Notorial Dissent wrote: So as I see it she now has an arrest for trespass, or whatever they are calling it, that she has to answer for, and then another arrest warrant for skipping the last hearing. So I would say that the first three were civil and the last 1/2 are criminal. She is really racking them up at this point.
Wrecka was only arrested only once and that was on the day of the eviction. It seems her friend and current owner of Patel Cottage, Peter McDowell, was arrested for breaking in on 16th August but nothing offical has been reported about that.
There is only one civil case as far as I can make out - it's just that it's taking a long time to put to bed due to Wrecka's vexatious litigation which has caused the solicitors fees to escalate. Seems the neighbour was paid £8k damages years ago but 6 years' worth of legal fees now need to be paid, hence £72k which has now become £90k and rising...
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
There is ONLY the one civil case extant at this point, the others are closed and over with the exception of the one to recover the lawyers costs and that one will result in the sale of the cottage.
As to the criminal charges there is probably only one at the moment from her arrest earlier in the month, I don't know if there will be a second for her skipping court or not, I don't know how they handle that in the UK.
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.
notorial dissent wrote:As to the criminal charges there is probably only one at the moment from her arrest earlier in the month, I don't know if there will be a second for her skipping court or not, I don't know how they handle that in the UK.
I don't think there is a specific offence of not appearing. It is a reason for the issue of the warrant. Keep doing it and it may become contempt of court.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
notorial dissent wrote:As to the criminal charges there is probably only one at the moment from her arrest earlier in the month, I don't know if there will be a second for her skipping court or not, I don't know how they handle that in the UK.
I don't think there is a specific offence of not appearing. It is a reason for the issue of the warrant. Keep doing it and it may become contempt of court.
When Hannah Shotbolt failed to show for her adjourned hearing a few years ago She was found guilty in her absence for her motoring offences and got a £500 fine plus costs, and an arrest warrant was issued for failing to appear she received a further £500 plus costs fine could something similar happen with Rekha.
Last edited by daltontrumbno on Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
When I rang Stockport Magistrates on Monday they confirmed that Wrecka's latest bail warrant doesn't contain any conditions. Meaning that her original bail condition which excluded her from the Simmondley area only lasted until 18th August when the new warrant was issued. She's now free to go anywhere she wants to, presumably that includes Patel Cottage and Glossopdale Community College.
However, she is still liable to arrest for the failure to appear.
It seems her friend and current owner of Patel Cottage, Peter McDowell, was arrested for breaking in on 16th August but nothing offical has been reported about that.
Given that McDowell's attempt to break-in to Hanover Cottage was met with a police response, something she must be aware of, she would be stupid to draw attention to herself by being anywhere near. Oh, hang on, why should we attribute common sense to her?
Also, I thought that the Chancery Court had ruled all attempts to transfer ownership to any of the shell companies null & void. That means that McDowell is not & in effect never has been the 'owner'.
Our future is like that of the passengers on a small pleasure boat sailing quietly above the Niagara Falls, not knowing that the engines are about to fail. James Lovelock.
Wakeman52 wrote: That means that McDowell is not & in effect never has been the 'owner'.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought we'd already established further up the thread that Tunkashila Ltd has owned Patel Cottage since December 2016. In fact, does anyone out there know how to copy the current title deeds onto here? We used to rely on "Bones" for this but he/she has vanished off Quatloos.
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
Wakeman52 wrote: That means that McDowell is not & in effect never has been the 'owner'.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought we'd already established further up the thread that Tunkashila Ltd has owned Patel Cottage since December 2016. In fact, does anyone out there know how to copy the current title deeds onto here? We used to rely on "Bones" for this but he/she has vanished off Quatloos.
You can download a copy of the Title from the Land Registry portal (they are updated daily), costs £3.
Firthy2002 wrote:Seems to be 6 months out of date:
However the charging orders are apparent:
That's unusual, they normally have the 'current' date and time stamp of the actual date and time you downloaded it, that looks as though it's been 'Frozen' - possibly by a Court Injunction, was she in Court in February ?
Last edited by webhick on Wed May 02, 2018 5:23 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Reason:Redacted info RE: innocent third party from second image.
Hercule Parrot wrote:Difficult when relying upon the press article, but I don't see any reference to voiding the purported sale. My reading is that Judge Pelling simply ignored it, on the basis that Rekha was clearly still the de facto or beneficiary owner of the property and the court did not need to be distracted by pretences.
The Judge appears to be perfectly aware of the game being played, and the creditor's lawyer will have known the terms of the order they needed to resolve this. It would be surprising if the resulting order didn't give explicit authority for the creditor's lawyer to :
- Remove Rekha from the property, by bailiffs if necessary.
- Sell the property, without the consent of any purported owner
- Deduct all owed costs before the surplus is passed to Rekha
If so, despite Rekha's blather about "no jurisdiction" this is game, set & match to the creditor. Rekha can continue to be obstructive, driving up the enforcement costs and damaging the sale value of the property. But she will be paying for that through diminution of her £135,000 surplus. If she had an ounce of sense she would vacate the property and co-operate in a positively-marketed sale, which might realise £150,000 for her in walk-away money (sufficient to buy a pleasant small home elsewhere).
Unfortunately she is so blinkered that this probably won't happen. Instead she will "Do a Crawford" by incurring another £30-50,000 of costs to remove her and secure the property with steel shuttering and security guards, and knock £30-50,000 off the sale price by threatening prospective purchasers with harassment. And every pound lost through that twin-pronged self-harm strategy will be funded from her surplus.
I know I'm a bad person, but I'm looking forward to this. Rekha is arrogant and vindictive, she flaunts her defiance of the law and expresses contempt towards the victim neighbour. What follows will be righteous karma, and also a lesson to others who might be tempted to follow her example.
This is from p22 of this thread, after the Chancery Division hearing on 19 June. Most of this scenario has played out so far exactly as described. FWIW, my belief is that whatever's currently on the title deeds as regards ownership, nothing further will happen to them until the charges are removed by a conveyance process. That is, after the cottage is sold.
Our future is like that of the passengers on a small pleasure boat sailing quietly above the Niagara Falls, not knowing that the engines are about to fail. James Lovelock.
My reading is that Judge Pelling simply ignored it, on the basis that Rekha was clearly still the de facto or beneficiary owner of the property and the court did not need to be distracted by pretences.
This makes the most sense. Judge says sell the property. He doesn't care who pretends to own it and it avoids the "you can't do that because it is owned by xyz" complaint. If you genuinely think you own it, go see the judge, which is the last thing some of the actors in this drama will be doing.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
ArthurWankspittle wrote:Judge says sell the property. He doesn't care who pretends to own it and it avoids the "you can't do that because it is owned by xyz" complaint.
The Chancery Court had to get involved because Rekha's fraudulent paperwork muddied the waters. That being so, I would rather see the court proclaim unambiguously that Tunkashila Limited has no ownership rights, than to ignore their pretended claims.
I don't remember the Chancery Court being involved.
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.
As this possession order hearing was in January and the Title Register has been 'Frozen' to a date in February, I suspect Plexus Law have obtained an Injunction against any further attempts to 'sell' / change ownership on the Land Registry.
My bad, all I remember seeing was the High Court part, completely missed the Chancery Division part.
I will also admit to thinking that High Court and Chancery Court were two separate entities.
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.
As it's all gone quiet on the Wrecka front, time for some entertainment from Stef Shambala who's posted on "Rekha - Warrior of light's" page:
Stef Shambala wrote: Rekha has literally been dancing with the devil mate, these people are getting really worried now....quite rightly so, they have got away with so much for so long because the legal system has been part of it, thankfully the angels have seen through the sneakiness And are revealing the ways to overcome the fraud....Light is being shone on the dark, dirty And corrupt system And it is about to crumble...with their own laws, it takes real strength to fight these parasites, Rekha is a warrior of light
Order of the Eastern Star woo...
Stef Shambala wrote: This is a war of good against evil, they think they have it in the bag....they dont! The conservation officer ************ who initially started the claim for [the neighbour] are apparently fraternal sisters from the order of the eastern star.... Google that deep shit!! Rekha has soooo much evidence which has been constantly dismissed, here is more info/proof and advice given to Rekha on one of her posts from expert in law
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
Yeah yeah sure, it got dismissed for a reason. It was all fantasy, well lies really on her part, but fantasy none the less, and yet she is STILL a homeless fugitive, and very likely to be homeless, unemployed and jailed in the not too distant future. So I'd say our warrior princess isn't doing too hot really.
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.
Stef Shambala wrote: Rekha has soooo much evidence which has been constantly dismissed, here is more info/proof and advice given to Rekha on one of her posts from expert in law
Does this mean that Steve McCrae/Bincham is on the case? What could be more perfect to finish off any remaining scraps of equity?
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
All part of the masterplan to combine the forces of woo into one grand design.
Pray watch, if you will, as the diverse players, their fates entwined, come together in a Greek tragedy worthy of Sophocles or Euripides before they were time machined off to write tele-novelas.
Hubris will indeed end in Nemesis.
