DWP

It has reached my attention that the DWP are changing the way they operate again! and once again they are breaching English Contract Law and European Contract Protocols to do so, and this is a change to anyone using their Universal Jobmatch account and is designed to harvest more of your private data as this is YOUR intellectual property and can only be given to anyone with your "fully informed consent" which means what is says.

Do you have to have a Universal Jobmatch account? actually no and if you refuse to have one their staff will try to trick you into having one by lies and misinformation. Everyone with a birth certificate has something called "inalienable rights" which are rights which cannot be taken away, and by the DWP trading as Jobcentre Plus claiming they cannot pay your benefits they are breaking the law as your inalienable rights guarantee you many things such as free medical care, and of course your benefits.
You will have an agreement which the DWP legally enforce every year and by legally enforcing an agreement it becomes a contract and ECL and ECP both apply, so what are these changes and how are they illegal? well, with any contract only the terms and conditions in force at the time of signing it apply, so if they want to change these terms and conditions they must get your "fully Informed Consent" and they must do this with a variation to contract called a variation, or an amendment instruction often called an AI, and these must be offered to you and you can accept or choose to refuse their offer of a change to your terms and conditions.

If you choose to refuse their offer it is up to the DWP to make provisions to honour those contractual conditions, it is not up to you to comply with any offer they make as you have a contract in force and by the DWP's own admission in the public domain, they can remain in force indefinately; however, in practise DWP staff will try to threaten, harass, and even lie to you to get you to sign for these newer conditions, so you simply refuse as by threats to stop your money, claims that they cannot pay you, or simply lying to you they have committed something called "duress" and if money is involved "financial duress" and either or both of these are sufficient to make any contract void or voidable, so what is the difference? A void contract is a contract which cannot come into force and if it does and you comply then you can serve a Lawful Notice and void or "rescind" the contract, a voidable contract is one which cannot come into force, so by acting under a voidable contract the DWP are committing both theft and fraud.

How does this work? basically, staff are verbally telling claimants that they have changed to a new Jobmatch system and that instead of the old system recording their job applications, they must bring proof that they have applied for jobs in written form or electronic form, and it must contain the claimants E-mail address, a claimants log in details, a claimants password, a claimants job application details, and the passwords they have used for that application, so basically it is tricking people into giving away more of their personal data which goes straight to an American company called Lockheed Martin who are a large defence organisation.

Nice work assassin,

I think a section for government departments would be very useful .

Slightly on the same topic: A few years ago a friend of mine quoted "for the DWP to stop your benefits was tantamount to them pushing you from poverty to penury. And that is illegal under European Law"

Can anyone throw a little light on this please?

Yes Mike.

Benefits are an inalienable right and these cannot be removed, so by stopping your benefits the DWP are acting unlawfully by virtue of the fact that you have a birth certificate and they are under a contract by virtue of the birth certificate, and one of those is an entitlement to various benefits.
In simple terms: when your parents register a live birth they form a contract with the Crown Corporation and this is a benefit to the Crown Corporation through them rolling these into bonds and then securities, which are invested for the life of the shortest living person in that security, there are usually 10 - 25 persons per security. Where there is a benefit there has to be a liability and that is that you are looked after from cradle to grave, you get medical care free of charge, an entitlement to various benefits ranging from unemployment to disability benefits and a number of other things which the Crown is liable for.

The only way around this for the Crown is to get you as an individual into another contract on THEIR TERMS and this is what they do with the various Jobseeker agreements, and they force you to sign them in order to get something which is rightfully yours. Once this agreement is signed by you it will be legally enforced by the DWP as they enforce hndreds of them per year, as they are legally enforced they become a contract and bound by contract law, which is English Contract Law and European Contract Protocols, which are both based upon lex mercatoria.

Under ECL and ECP parties have a duty to disclose all information required to make a "fully informed decision" and this falls down straight away as you have no contract with them, your parents entered a contract with them on your behalf and you had no say in the matter, so this cannot be lawful as you didn't consent to your parents acting as your agents or representatives. They have only acted upon an assumption, and they cannot act lawfully on behalf of another party such as the Crown Corporation who now own the child, so straight away we have a clear breach of every national and international form of contract law.

Enter international Human Rights, when the international human rights legislation was drafted it included the component parts that he who gains a benefit must also accept the liability and by tricking your parents into registering you they have applied duress through not fully informing them of the facts, and fraud by false representation along with duress.

When EU human rights legislation was drafted it included wholesale elements of international human rights law and this was included in several of its chapters, so now we have a situation arising which is:

The Crown forces parents to register a new live birth on the "assumption" that this is what they would wish.

The Crown takes all the benefits of this even though the contract (BC) is only operating on an assumption of what a child may want.

This contract is fraudulent as it is not signed by the parties or lawfully appointed agents or representatives, and it becomes both a void and voidable contract which should not come into force.

The crown then tries to limit or mitigate their liabilities through using a second contract heavily biased in their favour by using nothing more than an assumption that they actually own you, and they do this by using the DWP to develop the jobseekers agreement as this limits their liability to pay you what they owe you when you require it and this is a fraudulent gain for the DWP and the Crown.

Lets look at European Contract Protocols:

Article 1.102 - Freedom of contract

(1) Parties are free to enter into a contract and to determine its contents, subject to the requirements of good faith and fair dealing, and the mandatory rules established by these Principles.
(2) The parties may exclude the application of any of the Principles or derogate from or vary their effects, except as otherwise provided by these Principles.

How can a baby enter into any contract, it is not old enough to have rational thoughts or consent to anything.

Article 1.104 - Application to questions of consentWhy have the Crown already breached the rules governing fair dealing and good faith?

(1) The existence and validity of the agreement of the parties to adopt or incorporate these Principles shall be determined by these Principles.
(2) Nevertheless, a party may rely upon the law of the country in which it has its habitual residence to establish that it did not consent if it appears from the circumstances that it would not be reasonable to determine the effect of its conduct in accordance with these Principles.

All EU legislation is ratified into UK law by virtue of our membership so they have to apply to the UK.

Article 1.105 (ex art. 1.103) - Usages and Practices

(1) The parties are bound by any usage to which they have agreed and by any practice they have established between themselves.
(2) The parties are bound by a usage which would be considered generally applicable by persons in the same situation as the parties, except where the application of such usage would be unreasonable.

Babies cannot agree or disagree to anything, they cannot speak so cannot consent, they cannot write so cannot sign any contract.

Article 1.201 (ex art. 1.106) - Good Faith and Fair Dealing

(1) Each party must act in accordance with good faith and fair dealing.
(2) The parties may not exclude or limit this duty.

The Crown have already broken this fundamental rule of Contract Law by being less than honest.

Article 3.204 - Agent acting without or outside his authority

(1) Where a person acting as an agent acts without authority or outside the scope of its authority, its acts are not binding upon the principal and the third party.
(2) Failing ratification by the principal according to article 3.207, the agent is liable to pay the third party such damages as will place the third party in the same position as if the agent had acted with authority. This does not apply if the third party knew or could not have been unaware of the agent's lack of authority.

Parents cannot be given authority by a baby, therefore it is only an assumption or assumed authority.

Article 3.209 - Duration of Authority

(1) An agent's authority continues until the third party knows or ought to know that:
(a) the agent's authority has been brought to an end by the principal, the agent, or both; or
(b) the acts for which the authority had been granted have been completed, or the time for which it had been granted has expired; or
(c) the agent has become insolvent or, where a natural person, has died or become incapacitated; or
(d) the principal has become insolvent.
(2) The third party is considered to know that the agent's authority has been brought to an end under paragraph(1) (a) above if this has been communicated or publicised in the same manner in which the authority was originally communicated or publicised.
(3) However, the agent remains authorised for a reasonable time to perform those acts which are necessary to protect the interests of the principal or its successors.

Article 4.103 (ex art. 6.103) - Mistake as to facts or law

(1) A party may avoid a contract for mistake of fact or law existing when the contract was concluded if:
(a) (i) the mistake was caused by information given by the other party; or
(ii) the other party knew or ought to have known of the mistake and it was contrary to good faith and fair dealing to leave the mistaken party in error; or
(iii) the other party made the same mistake, and
(b) the other party knew or ought to have known that the mistaken party, had it known the truth, would not have entered the contract or would have done so only on fundamentally different terms.
(2) However a party may not avoid the contract if:
(a) in the circumstances its mistake was inexcusable, or
(b) the risk of the mistake was assumed, or in the circumstances should be borne, by it.

Now it gets interesting as everyone assumes that the contract is with the baby and its parents, but by virtue of the birth certificate the contract should be with the legal owners of the property which is the child and the Crown themselves, and not between the baby and its parents. Here we have a clear case of information given by both the Government and the Crown being incorrect as they both lead the parents to believe that the baby is theirs when in fact it becomes the property of the Crown. Both the Crown and Government are a party to this deception and this is contrary to good faith and fair dealing, and by promoting this information the Crown and Government are both guilty of fraud. Both the Crown and Government know this is a mistake and do nothing, and this alone is enough to rescind a contract as it is both void and voidable.

Article 4.107 (ex art. 6.107) - Fraud

(1) A party may avoid a contract when it has been led to conclude it by the other party's fraudulent representation, whether by words or conduct, or fraudulent non-disclosure of any information which in accordance with good faith and fair dealing it should have disclosed.
(2) A party's representation or non-disclosure is fraudulent if it was intended to deceive.
(3) In determining whether good faith and fair dealing required that a party disclose particular information, regard should be had to all the circumstances, including:
(a) whether the party had special expertise;
(b) the cost to it of acquiring the relevant information;
(c) whether the other party could reasonably acquire the information for itself; and
(d) the apparent importance of the information to the other party.

Both the Crown and Government and its departments are guilty of fraud by making fraudulent misrepresentations, and failing to disclose the fact by both words and conduct and failing to disclose that by virtue of the berth certificate, that the Crown now owns the baby.

Article 4.108 (ex art. 6.108) - Threats

A party may avoid a contract when it has been led to conclude it by the other party's imminent and serious threat of an act:
(a) which is wrongful in itself, or
(b) which it is wrongful to use as a means to obtain the conclusion of the contract ,
unless in the circumstances the first party had a reasonable alternative.

If a baby is not registered the Government make many threats, the main one being that the child (the parents property) will be taken off them, the real issue is that any unmregistered child cannot be taken off the legal owners which is still the parents by virtue of them NOT registering the child, and unregistered child which is taken away is actually theft.

Article 4.109 (ex art. 6.109) - Excessive benefit or unfair advantage

(1) A party may avoid a contract if, at the time of the conclusion of the contract:
(a) it was dependent on or had a relationship of trust with the other party, was in economic distress or had urgent needs, was improvident, ignorant, inexperienced or lacking in bargaining skill, and
(b) the other party knew or ought to have known of this and, given the circumstances and purpose of the contract, took advantage of the first party's situation in a way which was grossly unfair or took an excessive benefit.
(2) Upon the request of the party entitled to avoidance, a court may if it is appropriate adapt the contract in order to bring it into accordance with what might have been agreed had the requirements of good faith and fair dealing been followed.
(3) A court may similarly adapt the contract upon the request of a party receiving notice of avoidance for excessive benefit or unfair advantage, provided that this party informs the party who gave the notice promptly after receiving it and before that party has acted in reliance on it.

Let’s deal with the next component which is the key link in the chain and this is EUHR act as this combines with the European Contract protocols to form an understanding of what is happening and how the conclusion was reached.

Article 3 – Prohibition of torture

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Isn't inhuman and degrading treatment and financial punishment penury? I am sure most people having their benefits stopped to the point of losing their home, not being able to eat, and ending up on the streets is all of the above.

Article 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour.

1 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
2 No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

By the very actions of both the Crown and Government we are in both slavery and servitide.

Article 5 – Right to liberty and security

1 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

Isn't your home security, isn't being able to feed yourself security of person?

Article 6 – Right to a fair trial

1In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

This is the real killer, with the DWP you get a tribunal but it is called "mandatory reconsideration" and it is neither independent, impartial, and never public; and this works with article 7 of the legislation.

Article 7 – No punishment without law

 1 No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

 2 This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

As no law is involved, any penalty such as reducing your money or stopping it is totally illegal as a mandatory reconsideration is a group of decision makers in the employment of the DWP giving their opinions only, you do not go to court and a court has given no decision, therefore the only thing they can do is keep it within the civil and contractual realm, and based solely on a contract which is void and voidable. If their claims are to be believed you have comitted theft, and this is theft from the entire nation, so why do they try to keep it to civil and contractual and never include criminal within their claims.

Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy

 Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

Anyone working in any jobcentre is working in an official capacity, they are bound by the Civil Service Codes of Conduct which applies not only to civil servants, but to any agent of contractor working for the department, you never get an effective remedy as you only ever get your benefits reinstated after you have spent a lot of your time and money fighting them, which you never recover in most cases.

Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

Your status is "unemployed" and you are clearly being discriminated against, would they disdriminate against someone working?

Article 17 – Prohibition of abuse of rights

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.