Is the current judicial system dead? In this RogueCast from Rock Cemetery, Nottingham, I posit that it is and that we are witnessing the death of ‘UK’ Justice.
It is well-known that the UK courts operate through the incorporated dead ‘persons’, the incorporated ALL-CAPITALS NAME and that this is your ‘legal fiction’.
It is, therefore, most appropriate that this subject is ruminated upon on a site given over, at least ostensibly, to the dead, whose names are chiselled into the masonry of the tombstones.
it is You, namely, the individual soul that is inside the biological meat-suit (that the false religion of Statism deceptively and incessantly programmes you to believe is the real you), that is the antidote to all the tyranny and madness that is afoot right now.
Don’t swallow the collective scripts, get out there, take action, engage your pen as your sword and make your non-consent loud and clear. Far from making you a target, taking action backed by the truth will empower you.
There is truly nothing to fear other than fear itself. As an immortal being, nothing can harm you.
Realise you are in the fight of your life and a battle against the Globalists who would enslave you and your progeny, as declared by the head-puppet of the WEF, Klaus Schwab.
Know that the only way to counteract the lies and deceptions is to speak the truth and refuse to back down.
If you are in Court, don’t hold back – if the original mortgage deed cannot be provided then there is no claim against you. Arm yourself with the Lien’s factual discoveries – no evidence of a loan, no valid contract, the deed is a fraud on its face, only an officer of the bank can provide a witness statement testifying to any loan or debt being existent, rendering the legal representations of the likes of TLT and Ascent an outright lie and threaten the paraglegals who signed it with perjury (which is exactly what they are engaging in).
Our legal system is supposed to be founded upon logic, reason and a fair trial. However, every day, every court is issuing orders that are founded in the opposite – illogical decisions abound, judges rely on fallacy and fair hearings are rare.
In MacFoy v United Africa Company Limited [1961] 3 All ER 1169 page 5 of the judgment, Denning LJ famously expressed the difference between a void and voidable order:
This is the same as saying that it was void and not merely voidable. The distinction between the two has been repeatedly drawn. If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad.
There is no need for an order of the court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the court declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.”
In this Rogue Cast I once again document the latest example of a void order in the matter of Nat West vs Steve – please visit this link for a background to the case.
Thank you for your support. Should you wish to show your appreciation for the work at Rogue Male, then please Buy me a coffee and leave a comment.
All the very best and a big thank you to David R for his sponsorship of the site.
The judgment does not rule the difference between a void and voidable order. Lord Denning was referring to the delivery of a ‘statement of claim’. They are two completely different legal documents and his judgment has been taken out of context. This is a perfect example of the need to read the whole judgment for oneself to determine if what is being claimed.
Whilst MacFoy v United Africa Company Limited [1961] 3 All ER 1169 was ostensibly about whether a statement of claim issued in the ‘long vacation’ of the summer months, was voidable or a nullity, it is clear that, as a point of law, it is most certainly relevant to a situation where a judge has formulated a void order that is founded in error. The logic and reasonsing is clear: the service of the claim was voidable (see page 3) but the appeal was denied because the Defendant failed to apply to have it set aside within the stated timeframe.
“[…] it has been held that it only applies to proceedings which are a nullity: for those are automatically void and a person affected by them can apply to have them set aside ex debito justiticae in the inherent jurisdiction of the Court without going under the Rule, see Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888)20 Q.B. 764, Craig v. Kanssen [1943] K.B. 256.
As is perfectly clear, it is fallacious to suggest that something can be built on nothing and, when it is, it will collapse.
In this matter, on the basis that Nat West’s possession claim is fraudulent, for the reasons stated in the Defence and Counterclaim (which has not been heard) and that Steve cannot hear and has been unable to take part in the purported hearings, the entire proceedings are null and void.
That the judge has ignored the fact of Steve’s hearing disability, means he is attempting to rely on a possession order that has been built on a nullity. That is as clear an example of a void act (the issuance of the posseession order) as it gets and I would assert that the cited case is applicable as it most certainly does distinguish between an act that is merely voidable rather than a nullity (void).
In summary, a void order arises from a fundamental mistake, or from a “fundamental defect in proceedings”, or if such order was made “contrary to the rules of natural justice”. In Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] Upjohn LJ expressed that:
The judgment enforces the fact that a fundamental defect renders the decision a nullity. A fundamental defect must first however be proven to be fundamental to the proceeding and irredeemable for the precedent to take effect.
Your comment is an example of one that fails to consider the logic and higher reasoning contained in the McFoy judgement.