"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[longdog]

David 'fuckwit' Robinson has produced a new document to add to the list of documents that have had no effect whatsoever.

This'll lern 'em.

Elizabeth Kensah
(Assistant) Justices Clerk\ Legal Advisor
For Cambridgeshire and Essex.
Essex Magistrates’ Court
Osprey House, Hedgerows Business park
Colchester Road
Chelmsford
CM2 5PF
From:

David Robinson (with power of Attorney to act on behalf of Ollie Pinnock)
33 Spring Gardens
Daventry
NN11 4XY

Date: 24–04-2017

Served by recorded post.

NOTICE OF SUPPORT AND INTENT
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.

Let it be known by you Elizabeth Kensah and all those attempting to coerce Ollie Pinnock into breaching his Oath of Allegiance and the constitutional law of the land that, we the people are monitoring this matter to witness, we are collecting evidence and WILL NOT ALLOW any action to be taken against Ollie Pinnock whilst he stands by the barons and the truth in law.

Maybe you need to be reminded that I/we have LAWFUL EXCUSE to distress YOU in anyway that we see fit except to harm your person physically, which we cannot and would not do as the common law prohibits us to do so but, do not think that we cannot BY LAW seize ALL of your personal assets, take over the so called court and MAKE DETERMINED DEMANDS UPON THE POLICE TO ARREST YOU AND YOUR CO CONSPIRATORS FOR YOUR EVIDENTIAL CRIMINALITY.

You have been warned.

Without frivolity in an attempt to save breaches of the peace and the common law, stated on my Oath of Allegiance and on penalty of perjury. With prejudice

Sincerely

That looks to be either very close to or over the line of attempting to pervert the cause of justice... But then that won't affect him because he's in lawful rebellion

[John Uskglass]

Maybe you need to be reminded that I/we have LAWFUL EXCUSE to distress YOU in anyway that we see fit

I'd have thought there was a reasonable argument that the provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 could apply - CPS guidelines say

Although harassment is not specifically defined in section 7(2) of the PHA, it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stal ... ment/#a02a

[JimUk1]

So, it's perfectly acceptable for them to bully and cause mental distress so long as they don't physically hurt them?

Such hypocrites!

They really get my back up when they think that bullying is a legitimate tactic.

[AndyPandy]

So, it's perfectly acceptable for them to bully and cause mental distress so long as they don't physically hurt them?

Such hypocrites!

They really get my back up when they think that bullying is a legitimate tactic.

So they're all busily sending out the 'threatening' letters to Ms Kensah (by recorded delivery no less).

Unfortunately, for Ollie (Oliver in official correspondence please) these things have a nasty habit of backfiring as they might just decide to make an example of him to show these tactics don't work.

[littleFred]

The Ollie Pinnock campaign is truly pathetic. I assume that Ollie didn't actually attend the hearing (because he claims it would be illegal to do so) and defend against the application for the liability order, and they ruled against him.

Sending personal threats to court staff ("seize ALL of your personal assets") won't change that, but could create more trouble for Ollie.

As far as the court is concerned, the matter is now ended.

Sadly for Ollie, the council are likely to come for his personal assets.

[AndyPandy]

The answer to this should be good !!

Richard Green

David, when you say ccj can be overturned, is there a time limit to do this. The reason I ask, is that I did attend a court before I became enlightend. I am none the less going to attempt to have my ccj overturned using the process. But your advice would be most welcome.

[SteveUK]

Shark Bait's winning streak continues !!!1!!

Got a reply today from Southampton council to my 2nd notice Default and Opportunity to Cure. Pretty much the same crap as their 1st reply, I asked them in the last notice who was replying but it seems no one wants to put their name to it. 3rd notice will be going out on Thursday 27th April.

[AndyPandy]

Shark Bait's winning streak continues !!!1!!

Got a reply today from Southampton council to my 2nd notice Default and Opportunity to Cure. Pretty much the same crap as their 1st reply, I asked them in the last notice who was replying but it seems no one wants to put their name to it. 3rd notice will be going out on Thursday 27th April.

Craig Pepper
So there going to make u bankrupt?
Like · Report · 3 minutes ago

Robert White
No they're not.
Like · 1 · Report · 2 minutes ago

Oh yes they are !!!

[longdog]

Obviously the third letter full of pseudo-legal gibberish will be the one that will prove victorious because the first one and the second one were only softening them up for the kill

[exiledscouser]

Robert is heading straight to bankruptcy.

That's quite some liability (£31k!) which must have been built up over many years - unless he has a number of properties.

Equita are also chasing him and his missus for a combined £11k. The current Mrs Scouser would have my knackers if I got her involved in mad schemes like this. Robert Arthur: White wants this playing out in the public domain which must be very distressing for other family members.

The only reason I can see why he is off to bankruptcy court in July is the prospect of his creditors getting equity from the man's home - they probably wouldn't otherwise be throwing good money after bad.

Mr. White is happy for his vacuous internet friends to egg him along, boasting of their own many and varied successes (never verified tho).

This isn't going to end well. I wish he'd take some professional advice.

So there going to make u bankrupt?

No they're not.

Oh yes they are !!!

Too right Andy - just ask Jimmy One Cell how that attitude worked for him.

[JimUk1]

Update from "The Moot"-

David Robinson conducts rousing speech in what appears to be a Nottingham job centre!

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... _tn__=%2As

It got bigger! (Allegedly).

[longdog]

Craig Pepper

There just going to carry on regardless, it's all they can do. They can't let up coz if they did they know the flood gates would open

Or put another way... This shit doesn't work.

[ArthurWankspittle]

That's quite some liability (£31k!) which must have been built up over many years - unless he has a number of properties.

Isn't he the guy who had the nightclub? Business rates on something like that would be thousands a year so not difficult to clock up a £31k liability.
Going to be interesting if he turns up to the hearing and tries a PLD defence.

[littleFred]

Yes, Robert White's £31k debt is over business rates for the nightclub. See https://www.facebook.com/groups/practic ... 316667936/ and earlier in this thread.

He has a record:

I’m 57 years old and I don’t give a shit what happens to me, I’ve been put inside many times for fighting the system although I must admit I went about it in the wrong way usually by punching a copper.

[notorial dissent]

Sounds like ever so charming an individual. Also sounds like he is heading back to jail eventually as well.

[AndyPandy]

Yes, Robert White's £31k debt is over business rates for the nightclub. See https://www.facebook.com/groups/practic ... 316667936/ and earlier in this thread.

He has a record:

I’m 57 years old and I don’t give a shit what happens to me, I’ve been put inside many times for fighting the system although I must admit I went about it in the wrong way usually by punching a copper.

He was Director of Kaos Night Club in Southampton, his wife was Company Secretary, the bankruptcy proceedings are for business rates on the nightclub premises 54-56 St Mary's Street, Southampton, the Company is now dissolved.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... 1/officers

Don't know much about business rates but presumably the company directors are personally liable for them rather than the Company ?

[JimUk1]

Yes, Robert White's £31k debt is over business rates for the nightclub. See https://www.facebook.com/groups/practic ... 316667936/ and earlier in this thread.

He has a record:

I’m 57 years old and I don’t give a shit what happens to me, I’ve been put inside many times for fighting the system although I must admit I went about it in the wrong way usually by punching a copper.

He was Director of Kaos Night Club in Southampton, his wife was Company Secretary, the bankruptcy proceedings are for business rates on the nightclub premises 54-56 St Mary's Street, Southampton, the Company is now dissolved.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... 1/officers

Don't know much about business rates but presumably the company directors are personally liable for them rather than the Company ?

Ive never known anybody liable for a business' debts, but that again I've never known freemen run a business legitimately-

Certainly there are circumstances which will make directors liable-

http://www.realbusinessrescue.co.uk/bus ... td-company

[Burnaby49]

Ive never known anybody liable for a business' debts, but that again I've never known freemen run a business legitimately-

Certainly there are circumstances which will make directors liable-

It happens all the time. In situations where a business is incorporated and high-risk (and small night clubs are as high risk as you get) banks and creditors generally require the company owner to co-sign the loan or debt.

[NYGman]

It happens all the time. In situations where a business is incorporated and high-risk (and small night clubs are as high risk as you get) banks and creditors generally require the company owner to co-sign the loan or debt.

But there is a difference between a shareholder (Or Limited Partner in an LP) personally guaranteeing a debt of the limited company, and making that specific debt recourse to them, personally versus other unsecured non-recourse debts of the same limited company. Typically, in limited companies, liability is limited to the assets of that company, although there are exceptions, which can pierce the limited liability of the company. Which is why the cost to borrow is higher for a limited company, unless someone is willing to Guarantee.

[AndyPandy]

I've just looked it up, if you signed the lease on the premises in your own name instead of the Company's (which is what most landlords prefer), then you are indeed personally liable for business rates.