Robert 'Crab Bait' White consents to losing his houses

[ArthurWankspittle]

I suspect it's more subtle than that. On the face of it, he's got a good case. A judge has already ruled that he was entitled to defend himself from the arresting police, so you'd think it was a slam dunk for between £500 and £3,000 depending on how long he was in custody. I think he'd fail at proving a malicious prosecution as the facts as presented to the CPS would appear to have justified a charge and the "wrongfulness" of the arrest required all the evidence to be heard in court. It was poor police training not a malicious act.

However, I suspect he wanted them to use FotLer bollocks and if they didn't want to lose their licence to practice then a swift bail out was required.

Alternatively he is wanting too much? e.g. Policemen sacked, judgement reversed, house back, gazillion pounds compensation etc. Solicitor was probably offering a free up to 30 mins consultation, phones his barrister friend who says might get £3000 for wrongful arrest and detention but otherwise don't touch it.

[hucknallred]

Update on his plans to sue the Police, looks like he splashed out for some legal advice. There doesn't seem to be a way to like to a specific Facebook post nowadays, but it includes the advice from barrister.

I can't see a way to link either, Zuck moves in mysterious ways. Here's what the Barrister said.

Looking closely at what happened in the Crown Court, at the first trial the prosecution didn’t produce the warrant documentation, and therefore at the second trial, the CPS did not accept that the warrant didn’t authorise entry but did not go back on the previous concession either. The CPS said quite clearly the concession was for the purposes of that trial only, so it follows that the concession does not apply in civil proceedings.
Therefore, there are two arguments available to the police about the entry to the premises. The first argument is that the warrant authorised the bailiffs to remove the Claimant from the property, which must include by way of forced entry and by use of force, even if not specified. The warrant is not prescriptive as to how this is to be achieved. It doesn’t even say force has to be reasonable. Looking at the footage, the locksmith told the police to break in through the side, while he drilled the barricaded front door. It was therefore something of a distraction technique, to get the Claimant away from the front door (which apparently worked, as he went to the side door). Accordingly, the police could argue that they were permitted to assist the bailiffs to exercise their authority to gain access. Alternatively, the police could rely on their powers to enter premises to prevent a breach of the peace. Preventing a breach of the peace was the reason given for the police presence at the outset; for example, it is stated on the BWV by PC Shilling that’s why they were there and it is recorded on the custody record. The fact that the Claimant says the police were misled does not assist in civil proceedings against the police.
The Crown Court judge took the view that the breach of the peace was only going to occur by someone entering the property. In other words, the argument is that the police had created the breach of the peace by breaking in. I don’t think that will work in civil proceedings, however, because that was against the backdrop of the CPS concession and the absence of the warrant, which meant that the bailiffs were going in and lawfully so. I think that, looking at the sequence of events and the evidence, a civil court would find that there was going to be a breach of the peace when the bailiffs lawfully gained entry and sought to remove the claimant under the warrant of possession and that the police breaking through the side door simply moved the breach of the peace from the front door to the side door.
I think the Claimant will be found in civil proceedings to have been swinging the wooden object from the instinctive reaction of the officers as shown on the BWV (pulling quickly back out of the door and the surrounding comments). The Claimant’s suggestion of the officers lying and play acting (as stated in the Crown Court trial) are unlikely to be persuasive in civil proceedings, because of the evidence. Further, the Claimant’s suggestion that he kept bricks and golfballs by his windows because he was a bricklayer who plays golf are also unlikely to be successful in civil proceedings. I think that a civil court will find that the Claimant was going to try to prevent the bailiffs from gaining possession, and had barricaded the property and armed himself/set out missiles for these purposes, which would have involved a breach of the peace as soon as entry was gained, and the fact that the police entered and there was a breach of the peace was because the Claimant did not choose to leave peacefully.
I note also that, despite the legal argument going in the Claimant’s favour in the Crown Court due to the CPS’s concession, the trial for affray was not stopped by the judge and instead the jury was permitted to determine whether the Claimant was guilty or not guilty of affray on the basis of self-defence. Clearly he was found not guilty (on a different test, to a different standard as would be applied in civil proceedings) but the fact that this issue was left to the jury at all assists in legitimising the arrest and indeed the prosecution. I think it unlikely that the Claimant will be believed in relation to whether he was swinging the wooden object and therefore even if the entry was unlawful it could still be reasonable to arrest and prosecute on the basis that the force was disproportionate and that issue resolved by a jury (as it was). The CPS’s closing speech is worth considering, as the point is made that this wasn’t the middle of the night and suddenly there was an unknown person breaking in. Rather, the CPS said, the Claimant knew exactly who was there and why they were there (he admitted as much in cross-examination), so the question of proportionality is different.
Overall, I think a jury in criminal proceedings finding someone not guilty of a criminal offence is one thing, but it’s quite another to try to persuade a civil court to award compensation. I think it would be difficult on the law and the evidence to persuade a civil court that the Claimant should be paid compensation in this particular case.

[John Uskglass]

Further, the Claimant’s suggestion that he kept bricks and golfballs by his windows because he was a bricklayer who plays golf are also unlikely to be successful in civil proceedings.

My (admittedly limited) experience of judges in the civil courts would suggest that such a line of argument would be extremely counter-productive!

[SpearGrass]

The "administrative court" thing is an old chestnut - look at the questions about it in What Do They Know?

It's based on a syllogism:

• Administrative courts are unlawful (based on a "quote" from Halsbury's laws)

• Magistrates' courts dealing with council tax are administrative courts

• Therefore magistrates' courts dealing with council tax are unlawful.

Except a) the quote from Halsbury's is spurious, it appears to be a quote from Dicey's 'Constitutional Law' and was accurate as to the law 160 years ago. b) it was referring to a system like the French droit administratif, where actions of government can be challenged. Such a system has developed in the UK in the last 70 years, hence the Administrative Court, a branch of the High Court. c) magistrates' courts are not administrative courts, so the syllogism fails.

In short it's an oldie but baddie, swilling around the fotler community for years along with the assertion that the council hires the court.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

The "administrative court" thing is an old chestnut - look at the questions about it in What Do They Know?

There is an administrative court... but it's a High Court thing to deal with legal challenges to the Government.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/

It's a good fun read sometimes! Nowt to do with council tax!

[aesmith]

He's been very quiet recently, but this update suggests that possession proceedings are being passed back and forth between bank and IP ..

as far as Natwest are concerned they still want possession as I haven't paid the mortgage for over 5 years. They had another attempt last year but they give up. I now have the trustee in bankruptcy going for possession, the hearing for that will be 30th August this year.

[aesmith]

Looks like he's up before the beak again. Dated 14th, I think that make his hearing tomorrow ...

Bob White ·
3 more days and I'll be back or will disappear for a few months. It's in the hands of the justice system. To be revealed sooner or later.

Lovely piece of advice from his legal team ..

Angie Ofthefamily Wilson
I’ve been seeing that if you go into court with 2 dictionaries (an Oxford English and a Black’s Law Dictionary) and ask the judge “which dictionary are you using, and what language are we speaking - English or Legalese?” He will dismiss the case and run away

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Maidstone Magistrates

WHITE, ROBERT 2200204640 / 46TS1038722 Courtroom 01 10:00

Same case reference, so I suspect he's been accused of breaking some conditions.

Note, he's not on licence.

3.6 To be of good behaviour and not behave in a way that undermines the rehabilitative purpose of the supervision period:

• Not to commit any offence;
• To keep in touch with your supervisor in accordance with instructions given by your supervisor;
• To receive visits from your supervisor in accordance with instructions given by your supervisor;
• To reside permanently at an address approved by your supervisor and obtain the prior permission of the supervisor for any stay of one or more nights at a different address;
• Not to undertake work, or a particular type of work, unless it is approved by your supervisor and to notify your supervisor in advance of any proposal to undertake work or a particular type of work;
• Not to travel outside the British Islands except with the prior permission of your supervisor or in order to comply with a legal obligation (whether or not arising under the law of any part of the British Islands);
• To participate in activities in accordance with any instructions given by your supervisor.

I doubt he'd be facing custody (and the max is 7 days for low compliance), so expect a declaration of a victory.

[Pottapaug1938]

Lovely piece of advice from his legal team ..

Angie Ofthefamily Wilson
I’ve been seeing that if you go into court with 2 dictionaries (an Oxford English and a Black’s Law Dictionary) and ask the judge “which dictionary are you using, and what language are we speaking - English or Legalese?” He will dismiss the case and run away

That has to be one of the funniest bits of legal "advice" which I can recall seeing.

[The Observer]

He will dismiss the case and run away...

As one of our longtime members, jkeeb, would sarcastically point out:

That'll work.

[JohnPCapitalist]

Lovely piece of advice from his legal team ...

Angie Ofthefamily Wilson
I’ve been seeing that if you go into court with 2 dictionaries (an Oxford English and a Black’s Law Dictionary) and ask the judge “which dictionary are you using, and what language are we speaking - English or Legalese?” He will dismiss the case and run away

I think these folks are unlikely to follow through on this legal strategy. I happen to own the full-sized 1989 2nd edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, all 20 volumes. That takes up 54" (4 1/2 feet) on my bookshelf. I measured. It weighs 145 pounds, according to the publisher's web site. And the three supplementary volumes add another 10" and 21 pounds. That'll be a little tough to wheel into court.

And of course if the sheer mass of the OED doesn't kill them, the fact that they aren't specifying exactly which edition of Black's Law Dictionary (some Sovereign Citizens prefer the 4th edition, some name others) will ensure that their incantations fail. Never mind that Black's is an American law dictionary, which might limit its relevance in an English courtroom somewhat.

[longdog]

I don't get it. Are they saying that Blacks is legalese and therefore worse than the OED?

They never seem to be shy about dragging out Blacks when it suits their argument. Well... They think it does but of course they rarely, if ever, bother to consult Blacks or the OED. I've lost track of the number of times I've been told to consult Blacks only for me to do exactly that to find (to my total lack of surprise) it says what I say a word means and not what the freetard says it means... 'Driver', 'Act' and 'Statute' being the most popular.

[ArthurWankspittle]

My favourite is IIRC Black's 3rd edition, as it defines windows as being in a house. Bad news for the pieces of glass in their personal transportation private conveyances.

[The Observer]

That'll be a little tough to wheel into court.

And if they do, the judge can simply tell them, "Sorry, you have brought the wrong edition to the court. We only use the 1st edition from 1928."

[wserra]

Not only does Black's concern US law, but it's all but useless to any US lawyer with more than a couple of years' experience. I would guess that 99% of the lawyers who own one at all bought it while in law school. Even for a law student, its only use is as a start in researching something. Anything useful requires sources that go into far more detail than does Black's.

You guys probably know this.

[Albert Haddock]

Not only does Black's concern US law, but it's all but useless to any US lawyer with more than a couple of years' experience. I would guess that 99% of the lawyers who own one at all bought it while in law school. Even for a law student, its only use is as a start in researching something. Anything useful requires sources that go into far more detail than does Black's.

You guys probably know this.

All a legal dictionary does is summarise how judges and legislation have defined a term. They don't have any legal authority of their own, it's all down to the case law and legislation they cite.

[Pottapaug1938]

Not only does Black's concern US law, but it's all but useless to any US lawyer with more than a couple of years' experience. I would guess that 99% of the lawyers who own one at all bought it while in law school. Even for a law student, its only use is as a start in researching something. Anything useful requires sources that go into far more detail than does Black's.

You guys probably know this.

I was one of the fools who bought a copy of Black's when I began law school in September of 1974. After a few "regular" uses, it made a nice doorstop.

[aesmith]

They never seem to be shy about dragging out Blacks when it suits their argument. Well... They think it does

Like when they gloat over the definition of "Driver" but forget to look up "Employed"?

[dannyno]

Lovely piece of advice from his legal team ...

Angie Ofthefamily Wilson
I’ve been seeing that if you go into court with 2 dictionaries (an Oxford English and a Black’s Law Dictionary) and ask the judge “which dictionary are you using, and what language are we speaking - English or Legalese?” He will dismiss the case and run away

I think these folks are unlikely to follow through on this legal strategy. I happen to own the full-sized 1989 2nd edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, all 20 volumes. That takes up 54" (4 1/2 feet) on my bookshelf. I measured. It weighs 145 pounds, according to the publisher's web site. And the three supplementary volumes add another 10" and 21 pounds. That'll be a little tough to wheel into court.

And of course if the sheer mass of the OED doesn't kill them, the fact that they aren't specifying exactly which edition of Black's Law Dictionary (some Sovereign Citizens prefer the 4th edition, some name others) will ensure that their incantations fail. Never mind that Black's is an American law dictionary, which might limit its relevance in an English courtroom somewhat.

Well, but not only is the 1989 edition of the OED out of date, but the latest revised version of the OED can be accessed online these days, for example through a public library, personal, or educational subscription: https://www.oed.com/

However, I also have a mobile phone app for the 2nd edition (revised).

Not that that will help them either...

[aesmith]

He's made a few references to a bun fight between him and one Yolande Kenward. It's really not clear what it's all about but she's got as far as raising a claim against him on the most ridiculous basis. Almost worthy of EWE or Neelu B. He quotes the Particulars of Claim as follows. However since he's an idiot he did not respond, so now has judgement in default against him

Claim amount: £1,568
View amount breakdown
Reason for claim:
Robert White is part of a group of dozens in Kent who are part of a national & global network that includes people in Sydney, Greece, New Zealand, South Africa, New York /USA who are covering up for crimes for Kent Police & the Maidstone Establishment. In Maidstone there are Tobe Hayden Leigh who is Robert White's legal representative who joined the event I attended on 25.1.2023 so that I could not take part & he intends that I remain socially included as he has stated he is attending the weekly event next week, which means I cannot attend. The County Court Claims referred my disputed Maidstone BC case to the Maidstone County Court but they refuse to list it & barred me for life on 9.4.2021 from the Court building to ensure that I cannot defend any case or start any case, this was directly linked to complaints I was making, with evidence, to Judge Griffiths-Jones about Robert White & Tobe Hayden Leigh re 2 murders in Tunbridge Wells; but they were also in contempt of court re the 2018 Royal Courts of Justice matter of MJSC Marketing Limited & MJS Capital Plc /Colarb - both in liquidation.

White is in court in Maidstone in an hours time, so I get random contacts from Sydney now from Rachel King - part of covering up for the murder of Australian Marion Barter & in contempt of the Lidcombe Coroners Court in Sydney. He owes me money for harassment, PsyOps that meant that when he is in court others in his ring living next-door to me give me abuse.

Re the Fuller trial he & Leigh put out a Maidstone KM photo online stating that I am a prostitute and a paedophile; my birthday on 5 February 2019 was used for on-line entertainment via Robert White & Kent Police at White's home. Years ago Bob White asked me for free legal support over his bankruptcy situation, I looked into it for him & found that he had deliberately made himself bankrupt so that he could get a Facebook following; his wife left him because of the dangerous games that White was playing with their home & their savings. White teamed up with Debra Dudley another of the ring. Others in this fake truther network in Maidstone are Dave Witcher, Tobe Hayden-Leigh, Metin Warwick, Kezi Warwick, Ben Frankham, Sheena Williams (partnering Yvonne Stewart Taylor), Cassie Crowhurst, Del Irons; sadly their England Take Back Control /common law global network sucked in some Australians and 6 were killed in Australia in December, including 3 members of the Train family. These people run global hate campaigns against myself and the Queen; they promote Satanic Ritual Abuse & the Rains list to distract for those on the Operation Ore paedophile list - including the Chillenden Murders contract killer who is a suspect in the murder of Australian Marion Barter. Maidstone Police refuse to help New South Wales Police & I suffer on-going reprisals & abuse linked to crimes that Kent Police does not want to solve & use people like Robert White to help not in solving the crimes. I told the owner of the venue where I was on 25.1.2023 that there was someone there who works for Maidstone Police.

We have show trials at the Maidstone Crown Court backed up with publicity to give Robert White & Tobe Hayden-Leigh an online following. The choice of the Chillenden murders date of 9 July 1996 was intended to compromise the Queen, Princess Diana, Prince Charles et al due to what was happened at Buckingham Palace that day. We need to show respect for the police employees in Australia & in Kent who have lost their lives via these global PsyOps eg in Kent - PCSO Julia James & PCSO Julie Gipson White who was known to me as part of 1987 Tunbridge Wells murders cover-up & as part of forward planning for the 1996 Chillenden Murders - the killer is on the Operation Ore list.

I seek to stop crimes committed by Kent Police & their agents online & who are my neighbours, I cannot go through what I went through on 20.1.2023 at my home again because of my actions to try to save 205 Kent Police employee redundancies, primarily PCSOs. Bob White is in the Maidstone Magistrates Courts at 10am today 27.1.2023, I fear reprisals if Robert White goes to prison via that court today. I have reduced life expectancy - Kent Police tried to destroy me on 27.1.2023