The following is a sanitised version of an active Tort claim against Nottinghamshire’s Chief Constable, Christopher Eyre, for damages resulting from the ‘Force’s’ various trespasses against the RM and RM2 over an 18 month period beginning in February 2010 and culminating on 7 November 2011 when both men were unlawfully evicted from their then home for the second time in a year.

In the interests of Truth and Justice, the actual names of the officers involved are used; after all, they are under oath to the serve the public and therefore are accountable for their actions ~  wearing a uniform does not make one immune from the law.

It is also worth mentioning that neither Claimants have any record, official or otherwise, of violence against others. This begs the question, why then did the Police force conspire to use such large numbers against the two men? As the astute reader will see, the only conclusion is that the Constable and his gang were fraudulently acting as privately-paid enforcers/unwitting dupes  for the Bailed-Out Bradford & Bingley and its then CEO, Richard Pym.

_______________________________________________________________________

In the matter between

RM (C1)
&
RM2 (C2), the Claimants (C)

V

Chris Eyre, for and on behalf of Nottinghamshire Police Force, Defendant (D)

_______________________________________________________________________

Particulars of Claim
The two men are seeking an award of damages pursuant to a series of Torts committed against them by the Defendant on three occasions: 24 February 2010 , 4 November 2010 and 7 November 2011. The Torts against the Claimants were:

Negligence: 3 counts
Trespass: 3 counts
Trespass with Conversion: 2 counts
Assault: 3 counts  
False Imprisonment: 2 counts [per man]
Malicious Prosecution: 1 count
Conspiracy to Defraud: 2 counts.

From 24 February 2010 to 4 June 2010, the Defendant committed acts of Negligence, Trespass with Conversion, Assault, False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution against both men [C], which arose out of an incident on 24 February at XX Exeter Road, Nottingham, [NG7 6LP] and detailed in the attached Exhibit, the Tort Complaint as served on the Chief Constable by Royal Mail Recorded post on 8 August 2012.

Before and on 4 November 2010, the Defendant committed acts of Conspiracy to Defraud, Negligence, Trespass, Assault and False Imprisonment against the men at XX Exeter Road, Nottingham, [NG7 6LP].

Before and on 7 November 2011, the Defendant committed acts of Conspiracy to Defraud, Negligence, Assault and Trespass with Conversion against the men and the property at XX Staples Street, Nottingham [NG3 5HR].

Background to these Proceedings
The claim is made on the basis that that the Chief Constable’s officers acted negligently and in so doing committed a series of Torts which caused injury to the claimants (C).

It is made only after the abject failure of D to settle the matter out of court via an offer of Independent Arbitration [ignored by D] and a private settlement via the D’s Professional Indemnification Insurance policy [the contact details of which D failed to provide, despite repeated request].

The irrefutable facts of the matter have been established beyond reasonable doubt, through the Private Record of the parties, which, without limitation, includes video evidence (DVD provided on 8 August 2012) four (unrebutted) affidavits and two witness statements,  all of which have been served on R by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery and/or email. (See CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, attached below)

The circumstances of the first incident:

On 27 January 2010, Scottish Power PLC made an application at Nottingham Magistrates Court for a Warrant of Entry to the property at xx Exeter Road [NG7 6LP]. This, it is averred, was a misrepresentation of the facts. The power company was claiming it was owed moneys, yet a standing order of some Thirty Pounds was still in effect and a number of good faith payments had been tendered directly to the then CEO, Nick Horler.

On the same day, prior to the issuance of the warrant, C1 made a  good faith application to Mr Graham Hooper, Clerk to the Justices, to have the warrant struck out on the basis the debt was disputed (See Exhibit 1).

This was received by an agent of the Court, “Worrall” at 0819.

In spite of this application the Court went ahead and issued a Warrant of Entry.

This Warrant of Entry expired on 23 February 2010.

Nevertheless, on 24 February 2010, Mr James Knight, an agent for Scottish Power/ Scot Call arrived at the property along with a locksmith, a gas fitter and an electrician.

He brayed on the door and demanded entry. When asked by C1 for the (null and void) warrant, he produced it and C1, having examined it, immediately contested its validity on the reasonable grounds he had made an application to have said warrant struck out and he did not believe it to be lawful as it was a photocopy of very poor quality bearing an indiscernible signature with no name.

Mr Knight asserted it was legal. He was told C1 did not consent to it and on that basis Scottish Power had clearly misrepresented the facts to the Court who had simply ‘rubber stamped’ it without considering the application to have the warrant application struck out. It is averred C1 was not going to consent to allowing him access to the property.

In the meantime, Mr Knight called the office at Scottish Power and confirmed that payments had been tendered and credited on the account, again, contrary to the information put forward to the Court.

In spite of this, he called R, Nottinghamshire Police Force.

Sometime after 1100, WPC 3117 WALBEY and PC 2xx5 ELLIS arrived at the address. By this time the second Claimant (C2) was filming the events.  A video of same was supplied to the CPS .

C1 pointed out to PC Ellis that the alleged debt was in dispute and, in any event, it was not possible to verify just who had signed the warrant and that, because of this, C1 did not accept the legality of said warrant.

PC Ellis  then looked at the warrant and, without lawful qualification, declared “Unfortunately, we accept that.”

It is a self evident fact that this was an act of Negligence by PC Ellis in which he failed in his duty of care towards C: he was not qualified to make a legal determination of the matter and his failure to apply due diligence caused loss and harm to the C.

As the video evidence demonstrates, it is self evident that PC Ellis then assaulted C1 by grabbing his upper arm and forced his way through the gate, with his handcuffs out, threatening to arrest him. As C1 knew this was an unlawful action, he resisted this and, as demonstrated in the video, repeatedly asked PC Ellis to leave as he was trespassing. The Constable refused to cure his trespass and continued to assault C1 in his unlawful attempt to arrest him.

At this point, fearing for the safety of his friend, C2 intervened and pulled PC Ellis away.

When PC Ellis had recovered, he attempted once again to perform what was an unlawful arrest ~ this time in the middle to the road. He pulled out a canister of pepper spray and threatened to use it on C1. Fearing for his safety, C1 ran down the street with the PC chasing him.

During the course of events, PC Ellis sprayed the gas at both C, clearly intending to cause them harm. Some of the spray did indeed reach C2 and he later requested medical assistance as a result of this attack. This is assault and battery is recorded in the Custody Record.

At this point more police constables arrived at the scene. PC 3182 Rigby chased C1 down the street and with excessive force, wrestled him to the ground causing him injury to his chin ~ again, this was examined and noted later by a medical officer at Oxclose Police Station and was recorded in the Custody Record.

Both C were unlawfully arrested and kidnapped by Nottinghamshire Police Force and falsely imprisoned.

In the meantime, Mr James Knight and his associates effected an unlawful entry to the house and fitted, without consent, ‘pre-paid’ meters.

On 25 February 2010 ~ C1 was released from his false imprisonment at Oxclose Police Station after some 24 hours of false imprisonment during which a number of his human rights were abused. (See Exhibit 2) He was charged with two counts of assault and one of obstruction. The custody record confirms his injury by way of PC Rigby’s use of unreasonable force.

On 26 February 2010 ~ C2 was released from the Court after some 48 hours of false imprisonment during which a number of his human rights were abused. (See Exhibit 3). The custody record confirms his injury by way of chemical battery. He was charged with one count of assault and one of obstruction.

There then followed a series of events which are detailed in the accompanying Chronology (and can be viewed on the DVD) during which the CPS was provided with video evidence and affidavits demonstrating beyond doubt that PC Ellis was the assailant and had no lawful basis for his actions. The CPS were encouraged at a number of points to drop the charges. They refused to do so, in spite of the evidence. This is to be taken as evidence of malicious prosecution as on,

3 June 2010 ~ @ Nottingham Magistrates Court ~ All charges were dropped by the CPS on the basis that Scottish Power PLC had effected an unlawful entry by way of a warrant that was null and void.

The reasons why we are alleging fault:

The officers were self-evidently incapable of making a legal determination of the validity of the VOID warrant and in claiming the contrary acted negligently.

There must be very good reasons for arresting a debtor on the grounds of preventing a breach of the peace, only a serious and imminent threat justifies arrest, Foulkes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [1998] 3 All ER 705.

Being founded upon a VOID warrant, this was  a ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires VOID act of a public body (Nottinghamshire Police Force), see Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] 1 Ch 502 and Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978] 3 WLR 1 and,

Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] in which the House of Lords confirmed that: (i) a void act is void from the outset; and (ii) no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem because doing so would mean reforming the laws which no Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament.

The officers used force and chemical weaponry against both men that constituted Assault occasioning actual bodily harm  and was unlawful either in every respect or as involving the use of excessive and violent force.

The arrest and detention of both men was founded upon a void warrant.

Both Men were held in police custody for an unreasonably long period (24 and 48 hours respectively).

The officers who were involved in both men’s arrests fabricated, in written statements and/or notebooks, an account of events giving rise to the arrest of both men in which they falsely alleged that the warrant for entry was valid, that they had been assaulted in the course of their duties, that obstruction had been committed which lead to both men’ prosecution. These statements were made by officers to mask their own wrongdoing in trespassing, assaulting and wrongly arresting both men.

The circumstances of the second incident:

At some time prior to 4 November 2010 the Defendant committed Conspiracy to Defraud the Man of his property when two officers Superintendent Mike Manley and Chief Inspector Ross Cook, both of Sherwood Lodge, Arnold, conspired to organise a covert operation involving a minimum of twenty-one constables against the Claimants at their home address of XX Exeter Road, Nottingham [NG7 6LP] whereby D was to assist the Bailiffs of Nottingham County Court commit trespass and assault against C and steal their home for and on behalf of the Bradford and Bingley PLC. This is affirmed by the Freedom of Information Request made subsequent to the shameful events.

On 4 November 2010, C were violently evicted from their home by officers operating under the command of the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police Force.

The afore-mentioned co-conspirator, Inspector Cook, was attendant on the day in question when he and said officers committed Trespass (with Conversion) and Assault in that they used violence against the peaceful inhabitants and their property.

The reasonS why we are alleging fault:

Inspector Cook, committed TWO acts of negligence: [1] he refused (when requested to do so) to investigate the County Court Order of a man called Richard Inglis, acting as a judge, of 27 October 2010 which ordered that Notice be served on C2 prior to any action against him and, [2] he refused to assist the Man who was in a life-threatening position on the window ledge of his home whilst being subjected to acts of violent assault by David Caress and Brian Busby (Bailiffs of Nottingham County Court). This was a clear breach of the Oath of a Constable. When the two officers came in, they assaulted the Man by violently pulling him through the window and falsely arresting him. The footage can be viewed here.

The attendant officer Inspector Cook and said officers committed Trespass with Conversion1 in that they used violence against the expressed wishes of the peaceful men who they violently evicted and the property was subsequently unlawfully sold.

Both men were falsely arrested and unlawfully imprisoned for NINE HOURS at Bridewell Police Station to be released without charge.

As a consequence of these torts, both men were rendered homeless and were unlawfully denied access to their property. As a consequence of D’s actions, C1 was robbed of his home and the equity therein.

The house was stolen by means of a Fraudulent and Void ab initio ‘Deed of Mortgage’ and without a lawful contract in place, contrary to s2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 and subsequently unlawfully sold in June 2011 at a fire-sale price, well below its commercial value of ONE HUNDRED AND TEN THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING at the date the torts were committed.

The circumstances of the third incident:

On 7 November 2011, the men were unlawfully evicted from their then home at Staples Street in Nottingham by D. Prior to that date, it would appear that D conspired to Defraud the Claimants of their home by once again planning a covert operation against the men. This is evidenced by the fact that the surrounding streets were cordoned off and that there were around TWENTY officers present, some of whom were dressed in the attire of ‘Riot’ officers.  Given the fact that neither men has any history of violence against others, this was a clear act of Intimidation and Trespass.

D committed Trespass [and acted in breach S.1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977] in that he used violence  against the expressed wishes of the peaceful inhabitants who they unlawfully evicted in order to gain entry to the property for and on behalf of the Bank and its agents.

After around five hours of siege whereby the bailiffs and the locksmiths failed to force their way in via the front door, Inspector Peakes informed the Man that he had been told on the phone by Richard Inglis, a man acting as a Judge at Nottingham County Court that he could and should use violence in order to gain entry. He had also separately informed C2 of this fact. There is video evidence to substantiate this fact.

At around 1630, in what was an entirely unlawful action, a van load of officers dressed in ‘riot gear’ used a battering ram to break through the back gate of the property and a crow bar to violently break and enter the home. This was taken as an act of TRESPASS. Inspector Peakes knew this to be so and sanctioned the action to the great loss of the Claimants and the woman, SB, the owner of the house.

The reasons why we are alleging fault:

Despite it being requested, at no point did Inspector Peakes produce a signed warrant of entry granting him the power to do so.

Both men made it plain to said inspector that the Warrant for Possession of Land as produced by the Bailiffs had been satisfied by way of payment at the Court by the second Claimant. Peakes was shown the paperwork and the receipt which proved this.  His failure to apply due process of law to this matter and investigate it further was an act of Negligence the consequence of which was so harmful to the Claimants who were rendered homeless by D for the second time in 12 months.

Peakes was informed on several occasions that the peaceful men objected to the use of violence against themselves and the property and he was asked by both men for protection in accord with the Constable’s Oath of Office. In breach of said, this was denied them.

It is averred that Inspector Peakes’ refusal to investigate the matter and protect the property from violence and the peaceful inhabitants from unlawful eviction was a dereliction of duty that clearly amounted to Malfeasance in Public Office. By refusing to leave when asked to do so, Peakes committed Trespass.

It is also a fact that this was the second time in the space of one year that the Defendant Assaulted the C and had used violence to unlawfully evict them.

It is also a fact that the unlawful actions of the Defendant resulted in both men (the Claimants) being rendered homeless by D for the second time in little over one year.

Wherefore, and upon the balance of probability, it is the men’s sincere belief that Christopher Eyre, the Defendant, for and on behalf of Nottinghamshire Police Force, has factually conspired on TWO occasions to commit acts of violence against them in order to deprive them of their property (the TWO homes).  By failing to investigate the facts on both occasions, the Defendant has perverted the course of justice in that had due diligence been applied none of the Torts would have been committed and no loss suffered.

History of Proceedings and Certification of Service

The men wish it to be known to the Presiding High Court Judge [whose honourable oath of public office they hereby accept] that they have attempted to settle this matter out of court and the Defendant has failed to respond with an appropriate offer of settlement and ignored any attempts to settle it through the offered Independent Arbitration and/or by way of his professional indemnification insurance and that THE PRIVATE RECORD OF THE PARTIES demonstrates the good faith attempts by C to do just that. It includes, without limitation, the following documents, each of which has been served upon D. None of the AFFIDAVITS has been rebutted.

1.  Affidavit: A Verified Plain Statement of Fact by RM2 served on 9th March 2010 by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery (ref ..GB) and,
2.  AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH: a verified plain statement of facts, by RM, served on 9th March 2010 by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery (ref …GB)] and
3. AFFIDAVIT: A VERIFIED STATEMENT OF THE FACTS, served on 25th March, 2010 by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery (ref AG…GB)
4.  NOTICE OF FAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE served on 18th May, 2010 by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery (ref AG…GB)
5. NOTICE OF DEFAULT, served on 23 May 2010 by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery (ref AG…GB)
6. TORT COMPLAINT (Our REF. NottsPolTort001 ), served via email on 2 August, 2012
7.  NOTICE OFFERING INDEPENDENT ARBITRATION served, via email on 29 August 2012.
8. LETTER OF CLAIM, via email 24 April 2013
9. NOTICE OF DEFAULT, via email 3 June, 2013
10.  NOTICE OF REJECTION OF OFFER, 14 June 2013
11. AMENDED CLAIM,  N1 CLAIM FORM [DRAFT] and AFFIDAVIT [DRAFT] of RM, served via email, 17 September 2013
12. NOTICE OF TORT CLAIM AT HIGH COURT, 25 October, 2013
13. NOTICE OF PENDING HIGH COURT APPLICATION, FURTHER REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE DETAILS AND FINAL OFFER TO SETTLE OUT OF COURT, 9 December 2013

CURE

1.  It is the wish of both men that the Court finds in their favour and awards damages commensurate to the great harm inflicted by the proven torts and,
2.  Exemplary damages in order to teach the Defendant that his wrongdoings are to be learned from in order to prevent further injury to members of the public.
3.  That costs be awarded to the C, and,
4.  That a general injunction be issued, preventing the Defendant making contact in any way with the two men and going within ten metres of their natural persons unless they have clear, lawful and demonstrable evidence that a crime has been committed. This injunction shall be for an indefinite period in order to allow the healing of the trespasses to occur naturally.
5.  A Court Order that any and all DNA, blood and other biological samples unlawfully taken by the Defendant from the men be immediately destroyed and the Defendant provide evidence that this action has been carried out in accordance with said wishes.

AFFIDAVIT OATH AND VERIFICATION

i, RM and i, RM2, both men under God, hereby certify that we have read Pages 1-8 of this affidavit & statement of case, and, to the very best of our knowledge, the facts contained herein are true, correct and complete, not misleading, and should be considered a verified plain statement of the facts as we perceive them. The use witnesses to this affidavit is for attestation and verification purposes only and does not constitute a change in status or entrance or acceptance of foreign jurisdiction.

Autographed and sealed this, the twelfth day of December, in the year known as two thousand and thirteen (2013).

Autographs:
__________________________  & __________________________
By: the men,  RM and RM2
Autographed in the presence of:

Witness 1: __________________________ Autograph ________________

Address: ______________________________________________________

Witness 2: __________________________ Autograph ________________

Address: ______________________________________________________