Perfected Lien: Properties Withdrawn From Fire-Sale Auction

Here is a sanitised version of the perfected lien process that was initiated against invalidly appointed LPA Receivers, who were acting illegally in the name of the Lien Claimant, following their unlawful appointment by an arm of a criminal banking cartel, in the absence of valid and enforceable legal mortgages over various properties held by my family’s private property trust.

The exhibits of evidence referenced were annexed to the Affidavit of Obligation upon delivery to the Lien Debtors, who entered default following their failure to rebut under oath the allegations contained therein.

Moreover, following the service on the lien upon the receivers, their planned fire-sale of nine of the trust’s properties by auction was cancelled.
___________________________________________________________________

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
[NAME & ADDRESS OF LPA RECEIVERS]

DATE OF NOTICE
Served by recorded post and by email.

NOTICE OF SECURITY INTEREST

Dear [NAMES OF RECEIVERS],

Re: [REFERENCE DETAILS]

You are hereby served various documents relating to the assertion of a lien over the properties, chattels and interests of [NAME OF OWNER], charged in the sum of [VALUE OF LIEN][plus default charges] and containing allegations of trespass with conversion, as well as exhibits of evidence substantiating those allegations.

Served without malice, mischief, ill-will,
frivolity or vexation, with sincerity and honour,

By; [NAME OF OWNER]
All Rights Reserved – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

_________________________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT of OBLIGATION
Owner’s Assertion of a Lien over Property in Possession
In Defence of Multiple Acts of Trespass with Conversion

Brought By
[NAME OF OWNER]] (LIEN CLAIMANT)
Against
[NAME LPA RECEIVERS] & ALL AGENTS (LIEN DEBTORS)

For Damages, Losses, Harm and Injury caused by Intentional Acts
From [Date of Initial Offence] – The Present Day

APPLICABLE LAW

Halsbury’s Laws of England Volume 4 on the Nature of Legal Lien

701. Types. The concept of lien in the simple sense of a legal right to keep possession of property until a claim has been met and has been extended to cover a number of analogous rights. Liens are now variously described as legal, non-possessory, equitable, general, particular, statutory, contractual, judicial and subrogatory. Some of these may exist concurrently. A lien arising by operation of law or equity and not contractual in its nature does not seem to fall within the definition of ‘security’ in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 but is included for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986.
702. Legal Lien. In its primary or legal sense ‘lien’ means a right at common law for a man to retain that which is rightfully and continuously in his possession belonging to another until the present and accrued claims of the person in possession are satisfied, but this is given by law and not by contract. A written agreement to grant a lien is not a bill of sale, for a legal lien does not as a rule arise until possession of the property is obtained. However, in exceptional cases, possession is not essential to constitute a legal lien.
703. Non-possessory Lien. In its secondary sense, ‘lien’ may be applied to a right subsisting in a person who has no possession of the property concerned but who nevertheless has a right against the owner analogous to a legal lien. Such a right may arise in equity, by statute or under a court order. Thus, a trustee has an equitable lien on the estate or fund for money properly expensed on it and a solicitor, in addition to his legal lien on the client’s documents in his possession, has a statutory lien right to ask the court to direct that property recovered is to stand security for his costs. So also where a party has by his efforts brought into court a fund in the administration of which various parties are interested, his costs and expenses are a first claim on the fund; and a provisional liquidator’s remuneration and his solicitor’s expenses are charged on the funds of the liquidation so that the provisional liquidator has a lien over the company’s assets in his hands.
Likewise, a receiver or receiver and manager appointed by the court has an indemnity over assets and is a secured creditor with a lien for his expenses, remuneration and costs. A trustee’s lien on the trust estate or fund for money properly expended on it seems to extend to the payment of costs of proceedings authorised by the court. However, where a beneficiary or minority shareholder is entitled to a similar indemnity there can be no legal lien because there is no possession; and it is not clear whether an equitable or judicial lien could be said to arise in such a case, or whether such a proposition could have any useful effect. A trustee’s equitable and statutory rights to impound a beneficiary’s interest, where the trustee has committed a breach of trust at the instigation of the beneficiary, do not depend on the trustee’s actual possession of the trust fund.

COMPARISONS AND DISTINCTIONS

709. Distinctions. A lien must be distinguished from a mortgage, a pledge, a bill of sale and an equitable charge.
710. Legal Lien and Mortgage. A legal lien has been held to differ from a mortgage in that it is generally assignable without the express or implied authority of the owner of the subject goods. See 719 post; Tobin v Melrose [1951] SASR 139, S Aust SC. For departures from the supposed principle that a legal lien is not freely assignable see paras 708 ante, 719 post. A mortgage, in comparison, can be transferred at the will of the mortgagee. See the Law of Property Act 1925 ss 114, 115(2); Taylor v Russell ’1892] AC 244 at 255, HL. There is, however, authority for the rule that a legal lien can be acquired along with the secured debt itself. See Vered v Inscorp Holdings Ltd (1993) 31 NSWLR 290, NSW SC, per Hodgson J, following Bullv Faulkner (1848) 2 De G & SM 772.
A more substantial difference between legal lien and mortgage may be that, whereas a legal lien lasts only so long as possession of the goods is sustained, a mortgage does not depend on possession, and can arise or subsist without any delivery of possession to the mortgagee. The mortgagee may, however, be entitled to possession: see Western Bank Ltd v Schindler [1977] Ch 1 at 9, [1976] 2 All ER 393 at 396, CA, per Buckley LJ.
Further, a legal lien in its true sense arises by operation of law, whereas a mortgage is contractual in origin. Note that for the purposes of the Law of Property Act 1925, ‘mortgage’ includes a lien for securing money or money’s worth: see Law of Property Act 1925 s 205(1)(xvi). A lien is also an ‘incumbrance’: see 205(1)(vii). Where an equitable mortgage is created through the deposit of the title deeds, the mortgagee has a legal lien on the deeds deposited. The former rule that a deposit of title deeds to a property by way of security created by itself an equitable mortgage of the property has not survived the enactment of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s 2 (as amended): United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib [1997] Ch 107, [1996] 3 All ER 215, CA.
711. Concomitant Legal Lien and Equitable Mortgage. Where a valid equitable mortgage of land has been created through deposit of title deeds, the mortgagee has a concomitant legal lien on the deeds. However, there must now be a contract which complies with the statutory formalities for the equitable mortgage to arise.
As to the historical development of the equitable mortgage by deposit of the title deeds see Russell v Russell (1783) 1 Bro CC 269; Ex p Mountford (1808) 14 Ves 606; London & Cheshire Insurance Co Ltd v Laplagrene Property Co Ltd [1971] Ch 499 at 514, [1971] All ER 766 at 779 per Brightmann J;[…] See now, however, the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s 2 (as amended) (seenote 3 infra); and REAL PROPERTY. See also United Bank of Kuwait plc v Sahib [1997] Ch 107, [1996] 3 All ER 215, CA; and para 710 note 6 ante.
719. A legal lien is a right of defence to an action in respect of the chattel, an action in conversion, brought by the owner to recover the chattel, and is not a right of action in itself Tappenden (t/a English and American Autos) v Artus [1964] 2 QB 185 at 194-195, [1963 3 All ER 213 at 215-216, CA, per Diplock LJ, holding further that lien is a self-help remedy, triggered by the performance of work which improves a chattel of which the performer has lawful possession, and does not depend on any implied contractual term. But a lien, depending necessarily on possession of the subject chattel, normally entitles the holder to sue any third party who commits a wrong (such as trespass or conversion) against the chattel during the period of that possession: The Winkfield [1902] P 42, CA. See also para 745 text and note 2 post; and BAILMENT vol 2 (Reissue) para 1889. As to legal lien see also para 702 ante..
Its limited character has both advantages and disadvantages for the party entitled. On the one hand, lien can be asserted even where a secured debt is statute-barred See Higgins v Scott (1831) 2 B & Ad 413. See also BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY vol 3(2) (Reissue) para 490; LIMITATION OF ACTIONS para 1002 et seq post., and the chattel cannot be taken in execution. Goods the subject of a lien cannot be taken in execution, because lien is merely a personal right continuing during the possession of the goods: Legg v Evans (1840) 6 M & W 36.
It has been held that, in contradistinction to a pledge, a lien confers a mere personal right, which cannot be granted to a third party merely by granting the third party possession of the chattel, without the consent of the owner. But decisions on solicitors and accountant’s liens have readily inferred the necessary authority and have held the lien to be assignable in cases where the secured debt is also assigned. The benefit of a lien can therefore be assigned along with the debt in respect of which it arises. It is arguable that these decisions afford one of several indications that common law possessory liens are beginning to be recognised as a limited form of property interest.
[…] In Teppenden (t/a English and American Autos [1964] 2 QB 185 at 195, [1963] 3 All ER 213 at 216, CA, Diplock LJ described lien as a remedy in rem, requiring for its exercise no intervention by the courts.
722. Possession. No legal lien can arise until possession has been obtained by the person claiming the lien. A racehorse trainer may not, therefore, have a lien for his fees where discretion as to the place at which, and the jockey by whom, the horse is to be raced is reserved by contract to the owner. The transfer of deeds to a client’s deeds box by a solicitor may be sufficient to give possession to the client for this purpose. The possession must have been rightfully obtained before a lien can arise. Thus a person who rejects goods for which he has paid is no longer entitled to possession and may assert no lien for the purchase price; and a person who has obtained possession of the property of another by misrepresentation may not set up a lien to which he might otherwise have been entitled; nor may a person paying freight duty or other charges on goods of which he has obtained possession wrongfully retain the goods until repayment of the freight duty or charges.
Similarly, money paid by insurers to brokers under a mistake of fact is not the property of the assured and is not therefore subject to the broker’s lien for unpaid premiums of the assured. A person cannot have a lien over property which he has acquired in an assumed character. Agents employed by a person who subsequently becomes bankrupt by obtaining possession after the bankruptcy, either through an act of the bankrupt or their own, set up a lien against the bankrupt’s trustee for money due to them from the bankrupt.

Bouvier’s Definitions of Trespass & Conversion

TRESPASS torts. An unlawful act committed with violence, ti et armis, to the person, property or relative rights of another. Every felony includes a trespass, in common parlance, such acts are not in general considered as trespasses, yet they subject the offender to an action of trespass after his conviction or acquittal. See civil remedy. 2. There is another kind of trespass, which is committed without force, and is known by the name of trespass on the case. This is not generally known by the name of trespass. See Case. 3. The following rules characterize the injuries which are denominated trespasses, namely: 1. To determine whether an injury is a trespass, due regard must be had to the nature of the right affected. A wrong with force can only be offered to the absolute rights of personal liberty and security, and to those of property corporeal; those of health, reputation and in property incorporeal, together with the relative rights of persons, are, strictly speaking, incapable of being injured with violence, because the subject-matter to which they relate, exists in either case only in idea, and is not to be seen or handled. An exception to this rule, however, often obtains in the very instance of injuries to the relative rights of persons; and wrongs offered to these last are frequently denominated trespasses, that is, injuries with force. 4.-2. Those wrongs alone are characterized as trespasses the immediate consequences of which are injurious to the plaintiff; if the damage sustained is a remote consequence of the act, the injury falls under the denomination of trespass on the case. 5.-3. No act is injurious but that which is unlawful; and therefore, where the force applied to the plaintiff’s property or person is the act of the law itself, it constitutes no cause of complaint. Hamm. N. P. 34; 2 Phil. Ev. 131; Bac. Abr. h.t.; 15 East R. 614; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t. As to what will justify a trespass, see Battery.

CONVERSION. torts. the unlawful turning or applying the personal goods of another to the use of the taker, or of some other person than the, owner; or the unlawful destroying or altering their nature. Bull. N. P. 44; 6 Mass. 20; 14 Pick. 356; 3 Brod. & Bing. 2; Cro. Eliz. 219 12 Mod. 519; 5 Mass. 104; 6 Shepl. 382; Story, Bailm. 188, 269, 306; 6 Mass. 422; 2 B. & P. 488; 3 B. & Ald. 702; 11 M. & W. 363; 8 Taunt. 237; 4 Taunt. 24.
2. When a party takes away or wrongfully assumes the right to goods which belong to another, it will in general be sufficient evidence of a conversion but when the original taking was, lawful, as when the party found the goods, and the detention only is illegal, it is absolutely necessary to make a demand of the goods, and there must be a refusal to deliver them before the conversion will be complete. 1 Ch. Pr. 566; 2 Saund. 47 e, note 1 Ch. Pl. 179; Bac. Ab. Trover, B 1 Com. Dig. 439; 3 Com. Dig. 142; 1 Vin. Ab. 236; Yelv. 174, n.; 2 East, R. 405; 6 East, R. 540; 4 Taunt. 799 5 Barn. & Cr. 146; S. C. 11 Eng. C. L. Rep. 185; 3 Bl. Com. 152; 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3522, et seq. The refusal by a servant to deliver the goods entrusted to him by his master, is not evidence of a conversion by his master. 5 Hill, 455.
3. The tortious taking of property is, of itself, a conversion 15 John. R. 431 and any intermeddling with it, or any exercise of dominion over it, subversive of the dominion of the owner, or the nature of the bailment, if it be bailed, is, evidence of a conversion. 1 Nott & McCord, R. 592; 2 Mass. R. 398; 1 Har. & John. 519; 7 John. R. 254; 10 John. R. 172 14 John. R. 128; Cro. Eliz. 219; 2 John. Cas. 411. Vide Trover.

The elements required to prove trespass with conversion are:

• The claimant has clear legal ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the trespass with conversion;
• the defendant’s trespass with conversion were wrongful acts or dispositions of the claimant’s property rights;
• there are damages resulting from the trespass with conversion.

Wherefore, pursuant to the powers, duties and obligations conferred upon LIEN CLAIMANT at private law and in equity, in relation to the maintenance, protection and preservation of the beneficial interests concerned; this Security Interest is as a Possessory Legal Lien over LIEN CLAIMANT’s properties, chattels and interests, currently subject to unlawful LPA receivership, following LIEN DEBTOR’s repeated refusal to cease and desist from committing acts of Trespass with Conversion against LIEN CLAIMANT, since their receipt of [NOTICE OF UNLAWFUL ACTION] on [Date of Notice]. As such, this lien is strictly limited to the recovery of those beneficial interests and any financial losses or their equivalent value in surety and/or satisfaction, plus default charges, liability for which has already been incurred by the emphatic failure of LIEN DEBTORS to demonstrate that they have been validly appointed under the terms of a valid and enforceable mortgage contract and legal charges operating as deeds.

REMEDY IN REM FOR TRESPASS & CONVERSION

The Legal Framework supporting this Action

1. No act is injurious except that which is unlawful. When a receiver acts as the legitimate agent for the borrower or as a principal, liability normally remains with the receiver and/or the borrower. Where the receiver is deemed to be acting as agent for the mortgage lender, responsibility for the receiver’s acts and defaults will normally fall on the mortgage lender and the receiver may be entitled to an agent’s right of indemnity against his principal, the mortgage lender. If a receiver is invalidly appointed, the person responsible for that appointment [the mortgage lender] may be vicariously liable for the trespass of the purported receiver.
2. In support of this point, section 34 of the Insolvency Act 1986 clearly states: “Where the appointment of a person as the receiver or manager of a company’s property under powers contained in an instrument is discovered to be invalid (whether by virtue of the invalidity of the instrument or otherwise), the court may order the person by whom or on whose behalf the appointment was made to indemnify the person appointed against any liability which arises solely by reason of the invalidity of the appointment.”
3. However, in the event that a receiver invalidly appointed continues to act illegally having been served notice of his unlawful actions, the receiver can be at least held jointly liable for various claims of the aggrieved party, in the event that he refuses to comply with a demand to cease and desist and to return the proceeds of his invalid appointment.
4. A receiver invalidly appointed [no powers of receivership] or validly appointed but exceeding his powers, may be held liable in a number of ways, including: trespass; conversion; constructive trusteeship (hand-back of proceeds); and restitutionary claims for unjust enrichment. It is therefore self-evident that very serious financial consequences may follow such unlawful activities.
5. In Re Goldberg (No. 2). Ex parte Page, a business was transferred fraudulently to a company, then charged to mortgagees. The mortgagees later appointed a receiver. The transfer was set aside as fraudulent. The charge under which the receiver was appointed fell away. The court held that the purported receiver was the agent of his appointor; the appointor and the receiver were therefore jointly and severally liable as trespassers.
6. Sometimes, a lender persuades a receiver to take actions when the receiver has no power to do so, with or without an indemnity. In Law of Property Act Receiverships (1994), at page 35 the author Stephen A. Lawson comments: “It will always be singularly unwise for a receiver to purport to exercise powers that are not, in fact, conferred upon him. Such a situation most commonly arises where a receiver is requested by the mortgagee to trade or carry on the business, there being no express power so to do, to apply the proceeds of sale of non-charged assets to the mortgagee (there being no express power so to do) or to deduct from the sale of freehold or leasehold assets, losses which have been incurred through continued trading. Receivers (and mortgagees) who go down this path do so very much at their own risk and could never be advised to act in such a manner.”
7. LIEN CLAIMANT is in possession of material evidence demonstrating that LIEN DEBTOR has been instructed by [Name of Bank] to carry on the business of LIEN CLAIMANT; to apply the proceeds of the LIEN CLAIMANT’s income to the Bank; and to deduct from the sale of freehold or leasehold assets, losses which have been incurred through continued illegal trading in the name of LIEN CLAIMANT, there being no express right to do so.
8. LIEN CLAIMANT declares that, in the absence of the Bank’s contractual and statutory rights to appoint LPA Receivers, every intentional act upon, obstruction to and interference with the properties concerned and upon the rights, duties and obligations of LIEN CLAIMANT, by LIEN DEBTORS, is demonstrably an act of trespass with conversion against LIEN CLAIMANT, for which LIEN CLAIMANT holds LIEN DEBTORS jointly, severally and personally liable under the terms of this non-consensual security instrument.
9. LIEN DEBTORS are also liable for a separate criminal complaint of Aggravated Trespass under Section 68(1) Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and stand alleged to have intimidated tenants and lease holders into redirecting their regular payments to LIEN DEBTORS, by making written threats of vexatious legal proceedings; and to have obstructed and disrupted LIEN CLAIMANT in carrying out their lawful activities as rightful custodians of the properties concerned [Exhibit A – Settlement Deeds], to the considerable detriment of LIEN CLAIMANT’s interests.

ALLEGATIONS

10. LIEN DEBTORS have repeatedly failed to provide any material evidence demonstrating that the Bank has or had the legal right to appoint an LPA Receiver under the Law of Property Act 1925. If unrebutted, this allegation is affirmed.
11. LIEN DEBTORS were invalidly appointed by the Bank as LPA Receivers in the absence of a valid legal mortgage by deed. If unrebutted, this allegation is affirmed.
12. LIEN DEBTORS have failed to provide any material evidence demonstrating that there is a valid and enforceable mortgage contract or contract by deed in existence. If unrebutted, this allegation is affirmed.
13. LIEN DEBTORS have illegally entered LIEN CLAIMANT’s properties [with and without force], altering and causing damage, harm and/or loss and attempting to deny access to the rightful owners. If unrebutted, this allegation is affirmed.
14. LIEN DEBTORS have been illegally acting in the name of LIEN CLAIMANT, under the “instructions” of the Bank. If unrebutted, this allegation is affirmed.
15. LIEN DEBTORS have been illegally receiving and disposing of LIEN CLAIMANT’s income from the properties concerned in the name of LIEN CLAIMANT. If unrebutted, this allegation is affirmed.

PROOF OF ALLEGATIONS

16. It is well established at law that any purported mortgage of property is void ab initio for the want of a valid and enforceable mortgage contract or contract by deed and that an equitable mortgage is no longer created by the mere deposit of title deeds, so it cannot be reasonably or honestly claimed that mortgage money has become due in this instance, as is the mandatory requirement of section 101 of the Law of Property Act 1925 [Statutory Authority 4], in the absence of a legal mortgage by deed [see Binding Legal Precedents]. In the light of these compelling judgments in support of this allegation, there is clearly no statutory right available for LIEN DEBTORS to rely upon in their defence, on the simple basis that it is self-evident that mortgage money could never become due under the terms of a void mortgage, under which the right to appoint an LPA Receiver could never lawfully arise; whilst LIEN DEBTORS have not provided LIEN CLAIMANT with any valid contract or deed which substantiates the Bank’s purported right to appoint them, whether under the Law of Property Act 1925 or otherwise, despite having been given numerous opportunities to do so since being served NOTICE OF UNLAWFUL ACTION [Exhibit B] on 27/07/2010. This allegation is therefore affirmed.
17. As LIEN DEBTORS have provided LIEN CLAIMANT with no material evidence, since the first day of their unlawful receivership on 25/07/2010, of the existence of a properly executed legal mortgage by deed, the purported charges upon which the appointment is reliant for its validity are void, cannot take any legal effect under section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 [Statutory Authority 1A] and must be cancelled as mistakes in the register upon application to the Land Registry, in accordance with the decision of the Adjudicator in Garguilo v Jon Howard Gershinson & Anr [2012] EWLandRA 2011_0377 (06 January 2012)[Exhibit C – Adjudicator’s Landmark Decision], which resulted in the cancelation of the registration of a lease and the charge which arose out of it for failing to comply with section 1 of the 1989 Act and the requirements it sets out for the proper execution of deeds, the form of which must be complete at the time it is signed by the duly authorised individuals concerned and those signatures must be attested to by witnesses at the moment of signature. Since none of the legal charges by deed purportedly granted to the Bank were signed by an authorised representative of the Bank in the presence of a witness, whilst the witnessed signatures of LIEN CLAIMANT were made on pages which did not form part of any complete legal charges operating as deeds at the times they were signed and witnessed [Exhibit I – Illegal Charges], LIEN DEBTORS were invalidly appointed in the absence of validly executed legal mortgages by deed. This allegation is therefore affirmed.
18. LIEN DEBTOR has not presented LIEN CLAIMANT with any material evidence demonstrating that there is in existence a valid and enforceable mortgage contract or a contract by deed, properly executed by both parties and containing all of its individually and fairly negotiated terms in a single document, in clear breaches section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 [Statutory Authority 1B], section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 [Statutory Authority 2] and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 [Statutory Authority 3], as well as section 101 of the Law of Property Act 1925 [Statutory Authority 4]. This automatically renders the purported mortgages void ab initio and their terms legally unenforceable, as per Keay & Keay v Morris Homes, United Bank Kuwait Plc v Sahib, Murray v Guinness, Williams v Redcard Ltd, Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc and Mercury Tax Group v HMRC [see Binding Legal Precedents]. This allegation is therefore affirmed.
19. In Exhibit D – Witness Statement of LIEN CLAIMANT, it is affirmed that LIEN CLAIMANT has witnessed first hand at [addresses of properties concerned], evidence that LIEN DEBTORS have illegally entered, altering, removing and causing damage, harm and/or loss to LIEN CLAIMANT’s properties, chattels and interests, demonstrating that they are attempting to prevent the rightful custodians from going about their lawful activities, by causing the locks to be changed upon unlawful entry by force and criminal damage, for the purposes of denying access to LIEN CLAIMANT. This allegation is therefore affirmed.
20. In Exhibit D, it is also affirmed that LIEN CLAIMANT has first hand knowledge and material evidence that LIEN DEBTORS are illegally instructing and/or appointing letting agents in the name of LIEN CLAIMANT, including [without limitation] resulting in the properties concerned being placed on the open market at fire sale prices [Exhibit F – Illegal Listings], significantly below their current market value and to the extreme detriment of the beneficial interests of the Trust [Exhibit G – Evaluation of Beneficial Interests] and the parties for whom LIEN DEBTORS purport to be acting. This evidence proves beyond doubt that LIEN DEBTORS have been illegally acting and instructing agents in the name of LIEN CLAIMANT. This allegation is therefore affirmed.
21. Although the exact amount remains unknown because of the non-disclosure of LIEN DEBTORS, Exhibit H – Miscellaneous Bank Statements, plainly demonstrates that many thousands of pounds have been illegally received by LIEN DEBTORS in an account bearing the name of LIEN CLAIMANT and paid to the Bank in interest [without the consent or authorisation of LIEN CLAIMANT] from the proceeds of the income illegally received, on a debt that LIEN CLAIMANT considers void ab initio because it is fraudulent, on the basis that the Bank has registered charges under the protection of the Land Registry, which it obtained through deception by unconscionable means, under the unenforceable terms and conditions of a non-existent mortgage contract and charges purportedly operating as deeds, which are in any event void ab initio for the want of compliance with the statutory law of mortgages. LIEN CLAIMANT has also received written confirmation from [Name & Address of Estate Agent (if any)], that LIEN DEBTORS are illegally receiving rental income from [Address of Properties Concerned] [Exhibit I – Letter from Estate Agent]. This allegation is therefore affirmed.

LEDGERING

22. For the avoidance of doubt, this document is a security instrument expressing the value of LIEN CLAIMANT’s natural, equitable and legal rights of custodianship over al the property, income and assets concerned, nunc-pro-tunc, for the immediate and urgent purposes of preventing any further torts of trespass and/or conversion being committed against LIEN CLAIMANT, as well as facilitating the repudiation of unlawful receivership and the return of all keys, documents and other items or property currently in the possession of LIEN DEBTORS and/or their agents, to the rightful custodians, LIEN CLAIMANT, along with the return of all proceeds/income that have been illegally received and misappropriated for any purpose whatsoever by LIEN DEBTORS and the removal of all the properties concerned from the open market.
23. LIEN CLAIMANT hereby charges this instrument in the sum of [the estimated value of properties/interests concerned]. TOTAL LIEN VALUE: GBP £#,###,###.00, subject to additional default charges.

DEFAULT CONDITIONS

24. LIEN DEBTORS are given 7 days to deliver to LIEN CLAIMANT material evidence in support of an appropriate point-for-point rebuttal under oath or affirmation of the foregoing allegations or to repudiate their invalid appointment. Failure to repudiate or rebut with material evidence every allegation made will result in LIEN DEBTORS becoming immediately liable for the payment of [Estimated Losses, plus Costs to date] following service of NOTICE OF DEFAULT & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE.
25. Triple Damages of [Total Losses & Costs x3] will be added to the debt if LIEN DEBTORS’ default is not cured by payment in full and repudiation of the invalid appointment within 21 days. In the event that it is not cured within 90 days, LIEN DEBTORS become liable for immediate payment of [Total Losses & Costs x 4 + Total Lien Value] following service of FINAL NOTICE OF DEFAULT.
26. A tort claim for damages and/or restitution may be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction, along with an urgent application for an injunction to be issued ex-parte, relying on this instrument and its related documents as evidence of LIEN DEBTORS’ liability for their acts of trespass with conversion and the financial encumbrance they have incurred as a result.
27. All disputes arising in relation to this lien shall be settled by arbitration under private law, unless otherwise established by the written agreement of the parties, whether expressed or implied.

ADDITIONAL SECURITY INTEREST

28. In the event of failure to cure default within 90 days, the right to a Non-Possessory Legal Lien will be asserted over the property, income and assets of LIEN DEBTORS, including, without limitation, any and all property, products, proceeds, bank accounts, fittings and fixtures, held or administered at their registered offices and/or their places of residence, until such time that the terms of this lien is satisfied, as a security interest for the outstanding debt to LIEN CLAIMANT. This debt may be assigned to a third party for judicial and/or non-judicial enforcement under private law.

AFFIRMATION UNDER OATH
29. I, [Name of LIEN CLAIMANT], with firsthand knowledge of the facts of the matter, hereby affirm under oath that, to the very best of my knowledge, I believe that the facts expressed herein are true, correct and not misleading.

______________________________________________
Executed as a Deed By: [Name of LIEN CLAIMANT],
All Rights Reserved – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Sworn before me, [Name of Commissioner for Oaths]
at [Address of Place of Execution], on the [Date of Execution].

Signature:_________________________

NOTICE is hereby given that the Lien Debtors have 7 days to rebut, point-for-point, the allegations contained herein, by delivering an a sworn Affidavit or a Deed of Repudiation to [Service Address]. In the event that Lien Debtors agree to repudiate the unlawful appointment or suspend their activities and participate in private arbitration proceedings, the enforcement of this lien will be suspended until the outcome of the tribunal [if any] is known. Failure to repudiate the unlawful appointment or to rebut any of the allegations upon full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury, will be construed as Lien Debtors’ tacit affirmation that said allegations are true, correct and complete and that Lien Debtors agree they are liable for multiple actions of trespass and conversion against LIEN CLAIMANT, to which estoppel conditions will apply.
____________________________________________________________

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
[NAME & ADDRESS OF LPA RECEIVERS]

DATE OF NOTICE
Served by recorded post and by email.

NOTICE OF DEFAULT & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

Dear [NAMES OF RECEIVERS],

Re: [REFERENCE DETAILS]

You are hereby served notice of default, pursuant to the terms of the Affidavit of Obligation [Security Interest], having failed to repudiate your unlawful receivership or substantively rebut the allegations contained therein under oath within 7 days of service.

You are both now held jointly, severally and personally liable for the payment of [Estimated Losses, plus Costs to date], which must be delivered to LIEN CLAIMANT by no later than [DATE OF DEADLINE]. Failure to do so will result in Triple Damages being applied, as per the terms and conditions of the Security Interest.

Served without malice, mischief, ill-will,
frivolity or vexation, with sincerity and honour,

_____________________________________________________________

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
[NAME & ADDRESS OF LPA RECEIVERS]

DATE OF NOTICE
Served by recorded post and by email.

FINAL NOTICE OF DEFAULT

Dear [NAMES OF RECEIVERS],

Re: [REFERENCE DETAILS]

You are hereby served FINAL NOTICE OF DEFAULT. You are now liable for immediate payment of [Total Losses & Costs x 4 + Total Lien Value]. Failure to provide such payment within 90 days of your receipt of the Security Interest on [DATE OF SERVICE] may result in either judicial or non-judicial enforcement, without further notice, in accordance with the terms of the lien.

Served without malice, mischief, ill-will,
frivolity or vexation, with sincerity and honour,

_____________________________________________________________________

Soon after the initiation of this process, a fire sale auction of the properties concerned at a fraction of their market value was prevented, whilst one of the void charges upon which the Lien Debtors rely is in the process of being removed from the register by the Land Registry, on the grounds that it fails to comply with the statutory law of mortgages, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the unlawful receivers and the bankster who illegally appointed them are liable for civil damages for committing Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Trespass with Conversion, as well as criminal charges of Aggravated Trespass and Fraud by False Representation and Non-Disclosure.

In such circumstances, the security interest established by the lien can, at least in legal theory, be enforced without judicial intervention or sanction, under the authority of the High Sheriff of the County. However, to do so the claimant would have to persuade an officer of the crown that the debt claimed is a valid and enforceable one.