LCS / 1ST LOCATE & CORPORATE ENTITY FRAUD

LCS / 1ST LOCATE

ANDREW STEPHEN BARCLAY LCS / 1ST LOCATE CEO has these SECURITIZED, AFFIDAVIT/LIENS served upon them 12-09-22 DOY DOY001 ALSO. , 09-01-25 DIT HOD001 ANOTHER 10-03-25 BES HOB001 AND ALSO . With a ‘OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW’ Notice served 13-01-22 PUR HOP001.

Letter sent to ANDREW STEPHEN BARCLAY LCS / 1ST LOCATE CEO, reminding them of their obligations vis-a-vis 'INFORMATION DISCLOSURE submitted 199 days, along with reminders to the ICO as GDPR Regulators submitted 27/07/25.

Fraud vitiates

FACTS

LCS / 1ST LOCATE, a corporate entity which, as with every other CORPS, including up to the self-titled corporate entity/body politick of 400/882 CHARLES PHILIP ARTHUR GEORGE CIIIR, requires the WET INK SIGNATURE of the Party's for any agreement. Any (sic) "CONTRACT" which is not properly executed - wet signed and with mutual consideration - is a fraudulent instrument. e-Contracts are, by definition thro the deliberate omission of using signatures and mutual consideration, is a fraud. No entity—body politick or corporate—has authority over natural man--nor have they ever--the claims of "law" are a hoodwink. No natural man has ever given authority, in eternity, that any (sic) “leader”, can create ‘rules/act/law/contract/agreement’ in to eternity & all natural man must obey.

ABSOLUTE FRAUD VITIATES ABSOLUTELY.

FRAUD ACT} 3(a); —Fraud by failing to disclose information—A person is in breach of this section if he—dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose”

TERRORISM ACT} 1(1)(b) —the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public

COMPANIES ACT 44(1a)(1b)—Execution of documents—by the affixing of its common seal, or by signature in accordance with the following provisions

BILLS ACT 27(1)(a) —The Consideration for a Bill—Valuable consideration for a bill may be constituted by Any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract

CPR RULES 83.8(1) —If the creditor or debtor serves notice on the enforcement agent or enforcement officer requiring reasonable information about the execution of a writ or warrant, the enforcement agent or enforcement officer must send such information to the creditor or debtor within 7 days of service of the notice.

CPR 83 (2)(f) —give such other information as is necessary to satisfy the court that the applicant is entitled to proceed to execution on the judgment or order, and that the person against whom it is sought to issue execution is liable to execution on it.

The alledged courts case number is not recognised by the Ministry of Justice who oversee HMCTS as evidenced by SAR requests which come back "CASE NOT FOUND. The alledged courts refuse to show the paperwork submitted--in direct breach of CPR. Laffably, CPR rules are published under the auspices of the corporate entity of "JUSTICE.GOV"

Under CPR 83.2 & CPR 83.13(8)(a) A warrant of control may only be issued following a valid court order...which must be issued and sealed by a court officer. It is essential that this warrant is signed and properly sealed to be valid...without the proper court seal and signature, the warrant cannot be deemed to have been lawfully issued, and thus cannot support any action of enforcement.

PONDER THIS

Can it be coincidence the ICO, HMCTS, Regulatory Authority's, delay censuring corporations, including LCS / 1ST LOCATE, which allows time for the CORPS' to have enforcers attack your property?

When and where did any natural man EVER, AGREE to this SO-CALLED LAW

FACTS, FACTS and more FACTS

WONDER WHY LCS / 1ST LOCATE and any other corporation, refuse to respond with all information requested, including CONTRACTS, AGREEMENT, BILLS, COURT CASE MANAGEMENT FILES?

A look at any of the (sic) laws "signed in to law" shows, the CORPS requirement for either a wet-signature or a Seal on any instrument in order to 'execute' it. As no man has granted CIIIR, his antecedents, predecessors or successors any Power of Attorney there is no authority granted to say any man must follow the Corporate laws. No man could ever grant Power of Attorney over another in perpetuity meaning each man would have to agree to each and every corporate officer created by CIIIR and the like. A claim of Power of Attorney without execution of the contract is fraud. A claim of perpetual Power of Attorney is fraud. All is fraud under their own rules as there is an absence of mutual consideration and the consideration favours only the corporation, and never reveals to any man, the absence of authority to create any law by which any man outwith the corporation must follow

Evidence showing any Secretary of State is a CORPORATION

Last thoughts ...

There are no signatures, no contracts nothing for these acts of in terrorem fraud. No one's property is safe.

01-SEP-25 Baron David Ward is a repository for many of the Affidavit and Liens which all aim to disabuse the misled of the actual FACTS the liens:

AFFIDAVIT LIBRARY NAV

Links to BDW's AFFIDAVIT and EXHIBITs

    Click here to read the Original BARON DAVID WARD Affidavit

    Click here to read the LCS/1st LOCATE Affidavit which follows the BDW METHODOLOGY

free counters