Not even the King can enter your property without your permission. Certainly, no local council (or whatever grandiose title they give themselves these days) has any authority to enter your property. You have every right to resist a Trespass by any means possible.
While this article talks about British law, it applies to any Commonwealth Country, including the USA, Canada, Australia, etc.
Know the Law:
An Englishman’s Home is his castle
Queen Elizabeth the second took a verbal oath when she entered into service (Status Servant) of her own free will. This oath was to uphold the Laws and ―TRADITIONS ― of this land.
An Englishman’s home is his Castle and an assault on the Castle is a recognised Act of WAR. In a time of War then the casualties of War are just that; the casualties of war.
He that knowingly enters into an act of war knowingly or unknowingly has still entered into an act of war of his own volition. The occupants defending the Castle cannot be held culpable for any casualties of war, even if these casualties of war should end up dead. This is recognised from the historic traditions of this land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defence of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person’s abode (or any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities protecting them, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend themselves against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.
Typically, deadly force is considered justified, and a defence of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases “when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another”.
The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of many states. The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western Civilization since the age of the Roman Republic. [2]
The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that “an Englishman’s home is his castle”. This concept was established as English law by 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628.
The dictum was carried by colonists to the New World, who later removed “English” from the phrase, making it “a man’s home is his castle”, which thereby became simply the castle doctrine.
The term has been used in England to imply a person’s absolute right to exclude anyone from his home, although this has always had restrictions, and since the late twentieth century bailiffs have also had increasing powers of entry.
There is a claim here that since the late twentieth century bailiffs have also had increasing powers of entry. This is incorrect because a Bailiff in the twentieth century is a crown corporation servant and the crown authority has no authority without a legal agreement that the crown has an authority. There is no material evidence to the fact that there is any legal agreement. This fact has now been confirmed:
Case Authority No WI 05257F David Ward and Warrington Borough Council 30th Day of May 2013 at court tribunal.
The crown has no power of entry
The crown Bailiffs do not have power of entry. Nor do any so-called bailiffs employed by GovCorp or a Private company. Any Crown Authority stops at the boundary of the property. To proceed beyond this point is a recognised Act of War. Where no such legal agreement exists then the Bailiff, who is only a Bailiff by title, has no powers of entry unless that authority can be presented in the form of a legal agreement which must contain upon it two wet ink signatures of both partie,s, one of which must be yours.
So, a Bailiff has no power of entry without your consent to do so and an assault upon the castle is a recognised Act of war.
A debtor is where there is proof of Debt. Where there is no proof of debt then you are not a debtor.
We have case law to support this fact where for, example, the Bailiff was smashed over the head with a milk Bottle.
Case Law in the UK Queens Bench. http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557 If the debtor strikes the bailiff over the head with a full milk bottle after making a forced entry, the debtor is not guilty of assault because the bailiff was there illegally.
Likewise, R. v Tucker at Hove Trial Centre Crown Court, December 2012 If the debtor gives the bailiff a good slap. If a person strikes a trespasser who has refused to leave is not guilty of an offence: Davis v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434 License to enter must be refused BEFORE the process of levy starts, Kay v Hibbert [1977] Crim LR 226 or Mathews v Dwan [1949] NZLR 1037 (See below to download the template document to send to anyone threatening to invade your property)
Council Threatening to Invade your Property?
Send a Denial of implied right of access before the Bailiff comes in advance. A bailiff rendered a trespasser is liable for penalties in tort and the entry may be in breach of Article 8 of the Euro- pean Convention on Human Rights if entry is not made in accordance with the law, Jokinen v Finland [2009] 37233/07 http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk
A debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance. This was endorsed by Lord Justice Donaldson in the case of Lambert v Roberts [1981] 72 Cr App R 223 – and placing such a notice is akin to a closed door but it also prevents a bailiff entering the garden or driveway, Knox v Anderton [1983] Crim LR 115 or R. v Leroy Roberts [2003] EWCA Crim 2753 Debtors can also remove implied right of access to property by telling him to leave: Davis v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434 similarly, McArdle v Wallace [1964] 108 Sol Jo 483
A person having been told to leave is now under a duty to withdraw from the property with all due reasonable speed and if they fail to do so, they are not thereafter acting in the execution of their duty and they become a trespasser with any subsequent levy made being invalid and attracts a liability under a claim for damages, Morris v Beardmore [1980] 71 Cr App 256.
Bailiffs cannot force their way into a private dwelling, Grove v Eastern Gas [1952] 1 KB 77 Excessive force must be avoided, Gregory v Hall [1799] 8 TR 299 or Oakes v Wood [1837] 2 M&W 791
A debtor can use an equal amount of force to resist a bailiff from gaining entry, Weaver v Bush [1795] 8TR, Simpson v Morris [1813] 4 Taunt 821, Polkinhorne v Wright [1845] 8QB 197. Another occupier of the premises or an employee may also take these steps: Hall v Davis [1825] 2 C&P 33. Also wrongful would be an attempt at forcible entry despite resistance, Ingle v Bell [1836] 1 M&W 516 Bailiffs cannot apply force to a door to gain entry, and if they do so they are not in the execution of their duty, Brough- ton v Wilkerson [1880] 44 JP 781
A Bailiff may not encourage a third party to allow the bailiff access to a property (i.e. workmen inside a house), access by this means renders the entry unlawful, Nash v Lucas [1867] 2 QB 590.
Contrast: A bailiff may climb over a wall or a fence or walk across a garden or yard provided that no damage occurs, Long v Clarke & another [1894] 1 QB 119. It is not contempt to assault a bailiff trying to climb over a locked gate after being refused entry, Lewis v Owen [1893] The Times November 6 p.36b (QBD) If a bailiff enters by force, he is there unlawfully and you can treat him as a trespasser. Curlewis v Laurie [1848] or Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557.
A debtor cannot be sued if a person enters a property uninvited and injures himself because he had no legal right to enter, Great Central Railway Co v Bates [1921] 3 KB 578.
If a bailiff jams his boot into a debtors door to stop him closing, any levy that is subsequently made is not valid: Rai & Rai v Birmingham City Council [1993] or Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557 or Broughton v Wilkerson [1880] 44 JP 781
If a bailiff refuses to leave the property after being requested to do so or starts trying to force entry then he is causing a disturbance, Howell v Jackson [1834] 6 C&P 723 – but it is unreasonable for a police officer to arrest the bailiff unless he makes a threat, Bibby v Constable of Essex [2000] Court of Appeal April 2000.
The very presence of the Bailiff or third Part Company who is engaged in a recognised Act of war is an assault on the castle and it is reasonable for the police officer to arrest the bailiff where there is a recognised Act of War. If the police officer does not arrest the Bailiff on request, then the police officer is guilty by default of an offence against legislation which is the offence of Malfeasance in a public office. The police officer is also guilty by default of an act of fraud as he is on duty and being paid for his inaction. The penalty under legislation for these offences are as follows: 25 years’ incarceration for the offence of Malfeasance in a public office and 7 to 10 years’ incarceration for the offence of fraud under current legislation for which the police officer is culpable.
Stop Illegal Entry by GovCorp
Download, amend, and send this document to any GovCorp representative that threatens to enter your property. Unless they have your written permission, no one…. Not even the King… can enter your private property, and you have the full weight of the law behind you to use force, even lethal force in certain circumstances, to repel a trespasser if you feel your wellbeing is threatened.
