Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:28 am
- Location: England, UK
Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
Somebody else who doesn't seem to understand that if you continually fall behind with mortgage payments, banks (especially those that specialise in sub-prime mortgages) are not likely to cut you too much slack.
Judging from the track record of internet appeals, this lady has been short of money for her animal sanctuary for a good number of years. Finally, this year, the bank has had enough and took possession of the farm. In desperation Ms Campbell has turned to the GOODF model and has swallowed the whole fraudulent document, corrupt banks, judiciary etc story hook, line and sinker.
On Monday she is due to hear the judgement on her case alleging illegal eviction etc. It seems she must have already had the decision communicated in writing (as the judge indicated during the hearing). For someone not allowed to talk about it before Monday she sure says a lot in her latest video. I also can't help noticing that for someone apparently dedicated to peace and love she comes across as quite threatening at 02.30 especially for the person that has recently successfully purchased the farm.
She's appealing for the usual rent-a-mob to turn up at court on Monday to "witness" the judgement. I would expect at least "Ceylon" and his colleagues to appear (if he is not busy with his film about quantum energy generators). It should be quite lively.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWBFZqu ... Avcg4I5j8A
Judging from the track record of internet appeals, this lady has been short of money for her animal sanctuary for a good number of years. Finally, this year, the bank has had enough and took possession of the farm. In desperation Ms Campbell has turned to the GOODF model and has swallowed the whole fraudulent document, corrupt banks, judiciary etc story hook, line and sinker.
On Monday she is due to hear the judgement on her case alleging illegal eviction etc. It seems she must have already had the decision communicated in writing (as the judge indicated during the hearing). For someone not allowed to talk about it before Monday she sure says a lot in her latest video. I also can't help noticing that for someone apparently dedicated to peace and love she comes across as quite threatening at 02.30 especially for the person that has recently successfully purchased the farm.
She's appealing for the usual rent-a-mob to turn up at court on Monday to "witness" the judgement. I would expect at least "Ceylon" and his colleagues to appear (if he is not busy with his film about quantum energy generators). It should be quite lively.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWBFZqu ... Avcg4I5j8A
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:11 pm
- Location: In a gallery, with Peanuts.
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary UK
I've also been following this, if I remember rightly her last court appearance coincided with the date of her property going up for auction. Which caused two rent-a-mobs to be recruited, one went to the court and the other went to the auction.
The group at the auction bided their time until Paula's property came up. Then as is the want of the gang out came the camera's on came the recordings and up went the volume as they started making a thorough nuisance of themselves.
They got the idea to do this from another video circulating YouTube which featured an Irish repossession auction being shut down by a bunch of Irish Freeman shouting at the auctioneers and generally being loud (and if there is one thing the Irish do especially well it is shouting). That video, with an obvious warning as to volume is available here. It is worth noting that unlike our Irish cousins these Freeman can only claim a small victory, they do not manage to prevent the property from being auctioned, nor do they shut down the auction itself, they may have managed to intimidate potential bidders from bidding but whether they did or not we will never know. The property was unsold and will no doubt be listed for a further auction, unless a purchaser makes an acceptable offer in the interim.
Meanwhile the second rentamob went to the court where Paula made yet another appeal to get her property back. While armed with video cameras they didn't seem to get (or at least haven't published) any videos from inside the court, but did make this summary of the proceedings outside the court. I won't pass judgement on the quality of the legal analysis, as being unqualified myself, I feel it isn't my place to be critical. I will say that it appears to be biased in favour of the appellant and that it would seem that the 'ordinary member of the public' is not entirely 'ordinary' but a member of the response group. I would suggest that the Judge in this matter was aware of their attendance and likely purpose and that this played a part in the decision to give their findings at a later date by post. However, again without talking to the Judge, we will not know his reasoning behind that decision so please take the preceding speculation as just that.
While this video lacks any of the usual Freeman shoutiness (the only shouting appears to be from a local embroiled in a completely different argument), it does provide a calmer insight into the collective legal delusion these people are operating under, having said that it does not provide us with any substantial new information.
The group at the auction bided their time until Paula's property came up. Then as is the want of the gang out came the camera's on came the recordings and up went the volume as they started making a thorough nuisance of themselves.
They got the idea to do this from another video circulating YouTube which featured an Irish repossession auction being shut down by a bunch of Irish Freeman shouting at the auctioneers and generally being loud (and if there is one thing the Irish do especially well it is shouting). That video, with an obvious warning as to volume is available here. It is worth noting that unlike our Irish cousins these Freeman can only claim a small victory, they do not manage to prevent the property from being auctioned, nor do they shut down the auction itself, they may have managed to intimidate potential bidders from bidding but whether they did or not we will never know. The property was unsold and will no doubt be listed for a further auction, unless a purchaser makes an acceptable offer in the interim.
Meanwhile the second rentamob went to the court where Paula made yet another appeal to get her property back. While armed with video cameras they didn't seem to get (or at least haven't published) any videos from inside the court, but did make this summary of the proceedings outside the court. I won't pass judgement on the quality of the legal analysis, as being unqualified myself, I feel it isn't my place to be critical. I will say that it appears to be biased in favour of the appellant and that it would seem that the 'ordinary member of the public' is not entirely 'ordinary' but a member of the response group. I would suggest that the Judge in this matter was aware of their attendance and likely purpose and that this played a part in the decision to give their findings at a later date by post. However, again without talking to the Judge, we will not know his reasoning behind that decision so please take the preceding speculation as just that.
While this video lacks any of the usual Freeman shoutiness (the only shouting appears to be from a local embroiled in a completely different argument), it does provide a calmer insight into the collective legal delusion these people are operating under, having said that it does not provide us with any substantial new information.
Warning may contain traces of nut
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:28 am
- Location: England, UK
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
The farm has been sold since the attempt at the auction. The pinned notice on the Facebook page for the Rainbow Ark animal sanctuary details the history (at least from their prospective) and this includes the statement "18/9/14 The farm is sold in a back room deal by the auctioneers, despite them being put on notice."
https://www.facebook.com/rainbowarkphoenixrising
That makes Paula's warning to "whoever is attempting to steal, sell, buy our property don't think they are going to have an easy life because they won't" a bit more meaningful. I wonder if she will be following the example of the forensic document analyst Mr Ebert and start harassing the buyers.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens in court tomorrow when the judge announces his ruling.
https://www.facebook.com/rainbowarkphoenixrising
That makes Paula's warning to "whoever is attempting to steal, sell, buy our property don't think they are going to have an easy life because they won't" a bit more meaningful. I wonder if she will be following the example of the forensic document analyst Mr Ebert and start harassing the buyers.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens in court tomorrow when the judge announces his ruling.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:11 pm
- Location: In a gallery, with Peanuts.
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
I did not know the farm had been sold since the auction. I doubt very much that this was a 'shady backroom deal' and think it more likely to have been a normal, regular transaction for a repossessed property. If anything I think it likely that the farm will have sold for even less than it would have raised at auction (and I feel that this paints the actions of the auction mob in a particularly bad light, they may have intimidated away a buyer and certainly will have provided the auction house a motivation to get rid of the property rather than auction it again, risking the same protestations).
As for court tomorrow, reading between the lines I can see that the verdict is likely to be failure for Paula. If the earlier rent-a-mobs behaviour had been to try and involve themselves in proceedings (always likely given that most sovs and freemen seem to think they are a higher authority on law than a learned Judge in court (a being who is afforded the unique right to say precisely what the law on this occasion is)) then I would think it may be cautious to clear the public gallery and frustrate the mob from their protest. I also think it likely the court will grant the injunction Paula talks about, which would prevent her filing more appeals, the court will understand the need to bring proceedings to a close. I would hope that she would see sense and direct her energies towards rebuilding her life and properly managing her financial affairs, however sometimes people get rather stuck in their rabbit holes.
Whether Paula is so stuck that she starts Eberting herself in protest at the courts decision and racking up a criminal record is yet to be seen. I do think it possible that the mob currently cajoling her down this OPCA path will encourage her to take some lawful pointless action to take back her property, perhaps modelling this on the attempt made by Guy Taylor and his failed seizure of Bodenham Manor.
Ultimately I do feel that far from having helped Paula, her involvement with these people has been incredibly to her detriment. To some extent I feel sorry for her, and have a sense of outrage about the gurus who have cajoled her into making this costly failed stand (simply so they can show proof that the system is unfair) the gurus do not care for Paula, she's just the latest in a long line of dead horses.
As for court tomorrow, reading between the lines I can see that the verdict is likely to be failure for Paula. If the earlier rent-a-mobs behaviour had been to try and involve themselves in proceedings (always likely given that most sovs and freemen seem to think they are a higher authority on law than a learned Judge in court (a being who is afforded the unique right to say precisely what the law on this occasion is)) then I would think it may be cautious to clear the public gallery and frustrate the mob from their protest. I also think it likely the court will grant the injunction Paula talks about, which would prevent her filing more appeals, the court will understand the need to bring proceedings to a close. I would hope that she would see sense and direct her energies towards rebuilding her life and properly managing her financial affairs, however sometimes people get rather stuck in their rabbit holes.
Whether Paula is so stuck that she starts Eberting herself in protest at the courts decision and racking up a criminal record is yet to be seen. I do think it possible that the mob currently cajoling her down this OPCA path will encourage her to take some lawful pointless action to take back her property, perhaps modelling this on the attempt made by Guy Taylor and his failed seizure of Bodenham Manor.
Ultimately I do feel that far from having helped Paula, her involvement with these people has been incredibly to her detriment. To some extent I feel sorry for her, and have a sense of outrage about the gurus who have cajoled her into making this costly failed stand (simply so they can show proof that the system is unfair) the gurus do not care for Paula, she's just the latest in a long line of dead horses.
Warning may contain traces of nut
-
- A Councilor of the Kabosh
- Posts: 3096
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:01 am
- Location: Wherever my truck goes.
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
The thing that upsets me the most about situations like this is that people, who are following the law, are going to, at some point, make a decision about how to get these idiots off their property. I can't remember his forum name, the guy who had to have sov'runs evicted off his property, s/he took years and had to go to court to get his property cleared of similar idiots, at some great cost. I have the feeling that, some time not so far in the future, idiots doing stupid things like this are going to put a homeowner/ property owner in a position where they feel they have to protect themselves (having a mob of people charging onto your property threatening you will do that) and is going to fire upon them. Will the sov'runs wise up after that or will they double down on the koolaid? Who knows, I doubt they do. They are creating situations where, eventually, this is going to happen and it is going to leave a home/ property owner with a serious problem, beyond getting rid of a bunch of squatters. And possibly one or more of the sov'runs dead and/ or wounded. Is it going to end there?
Disciple of the cross and champion in suffering
Immerse yourself into the kingdom of redemption
Pardon your mind through the chains of the divine
Make way, the shepherd of fire
Avenged Sevenfold "Shepherd of Fire"
Immerse yourself into the kingdom of redemption
Pardon your mind through the chains of the divine
Make way, the shepherd of fire
Avenged Sevenfold "Shepherd of Fire"
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:11 pm
- Location: In a gallery, with Peanuts.
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
It may well end that way in America or Canada where access to firearms is somewhat easier than in the UK certainly. I also feel it important to note that over here squatting in a residential property is now a criminal offence. This means that the police will turn up to evict (this happened to Guy Taylor at Bodenham manor). So at least in the UK sort of shenanigans will, rightly, be viewed as criminal.
Some recent video's, which only just came to my attention, show a new game being played against bailiffs which involves forming a mob and having a debtor ring to invite the bailiff to come and receive a payment on the debt. Upon arrival the bailiff is hounded and harassed into leaving. No doubt the 'mob' mentality is then that the bailiff has refused payment and the debt can be cleared (of course in these circumstances it is entirely likely that the offer to pay the debt will have been invalidated by the mob so realistically there never was a serious offer of payment). All this 'game' does is waste police time, breach the peace and potentially fall foul of the protection of harassment act.
However the advice to 'shoot first and ask questions later' was apparently given out in Los Angeles in a matter involving Christopher Alrye Fleming-El(a thread about him exists in the USA section of this forum).
Some recent video's, which only just came to my attention, show a new game being played against bailiffs which involves forming a mob and having a debtor ring to invite the bailiff to come and receive a payment on the debt. Upon arrival the bailiff is hounded and harassed into leaving. No doubt the 'mob' mentality is then that the bailiff has refused payment and the debt can be cleared (of course in these circumstances it is entirely likely that the offer to pay the debt will have been invalidated by the mob so realistically there never was a serious offer of payment). All this 'game' does is waste police time, breach the peace and potentially fall foul of the protection of harassment act.
However the advice to 'shoot first and ask questions later' was apparently given out in Los Angeles in a matter involving Christopher Alrye Fleming-El(a thread about him exists in the USA section of this forum).
Warning may contain traces of nut
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:28 am
- Location: England, UK
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary, UK
So as expected Paula Campbell's claim for wrongful eviction was dismissed and equally as expected she has declared that "it's not over".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4XdgOcCRlc
It would be good to see a transcript of the judges ruling to get a clear idea of the issues involved and the reasons for the dismissal but I think you have to pay for that.
Looking beyond all the hyperbole about "the elite", lack of justice (i.e I lost the case) etc it does appear to me that Redstone who held the mortgage on the property are not slow to try to evict their customers. I suspect they bought a parcel of these "bad loans" and they don't need much excuse to try to cash them in. That said, it's evident that Paula Campbell has had problems financing the animal sanctuary for many years and no doubt when things got tight, the mortgage payments went by the board.
Amongst all the usual allegations of fraud, incorrect documentation, illegal eviction etc she is claiming that she is being evicted so that a a wind turbine can be built on adjacent property and insinuating that various landowners are part of the corruption. I have found the minutes of the Oakenshaw Community Association which trying to erect a wind turbine with the profit going to the local community. Paula and her "supporters" attended a meeting on 14th April this year to complain about the proposal. It provoked an interesting response ...
"Paula Campbell from Milkup Bank Farm asked why she had not been consulted about this as the turbine will be 400 metres from her land. John replied that he had previously visited her personally to talk with her about the Turbine. She was accompanied by many friends who all had various questions to ask about the Wind Turbine. Questions which OCA had answered in the many previous public meetings held over the last three years. Meetings that Paula and her friends had not attended. John suggested that they contact the Council or the landowner as the process was now out of our hands. One of her friends stated that Paula was being evicted from Milkup Bank Farm because of the wind turbine, but it is a matter of public knowledge that this is untrue; the turbine is not to be built on her land and financial difficulties are known to be the cause of her problems with the farm."
http://oakenshaw.org.uk/association-mat ... april-2014
Looking at previous minutes it's clear that the plans for the wind turbine have been in place for at least 2 years.
This looks like becoming another protracted saga. Ultimately they won't stop until they win and they aren't going to win using the OPCA arguments. I feel slightly sorry for Paula, she might even have some justification for complaining about the eviction but unfortunately it's lost in the rambling nonsense her new "family" are feeding her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4XdgOcCRlc
It would be good to see a transcript of the judges ruling to get a clear idea of the issues involved and the reasons for the dismissal but I think you have to pay for that.
Looking beyond all the hyperbole about "the elite", lack of justice (i.e I lost the case) etc it does appear to me that Redstone who held the mortgage on the property are not slow to try to evict their customers. I suspect they bought a parcel of these "bad loans" and they don't need much excuse to try to cash them in. That said, it's evident that Paula Campbell has had problems financing the animal sanctuary for many years and no doubt when things got tight, the mortgage payments went by the board.
Amongst all the usual allegations of fraud, incorrect documentation, illegal eviction etc she is claiming that she is being evicted so that a a wind turbine can be built on adjacent property and insinuating that various landowners are part of the corruption. I have found the minutes of the Oakenshaw Community Association which trying to erect a wind turbine with the profit going to the local community. Paula and her "supporters" attended a meeting on 14th April this year to complain about the proposal. It provoked an interesting response ...
"Paula Campbell from Milkup Bank Farm asked why she had not been consulted about this as the turbine will be 400 metres from her land. John replied that he had previously visited her personally to talk with her about the Turbine. She was accompanied by many friends who all had various questions to ask about the Wind Turbine. Questions which OCA had answered in the many previous public meetings held over the last three years. Meetings that Paula and her friends had not attended. John suggested that they contact the Council or the landowner as the process was now out of our hands. One of her friends stated that Paula was being evicted from Milkup Bank Farm because of the wind turbine, but it is a matter of public knowledge that this is untrue; the turbine is not to be built on her land and financial difficulties are known to be the cause of her problems with the farm."
http://oakenshaw.org.uk/association-mat ... april-2014
Looking at previous minutes it's clear that the plans for the wind turbine have been in place for at least 2 years.
This looks like becoming another protracted saga. Ultimately they won't stop until they win and they aren't going to win using the OPCA arguments. I feel slightly sorry for Paula, she might even have some justification for complaining about the eviction but unfortunately it's lost in the rambling nonsense her new "family" are feeding her.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:11 pm
- Location: In a gallery, with Peanuts.
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
It's a sad little circle OPCA litigants find themselves trapped in, when they lose it's not because their case simply didn't have merit, it's because the 'crooked judge' doesn't want to open the floodgates and it's all a fix perpetrated by the banking industry.
This only causes the litigant to further believe that they SHOULD win even though they haven't and likely won't. Paula doesn't think her home was repossessed, they are clear in their belief that it was stolen by a wide ranging criminal conspiracy.
This delusion furthers their sense of injustice even though that feeling is based on a complete misunderstanding of the financial system, law, reality. Unfortunately I doubt they would welcome reality back into their lives, as that involves accepting the mistakes they originally made and the ones they made that followed, that sort of acceptance would be a major blow to a persons self image.
This only causes the litigant to further believe that they SHOULD win even though they haven't and likely won't. Paula doesn't think her home was repossessed, they are clear in their belief that it was stolen by a wide ranging criminal conspiracy.
This delusion furthers their sense of injustice even though that feeling is based on a complete misunderstanding of the financial system, law, reality. Unfortunately I doubt they would welcome reality back into their lives, as that involves accepting the mistakes they originally made and the ones they made that followed, that sort of acceptance would be a major blow to a persons self image.
Warning may contain traces of nut
-
- Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
- Posts: 4287
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
First time i lose i try Notice
Second time i lose i try Writs
Third time i lose i try anything
Except using my wits
Second time i lose i try Writs
Third time i lose i try anything
Except using my wits
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!
10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:28 am
- Location: England, UK
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
Indeed, a foretaste of what is probably to come can be seen in the chronicle (link below) provided by Rogue Male detailing his attempts to prove that his mortgage is "void". Of course it does not help that it starts with a false premise i.e.
"January 2009 ~ Following extensive research on the nature and common practice of the banking industry, including (without limitation) the Fractional Reserve Lending System, C had concluded that there was every reason to believe that the Bank had not, in fact, loaned him any money ~ there had been no “Advance”.
http://roguemale.org/2013/12/06/the-chr ... e/#more-93
One might think that the number of times that his subsequent claims are rejected, struck down or considered "without merit" would lead a reasonable person to consider whether they actually had any case and particularly if that someone is without any formal legal training and representing themselves, to seek professional advice. Of course this is the last thing that occurs and it serves only as proof that they are being denied justice by a corrupt system.
This has been going on for 5 years. The thing I find difficult to understand is why, if they believe the system is corrupt, they continue to try to use that system to prove a point that the "corruption" is presumably intended to deny. It seems rather masochistic. I would almost understand it more if claimants did take up firearms. At least it would be resolved more quickly.
Paula Campbell talks about having a secret weapon up her sleeve in a claim of rights to the property by her daughter. It is only in passing that she mentions that this has already been heard in court and rejected. Presumably they are appealing that decision too.
Ultimately there appears to be no way that such claimants can be persuaded that they are wrong and so no end to these cases apart from temporary imprisonment or if the actions reach Ebert proportions by classifying them as a vexatious litigants
"January 2009 ~ Following extensive research on the nature and common practice of the banking industry, including (without limitation) the Fractional Reserve Lending System, C had concluded that there was every reason to believe that the Bank had not, in fact, loaned him any money ~ there had been no “Advance”.
http://roguemale.org/2013/12/06/the-chr ... e/#more-93
One might think that the number of times that his subsequent claims are rejected, struck down or considered "without merit" would lead a reasonable person to consider whether they actually had any case and particularly if that someone is without any formal legal training and representing themselves, to seek professional advice. Of course this is the last thing that occurs and it serves only as proof that they are being denied justice by a corrupt system.
This has been going on for 5 years. The thing I find difficult to understand is why, if they believe the system is corrupt, they continue to try to use that system to prove a point that the "corruption" is presumably intended to deny. It seems rather masochistic. I would almost understand it more if claimants did take up firearms. At least it would be resolved more quickly.
Paula Campbell talks about having a secret weapon up her sleeve in a claim of rights to the property by her daughter. It is only in passing that she mentions that this has already been heard in court and rejected. Presumably they are appealing that decision too.
Ultimately there appears to be no way that such claimants can be persuaded that they are wrong and so no end to these cases apart from temporary imprisonment or if the actions reach Ebert proportions by classifying them as a vexatious litigants
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:11 pm
- Location: In a gallery, with Peanuts.
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
I imagine Paula imagines her daughters rights to be based on a misunderstanding of the law surrounding the eviction of tenants from property. The law is very developed in this area and evicting tenants on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) requires a very specific process or it becomes a criminal offence.
Paula may believe that she granted her daughter a tenancy to have stayed at the farm. She may think it was an AST. It cannot have been an AST however, as one of the requirements of an AST is that the homeowner does not also reside at that address. If the homeowner does live at the address, you cannot have an AST and the rules on eviction are only that reasonable notice needs to have been given. The courts have held in the past that the definition of what is 'reasonable' will depend upon individual circumstances.
Paula's daughter would have been considered an excluded occupier when the original eviction order was given, she lives at the property but has no actual rights in law to it. As such the eviction order only needed to name Paula and need not list every other person at the property (as this could not reasonably be known when the order was granted). I'm afraid that like all the other arguments in this matter Paula is barking up the wrong tree.
The problem is that the Freemen have a belief that Judges take an oath to uphold "Common Law" and are bound to uphold "Common Law". Since Freemen know exactly what "Common Law" is, they think that they can only win in a "fair" court. When they don't win it's because the Judge has broken his oath and failed to uphold "Common Law" and not because the Judge has followed his learned understanding of what the common law actually is.
Paula may believe that she granted her daughter a tenancy to have stayed at the farm. She may think it was an AST. It cannot have been an AST however, as one of the requirements of an AST is that the homeowner does not also reside at that address. If the homeowner does live at the address, you cannot have an AST and the rules on eviction are only that reasonable notice needs to have been given. The courts have held in the past that the definition of what is 'reasonable' will depend upon individual circumstances.
Paula's daughter would have been considered an excluded occupier when the original eviction order was given, she lives at the property but has no actual rights in law to it. As such the eviction order only needed to name Paula and need not list every other person at the property (as this could not reasonably be known when the order was granted). I'm afraid that like all the other arguments in this matter Paula is barking up the wrong tree.
The problem is that the Freemen have a belief that Judges take an oath to uphold "Common Law" and are bound to uphold "Common Law". Since Freemen know exactly what "Common Law" is, they think that they can only win in a "fair" court. When they don't win it's because the Judge has broken his oath and failed to uphold "Common Law" and not because the Judge has followed his learned understanding of what the common law actually is.
Warning may contain traces of nut
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:28 am
- Location: England, UK
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
Something of an unbiased report on the most recent court case although I assume this relates to the hearing in Leeds not in another one in London.
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/l ... attle_bid/
"After hearing her evidence, Judge Sutcliffe said: "I did not find Miss Campbell a convincing witness. She was intent on setting her agenda and was not a witness on whose evidence I could rely". He dismissed her claim over the mortgage's validity as "hopeless" and added: "Miss Campbell had more than sufficient notice of Redstone's intention to remove and dispose of the goods on the property. It was entirely due to her own deliberate actions."
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/l ... attle_bid/
"After hearing her evidence, Judge Sutcliffe said: "I did not find Miss Campbell a convincing witness. She was intent on setting her agenda and was not a witness on whose evidence I could rely". He dismissed her claim over the mortgage's validity as "hopeless" and added: "Miss Campbell had more than sufficient notice of Redstone's intention to remove and dispose of the goods on the property. It was entirely due to her own deliberate actions."
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
-
- Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
- Posts: 3759
- Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:35 am
- Location: Quatloos Immigration Control
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
It was the High Court in London if I read it correctly, I think that's the only place she could go at this stage to get the repo reversed.
Reading the comments on the report she doesn't come across as Miss Perfect.
Reading the comments on the report she doesn't come across as Miss Perfect.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
-
- Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
- Posts: 3759
- Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:35 am
- Location: Quatloos Immigration Control
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
If anyone can't get to sleep tonight, this is the full judgement: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/3081.html
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:11 pm
- Location: In a gallery, with Peanuts.
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
Having taken the time to read the Judgement, thanks Arthur for the link. There is very little of real note in the Judgement, it's not a case that sets precedent. I did note that Judge Sutcliffe wrote:
Paula also complains that Redstone stopped her from collecting her property. This isn't exactly accurate, Redstone apparently gave Paula plenty of opportunity to collect her things, it was only after she barricaded herself inside the property that they became reticent about allowing her further access. Judge Sutcliffe found that Redstone behaved reasonably, based on what is described in the case I see no reason to disagree.
Judge Sutcliffe then lists three other applications made by Paula. All fail. In one Paula is complaining that she never saw a receipt to show that Redstone paid the court fee, Judge Sutcliffe points out that the court wouldn't have issued papers if Redstone hadn't. The second is Paula, like a freshly defrosted Dr Evil, demanding a million pounds be paid to the court because they may not have enough insurance to cover the claim, this fails because the CPR doesn't allow that to happen way to law Paula, way to law. The third was to stop Redstone from selling the property. This Judge Sutcliffe founds is an application made far too late, it's an abuse of process and must be struck out.
Nothing else is very notable about the judgement. Aside from this line, which perhaps give an indication of what the public gallery was like during the hearing.
Judge Sutcliffe gives those, first and foremost it's misconceived and vexatious, second it's an abuse of process, third Paula paid some of the mortgage and arrears and when she did so she did not think it was fraudulent. She only began to think it fraudulent when she could no longer afford to keep the repayments up.His Honour Judge Sutcliffe QC wrote:Miss Campbell's claim in respect of the mortgage issue is hopeless for a number of separate and distinct reasons.
Paula also complains that Redstone stopped her from collecting her property. This isn't exactly accurate, Redstone apparently gave Paula plenty of opportunity to collect her things, it was only after she barricaded herself inside the property that they became reticent about allowing her further access. Judge Sutcliffe found that Redstone behaved reasonably, based on what is described in the case I see no reason to disagree.
Judge Sutcliffe then lists three other applications made by Paula. All fail. In one Paula is complaining that she never saw a receipt to show that Redstone paid the court fee, Judge Sutcliffe points out that the court wouldn't have issued papers if Redstone hadn't. The second is Paula, like a freshly defrosted Dr Evil, demanding a million pounds be paid to the court because they may not have enough insurance to cover the claim, this fails because the CPR doesn't allow that to happen way to law Paula, way to law. The third was to stop Redstone from selling the property. This Judge Sutcliffe founds is an application made far too late, it's an abuse of process and must be struck out.
Nothing else is very notable about the judgement. Aside from this line, which perhaps give an indication of what the public gallery was like during the hearing.
His Honour Judge Sutcliffe QC wrote:Throughout the hearing (and on the first and last days in particular) Miss Campbell and Mr Brown had a great many supporters present in court who made their views known during certain parts of the evidence. I pay tribute to Mr oHo Horne who appeared for Redstone for the professional way in which he conducted himself throughout the hearing and the assistance he has given the court in both his written and oral submissions.
Warning may contain traces of nut
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:28 am
- Location: England, UK
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
Thanks Arthur for posting the link to the transcript. I have only recently found the bailii website and I need to learn how to search more effectively.
Perhaps sadly, I enjoy reading these court details especially when all I have seen previously is the uncontested and obviously biased interpretation from the claimants. The extensive list of applications for possession and suspensions tell their own story as do some of the more outlandish claims made by Miss Campbell.
Perhaps sadly, I enjoy reading these court details especially when all I have seen previously is the uncontested and obviously biased interpretation from the claimants. The extensive list of applications for possession and suspensions tell their own story as do some of the more outlandish claims made by Miss Campbell.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
-
- Tourist to Quatloosia
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 6:12 pm
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
Hi all
I read with much laughing the post and wanted to thank you for the opinions it is nice to see a bit of reality in this saga and the " Like a freshly defrosted Dr Evil" really made my day
I have had this saga now for eight months my group being involved in the care of some of the 350 animals left at the farm by the eviction, and the opposition to the propaganda being spouted by the former owner and her supporters which was continuing the spin presented in court over those many years so politely demolished in court
The judgement is the first real piece of evidence we have, the chronology is very revealing but I am still looking for some further information specifically how miss campbell was able to obtain 500000 mortgage on a property just bought for 280000 and what happened to the bungalow and land deal mentioned in posts around 2009 I am limited in the information I can see and would be grateful if any further information anyone has could be put so I can see it.
there has been much talk of land grabs over-valuation frauds whatever one of those is for many years and no information has been provided so to bring this matter to a conclusion I am trying to collect the information to stop the accusations of conspiracy
thank you for your time links are below to the opponents pages with pictures etc
Dotty
https://www.facebook.com/pages/To-the-b ... 84?fref=ts
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-trut ... 95?fref=ts
I read with much laughing the post and wanted to thank you for the opinions it is nice to see a bit of reality in this saga and the " Like a freshly defrosted Dr Evil" really made my day
I have had this saga now for eight months my group being involved in the care of some of the 350 animals left at the farm by the eviction, and the opposition to the propaganda being spouted by the former owner and her supporters which was continuing the spin presented in court over those many years so politely demolished in court
The judgement is the first real piece of evidence we have, the chronology is very revealing but I am still looking for some further information specifically how miss campbell was able to obtain 500000 mortgage on a property just bought for 280000 and what happened to the bungalow and land deal mentioned in posts around 2009 I am limited in the information I can see and would be grateful if any further information anyone has could be put so I can see it.
there has been much talk of land grabs over-valuation frauds whatever one of those is for many years and no information has been provided so to bring this matter to a conclusion I am trying to collect the information to stop the accusations of conspiracy
thank you for your time links are below to the opponents pages with pictures etc
Dotty
https://www.facebook.com/pages/To-the-b ... 84?fref=ts
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-trut ... 95?fref=ts
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:28 am
- Location: England, UK
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
Hi Dotty. I don't have much information on the separate land and bungalow either. I think that land and property prices tanked around that time and obviously PJC was unable to sell the land for the value she expected. In her world this means that she was the victim of yet another fraud by corrupt and colluding businessmen. I cannot find any more details of the promised action against Allied Surveyors but I expect it didn't get far and was subsequently dropped as she devoted all her energies to fighting repossession of the sanctuary and trying to persuade more people to donate funds.
I have been using the various Facebook pages as sources of information. I appreciate that many people feel strongly about the animal welfare aspect but I must admit I am inclined to adopt the RSPCA attitude that the animals have been re-homed and are now safe. Personally I think it's pointless going over the same old issues with her supporters. I also think the changes of PJC getting access to premises to start another sanctuary are slim.
The recent judgement is a fascinating document. It certainly paints the picture of someone getting ever more desperate and devious in her attempts to avoid the inevitable as are the legal arguments and "experts" she is relying upon.
I have been using the various Facebook pages as sources of information. I appreciate that many people feel strongly about the animal welfare aspect but I must admit I am inclined to adopt the RSPCA attitude that the animals have been re-homed and are now safe. Personally I think it's pointless going over the same old issues with her supporters. I also think the changes of PJC getting access to premises to start another sanctuary are slim.
The recent judgement is a fascinating document. It certainly paints the picture of someone getting ever more desperate and devious in her attempts to avoid the inevitable as are the legal arguments and "experts" she is relying upon.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:11 pm
- Location: In a gallery, with Peanuts.
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
I believe Normal is right that land and property prices tanked around 2008, when the subprime mortgage bubble burst and that up until that period property had been valued somewhat more generously (based in part on the effect of that bubble on housing prices).
As I can see it there are a number of conspiracies all running amok in Paula's little circle of friends. The first is that her property was stolen by the bank based on a mortgage obtained by fraud and no real money was given to Paula. This wasn't the case, it was a mortgage obtained by mortgaging and Paula was not tricked or coerced into taking the mortgage. The second is that Paula needed to be forced out so that "big wind" could build a wind farm on land adjacent, aside from the obvious fact that there is no such thing as "big wind", it hasn't stopped Paula's supporters from perceiving such an organisation and giving it a nefarious intent. Both of these conspiracies don't require any form of evidence to sustain them, even very obvious (and rational) evidence that disproves them is largely ignored by the theorists (such as asking if Paula had the utility of the mortgage money from the bank or why "Big Wind" would need Paula's land when they had secured all the land they needed from her neighbour (and all "Big Wind" needed now was in fact a big wind).
You won't convince these people that a conspiracy doesn't exist no matter how much you try and paradoxically the more you try to educate them as to how they are misguided the more you wind up entrenching their position. While it can be fun to debunk their arguments (why else are we here) the result of that action for the OPCA is usually for them to double down on stupid or attempt to 'win' the argument by calling us "sheeple", "bootlickers", or making the argument personal and avoiding discussion of fact.
As I can see it there are a number of conspiracies all running amok in Paula's little circle of friends. The first is that her property was stolen by the bank based on a mortgage obtained by fraud and no real money was given to Paula. This wasn't the case, it was a mortgage obtained by mortgaging and Paula was not tricked or coerced into taking the mortgage. The second is that Paula needed to be forced out so that "big wind" could build a wind farm on land adjacent, aside from the obvious fact that there is no such thing as "big wind", it hasn't stopped Paula's supporters from perceiving such an organisation and giving it a nefarious intent. Both of these conspiracies don't require any form of evidence to sustain them, even very obvious (and rational) evidence that disproves them is largely ignored by the theorists (such as asking if Paula had the utility of the mortgage money from the bank or why "Big Wind" would need Paula's land when they had secured all the land they needed from her neighbour (and all "Big Wind" needed now was in fact a big wind).
You won't convince these people that a conspiracy doesn't exist no matter how much you try and paradoxically the more you try to educate them as to how they are misguided the more you wind up entrenching their position. While it can be fun to debunk their arguments (why else are we here) the result of that action for the OPCA is usually for them to double down on stupid or attempt to 'win' the argument by calling us "sheeple", "bootlickers", or making the argument personal and avoiding discussion of fact.
Warning may contain traces of nut
-
- A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
- Posts: 13806
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm
Re: Paula Jayne Campbell - Rainbow Ark Sanctuary
It's always easier to blame a hazy phasy dark conspiracy than to take responsibility for what one has personally done. No one but Paula could have taken out the mortgage, at least generally in reality, and no one certainly gained by it but Paula, so the conspiracy fraud math just doesn't work in her favor. I still don't see how she got the mortgage in the first place, but that is another conspiracy somewhere else.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.