Is it the job of Dyfed Powys Police to "assist" bailiffs and ignore crime?

Dear Sir or Madam,

under the freedom is information Act I would like answers to the
following questions;

1) If a 999 call is placed, and it is gained from the caller that a
bailiff is present at the property, is that an automatic deranking
of emergency status allowing justification for extending response
times to more 25 minutes? If so please provide a written copy of
procedure that indicates that this is so.

2) Are certified bailliffs appointed by the courts obliged to show
ID when requested to do so , Is it an offence if they refuse to
identify themselves? If withholding this information is justifiable
please provide written evidence.

3)Are certified bailiffs appointed by the courts obligated to show
or supply a copy of a warrant or liability order that they are
acting on when requested to do so. If no, please provide a copy of
written evidence stating that this is the case.

4)are bailiffs entitled by law to seize goods which have been
clearly defined as belonging to children? please provide evidence
of this

5)) Are dyfed Powys Police duty bound to prevent or restrict the
supply or viewing, of a warrant that bailiffs are intending to act
on, again please provide written confirmation of the authority that
instructs them to do that

6)) Is a blanket warrant that is not specifically directed at a
singly identified human being legally and lawfully binding?

7)) I was told by PC Pearson 158, and i have it on tape, whilst in
attendance at my property that "but legally we have to assist the
bailliffs in removing some of the property." i was under the
impression the police role at a property where bailiffs are in
attendance was to prevent a breach of the peace from occurring? can
you confirm which party is correct in their thinking? please
provide the written evidence that police officers are "legally
obliged to assist bailiffs to removed property"

8) Is part of the police role whilst at the scene of a crime, to
express personal opinion and assumption, dismiss and disregard
evidence and act on fabrication? And based on personal opinion are
they obliged to make unfounded accusations? please provide evidence

9) If a demand is made of an officer to investigate a serious
complaint, and that complaint is made without ill will , frivolity
or vexation, are they obliged to do so? If not please provide
written evidence that this is the case

10) If a formal complaint is raised verbally, are officers duty
bound to act, if not please provide us with written evidence that
says they are not obliged to act

11) Are dyed Powys Police obliged to note when someone states
catgorically that they are acting under protest and duress or are
they at liberty to ignore such a response and disregard the
comments as irrelevant? please show evidence

12) if an officer of Dyfed Powys police fails to prevent a crime
taking place, Is it a criminal offence for the same officer to
allow an offence to continue? is this or is this not classed as a
dereliction of duty?

13) have all of dyfed powys police sworn an oath of office to serve
which states, " with fairness, integrity, diligence and
impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according
equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my
power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all
offences against people and property"? in which case what are the
consequence of breaching that oath

14) Does visual bruising after being grabbed by a third person
(against your will and without your consent) constitute "actual"
bodily harm? and what are the penalties for committing such an act?

15) If consent has previously been revoked, withdrawn, removed and
denied and one has lawfully claimed common law jurisdiction, do
dyfed powys police have the authority to claim jurisdiction over a
human being ( as opposed to over the legal fiction)?

16) Are dyfed powys Police obliged to have any knowledge of the
laws they are enforcing? if so in what areas?

17) Is the Independent Police Complaints Commission obliged to act
on all complaints or are they selective about supplying reposes? if
so within what boundaries and time limits?

18) Are bailiffs legally or lawfully restricted to demanding cash
only for payments?

please answer all questions in full under penalty of perjury

Angie: of the Elder family, without prejudice and without ill will,
frivolity of veaxtion

Angie of the elder family

Dear Debby of the Jones Family,

Request for Clarification.

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond, it is
appreciated, however, I require clarification of a couple of points
you have made.
I have read and duly noted your response and I have read and noted
the content in the FOIA to which you refer, namely section 8.

I would like to draw your attention in particular to section 8
(1)(b) of the act which refers to pseudonyms and thereafter it
states:
“The definition of “applicant” in section 84 of the FOIA adds
weight to this as the phrase in section 8(1)(b) should be read as “
the name of the person making the request”. This also suggests that
the use of a false or fictitious name is not acceptable.”

Now, this is the area for which I need clarification, as my
understanding is that a “person” is a legal fiction, It is the
corporate body that is created upon registering the birth of a
child. The “person” or persona is the legal entity that is enforced
upon a human being for the purposes of applying statutes. It is a
process that exists and is instituted without our knowledge and
consent. The use of English honorific’s such as Dr. Mr. Miss. Mrs
etc creates title and name for the person and it is this that
distinguishes the person from the human being. To summarize
“title”, “name”, "surname", and “person” are all fictitious, any
name created in this way is a pseudonym by definition. The
statement from the FOIA is completely contradictory in itself, as
to suggest that a “false or fictitious” name is not acceptable
renders that the request for the name of the “person” null and void
anyway.

The FOIA clearly defines under “what constitutes a name?”, despite
incorrectly maintaining that “title and/or first name with surname
satisfies the requirement for provision of a real name” that “In
most cases, it will be reasonable for a real name to comprise a
name by which the person making the request is widely known and/or
is regularly used by that person and which is not an obvious
pseudonym or fictitious name.
I am commonly known as Angie of the Elder Family , that is as a
child I was called Angie by parents and peers, I answered to Angie,
I was known as Angie. I was not commonly called Mr, Miss, Mrs or Dr
and Elder is the family into which I married, therefore I am now of
the family Elder ie part of the Elder family. Angie: Elder for
short if you like, this is how I am distinguished from any other
human being although there are many others that share the same
moniker or given name. Angie of the Elder family refers to the
Human Being that I am.

I did not chose to give the fictitious title and name / surname
that that creates the legal fiction commonly known as a person, as
the Act states that those making a FOI request using a false or
fictitious name affords the request invalid.

Furthermore, that act also states ” In accordance with the spirit
and purpose of the FOIA, the default position of a public authority
should be to accept the name provided by the applicant unless there
is good reason to enquire further about the applicant’s name, as
indicated above.
Even when an obvious pseudonym has been used, as good practice a
public authority should still consider the request even though
technically it can be regarded as invalid. This approach could be
adopted in cases where identity is not relevant to the request and,
in view of the general principle within the FOIA of disclosure to
the world at large, where the authority is content to disclose the
information.” I would like to point out that, although no pseudonym
was used, my questions were generalised and so no personal
information was requested therefore pseudonym or not and bearing in
mind that “as good practice a public authority should still
consider the request”, these are all perfectly valid requests that
I still require answers to.

In conclusion it seems to me that a double standard is in place
whereby fictions and falsehoods are acceptable as long as it serves
the purpose of maintaining applicableness of statutes and the
ability to enforce such, as opposed to honesty, sincerity ,
truthfulness and integrity that a true family name relays. Your
claim of refusal due to lack of surname is unfounded, unacceptable
an inconsequential and basically befits the boundaries that define
vexation, therefore I would like the questions asked to be answered
in substance.

As you have not accepted Angie: of the Elder family as being my
name, it seems you have made a clear distinction between what i am
commonly called and the ficititious legal title to which you claim
is needed for a response to be made thereby i conclude that my
understanding is correct and that two separate identites are
catalogued without disclosure upon registering the birth of a human
being. May I suggest that you read my Notice of Understanding and
Intent and Claim of Right, a signed, sealed, notarised, copy of
which was sent to Cheif SuperIntendent Keith Jones by registered
post in March 2009 and which still remains undisputed and
uncontested, hence it has gained lawful estoppel and is now a
legally perfected instrument, for a better understanding as to why
lateer does not apply to me.

you sincerely without ill will , frivolity, vexation or prejudice
Angie: of the Elder Family as commonly called and known

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Dyfed Powys Police's
handling of my FOI request 'Is it the job of Dyfed Powys Police to
"assist" bailiffs and ignore crime?'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/is...

Is this yet another case of Dyfed Powys police thinking they are
above the law and can break it whenever they see fit? are Dyfed
Powys Police as proficient at ignoring questions as they are at
ignoring crime? it seems so , These questions will not go away just
because you choose not to answer them? Ignorence is no defence of
the law

Yours faithfully,

angie of the elder family