“We got thrown out the house in a ridiculous raid, my mum was dragged down the stairs bruising her back and then dumped on the pavement in the rain and was told she can just lie there or piss off somewhere.[it] happened 5:30[am], no knocking at the door first, petrol grinders attackin both front and back, same HCEO company “the sheriffs office”, the one who assaulted me before and broke in.”
The above statement was sent to me by my friend, Mike [M.P.A.], following the terrifying and violent eviction of himself and his mother Elizabeth, by the corporatist police state, in protection of the interests of a criminal banking enterprise.
This terrorist attack on their home took place before dawn and without notice, on Tuesday 07/01/2014, despite the fact that Mike and Elizabeth have emphatically demonstrated to the Land Registry and Her Majesty’s Courts that the bankster in question does not have a valid and legally enforceable mortgage to enforce and has committed fraud in procuring the void possession order, which was enforced upon the order of the High Court in spite of the facts.
If it does not make you angry that such tyranny is carried out on these shores so routinely by thugs with guns, tasers and petrol grinders, then you are clearly content to risk such blatant criminality landing on your doorstep without warning in the middle of the night.
Only the people can put an end to such tyranny. Anybody telling you anything else is selling you snake-oil.
Declaration of Requirement for Immediate Restitution of stolen property and Revocation of Consent to Jurisdiction
The People’s Court of Public Record comes to recognise that on the 05th February 2014:
1. District Judge Lynch ordered possession of the property known as 78 Lyndale Road, Coventry [CV5 8LQ] [the “Property”] on 13th August 2012.
2. Deputy District Judge Edden Ordered a transfer of the possession claim to the High Court Queen’s Bench Division and permission to seek a Writ of Possession on 25th July 2013
3. The High Court of Justice Croydon District Registry Queen’s Bench issued a Writ of Possession under claim number 3CR93336, on 15th August 2013.
4. Deputy District Judge Naish granted NRAM, in an order dated 7th November 2013, permission to request a Writ of Restitution from the High Court Queen’s Bench Division.
5. The High Court of Justice Croydon District Registry Queen’s Bench issued a Writ of Restitution under claim number 3CR93336.
6. On 07th January 2014 District Judge Davies Ordered that the claim 3BM30580 for Fraud-Upon-The-Court be dismissed in the absence of the parties, for the reasons:
a. That the claimants seek to litigate issues already decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.
b. That the claimants have been refused permission to appeal
c. That there is no evidence of fraud on the part of the defendant and no evidence from which fraud can be inferred.
d. That the claimant’s application was an abuse of process as it sought to deprive the defendants of the benefit of an order made by a court of competent jurisdiction.
e. That disclosure of documentation relating to securitisation of the mortgage is not relevant to the issues in these proceedings.
The Peoples Court of Public Record now renders District Judge Davies order VOID AB INITIO due to the following;
7. In relation to 6a – The issue of the defendant having obtained an order by deception could only be determined once it has obtained the order; therefore the court at the time could not have dealt with the issue of fraud-upon-the-court as the defendant had not yet been successful in obtaining an order from the court.
8. In relation to 61 – Following the maxim ‘In propria cuusa nemo judex. No one can be judge in his own cuase.’ District Judge Lynch could not make a decision regarding the dubious practices of the conveyancing solicitor having himself partaken in the practice previously.
9. Given the present claim is specifically raised issues regarding the standing of the defendant to have brought proceedings in the court in the first instance and sought to obtain disclosure regarding these material facts, highlights the lack of due process on the basis that an order for disclosure would provide evidence to prove the claimants position. To deny such disclosure amounts to a breach of due process and the perversion of the course of justice.
10. Following the maxim ‘Bonum judex secundum aequum et bonum judicat, et aequitatem stricto juri praefert. A good judge decides according to justice and right, and prefers equity to strict law. Co. Litt. 24.’ It would be right to follow due process and grant an order for disclosure, on the basis that, no disclosure nor substantiated evidence was presented before District Judge Lynch resulting in an order for possession based on hearsay.
11. The supporting Memorandum from Carmel Butler to the treasury select committee in 2009 clearly demonstrates how the defendant has been selling on its mortgage products and therefore has no standing to bring a claim it its own name ( see ,, , of the memorandum).
12. Disclosure of the required accounting would further demonstrate the claimant to be the creditor to the bank and not the debtor (see , of the memorandum).
13. In relation to 6d – the claimants’ application sought only a stay in the acquisition of their home by violent means by the defendant pending disclosure and a proper investigation of the issues which is entirely reasonable given the conduct of HMCTS in repeatedly denying due process and a proper exploration of the facts. Thus all orders of HM Judiciary have thus far been VOID ab initio according to Observance of due Process of Law 1368 ‘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’.
14. The order transferring proceedings for enforcement made by Deputy District Judge Edden is ultra vires on the basis that s.21(3) County Courts Act 1984 defines the county court as having sole jurisdiction to determine matters relating to a residential mortgaged property, and s.42 of the 1984 Act does not grant authority to either the county nor the high court to transfer proceedings for enforcement. This point being expressed in the cases of Platform v Easeman  and Yorkshire Bank v Hall  both as High Court and Court of Appeal decisions they were binding on DDJ Edden.
Demand for Restitution and Declaration
15. In accordance with the maxims ‘Lex nemini facit injuriam. The law does wrong to no one. Lex nemini operatur iniquum, nemini facit injuriam. The law never works an injury, or does him a wrong. Jenk. Cent. 22.’ We require the immediate restitution of our property as lawfully ours namely the property known as 78 Lyndale Road Coventry, on the basis that we have been wrongly deprived of our property contrary to the Observance of due Process of Law 1368.
16. We require amendment of the order of 7th January 2014 by District Judge Davies to the effect that a) the Property be restored to its rightful owners and proprietors as we were in peaceful possession of the property b) an order be made for disclosure regarding the securitisation of our mortgage and disclosure of the accounting ledger for the advance c) the case be put to trial before a jury on the basis that the defendant has in seeing possession become liable for the criminal acts of using violence to secure possession – a criminal act, and clearly in breach of s.1 Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and s.6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.
17. Be it known that should HM Courts and Tribunal Services fail to produce an order for restitution of property, we hereby declare that we revoke any consent given to HMCTS to adjudicate over this matter on the basis that HMCTS has failed to provide true and just remedy. A justice system that fails to deliver justice is void ab initio and we do not recognise it as having any standing.
18. We will therefore, subject to the court producing an order for restitution of our property, dispute the courts’ jurisdiction and ability to provide justice, declaring that we no longer consent to HMCTS jurisdiction.
19. Failing an order for restitution one will only be able to conclude that HMCTS by not ordering disclosure is complicit in concealing a fraud.
In such a case, our only remedy will be to bring fresh proceedings before a Grand Jury for the criminal and violent acts of theft of our home, the fraudulent practices of the defendant in obtaining orders for possession and HMCTS for its acts in being complicit to the fraud under the maxim ‘Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270.’
This Demand for Restitution and Declaration is made by deed by Zbigniew Jerzy of the Albert family and Elzbieta Krystyna of the Albert family, lawful proprietors of 78 Lyndale Road, Coventry.