The Seventh String wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:58 amAs for simply “cancelling” a claim, that isn’t lawful unless the facts demonstrate there is no legal entitlement - that someone has allegedly - or actually - commited fraud or been over-paid for any reason does not extinguish their legal right to what social security payments, even of the benefits concerned, they remain legally entitled to.
My experience includes it being suggested to claimants that if they withdraw their claim then the benefits office would take no further action. Whether such things are allowed and done these days is another matter.
I recall a certain documentary many years ago where “specialist fraud” officers from the DHSS, as was, were shown making such “offers”. Unfortunately the programme showed the fraud teams didn’t always understand the law they were supposed to be enforcing, and were “persuading” people who were actually perfectly legally entitled to what they were claiming to withdraw their claim.
Such things doubtless still go on - but two wrongs don’t make a right and officials requiring someone to give up their legal rights in exchange for not being prosecuted or enforced against is definitely not lawful.
Wakeman52 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:43 pm
Just WTF?
But the joke would have been on the reptiles. If they had won, they'd have been taking control of Earth just in time for it to blow up when the mayan calendar ran out.
I can understand, well in a manner of speaking, her "the gov't is out to get me" fantasy/paranoia, but the rest, not so much, unless she needed something to fill up her time after she torched her career and otherwise wasted her life. Sad, pathetic, stupid woman.
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.
Sacha Stone interviewing Ronald Bernard - The Bank of International Settlements, BIS, is the Invisible All Seeing Eye, above the Corrupt Global Empire of the 3 Cities - Shadow Banking with Central Banks Laundering huge sums of money now Using Flash Screen Advanced Technologies - "The Real Financial World can do anything on this world ... because we live in a slavery system". The real powers behind the 8,500 Illuminati members are the BIS and above that, Dark Entities off planet, sacrificing children. "Banking is the mechanism of control over humanity but the objective of banking is to create scenarios where blood sacrifice takes place because War, disease & Poverty equates to Blood Sacrifice at a collective level". Even Cryptocurrencies and Block chain was conceived by secret services in an NSA paper in 1995. "It was the day I died when I realised I was much more than a slave of the evil system because of my Freewill"
SteveUK wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 2:31 pm
The old "flash screen advanced technology" eh?
Sacha Stone interviewing Ronald Bernard - The Bank of International Settlements, BIS, is the Invisible All Seeing Eye, above the Corrupt Global Empire of the 3 Cities - Shadow Banking with Central Banks Laundering huge sums of money now Using Flash Screen Advanced Technologies - "The Real Financial World can do anything on this world ... because we live in a slavery system". The real powers behind the 8,500 Illuminati members are the BIS and above that, Dark Entities off planet, sacrificing children. "Banking is the mechanism of control over humanity but the objective of banking is to create scenarios where blood sacrifice takes place because War, disease & Poverty equates to Blood Sacrifice at a collective level". Even Cryptocurrencies and Block chain was conceived by secret services in an NSA paper in 1995. "It was the day I died when I realised I was much more than a slave of the evil system because of my Freewill"
I wonder if the 'Dark Entities' are as well as, instead of or the same thing as the Jews who usually get blamed for sacrificing children.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
On Planet Neelu the baby-eating, kidnapping and sacrificing Satanists are the priest and all the congregation at a Christian church in Hampstead, all the local school-teachers and most of the parents.
Also all public-sector employees who are not keeping to their “oath to uphold God’s laws and protect God’s children”. Which, seeing as there’s no such “oath” is all of them.
Plus any and all debt-collectors, bailiffs, judges, councillors, MPs, police officers and any random others who Neelu feels aggrieved by because they either obey the law, won’t hand her lots of cash in exchange for a crank scam document she printed off the internet, or simply don’t share her conspiritorial delusions.
I suspect the “off planet” baby-eating brigade are the nameless aliens who took all the gold away from the Earth so Satanically preventing us all getting our Swissindo “remedy” of huge amounts of free precious metals which would make everyone rich so no-one has to work any more.
Just to keep this thread up to date for future historians Neelu was in Court 9 at Snaresbrook Crown Court today on her benefit fraud charge. There were four cases listed for between 12pm and the lunch break, so it was almost certainly a procedural hearing. However, this hasn't prevented our Lotus Princess from claiming a great victory as she has pled "No jurisdiction".
The more observant among you will no doubt be aware that there is no such plea and it looks like all that has happened is that the case has been scheduled to be heard in 3 weeks time.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's Razor
I don't get this 'no jurisdiction' plea. If the court has no jurisdiction then why bother turning up at all?
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
longdog wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 7:08 pm
I don't get this 'no jurisdiction' plea. If the court has no jurisdiction then why bother turning up at all?
The court has to be put on notice that she's aware that it has no juridiction. Now that she's told them she can skip her trial. Except, except . . . . .
One of my Nanaimo Three gang tried exactly that with the Provincial Court of British Columbia. He didn't show up at start of the first day of of his trial for impersonating a peace officer because he'd already informed the court that it had no jurisdiction to try him. The RCMP just went over to his home and arrested him. After lunch he was in the defendant's box in orange overalls and was kept in custody for the duration of the trial. His wife had no clue what had happened to him until Chief Sino Rock General read my Quatloos entry for that day's events and told her.
The Nanaimo Three gang were idiots. Alexander Ream, another of them, signed on to Quatloos to ask me when his trial was scheduled.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".
Burnaby49 wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 7:21 pm
The RCMP just went over to his home and arrested him.
I can't see the wallopers arresting Neelu... She's immune to arrest because something, something, vulnerable person, something, something.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
If she fails to show up for her trial and the bench/judge decide to issue an arrest warrant then arrested she will be.
Plenty of people convicted of benefit fraud and other offences are vulnerable in some way, their vulnerable status does not protect them from prosecution. Or from imprisonment.
longdog wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 7:08 pm
I don't get this 'no jurisdiction' plea. If the court has no jurisdiction then why bother turning up at all?
I wonder if those trying the “no jurisdiction” line ever ask why, if actually works, well off professional career criminals, the kind who can afford to hire good solicitors and QCs and could be facing long sentences, don’t use it to walk away from the consequences of their crimes.
The Seventh String wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 8:13 pm
If she fails to show up for her trial and the bench/judge decide to issue an arrest warrant then arrested she will be.
Plenty of people convicted of benefit fraud and other offences are vulnerable in some way, their vulnerable status does not protect them from prosecution. Or from imprisonment.
Unfortunately that's not the way they see it. They think that being 'vulnerable', as defined by themselves and only when it suits them, means they are immune to the law entirely rather than being entitled to certain, limited, accommodation to their alleged vulnerability.
I would say Neelu is almost certainly 'vulnerable' in that she is, to use the correct medical term, as nutty as a fruitcake and she probably should be accompanied by a responsible (by which I mean 'sane') adult at all times. However this is not going to do her a lick of good when she's up before the beak on criminal charges or trying to get out of paying her mortgage.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
Not that it will help her criminal problem, but if whomever is responsible has no jurisdiction to prosecute her for fraud, how does she explain the jurisdiction that she says entitles her to the benefit?
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
The Seventh String wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 8:19 pmI wonder if those trying the “no jurisdiction” line ever ask why, if actually works, well off professional career criminals, the kind who can afford to hire good solicitors and QCs and could be facing long sentences, don’t use it to walk away from the consequences of their crimes.
Well obviously they were tricked into standing under Admiralty Law when joindered to contract with the private courts by their treasonous SOULESSitors.
In a sense they have a point. Civil or Criminal a court does have to have jurisdiction. A JP can't try a murder case. They have a right to challenge/question jurisdiction. The thing is, they think that once they do it is all over, but all the court has to do is come back and say they have jurisdiction under such and such statute and the question is met and it is on with the trial. Any properly done complaint will list the statute violated and the authorizing statute(s) for the court, which the thing the sovcits/footls/idjits NEVER EVER seem to get, and that is what ALWAYS kills their jurisdiction claim.
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: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 1:44 pm
The thing is, they think that once they do it is all over, but all the court has to do is come back and say they have jurisdiction under such and such statute and the question is met and it is on with the trial.
I think it's even more simple than that in the real world.
Footler: "Prove to me you have jurisdiction"
Judge: "I don't have to prove it... I'm telling you I have jurisdiction"
Footler: "I disgree"
Judge: "I don't care"
It's pretty much a given that the matter of jurisdiction is something decided before the court hearing so it's not something a defendant can even raise 99.9999999% of the time. In the vanishingly unlikely circumstances where a court didn't have jurisdiction that's an argument that would have to be made at appeal.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
This post is extrapolation because the DoJ website is not so helpful in terms of rules for criminal proceedings but in the case of civil proceedings it is very clear.
The rules say you can challenge whether there was service (Acknowledgement of Service - Part 10). This seems to be Neelu's stated position at the start of yesterday. This leads to the next stage, to dispute the court's jurisdiction you first have to acknowledge service which then allows a defendant to challenge the courts jurisdiction - Part 11.
What doesn't make sense, is that a UK Crown Court has jurisdiction over any indictable offence referred to it. I have a feeling that the case is proceeding to the next stage with the CPS on notice to show proper service in 3 weeks time. Neelu's own posting of the summons she received would make it appear that demonstrating it will be a slam dunk.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's Razor
screen advanced technology" eh? 
Neelu was in Court 9 at Snaresbrook Crown Court today on her benefit fraud charge. There were four cases listed for between 12pm and the lunch break, so it was almost certainly a procedural hearing. However, this hasn't prevented our Lotus Princess from claiming a great victory as she has pled "No jurisdiction". 
