UK - Neelu Berry opens my eyes

[aesmith]

There you go posting allusions to very entertaining videos without a link.

I downloaded the video, but now can't work out what to do with it to make it visible to non-FB people.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

There you go posting allusions to very entertaining videos without a link.

I downloaded the video, but now can't work out what to do with it to make it visible to non-FB people.

Just paste the original Facebook link. I'm not on Facebook and watch them quite happily.

[aesmith]

Does this work?
https://vimeo.com/290845932

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Does this work?

Yes. Looks like the video Lee Cant posted.

[TheRambler]

Does this work?

Yes. Looks like the video Lee Cant posted.

To be honest, it’s just the same old refrain. Neelu is demonstrating that she is totally unable to accept that her little world has collided with reality and as usual reality prevails. As we are aware, this is the inevitable outcome of Fmotlery.

I don’t see a happy future for her.

TheRambler

[notorial dissent]

She can go live with her son????

[exiledscouser]

I don’t see a happy future for her.

TheRambler

Well she did meet a tall dark stranger.

Unfortunately he escorted her out of the auction venue and onto the street

[SteveUK]

just in case we missed, this Lee Cant lets slip the costs the bank have racked up.A cool £65k.

original loan is £65,000 to buy home, PLUS £65,000 legal FEES, making £130,000 , + No reasons for £65,000 legal FEES , No justification....

[longdog]

No reasons for £65,000 legal FEES , No justification....

Whereas Neelu's claims for a billion gajillion fazillion pounds compensation for... errrrr... something or other are entirely reasonable

[SteveUK]

I've never really understood their inability to grasp the simplicity of the UCC. Why that code of all things?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2WoPhEgQfg
Its a bit complicated going back to 1830's, but it does not distinguish between the UCC under Gold Mandate of the 1930 bankruptcy of the League of Nations and the plagiarised UCC Pirate Mandate of the Federal Reserve Act 1933. UCC is the original contract code based on honour to the oath to God and dishonour being Treason. UCC is admiralty law being intended under Gold Mandate but practised under Pirate currency mandate (by Fed banning Gold and violating the oath = Dishonour = Denying liability) hence a bit confusing. BRICS nations are going Gold Mandate of www.swissindo.news
Also we still need to deal with the Organised Crime Network of Global Slave Masters of babies and children

[Siegfried Shrink]

That's one of the saddest crazy Youtube videos I have ever seen, but I cannot see the Neelu connection, I did only watch it till Winn Miller got a mention.

The UCC bit was perfectly clear inasmuch as expected it was so utterly wrong, you'd expect it to come out on the other side of wrong and somehow turn into right again.

[He Who Knows]

Siegfried Shrink wrote
That's one of the saddest crazy Youtube videos I have ever seen, but I cannot see the Neelu connection, I did only watch it till Winn Miller got a mention.

You mean you got up to the bit about David-Wynn: Miller and didn't tell us HE PASSED AWAY ON 21st June 2018?
Who even knew?

[NYGman]

You mean June;2018::21th.,.,..

[Siegfried Shrink]

You mean you got up to the bit about David-Wynn: Miller and didn't tell us HE PASSED AWAY ON 21st June 2018?

He has said he has died a few times before, so I'd not take it too seriously, unless you are of an otimistic bent.

On a more serious note, although I suppose it really would not matter to me, in theory I'd not like to have left a legacy of utter gibberish to the world and given the way nothing seems to be forgotten on the internet, his foolishness will continue as a bad smell in cyberspace for years to come.

Some dead deserve to be remebered and feted down the ages, some like Neelu, might deserve to live on as the Monty Python of deluded fruitbattery and some deserve to have their names on small plaques that could be attached to the bases of urban trees and lamp-posts, so that at any given moment you could be pretty sure that somewhere a dog was pissing on the name of Jordan Maxwell, for example of one from many.

[ArthurWankspittle]

You mean June;2018::21th.,.,..

Who would want to be the stone mason who gets the commission for the headstone?

[noblepa]

You mean June;2018::21th.,.,..

Who would want to be the stone mason who gets the commission for the headstone?

I'm pretty sure that they charge by the letter.

[Tevildo]

You mean June;2018::21th.,.,..

The format he uses on his own site (http://dwmlc.com) is -DATE-~21-~JUNE-~2018, incidentally. The last update to the site appears to have been in 2017; I can't find any sources (reliable or unreliable) that report his death.

[TheRambler]

Classic Neelu on FB today, it is lengthy and I feel that the judge shows a forbearance above and beyond the call of his office:

I was in Court 37 Queens Bench Division Royal Courts of Justice in London on Friday 21 September 2018 - to stop the Fraud Auction Sale of my Stolen Home here are my draft notes of the hearing - my application was refused by Mr Justice Baker on Friday 21st Sept on the same basis as the refusal by Mr Justice Garnham - as if it was the same application, but the first was on 14 September to try to stop the auction on 17th Sept and the second was a Sale Restraint and discovery into how the auction and sale proceeded despite Contempt of Court Notices. The Order of Mr Justice Garnham wrongly had the County Court Ref and parties rather than the High Court Case Ref and parties and so had to be corrected, which Mr Justice Baker did on 18th Sept 2018 - but then he tried to justify the wrong order at the 21st Sept hearing.

https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/mr-justice-baker/

https://www.connellsgroup.co.uk/our-group
https://www.sequencehome.co.uk/contact-us
https://www.phcompany.com/de-vere/grand ... ght-rooms/

Youtube https://youtu.be/645i20yMakQ Auction at 3.43pm on 17th Sept 2018

In the Royal Courts of Justice

Queens Bench Division

Court 37

before Mr justice Andrew Baker

on 21st of September 2018 BETWEEN 3.55PM TO 4.22PM

HQ18X03276

Mrs Neelu Berry

v

Co-operative, Sequence (UK) Limited and Barnard Marcus Auction Rooms

Application for an interim injunction n244 dated the 18th of September 2018

DRAFT NOTES OF THE HEARING

Present Mrs Neelu Berry + Mr Lee Cant

Ex-Parte without Notice to Defendants

3.55pm Case Called Inside the Court after judge and parties seated.

Judge: Yes

N: It's the same application I came in with on Tuesday but I had to get the order amended. I've got the order today, the slip rule order.

Judge: You withdrew this application Mrs Berry in front of me on Tuesday

N: Oh yes that's right

Judge: After asking you some relatively neutral questions I understand what it was that this order related to.

You then said under those circumstances you with through the application and it said, you drew my attention to the fact that the written form of the Order of Mr Justice Garnham on Friday it had an incorrect case title at the top and I heard you on that. I agreed with you that it appeared to have that administrative error and I therefore said I was correcting that under the slip rule and I think you've just collected the written version of mr Justice Garnham's order is that right?

N: That's correct yes

Judge: So having withdrawn the application mrs Berry there is no application, you withdrew it on Tuesday

N: The only reason why it was withdrawn was because this was a priority to correct this order but my lord decided to return it to me - it wasn't withdrawn in it's entirety, just the other issue needed editing as a priority

Judge: Mrs Berry I will indulge you only briefly. What you said as I explained to you which was the first point you started to complain about that the order you'd received said it was dated the 14th September but also a stamp on it stating the 18th of September and I explained to you that's because the order of Mr Justice Garnham was made on the 14th so it correctly said it was an order dated the 14th and the court stamp that related that tuesday morning which was when the court associate processed it written form and you then had a brief discussion according to my recollection that's when there was a connection between this new high court claim that you started last week and the underlying case law proceedings you said they were not connected I suspect still that they may be and then you said that you are withdrawing the application which was the application dated the 18th september which is now in front of me again and you wanted you said if my recollection is correct to use the fee remission certificate which you'd been given in relation to that occasion to make an application to correct the order of grounds of the slip rule to where we started our conversation today

N: May I please my lord? I came here on Monday at 10:55am hoping to collect the order

Judge: You came Monday morning and the order was not ready for collection and that's when you were told and at that point I was in the middle of a final bit hearing of the first case listed on Monday morning litigants for which were waiting to come into court. That is what happened on Monday morning.

N: My lord, my lord the issue was that I was escorted out of the building by five security guards telling me mr Jones telling them that the order would not be ready until 4 p.m. on the Tuesday and I needed the order from Friday in order to stop the auction of my home for Monday.

Judge: The order that was made against you on Friday was simply an order dismissing your application as it was made on Friday refusing you permission to appeal.

N: Well in which case I would still appeal, whether permission is granted or not

Judge: So for those purposes you need to go to civil appeals office using the permission to appeal

N: Well in which case I would still appeal, the appeal is still pending

Judge: mmmm

N: the point is that there is always the right of appeal whether permission is granted or not

Judge: And so for those purposes you need to go to civil appeals office

N: But I am not here for that application today I am making a new application today which is a stay sale restraint for me against the bank

Judge: What you've just put in front of me is the application notice that was in front of me on Tuesday when you came in front of me which you withdrew

N: I had not made the application I had simply withdrawn it until the time that I could make it so I am making it today and because

Judge: Is it in fact the case that this is all directly or indirectly relate to 3 peel drive in Clayhall

N: That's right that's the auction of my home

Judge: Is that the property to which the county court proceedings relate where it is the cooperative bank as claimant and you are the defendant

N: No! Now I've made a new claim on Friday

Judge: Is it the case that the county court proceedings and I think on Tuesday you told me that they you're trying to take those now at the court of Appeal

No I said they are already in the court of Appeal, those proceedings were already and the bank was in contempt of those proceedings

Judge: Mrs Berry, you really will need to answer the questions I ask, so that I can understand if it is coherent what it is you think you want me to do today

Am I right to think that those county court proceedings wherever they got to now whether they are in this courtroom, court of Appeal wherever they've currently got to those underlying proceedings co-operative Bank against you am I right to understand that those relate to

N: The conflict that you are wishing to introduce into my application

Judge: I am asking you a very straightforward factual question

Are these proceedings that have at least been in the county court and it may be that they are going on at appeal I don't know where the Co-operative Bank is the claimant and you are the defendant. Are those proceedings legal proceedings that relate to 3 peel drive, clayhall?

N: Yes

Judge: Are those proceedings in which an order for the sale of that property was made? Is that what this order relates to for the sale of that property under an order of the court made in those proceedings

Because I don't understand what it is you've come to talk to me about

N: You are not the defendant and You are acting as if you are the defendant here

Judge: No I am saying I am trying to understand what your application is. Is it the case because you've made reference to a sale by auction being conducted by Barnard Marcus and I am trying to ascertain what that is, sorry the basis upon which that is proceeding. Is that a sale by auction that is proceeding pursuant to or under orders that have been made in those other proceedings, yes or no

N: Right! I'm not going to answer any more questions because you are acting as if you are the defendant

Judge: No Mrs Berry, I will say it one more time. I am trying to understand the application that you now make.

N: Right, the application I make, I haven't made yet, if you allow me to make the application, I will start from the beginning

Judge: Mrs Berry

N: I will read it out for the purposes of the tape

Judge: No Mrs Berry you don't need to do that

I have got the document, I have read it

N: No, I do need to read it into the tape

Judge: Mrs Berry

N: it is my application, I am entitled to make it

Judge: Mrs Berry this is my Court

I am entitled to decide first of all whether there is any coherent application but I need to consider. You do not have a right simply to come before me and say anything. I have the right first of all to understand to what any of this relates.

4.05pm

N: You have to allow me to make my application

Judge: Paragraph 1 of your application notice says 3 peel Drive Sale stay restraint order. I know what that means although for a litigant in person it is not particularly legally accurate terminology. I am therefore entitled to ask on what basis is the sale of that property proceeding? If you will not answer that question I cannot understand paragraph one of your application notice, I will rule it vexatious and you already know where that will lead. I will ask the question one more time. Is the sale of the property which you would now like this court to stop happening pursuant to court orders in the other proceedings or not.

N: That matter is in the court of Appeal

Judge: Yes and that's the matter in the court of Appeal

And therefore Mrs Berry I have no jurisdiction to entertain that application to stop it. It is proceeding under the existing legal process which as you have just said is now before the court of Appeal.

N: No the issue was there was a restraining order on me which prevented me from defending myself, that was the appeal grounds of the restraining order the restraining order is now expired.

Judge: Well Mrs Berry, that may be part of what you will be seeing in the challenge which I take it you are seeking to bring in front of the court of Appeal seeking in relation to whatever orders of the court originating in the county court have been made that sale of the property. It is not in this court

N: The actual application is a mortgage account details Discovery order

1.A 3 Peel Drive, Clayhall IGS OJR Sale Restraint Order for Ms Berry against Co-operative Bank and Auctioneers Barnard Marcus for the Stated Reason

2. A Mortgage Account Details Discovery Order and All Entries Validity Hearing Order for the Stated Reasons

3. Further discovery, enquiry, relief and remedy the cause of justice needs for the Stated Reasons

Stated Reasons:

1. The Defendants had service of Corruption Claim HQ18X03276 Claim Form and Application Notice and Draft Order and the Damage Mitigation Denial Fraud Appeal Appellant Notice and Appeal Grounds and Appeal Proposals. They had notice that the Sealed Order Denial Fraud by the High Court Officers was an Appeal Sabotage Fraud against the Citizen

2. The Defendants failed to stop the Auction Sale Frauds against the Citizen and thereby committed Contempt Frauds against the Citizen, Crown, Parliament, and Law Courts

3. The Corruption Claim Form and the Sale Stay Damage Mitigation Interim Remedy Application explained the Judicial Office Unfitness Cases in Parliament. The Remedy Denial Fraud by High Court Justice Mr Garnham and Sealed Order Denial Fraud were Contempt Frauds against the Crown and Parliament

1. A Pending Adjudication Interim Sale Restraint Order for Claimant Mrs Berry against the Defendants to stop the sale of 3 Peel Drive, Clayhall IG5 OJR

2. A Mortgage Account Full Discovery Order and All Entries Validity Hearing Order for Ms Berry against the 1st Defendant Co-operative Bank

3. A Discovery Order for Ms Berry against the Co-operative Bank that the Chief Executive do within 14

days file and serve a statement that details

a. All Mortgage Redemption Statement Requests received from the Claimant Ms Berry

b. All Request Responses by the Co-operative Bank

c. The Response Delays

4. A Discovery Order for Citizen Ms Berry against the Chief Executive Officer of the Co-operative Bank and the Auctioneers Barnard Marcus and Auctioneers Sequence UK Limited do within 14 days file and serve a statement that explains:

a. When they had notice of the Corruption Claim HQl8X03276 and the Damage Mitigation Application Notice and Draft Order and the Damage Mitigation Appeal Grounds and Appeal Proposals and the Appellant Notice

b. When they had notice that the only reason the Damage Mitigation denial fraud Appeal had not been issued was the Sealed order Denial by High Court Officers

c. When they knew that Notice of the Corruption Claim and Application Notice and Draft Order and Appeal Papers created a Pending Adjudication Stay Rights for the Citizen Claimant against the Defendants

d. Why they ignored the Pending Adjudication Stay Rights, used and Auction Room Eviction Fraud against Citizen ms Berry

e. Identify every individual involved in the process and what they did

f. Why the Co-operative Bank is not identified as the Seller i n the Auction Sale Contract

g. Why the identity of the Seller is redacted from the Title Report

h. Why the identity of the Beneficial Owner was redacted from the Office Copy Entries

i. Whether the Co-operative Bank and the Auctioneers used Corruption Claim Disclosure Failures to complete the Auction Sale

J. Why the Redactions and the Non-Disclosures are not Fraud Proof that get a Proof Burden Reversal for the Citizen Ms Berry against the Defendants and All Other Liable Parties

k. Why the Damage Mitigation Denial by High Court Justice Mr Garnham and the Sealed Order Denial Appeal Sabotage by the Court Officers are not Fraud Proof that gets Liable Party Status for them and the Ministry of Justice

l. Why the Case Management is not Contempt Fraud Proof for the Citizen, Crown and Parliament against the Co-operative Bank, Auctioneers and All Other Liable Patties

5. Liberty to apply and Costs Reserved

Judge: Right well Mrs Berry,

I've been indulging you further by allowing you to read out in full the document I told you you did not need to read out in full because it is the application notice that I have read that you put before me on Tuesday that you withdrew but I nonetheless allowed you to read. We have discussed and resolved although you've told me on Tuesday that the new claim you issued on Friday in this court was unconnected to the county court proceedings. I n fact they are intimately connected in the sense that the entire subject matter of your new claim issued last Friday is as today the sale of the property 3 peel drive Clayhall, you say is or has been your home. You have today acknowledged, as I suspected may have been the case when we saw each other on Tuesday but you have not at this stage admitted that that is in fact being sold pursuant two orders made in those county court proceedings. In all those circumstances it is no function of this court in the new matter you have issued last Friday which on the face of it is merely not coherent it is no function of this court in the context of that to interfere with the due process with the orders of either the county court or the court of Appeal in those original proceedings in which cooperative bank were the claimants which you've agreed today was the sale of the property orders were made.

N: No I haven't, I need to correct you you've made it all up you're making this up as you're going along. You have extorted information from me because you're a judge and I'm a litigant in person. You've exploited that situation because you're not impartial. You started off being an agent for the defendants and you've ended up being an agent for the defendants when you're meant to be an impartial judge. And you are now giving proof on the tape of your unfitness as a judge in this court.

Judge: Oh Mrs Berry, as I explained to you, I think two or three times...

N: You are not here to deny remedy

Judge: I was asking you questions

N: It's a remedy demand or unfitness proof against you

Judge: I was asking you questions to understand what sale of the property was that this all relate to

N: Well you are talking to a litigant in person and you

Judge: SHOUTS Please let me finish Mrs Berry or there will be consequences for you...

I asked you the question whether, as you understood it the property was being sold under an order that was made in the other proceedings that started in the county court

N: Is that a fraudulent order or a valid order

Judge: And you said it was

4.15pm

N: It's a fraudulent order and it is disputed and it is not in the court that we were at. It was at a Court that has a criminal by the name of Winston Leachman who occupies an office in the Romford County Court. He has a firearms licence from Sussex Police. He has 54 criminal convictions and he is impersonating an immigration lawyer. He is sending out these eviction orders.

Judge: Mrs Berry please stop. In those circumstances you have in fact, despite your unworthy if I may say so comment about me personally which I shall ignore and you have in fact confirmed that the sale of the property which all this relates to is being conducted pursuant to orders made or an order made in the county court proceedings. The fact that you say that isn't an order that you will be in a position to change at least for my purposes today neither Here nor There. I will therefore refuse what was effectively the application that was refused. It does seem to me that although your application as articulated in your application notice which you gave me on Tuesday which you read out because you wanted to although I had Read it.

Although that application notice now makes additional although not coherent reference to matters that occurred in front of Mr justice Garnham and the Business of getting a sealed order that was drawn in writing on Friday the reality is that in substance if you are seeking to repeat the application that you made last Friday which was to get this application to Grant you the order to stop the sale. It is not appropriate for this court to intervene on the application of the 18th of September which in fact you withdrew on the same day in front of me which is as you said a matter in the court of Appeal. Any challenge to the refusal by Mr Justice Garnham last Friday to Grant you relieve in relation to the sale of the property is a matter now for the court of Appeal not for the next judge which is me who happens to be on duty in this court. So I regret that it will not satisfy you but I do not find that you have brought before the court any basis for any application which I could not have granted so even if which I am not sure I do that I do have jurisdiction to deal with an application in which you withdrew before me earlier in the week being the same or a repeat.

N: So you've basically not understood my grievance for coming to this court or The Remedy that I demanded because you have from the outset decided that the real issue was the judge had issued a fraudulent order and he delayed the order which you corrected but now you want to go back and honour the previous fraudulent order having corrected it so now which leaves you with another order which you need to provide to me so that I can appeal your decision today to the court of Appeal

Judge: I agree if you want there will now be an order drawn up dated today confirming the refusal of your application dated the 18th of September 2018 and given the hour the end of business being of this court I do not expect that that will be available for you today. The court being in recess a limited number of Judges are on duty I am working next week but in a different part of the court and so I hope that you will have the order at some point on Monday but I make no promises that one way or the other as to exactly when that would be provided as I say I would anticipate it will be available to you as a written record on Monday but that is ultimately as with the order of last week of Mr Justice Garnham that is just a formal written record of the order that has been made. The order is made because I have pronounced it in court in your application that is refused.

N: Yes could I have the order emailed to me as last time it was emailed to me in the meantime till I could come and collect the hard copy. Could we have the same arrangement

Judge: I am sure we can email once we've got the drafting done and there is a document to email to you I am sure it will be done

N: Thank you very much

ends 4.22pm

TheRambler

[SteveUK]

That judge has the patience of a saint.i see he's dangling the old vexatious Litigant dagger above her head. Not that it helped last time.

[rosy]

I would have told her to gtfo long before he ended her nonsense.