Robert 'Crab Bait' White consents to losing his houses

[longdog]

Yeah... This is almost certainly Crabbert thinking he can ask for any old twaddle no matter how unrelated to the case and then claim he hasn't received disclosure.

I can't wait to see which of the many legal geniuses he has amongst his friends will take on this case of the century.

[aesmith]

No shortage of self-proclaimed gurus, although I don't know how many of those happy to make childish suggestions would actually want to participate themselves ..

Domes Foru
Fab remember to ask if the jury has annulment powers or are they possibly gonna be misdirected by the trial judge thereby creating an automatic miss trial

Domes Foru
And also ask if u can challenge the law? as the law must be on trial as well as the facts other wise the scales of justice can never be set thereby creating another mistrial lol

Do you think he knows that a mistrial is not an acquittal?

[Siegfried Shrink]

Do you think he knows that a mistrial is not an acquittal?

I doubt if he knows a mistrial is not a pizza.

[grixit]

On behalf of the 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment....

Challenge Accepted!

Deadly dachshunds from the sky
Stumbling over, bouncing high
100 dogs, in search of prey
Don't be a chew toy, run away!

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Crabbie has hit on a genius plan to get himself off by questioning why a defendant has to stand in the dock as it makes them appear to be guilty. Surely a breach of his human rights.

To that effect he's been hassling Maidstone Crown Court (A: We don't know. We don't give legal advice); The Judge (A: Go ask the Citizen's Advice Bureau). The CAB (A: Dunno. Oh dear the chat window has frozen).

Now far from it for me to say he has a reasonable philosophical point but, if I was a court official, I'd probably want someone accused of violently assaulting the police behind a sheet of plexiglass!

[longdog]

The defendant doesn't have to stand in the dock. It's just tradition and the judge can choose to conduct proceedings with the convicted... Sorry... Accused... Lying at the back of a court in a hammock if he wants to.

Perhaps the reason the condemned accused is in the dock is so that the jury can see him or her clearly and watch the guilty look on their face.

PS: You don't stand in the dock you sit in it. The real world isn't a 1930s black and white melodrama.

[hucknallred]

PS: You don't stand in the dock you sit in it. The real world isn't a 1930s black and white melodrama.

You'd think he'd know this, being no stranger to these proceeedings.

[notorial dissent]

PS: You don't stand in the dock you sit in it. The real world isn't a 1930s black and white melodrama.

Apparently to Crabby it still is. I still question how close a connection to reality he has.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

PS: You don't stand in the dock you sit in it. The real world isn't a 1930s black and white melodrama.

I understand that the judge does have discretion but whilst I haven't been in them all , I know at least two Crown Courts where you have to go into a plexiglass fronted room.

And you absolutely have to stand when addressing the judge/court.

[longdog]

And you absolutely have to stand when addressing the judge/court.

Indeed you do but so does everybody unless they have been given leave to remain seated.

[SteveD]

'Most' people have to stand...
(those in wheelchairs are exempt...)

[longdog]

'Most' people have to stand...
(those in wheelchairs are exempt...)

I was in court as a witness when I'd just knackered my back in an incident involving a bicycle, a high blood-alcohol level and somebody carelessly leaving kerb-stones along the side of the road. I mentioned my totally undeserved injury to the usher and and she said... "OK... Stay seated and I'll leave a note for the judge".

Sticking it to the man!

[notorial dissent]

Yeah, those mean old kerb-stones.....

[SteveD]

Robert White
Admin · 47 mins

Eviction update. Still in my home 3 ½ months after repossessing it back from the criminals that violently threw me out, I’m talking about the police not the bailiffs, the bailiffs stood back and let the police commit a crime just so they wouldn’t be liable. Well the bailiffs are liable but they don’t realise that yet, they think because the police broke in they are free from any comeback, how wrong they are. I look forward to the day when the cps either throw the case out, or lose their case with a jury of the people. I’m on the warned list from tomorrow 15th July, which means I have to check every day after 4pm to see if they want me to attend the next day. That’s not going to happen until I get full disclosure. So far out of 13 items on the, POLICE SCHEDULE OF RELEVANT NON-SENSITIVE UNUSED MATERIAL, they have only disclosed 3. On Monday 8th July the judge agreed to adjourn if I have not received full disclosure from the cps, I have witnesses to confirm that, (maybe even secretly filmed video evidence). I have 4 options on how to plead with my case, 1 guilty, 2 not guilty, 3 innocent until proved guilty, or 4 let the jury decide, I’m going for the 4th option as I have done all along. I’ve sent a letter recorded delivery and by email to the court and cps saying, I need full disclosure before I’m ready to go ahead with the case. Until that happens they cannot go ahead. The cps are not the judge, the judge is not the judge, only the jury can judge when all the evidence has been disclosed. If you get into a similar situation don’t let them take control, let them know you are in control of your own life. I’ve always held my hands up when I’ve done wrong and, but this is one time where I’ve done no wrong and will not be letting them take over, whatever it takes.

Right- good luck with that...

Robert White Yeah I know mate but I'll get compo in the end.

Uh huh...
And I'm the Queen of England...

[ArthurWankspittle]

He seems to be overlooking the fact that the judge will decide what "disclosures" are relevant. The jury will never see the ones that aren't.

[longdog]

This is all no doubt so that he can claim he wasn't given a fair trial because the CPS didn't give full disclosure of everything the office cleaner knows about quantum chromodynamics and its possible implications for the theories of a temporally infinite multiverse with individually finite or quasi-finite universes.

Or something.

[Gregg]

This is all no doubt so that he can claim he wasn't given a fair trial because the CPS didn't give full disclosure of everything the office cleaner knows about quantum chromodynamics and its possible implications for the theories of a temporally infinite multiverse with individually finite or quasi-finite universes.

Or something.

42?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

This is all no doubt so that he can claim he wasn't given a fair trial because the CPS didn't give full disclosure of everything the office cleaner knows about quantum chromodynamics and its possible implications for the theories of a temporally infinite multiverse with individually finite or quasi-finite universes.

Or something.

Yep. you can see where he is going. On the face of it, he has a good case for non-disclosure. The trouble is the only concrete example he has given is a data subject access request which has no bearing on his trial. He also has the advantage that not being on the electronic court Digital Case System the main reason the case will be thrown out if that the CPS has not printed off the court bundle and given it to him Judges don't like that.

I still think CPS will abandon this trial. See The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How It's Broken for why.

However, on the plus side he's left it too late to plead guilty to get any tariff discount

[SteveD]

Hopefully CPS is keeping an eye on his postings, as he is very cleverly outlining his entire 'legal strategy' online for all to view...
(plus the admissions he set traps etc would be helpful)

[hucknallred]

Like the rooftop trial, I can see the CPS making a pigs ear of this & dropping it mid trial.