Eborn Legal Review – edited by Andrew Eborn
Hargreaves v The District Probate Court
A woman claiming to be The Lord Jesus Christ has been warned that she risks being banned from future litigation.
His Honour Judge Hodge said the claim was ‘arrant nonsense’ and was totally without merit.
When the claim form was first issued Judge Hodge made an order to strike it out. The claimant, MICHELLE ANDREA HARGREAVES (styling herself as ‘THE LORD JESUS CHRIST’) 59, applied to set aside that order and addressed the court for 20 minutes during a telephone hearing, after which the judge dismissed the application holding that there was nothing to suggest her birth was in any way wrongly registered.
The claimant was born on 29 April 1963 and her birth was registered in the name she was given by her parents of Michelle Andrea Derrig. She subsequently married and became known as Michelle Andrea Hargreaves. On 23 September 2017, she was apparently baptised by Eric Hargreaves when she was given the name of Chellemia Dreanah.
She changed her name on 22 November 2021 to Jesus Christ.
The claim, brought in the name of ‘The Lord Jesus Christ’ was that having been wrongly named, she was reborn of water and spirit from the living god in Jesus Christ on 23 September 2017. Judge Hodge pointed out in his judgement that the claimant seeks relief “the precise nature of which is unclear but which appears to relate to changing the name on her birth certificate and the registration of her birth.”
Judge Hodge goes on to state that “the claim form places reliance upon a statute, the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666. That was an Act apparently introduced to address the specific problem of cases where property was held on trust for a life estate and the life tenant had gone abroad and was apparently deceased but there was no proof of that fact. I must confess to being totally unable to see the relevance of that statute to the present claim.”
In addition to the 1666 Act, the claimant has also referred me to the legislation concerning the registration of births, marriages and deaths, specifically the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. The registrar is not named as a defendant, but that does not seem to me to be particularly material given that I cannot see that the claimant has any legal cause of action in relation to any of the matters of which she complains.
Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides (in CPR 8.2) that where the claimant uses the Part 8 procedure, the claim form must state not only that Part 8 applies (which this claim form does) but it must also identify the question which the claimant wants the court to decide, or the remedy that she is seeking and the legal basis for her claim to that remedy.
Judge Hodge pointed out in his judgement that “it is very difficult to discern what particular question is sought to be answered or what relief is sought, but it appears to be some change in the name in which the claimant was registered at the date of birth because she has since been baptised and then changed her name to ‘Jesus Christ’.”
The claimant says that she is “… just a simple man, a child born in the image of God, wrongly named, numbered and formed on to a Birth Certificate in the image and likeness of the UK”. The claimant asks the “Defendant Registrar General to correct/amend the name to the rightful name Jesus Christ on Birth Certificate”.
Judge Hodge held that he was “entirely satisfied…that the claim form discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim…Essentially, there is nothing in the claim form to suggest that the registration of the claimant’s birth was in any way wrongly registered. She was given the name Michelle Andrea Derrig by the father who registered her birth and there is nothing to suggest that there was any error.”
The Judge held that the application is “totally without merit”.
He went on to say “there appears to be a slight oddity in the provisions relating to the making of civil restraint orders. There has only been one application in this case, which is the instant application, and therefore there is not the basis for making even a limited civil restraint order against the claimant because she has only made one application which has been found to be totally without merit. However, I warn the claimant now that if she makes any further claims or applications of a similar nature, then the court may well find that it has the power to, and that it should, make a civil restraint order against her.”
A Civil Restraint Order (CRO) is a court order issued by a judge.
They’re usually given when a person’s application for a court hearing is refused but they won’t accept the judge’s decision.
A CRO then stops that person from re-applying to court.
Different types of CRO
The judge will decide which is the most suitable type of order to issue.
Limited CRO (LCRO)
If a person is issued with an LCRO, it means they have to get the judge’s permission before making any application to the court covered by the order.
Extended CRO (ECRO)
If the person continues to go back to the court, a judge can issue an ECRO.
This order is limited to a specified group of courts. ECROs last 3 years, but can be renewed for a further 3 years.
General CRO (GCRO)
In the most extreme cases, the judge will grant a GCRO.
This order applies to all the county courts and the High Court. GCROs last 3 years, but can be renewed for a further 3 years.
If this order is ignored, the person will be in contempt of court and may receive a prison sentence.
.#####################################################################
Eborn Legal Review – edited by Andrew Eborn
Hargreaves v The District Probate Court
A woman claiming to be The Lord Jesus Christ has been warned that she risks being banned from future litigation.
His Honour Judge Hodge said the claim was ‘arrant nonsense’ and was totally without merit.
When the claim form was first issued Judge Hodge made an order to strike it out. The claimant, MICHELLE ANDREA HARGREAVES (styling herself as ‘THE LORD JESUS CHRIST’) 59, applied to set aside that order and addressed the court for 20 minutes during a telephone hearing, after which the judge dismissed the application holding that there was nothing to suggest her birth was in any way wrongly registered.
The claimant was born on 29 April 1963 and her birth was registered in the name she was given by her parents of Michelle Andrea Derrig. She subsequently married and became known as Michelle Andrea Hargreaves. On 23 September 2017, she was apparently baptised by Eric Hargreaves when she was given the name of Chellemia Dreanah.
She changed her name on 22 November 2021 to Jesus Christ.
The claim, brought in the name of ‘The Lord Jesus Christ’ was that having been wrongly named, she was reborn of water and spirit from the living god in Jesus Christ on 23 September 2017. Judge Hodge pointed out in his judgement that the claimant seeks relief “the precise nature of which is unclear but which appears to relate to changing the name on her birth certificate and the registration of her birth.”
Judge Hodge goes on to state that “the claim form places reliance upon a statute, the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666. That was an Act apparently introduced to address the specific problem of cases where property was held on trust for a life estate and the life tenant had gone abroad and was apparently deceased but there was no proof of that fact. I must confess to being totally unable to see the relevance of that statute to the present claim.”
In addition to the 1666 Act, the claimant has also referred me to the legislation concerning the registration of births, marriages and deaths, specifically the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. The registrar is not named as a defendant, but that does not seem to me to be particularly material given that I cannot see that the claimant has any legal cause of action in relation to any of the matters of which she complains.
Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides (in CPR 8.2) that where the claimant uses the Part 8 procedure, the claim form must state not only that Part 8 applies (which this claim form does) but it must also identify the question which the claimant wants the court to decide, or the remedy that she is seeking and the legal basis for her claim to that remedy.
Judge Hodge pointed out in his judgement that “it is very difficult to discern what particular question is sought to be answered or what relief is sought, but it appears to be some change in the name in which the claimant was registered at the date of birth because she has since been baptised and then changed her name to ‘Jesus Christ’.”
The claimant says that she is “… just a simple man, a child born in the image of God, wrongly named, numbered and formed on to a Birth Certificate in the image and likeness of the UK”. The claimant asks the “Defendant Registrar General to correct/amend the name to the rightful name Jesus Christ on Birth Certificate”.
Judge Hodge held that he was “entirely satisfied…that the claim form discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim…Essentially, there is nothing in the claim form to suggest that the registration of the claimant’s birth was in any way wrongly registered. She was given the name Michelle Andrea Derrig by the father who registered her birth and there is nothing to suggest that there was any error.”
The Judge held that the application is “totally without merit”.
He went on to say “there appears to be a slight oddity in the provisions relating to the making of civil restraint orders. There has only been one application in this case, which is the instant application, and therefore there is not the basis for making even a limited civil restraint order against the claimant because she has only made one application which has been found to be totally without merit. However, I warn the claimant now that if she makes any further claims or applications of a similar nature, then the court may well find that it has the power to, and that it should, make a civil restraint order against her.”
.#####################################################################
Getting the rights right is key. Don’t miss out… get in touch!
ANDREW EBORN – RIGHTING WRONGS
GET IN TOUCH
Andrew believes that there are many injustices which do not get the
media attention they deserve, or indeed desperately need the oxygen of
publicity for their cause. This is where Andrew hopes to help. By
focusing on the injustice and assisting to promote, Andrew is keen to
give an initial helping hand in any way he can make possible.
If there are particular issues you would like Andrew Eborn to
investigate please provide information here so he may be able to
assess if he can provide you with help.
www.ebornlegalreview.com/
https://peoplematter.tv/peoplematter-tv-clients/andrew-eborn/
www.rightingwrong.co.uk
Follow @AndrewEborn @OctopusTV
www.octopus.tv
© Andrew Eborn 2022
