Chrisy Morris - Parking Tickets and Bailiffs.

[Bones]

The writ is made out to Alan J. Smith (looking at their web site he works for HCE Group) he's presumably the Authorised Officer otherwise the High Court wouldn't have issued the writ to him.

http://www.hcegroup.co.uk/profile/alan-j-smith-micm/

Alan has a commitment to professional standards throughout the enforcement industry. He started his career in local government working in a number of posts in the General Rates, Poll Tax and Council Tax departments of two local authorities. He realised early on in his career that enforcement was the pathway he wanted to take.

He left the public sector in 1993 to join a Yorkshire Sheriff’s office, passing the Sheriffs’ Officers’ Association examination in 1995 and appointed Sheriffs’ Officer for West and North Yorkshire and Cumbria in that year. Alan was made an Associate Partner in 1999. In the same year Alan became a committee member of the Sheriffs’ Officers’ Association and was also active on the National Sheriffs’ Campaign working group, promoting the use of Sheriffs’ Officers’ and the High Court for the enforcement of County Court judgments.

After joining one of the country’s largest High Court Enforcement offices in 2003 he was appointed an Authorised High Court Enforcement Officer by the Lord Chancellor a year later. Then, in 2007, he was made Chief Operations Officer and managed the field enforcement operations through a dedicated support team.

In 2010 Alan joined a Lancashire based Enforcement company to establish a High Court Enforcement department, before making his move to High Court Enforcement Group in December 2012 joining the management team at HCE Group as the Director of Corporate Governance.

Alan sits as a Director and Treasurer of the High Court Enforcement Officers’ Association. He has worked on the expert working group with the Security Industry Authority on a future licensing of enforcement agents and also worked closely with the Ministry of Justice to develop a new fee scale for High Court Enforcement. In addition, he sits on the Association’s educational board and is an ICM examiner for the Association’s newly established qualification.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Looks like Rekha was the only person that turned up to support Chrisy.

I had a thought about this earlier today - his next BNP meeting should be interesting: one person turns up to support him, a woman called Patel.

[Bones]

Looks like Rekha was the only person that turned up to support Chrisy.

I had a thought about this earlier today - his next BNP meeting should be interesting: one person turns up to support him, a woman called Patel.

[Bones]

Having read Jason's posts today, I hope Chrisy does contact him. Tom and Mr Ebert would be nothing compared to Chrisy and Jason

[littleFred]

... I have also added the admendments

Oops, yes, I hadn't noticed that there were amendments that hadn't been applied to the text. Thanks.

I don't think it changes the substance of my post. If someone can prove that he didn't believe the person he was obstructing was an enforcement agent or whatever, then he's not guilty. But he has to prove it.

And it doesn't matter what he believed about the validity of the writ. That's not relevant to a defence under subsection (3). Of course if he could persuade the court that the writ was actually a fraud (not merely that he believed it was a fraud), that would also be a defence.

[Bones]

He will have to think of something better than

Mr Morris argued that the writ was not correct, it was not drafted properly-“That document is not what it should be therefore it should be considered a fraudulent instrument”

The standard template writ issued by HMC&TS was not drafted properly

[Bones]

The Police Officer that arrested Chrisy, is he the same one that attended Tom's eviction and his hearing ?

Nevermind they just look similar

[Burnaby49]

He will have to think of something better than

Mr Morris argued that the writ was not correct, it was not drafted properly-“That document is not what it should be therefore it should be considered a fraudulent instrument”

The standard template writ issued by HMC&TS was not drafted properly

Michael Millar, one of the sovereign income tax evaders that I post on, made the argument about the validity of official forms a key part of his defense. His argument was that proper capitalization and the correct useage of upper and lower case in the forms was of critical importance. Since the "official" forms didn't meet his interpretation of how they should be capitalized they were invalid and his charges should be struck. As to the effectiveness of his arguments he was sentenced to two and a half years of incarceration a few days ago.

[Bungle]

The writ is made out to Alan J. Smith (looking at their web site he works for HCE Group) he's presumably the Authorised Officer otherwise the High Court wouldn't have issued the writ to him.

http://www.hcegroup.co.uk/profile/alan-j-smith-micm/

Alan has a commitment to professional standards throughout the enforcement industry. He started his career in local government working in a number of posts in the General Rates, Poll Tax and Council Tax departments of two local authorities. He realised early on in his career that enforcement was the pathway he wanted to take.

He left the public sector in 1993 to join a Yorkshire Sheriff’s office, passing the Sheriffs’ Officers’ Association examination in 1995 and appointed Sheriffs’ Officer for West and North Yorkshire and Cumbria in that year. Alan was made an Associate Partner in 1999. In the same year Alan became a committee member of the Sheriffs’ Officers’ Association and was also active on the National Sheriffs’ Campaign working group, promoting the use of Sheriffs’ Officers’ and the High Court for the enforcement of County Court judgments.

After joining one of the country’s largest High Court Enforcement offices in 2003 he was appointed an Authorised High Court Enforcement Officer by the Lord Chancellor a year later. Then, in 2007, he was made Chief Operations Officer and managed the field enforcement operations through a dedicated support team.

In 2010 Alan joined a Lancashire based Enforcement company to establish a High Court Enforcement department, before making his move to High Court Enforcement Group in December 2012 joining the management team at HCE Group as the Director of Corporate Governance.

Alan sits as a Director and Treasurer of the High Court Enforcement Officers’ Association. He has worked on the expert working group with the Security Industry Authority on a future licensing of enforcement agents and also worked closely with the Ministry of Justice to develop a new fee scale for High Court Enforcement. In addition, he sits on the Association’s educational board and is an ICM examiner for the Association’s newly established qualification.

In his debate regarding offering assistance to Chrisy Morris, Jason Bennison has made this incredible statement:

He can make a defence the High Court Enforcement Officer is not an HCEO as per regulation 6 of the High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004.

I got a client off because the complainant wrote in a police document that he was a "high court enforcement officer" and he was not. Therefore my client was not guilty of the offence.

He was actually an enforcement agent defined in section 62 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

Also an enforcement agent is not an "officer" and cannot officiate.

As is usually the case, Jason Bennison demonstrates an utterly hopeless misunderstand of legislation.

The correct position is this:

A High Court writ will be personally addressed to one of just 23 active authorised High Court Enforcement Officers. Alan Smith is one such officer. He has personal responsibility for that writ and any action that may flow from it.

Most importantly, a High Court Enforcement officer, (in this case, Alan Smith) may delegate his enforcement power to an enforcement agent.

This delegated authority has existed for hundreds of years and in the present case, is pursuant to the Courts Act 2003

[Bones]

He will have to think of something better than

Mr Morris argued that the writ was not correct, it was not drafted properly-“That document is not what it should be therefore it should be considered a fraudulent instrument”

The standard template writ issued by HMC&TS was not drafted properly

Michael Millar, one of the sovereign income tax evaders that I post on, made the argument about the validity of official forms a key part of his defense. His argument was that proper capitalization and the correct useage of upper and lower case in the forms was of critical importance. Since the "official" forms didn't meet his interpretation of how they should be capitalized they were invalid and his charges should be struck. As to the effectiveness of his arguments he was sentenced to two and a half years of incarceration a few days ago.

lol, I can imagine what is going to happen.

So Mr Morris, what made you think that the six men, all with Identification, wearing stab vests with Enforcement Agent written on them and also had a writ of possession, were not Enforcement Agents ?

[letissier14]

Chrisy Morris meets The Baron David Ward - win win

[Bones]

Chrisy Morris meets The Baron David Ward - win win

Not saying a word

[TheNewSaint]

Mr Morris sought to question the rectitude of the charge, by explaining that he believed the grounds of the writ which the bailiffs had sought to execute was only legal in relation to trespassers and commonly used against squatters.

Yes, Mr Morris, this writ is only legal against trespassers and commonly used against squatters. Rekha Patel is a trespasser and a squatter. What was your point?

I also like that he tried a variant of the Tom Crawford Defense:

As he was on Miss Patel’s property with her permission, then he was not a trespasser and the charge against him was wrong in law, “none of us were trespassers” he said:

[Firthy2002]

Help is at hand !!!
by jasonDWB » 02 Mar 2017 10:48
Is he a FMOTL bloke? the name rings a bell.

Tell him to call me, I'll get him off, but its on technicality. I need the charge sheet and the "HCEO"'s witness statement.

Chrisy will be off the hook before he knows it, all thanks to the 'legal adviser'; Jason Bennison (Bailey).


http://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/viewt ... =12&t=4316

Careful, calling him a legal advisor might get him excited.

Jason's plan is basically to check the charge sheet and see if he is being charged with "obstructing a high court enforcement agent" and if the gentlemen isn't a HCEA then he can "get him off".

Problem with that plan is;

1. CPS can amend wording or indeed, change the charge.
2. It doesn't matter, he obstructed an enforcement agent executing a high court writ, doesn't matter if it was high court. It is an offence to obstruct any enforcement agent executing a writ, possession order, liability order, WOC or any duty as per the TCG act 2014.

Jason is a moron, he tries to get people off charges for his own self gratification then parades around as a friend of the people. His methods are often wording issues or just outright lying. He's a menace.

Actually the main problem with Jason's plan is that Mr Smith crops up on this list.

[SteveUK]

Crissy can now relax, Hayles Owen QC is preparing his defence!

if no case to ans[yrs], then why turn up to get 'stitched up' NO CHARGE means NO ME A SUR[E] MEANT <3... they can't charge what they cant[er] measure v I A ? ... you cant charge via earsay... can ears speak... NOPE... besides that fac[a]t, IF YOU ARE NOT GO v ERN'd by TIME[germ an[yr] for MALE[S/MAILS/CONTRACT LAW/UCC MARI TIME LAW] and fiat MONEY[monet], then all is FREE=NO CHARGE, NO PLUG[CHINese for BUSI[LOCK]ness/si-lent[yes ab[dominal/port[e/door]]stain], TO PLUG IN AC OR DC AND RAPE YOUR GOD GIVEN NRG <3 NO TURN UPS, NO STITCH UPS, NO TRUZZIES =NO HEM[S] for the pennies to be CAUGHT ... hem turnups and the history of is KEY xx

[TheCoz]

Crissy can now relax, Hayles Owen QC is preparing his defence!

if no case to ans[yrs], then why turn up to get 'stitched up' NO CHARGE means NO ME A SUR[E] MEANT <3... they can't charge what they cant[er] measure v I A ? ... you cant charge via earsay... can ears speak... NOPE... besides that fac[a]t, IF YOU ARE NOT GO v ERN'd by TIME[germ an[yr] for MALE[S/MAILS/CONTRACT LAW/UCC MARI TIME LAW] and fiat MONEY[monet], then all is FREE=NO CHARGE, NO PLUG[CHINese for BUSI[LOCK]ness/si-lent[yes ab[dominal/port[e/door]]stain], TO PLUG IN AC OR DC AND RAPE YOUR GOD GIVEN NRG <3 NO TURN UPS, NO STITCH UPS, NO TRUZZIES =NO HEM[S] for the pennies to be CAUGHT ... hem turnups and the history of is KEY xx

I honestly can't follow that... are these people mentally ill?

[rumpelstilzchen]

I honestly can't follow that... are these people mentally ill?

He could definitely hit the big time as a Stanley Unwin impersonator.

[Bones]

He was supposed to have been banned on 2 February @ 11:40 pm

https://www.timeanddate.com/date/datead ... ad=30&rec=

30 days is up today

[ArthurWankspittle]

I honestly can't follow that... are these people mentally ill?

He could definitely hit the big time as a Stanley Unwin impersonator.

Stanley Unwin at least sounded like he made sense.

[TheNewSaint]

I honestly can't follow that... are these people mentally ill?

Hayles Owen seems to subscribe to an extreme version of the "using certain phrases creates joinder" belief. Some people will refuse to use postal codes, or refer to their address as "near" a city rather than state the name of it, for fear that doing so submits them to local laws. Hayles seems to think the utterance of almost any legal term will have negative repercussions, so all these weird homonyms are used to express ideas. This is combined with the belief that the entomology of words has modern legal significance.