March 20, 2011

An Unlawful Arrest

And the judge agreed.

I haven't seen it all. My interweb access is shitey today.

I have watched it all now. Obviously I am two days late, but the write-up below follows the arrest and the court appearance. I will try to dig out a case number. It is important for us all to know the lawful procedures.

This is a write-up from a member of TPUC:



WHY (you are going to love this!)

We have been stating (as has Max) that Warrants, Court Orders, Liability Orders and the like HAVE GOT TO BE SIGNED in ink!

As most of you saw Max was arrested Friday and appeared in Court Saturday.

This case was spectacular for TWO Reasons!

1. The Police Seargeant, On Record, In The Court explained how Devon & Cornwall Police and Torquay Magistrates Court are owned and run by a US Subsidiary of IBM called RELIANCE INC. - So .. proof positive that we are dealing with corporations!

2. (And this is the killer) When arrested Max protested that the "Warrant" that the Sergeant "alleged" he had for Max's arrest was not signed and therefore wasn't lawful.


So we now have a precedent that we can quote where we can clearly state and prove that warrants, liability orders and the like MUST BE SIGNED IN WET INK!

A document with no signature ... doesn't count.

Big congrats to Max for taking the stand and to Sarah Goldsmith who has kept us to date with all this.

Fantastic Job Guys!"

Every time we learn their rules and grow a set, we prove that we are right. 99% of people are totally unaware that they are being scammed. They are being gaoled unlawfully. Kudos to Max and the judge who agreed he was right.

Expect more of this. Much more.

Tip of the beret to George who mentioned this in my last post and prompted me to go looking for the story.



GoodnightVienna said...

Fantastic - have added your link to a post I've just done about bailiffs.

Captain Ranty said...

Cool, thanks.

I am just watching the vid at your place.


Christopher - Conservative Perspective said...

Captain, This is disturbing to say the least but have done some searching on IBM and Reliance and find no connection (at least disclosed).

Can you provide any info so I can do more from my end (US) being if it happening in the UK it is here as well and the need to get the word out accurately is of the utmost importance.

Anonymous said...

Have just found this FOI request.

mescalito said...

was it a magistrates court?

if so, precedents are not set in magistrates courts but still an amazing success.

so doesn't that mean he no longer has to pay council tax?

whatever said...

Please point me towards some official court documentation that verifies the account given.

Like Mulder, I want to believe -- but all we have here is hearsay.


mescalito said...

be patient my friend these things take time to get hold of, i too need to see the records before i can celebrate, this is big news.

Captain Ranty said...

Christopher, Mesc, Anon,

I too need evidence.

Keep your eye on this:

And we will soon have the answer.

I am checking other sources and will run the story when I have two verifiable sources.


Captain Ranty said...

IBM is not built on rainbows, lollipops and pixie dust.

Got a few links for you:

Surprising what is out there and we mere mortals (almost) never come across.


mescalito said...

this is very interesting, check out the prices for hiring the police, rent a mob.

Ed Butt said...

Against that the Camertons and Obamas of the world try to make us think thet actually care by supporting stupid, pointless gestures like Earth Hour

Anonymous said...

Forgive my perhaps naive astonishment, but is Sgt. Pebworth wearing a pistol and BP vest?
If so is this normal?
roger in florida

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

Regarding was the Sergeant wearing a pistol, probably not because of Oliver Cromwell. But he was carrying a pepper spray which is classed as a firearm by a UK statute. If he is working for a private corporation he will need a firearm caertificate for that. Real police have an evemption from having a personal certificate under S. 54 of the firearms Act 1968. Home office policy is not to issue them for self defence though.

Regards, John Hurst.