What is the likely fall back from Weighton Bristow and Sutor ruling?

It will be much more difficult for the 'bailffs' to do something to harass people, in fact it is the beginning of the real end of the unlawful and illegal scam called Liability Order.
While that is going to the dustbin of bistory the councils are likely to push with their unlawful extortion of the illegal CT a little longer until that collapses, which is almost inevitable!

So if you are renting put the 'bailffs' (who are not even bailiffs) on notice, write and warn 'your' council (politely, in your own style, without copying templates

If you are owning get into action quickly to avoid a charging order, with RX1 and other measures. Because this is where the CT mafia is likely to target more now (which has already begun).

When CT collapses councils will become dormant! their whole system relies on CT, so unless they replace CT with something new and  effective it is the end! That is likely! (good riddance! ?of course, but...)

What will replace it? is the question. It has been the plan (and implementation) of the globalist to rule the regions from Global centres for long time. They have a plan to replace councils with local governments, as part of One World Government...

If good, old, normal people  (that is us!) do not work out and put in a replacement we will be in for a more sinister shitshow!

Breach of the harassment act elevates the matter from a civil case into the realms of criminal conduct and consequently any person that is unlawfully harassed by an enforcement agent without the correct paperwork may make a complaint to the police or they may want to consider whether to exercise their powers under section 24(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ( PACE ) and arrest the enforcement agent to prevent a breach of the peace or any escalation of the situation. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24A

A suitable notice on the boundary of the property that is clearly visible to any visitor may suffice to bring this matter to the attention of any bailiff.

The winter solstice marks the point in the year where there is maximum darkness and we can look forward to increased light as the year moves on, and this new ruling certainly changes the balance of power as it gives us all ammunition in the fight back against unlawful government tyranny.

The tide has officially turned, you heard it here first

Council tax debts become unenforceable overnight!

A new landmark ruling effectively prevents enforcement agents from seizing goods in connection with council tax and even entering anyone’s property.

Hands defendants a £4000 Christmas bonus if they sue bailiffs for illegal enforcement.

When a council obtain a liability order they will seek to enforce this order by way of sending in enforcement offices sometimes known as bailiffs.
The conduct of these enforcement offices is strictly controlled under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
In Schedule 12 details that the enforcement officer must show their identity and the proof of authority from the court that entitles them to be on the premises.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

In section 26 as follows :

In the recent case of Leighton versus Bristol & Sutor That was ironically published on the winter solstice ☃️ the judge ruled that the document used by the enforcement agents was unlawful and was not in accordance with the above act because all they did was to simply showed their instructions from the council to enforce the debt rather than the order from the court. Consequently Mr Leighton was awarded £4000 damages plus costs, plus interest.

Christmas parasite cleanse
This now means that anyone can use this judgement not only to fend off these parasites from their doorsteps but to actually sue them for damages unless they show the correct paperwork, and this is where the fun starts…

Collusion between the courts and councils has now led to their downfall.
In order to make it progressively easier for councils to resist requests from defendants for the council to prove a liability order was actually granted the courts were persuaded to do away with the old-fashioned written liability order signed by a judge and instead ruled that the oral pronouncement of the order was all that was required, which means the enforcement companies now have a big problem to provide written proof that any order was even granted because as we know recordings in courts are illegal!

In effect the new court ruling has mandated that enforcement companies must provide something that doesn’t exist and if they do turn up on someone’s doorstep illegally then they can be sued for £4000 not having the correct paperwork or maybe even arrested.

Welcome to the Christmas feast of Whupass
How delicious it is when the universe serves up multiple cans of whupass on these corrupt and mendacious entities that have prayed upon the vulnerable in society for too long.

The law also stipulates that the enforcement company must provide the required paperwork IN ADVANCE therefore anyone that puts the enforcement company and/or the council on notice of this can prevent them even turning up.

It gets even better…
In the judgement the applicant was disbarred from obtaining damages under the harassment act 1997 on the basis that the conduct of the enforcement company naturally entitled some element of harassment due to the fact that it was their job to take peoples stuff away and were acting lawfully and in good faith when doing so, here is the kicker…
When they are put on notice of their obligations under the new ruling to provide written proof from the court of their entitlement to attempt to distress goods and they turn up without the necessary proof then they are not entitled to claim that their actions are in good faith and in accordance with the law and therefore because they are not there awfully they have no reasonable excuse under the harassment act 1997 therefore they are breaching it. Potentially a criminal offence.

Christmas behind bars

Remember Liability Orders are not court orders, the enforcements agents insist they are and use to extort and steal peoples money and property, which is fraud .. I posted a FOI letter from the ministry of justice here (thanks to Richard Vobes whom I will not knock) clearly confirming that LO's for council tax are NOT court documents. As well as being outrageous it is damning and an indication of Treason that our judicial system would allow extortion to go on.?

Dear (XXX)

I have been informed that the Quadrivalent FluMist will be given in the school on (XXX)
I do not give my permission for (XXX) to have this vaccine due to many reasons, but mainly due to the poisonous ingredients. The vaccine contains Polysorbate 80 which opens the blood brain barrier to allow heavy metals direct access to the brain. The Fluenz Tetra nasal spray vaccine has not been fully tested on any great number of patients and because of this, carries a black triangle warning to report any reactions asap as part of the research into the drug's side effects and efficacy. Information source: 
https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/the-black-triangle-scheme-or

There are also a lot of discrepancies in the ‘information’ leaflet given to the parents - please see facts and sources below:

According to the vaccine insert (which can be seen here - https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM294307.pdf )

The FluMist is a live vaccine which can shed for a matter of weeks afterwards but predominantly in days 1-3 (please see excerpts below)

12.1 - FluMist and FluMist Quadrivalent contain live attenuated influenza viruses that must infect and replicate in cells lining the nasopharynx of the recipient to induce immunity. Vaccine viruses capable of infection and replication can be cultured from nasal secretions obtained from vaccine recipients (shedding) [see Pharmacodynamics (12.2)].

12.2 - Shedding Studies Shedding of vaccine viruses within 28 days of vaccination with FluMist was evaluated in (1) multi-center study MI-CP129 which enrolled healthy individuals 6 through 59 months of age (N = 200); and (2) multicenter study FM026 which enrolled healthy individuals 5 through 49 years of age (N = 344). In each study, nasal secretions were obtained daily for the first 7 days and every other day through either Day 25 and on Day 28 or through Day 28. In study MI-CP129, individuals with a positive shedding sample at Day 25 or Day 28 were to have additional shedding samples collected every 7 days until culture negative on 2 consecutive samples.

The highest proportion of subjects in each group shed one or more vaccine strains on Days 2-3 post vaccination. After Day 11 among individuals 2 through 49 years of age (n = 443), virus titers did not exceed 1.5 log10 TCID50/mL.

"Virus shedding was evaluated for 21 days by culture of nasal swab specimens. Wild-type A (A/H3N2) influenza virus was documented to have circulated in the community and in the study population during the trial, whereas Type A (A/H1N1) and Type B strains did not."

It is possible for those vaccinated with the spray to spread flu, particularly amongst immune compromised people. Quoted from source: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/3296/smpc
Vaccine recipients should be informed that Fluenz Tetra is an attenuated live virus vaccine and has the potential for transmission to immunocompromised contacts. Vaccine recipients should attempt to avoid, whenever possible, close association with severely immunocompromised individuals (e.g. bone marrow transplant recipients requiring isolation) for 1-2 weeks following vaccination. Peak incidence of vaccine virus recovery occurred 2-3 days post-vaccination in Fluenz clinical studies. In circumstances where contact with severely immunocompromised individuals is unavoidable, the potential risk of transmission of the influenza vaccine virus should be weighed against the risk of acquiring and transmitting wild-type influenza virus.

As you can see, there is sufficient evidence to support the fact that the vaccine does shed quite predominantly. Due to this, I do not want (XXX) to be in direct contact with anyone receiving the flu mist for the remaining of that week as it could put us all at risk; so we will be keeping them home on (XXXXXXX) dates.

I would appreciate it if this could be noted as authorised absence due to nature of having to keep them off.

GOV.UK

The Black Triangle Scheme (▼ or ▼*)

Continued monitoring of medicines with a black triangle status.

This video from my HOPE Sussex talk should get you up to speed
✌️❤️✌️

https://youtu.be/g-UBevKKHs4?si=oG8HXSGp6zjU8_OJ

YouTube

Can't Pay? We'll Send Them Away! PART 2 - Promissory Notes

Davey from Peace Officers UK discusses how to pay off ANY debt with a promissory note, from creation to delivery and more! For templates, email [email protected]