Chrisy Morris - Parking Tickets and Bailiffs.

[Bones]

Looks like Rekha was the only person that turned up to support Chrisy. Hope there was enough Police there to handle such a crowd of supporters

[Hercule Parrot]

Looks like Rekha was the only person that turned up to support Chrisy.

Surprised that the school gave her a day off for something like this. Assuming that she isn't suspended or on a sick note, of course....

[notorial dissent]

OK, my confusion, but I thought he was supposed to have been in court yesterday?

[Chaos]

Looks like Rekha was the only person that turned up to support Chrisy. Hope there was enough Police there to handle such a crowd of supporters

his own wife didn't go. WTF is that post suppose to mean? lmao!

[Chaos]

OK, my confusion, but I thought he was supposed to have been in court yesterday?

easily assumed as it seems all these clowns do is spend time in a courtroom.

[SoLongCeylon]

The thing being that Chrisy doesn't strike me as being overly blessed, or even blessed with the smarts, so I find it difficult to believe he'll manage to stay out of trouble between now and court date. It doesn't sound like the judge is buying any of his fake document claims, and if the notices got sent to the wrong address, then that was due to his having given them the wrong address, since they didn't just pull it out of the ether. He really is a BAD and stupid compulsive liar. His next court appearance may go VERY badly for him. As he so justly deserves.

He has form for giving out false addresses - he did that with his BNP election submission and that ended up with the Police visiting his elderly parents looking for him. That resulted in the EggHead doing a video complaining that the Police were harrasing is parents. What a weasel.

Pure Karma that Morris is incurring the expense of traveling 230 miles from Essex to Manchester plus hotels ( repeat in May ) to face the consequences of his fake conveyance of language nonsense AND that no one apart from Rheka can be bothered to turn up to support him. Come on Judge, give him 28 days in the slammer.

[He Who Knows]

"Fiona Kent: Thankyou to the one person who went to support. Wow.... :/
Andrew Peppin: ... the nation is falling apart Fiona ... i would love to have gone myself ... i just don't have any real finance to fund such travel ... which is frustrating me ... no end.
Jodie Sainsbury No way!
Fiona Kent: I understand. Sorry I didn't mean it to sound like I was having a pop at all. Just a shame. X
Andrew Peppin: ... it is a shame ... it can get disheartening to encounter a lack of support ...
Jason Howard: Dont want to be controversial, but 1 person takes the piss. All the people who Chrisy Morris helps yet they can not put themselves out for him. Yes, some werent in a position to go, fair enough. BUT there were a lot that were, and they should be ashamed.
I fucking hope chrisy takes a deep breath and a good look at things, because obviously he is there for far more people than are there for him.
Tell the beautiful monkey big love.
Fiona Kent: My thoughts exactly Jason. Thankyou. X
Alan Pete May: I will try and get there for the next round hon. I have been there with only one person, I have to say hon at least he had someone. Guaranteed next time there will be hundreds.
Rachel Lote: If I could drive I wouldn't think about it twice x Chrissy is a top bloke and an amazing man! Would love to support him if anyone can get a mini bus together or something then I would of course pay towards it and go up there with people xxx"

Looks like Cwisy's gonna have to get a bit more organised in May and sort out a coach from Essex. He must be regretting not having given his 5,000 Facebook friends a bit more notice about yesterday's court appearance.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I still do not understand how having a load of supporters turn up at court assists the defendant. Do these people believe the outcome would have been different if fifty people had turned up?

[Burnaby49]

For a while Canadian sovereigns were very big on trying to get their various miscreant friend's court hearings packed with supporters. Apparently if the spectator count hit a specified critical mass (I forget the number) the judge would be cowed by the voice of the soldiers fighting for a true democracy and would decide in favour of the defendant They actually held supporter drives to get a sufficient turnout for hearings. It was like a barter economy with comments like "I'll go to yours if you come to mine'". It failed for two reasons;

1 - Sovereigns are big on bloviating internet postings but not so big on having to actually get out of their chairs and make the effort to do something.

2 - It didn't work.

[Bones]

I still do not understand how having a load of supporters turn up at court assists the defendant. Do these people believe the outcome would have been different if fifty people had turned up?

You forget.... Remember Tom's hearing and the large crowd that turned up...

It was due to the crowd that he won his case....

Oh wait....

Nevermind.......

[Bones]

I think Chrisy is learning the hard way that he is no where near as popular or liked as much as he thought.

When he ran as a BNP candidate and came last, he made a few posts about being let down by people that said they would vote for him but obviously didn't.

Tom Crawford killed off people travelling in large numbers. Those days are long gone...

[Bones]

"Fiona Kent: Thankyou to the one person who went to support. Wow.... :/
Andrew Peppin: ... the nation is falling apart Fiona ... i would love to have gone myself ... i just don't have any real finance to fund such travel ... which is frustrating me ... no end.
Jodie Sainsbury No way!
Fiona Kent: I understand. Sorry I didn't mean it to sound like I was having a pop at all. Just a shame. X
Andrew Peppin: ... it is a shame ... it can get disheartening to encounter a lack of support ...
Jason Howard: Dont want to be controversial, but 1 person takes the piss. All the people who Chrisy Morris helps yet they can not put themselves out for him. Yes, some werent in a position to go, fair enough. BUT there were a lot that were, and they should be ashamed.
I fucking hope chrisy takes a deep breath and a good look at things, because obviously he is there for far more people than are there for him.
Tell the beautiful monkey big love.
Fiona Kent: My thoughts exactly Jason. Thankyou. X
Alan Pete May: I will try and get there for the next round hon. I have been there with only one person, I have to say hon at least he had someone. Guaranteed next time there will be hundreds.
Rachel Lote: If I could drive I wouldn't think about it twice x Chrissy is a top bloke and an amazing man! Would love to support him if anyone can get a mini bus together or something then I would of course pay towards it and go up there with people xxx"

Looks like Cwisy's gonna have to get a bit more organised in May and sort out a coach from Essex. He must be regretting not having given his 5,000 Facebook friends a bit more notice about yesterday's court appearance.

I like Jason's comment, especially as he did not go himself

[notorial dissent]

The thing being that Chrisy doesn't strike me as being overly blessed, or even blessed with the smarts, so I find it difficult to believe he'll manage to stay out of trouble between now and court date. It doesn't sound like the judge is buying any of his fake document claims, and if the notices got sent to the wrong address, then that was due to his having given them the wrong address, since they didn't just pull it out of the ether. He really is a BAD and stupid compulsive liar. His next court appearance may go VERY badly for him. As he so justly deserves.

He has form for giving out false addresses - he did that with his BNP election submission and that ended up with the Police visiting his elderly parents looking for him. That resulted in the EggHead doing a video complaining that the Police were harrasing is parents. What a weasel.

Pure Karma that Morris is incurring the expense of traveling 230 miles from Essex to Manchester plus hotels ( repeat in May ) to face the consequences of his fake conveyance of language nonsense AND that no one apart from Rheka can be bothered to turn up to support him. Come on Judge, give him 28 days in the slammer.

I think the word you are grasping for is LIAR, which is exactly what Chrisy is. A very bad and compulsive LIAR. I also think his popularity is more of his fantasy world. I would suspect that his actually followers can probably be counted on one hand, and are every bit as dead beat broke as he is.

[beaujest]

"Fiona Kent: Thankyou to the one person who went to support. Wow.... :/
Andrew Peppin: ... the nation is falling apart Fiona ... i would love to have gone myself ... i just don't have any real finance to fund such travel ... which is frustrating me ... no end.
Jodie Sainsbury No way!
Fiona Kent: I understand. Sorry I didn't mean it to sound like I was having a pop at all. Just a shame. X
Andrew Peppin: ... it is a shame ... it can get disheartening to encounter a lack of support ...
Jason Howard: Dont want to be controversial, but 1 person takes the piss. All the people who Chrisy Morris helps yet they can not put themselves out for him. Yes, some werent in a position to go, fair enough. BUT there were a lot that were, and they should be ashamed.
I fucking hope chrisy takes a deep breath and a good look at things, because obviously he is there for far more people than are there for him.
Tell the beautiful monkey big love.
Fiona Kent: My thoughts exactly Jason. Thankyou. X
Alan Pete May: I will try and get there for the next round hon. I have been there with only one person, I have to say hon at least he had someone. Guaranteed next time there will be hundreds.
Rachel Lote: If I could drive I wouldn't think about it twice x Chrissy is a top bloke and an amazing man! Would love to support him if anyone can get a mini bus together or something then I would of course pay towards it and go up there with people xxx"

Looks like Cwisy's gonna have to get a bit more organised in May and sort out a coach from Essex. He must be regretting not having given his 5,000 Facebook friends a bit more notice about yesterday's court appearance.

Help is at hand !!!
by jasonDWB » 02 Mar 2017 10:48
Is he a FMOTL bloke? the name rings a bell.

Tell him to call me, I'll get him off, but its on technicality. I need the charge sheet and the "HCEO"'s witness statement.

[Muggy]

Help is at hand !!!
by jasonDWB » 02 Mar 2017 10:48
Is he a FMOTL bloke? the name rings a bell.

Tell him to call me, I'll get him off, but its on technicality. I need the charge sheet and the "HCEO"'s witness statement.

Chrisy will be off the hook before he knows it, all thanks to the 'legal adviser'; Jason Bennison (Bailey).


http://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/viewt ... =12&t=4316

[TheCoz]

Help is at hand !!!
by jasonDWB » 02 Mar 2017 10:48
Is he a FMOTL bloke? the name rings a bell.

Tell him to call me, I'll get him off, but its on technicality. I need the charge sheet and the "HCEO"'s witness statement.

Chrisy will be off the hook before he knows it, all thanks to the 'legal adviser'; Jason Bennison (Bailey).


http://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/viewt ... =12&t=4316

Careful, calling him a legal advisor might get him excited.

Jason's plan is basically to check the charge sheet and see if he is being charged with "obstructing a high court enforcement agent" and if the gentlemen isn't a HCEA then he can "get him off".

Problem with that plan is;

1. CPS can amend wording or indeed, change the charge.
2. It doesn't matter, he obstructed an enforcement agent executing a high court writ, doesn't matter if it was high court. It is an offence to obstruct any enforcement agent executing a writ, possession order, liability order, WOC or any duty as per the TCG act 2014.

Jason is a moron, he tries to get people off charges for his own self gratification then parades around as a friend of the people. His methods are often wording issues or just outright lying. He's a menace.

[Bones]

Looking at the videos,

it would appear to be an Enforcement Agent from the High Court Enforcement Group

http://www.hcegroup.co.uk/

[littleFred]

JasonDWB's theory is wrong. Under Criminal Procedure Rule 10.2, the charge must describe the offence in "ordinary language", and identify any legislation that created it.

Nit-picking the words on the charge sheet won't help Chrisy. The words in the legislation can be nit-picked.

Those words seem to be Criminal Law Act 1977 s10:

... a person is guilty of an offence if he resists or intentionally obstructs any person who is in fact an officer of a court engaged in executing any process issued by the High Court or by any county court for the purpose of enforcing any judgment or order for the recovery of any premises or for the delivery of possession of any premises.

A possible defence is:

(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he believed that the person he was resisting or obstructing was not an officer of a court.

Proving that a belief was held is not easy. Especially if (I speak entirely hypothetically) the defendant filmed the incident in which he expressed a strong belief that the paperwork was a fraud but not that the person wasn't an officer of the court.

[Bones]

* Edit LittleFred beat me to it , I have also added the admendments

Criminal Law Act 1977

10 Obstruction of court officers executing process for possession against unauthorised occupiers.

(1)Without prejudice to section 8(2) of the M1Sheriffs Act 1887 but subject to the following provisions of this section, a person is guilty of an offence if he resists or intentionally obstructs any person who is in fact an officer of a court engaged in executing any process issued by the High Court or by any county court for the purpose of enforcing any judgment or order for the recovery of any premises or for the delivery of possession of any premises.

(2)Subsection (1) above does not apply unless the judgment or order in question was given or made in proceedings brought under any provisions of rules of court applicable only in circumstances where the person claiming possession of any premises alleges that the premises in question are occupied solely by a person or persons (not being a tenant or tenants holding over after the termination of the tenancy) who entered into or remained in occupation of the premises without the licence or consent of the person claiming possession or any predecessor in title of his.

(3)In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he believed that the person he was resisting or obstructing was not an officer of a court.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding [F1level 5 on the standard scale] or to both.

(5)A constable in uniform or any officer of a court may arrest without warrant anyone who is, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, guilty of an offence under this section.

(6)In this section “officer of a court” means—

(a)any sheriff, under sheriff, deputy sheriff, bailiff or officer of a sheriff; and

(b)any bailiff or other person who is an officer of a county court within the meaning of the M2County Courts Act 1959.

Courts Act 2003

189(1)Amend section 10 (obstruction of court officers executing process for possession against unauthorised occupiers) as follows.

(2)Before subsection (1) insert—

“(A1)A person is guilty of an offence if he resists or intentionally obstructs any person who—

(a)is an enforcement officer, or is acting under the authority of an enforcement officer; and

(b)is engaged in executing a writ issued from the High Court.”

(3)In subsection (3), for “an officer of a court” substitute “ an enforcement officer, a person acting under the authority of an enforcement officer or an officer of a court (as the case may be) ”.

(4)In subsection (5), after “uniform” insert “ , an enforcement officer ”.

(5)For subsection (6), substitute—

“(6)In this section—

“enforcement officer” means an individual who is authorised to act as an enforcement officer under the Courts Act 2003;

“officer of a court” means—

(a)any sheriff, under sheriff, deputy sheriff, bailiff or officer of a sheriff; and

(b)any bailiff or other person who is an officer of a county court within the meaning of the County Courts Act 1984.”

(6)In the section heading, for “court officers executing process for possession against unauthorised occupiers” substitute “ enforcement officers and court officers executing High Court or county court process ”.

Crime and Courts Act 2013

76In section 10(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 for “by any” substitute “ the ”.

[AndyPandy]

Looking at the videos,

it would appear to be an Enforcement Agent from the High Court Enforcement Group

http://www.hcegroup.co.uk/

The writ is made out to Alan J. Smith (looking at their web site he works for HCE Group) he's presumably the Authorised Officer otherwise the High Court wouldn't have issued the writ to him.