Bailiff Operator Manual -2012

Re: Bailiff Operator Manual -2012

Postby 1965freeman » Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:22 pm

Read very carefully section 6.
"Section 6 – District Judges’ liability for county court Bailiffs"

"District judge’s have a legal responsibility for the ‘acts and defaults’
of Bailiffs. Although district judge’s have this statutory responsibility
for Bailiffs, you have the administrative responsibility for giving
instructions in difficult situations. In all circumstances Bailiffs who
have technical or procedural issues should refer the issues to their
Bailiff Manager."


Aside the elementary grammatical error ("judge's" (possessive) as opposed to "judges" (plural)) it confirms one of the dictionary definitions of a 'warrant' (under which County Court Bailiffs act) as 'an instrument that indemnifies the holder from civil action for an act THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE ILLEGAL"

No 'piece of paper' can ever protect anyone from carrying-out an UNLAWFUL act - we are ALL individually responsible for our (criminal) actions.

Interestingly enough, you won't find this vital finger-pointing evidence of liability on ANY of the MoJ's pages, nor in any statute.

If we use the example of county court Bailiffs executing a warrant of eviction, or 'restitution':
It seems that we have clear admission that the 'Court' (District Judge) are fully aware that the Bailiffs ARE committing an ILLEGAL act - otherwise there would be no need for a 'warrant' to cover their arse, would there?
Not to worry though folks, you will find that the judiciary have covered their arses very nicely with 'judicial immunity' - meaning that no-one can sue a Judge over a civil matter if the judge was acting in their judicial capacity at the time of the alleged illegal act.
So, you "can't sue" the Bailiff themselves as they are acting under a 'get-out-of-civil-liability-free card' (warrant) and the individual who is actually carrying the can for their illegal acts is covered by 'judicial immunity' - allegedly (according to the MoJ website) "in the interests of protecting the judiciary's 'independence'. Brilliant, bloody brilliant.....
Nothing, of course, prevents one from starting a private CRIMINAL prosecution against those involved....

County 'Courts' = The mafia, with enhanced paperwork........
"Come to the edge, he said. They said: We are afraid. Come to the edge, he said. They came. He pushed them and they flew.” (G.Apollinaire)
I do not offer legal advice, I offer common sense suggestions based on shared knowledge.
User avatar
1965freeman
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:55 am
Location: East Sussex

Re: Bailiff Operator Manual -2012

Postby musashi » Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:20 am

A judge acting in his legal capacity is outside of the tort retort cycle. Acting outside of his capacity he is liable. He is also vicariously liable for the tort of others acting on his judicial order.

A bailiff executing a defective warrant/order is not liable for the tort he may work but the judge who excerised power of signature is, if the order was outside of his scope of office. Just as a constable is not liable for a defective warrant signed by another.

A bailiff committing a tort vicariously incriminates the authority he was working under. Thus, in your example, a District Judge is liable if the bailiff works a tort while executing his lawful/legal order.
The supporting legal source for this is in my currently mountainous pile of riffled through papers. I will post the reference here when I have had sleep, breakfast and a roll up with an unnaturally hot cup of tea, and search through them.

Meantime, think of the order/warrant as a Bill of Exchange. Anyone who endorses the Bill is liable on the Bill. Why do you think there are so many warrants and orders and things going out with no signature? Because anyone who endorses the warrant/bill/order is liable because they are working a tort by acting against a man.

The police, the Bailiff, and the authority they acted under, are all equally liable under a tort. All may be sued successfully. There are precedents and I'll post these later.

All acts against a man are torts. They are justified by rule of law, delegated authority, power of signature and a claim upheld by due process - else the true criminal could not be punished and we, the people, could not be protected.

A constable who arrests you works a tort on you. If his claim is upheld against you then he is, by virtue of his office and the validity of his claim, outside of the cycle of tort and retort. Just so with a civil arrest although, unlike the constable, you are not allowed to make a mistake.

Counter claim arises when his claim is not upheld. Then he has worked a tort on you, is in the cycle and liable on the claim. Your proof of claim is his failure of claim.

All officials who work torts on a man as part of their daily business are outside of that cycle while they remain within their scope of office, and act according to law and due process. This is as it should be, else who would do the job of dispensing justice, maintaining our peace, protecting our rights and our property?

And don't forget that creditors have rights also, and if a man is truly owed a debt then he should have the right and the lawful process by which to enforce the debt. We would want it so if we were the creditor. The system is not the problem.

Musashi.

.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Bailiff Operator Manual -2012

Postby musashi » Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:07 pm

As promised, here is the legal precedent regarding liability of authority.

If a police constable aids a bailiff to gain forceful entry by using a police power of entry, then nothing that follows is valid and the police force is jointly liable for damages with the authority the bailiff is working under the precedent set by the case of Skidmore v Booth [1834] 6 C&P 777. The constable is personally liable for damages in a civil claim following Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Limited [2001] UKHL 22 and may also be subject to a disciplinary action.

The authority the bailiff is working under is the one who signed the order/warrant.

A person refusing entry or asking the bailiff to leave is not committing a breach of the peace. If a bailiff refuses to leave when asked, the occupier can lawfully use reasonable force to remove him and the bailiff resisting is the person guilty of a breach ofthe peace and must be arrested. Foulkes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [1998] 3 All ER 705

The constable must check the bailiffs certificate and his warrant and if he is unable to show both documents then the constable is required to place the person under arrest for committing an offence under 125b of the County Courts Act 1984 or Section 78(7)of the Road Traffic Act 1991 or Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, as he is required to carry them in an intelligible form when attending a debtors address Buller's Case [1587] 1 Leonard 50 or Andrews v Bolton Borough Council [2011] HHJ Holman,Bolton county court, June 2011


"forced entry" given in Halsbury's Laws of England loose leaf edition vol.1 paragraph 9.128 which is originally from the judgment by Sir Edward Coke in the case of Semayne v Gresham [1604] Yelverton 29 or Seyman v Gresham [1604] Croke, Elizabeth 809 or P.18 Ed.IV fo.4 pl.19, which states "A bailiff in execution of a warrant or a writ CANNOT make forcible entry to a dwelling house unless and until he has completed seizure of the goods in consequence of the first entry".

It may be beneficial to read, or re-read, my previous post on this thread regarding the tort retort cycle.

Musashi.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Bailiff Operator Manual -2012

Postby musashi » Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:45 pm

The new Act coming into force on 6th April does confer powers on the police to assist a bailiff in a levy.

That needs to be challenged in court.

However, as things stand, a bailiff can only force entry to levy for four reasons
1. He has a walking possession agreement,
2. The levy is for tax.
3. The levy is for stamp duty.
4. The levy is for unpaid criminal fines.

Musashi.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm


Return to Bailiffs & Debt Collection Agencies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron