At last, to the root of the problem. How bizarre. Any idea why the folks who were supposed to set things up correctly chose not to do so, or is it a case where the authorizing people assumed others would do what was needed to complete the process of reorganization? Was it just a massive screw-up where the need fell through some cracks, or was it a deliberate act to set up a faulty system that would allow more "efficient" processing of minor and local claims?
I absolutely agree that vengeance is not the aim nor the motivation, but ignorance has never been accepted as a defence in law and we're all equal before the law. In the Leighton case judge Harrison broke this safeguard and suggested that an enforcement agent could "reasonably assume" they were acting lawfully even without an evidenced, direct chain of authority. In doing so he implied that there is no obligation or responsibility for the delegated to positively assert or ensure that their authority is indeed legitimate. This is precisely what you've established is lacking (more fundamentally) in the "courts" that are claiming to provide these grifters with their assumed authority. I would therefore be less inclined to show leniency to anyone who has played any part in this deception, wittingly or otherwise.
Now we know why the american bar association was banned by Pam Bondi AG on 29th may 2025 - thats on the whitehouse web site also
At last, to the root of the problem. How bizarre. Any idea why the folks who were supposed to set things up correctly chose not to do so, or is it a case where the authorizing people assumed others would do what was needed to complete the process of reorganization? Was it just a massive screw-up where the need fell through some cracks, or was it a deliberate act to set up a faulty system that would allow more "efficient" processing of minor and local claims?
I absolutely agree that vengeance is not the aim nor the motivation, but ignorance has never been accepted as a defence in law and we're all equal before the law. In the Leighton case judge Harrison broke this safeguard and suggested that an enforcement agent could "reasonably assume" they were acting lawfully even without an evidenced, direct chain of authority. In doing so he implied that there is no obligation or responsibility for the delegated to positively assert or ensure that their authority is indeed legitimate. This is precisely what you've established is lacking (more fundamentally) in the "courts" that are claiming to provide these grifters with their assumed authority. I would therefore be less inclined to show leniency to anyone who has played any part in this deception, wittingly or otherwise.
Void Ab Initio👍🤝
We're all squatters on Kingys land 🇬🇧(or so he would like us to "believe🧚♂️")
That's why a tax is levied against the illeterate "P"aupers (Poor laws/Pass-port , type "P") who occupy🤔 dwellings🤔
We legitamise there actions through being on the electoral register , we consent to be governed🤔👍🤝