Sovrun Paraleguls

[Gregg]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that any defect in any of the paperwork is work done at the behest of the idiot bringing the suit.
What I mean is, say I have lived in #17 peacefully for years, the deeds, mortgages and such that were done when I bought the house are now and always have been perfectly in order. Then some fool moves in next door, hires a dodgy lawyer who mucks up his paperwork, putting my address on some of it by their own incompetence, and now is suing me?

I'm sorry, and I'v been in an especially foul mood all week....but if my dipshit neighbor did that to me I'd want more than costs, I'd want to beat the doggpoop out of them with a cricket bat.
Someone could, if in a mischievous mind, go register on the usual footle sites as the owners of #17 and start rallying the troops! I mean, that could be comedy gold...

[longdog]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that any defect in any of the paperwork is work done at the behest of the idiot bringing the suit.

I suspect that aspect of the claim has already been recognised by the court hence the requirement for the claimant to produce Land Registry documents. I'd pay good money to hear what the judge is going to make of this pitiful charade.

[Siegfried Shrink]

It appears that the owners of plot 17 sold off a corner of it around 2005 as a site to convert or new build a farm building in one corner of the site, which they then sold.
Google earth is a bit out of date, the latest image of the site is 2005 and does not seem to show a house where 17a is now, just what looks like a shed or garages. Streetview does not go up the private road to the site.
The Cornwall map linked shows a more up to date subdivision which does not appear to be reflected in the Google Earth 2005 image.

It does appear that 17 is the 'parent' of 17a, the owners of which are now attempting to consume their parent.
It does seem odd that the smallest of the three plots should have the name of what must have originally been a modestly sized farm. Possibly the name was attached to make the house sound more important. This is quite British, snobbery about houses and addresses is deep in the national psyche. Being called Animal Farm instead of Animal Cottage would add £10,000 to the price, such is the madness.

It can work in reverse, in the 1920s Tarnham House whould have indicated a larger and relatively important local building; nowadays people assume it is a block of flats.(apartments)

[aesmith]

The documents show the current owners buying Glenview Farmhouse in 2002, and it's called 17a at that time. Edit - maybe not, looking again the Land Registry stuff is dated Sep 2002 and doesn't refer to 17a, the earlier 2002 mortgage offer has the street address blanked out but appears to be three words which therefore could be 17a. Then there's a later mortgage offer from 2005 - maybe she bought that bit that was sold off, and re-mortgaged at that time?

[AndyPandy]

The documents show the current owners buying Glenview Farmhouse in 2002, and it's called 17a at that time. Edit - maybe not, looking again the Land Registry stuff is dated Sep 2002 and doesn't refer to 17a, the earlier 2002 mortgage offer has the street address blanked out but appears to be three words which therefore could be 17a. Then there's a later mortgage offer from 2005 - maybe she bought that bit that was sold off, and re-mortgaged at that time?

I think (speculating) that she bought the property with A. Cock in 2002 (joint application), then bought him out in 2005 with a single application loan.

The Company she used for the second loan is notorious for being a lender of last resort, high interest rates and charges. I suspect she's got into financial difficulty with it, hence why she was looking into challenging the mortgage through the 'void mortgage' route, only to find Father Christmas had come early and granted her ownership of 17 (£200k+) as well as 17a!

The daft thing is is that how can she possibly think she owns both, if (as she thinks) that mortgage document gives her ownership of 17, how can she possibly own 17a as well - the stupid is very strong in this one.

[NYGman]

The daft thing is is that how can she possibly think she owns both, if (as she thinks) that mortgage document gives her ownership of 17, how can she possibly own 17a as well - the stupid is very strong in this one.

Perhaps they are looking to swap

[aesmith]

What utter greed from that outstanding member of the community

http://www.cornwalllive.com/crown-court ... story.html

Would it be naughty to drop the reporter a note, suggesting she looks in on the possession hearing in the County Court on the 4th?

[Siegfried Shrink]

Someone who did that could also ask what happened at the trial for cannabis posession on the 22nd of June?

[aesmith]

That lady seems to be in court a lot, in this rambling video Mr Inexpert is taking about them being in Court on 27th, something to do with insolvency proceedings. I couldn't bear to watch/listen, and the subtitles didn't really help either ..

https://youtu.be/eBtMiT9SJiY

[AndyPandy]

Someone who did that could also ask what happened at the trial for cannabis posession on the 22nd of June?

Should be a record of it somewhere, it was 2011.

[longdog]

That lady seems to be in court a lot, in this rambling video Mr Inexpert is taking about them being in Court on 27th, something to do with insolvency proceedings. I couldn't bear to watch/listen, and the subtitles didn't really help either ..

https://youtu.be/eBtMiT9SJiY

If ever I start a rock and roll band I'm going to call it "Buddha Basket and the This Way Guys"

[Siegfried Shrink]

In summary, nothing. No result from the court appearance apart from the judge being annoyed at a lot of pseudo-legal tripe from someone with no right of audience, some irrelevance about a licenced insolvency practitioner not being licenced (dubious evidence) and a trailer for the doomed application to posess the house next door.
All you can take away from this is that Helen is in deeper trouble than we thought and her advisor is worse than useless.

I saw no subtitles, though. It does appear the creditor/s have decided to bring down the heavy hammer, and presumably if the woman was declared bankrupt at the hearing it should be in the Gazette.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Tried to search the Gazette, no results but I may have done it wwrong.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I fully understand that you should never attack the arguer and you should always attack their argument but come on FFS.....sometimes circumstances dictate that rule has to be broken. Sometimes you look at someone in amazement as they spew their garbage and (imo) it is perfectly acceptable to dismiss them as a full blown idiot.

[Siegfried Shrink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dic3RRS3nSk


The gist of it is that if you follow some more or less incomprehensible procedure you will be safe from bogeymen. If you make a tiny mistake it will not work and the bogeymen will get you. Guess whose fault it will be when it does not work as advertised.

I post the link because it does seem to include some new complications of the birth certificate trust process that seem to be the key to keeping the nonsense going. Robins egg blue paper and any ink but black. Who knew?

When I was a child, and willing to give anything a go, I thought black magic might be a good idea. So I got some instruction books from the library and made myself a 'dagger of art' and drew pentacles, etc. Oddly enough, nothing whatsoever happened. I must have got a detail wrong. Possibly not having any chickens to sacrifice? No, it was all bollocks. A useful life lesson.

Now the guru of Sauchiehall Street Bars speaks woo unto the peoples of Earth, and some simpletons, as childlike in mind as I was as a child, think, this sounds complicated, it must be good. I would have liked to raise the devil and gain a superpower (or even just a power) and the followers of this man would like to be Sovereigns, but would settle for a way to get off speeding tickets and parking fees. How banal it all is really.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Robins egg blue paper and any ink but black. Who knew?

Blimey. I had forgotten all about Robin Egg Blue. We discussed it on the Randi forum back in 2011. I've found some of the posts here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... 8&page=123
Starts at post 4886

[Hercule Parrot]

In summary, nothing. No result from the court appearance apart from the judge being annoyed at a lot of pseudo-legal tripe from someone with no right of audience, some irrelevance about a licenced insolvency practitioner not being licenced (dubious evidence) and a trailer for the doomed application to posess the house next door.

All you can take away from this is that Helen is in deeper trouble than we thought and her advisor is worse than useless.

It looks catastrophic. The ExpertInAllLegalMatters boasts and preens about how he is running rings around the opposition, keeping the judge in line etc. Helen smirks and giggles, thinking that a charismatic rebel hero has come to her aid. She will now vanquish her enemies and get two free houses (one by not paying the mortgage, the other by cheating it from a neighbour).

In a few weeks the situation will look less rosy. Binch's nonsense arguments will have been tossed out, and the attempted seizure of the neighbour's home will fail (with an order for costs). The ExpertinFuckAll will be back in Bonnie Scotchland when the Bailiffs start their work, and he's taken care that his name is not on any of the case papers.

I want to feel concern for Helen, but there's some gleeful spite involved in trying to steal a neighbour's house. I think she probably deserves what's coming to her.

[TheNewSaint]

Blimey. I had forgotten all about Robin Egg Blue. We discussed it on the Randi forum back in 2011. I've found some of the posts here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... 8&page=123
Starts at post 4886

Good Lord:

An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll is primarily different from a standard Deed Poll in that a True Person evokes their Divine Rights conveyed on Robin-egg blue paper and sealed by a thumbprint in blood to a Roman Person who has sought to usurp or abrogate these rights such as the Registrar of Vital Statistics that administers the (Lawful Slave) Rolls, also known as Register from which the Cestui Que Vie Trust are born.

Let's try to parse this gibberish.

An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll is primarily different from a standard Deed Poll

Just "primarily" different? Given the power you're suggesting the former has, it sounds like they're completely different.

in that a True Person

What is a True Person? You capitalize it, suggesting it is a proper noun, but explain no further.

evokes

Do you mean "invokes"? "Evoke" is to cause something to be remembered or expressed, like a song evoking a memory in you. "Invoke" is to bring something into effect. I think "invoke" is the word you're looking for here.

their Divine Rights

Again, a proper noun phrase with no explanation given.

conveyed on Robin-egg blue paper

Rights are not conveyed through paper. Rights are conveyed only when a ruling body is willing to enforce those rights. All the rights in the world would mean nothing without enforcement. To think you can demand rights via paper, of any color, is grossly naive.

And about that: "robin egg blue" isn't a formally defined color. Given the degree of precision that such a specific term implies, I think a Pantone or RGB value is called for. Is turquoise close enough?

and sealed by a thumbprint in blood

You said "sealed", not "signed," so I take this to mean that the blood must actually seal the document shut. As human blood has almost no adhesive properties, this could take several attempts. Might be painful, and make the resulting paperwork something of a mess.

to a Roman Person

The last vestiges of the Roman Empire fell long ago. So what qualifies as a "Roman Person"? Will anyone from Italy do, or does it have to be Rome? Does it have to be within Rome city limits, or can they live in a suburb? Does Rome, Georgia count? What about Roman Polanski?

who has sought to usurp or abrogate these rights

Usurp means to take power or control by force. Abrogate means to end an official agreement. These words are antonyms. Even more confusingly, the phrase modifies "to a Roman Person", to whom you have given the document sealed in thumb blood. So you're giving someone a document to either take rights by force, or give them away? Seems like you're giving them a lot of power to decide on your behalf.

such as the Registrar of Vital Statistics

The run-on sentence continues. The Registar of Vital Statistics isn't a right; it's a person, or maybe a government office.

that administers the (Lawful Slave) Rolls

also known as Register

Just "Register"? Nothing more specific than that? Am I supposed to go down to the Vital Statistics office and demand that I be removed from "Register"?

from which the Cestui Que Vie Trust are born.

You imply that the Cestui Que Vie Trust is the thing that saves you. Why on earth would that be "born" from a slave roll?

As best as I understand all this: the Cestui Que Vie Trust is born from a register from a lawful slave roll administered by the Registar of Vital Statistics which is a right granted by a slave roll which you can have a Roman either take by force or give away by sealing a thumbprint on robin's egg blue paper to evoke your divine rights as a true person in an ecclesiastical deed poll which differs slightly from a regular deed poll.

And if it doesn't work, it's because you did it wrong.

[aesmith]

ExpertInAllLegalMatters boasts and preens about how he is running rings around the opposition, keeping the judge in line etc. Helen smirks and giggles, thinking that a charismatic rebel hero has come to her aid.

Is it out of order to wonder if those two are .. well how can I put it?

[JimUk1]

ExpertInAllLegalMatters boasts and preens about how he is running rings around the opposition, keeping the judge in line etc. Helen smirks and giggles, thinking that a charismatic rebel hero has come to her aid.

Is it out of order to wonder if those two are .. well how can I put it?

Complete morons?