Regarding one matter which Sylvia Woodham has raised in her email harassment of 2025.3.14 which is obviously weighing in her mind.
I have previously answered the question, albeit apparently in a way which has been unsatisfactory to her. I will now reply again in a different way, in an attempt to get it through to her what the situation is and how it has nothing to do with her whatsoever.
The allegations contained within her email is evidence that she is spreading malicious allegations about my conduct. I have requested multiple times that she stop lying about me. She has ignored this request, her smear campaign and defamation has continued regardless.
—————
In the United Kingdom, interference with a person’s finances without their consent can be addressed under the common law tort of “tortious interference,” also known as “interference with contractual relations” or “unlawful interference.” This tort occurs when a third party intentionally disrupts the contractual or business relationships of others, leading to economic harm. For example, if someone persuades a party to breach a contract with another, the injured party may seek remedies under this tort.
Additionally, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 allows third parties to enforce contractual terms made for their benefit, provided certain conditions are met. However, this Act primarily focuses on granting rights to third parties rather than addressing unauthorized interference.
In Germany, the legal concept of “negotiorum gestio” (Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag) addresses situations where a person (the gestor) manages the affairs of another (the principal) without prior consent, intending to benefit the principal. Under the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch or BGB), the gestor is entitled to reimbursement for necessary expenses but not to remuneration. This concept ensures that unauthorized management of another’s affairs is conducted in a manner that protects the principal’s interests.
Moreover, Germany’s legal framework includes provisions against “interference liability” (Störerhaftung), where a party can be held liable for contributing to or facilitating the infringement of another’s rights, even without direct involvement. This principle is applied in cases where a third party’s actions, though not directly causing harm, create conditions that enable or exacerbate the violation of someone’s legal rights.
Both jurisdictions aim to protect individuals from unauthorized interference in their financial matters, though the specific legal mechanisms and terminologies differ.