Thumbs out for the UK's Mr Ebert

[PeanutGallery]

First and foremost the majority of this post is not strictly my own research, a lot of it is thanks to the wonderful first post of fellow Quatlooser Normal Wisdom. Normal introduced me to the crazy and wacky world of Mr Gedaljahu Ebert a hero to the GOOFers, Guy Taylor et al. Gedaljahu Mr Ebert has managed to set the case law in regard to what constitutes a vexatious litigant. I have reproduced Normal’s excellent summary below.

[Mr Ebert] certainly has considerable experience in legal process and documentation having spent 20 years pursuing his own claims of fraud, illegal eviction, illegal bankruptcy, forged documentation and deception and collusion of almost everyone involved including his former business partner, various banks, receivers, liquidators, estate agents, members of the legal profession, the judiciary and members of government.

Unfortunately for his own credibility he has yet to prove a single allegation despite launching numerous criminal actions and between 60 and 120 civil cases. In fact his actions have become part of case law on the subject of vexatious litigation and he is in what I assume to be a fairly rare position of being the subject of both Civil and Criminal Proceedings Orders which prevent him, in perpetuity, launching any further civil or criminal actions without the specific permission of the High Court.

This restriction and his singular lack of success in court has not prevented him from writing a book on the subject and offering advice to anyone that asks (and possibly pays?) for it. When assessing whether the Civil Proceedings Order should be granted one judge commented on Mr Ebert's "obsessive and deluded state of mind". Perhaps this is what appeals to his clients.

The judgement on the Civil Proceedings Order can be read here (in two parts with a link to the second part at the foot of the first part)
http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/vexa ... ebert.html

Even more instructive and definitely entertaining is the transcript of an appeal against conviction and hearing for sentencing involving Mr Ebert after he was subsequently convicted of criminal damage and harassment for repeatedly spray painting his name on his former property. The judge shows amazing patience especially in the sentencing hearing. I just wish I could have been there (the headings and comments in the following link have apparently been added by Mr Ebert or one of his supporters but the transcripts seem to be accurate)http://mrebert.files.wordpress.com/2012 ... etails.pdf

Of course we wouldn’t be anywhere without a video showing this legal genius at work, presented is a series of videos on Vimeo (rather than YouTube) which show Mr Ebert staging a protest outside the site of his former home and the police response to it. It’s in three parts so here’s Part One, Part Two, and Part Three.

Admittedly these videos are three years old. Usually I wouldn’t post them, but it’s among the only video’s I’ve found of Mr Ebert. So why post a thread on him now, well Mr Ebert is trying to become the next Tom Crawford. Across the GOOFieverse a call for action has gone out in the past couple of days because Mr Ebert is being evicted. We haven’t been given any more details than this and don’t know if it’s for non-payment of a mortgage (highly unlikely Mr Ebert is an undischarged bankrupt), rental arrears or simply because the landlord wants him out. However the fact that one of their own, in fact someone they consider a major player is having such plight with the bailiffs is fueling all manner of conspiracy theories. The GOOFs and Guy Taylor are trying to spin this into a victory for their argument by claiming that the system is targeting Ebert because he provides so much good advice for them. The reality is probably that the ‘system’ has very little to do with this eviction and it is little more than a run of the mill dispute between landlord and tenant.

[littleFred]

Like many OPCA litigants, Mr Ebert spouts woo in the face of logic, legislation and other tedious conventions. Unlike other OPCAs, he blazes his own trail. Not for him is the path of following established gurus. He creates his own havoc in a blaze of paperwork, quibbles, complications and arguments. I foresee a bright future for him as an OPCA hero, not at all marred by his success rate of zero.

Based on Mr Ebert's "The forensics of legal fraud, vol 1", March 2011, I summarise his downfall. Mr Ebert's account is certainly not complete, with many critical documents missing or quoted only partially. The Wolff brothers might tell the story differently.

In the 1990s he and his business parner Morris (or Maurice) Wolff (or Wollf) ran a property business. Mr Ebert's personal income was about £50,000 per month. The partners each had a loan of about £50,000 from Midland Bank. Business took a downturn, the partners fell out and litigated against each other, and the bank wanted its money back. Morris Wolff paid back his share; Mr Ebert did not.

June 1995: court ruled that Mr Ebert owed the bank.

Morris's brother, Ralph Wolff, stepped in. He bought Mr Ebert's debt from the bank. Why did he do this? Perhaps through an act of kindness to get the bank off Mr Ebert's back, or perhaps out of some spite or revenge. Ralph Wolff tried to get Mr Ebert to pay the debt, without success. Mr Ebert says he could easily have paid the amount but chose not to.

November 1996: Ralph Wolff then petitioned for Mr Ebert's bankruptcy.

July 1997: Bankruptcy order against Mr Ebert.

March 1999: Mr Ebert attempts to overturn the bankruptcy on the grounds that he never owed the bank anything; or if he did then it was for only 50% of the amount; or that it was never properly assigned to Ralph Wolff.

January 2000: Mr Ebert again attempts to overturn the bankruptcy.

July 2000: High Court declares Mr Ebert a vexatious litigant.

October 2009: Mr Ebert again attempts to overturn the bankruptcy on the grounds (among others) that Ralph Wolff "was not a legal entity in fact and law". Permission to proceed is refused.

Since then, as we have seen, Mr Ebert has been hassling the current owners of the house that he lost in the bankruptcy.

Mr Ebert's overriding principles seem to be:

1. If a court decides against you, ignore it. In the alternative: if at first you don't succeed, try something even wackier.
2. If you are in a hole, keep digging.
3. Deny everything, eg:

MR EBERT: I was never convicted.
THE JUDGE: You say it’s not true but we can look up the file but I’m not going to do that today.
MR EBERT: But I can just say that I’m not convicted.
THE JUDGE: Don’t say any more. You did get convicted and you appealed against it and there was as far as you are concerned no outcome of the appeal.
MR EBERT: Correct.

4. Call unhelpful character witnesses, eg:

Q. And forgive me for asking, but do you know him on a personal basis or a professional basis or how?
A. I spoke with him because of his experiences in the court system and his perceptions of the contravention of court procedures and I listened to him for a long time and tried to understand what the core problems were and focussed in on just a few papers because I cannot comprehend the whole story.
Q. Can I just understand from which angle you come? I mean are you a counsellor or a lawyer or a friend or what?
A. I’m a professional idiot. I have skill in ---
Q. That does not help me very much.

[Normal Wisdom]

It should be remarkable that Guy Taylor puts so much faith in Mr Ebert's ability to spot and to train others to spot "fraudulent" documents (which apparently includes nearly every writ, order, warrant etc issued by any court) when Mr Ebert has been making such allegations in his own case(s) for close on 20 years without any success.

There are parallels between Mr Ebert's case and that of Guy Taylor; fraudulent banks, bankruptcy petitions, collusion by the judiciary, multiple civil and criminal cases. I wonder if GT is heading towards being labelled a vexatious litigant too?

[littleFred]

Above, I summarised Mr Ebert's history from his own account. We get a similar picture from judgements at the Court of Appeal and High Court, but it fills in some gaps in the early history. It seems that, contrary to what I wrote above, Morris did not pay the bank.

Here are references to him in http://www.bailii.org. They are all failures.

30 March 1999 "... Mr Ebert has already brought vexatious proceedings, and that he will continue to bring such proceedings unless he is restrained from doing so."

31 Jan 2000 "On 22 December 1997 Mr Ebert issued an application to commit Mr Rabinowicz and Mr Ralph Wolff to prison ..."

15 Feb 2001 "During the past four or five years, Mr Ebert has made a very large number of applications - probably well over a hundred applications altogether - to different courts and it is very difficult to keep any summary of the matter to reasonable proportions."

20 Feb 2001 The day before the sale of 23 Cranbourne Gardens.

14 Mar 2001 Is vexatious litigant status a violation of human rights? Nope.

11 May 2001 Mr Ebert applies for leave to appeal against the order declaring him to be a vexatious litigant.

11 May 2001 Mrs Devorah Ebert applies for an order to be set aside, and wants damages for torture etc.

21 Sep 2001 "Mr Ebert is forbidden until further order from entering the premises of the Royal Courts of Justice."

12 Nov 2001 Mr Ebert makes many applications.

13 Jul 2004 Mr Ebert has commenced 50 criminal allegations against 12 defendants.

24 May 2005 Mr Ebert has been writing to judges accusing them of fraud, high treason and so on, goading them to take action against him. His applications are further rationed.

Again and again, Mr Ebert attempts to resurrect settled matters. These attempts fail, again and again.

In all of this, I see no evidence that Mr Ebert has any "forensic documentation" skills. Sure, there were minor errors, but of no significance. There is plenty of evidence that he doesn't understand judicial processes, and masses of evidence that he wants to abuse those processes as well as directing personal abuse at individuals. In brief, he is a troublemaker.

His accusations of judicial fraud and so on are not evidenced. They are vapourware.

If Guy Taylor follows Mr Ebert, and I can easily see that he might, Mr Ebert will rejoice at doing all this stuff again, by proxy.

[PeanutGallery]

An excellent summary LittleFred however my understanding of Mr Eberts downfall is perhaps a little different and may explain why Mr Ebert was unwilling to pay the amount Mr Wolff was claiming. It's important to note that Mr Ebert and Mr Wolff did run a property company, however I believe it had managed to find itself in negative equity and the value of the portfolio was less than the amount owed. This caused some friction and Ebert and Wolff both agreed to have the matter settled by the Beth Din (a Jewish Rabbinical Court, which while not being legally binding in the UK was in effect a form of alternative dispute resolution). Certainly the collapse of this rather grand enterprise caused some acrimony between Ebert and Wolff.

Now from what I understand of Mr Eberts bankruptcy the debt to the bank was paid by Ralph Wolff (henceforth Mr Wolff (brother)) because his brother (Mr Wolff (debtor)) and Mr Ebert were both joint and severally liable. As such both Mr Wolff (debtor) and Mr Ebert would have been made bankrupt if it was unpaid. Mr Wolff (brother) didn't want his brother Mr Wolff (debtor) to be made bankrupt but didn't care what happened to Mr Ebert.

Mr Wolff (brother) cleared the debt with the bank, discharging the entire liabilty and saving his brother from the bankruptcy. However rather than simply pay up on his brothers behalf it seems Mr Wolff (brother) took over the debt. This was important because Mr Wolff (debtor) and Mr Ebert were both joint and severally liable.

Mr Wolff (brother) was then entitled to sue Mr Ebert for the repayment of the full amount that was now owed to him. He had the choice of whether to sue his brother or not and seemingly chose not too. Mr Ebert cried foul at this, perhaps he was right to it seems like a dirty trick, however the law allows for this to happen and it is a loophole (and Mr Ebert could have had some form of a victory by paying the full debt and then launching a suit against Mr Wolff (debtor) for his half of the money). However Mr Ebert didn't pay the entire debt and instead insisted that the entire debt had been paid not by Mr Wolff (brother) but by Mr Wolff (debtor). The court examined this claim and found it not to be the case at all and that Mr Ebert and Mr Wolff (debtor) were joint and severally liable and held that as a result Mr Wolff (brother) was allowed to recover the whole amount from either one, had Mr Ebert been right and had Mr Wolff (debtor) paid the debt he would only have been entitled to half the money and presumably Mr Ebert would then have been bankrupted over owing less money.

The morale to this story is while you should be careful when entering into any financial arrangement be especially wary of situations where you may be joint and severally liable as your "share" of the debt to the creditor in the eyes of the law is in fact all of it.

[littleFred]

Thanks, PeanutGallery. I think you are correct. Mr Wolff (debtor) is Morris Wolff; Mr Wolff (brother) is Ralph Wolff.

Undoubtedly Mr Ebert felt (and still feels) badly done by. He had a moral case that he only owed half the amount, if not a legal one. Sadly, in business, legal trumps moral. He stuck to his moral principles gambling that the courts would do likewise, and lost.

He is now stuck in the groove of, "I didn't morally owe the entire amount, so I didn't legally owe it, so the court were fraudulent in granting bankruptcy."

[PeanutGallery]

Indeed from what I can gather the property portfolio that Mr Ebert and Mr Wolff had amassed was somewhat substantial, if perhaps precariously financed. It would seem that prior to approaching the Beth Din both the partners (Wolff and Ebert) had fallen out (likely related to the collapse of said portfolio and their impending financial ruin). I would surmise that the brothers Wolff took this action against Mr Ebert in part due to the ill-feeling that had grown as a result of the failed partnership.

Of course Mr Ebert likely see this as someone who was just as responsible as him getting off scot free while he is left to carry the can of failure. To some extent he is right, however he had agreed to be jointly and severally liable when taking out the original loan agreement.

Today was supposed to be Mr Eberts eviction. Having checked the state of the GOOFs it seems only Marshall, the man crowdfunding his legal fails, has posted about today being a success. Which makes me wonder if this will be the same level of success recently enjoyed by Cleveland Rhoden and what exactly went on at Mr Eberts. I guess it will only be a matter of time before we get the YouTubes.

Edited: Mistake in attributing the direct debit scam to Marshall when he's the GOOFer trying to crowdfund his legal costs

[PeanutGallery]

We now have a YouTube. Thanks to the work of Ceylon, who continues to instigate and comment. It shows the usual gathering of the anti-eviction radicals and the police interaction.

It does seem like quite a party, Mr Ebert (or someone associated with the event) has thrown together a few sandwiches and they have a refreshment table. Most of the video is an attempt to 'educate' the police officers who come along to see what is occurring with the GOOF philosophy of law.

Unfortunately for the GOOFS the bailiffs don't show. Now it might be that the bailiffs did their homework on Mr Ebert and discovered this action was due to happen. After all bailiffs aren't simply the courts simian muscle and they are encouraged to make use of their thinky parts, so it's quite likely that they discovered this was due to happen and used their discretion.

It's also troubling that the BBC apparently turned up to interview and record the gathering and this may help spread the GOOFs propaganda. I would hope that the BBC would keep to their mantra of balanced reporting and not simply publish or repeat this twaddle or at least get an independent legal opinion. Admittedly the conversation between Journo and GOOFer is quite funny as the GOOFer tries to explain how you can sign a piece of paper and magic up £50,000.

Here's a clue, you can't and you don't. It doesn't work like that. The bank already has the £50,000 but banks don't want to have money, holding money costs banks (the additional security, the storage space, the risk of robbery etc) and money on it's own won't increase in value (I have found many a ten pound note which has languished long forgotten in the pocket of a seldom worn coat, it has never accrued interest and turned into more than a ten pound note much to my chagrin). So the banks want to use the money they have as best they can. Yes they sometimes use tricksy things like fractional reserve banking however even then their is a finite limit to the amount of money in the world. We've all seen Zimbabwean levels of hyper-inflation which is normally the result of national treasuries creating money to service debt. If the banks were doing that we would be in that state permanently and money would decrease in value exponentially. It therefore is in the banks and the economies interest to keep the amount of money in existence low and to make sure it is finite, but to make it circulate constantly.

[Normal Wisdom]

The video is fantastic, especially the attempted interview by the BBC. The first interviewee goes into a long explanation about how he was chased by bailiffs for a "fraudulent" £4000 credit card debt and attempts to explain the magic money creation trick and how he didn't really borrow anything. Of course as soon as the BBC chap questions it he runs for cover saying "I'm not a banking expert". It's hilarious to watch his GOOFy colleagues (including Ceylon) getting more and more frustrated by the inability of the BBC chap to understand their gibberish. Ceylon goes into overdrive with the video captioning and the spelling (never very reliable) goes to pieces under the pressure. I did hear Ceylon saying "I bet the BBC don't show this bit" and I'm sure they didn't because it was ten minutes of surreal lunacy.

[littleFred]

It's also troubling that the BBC apparently turned up ...

Did they? I didn't see a BBC logo anywhere. I suspect this is a freelance team, hoping to tape something interesting that they could sell to the BBC. Instead they taped some wackos spouting theories about how money that is lent isn't real money so doesn't need to be paid back with real money.

Doubtless the BBC could broadcast an informative piece about the development of UK SovCits, or more likely Channel 4 etc could make a mocking real-life documentary about how some wierdos try to escape their debts.

Hmm, there's a business opportunity ...

[PeanutGallery]

Wasn't their a bit of media coverage at Tom Crawfords as well? It's quite possible that someone at or associated with GOOF got a media contact from it and is making the most of it. It could well be that they are independent journalists looking for a scoop, or some footage that would be saleable to news agencies.

I don't think they got anything of any value and even if it were broadcast their would be a right to reply from actual economists who I suspect know a bit more about the financial world than a painter and decorator from Sarf London who's trying to shirk responsibility for having over-extended his borrowing. My concern is that this does spread the message these idiots are promoting and gives it a thin veneer of legitimacy, which may help to convince those more vulnerable.

I'd like to see a piece where a journalist embeds themselves within the GOOF camp while at the same time intelligently mocking them and questioning the hypocrisy, however I have observed that several of the individuals are very sensitive and often act aggressively when they are challenged with reality.

[grixit]

The video is fantastic, especially the attempted interview by the BBC. The first interviewee goes into a long explanation about how he was chased by bailiffs for a "fraudulent" £4000 credit card debt and attempts to explain the magic money creation trick and how he didn't really borrow anything. Of course as soon as the BBC chap questions it he runs for cover saying "I'm not a banking expert". It's hilarious to watch his GOOFy colleagues (including Ceylon) getting more and more frustrated by the inability of the BBC chap to understand their gibberish. Ceylon goes into overdrive with the video captioning and the spelling (never very reliable) goes to pieces under the pressure. I did hear Ceylon saying "I bet the BBC don't show this bit" and I'm sure they didn't because it was ten minutes of surreal lunacy.

"Surreal Lunacy" would be a great name for a progrock band.

[littleFred]

The bailiffs missed out on the festivities and sandwiches on the appointed date, so they've turned up today. It seems they were not welcomed. The call has gone out for GOOFers to turn up.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 60&t=79429

[Normal Wisdom]

It seems the call went out too late and Mr Ebert has been evicted (again). I like his spirit though. After 20 years of fighting and losing he is still prepared to claim (from the pavement) "We've got them right where we want them now!".

One suspects the bailiffs might say the same thing.

[PeanutGallery]

I am disappointed Normal, having read the thread on GOOF I feel I should point out that in light of Mr Eberts comments you somehow chose not to make use of this internet meme.

Of course said Cunning Plan seems to involve Guy (Taylor?) printing up face court papers to authorise the repossessed to re-repossess. I would liken the prospects of success to be considerably lower than any plan Baldrick ever invented.

[Normal Wisdom]

Apparently this is such clear cut breach of law that the cunning plan is to use the little known legal argument of blocking the drive so that the van on to which Mr Ebert's furniture is being loaded cannot leave. I am sure that this will be so persuasive that the bailiffs will immediately return the furniture to the flat and hand the keys over the Mr E - or the police will arrest some of GOOFs on site "legal experts".

I am finding it increasingly difficult to understand the legal arguments that they are making. I don't know what they believe is wrong with the warrant of possession that has apparently been issued other than by definition any court document that says something they don't like must by definition be wrong, fraudulent, corrupt etc. On GOOF they seem to be spinning what I assume is the refusal of the police to get into a shouting match, debate accept the GOOFers claims about the warrant and arrest the bailiffs as yet another conspiracy.

[PeanutGallery]

Fun fact, the protection of freedoms act 2012 (Section 54(1)(b)) makes this part of the cunning plan, illegal. Of course the other part, which is being debated on GOOF is the plan to print up some court papers saying Mr Ebert can remain in the property.

It should be noted that a couple of posters, in a rare display of sanity for GOOF, are actually questioning the validity of the work being done. After all Mr Ebert doesn't own this property, he was renting, so they are arguing why shouldn't the landlord be entitled to ask for his property back and why does Mr Ebert have an entitlement to it. They've also pointed that Mr Ebert is already considered a vexatious litigant by the courts and as such the police aren't likely to take him seriously, or take the court papers he's just printed up at face value (unlike they did with the HCEO's). What's the GOOFs reaction to this? Well those posters who are spouting what appear to be rational and correct arguments are being accused of trolling by the more 'awake'.

[littleFred]

I am finding it increasingly difficult to understand the legal arguments that they are making.

Don't forget the SovCit definition of "legal", which is, "the rules TPTB must obey, based on my misunderstanding or totally invented interpretations of statutes and case law."

This should be contrasted with "lawful", which means, "the rules I must obey, based on whatever rules I decide I must obey."

Two corollaries:

1. Everything a SovCit does is lawful. It might also happen to be legal, but that's not important.

2. Everything TPTB do that a SovCit dislikes is, by definition, both unlawful and illegal.

[Hercule Parrot]

The bailiffs missed out on the festivities and sandwiches on the appointed date, so they've turned up today. It seems they were not welcomed. The call has gone out for GOOFers to turn up.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 60&t=79429

And it has all gone a bit sour at the end, with the discovery that the removal vans were hired by Ebert's wealthy family, and he had another house to move into whenever he wanted to stop fighting with his own daughter in the street.

Some GOOFys are questioning whether they really needed to drop everything and rush to Ebert's assistance, now they know the facts. Naive and misguided as they are, they lost wages and spent money to do that in good faith, and I wonder if they'll turn out for him next time he cries wolf.

[littleFred]

The GOOFers discovered that it wasn't a simple case of heartless landlord throws poor family on to the street. Instead, the GOOFers found they had been suckered into a family dispute.

A good demonstration that SovCits can be just as gullible as they claim the rest of us are.