned in subsection (2).

(10)In this section—

(a)“legitimate purpose” means—

(i)the purpose of self-defence under the common law, or

(ii)the prevention of crime or effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of persons mentioned in the provisions referred to in subsection (2)(b);

(b)references to self-defence include acting in defence of another person; and

(c)references to the degree of force used are to the type and amount of force used.

The Fallacious Nature of the Legal Position of Section 76 of the 2008 Act

Let’s put this statutory provision into the fallacious context it deserves. If you are under the threat of an unlawful eviction from your home, having had an entirely void possession order issued against it, despite having paid three times the value of the credit you were purportedly extended, since the execution of what you now have every reason to believe was and remains a criminal mortgage, which you executed solely because your conveyancing solicitor advised that you must do so in order to receive a mortgage advance at a later date.

This would automatically give rise to a cause of action for professional negligence upon the loss of your property, should you choose to make such a claim against said solicitor’s professional indemnity insurance policy, once all the elements of the tort of negligence are in place.

The fact that the mortgage fails to comply with the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, in the absence of a contract signed by both the mortgagor and the mortgagee, as well as a mortgage deed that was complete at the moment it was signed, properly witnessed and accurately dated, renders the contract void under section 2; and the deed is void by way of section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925, for failing to comply with section 1(3) of the 1989 Act.

This provides you with a cause of action to attack the order for possession and the judgment which it was founded upon, on the ground that the entire mortgage transaction is a nullity because the mortgagee has failed to comply with its statutory obligations. In such circumstances, any judge who grants a possession order predicated on illegal mortgage documents also becomes liable for professional negligence, the moment he refuses to correct his errors of fact and law.

Furthermore, in the event that county court bailiffs are threatening to use force to enter your property, whilst you are in possession of it, it is you, not the bailiff, who has the inherent right under the long-established principles of Common Law to use reasonable force to defend yourself, your property and any other individuals on the premises at the time you are under the threat of unlawful aggression; and/or to prevent a crime from being committed, such as an aggressive stranger breaking and entering into your house whilst your wife and children are asleep in their beds.

Of course, the amoral, self-serving sophists who dominate the legal professions, as well some on so-called alternative forums, will no doubt smugly argue that the police would claim the authority to assist the bailiffs in the event that you did use reasonable force to defend your family and property, from people you regard as licensed pirates who are dead-set on stealing it from you, on the thoroughly nonsensical ground that in doing so you would allegedly be threatening to cause a breach of the peace, which would actually be caused by the bailiffs at the moment they caused you to believe that you were subject to the threat of their unlawful aggression, or that they were in the process of committing the crime of trespass on your property with violent intent.

Even if you are mistaken and the warrant they are enforcing is in fact a validly executed one, it does not affect your unalienable right to rely upon reasonable force as your defence to an allegation that you breached or were threatening to breach the peace; on the basis that it a legal impossibility for a man who has used reasonable force to be convicted of breaching the peace in so doing. In other words, Parliament, such as it is, has passed an act which purports to grant the right to use force in the pre-meditated prevention of an alleged crime, which the accused is necessarily incapable of committing in the very circumstances caused by such a course of action being taken by the police and the bailiffs.

The following form, known as the EX96, purports to grant the right to use force to bailiffs who have a validly executed warrant for possession, which they have been instructed by a claimant to enforce by any means necessary. However, in the cold light of winter’s day, this legal position is totally without merit in English Law, notwithstanding the fatally error-ridden 2008 Act and Parliament’s attempts to legislate a defence for court and police officers to carry out unconscionable and criminal acts of terrorism, violence and theft against the people of these islands, with apparent statutory impunity.

This gaping chasm in credibility of the statute, as well as the implicit incompetence or willful neglect by both the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, in advising HMG to enact the legislation as is stands, nevertheless renders every chief police officer who orders or allows people to be falsely arrested for alleged breaches of the peace, later to be released without charge, when they were doing nothing that could even give rise to such an accusation, both civilly and criminally liable under the Common Law, the applicability of which is, almost sardonically, affirmed by the very statute which seeks to apply it selectively, by paradoxically stating that reasonable force can be used in an act of pre-meditated aggression by officers of the crown, purportedly to prevent a crime, even in the event the officer cannot prove they had reasonable suspicion that it was taking place at the time the falsely accused was arrested.

This unlawfulness of this legal position is emphatically confirmed as being self-evident by the definition of the defence given in West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, which is indisputably taken from the elements of reasonable force established under the English Common Law:

The amount of force necessary to protect oneself or one’s property. Reasonable force is a term associated with defending one’s person or property from a violent attack, theft, or other type of unlawful aggression. It may be used as a defense in a criminal trial or to defend oneself in a suit alleging tortious conduct. If one uses excessive force, or more than the force necessary for such protection, he or she may be considered to have forfeited the right to defense. Reasonable force is also known as legal force.

A person is generally justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. The person is also generally justified in using such extreme force to prevent or terminate another’s unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling, if: (1) the entry is made or attempted in a violent manner and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent personal violence to himself or another then in the dwelling, or (2) he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

Furthermore, in the Joint statement by the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] and the Association of Chief Police Officers, as posted on the CPS website, it is stated that:

Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.

By enacting this piece of emphatically void legislation, Parliament has sought to dishonestly or incompetently convince the public, the police, the courts and their bailiffs that crown officers have the right to use reasonable force in the event that they purport to act under the authority of a court order, writ or warrant, whether illegally obtained, invalidly executed or otherwise, as long as they are acting in accordance with common practice of their professions. This effectively seeks to exonerate all officers of the crown from the consequences of the violent enforcement of thousands of illegal and fraudulent claims by demonstrably insolvent, covertly nationalised banks, in government-licensed criminal actions, which are tantamount to carrying out actions palpably calculated, at least in part, to bring about the physical destruction of all peoples deemed to be in mortgage arrears, under the definition given in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

It is the unmistakable mark of the beast, otherwise known as the totalitarian police state, which violently enforces the dictates of unaccountable persons unknown in Brussels, who are currently responsible for unilaterally passing an estimated 85% of “UK Law”, for the sole benefit of the moneyed aristocracy and its self-appointed, psychopathic, in-bred puppet-masters, to the extreme detriment of almost everybody else upon the Earth, as they click the shit-heels of their collectivist jack-boots, dressed in transparently fake and expensively worthless silk stockings, which were fearfully made by a ten year old slave labourer in the back-streets of Birmingham, from a factory-farmed sow’s ear which never felt the warmth of the Sun.

It is therefore abundantly clear that all void mortgagors who are kidnapped, incarcerated and then released without charge, by police officers who assist in the enforcement of unlawful aggression by county court bailiffs and high court enforcement officers, have the indisputable right to bring criminal and civil actions against every chief police officer who is responsible for sanctioning such scandalously oppressive policies, because the aggressors and their accomplices automatically forfeit the right to rely upon a defence of reasonable force under the Common Law, which the 2008 Act of Parliament nevertheless upholds as a defence for all those who are threatened by that very same act of unlawful aggression, on the shockingly simple basis that, much in the same way a Common Law Lien is a defence to a civil wrongdoing and therefore cannot be used to initiate a fresh claim, reasonable force cannot be legally, justly or morally claimed by the perpetrator of any violent or criminal act; and there is perhaps no act more oppressively violent, without causing actual or grievous bodily harm, than breaking into somebody’s home, falsely arresting and incarcerating them and then throwing them out on to the streets, once the home they raised their children in has been tinned up, the locks on the doors drilled out and changed, and their worldly possessions sold, damaged or destroyed at their own expense.

Whatever anybody might erroneously claim to the contrary, the inevitable result of finding oneself attempting to convince a judge to apply the statutory law of mortgages, is almost always the traumatic loss of property, directly caused by institutionalised criminal wrongdoings, fraudulently predicated upon the void possession orders of her majesty’s courts and unlawful legislation, given the force and effect of law by singularly self-serving people, who probably didn’t even bother reading the act the passed, despite the fact that they are being over-paid to do so.

Given these incontrovertible facts, there can be no reasonable doubt about the utter foolishness of entrusting your children’s future to the privileged political class, who pay off their void mortgages with the blood-money they steal from the people in taxes, before carelessly voting in favour of unjust laws that result in institutionalised crimes of genocide by eviction, in accordance with the policy of systematic indigenous displacement set out in Agenda 21.

So how much more are the people of these islands going to take? The next six months will determine the answer. How much you can affect the outcome is directly proportionate to the extent of your identification of exactly what the problem is, for the purposes of which I humbly submit this commentary and other content, with the gut-wrenching expectation that, in the sacred footsteps of our courageous and fearsome ancestors, we, the indigenous peoples of these islands, will ultimately not allow ourselves to leave such a dystopian legacy to our children. Those who do nothing will be fortunate not to be bitten by the serpent’s tooth of a thankless child, in the event they are helplessly enslaved to ever-increasing fraudulent debts, by genocidal tyrants dressed in Armani suits and vacant smiles, as a direct result of their parents’ determination to keep their heads down and hope for the best, when the jack-boots came down on their neighbours’ heads. If not now, when?

End Genocide Now

#TGBMS

Share: Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+4Share on LinkedIn0Share on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Share on StumbleUpon0Pin on Pinterest0Email this to someone
Posted in Equitability.