UK - Neelu Berry opens my eyes

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Princess has been back to the Royal Courts of Justice to file more documents from the pen of Edward William Ellis.

The usual batshit gibberish. Nothing new but for completeness here's the link.

https://www.facebook.com/victor.pc.589/ ... 6333343599

[aesmith]

That lady is crying out for an Ebert style vexatious litigant order. Seems like almost every day she's raising claims, and free of charge as well courtesy of her Fee Remission certificate.

[TheNewSaint]

That lady is crying out for an Ebert style vexatious litigant order.

The kind she can violate with impunity? She's already had a restraining order like that.

[BoomerSooner17]

Princess has been back to the Royal Courts of Justice to file more documents from the pen of Edward William Ellis.

The usual batshit gibberish. Nothing new but for completeness here's the link.

https://www.facebook.com/victor.pc.589/ ... 6333343599

I like to imagine the following conversation between court clerks:

Clerk 1: "That Ellis bloke just filed new documents on behalf of that crazy Neelu lady."
Clerk 2: "Really? Anything good?"
Clerk 1: (flips through it) "...Nope, just the usual load of bollocks."
Clerk 2: "Good, because the men's loo is out of paper again."

Apologies for any misuse of British vernacular; I'm an ignorant Texan who learned British from watching Top Gear. Y'all talk weird.

[He Who Knows]

Sorry if this vid has already been posted but Neelu went back to her ex-home last Thursday and found that all her possessions had been removed.
Btw, pretty sure it's illegal to drive while filming using a hand-held phone.
https://www.facebook.com/victor.pc.589/ ... 0NTk1MDY3/

[Siegfried Shrink]

Since the contents have been put into storage at her expense I doubt that she has not been notified of this. She could have avoided this by written agreement with the bank shortly after the eviction and had her own contractor remove the contents and store it.
It is quite possible that the cost of removal and storage would exceed the value of the contents.
As a haunter of auction houses, I know just how little the normal contents of the average home fetch, no mattter how expensive they may have been to buy. You can furnish a three bedroom home with the usual furniture and appliances for £1000 or less even if the insurance value is ten times as much or more to replace with new.
In her usual manner, refusal to co-operate may have incurred rempval and ongoing storage charges that not only exceed the value of the goods but will increase as time goes by,since it seems improbable that she will do anything sensible about this.

Although there is no basis for her valuation of the house at £700,000, there must be over £200,000 of equity in the property after the mortgage is discharged, so all those, down to the man and his dog, who are dealing with the sale of the house have no real incentive to save any expense, they will get paid from the excess value that she could have had.

A normal person in her situation with the mortgage could have sold the house, paid the bank, and walked away with £300,000 in cash to buy somewhere else with less absurd property prices, in the same way that pretty well all the people who have their houses 'stolen' could do.

Being fundamentally wrong is a very expensive business.

[AndyPandy]

Being fundamentally wrong is a very expensive business.

... and this is the real human tragedy in all this footle nonsense, whether it's your Rekha, Tom, Guy, Ebert, Crab Bait loosing £100k's or the others ignoring debts and getting Court Orders / Bankruptcys and piling on hundreds of £'s in bailiffs, it mostly can be avoided by communication with creditors and prompt action to forestall further (expensive) action.

Take Rekha for example, an apology to her neighbour for the damage caused and payment of compensation would have avoided all the unnecessary pain it caused all parties involved.

[YiamCross]

That lady is crying out for an Ebert style vexatious litigant order.

The kind she can violate with impunity? She's already had a restraining order like that.

CROs appear to mean nothing. Even when you point out to the court that a litigant has one they take no notice. Over 2 years no one in the High Court was bothered that the Crawfords had not paid a fee for their application. No wonder the courts are in such a mess.

[TheRambler]

They just never learn, Neelu has just posted this on FB.

I just spoke with John Smith of www.commonlawcourt.com - just to clarify regarding www.commonlawcourt.com
Parents can register their children's birth under common law by going to BIRTH CERTIFICATE on the "DEEDS" TAB and then claim the Legal Fiction name (the name in Capital Letters) by clicking the link on the bottom of RECLAIM YOUR NAME PAGE - BOTH on the "DEEDS" TAB
YOU NEED TO DO THIS FOR EACH CHILD AND IT IS FREE
Then send an email with details of your claim for the return of your children, with names of Defendants, Councils who took them, kept them and have them, with dates, names, places where they were moved and where they are now. Names of courts and judges and case ref numbers.... to info@commonlawcourt.com

Message from John Smith - There is no panic - the link will go on the home page tomorrow www.commonlawcourt.com to add cases to the database in the class action. There will be a window of 2 to 3 weeks to log the cases online. In about 10 weeks, the common law court will convene in England.

NEWS FLASH SHARE URGENTLY.....
the common law court are doing a class action in the next 48 hours taking social services to court for the unlawful removal of children. anyone that has had a child taken un lawfully can request the common law court to include their case SEND AN EMAIL IF YOUD LIKE TO TAKE SOCIAL SERVICES TO THIS COURT TO GET YOUR KIDS BACK NO COSTS INVOLVED email commonlawcourtchildren@gmail.com

TheRambler

[Gregg]

That lady is crying out for an Ebert style vexatious litigant order.

The kind she can violate with impunity? She's already had a restraining order like that.

CROs appear to mean nothing. Even when you point out to the court that a litigant has one they take no notice. Over 2 years no one in the High Court was bothered that the Crawfords had not paid a fee for their application. No wonder the courts are in such a mess.

You know, seeing as one of the Crawford's main arguments at one point was that the bank had not paid a filing fee, that makes me want to toss a copy of Magna Carta at them. One carved on a marble tablet.

[Siegfried Shrink]

They just never learn, Neelu has just posted this on FB.

I just spoke with John Smith of www.commonlawcourt.com - just to clarify regarding www.commonlawcourt.com
Parents can register their children's birth under common law by going to BIRTH CERTIFICATE on the "DEEDS" TAB and then claim the Legal Fiction name (the name in Capital Letters) by clicking the link on the bottom of RECLAIM YOUR NAME PAGE - BOTH on the "DEEDS" TAB
YOU NEED TO DO THIS FOR EACH CHILD AND IT IS FREE
Then send an email with details of your claim for the return of your children, with names of Defendants, Councils who took them, kept them and have them, with dates, names, places where they were moved and where they are now. Names of courts and judges and case ref numbers.... to info@commonlawcourt.com

Message from John Smith - There is no panic - the link will go on the home page tomorrow www.commonlawcourt.com to add cases to the database in the class action. There will be a window of 2 to 3 weeks to log the cases online. In about 10 weeks, the common law court will convene in England.

NEWS FLASH SHARE URGENTLY.....
the common law court are doing a class action in the next 48 hours taking social services to court for the unlawful removal of children. anyone that has had a child taken un lawfully can request the common law court to include their case SEND AN EMAIL IF YOUD LIKE TO TAKE SOCIAL SERVICES TO THIS COURT TO GET YOUR KIDS BACK NO COSTS INVOLVED email commonlawcourtchildren@gmail.com

TheRambler

This may promote the CLC from a 'bunch of harmless nutters' file to somewhere more active.
The British police and judiciary get quite agitated about publicity for children in care.

I cannot see the CLC abiding by any normal standards.

[The Seventh String]

anyone that has had a child taken un lawfully can request the common law court to include their case SEND AN EMAIL IF YOUD LIKE TO TAKE SOCIAL SERVICES TO THIS COURT TO GET YOUR KIDS BACK NO COSTS INVOLVED email commonlawcourtchildren@gmail.com

People can request what they like. The “court” can “decide” what it likes. But no matter what their “court” “decides” care orders will not be rescinded nor will social services be handing children back to their abusive or otherwise quite incapable parents.

Social services depts. are very unwilling to take children into local authority care. Care proceedings are started when it is seen as less potentially damaging than any other viable option on the table. Placing children in care is also quite expensive. It’s an option in very difficult situations and the welfare of the child comes first in law, however much Neelu might fantasise about Satanist slave-driving child-molesting cannibal councillors.

Start publicising and naming lots of children who are subject to care orders, especially if the order provides they are not to be named, and there will quite probably be consequences. Turning up at care homes, schools or the homes of foster or adoptive parents demanding the “return” of a child would be unwise. Seizing the child even more so.

[Dr. Caligari]

Seizing the child even more so.

I love the British talent for understatement.

[SteveUK]

Although it might be harmless enough sending junk to the taxman, full well knowing the outcome, this is actually a major own goal. The social/family courts will be looking for signs of improvements in whatever the domestic issue is to facility any future reunification.

What impression do they think the CLC demands will make of them in this respect? It's a great example of turning a glimmer of hope to no hope.

[exiledscouser]

This latest venture into the area of child safeguarding has attracted a host of new followers for the CLC. There are over 100 posts mostly from women I think who are attracted by the idea of a court that will rule in their favour - after all they have a 100% conviction rate.

It is almost as if there are two entirely separate CLC’s running. Property disputes were the first iteration, that being John Smith. Quite separate from his grievance was the poor parenting issues for Rab C’s immediate family resulting in a child being removed. That’s now his baby, if you’ll excuse the pun.

I have every sympathy for the thankless task facing social workers where children are concerned. Remove them from the family and they are cruel and inhuman monsters. Leave an at risk child in a dysfunctional family and the “shudder squad” (should have done this, shudder done that) are the first to form a lynch mob vilifying the authorities for failing to act when we get a “Baby P” case.

I’ve been reading that the CLC are busy recruiting “enforcement” staff to give meaning to their otherwise impotent judgements. Use of the CLC by parents only serves to demonstrate the kind of behaviour which led to them having their kids removed in the first place. Following this up by snatching a child will bring the whole house of cards down but I hope this doesn’t happen.

This is a worrying development, a bit more sinister than some laughable toy court invented by a few nutters.

[Comrade Sharik]

You'd have thought the warning shot from the SCRA's legal representatives might have made the Fisher Price Court step back from the brink. It's noticeable that they have yet to post any 'court papers' for their last two role playing sessions.

However, if they succumb to the temptation to continue their antics, I can see it ending very badly indeed for them, and deservedly so.

[notorial dissent]

Yes, the CLC has quite the sterling record so for. One of their chief loons got locked up over their first foray against child services, and their below the border representative Crabby got roundly and soundly laughed at for his atempt at throwing pretend paper at a real court, and I believe there was an earlier undocumented fail they are trying to ignore. So, so far not a resounding string of successes, but rather one of failures. Zip for all as they say.

[longdog]

All of their apparent inglorious failures are in fact glorious successes as they are the evidence that will bring down the regime when the glorious revolution comes.

You should know this by now.

[notorial dissent]

All of their apparent inglorious failures are in fact glorious successes as they are the evidence that will bring down the regime when the glorious revolution comes.

You should know this by now.

Yes, failing gloriously!!

[Hercule Parrot]

It is almost as if there are two entirely separate CLC’s running. Property disputes were the first iteration, that being John Smith. Quite separate from his grievance was the poor parenting issues for Rab C’s immediate family resulting in a child being removed. That’s now his baby, if you’ll excuse the pun.

I think they're adjusting their pitch towards the most gullible, desperate and angry idiots.