Rekha Patel loses her house

[Mike_p]

... represented by a bona fide solicitor...

Her lawyer wished to have sight of the legal opinion concerning the ownership of Hanover Cottage ...

This is strange. Surely a bona fide solicitor would immediately, on taking on the case, do the background check on such things as the legal ownership of the cottage? Oh, that is, unless they are from Longlands, in which case I'd hesitate to use the term bona-fide.

[SteveUK]

It would have to be in relation to the bail conditions or her genuine belief I imagine. The ownership is nothing to do with the mag.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The lawyer made an application to vary or remove the bail condition that requires her to spend every night at a specific address in Glossop.

Interesting, why can't she stay at her parents which is only a few miles away.

[Siegfried Shrink]

The lawyer made an application to vary or remove the bail condition that requires her to spend every night at a specific address in Glossop.

Interesting, why can't she stay at her parents which is only a few miles away.

Maybe they are regretting the passing of the old Indian tradition of female infanticide?

And possibly wondering if it is not too late?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Having spent a little time investigating TSJ, that could be the explanation. It seems to rely upon; among other things; Guilty pleas (GAP) and Not Guilty Pleas (NGAP) being heard initially in separate courts. If we consider this morning’s proceedings as a NGAP case management hearing then the remand for summary trial at a later date becomes understandable.

That’s how I see it anyway.

TheRambler

I have (we're not all blameless!) had the misfortune to be involved in Magistrates proceedings. Under TSJ if a guilty plea is expected then the hearing will be expedited to 14 days. If a not guilty plea the initial hearing will be in 28 days. This was a 14 day hearing. On the basis of the evidence, the TSJ process clearly expected a guilty plea. However, you don't have to plead at this stage. You can enter a "no plea" which can be for all sorts of reasons and doesn't count against you in terms of sentencing. If does have to have some legal basis, as in for example, the facts haven't been established yet so the defendant is not able to make a plea one way or another. You will still be bailed with conditions.

I'd be interested if HardyW has any indication of whether a plea was entered. It does look however, that our people's princess is actually in receipt of proper legal advice for a change and we should respect that and not jump to conclusions.

[HardyW]

Once the accused was (under duress) in the dock, the first charge was read (criminal damage to a door valued at approx £85) and she attempted to plea "no case to answer" and then modified it to something like "Not Guilty if that's what the court requires" and effectively the same for the other charges. Plus as I mentioned, the other cases in the courtroom before this one all had defendants pleading Not Guilty, each with their solicitor appearing for one minute or so, and each case being timetabled for future dates, remitted to the crown court, etc. So this session does not appear to have been one where guilty pleas were expected.

[Burnaby49]

Once the accused was (under duress) in the dock, the first charge was read (criminal damage to a door valued at approx £85) and she attempted to plea "no case to answer" and then modified it to something like "Not Guilty if that's what the court requires" and effectively the same for the other charges. Plus as I mentioned, the other cases in the courtroom before this one all had defendants pleading Not Guilty, each with their solicitor appearing for one minute or so, and each case being timetabled for future dates, remitted to the crown court, etc. So this session does not appear to have been one where guilty pleas were expected.

Guilty pleas may have been expected. I've attended numerous hearings like that in Vancouver where a dozen or so cases are heard in one session. They are called Chambers sessions although held in a normal courtroom. I attended a less sedate one than yours that I reported here;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 69#p221828

Guilty pleas and sentencing, case management, not guilty pleas and djournments, all covered in one session. Guilty pleas are only covered in these sessions when both parties have agreed on a joint recommendation for the judge. Otherwise there have to be pre-sentencing hearings to consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances. When one defendant at my session to make a guilty plea kicked up a fuss because he was a hopeless moron he was sent back for trial since the purpose of the hearing was just housekeeping, not actual trial hearings. There were no 'not guilty' pleas in this one but I've been to others where there have been. When that happens the judge just orders a trial and tells the parties to go to the scheduling office to arrange a date. I've been to ones where the accused has refused to plead anything. Since there has to be a plea in Canadian law the judge just enters not-guilty on the defendant's behalf.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Once the accused was (under duress) in the dock, the first charge was read (criminal damage to a door valued at approx £85) and she attempted to plea "no case to answer" and then modified it to something like "Not Guilty if that's what the court requires" and effectively the same for the other charges. Plus as I mentioned, the other cases in the courtroom before this one all had defendants pleading Not Guilty, each with their solicitor appearing for one minute or so, and each case being timetabled for future dates, remitted to the crown court, etc. So this session does not appear to have been one where guilty pleas were expected.

Oh dear. That's a big mistake by her and her solicitor (although a solicitor can only act under instruction so may very well have explained it and been ignored). "No plea at this stage" is perfectly valid (subject to aforementioned "facts still to be established") and still allows for discounts at the sentencing stage if the reasoning can be backed up. Actively pleading not guilty is a different matter.

She is still her own worst enemy. Did no-one explain to her the most likely outcome was a fine and a restraining order with a guilty plea? But in terms of Quatloos, she's still going full FOTL so continues to justify her separate thread!

[Burnaby49]

She is still her own worst enemy. Did no-one explain to her the most likely outcome was a fine and a restraining order with a guilty plea? But in terms of Quatloos, she's still going full FOTL so continues to justify her separate thread!

She's entitled to hear own discussion regardless of her future decisions. If she finally wisens up and acts normally, abandoning her doomed attempts to regain the house she threw away, it's still a valid story to show the inevitable consequences of trying to evade the consequences of her actions by going, as you say, full FOTL. Then, like Tom Crawford, her discussion will just grind to a halt through irrelevance and lack of interest. Tom was the biggest thing Quatloos ever had, it exploded on us, but now he's just a rapidly fading memory. I expect Rekha to follow the same path.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Tom was the biggest thing Quatloos ever had, it exploded on us, but now he's just a rapidly fading memory. I expect Rekha to follow the same path.

Absolutely. I began lurking here a year ago over finding a video about HATJ (who?). I then started down the rabbit hole incredulously watching fake moon landing You Tubes. This took me to the flat earth videos. Then the creationist ones. Then the full implosion of the atheist v feminist v feminist-cucks as Thunderfoot v Sargon + Milo + Prison Planet turned into an hilarious explosion of stupidity. Which lead me into the Info Wars FEMA camps and Sandy Hook conspiracies, then Sovereign Citizens and inevitably the UK's home grown FOTLers. (Although I guess Info Wars might have taken me to the Dragons and Mr Yaxely-Lennon so I'd have ended up here anyway!)

I've mentioned in this thread I had the misfortune of experiencing the judicial system first hand. No fines, no community order or such like, but personally embarrassing all the same. Yet the best advice I had from my barrister was: it's all chip-paper. It's the constant willingness by these eejits to stick heads above the parapet that I find mind-numbing and can't understand. Accept consequences of your actions. Move on. The world does anyway!

[HardyW]

It would have to be in relation to the bail conditions or her genuine belief I imagine. The ownership is nothing to do with the mag.

I got the impression that the solicitor has been briefed at length by Ms Patel on the whole history between her and the neighbour which started with civil litigation and progressed from there. Their main argument on the criminal charges is that there was no criminal damage as the damage was to her own door, and likewise for the squatting charge. The question of ownership is therefore a vital part of that defence. I'm not sure that it qualifies as a FMOTL argument.

[longdog]

The question of ownership is therefore a vital part of that defence. I'm not sure that it qualifies as a FMOTL argument.

Wouldn't it come down to whether she had a genuine belief that the property was hers and whether that belief was something the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus would find reasonable?

[SteveUK]

It would have to be in relation to the bail conditions or her genuine belief I imagine. The ownership is nothing to do with the mag.

I got the impression that the solicitor has been briefed at length by Ms Patel on the whole history between her and the neighbour which started with civil litigation and progressed from there. Their main argument on the criminal charges is that there was no criminal damage as the damage was to her own door, and likewise for the squatting charge. The question of ownership is therefore a vital part of that defence. I'm not sure that it qualifies as a FMOTL argument.

No one mentioned FMOTL arguments. The squatting charge has the old 'should've known or reasonably shouldve known' blah blah attatched, so maj would of course need to understand the back story. However, he's not competent to determine actual ownership. That's already been quite well settled. The only relevance I can imagine is her preparing a ,well, 'i genuinely believed it was mine' argument.

[Mike_p]

Their main argument on the criminal charges is that there was no criminal damage as the damage was to her own door, and likewise for the squatting charge. The question of ownership is therefore a vital part of that defence.

If she's claiming it's her own door, then she's refuting any claim that the house belongs to Tunkashila and that she is only a tenant.

[HardyW]

Their main argument on the criminal charges is that there was no criminal damage as the damage was to her own door, and likewise for the squatting charge. The question of ownership is therefore a vital part of that defence.

If she's claiming it's her own door, then she's refuting any claim that the house belongs to Tunkashila and that she is only a tenant.

No I was being brief. But in her view the door did not belong to the other party named on the charge sheet.

The solicitor made full reference to the tenancy, she said something like "the property was sold to new owners, who granted Rebhaken (her pronunciation) a tenancy" - therefore she remains the legitimate occupier as per the squatting legislation for example. The magistrate even intervened to ask whether this was done before the repossession was registered (or something of the sort).

[He Who Knows]

HardyW wrote: No I was being brief. But in her view the door did not belong to the other party named on the charge sheet.

The solicitor made full reference to the tenancy, she said something like "the property was sold to new owners, who granted Rebhaken (her pronunciation) a tenancy" - therefore she remains the legitimate occupier as per the squatting legislation for example. The magistrate even intervened to ask whether this was done before the repossession was registered (or something of the sort).

Of course the door belonged to the other party named on the charge sheet (whom I presume is Macca).
When Macca bought the cottage on 4th June (as verified by the Land Registry) the door (known as fixtures and fittings) was part of his legal purchase.

We're in danger of being distracted by Princess Shoutypant's smoke and mirrors here. The facts are:
April 2016 - the repossession was registered
June 2016 - the first eviction of Princess
July 2016 - she breaks back in and squats there illegally for a year
Nov/Dec 2016 - sham sales of the cottage to parents then to Tunkashila with sham 10-year tenancy to squatter, Princess
June 2017 - High Court Chancery Division gives conduct of sale to neighbour's solicitors
July 2017 - the second eviction
4th June 2018 - sale to Macca
11th June 2018 - 1st B&E with criminal damage to door, Princess arrested
21st June 2018 - 2nd B&E with criminal damage to door, Princess arrested
26th June 2018 - Macca's name appears in the LR
29th June - police arrest Princess and charge her
If Princess is pretending she didn't know the house belonged to Macca - despite all the court cases, all the presumably properly served paperwork - then she is even more of a pathological liar than first imagined.

[noblepa]

HardyW wrote: No I was being brief. But in her view the door did not belong to the other party named on the charge sheet.

The solicitor made full reference to the tenancy, she said something like "the property was sold to new owners, who granted Rebhaken (her pronunciation) a tenancy" - therefore she remains the legitimate occupier as per the squatting legislation for example. The magistrate even intervened to ask whether this was done before the repossession was registered (or something of the sort).

Of course the door belonged to the other party named on the charge sheet (whom I presume is Macca).
When Macca bought the cottage on 4th June (as verified by the Land Registry) the door (known as fixtures and fittings) was part of his legal purchase.

We're in danger of being distracted by Princess Shoutypant's smoke and mirrors here. The facts are:
April 2016 - the repossession was registered
June 2016 - the first eviction of Princess
July 2016 - she breaks back in and squats there illegally for a year
Nov/Dec 2016 - sham sales of the cottage to parents then to Tunkashila with sham 10-year tenancy to squatter, Princess
June 2017 - High Court Chancery Division gives conduct of sale to neighbour's solicitors
July 2017 - the second eviction
4th June 2018 - sale to Macca
11th June 2018 - 1st B&E with criminal damage to door, Princess arrested
21st June 2018 - 2nd B&E with criminal damage to door, Princess arrested
26th June 2018 - Macca's name appears in the LR
29th June - police arrest Princess and charge her
If Princess is pretending she didn't know the house belonged to Macca - despite all the court cases, all the presumably properly served paperwork - then she is even more of a pathological liar than first imagined.

She's absolutely wrong, but, she truly believes that she (or is it Tunkashila) owns the house and she is a legitimate tenant. Therefore, as the tenant, the door is hers, at least in terms of the right to use it.

She completely rejects all the court proceedings, so the sales to her parents and then to Tunkashila are perfectly valid, and the recent sale to Macca is fraudulent.

So, yes, in her mind, the door (or the house for that matter) do not belong to the other party listed on the charge (Macca). Under normal circumstances, if Tunkashila really did own the house, and she really was renting it, breaking down the door would probably NOT be a crime. That is the state of things, in her deluded mind, so she feels that no crime has been committed.

[notorial dissent]

She can "believe" she's the Queen of Sheba and that she owns the earth and it won't alter her criminal acts. The court actions and Property Register say she doesn't own or have a legal interest in the property, despite what she may believe. The house doesn't belong to her anymore than the money in a bank a thief "believes" is really his, bank robbery is still bank robbery.

[TheHallouminati]

notorial dissent wrote:
She can "believe" she's the Queen of Sheba and that she owns the earth and it won't alter her criminal acts. The court actions and Property Register say she doesn't own or have a legal interest in the property, despite what she may believe. The house doesn't belong to her anymore than the money in a bank a thief "believes" is really his, bank robbery is still bank robbery.

Ahhhh, you know that, we know that but will the magistrate know that on 31st July when the CPS and Police can't provide the proper paperwork?
Could be Chrisy Morris all over again.

[He Who Knows]

Yes, and both Chrisy Morris and Rekhaben Patel have been schooled by Peter McDowell on Mens Rea - "an honestly held belief"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxiUySSFW94