Chrisy Morris; YouTube Bailiff 'Baiter' to face 2 day trial for obstructing an enforcement agent.

[Bailiff Advice]

Thanks BA

it was not showing the warrant, it was more that the warrant was gained by deceit, by stating it was for a trespasser/squatter,

 

I could be wrong but the obstruction charge against Chrisy M was in relation to Miss Patel's cottage. If so, she has has a lot of court hearings and the supposed 'irregularity' has been rejected.

[Leakie]

No this county court case was to do with Chrisy Morris when he was arrested

 

he must have appealed or something as i thought his case was in November last year,

 

Now been found not guilty and the judge ripped into the prosecution because of the incorrect paper work.

and apparently not showing the warrant on request

[James Belland]

No Leakie, it wasn't a Civil court hearing Chrisy Morris was at last week.

It was his Criminal court Appeal which had been postponed from last November - obstruction of a High Court Enforcement Officer at Patel Cottage, Glossop on June 2016 (oh how slowly the wheels of justice turn).

It's all on Quatloos. Read it.

 

And no, form N293A wasn't used and correctly so.

It was Writ 66 and 88. Everything was tickety boo.

 

The only fly in the ointment being the CPS who couldn't be arsed to produce the original writs to HH Judge Lawton.

Didn't think it necessary to look for them.

Thought photocopies would suffice.

 

ut Judge Lawton who had travelled all the way up to Manchester from Woolwich or somewhere that hot day ready for a 2-day trial lost patience after 40 minutes and called the whole thing off.

 

oral of the story more funding for the overworked understaffed CPS please, Teresa May.

Edited April 29, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[James Belland]

There's a lot of confusion out there about this case.

This article from June 2017 will fill in the background

https://tamesidereporter.com/2017/06...rt-judgement1/

 

Shortly after this Chancery Division Judge's decision in June 2017 Rekha Patel was evicted a second time in July 2017 (she'd broken back into the house shortly after her 2016 eviction and squatted there for a year).

 

She was convicted at Stockport Magistrates in Nov 2017 for Obstructing a Court Enforcement Officer, and later received a 2-year Civil Restraint Order to stop her from repeatedly taking the neighbour to court for merit-less reasons.

 

Consequently, legal costs must have rocketed to well over £100k so there is likely to be no change out of the sale of her cottage.

All this is documented on Quatloos.

Added to those costs are the 24/7 dog patrol costs.

 

She and her FMoTL friends have attempted to break back in to the cottage half a dozen times since summer 2017 so security are guarding the cottage until the house is sold. T

 

he thread started in this forum by BA was closed due to 'UncleBulgaria67' and 'Bernadette' sticking up for Rekha Patel.

They must be the only 2 people left in Britain who fail to see the misery she has inflicted on a whole community with her anti-social behaviour.

And it wasn't over a 'few stones' as reported in the Rekha-fed Press - she actually undermined the foundations of the neighbours' grade 2 listed property.

Edited April 29, 2018 by dx100uk
typo/spacing

[unclebulgaria67]

I very much doubt I have the power to close a thread due to sticking up for anyone. This is a consumer site and it is up to the site team to decide on whether a thread is helpful to consumers or not.

 

I just have a pet hate of people seeming to take pleasure out of others people misery or mistakes. Often behind the stories is someone that has an issue where someone should have stepped in to stop them. To make a mistake and make their situation worse by their behaviours is awful to everyone involved. I do feel sorry for the neigbours, as their lifes must have been made hell.

[James Belland]

Yup Unclebulgaria67, their lives have been made hell for over 7 years due to Rekha Patel, who incidentally has now changed her surname. She emailed all the teachers of her school about it even though she hasn't been teaching there for nearly 18 months. On extended sick leave with "stress". Why change her name though? Maybe it's because she went running to the Press and didn't come out too well. Stays on Google forever including this.... https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extended-civil-restraint-orders-in-force

[Bailiff Advice]

Rekha had a very nice Grade 2 cottage in a good location without a mortgage. She, just like Tom Crawford before her, managed to get the attention of FMoTL and Sovereign Citizen idiots and she now has nothing. When will these people learn.

 

What she and her followers have been seeking is the proverbial 'loophole' to prove that there has been a 'fraud' or 'conspiracy'. There is none and she has lost her house and bought misery on the neighbours for years. Her change of surname speaks volumes.

[BazzaS]

Stays on Google forever including this.... https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extended-civil-restraint-orders-in-force

 

That link shows the eCRO currently expires 30th November 2019.

So, it expires.

As for “stays on Google forever” : it MIGHT if it were an indefinite order.

As it isn’t, it’ll be subject to the “right to be forgotten”.

https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/13/google-loses-right-to-be-forgotten-case

 

So, not forever.

[James Belland]

When I said "forever" I was talking about the many articles and news reports from the Press - not the link I posted about her extended CRO which expires in Nov 2019. This story is classed as public interest - therefore is Googlable forever. (Unless Rekha wants to ask the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Manchester Evening News, the Mirror, the Tameside Reporter, some Indian newspaper some Brazilian newspaper etc etc to take down their story. Somehow I think not)

[BazzaS]

You appear to not understand how google’s “Right to be forgotten” works.

The webpages on “the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Manchester Evening News, the Mirror, the Tameside Reporter, some Indian newspaper some Brazilian newspaper etc etc ” may still exist. The data subject just asks google to remove them from the search results.

 

The individual doesn’t have to approach each newspaper.

[fkofilee]

You appear to not understand how google’s “Right to be forgotten” works.

The webpages on “the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Manchester Evening News, the Mirror, the Tameside Reporter, some Indian newspaper some Brazilian newspaper etc etc ” may still exist. The data subject just asks google to remove them from the search results.

 

The individual doesn’t have to approach each newspaper.

 

Bingo... Making it harder to be found

[Bailiff Advice]

This story is classed as public interest -

 

Which is why this thread has received close to 15,000 views. If the thread helps just one homeowner in financial difficulties or facing repossession escape the clutches of these daft FMoTL types it will have been worth it.

[James Belland]

Wrong BazzaS. Google will not remove stories if they deem them IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST which this story is. Having refused your request, Google then offers you an alternative - to go and approach each newspapers Webmaster individually.

[BazzaS]

“Some of the public being interested” is not the same as “in the public interest”

 

How do we know how Google will respond? (Bearing in mind we can’t know when / if the request to be forgotten is going to be made!)

[James Belland]

How do we know how Google will respond, BazzaS? By reading very carefully the Guardian link you posted earlier especially the bit about PUBLIC INTEREST. BA has already pointed out the high level of public interest on this thread alone. Also bear in mind that this story has gone far and wide beyond the reaches of the EU member states to which this 2014 'Google Spain' law only applies. Australia is another country and here is India's take on it... https://www.ndtv.com/indians-abroad/why-uks-rekha-patel-sold-her-home-for-2-pounds-1654487

[BazzaS]

The case in general is of public interest.

That doesn’t mean every aspect will be of public interest.

 

Google’s response will thus depend on what request to be forgotten is made, and when.

[James Belland]

We got a bit side-tracked here as to why Rekha Patel would change her name. Another possibility for the name-change is that now she is a fully fledged Free Man On The Land or SovCit (Sovereign Citizen), she has bought into that whole 'legal name fraud' nonsense. This is another level of weirdness and if you have the stomach for it read this... https://loweringthebar.net/2016/06/is-it-illegal-to-use-a-legal-name.html

[BazzaS]

I wasn’t referring to her name change, given the eCRO you referred to(& were talking about “forever”), that I commented on the link you provided and noted wasn’t indefinite, that is in the name of Rekha Patel!

 

The public interest aspect of her case is independent of whatever name she is currently using, and referring to it as the Rekha Patel case is more relevant than whatever moniker she is currently using, making her name change less than relevant!

[James Belland]

Can we keep this relevant to Rekha Patel's name change. Why do YOU think she has changed her name, BazzaS?

[BazzaS]

We got a bit side-tracked here as to why Rekha Patel would change her name.

 

So, firstly the name change is a ‘side-track’ to you;

 

 

Can we keep this relevant to Rekha Patel's name change.

 

but then it becomes relevant all of a sudden?

 

Why do YOU think she has changed her name, BazzaS?

 

Don’t know, don’t care.

It is irrelevant to the issue of the “Rekha Patel” case what she is now known as, and the public interest aspect of her case : namely that it is possible to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds and your home by foolishly following FMOTL twaddle. That is what really matters, not what name she is currently known by.

[James Belland]

About 13 posts ago (before this thread got de-railed) BA said: "Her change of surname speaks volumes". In your experience of the bailiff arena, BA, what does this mean? I have offered two reasons why I thought she might have changed it (1. to make her less 'Googlable' and 2. because she's bought into the' Legal Name Fraud' FMoTL nonsense) but there may be other reasons that you have come across in your line of work?

[BazzaS]

I have offered two reasons why I thought she might have changed it (1. to make her less 'Googlable' and 2. because she's bought into the' Legal Name Fraud' FMoTL nonsense) but there may be other reasons that you have come across in your line of work?

 

1. Still irrelevant. What matters is the details of the case under the name Rekha Patel, and the "following FMOTL can lead you to lose your house". That isn't affected by any name change, and since she is under an eCRO, she won't be issuing new legal proceedings relating to the house and / or her neighbours in the foreseeable future...... regardless of any new name.

 

2. She's already bought into the FMOTL delusion, with disastrous consequences.

Changing her name isn't likely to run well with the 'Legal Name Fraud' argument, as the whole (deluded) point of that argument is to try and differentiate the 'person' from their 'legal name'. If anything, changing one legal name to another makes it more likely to link to the person, not less........... their argument is that the legal name is foisted upon them by the birth certificate before they are able to consent to it ..... later changing their legal name as a competent adult removes the "it was foisted upon me" argument!

 

I offer you as an alternative:

3. A change of name because the whole thing has been a disaster, she's finally realised she's been badly advised, and wants to just move on .......

[ericsbrother]

court reports cant be removed under the right to be forgotten legislation so she is stuck with being a laughing stock for many years to come. there will still be ways of searching for this after then and the papers dont have to purge their files, it is just how google joins the dots in their algorithms

[James Belland]

Good point, ericsbrother.

Maybe she deludedly thinks she'll be able to continue her merit-less court cases against the neighbour under a new name.