Practical Lawful Dissent FMOTL antics, continued...

[Wakeman52]

@eric

Thanks for the detail - this (the Holter device) is definitely the type used.

[aesmith]

An unconfirmed sighting on Jacquie boozing in Cornwall ...

https://prnt.sc/P9CT4g-xsaGG

[hucknallred]

Looking good despite how close she is to death's door.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Mmm. I think she's overstayed her tourist visa.

Report an immigration or border crime

[longdog]

Perhaps she's been miraculously healed by the intervention of her celestial husband Dismal Dave.

Or perhaps nobody gave a shit about her self-diagnosed terminal heart condition.

How is the PLD Mk1 group these days? Both of me has been blocked.

[eric]

Mmm. I think she's overstayed her tourist visa.

..... loud peels of hearty laughter. You're stuck with her for the foreseeable future. Before sending her home to Canada her credentials as a Canadian would have to be checked. Processing that request by the Canadians in my considered estimate would take place sometime around the next solar minimum. In all seriousness, the responsible Canadian government department seems to have turned into a parody of "Yes Minister".

[carobee57]

Mark Braithwait Do you know the law/rule that alows you to suspend payment whe a debt is in dispute?

Marie Yvette Barton-Hanson
Yes you can do what this bloke says to do in this vid, to suspend it for a few months, the Banks will only give you 6 months to make a complaint to the Ombudsman who will take a few months to investigate your complaint ect, while this is still in dispute the Bank our creditor can not take you to Court, however you could DSAR them and if they do not prove their position, of which they cannot because it exposes them as Agents and as Agents they have no Legal right to make you pay them anything, in fact you can even claim back any payments you have made to them

Mark Braithwait
I got the impression from one of Si’s videos that when in dispute you chose to stop paying for example, a mortgage, the loan does not accrue interest until the dispute is resolved. Do you know if that is correct?

Marie Yvette Barton-Hanson
Mark Braithwait Probably, but the idea is to expose the fraud so you can keep your property and get you payments back rather than just save your interest payments because then you are not exposing the fraud and in the end you will have to keep paying the Agents

Mark Braithwait
Yes, i am doing the Mortgage Challenge. But as the purported lender will not give full disclosure through the DSAR i thought i might create a dispute through the FDA and suspend payment. If i get behind on the mortgage Legal Quest won't challenge the mortgage; so if i can stop paying legally i should not be behind. I hope that makes sense. Thanks for your help

As a follow up to this one from 2019 or thereabouts, the lady in question, Marie barton hanson seems to have lost her battle over her property. I have had some fun in the comments on this video. I particularly like her idea that there's no such thing as an electronic transfer of funds as you don't see the money

[longdog]

But as the purported lender will not give full disclosure through the DSAR...

I assume this is the usual nonsense about demanding to see the 'actual accounting' of where the so called money for the so called loan that they used to buy a real house came from. Something the FCA have repeatedly ruled is none of their fecking business.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

But as the purported lender will not give full disclosure through the DSAR...

I assume this is the usual nonsense about demanding to see the 'actual accounting' of where the so called money for the so called loan that they used to buy a real house came from. Something the FCA have repeatedly ruled is none of their fecking business.

Completely misunderstands what a subject access request is.

Whilst debt recovery does have to be suspended when it is in dispute, it has to be a valid reason. "Don't feel like paying" will fail that test!

[John Uskglass]

Something the FCA have repeatedly ruled is none of their fecking business.

A point emphasised in the comments by a Mr Handcock...

Fair play to Ms Barton-Hanson, she has comments on and replies to them, rather sweetly signing off with 'Thank you for your comment'.

[SpearGrass]

Completely misunderstands what a subject access request is

Subject Access Requests seem to be taken over from FOIAs as a way to try to block court orders. There must be someone providing the standard terms which are used. There certainly are standard responses as court orders are never susceptible to SAR requests - the request has to be through the court's rules.

I think there's room in this world for a black comedy series - like What we do in the shadows - about the people who sit in their bedrooms and basements making this stuff up. It would have to be absurd, because however ridiculous this stuff is, the outcomes are often not very funny. I suppose it would also do as a misery comedy, of the Fleabag type. The life of Princess Neelu comes into that category, she's ridiculous but she brings misery to herself and others wherever she goes. I can see the critics not knowing what to make of the Neelu Show, but then, doesanyone?

[longdog]

A point emphasised in the comments by a Mr Handcock...

He's a fine commenter who is almost certainly intelligent, erudite, hansom and good at the sex. I wonder who he is

[John Uskglass]

I think there's room in this world for a black comedy series - like What we do in the shadows

I could see Matt Berry playing Michael Waugh.

[longdog]

I'm trying to think who could play Neelu. It would need consummate acting skill, an ability to play a deadpan comedy role and to portray just the right degree of effortless, bat-shit, pompous, self-awareness-free insanity.

Sadly Irene Handl is no longer with us.

[John Uskglass]

Meera Syal?

[longdog]

Ah... You may have a point there now you mention it. A reprise of her "small aubergine" granny from Goodness Gracious Me would work.

[eric]

Next up on the list of “whatever happened to?” is the semi-piratical Joel Viau. As you may surmise I'm busy working down a list of bookmarks in an attempt to clean up folders. When we last met Joel Viau he was up on assorted firearms and drugs charges and was a follower of Jacquie but not using the method exactly properly in her opinion.
viewtopic.php?p=285813#p285813
As is normal in the Canadian Courts system his case dragged on forever, in and out of remand, and multiple court appearances self represented. From his facebook page he seems to be “out” at the moment:
https://www.facebook.com/joel.viau.7
I have not been able to find out what has happened to the original charges, they are still dragging on from what I can tell. That being said, late last year he actually pulled off a win, using OPCA methods. Yes you heard that right, his win over the court system is being celebrated as a masterful display of courtroom knowledge. Bear with me and you will see what techniques he used to beat the B.A.R at their own game.
Late last year, while he was out on bail, Joel missed a court appearance, a warrant was issued, and Joel was picked up and brought into court for a contempt of court hearing. Generally a fairly routine matter, in fact he was found guilty and sentenced to one day in jail. However the hearing rapidly degenerated into a circus with Joel as the lead performer. Here are a few snippets:

[4] This was a challenging case for the trial court when it came up on April 12, 2021. The appellant was self-represented and presented as an OPCA litigant[1]. Right from the start of the case he refused to answer simple procedural questions or engage with standard courtroom ritual.
[5] When the trial judge asked the appellant if he was ready for his trial, the appellant claimed that he was the victim of “trespass by way of robbery.” He claimed to be accused of “owing a debt” and that he and his property were being held “as ransom.” The trial judge repeated his question and was met with a farrago of legalese, and a claim of entitlement to a trial by jury, to which the trial judge responded that he was not entitled to one. This led to the following exchange:
THE COURT: It is a summary conviction offence.
[THE APPELLANT]: I don’t give a s***. I’m entitled to a trial by jury.

[6] The appellant talked while the trial judge spoke and the trial judge warned the appellant that he was going to have the appellant removed and proceed in his absence if he continued to interrupt. While the trial judge directed the clerk to arraign the appellant, the appellant continued to interrupt. When the clerk began to arraign, and stated the appellant’s name and date of birth, the appellant responded: “I don’t know my date of birth, I was pretty young at the time that I was born. My date of birth is hearsay information.”

[10] After the Crown had filed the written material at the appellant’s trial, he suggested that the appellant be brought back into court “to see if he’s changed his mind at all at this stage” since he had had a “few minutes of cooling”. On the appellant’s return to court, the trial judge explained that the clerk had arraigned the appellant and the trial judge had registered a plea of not guilty on the appellant’s behalf in his absence. The appellant then continued in the same vein as earlier in the proceeding: that the judge could not practice law from the bench, that “guilt” means “debt” in German, and that the appellant should be presented with a bill so that he could pay his “debt”. The trial judge again had the appellant removed, as he was being disruptive, disrespectful, and interfering with the proceedings.

As you might expect, things did not go well for Joel and this happened:

[1] The appellant appeals against his April 12, 2021 conviction for failing to appear in court.  At the trial of this matter, the trial judge invoked s. 650(2)(a) of theCriminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, and excluded the self-representing appellant from his trial for “misconducting himself and interrupting the proceedings.” The appellant was brought into the court twice after his initial exclusion. The first time was after arraignment and before the Crown called its first witness; after similar conduct, the appellant was again excluded. The second time was after the trial judge had found the appellant guilty. The appellant was brought back into court before he was sentenced to one day jail.

Joel viewed this as a travesty of justice. The horror of being booked into jail, immediately booked out again, and then driven home by his mother was unimaginable to him so of course he appealed the sentence. Lo and behold he actually won.

[2] These reasons explain why the conviction must be quashed and a new trial must be ordered.
[3] At the close of the Crown’s case the court had a duty to offer the appellant an opportunity to answer the Crown’s case and present a defence, in accordance with s. 650(3) of the Criminal Code. The failure to do so resulted in a miscarriage of justice and is fatal to the conviction.

Short summary for the tldr folks:- with his constant invocation of OPCA themes and other courtroom antics Joel was ejected from the court. An obviously upset and somewhat frazzled Judge who was initially only prepared for a somewhat routine matter forgot to bring him back in at the appropriate time to defend himself thus resulting in the aforesaid miscarriage of justice. This is a textbook example of what not to do when confronted with an OPCA litigant. If you followed Mak Parhar's case and the child custody case in the Sue Holland thread, the court was careful to return the litigants back to the court at the appropriate time. You can read all about Joel's appeal here: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2 ... c5825.html

[The Observer]

My date of birth is hearsay information.

He may be onto something. Irving Kanarek, Charles Manson's defense attorney, at one time objected in another trial to the defendant being asked to identify himself. Kanarek argued that the defendant had first heard his name from his mother, therefore it was hearsay and thus inadmissible.

[SpearGrass]

He is right that his date of birth is hearsay; so is his name, strictly speaking, unless he's given himself a new one. However it's admissible hearsay usually because a) it's recorded in documents produced in the course of business by a registrar and b) it's usually admitted.

[ArthurWankspittle]

He is right that his date of birth is hearsay; so is his name, strictly speaking, unless he's given himself a new one. However it's admissible hearsay usually because a) it's recorded in documents produced in the course of business by a registrar and b) it's usually admitted.

Plus his benefits claim are paid to that name using his dob.