Robert 'Crab Bait' White consents to losing his houses

[notorial dissent]

Considering our little Quail's lack of familiarity with the truth and reality, believing anything he says is largely pointless.

[Gregg]

I need to get a good case together using common law and statutory legislation

I thought Common Law was all about the statutory legislation being null and void. They can't even keep their own gibberish straight.

[NYGman]

Cue the "Living La Viva Loca Trust" and being lost at Sea. If the statue doesn't predate the 1800's it can't be valid, bring on the really old stuff, Magna Carta A61 to save the day.

[exiledscouser]

Meh. Whilst Bob preens in his echo chamber about how he’s going to bring down the establishment and his foolish audience egg him on with empty support the Receiver is quietly going about the liquidation of Bob’s property empire, one house at a time.

The latest is his former home, he’s basically evicted himself through belligerence and a belief in magic fairy dust. Any and all costs, he himself is covering.

So any criminal trial really is just a sideshow, the real damage is being done on the financial level. He should swallow his pride and seek a compromise or eventually the lot will go.

Crabby is all too aware that he’s unable to prevent the liquidator chip chipping away hence his doomed journey through the criminal justice system, something to keep the interest of the fools supporting him - albeit from afar.

Have you noticed there wasn’t any Crawfraud style mob for him, just a handful of halfhearted swivel eyed malcontents who’s contributions ensured Crabby was shown the gutter.

[mufc1959]

Meh. Whilst Bob preens in his echo chamber about how he’s going to bring down the establishment and his foolish audience egg him on with empty support the Receiver is quietly going about the liquidation of Bob’s property empire, one house at a time.

The latest is his former home, ...

IIRC, it wasn't the Receiver who repossessed the property, but NatWest, the mortgagee. I'm guessing the liquidator realised early on that there were sufficient assets in Crabbie's BTL portfolio of 10 properties to satisfy the debt he owed (originally about £30K but which, no doubt, is at least double that by now) and so he wasn't interested in repossessing the family home. Generally with a bankruptcy the Receiver will seek to preserve the family home where possible, if there are other assets available out of which the debt can be paid. But Crabbie also decided to stop paying his mortgage at the same time, with the inevitable result that his mortgage lender has now taken possession.

And, of course, as Crabbie is a bankrupt, the Receiver has first call on Crabbie's share of the net proceeds of sale after NatWest has taken out the mortgage debt + costs owed to it.

[exiledscouser]

Then he's doubly foolish.

Why would he deliberately stop paying the mortgage on his family home? What possible outcome was he expecting?

I've read some posts by him along the lines that the bank magically create cash out of thin air then lend it to you but hadn't realised that he's actually putting that theory into practice. Even if it were true, Crabbie will have had to pay for the house when he bought it from the previous owner who'd still be there I guess if Bob hadn't stumped up the purchase price.

With the BTL portfolio, I recall that the receiver got a grip of both the tenants and the knob-head letting agent at an early stage so Bob might be unable to stop paying the mortgages on those properties, even if he wanted to.

But its quite clear, wilfully stop paying a mortgage and fail to engage with the lender at all and you'll be out.

The fact that he's still bankrupt - does that mean that he still hasn't paid all his creditors or would it stay on if they were all paid but he was being a belligerent arsehole?

[AndyPandy]

Then he's doubly foolish.

Why would he deliberately stop paying the mortgage on his family home? What possible outcome was he expecting?

I've read some posts by him along the lines that the bank magically create cash out of thin air then lend it to you but hadn't realised that he's actually putting that theory into practice. Even if it were true, Crabbie will have had to pay for the house when he bought it from the previous owner who'd still be there I guess if Bob hadn't stumped up the purchase price.

With the BTL portfolio, I recall that the receiver got a grip of both the tenants and the knob-head letting agent at an early stage so Bob might be unable to stop paying the mortgages on those properties, even if he wanted to.

But its quite clear, wilfully stop paying a mortgage and fail to engage with the lender at all and you'll be out.

The fact that he's still bankrupt - does that mean that he still hasn't paid all his creditors or would it stay on if they were all paid but he was being a belligerent arsehole?

Possibly, it was the rentals from the Buy to Let's that were paying the mortgage, once the Receiver / Trustee seized control of the bank accounts / income then he could no longer paid the mortgage. If he'd simply co-operated then he could have come to an arrangement to sell one or more of his properties to satisfy the debt and still been in receipt of sufficient income to retain his home.

His stubbornness and sheer stupidity means he's the author of his own demise.

[notorial dissent]

Then he's doubly foolish.

Why would he deliberately stop paying the mortgage on his family home? What possible outcome was he expecting?

I've read some posts by him along the lines that the bank magically create cash out of thin air then lend it to you but hadn't realised that he's actually putting that theory into practice. Even if it were true, Crabbie will have had to pay for the house when he bought it from the previous owner who'd still be there I guess if Bob hadn't stumped up the purchase price.

With the BTL portfolio, I recall that the receiver got a grip of both the tenants and the knob-head letting agent at an early stage so Bob might be unable to stop paying the mortgages on those properties, even if he wanted to.

But its quite clear, wilfully stop paying a mortgage and fail to engage with the lender at all and you'll be out.

The fact that he's still bankrupt - does that mean that he still hasn't paid all his creditors or would it stay on if they were all paid but he was being a belligerent arsehole?

Possibly, it was the rentals from the Buy to Let's that were paying the mortgage, once the Receiver / Trustee seized control of the bank accounts / income then he could no longer paid the mortgage. If he'd simply co-operated then he could have come to an arrangement to sell one or more of his properties to satisfy the debt and still been in receipt of sufficient income to retain his home.

His stubbornness and sheer stupidity means he's the author of his own demise.

That's what I've been curious about pretty much from the get go. We know he was a failed club owner, and probably several other things as well, and it was pretty obvious he wasn't independently wealthy so how he was paying his bills and the mortgages was a good question. I certainly think this explains how he was doing it. I suspect that he won't be released from bankruptcy until Casa Crab is sold and they can attach what of the proceeds they need to pay off the creditors. That may/will probably still take a while. He's basically just screwed himself twice, or is it three times, this way.

[aesmith]

IIRC, it wasn't the Receiver who repossessed the property, but NatWest, the mortgagee. I'm guessing the liquidator realised early on that there were sufficient assets in Crabbie's BTL portfolio of 10 properties to satisfy the debt he owed (originally about £30K but which, no doubt, is at least double that by now) and so he wasn't interested in repossessing the family home. Generally with a bankruptcy the Receiver will seek to preserve the family home where possible, if there are other assets available out of which the debt can be paid. But Crabbie also decided to stop paying his mortgage at the same time, with the inevitable result that his mortgage lender has now taken possession.

And, of course, as Crabbie is a bankrupt, the Receiver has first call on Crabbie's share of the net proceeds of sale after NatWest has taken out the mortgage debt + costs owed to it.

The OR put a charge on the family home in Juy 2017 ..
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewto ... 60#p248447
And in September the Land Registry found Crab's objection "groundless" ..
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewto ... 28#p251828

[Chaos]

Have you noticed there wasn’t any Crawfraud style mob for him

where is that man-of-the-penis-people c-fraud in all this?

[AndyPandy]

Have you noticed there wasn’t any Crawfraud style mob for him

where is that man-of-the-penis-people c-fraud in all this?

He's nothing in this, which is what he's always been, a nobody who just so happened to lose his home in the most public and stupid of ways !

[Burnaby49]

As far as I can tell Crawford tried to keep up his prominence in the freeloader movement by speaking at presentations and coughing up videos. However it all came to nothing, he was just an awkward reminder to the idiots of the total failure of all of the stupid schemes they were trying back at that time. So he's disappeared back into his well-deserved obscurity.

[notorial dissent]

And doing well at it by all appearances having finally found his niche obscura in life.

[Chaos]

*sigh* you people just don't understand the power he yields.

[D-C]

Todays update

Here’s an interesting subject I’m looking into to use in my trial by jury, NULLIFICATION. By the way I was unlawfully evicted from my home on 5th February by the police, they charged me with 2 counts of assault. I was in the magistrates on Friday 8th March and demanded a trial with a jury of my peers, the preliminary hearing will be on 5th April.

Jury nullification, a legal concept that dates back to 17th century England, remains perfectly lawful in both the UK and the U.S and can be used by any jury which believes that the law is not fit for purpose in a specific case.

The concept of jury nullification is that juries should be able to not only decide whether a defendant violated the law, but whether the law itself is just and proper.

It is a constitutional doctrine that allows for the acquittal of defendants who are technically guilty of a crime, but who the jury does not feel should be punished for their actions because the law itself is unjust.

Jury nullification highlights the fact that, though we may feel constrained by over oppressive laws and legislation, we, as individuals, still have the capacity to override the law using the common sense that we all have.

The only problem I can see with this is the judge, and the system won’t like it. But if I bring the subject up what can the judge do?

If anyone has any knowledge on the subject please let me know.

Here’s an interesting case from the US where jury nullification was used.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Todays update

It is a constitutional doctrine that allows for the acquittal of defendants who are technically guilty of a crime...

So, he's admitting he's guilty. Who's going to tip off the CPS? ☺

[Pottapaug1938]

Jury Nullification -- what a concept. With it, we no longer have a system of laws or a Constitution, because the law is whatever a particular jury feels that it should be.

[Gregg]

Jury Nullification is more the recognition that if a jury is wrong and decides for the defendant against all evidence, nothing can be done about it. I'm pretty sure that the defendant bringing it up in front of the jury can get you a mistrial or at least in a bit of trouble.

[Hercule Parrot]

So he's elected a crown court hearing then basically as is his right. All the rest of it is just empty waffle.

I suspect his defence will be crafted with his usual legal finesse with predictable results....

I hope you are right. However we know from previous similar cases (eg Chrisy Morris - http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... start=1140) that a defective prosecution can sometimes drop victory into their hands.

Krabby wants to invite jury nullification, so his sensible pitch would be obvious -

He and the fragrant Irene are hardworking people who've built a small portfolio for retirement. Someone comes along one day and demands payment of a debt they did not believe they were liable for, their attempts to explain were brushed aside and Krabby was bankrupted. Instead of selling one or two of his investment properties to pay the debt, the bastards tried to seize everything - for a disputed debt of only £40k.

Worst of all, they were also going to take their family home. Mr & Mrs Krabby were overwhelmed with grief, begged for flexibility, but the bastards wouldn't listen. Krabby admits that he barricaded the house, that he refused let the bailiffs in. He admits he had a baseball bat, in his private home for self-defence, because he was terrified by the brutal forces arrayed against him. They didn't even have a lawful court order.

He was shocked when the Police themselves forced entry, given that they are only supposed to be there to prevent any breach of the peace. He did refuse to surrender to arrest, but he didn't strike any blow against any officer. Any minor injury they received must have occurred while they were tasering him and beating him with batons. No attempt to communicate, to negotiate or to understand his concerns about the lawfulness of the repo, they just stormed the house and beat him down. What has our society become when Police can do this in a civil dispute, and then charge the victim with spurious crimes?

This is of course utter bullshit, but so was Chrisy's defence. Chrisy won because the CPS did not effectively present and evidence the real course of events. We should not be naive to the possibility of that recurring.

[notorial dissent]

I didn't think it was a case of him thinking he didn't owe, just that he wasn't going to pay it like he wasn't going to follow any other rules either.