Warrants Liability Orders;

Lawful/Legal Document Authentication

Documents and things may be evidence for seizing property, assets, evictions or other infringements on someone’s rights IF;

and only IF they are authenticated.

Otherwise they're just "stuff".

Stuff can't hold authority or liability, which means the Constable is taking liability for a document he/she has no means of verifying, without seeing an original authenticated document in person. To do so would be in Breach of their Oath and break the terms of their indemnity insurance so they become personally liable, that is why this is a Civil Matter. At that point you should ask to speak to the Constable that they would refer to as Inspector remembering that even the Inspector or Chief Commissioner is still a Constable to you. Let them know that a Constable is in the process of potentially committing the Common Law crimes of Legal Entrapment and Uttering which would be a headache for the whole constabulary and it would be best if he called them back to assess the situation of comes down to understand the liability for himself.

Please note the crime of Uttering;

Under English common law, uttering is when a person, man or woman offers as genuine, a forged instrument with the intent to deceive, betray and steal.

Uttering is a crime involving a person with the intent to wilfully knowingly, defraud, that knowingly sells, publishes or passes a forged or counterfeited document. More specifically, forgery creates a falsified document and uttering is the act of knowingly passing on or using the forged document. "Any person who utters and publishes as true any false, forged, altered or counterfeit record, deed instrument or other writing specified, knowing it to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeit, intent to injure, or defraud through deception, can also be seen as high treason in English Common Law in certain applications.

Please ensure for yourself and your colleagues, that you are send self-authenticating documents in the future, with courts seals and signatures and not a false document with the 'County Court' rubber stamps or stating that the official documents are held out of sight.

The Crime of Legal Entrapment;

Legal Entrapment is getting someone to provide their name and address in an attempt to then process them as a legal fiction, rather than to the Constable’s Oath, under The Criminal Justice Act 2015 Section 26 Subsection 3 this is a serious criminal offence.

Authentication in General

Authentication is critical in any application, especially where someone’s rights need to be breached, or an offence against property executed under a warrant.

It's a bad day when you come to work with a "copy" of a document, thinking what it says is all you need to win/get a result. Your reputation and career will nose dive if you bring an ipad, phone, tablet, laptop, photocopy, printed copy.

In court this would be an "Objection. Authentication."

The judge says, "Sustained!"And, your case goes down the drain.

No evidence. No case. No authority for seizure of property.

To paraphrase America’s federal Rule 901, you must show that your stuff is what you claim it is.

So how is this done?...

Self-Authenticating Documents

Some documents are self-authenticating. Certified copies of papers bearing the court/clerk's seal and Judge’s wet ink genuine signature are self-authenticating. This proves that the Judge is taking personal liability for the fact the evidence has been seen and ratified and they are happy that you have committed an offence whereby a trespass on your rights is permitted in the form of searches, arrests, property seizures or evictions.

Documents under seal are always admitted ... if the information they contain is relevant.

Always watch for relevance. Be aware of Fraud!

Don't accept"copies" of official papers without original seal or original signature of an authorised individual.

Copies of seals and signatures do not constitute a valid warrant.

Basic logic, something similar is NOT the same.

Case Law as Evidence and Proof of Warrants;

Proof that Warrants need to be signed;

In R v. Clarke and McDaid [2008] UKHL8 the House of Lords confirmed that there is no valid trial if the bill/Indictment has not been signed by an appropriate officer of the Court because Parliament intended that the Indictment be signed by a proper officer of the Court so liability is traceable and underwritten by due process and record.

A void order results from a ‘fundamental defect’ in proceedings (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard [1963]1 Ch 502 and Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978] 3 WLR 1) or from a ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act of a public body or judicial office holder (Lord Denning in Pearlman v Governors of Harrow School [1978] 3 WLR 736).

To destroy the constitution is treason. R v Thistlewood 1820

A ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act is any act which a Court did not have power to do (Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978]).

As per the Bill of Rights 1889 nothing can be done without a jury of your peers in court, so any warrant, especially digital, is fraud, demand details of the jury, the judge, the justice of the peace, and anyone else involved.

You must not take or attempt to take control of any of my goods unless you provide 7 days clear notice in accordance with Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, Schedule 12, Part 1, paragraph 7, and The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, section 6

In reference to a hearing in chambers on 16th December 2022 Kings Bench, London, a Judge ruled

unsigned warrants illegal. As this was in chambers there isn't a listing, but there is a reference number. Case number KB2022004907

Download Court Orders and Warrants of Control