The comedy court of Common Law

[John Uskglass]

This would seem to be Case No. 26 The People (represented by Paul Allen) v Richard Klemmer, Kirran Kayani & Isabel Clough

Given that there are no further details posted on the Play Court website, we have the spectacle of a secret court hearing instructing anonymous operatives to seize someone's property.

The irony of this presumably escapes them....

[aesmith]

CLC new page for this matter .. https://www.commonlawcourt.com/news/?fb ... BCbtJEUX7I

And the court order which includes an award of £412,800 to Paul Allen as well as getting his house back. So he should be quids in and definitely buying the drinks. Assuming the "defendants" paid up.
https://www.commonlawcourt.com/wp-conte ... -Wigan.pdf

[NYGman]

Of course it will, they'll be turfed out on their ear, arrested for trespassing, 24 hour security installed so they can kiss goodbye to any remaining equity, all thanks to the CLC !!

Equity?, we don't need no Stinkin' Equity!

[Aegis]

CLC new page for this matter .. https://www.commonlawcourt.com/news/?fb ... BCbtJEUX7I

And the court order which includes an award of £412,800 to Paul Allen as well as getting his house back. So he should be quids in and definitely buying the drinks. Assuming the "defendants" paid up.
https://www.commonlawcourt.com/wp-conte ... -Wigan.pdf

Surely the award isn't to Paul Allen, it's to the people of Great Britain, represented by Paul Allen. Presumably when he eventually receives this payment, he will distribute it to the people as a whole by, say, making a contribution to HM Treasury.

Right..?

[John Uskglass]

Ah, missed the update. Thanks aesmith for pointing it out.

Having perused Paul Allen's letter to the bailiffs, I note that the footer reads in part -

Legalese is neither understood or recognised

How very true, Paul, how very true. Though not, I fear, in the way you mean.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Looks like LARPing season is upon us again after a lull over Christmas. Long may they flourish catastrophically fail

[hucknallred]

Having perused Paul Allen's letter to the bailiffs,

I just read that, was it dictated by Guy Taylor via Ouija Board?

[John Uskglass]

Letters sent to various other parties start with

We write to you in relation to the recent Common Law Court hearing (28.10.18) and the
issued court order above. You have failed to comply with the said order and are now given an
additional fourteen days, from receipt of this letter to do so. Should you fail to comply this
time you will be required to produce a list of your personal assets for our enforcement agents
who will be visiting you, either at work or your home address

(emphasis mine)

https://www.commonlawcourt.com/wp-conte ... ent-RK.pdf

IANAL, but it would appear that included in the legalese which is neither understood or recognised, are the provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectio ... t_Act_1997

[noblepa]

Ah, missed the update. Thanks aesmith for pointing it out.

Having perused Paul Allen's letter to the bailiffs, I note that the footer reads in part -

Legalese is neither understood or recognised

How very true, Paul, how very true. Though not, I fear, in the way you mean.

To paraphrase the immortal Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means!" (You'll have to imagine the Spanish accent)

[Gregg]

Letters sent to various other parties start with

We write to you in relation to the recent Common Law Court hearing (28.10.18) and the
issued court order above. You have failed to comply with the said order and are now given an
additional fourteen days, from receipt of this letter to do so. Should you fail to comply this
time you will be required to produce a list of your personal assets for our enforcement agents
who will be visiting you, either at work or your home address

(emphasis mine)

https://www.commonlawcourt.com/wp-conte ... ent-RK.pdf

IANAL, but it would appear that included in the legalese which is neither understood or recognised, are the provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectio ... t_Act_1997

That sounds like it might be copied from a letter from a legitimate creditor to a debtor after a real court hearing. After a real court has ruled in their favor, sending a letter like that would be perfectly legal, but at least in part its trying to scare you into coming to some sort of arrangement. Coming from the Playschool Court of Common Law, it might prove to be a problem for whoever sent it.

[The Seventh String]

After a real court has ruled in their favor, sending a letter like that would be perfectly legal, but at least in part its trying to scare you into coming to some sort of arrangement. Coming from the Playschool Court of Common Law, it might prove to be a problem for whoever sent it.

For some reason I find the words “demanding money with menaces” and “blackmail” drifting through my mind. Can’t imagine why.

You can get a rather hefty sentence for blackmail. As in up to 14 years.

[grixit]

Can anyone confirm that they actually did take off the shutters and change the locks to seize the property?

Or did they just say they were going to.

[hucknallred]

Can anyone confirm that they actually did take off the shutters and change the locks to seize the property?

Or did they just say they were going to.

They'd have a video up by now if it had happened..

[Mike_p]

Can anyone confirm that they actually did take off the shutters and change the locks to seize the property?

Has anyone here identified which property is involved? I did a bit of research and have one address in mind (in Redcar), but there is no trace of it being on sale or sold recently.

[hucknallred]

These folks like to put a bit of spin on things to try to make us doubters think their methods work. From memory:

The trial of Tom Crawford's non existent stalker.
Jay Bradley buying a Merc after the rooftop trial collapse with his non existent compo.
Tom Crawford proudly announcing Ebert had won a court case somewhere, but providing no evidence.

[exiledscouser]

Can anyone confirm that they actually did take off the shutters and change the locks to seize the property?

Has anyone here identified which property is involved? I did a bit of research and have one address in mind (in Redcar), but there is no trace of it being on sale or sold recently.

You are right. I’m not too keen on doxxing folk but follow this link;

https://www.commonlawcourt.com/wp-conte ... nt-AMG.pdf

[John Uskglass]

Coming from the Playschool Court of Common Law, it might prove to be a problem for whoever sent it.

Especially if they were daft enough to send it to a solicitor....

https://www.commonlawcourt.com/wp-conte ... ent-IC.pdf

[longdog]

Oh the sweet irony of including this...

Uttering is a crime involving a person with the intent to defraud that knowingly sells, publishes or passes a forged or counterfeited document. More specifically, forgery creates a falsified document and uttering is the act of knowingly passing on or using the forged document. See the Forgery Act 1913 Section 6-uttering & Section 11-aiding and abetting.

I'm most worried by the choice of that stupid, italic, quasi-script font. Who the fuck thought that was a good idea? As the ex partner of a print artist I can say with some certainty that the only choice in fonts is between Times New Roman (wrong) or Arial (right). Choosing anything other than them or a close relation makes you look like a complete wanker. It's the natural successor to green ink.

[AndyPandy]

Coming from the Playschool Court of Common Law, it might prove to be a problem for whoever sent it.

Especially if they were daft enough to send it to a solicitor....

https://www.commonlawcourt.com/wp-conte ... ent-IC.pdf

Sorry, but I'm calling fake on that, where's the embossed Court Seal, the wet ink signature, the box to put said signature outside of, the thumb prints in blood, the penny farthing stamps across the bottom.

[Mike_p]

You are right. I’m not too keen on doxxing folk but follow this link; [SNIP]

Thanks. That agrees with the address I expected.

I don't think that counts as doxxing because that address actually belongs to someone other than the person at the heart of the matter.

Interestingly I note that the man himself appears to have been a director of a construction company, a double glazing company and a property developing company.