THOSE WHO FLOUT THE RULE OF LAW OR THOSE WHO INSIST ON IT BEING APPLIED?
The inherent extremism of the Land Registry, the Judiciary and the Conveyancing Solicitors.
Prior to the Second World War, it used to be the case that no eviction would have taken place across these lands without a County Court Jury deciding that, on the balance of evidence, the individual(s) tenant or mortgagor actually deserved to be on the receiving end of such an extreme course of action. (Citation required – could any reader who is able to point RM to the Act of Parliament that suspended the County Court Jury please get in touch, either by email or by way of the comments section below). Older generations, RM included, are thus more shocked than younger ones at the state of things in Britain right now, where families are being evicted daily on the say-so of a single judge sitting at the County Court.
It is an unconscionable state we are in when people are thus evicted from their homes on the bogus premise that unsubstantiated debts are actually due and owed.
Little wonder that the plans to privatise the Land Registry are being shelved.
“Plans for a sell-off of Land Registry have been dropped from legislation due to be introduced to parliament today” SOURCE
Due to the fact the Land Registry is complicit in this state of affairs (as are all those who act as conveyancing solicitors), massive indemnification is due to everyone who has had a void mortgage charge registered against their homes and it could run into billions of Pounds. The LR’s culpability lies squarely on its books under the Land Registration Act (2000), of which, Section 58 states:
“Conclusiveness (1) If, on the entry of a person in the register as the proprietor of a legal estate, the legal estate would not otherwise be vested in him, it shall be deemed to be vested in him as a result of the registration.”
What does this mean, in the simplest of terms?
That no one is the owner of the home until it has been registered. On this basis, an individual cannot grant a legal charge over a property/home until he has become the ‘registered’ owner. That means, quite logically, that the house has to be his in order for him to grant the charge via the Mortgage Deed.
It thus follows, in RM’s own case, that when his friend the conveyancing solicitor, dated the void Deed in his own hand on 08 August 1994, this was over a week after RM had signed it on 29 July, 1994. That meant he remained self evidently and, contrary to the false statement in the deed, not the “beneficial owner” of the referenced property and did not become so until the void charge was registered on 22 August, 1994. All of which renders it void ab initio because, at law, no right existed for RM to execute it prior to the registration.
So, what does the conveyancing solicitor advise him to do? He instructs the individual to sign a legal document in which he falsely claims, at the time of signing, that the property is his. In the majority of such ‘registrable dispositions’, the deed falsely states that he, as the “beneficial owner” agrees in writing that moneys were received from the bank (which makes it a false receipt), that he is the “borrower” and that he therefore has the legal standing to secure the (non-existent) “loan” against his property. None of which is true.
If the solicitor advising him were truly working in his interests (and not simultaneously representing the interests of the bank – as a clear a conflict of interests as could be imagined) then he would ask the following questions:
“Look, it states on here that you are the beneficial owner of the home. If that is the case, why do you require a loan? I thought you needed the money to buy the property? I have to say, as your legal advisor, that it smacks of fraud by misrepresentation. Are you sure you wish to go ahead because, if I were you, I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole. It’s as dodgy as fuck.”
“Also, have you seen this section on the reverse? The bank are claiming that they have an irrevocable power of attorney to create, sign and make any financial instrument and/or disposition for and on your behalf without your knowledge.
Do you realise that, at law, there is no such thing as an irrevocable power of attorney? In any event, there can be none unless there is a stand alone Power of Attorney that complies with the Powers of Attorney Act (1971).”
“Don’t you think it’s a bit strange that they (the bank) are instructing me, as your trusted legal advisor, to tell you that you shouldn’t date it? Or that it (the deed) doesn’t contain all the terms and conditions? You sign this, without dating it, and you’re leaving yourself wide open to forgery, counterfeiting and fraud on the simple basis that it’s clearly not complete.”
“What do you mean?”
“I mean it could be altered after you sign – they could add other terms and conditions, and insert all manner of clauses you don’t know about. For instance, if I alter it after you have signed it by filling in the date, that makes me open to an accusation of forgery as there is no law that grants me that power; regardless of the common practice of the conveyancing industry.”
“And where is the evidence that you are the borrower? Have you had the funds? Has any credit been transferred to your bank account?”
“There is none – I’ve seen nothing of the sort.”
“Exactly. I’m telling you this is a swindle – nothing about it adds up. Every aspect is a lie. Sign this document, which is false on its face, and, now I’ve told you, you would be complicit in a fraud. Do you really want to go ahead with it?”
Of course, no such conversation is ever likely to take place. Why?
For the simple reason that all those lawyers who proffer the fake advice that the mortgage agreement (which is rarely, if ever, in written contract form, signed by both parties, as required at law under s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1989) is legal/lawful are, at worst, guilty of fraud by misrepresentation. No such valid agreement is usually in existence – which amounts to a blatant act of negligence on the part of the conveyancing solicitor. Worse still, that solicitor is guilty of forgery.
All of which opens up the question as to whether the deed/charge is, as a consequence, a false instrument within the meaning of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.
Section 1, Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 states:-
“A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.”
In the simplest of terms – “false instrument” would be a deed/charge with a date added to it on a date later than the date upon which the deed/charge was actually signed by the mortgagor(s) and witnessed by an independent witness.
“Making a false instrument” would be the act of adding a date to a deed/charge on a date later than the date upon which the deed/charge was actually signed and witnessed, knowing it was not the actual date upon which it was signed and witnessed (as upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages ), as a person cannot give a deed/charge over property they do not own or are not the registered proprietor at H.M. Land Registry;
“with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine”
The behaviour of the conveyancing solicitor, the officers of the Land Registry and Her Maj’s Courts is extreme. It is extreme because of the lengths they all go to protect the big lie that is an inherent aspect of #TheGreatBritishMortgageSwindle. Who then, in reality, are the extremists? The ones who flout the law or those who insist on it being applied?
a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action: political extremists | [ as modifier ] : an extremist conspiracy.
Is it not the action of an extremist to evict someone over a fake debt? To throw families out on the street when there is no valid mortgage in existence? To falsely and negligently advise millions of people to grant charges over houses that were not theirs? Is the lawyer not an extremist in so far as he, knowingly or otherwise, advises people to enter into fraudulent land transfers? Is it not an extremist view to pretend that real loans take place when the credit is created by the individual? Is it not extreme to commit fraud?
What if we add into the mix the extremists who believe men should be locked in cages for growing a plant or harvesting wild mushrooms, or those who believe child rapists should be protected if they are rich and powerful enough to ‘merit’ it, those who vote to bomb other countries, those who sell arms to illegitimate leaders of fake countries like Saudi Arabia, those who practice Satanic black magic, those who impose a (mis)education system of brainwashing on the young, or those who think it is ok to sell off huge swathes of British industry to foreign corporations and decimate the communities upon which industries their livelihoods depend, those who practice zionism, those who justify compound interest rates on fake loans and those who inject poisonous vaccines into defenceless children – to name but a few?
From that perspective, it becomes ever clearer just who the extremists are. Extremism is also inherent in the statists who blindly accept the authority of fake governance when said governments are nothing but a puppet show run by the House of Rothschild for their own purposes.
Conclusion: We are living in state of extremism and the most dangerous extremists are those who wear the uniform of fake authority. All talk of extremism that fails to take any of the foregoing into account amounts to nothing more than the non-sensical ramblings of those who have, thus far, failed to pierce the veil of the illusory state they are living in.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Many thanks to the following for their kind donations and support, Rhys, Jan B, David R, Philip and Jeb. It’s truly appreciated.