BRITISH COURTS UNDER FOREIGN CONTROL (Pt 2)

According to Common and Constitutional Law, the County Courts, which preside over mortgage possession hearings to rubber-stamp the fraudulent possession claims that the lying firms of solicitors like TLT and Ascent Debt Collection bring on behalf of their masters, have no jurisdiction.

Halsbury’s on Administrative Law 20-11: states it thus,

The law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is no authority for administrative courts in this country and no act can be passed to legitimise them.”

In Part One, I wrote about the farcical nature of Deputy District Judge Oliver Nunn‘s fallacious attempt to hold a Hearing when one of the parties could not hear.

In his refusal to listen to reason, Oliver Nunn (above), the man acting as deputy district judge, took the foolish decision to

“plough on regardless with the inevitable consequence (of which he had been warned) that he illogically and purportedly ‘decided’ that photocopies and electronic scans of the incurably fraudulent Mortgage Deed were perfectly acceptable, even when fraud is being alleged as is the case here.” Source

It is important to remember that Steve, the alleged defendant, has material evidence of the fraud that the claimant Nat West Plc is relying upon in order to steal his home.

In so doing, its claim is reliant only on photocopies and electronic scans as it is not the Holder-In-Due-Course of the original deed of mortgage.

This valuable instrument is a key component in the Great British Mortgage Swindle. The fact that the alleged lender, despite repeated request, will not provide it is damning on all parties, including the court and the judge, as the lawful presumption must be that it is not in its possession.

For the possession claim not to be dismissed on the basis the claimant cannot provide this key proof of claim is contrary to Common and Constitutional Law, as well as common sense. As Steve stated for and on the record,

Would a photocopy of a V5 (Vehicle ownership doc, used in UK) be acceptable as proof of ownership?

Oliver Nunn, spluttered that this was not the same thing and not relevant in this matter.

This is, of course, nonsense but, of equal significance, is the fact that by denying Steve his remedies under the laws of these lands and imposing a fairy tale realm of financial cartel jurisdiction, where the claimant does not have to provide the actual documents to substantiate its claim, Oliver Nunn, whether he knows it or not, is a man, acting as a judge, in an unlawful administrative court, who is complicit in imposing foreign beneficial interests over British jurisprudence. That makes him a traitor.

Mind you, I have been asserting this point for some time, so let’s move onto how the bogus claim against Steve fits into the Globalist Game of Bolshevik Totalitarian control.

Let us first remind ourselves of the 750 year old Observance of due Process of Law 1368, section 3 which states:

“None shall be put to answer without due Process of Law. 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 sometime 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 clause stating

” 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”

stands to this day as the time immemorial lawful remedy which should, on its own, be sufficient to apply the fatal blow to the entire racket that is TGBMS.

In the words of Klaus Schwab, the unelected dictatorial Rothschild mouthpiece of the World Economic Forum,

“You vill own nothing and you will be happy,” .

But how could this possibly come about?

The following is taken from a book by David Rogers Webb, “The Great Taking”, a copy of which can be downloaded at the foot of this article.

If we go back some 20+ years we will recall the time of ‘credit expansion’ and how the notorious sub-prime mortgage swindle held out a bait and switch whereby the mortgagor would be tempted into the criminal mortgage ‘deal’ by an offer of a fake loan above the market value of the property purchase, with the excess offered to the duped customer, as ‘cash-back’.

This had a purpose that was world-wide in its intent and its scope:

“How was debt expanded while credit conditions were deteriorating? It was necessary to create a massive, audacious illusion: that was no risk, specifically that there need be no concern about the ability of borrowers to repay financial obligations. The Scheme worked so well that banks discontinued their risk underwriting functions, wile offering mortgages for more than the purchase price of a home […]

“

 

The entire global financial system was moved aggressively to origination and securitisation of loans into Asset-Backed Securities (ABS), and to filling balance sheets with these securities. With the illusion of risk free return, demand for these ABS was so high that they were sold many times over on a synthetic basis, i.e. , as derivative instruments.

 

“Invented in the 1990s, ABS were created by forming a pool of financial obligations (e.g, mortgages, credit card receivables, boat loans) and then carving up the pool into a series of tranches with ascending risk ratings. The idea was that any defaults would be absorbed by the lowest-rated tranches. This would allow the highest tranche to be rated AAA.”

 

“… I eventually uncovered that ownership rights to securities, which had been personal property for four centuries, had somehow been subverted. This was born out in the bankruptcies of Lehman Brothers and MF Global.”

Webb states that a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission SEC report

“recommended changing from processing physical stock certificates to ‘book-entry’ transfers of ownership via computerised entries in a trust company that would hold the underlying certificates ‘immobilised’. p41

Now you see it, now you don’t…

What we are looking at here, both in Steve’s case and on a world-wide level, is the dematerialisation of paper assets, which are now, like Rapunzel, locked away in a Bolshevik Tower of financial control.

That is why the judge did not like the term Holder-in-Due-Course. The original security is irredeemable, according to the dematerialisation of paper securities into the vaults of such entities as DTC and the Bank of International Settlements.

The bank, a subsidiary of the DTC etc, is attempting to apply legal immunities granted to the Too Big To Fail international cartel at the expense of the British people’s Common and Criminal Law protections.



“Euroclear is one of two European International Central Security Depositories (ICSD), the other being Clearstream. The Brussels office of Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York (Morgan Guaranty) founded the Euroclear System in December, 1968. Morgan Guaranty began operating as JP Morgan in 1988.”

 

A Euroclear memorandum sent by Diego Devos, the Deputy General Counsel for said company, regarding ‘European Legal Harmonisation’ recommended,

 

“Removal or modification of requirements that do not recognise the multi-layer holding structure that is the norm in cross-border activity, including,

 

Recognition in the EU of the pooled holding of registered assets through a nominee structure(and the different nature of legal and beneficial ownership) in order to keep registered securities on a fungible basis at local level and protection of the rights of the nominee;

 

Elimination or modification of requirements that directly or effectively require the maintenance of individual records or accounts per beneficial owner”

However, all that is dependent, according to DRW, on there being “no resistance” and he is right in his assertion that a small number of individuals resisting the tyranny will be all that it takes to bring about its inevitable collapse, as the entire dungheap is built on fraudulent financial securities.

For those with the eyes to see and ears to hear, resistance to any and all globalist diktats is rising, in all its forms, every day. The inevitable consequence of which is that when – not if –  sufficient numbers resist the theft of their homes and demand an end to the unlawful courts of administration, the entire racket will collapse.

What we can individually do about this will be the subject of Part 4 of this series.

In the meantime, if you are able, please consider making a donation via the Buy Me a Coffee button in support of my work in exposing the Great British Mortgage Swindle and the other various scams that hold sway in this crazy realm. All the best to each and every reader, especially David R who has supported my efforts for a number of years now.

Book downoad of The Great Taking by David Webb