Chrisy Morris - Parking Tickets and Bailiffs.

[He Who Knows]

Chrisy Morris had a taste of the TV limelight last summer with his car crash Channel 4 documentary, Battling the Bailiffs. His next attention-seeking "idea" for telly is this, 'a manual for catching paedos without being nicked'. This coming from a man who made his 11-year-old daughter walk around a car boot sale carrying a blow-up doll as punishment for asking him for spending money. I don't think there'll be any more TV production companies in the pipeline naive enough to give this troubled person a platform as Nine Lives Media were. He's a liability.

[TheNewSaint]

There's also the problem that Chrissy is one of the ugliest people on earth. Nobody wants to turn on their TV and see this:

[Siegfried Shrink]

I have seen worse but usually they were introduced by David Attenborough.

[SoLongCeylon]

A new video of Morris poking his nose where it doesn't belong. His sense of all knowing rightfulness is his worst trait. Oh how I wish he would pick on the wrong person. As ever with his videos you never see the end.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYRV8njvvE0

[He Who Knows]

This convo on 'Failings of the FMOTL' shows Chrisy's ex-friend Roy telling Facebook users that Chrisy himself bullies his own kids (allegedly) and his wife Fiona:
(surnames deleted)

Suzannah: Roy, why did you and Cwisy fall out?
Roy: He stole the contents of my filing cabinet which contained case files of clients from family and crown court, social services case files etc.
Roy: He is on bail at the moment waiting on CPS to decide what offences are to be laid against him.
Roy: This is the night of his Hand Fasting reception in maldon. Fi Fi went missing because of his controlling behaviour over the previous 2 days.
Roy: This is a text I was sent on the sunday evening after the previous nights text. Fi Fi was on the phone to me whilst this was going on. She was crying as were the 3 children. Notice how Norris signs off with lol X. He is a bully to FI FI and the children. I am led to believe that SS are now involved due to people reporting the Blow up sex doll incident.I will reiterate LED TO BELIEVE.
Roy: Tammie Has been posting things about Norris. I will vouch for what she has been posting cos I know the TRUE NORRIS.The last time I saw him face to face was on the 24th November 2017 when I purchased 1 gram of cocaine from him.He has refused to come and see me ever since.
Suzannah: Interesting. All of it rings true. When's the first court case - must make sure I don't miss this one.
James: Is the 10k green theft thing true as well Roy?
Tammie: Roy trusted me with info from what Doris has been doing I did witness first hand Doris post stuff online that belonged to a child and very sensitive information all live he did it with several witnesses and continued the thing really cannot help himself. He's tried doing bits to me to discredit me he's been put in his place immediately
James: Yeah I've seen him try and get to you through others Tammie, like on mass debate, hasn't worked though, he's come away looking a proper bellend.
Tammie:James he always will his target are women small man's syndrome at it's best
Roy: James what a stupid question to ask on an open forum.
James: Roy it's been said over multiple open forums many times.
Roy: Not by me. There is a sum of money involved, but due to no contracts via a purchase order it is not recovered
Roy: I carried out lots of work for him legal problems and electrical work
James: Well I hope you get some satisfaction from any further legal action being taken against Morris.
Roy: Norris KNOWS exactly whats comeing his way. He also stole 4 x hard drives with all the evidence from Essex Police County Council corruption. Did he do it to curry favour with these bodies? Who knows.
James: That would not surprise me one bit.
Roy: James whats your view on Dez throwing Tammie under a bus? Why didn't Dez get in Norris's face outside. Tammie could have waited inside till Norris had gone so didn't need protecting.
Roy: He knows how I investigate which is why he latched onto me.
Tammie: Roy looking at a different perspective you might be correct
James: How has Dez thrown Tammie under a bus? As far as I know they went to court, left together and that's about all. You would have to ask Dez about his actions.
James: Or lack of
Tammie: Because I stuck for him for hours he never had one part in the defence of how things panned out and the abuse I got
Roy: Very strange that Essex Police sent the recording of his mention hearing to DERBYSHIRE police. The contempt should have been dealt with by either Essex or Manchester CPS as it happened in them 2 juristictions.
James: Abuse from who Tammie?
Tammie: Loads of chrisy lovers on Fails I can't reference back because im no longer in there but it went on for days calling me a pussy and alsorts for not squaring up to Doris
James: I don't really understand why anyone would expect you to square up to him, that's ridiculous. Stupid people
Roy: Dez hid behind Tammie. Tammie didn't need protecting. Like I just typed 'Why didn't Dez get in Norris's face outside. Tammie could have waited inside till Norris had gone so didn't need protecting'.
Roy: Thats the same MO as Norris hiding behind his children or FI FI.
James: Yeah I get that Roy, but I can't answer for Dez.
Roy: But i'm asking for your view on it.
Roy: Not Dez's
James: Well I don't think Dez has come away from it looking very good tbh given the history and all that has been said.
Roy: Than you. I ask cos Badda loves to block people that know his game so I dont know how Dez has come out of it.
Roy: Dez threatened tp break every bone in my hands. He then invited me to go over and see him. So I did. I saw that he wasnt in so said lets go. Norris then asked John M to take the picture. That pic wouldn't have happened if Dez was indoors like he said he would be. FACT
James: I tend not to take it all too seriously tbh Roy, all this running around country getting into pointless rows with people isn't for me, got better things to do. I understand things between yourself and Chrisy have gone beyond that though.
Roy: I wasnt and dont run round all the country, I was staying 3 miles from Dez on buisiness. The interweb is full of Hardmen, the real world tend to be more game and harder is what I see.
Roy: Yeah the interweb is full of wannabe hardmen , the real world tends to see them as the melts that they are.
James: As above, I don't take it too seriously. In all the years I've had a Facebook account i don't think I've ever felt the need to threaten anyone in any way.

[He Who Knows]

Chrisy Morris is now hounding the editor of the Tameside Reporter to rewrite past articles.
https://www.facebook.com/chrisy.morris. ... 295591267/
Methinks he's probably trying to launder his online presence ready for the next round of criminal charges coming his way

[He Who Knows]

Cwisy's 19th April Appeal Court transcription has just been published (I'll post later).
What is interesting is Judge Lawton's summing up:

We do not accept that the secondary evidence produced, being a single page writ of possession, is necessarily the totality of the relevant writ and we find it remarkable that a writ of possession for premises in this day and age would not bear the signature of a High Court judge given its implications for those against who the writ is laid and served.

As we already discussed a few pages back, Writ 66 is a one-page document and it does not require a High Court judge's signature.

Is this Judge for real?

[daltontrumbno]

Cwisy's 19th April Appeal Court transcription has just been published (I'll post later).
What is interesting is Judge Lawton's summing up:

We do not accept that the secondary evidence produced, being a single page writ of possession, is necessarily the totality of the relevant writ and we find it remarkable that a writ of possession for premises in this day and age would not bear the signature of a High Court judge given its implications for those against who the writ is laid and served.

As we already discussed a few pages back, Writ 66 is a one-page document and it does not require a High Court judge's signature.

Is this Judge for real?

Looks like Chrisy lucked out and got a judge not versed in property law, The CPS had adequate grounds to appeal the aquital but probably decided that the little pissant monkey had wasted enough court time already so let him have his little Pyrrhic victory.

[He Who Knows]

DaltonTrumbno wrote: Looks like Chrisy lucked out and got a judge not versed in property law, The CPS had adequate grounds to appeal the aquital but probably decided that the little pissant monkey had wasted enough court time already so let him have his little Pyrrhic victory.

Totally agree.

Can someone who's computer literate (wish I was) post the full transcript pdf from "Failings of the FMOTL" please.
(Colin123?)

[D-C]

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/CHRIST ... 24uChGmUNA

[Siegfried Shrink]

Interesting to read the full transcript.

Enforcement practice seems to be that as long as the enforcers have evidence that a valid writ has been issued, they are not obliged to produce that original writ. It is really a case by extension that it is not needful for the judge to do the ectual enforcing himself, he issued an order commanding that it be done. For the sake of simplicity and convenience the enforcement companies rely on evidence that they are sent that a valid and original writ has issued, possibly without ever seeing an original writ at all.
This should not be a problem. Opposition to the enforcement is not a rentamob sreaming for signatures in blood and engrossed vellum writs. Objection to the execution has only one path, through the courts, and this path will always lead nowhere in any case where a valid writ has been issued because the court process will include in some formal way, a shout out to the judge asking, did you issue this.
Not retrying the case, just did this result issue.
Because the only way to prevent the enforcement is one that will almost always prove futile provided the underlying writ was legitimately issued, the process has come to appear a bit casual as far as boots on the ground objections are concerned, but the hoi polloi have no standing to object. They are usually not pleased to be no more than an irrelevant nuisance.

To put it briefly, the baliffs can turn up with the back of a fag packet with an adddress on it and it is all they need, as long as an original writ exists somewhere that they can refer to if needed. The order has been given.

This case is one of the rare exceptions where there is some real point in calling into question that original writ. Only once in a blue moon is this likely to arise and by dumb luck Mr. Morris has not only found an occasion where it matters, by double dumb luck, in this case no-one seems to know where the original from which this arises has gone. If someone had been able to go to a filing cabinet and pull out the original and get it to Miss Brocklebank for the Crown, the appeal would have failed.

It is quite evident that the Judge was not concerned with Mr. Morris' allegations of fraud or forgery with which he tried to scupper his own case, and of course the judge made no findings on that aspect of the matter. He had discretion to reject secondary evidence which he exercised with cogent reasoning.

Any implication that this result has an impact on the original eviction is of course nonsense but I recall seeing claims of this being so.

[dannyno]

Looks like Chrisy lucked out and got a judge not versed in property law, <snip>

Well, but Miss Brocklebank did not challenge him at any point on his belief that writs have to be signed by a judge. If she had this might have ended differently. So why didn't she?

[He Who Knows]

Because Claire Brocklebank only completed pupilage in 2016 and has spent most of her time dealing with road traffic offences. She knew less about Writ 66 and the necessity for a High Court Judge's signature than Judge Lawton did.

[dannyno]

Ah!

[Hercule Parrot]

As we already discussed a few pages back, Writ 66 is a one-page document and it does not require a High Court judge's signature.

Is this Judge for real?

Looks like Chrisy lucked out and got a judge not versed in property law, The CPS had adequate grounds to appeal the aquital but probably decided that the little pissant monkey had wasted enough court time already so let him have his little Pyrrhic victory.

No, the Crown cannot appeal acquittal. It is not permissible in English law, with a (constitutionally) recent and narrow exception for grave crimes where important evidence later comes to light (https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/r ... s-offences).

I have read the transcript, and it is clear that "the little pissant monkey" deserved this acquittal. He presented himself very capably - respectful and self-effacing, but assertive about the injustice he perceived. Note the absence of Neelu-like insolence and stupidity.

As I said in a previous post (http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 89#p262189) -

The Judge's role is to only make findings upon the evidence presented by advocates, not to supply evidence himself. And the burden of proof is entirely upon the Crown, as it should be in the interests of all our civil rights. Morris had made it clear from the start that his defence relied upon challenging the validity of the writ of possession. But in the re-hearing of the case, a serious and costly hearing in the Crown Court, the CPS made no attempt to prove it's validity...

Remember also that Lawton J is a criminal judge, and his awareness of current Civil Procedure Rules etc is likely to be patchy at best. He expressed surprise and doubt that a one-page unsigned writ could be legitimate, but if the lawful basis for this had been shown to him the case would have gone quite differently.

The lower part of page 21 is the crux of the hearing -

JUDGE LAWTON: Right. Now, that is the issue. Miss Brocklebank wants to rely on secondary evidence of the original being that single page photocopy and you object to that.
THE APPELLANT: Yes, sir, I do.
JUDGE LAWTON: To its admissibility----
THE APPELLANT: Yes, sir.
JUDGE LAWTON: ----as evidence of a valid writ of possession?
THE APPELLANT: Yes, sir. I believe that to be a forgery attempt.
JUDGE LAWTON: Just pause there.
THE APPELLANT: Thank you. (Pause)
JUDGE LAWTON: Yes, Mr Morris, we just want to clarify one thing with Miss Brocklebank. Miss Brocklebank, is it your case that this is the sum total of what would have been issued by the High Court and, if so, where does that information come from? For my part I have never heard of a writ of possession lacking the signature of a High Court judge, quite frankly. It is almost like saying a search warrant issued by a circuit judge is absent the circuit judge’s -- it is completely invalid without the circuit judge’s signature.
MISS BROCKLEBANK: Well, what I would say is it is sealed on the front with a court stamp to validate it.
JUDGE LAWTON: Just coming back to the original question, are you saying that is all the writ would ever have contained and, if so, what do you base that submission on?
MISS BROCKLEBANK: I do not think I can say that----
JUDGE LAWTON: No.
MISS BROCKLEBANK: ----because my position is that I have the information that I have given to your Honour, that is what is provided to me. I cannot say there is more; I cannot say that is everything.
JUDGE LAWTON: Yes.
MISS BROCKLEBANK: That is what I have----
JUDGE LAWTON: All right.
MISS BROCKLEBANK: ----and I do not wish to speculate.
JUDGE LAWTON: No. All right. Thank you very much. (Pause)

So to recap, the CPS Prosecutor was presenting a case where the legitimacy of the writ was known to be the pivotal question. She presented no evidence to persuade the Court that the writ was valid, and replied evasively to questions about that. Was it in fact a full and valid writ? She did not wish to speculate. The transcript's laconic "Pause" represents a Crown Court judge falling speechless at the Prosecution's ineptitude.

Now replay the hearing. Ms Brocklebank's reply to 21D is:

Well, Your Worship, I confess I was surprised myself when I received the papers for this case. And it is of course vital to the Crown's case that we meet this point. May I now direct the Court to bundle 4C which has been passed up to you? I have a copy here for Mr Morris, of course.

Starting with page 3, Your Worship, an extract from the relevant Civil Procedure Rules governing the form of writs for possession. You will see here at the highlighted Rule x.xx that the single-page printed writ is now the standard form.

At pages 5-7, Your Worship, is the Practice Direction issued by the Lord Chief Justice in 20xx, explaining the introduction of the new format as part of a computerisation programme in the civil courts. May I draw your attention to the highlighted paragraph on page 2 of that Practice Direction, which explicitly states that the new form of writ has a printed seal and does not require judicial signature.

As might be expected, the new form was at issue in a number of cases during the following year or two. At pages 10-16, 17-30 and 31-34 I have provided judgements where the validity of the new form was disputed in proceedings. The Court will note that in every case, the new form was held to be proper and effective. I would particularly draw the Court's attention to pages 23-28, where Boggins J, sitting in the Court of Appeal, provides a detailed account of the constitutional and procedural legitimacy of the new form.

And finally at pages 35-39, Your Honour, is a much-cited Cambridge Law Journal paper by Professor Eminent, which provides a magisterial overview of the Civil Justice modernisation programme. I particularly ask you to note the highlighted paragraph on page 36 referring to the cultural impact of these changes, as traditional styles of Order are replaced by the new condensed and computer-generated documents.

In summary, Your Worship, it is the Crown's position that this writ was wholly valid and complete.

A few hours of preparation to meet the central point of Morris's defence would have turned this case. In fact, if the evidence had been served on Morris in advance, it is very unlikely that he would have persisted in that point at all.

[Siegfried Shrink]

if the evidence had been served on Morris in advance, it is very unlikely that he would have persisted in that point at all.

I am not so sure about that, it would seem out of character to be sensible, but the alternative universe view of the Crown's preparation is a fair summary of what should have been done. Possibly Miss Brock;ebank will take a lesson from this.

[dannyno]

... except of course that as the judge explained, she would be calling him "Your honour", not "Your worship" as the otherwise plausible alternative reality transcript has it.

[SteveUK]

Chrissy talking bollocks to the old bill regarding Rekha. Wants to know why their so called 'legal paperwork' appears to have had no effect.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vmJFzt ... ju5ee/view

[ArthurWankspittle]

Chrissy talking bollocks to the old bill regarding Rekha. Wants to know why their so called 'legal paperwork' appears to have had no effect.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vmJFzt ... ju5ee/view

Skipped through it. I was more amused by Chrisy saying one minute it doesn't exist then talks about a photocopy of it. Only SovCits have the brains to photocopy nothing.

[longdog]

Reminds me of this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3i6Jb7K4O4