Rekha Patel loses her house

[Gregg]

Just a friendly reminder, we don't allow the public naming of parties who are not voluntarily involved in nutiness here.

Please, before you paste comments from other sources, take a moment to make sure you are not posting the names of people like Rekha's unfortunate neighbor, whose identity isn't really relevant to our discussion, and who in any cast isn't even directly involved in Rekha's current legal problems. The poor neighbor just wants the peace and we'd rather like to not involve them.

Its a fine line, but management has in this case decided not to allow this name appearing in the thread.

Thanks,

[He Who Knows]

Oh dear, even Barry Evans can't persuade Gullible Kate into believing the truth...see Wrecka's FB page:

Barry Evan: As I said Rekha will delete this to hide the truth from you all

Kate Hirst: Barry Evan So you think this is right? Hope you're never in her position!

Kate Hirst: Plus first picture is very blurred so can't actually see what they are!

Rekha Patel: kate i'll send you the report when i have time love barry evans is a no-one i know..

[exiledscouser]

Oh dear, even Barry Evans can't persuade Gullible Kate into believing the truth...see Wrecka's FB page:

Barry Evan: As I said Rekha will delete this to hide the truth from you all

Kate Hirst: Barry Evan So you think this is right? Hope you're never in her position!

Kate Hirst: Plus first picture is very blurred so can't actually see what they are!

Rekha Patel: kate i'll send you the report when i have time love barry evans is a no-one i know..

It doesn't really matter what view Rekha or anyone else takes of Barry - she's ooot of the hooose as they say north of Hadirans Wall and probably living back home with mum & dad. FB waffle is just that - worthless chiiter-chatter - I can hear the costs rattling up with every ill-thought out manoeuvre. The other side have their foot on Rekha's neck and don't they know it.

Interesting to see the rag-tag supporters try to reinvent history but we are well beyond that: Chrissy is back in his box, the property will now sell at auction for a fraction of its true value courtesy of a campaign of harassment and life will slowly return to normal for the long-suffering neighbors.

Everyone will get paid at at Ms P's expense and any sympathy I may have had has gone the way of the much lamented Thack Stones.

[Wakeman52]

Rekha Patel:

(I) need to bring a claim against the neighbour next door, xxx xxx that is, but need access to a higher court that has judicial standing.

A claim for what, pray & at which one? Your 'representative', Ken 'HND in Art and failed media producer' Thompson, claimed that magistrates courts don't have jurisdiction for the criminal case you now face. Not the High Court (several cases thrown out or lost) nor the Chancery Court (found against you, bill now GBP90,000+).

Not many places left to go, methinks. No "Get Out Of Jail Free' card to play either.

[TheNewSaint]

I wonder if Colin Peters himself is the author of these mysterious reports.

Having some friendly, incompetent builder declare the non-existence of the thackstones, long after that matter had been ruled on, seems like something Princess Rekha would try.

[SteveUK]

Mr Rick Smith is next inline with the baseball bat of truth

[Wakeman52]

the baseball bat of truth

However, Ms Patel is now so far down the path of self-delusion that even this method probably won't work. Or even influence her faithful.

[TheNewSaint]

However, Ms Patel is now so far down the path of self-delusion that even this method probably won't work. Or even influence her faithful.

Agreed, but to say "there were no thackstones" when that's what drove the whole story, in the face of pictures and documentation that prove it, is a level of self-delusion that scares me.

[Burnaby49]

I find it hard to believe that a name was not given, especially as she is named in the tameside report of the case

I assume the UK is the same as Canada. The name of the judge at a trial hearing is public information and would have been readily available at the courthouse, just not in the courtroom. In Vancouver I can find it without leaving my computer;

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_cou ... telist.pdf

The issue isn't the identity of the judge but the judge responding to questions from participants in court during the hearing. They don't answer questions. I've seen numerous instances of sovereigns demanding that judges state their names in court and provide their oaths of office. The standard response is "I'm the judge. I'm not here to amswer your questions". Asking the judge's name is just part of the sovereign playbook to initiate an interrogation of the judge. The standard response to the judge's refusal is a rant about how this proves that he isn't a real judge and this isn't a legitimate court.

[Siegfried Shrink]

It should not be overlooked that they wanted everyone's names. Apart from general harrasment, there can be no real motive for this. They could be left to find out the magistrate's name from public record and the various court staff could have some security from nuisance calls and vistits.

[SteveUK]

the baseball bat of truth

However, Ms Patel is now so far down the path of self-delusion that even this method probably won't work. Or even influence her faithful.

My baseball bat of truth theory is this. If there was 1 day a year when you could batter anyone who'd genuinely wronged you, with blessings in law , we'd all be nicer to each other .

[Pox]

It should not be overlooked that they wanted everyone's names. Apart from general harrasment, there can be no real motive for this. They could be left to find out the magistrate's name from public record and the various court staff could have some security from nuisance calls and vistits.

I agree that this is the reason for wanting to know names and then to incite others to 'target' addresses etc.

[longdog]

I suspect a judge would be more than happy to give their name at the start of the trial if asked in a polite and civilised manner in-keeping with the dignity of the court. A load of shouty cranks bellowing "WHAT'S YOUR NAME?" from the public gallery would be another matter entirely.

[Hercule Parrot]

It should not be overlooked that they wanted everyone's names. Apart from general harrasment, there can be no real motive for this. They could be left to find out the magistrate's name from public record and the various court staff could have some security from nuisance calls and visits.

I agree that this is the reason for wanting to know names and then to incite others to 'target' addresses etc.

I don't think that's persuasive. There is no evidence of Wrecka harassing the judges and lawyers etc in her many previous hearings. Magistrates are simply not permitted to withhold their identity without a substantial and significant reason, for reasons eloquently explained by Sir Tasker Watkins, Senior Presiding Judge of the Appeal Court - https://www.sendspace.com/file/dakyg2

The Stockport Magistrates must have known they could not do this, and their legal adviser should have reminded them. They threw away any remaining credibility or authority when they decided that they could ignore the law if it didn't suit their wishes. Rank hypocrisy, given the nature of Wrecka's alleged offences.

[longdog]

It should not be overlooked that they wanted everyone's names. Apart from general harrasment, there can be no real motive for this. They could be left to find out the magistrate's name from public record and the various court staff could have some security from nuisance calls and visits.

I agree that this is the reason for wanting to know names and then to incite others to 'target' addresses etc.

I don't think that's persuasive. There is no evidence of Wrecka harassing the judges and lawyers etc in her many previous hearings. Magistrates are simply not permitted to withhold their identity without a substantial and significant reason, for reasons eloquently explained by Sir Tasker Watkins, Senior Presiding Judge of the Appeal Court - https://www.sendspace.com/file/dakyg2

The Stockport Magistrates must have known they could not do this, and their legal adviser should have reminded them. They threw away any remaining credibility or authority when they decided that they could ignore the law if it didn't suit their wishes. Rank hypocrisy, given the nature of Wrecka's alleged offences.

You seem to be working on the basis that Rekha and her mob of 'helpers' were acting reasonably and are telling the truth about what happened and I would suggest both things are unlikely.

If we assume the most favourable (to RP) circumstances she, her 'lawyer' and her supporters politely asked for the name of the judge and the judge, being the egregious swine that they are, refused to answer. Not a good reflection on the judge.

If we assume a far more likely set of circumstances RP and her 'lawyer' and her assembled mob disrupted proceedings and aggressively demanded, at some point in the chaos, the name of the judge and the judge basically asked for the court to be cleared.

The hack for the local rag seemed to have found out the name of the judge without any difficulty. I can't believe RP would have had any difficulty if she weren't being advised by a monumental fuckwit.

[Wakeman52]

You seem to be working on the basis that Rekha and her mob of 'helpers' were acting reasonably and are telling the truth about what happened and I would suggest both things are unlikely.

Rekha acting reasonably - surely an oxymoron.

[He Who Knows]

I agree Longdog, it's tried and tested Footle practice to disrupt courts by asking the judges/magistrates for their names. Chrisy Morris did it and bragged in one of his yootoob vids about knowing Regina v Felixstowe Justices [1987] (he deliberately mispronounced "Regina"). It worked in Wrecka's case, she got it postponed until 28th November. Ken Thompson was not a legal representative. The most he could have been was a McKenzie Friend who must keep schtum and cannot address the court.

[He Who Knows]

Even back in 2010, Footles were spreading the word about R v Felixstowe [1987] http://forum.fmotl.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=5871

[Hercule Parrot]

You seem to be working on the basis that Rekha and her mob of 'helpers' were acting reasonably and are telling the truth about what happened and I would suggest both things are unlikely.

No, I'm working on the basis that they were being insolent and disruptive, with the aim of sabotaging the hearing. And also that people like this appear before courts every day, for one reason or another. And finally that the burden of maintaining effective progress rests upon the judiciary and court professionals.

How many judgements have we read where FMOTL loons have tried to wreck a court hearing? Practically all of them do this. I challenge jurisdiction, this is an Admiralty Court, show me your bond, I will not under-stand, I am not the person charged, the Vatican has removed the authority of this court, I wish to submit this argle-bargle defence, etc.

Judges manage this successfully by briefly, firmly and politely dealing with the point, and continuing progress. They fail if they allow the hearing to be thrown off course, or they lose control of the proceedings. And the correct way to deal with a slippery slope situation is to know where to draw the line, not to refuse information which must obviously be provided. Otherwise you are giving the FMOTL an easy basis for later appeal, complaint or mischief. They know they've got you off-balance, their tactics are working, they are encouraged and excited.

Same for the other favourite, the Police traffic stop - it is foolish to refuse the blue questions, but a sensible cop will draw the line after giving sufficient information.

Why have you stopped me, Officer?
May I see your warrant card?
Which Station are you based at?
Who is your senior officer?
Am I under arrest / free to go?
Please show me three forms of ID
Under what law do you have the right to stop me?
Which law do you claim I have broken?
Show me your Bond of office
Are you acting under Common Law?
Have you sworn an Oath? Show me a copy.
Who is the living man complainant?
Is speeding a crime?
Please read and sign my argle-bargle notice

I yield to no man in my contempt for sovcits, FMOTLs & A61 loons. I am not in any way defending or justifying their behaviour. But I expect public officials to deal with them firmly and courteously,and I am disappointed when that doesn't happen.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Are we not losing sight of the fact the source of the complaint that no-one would give their names is in fact not a reliable witness?

Many valid points made about court conduct in relation to disruptive people, but without substantiation it really has nothing to with Ms. Patel and her heaaring.