Robert 'Crab Bait' White consents to losing his houses

[longdog]

So he's going to ask the jury to nullify the offence of assaulting an emergency worker? Yeah.... Good luck with that.

[Hercule Parrot]

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.

Absolutely. But he's not going to tell it that way.

[John Uskglass]

Hopefully someone on the prosecution side is monitoring Mr White's utterances, and will be prepared to counter his shenanigans.

If I understand it correctly, jury nullification means that the jurors consider that the law under which the defendant is being brought before the court is so unjust that they feel it should be struck down. As I recall, this used to happen in the C18th and C19th when according to Wikipedia

the criminal law included some 220 crimes punishable by death, including "being in the company of Gypsies for one month", "strong evidence of malice in a child aged 7–14 years of age" and "blacking the face or using a disguise whilst committing a crime". Many of these offences had been introduced to protect the property of the wealthy classes that emerged during the first half of the 18th century, a notable example being the Black Act of 1723, which created 50 capital offences for various acts of theft and poaching. Crimes eligible for the death penalty included shoplifting and stealing sheep, cattle, and horses, and before abolition of the death penalty for theft in 1832, "English law was notorious for prescribing the death penalty for a vast range of offences as slight as the theft of goods valued at twelve pence."

So White is asking the jury to find that making it an offence to assault an emergency worker is so oppressive that a reasonable person could not in conscience go along with it. You would hope that any half decent lawyer could shoot that down in flames, especially as such a 'defence' necessarily involves admitting that you carried out the assault.

[longdog]

The only case of jury nullification I can remember was the case of Clive Pointing who passed classified documents to an MP relating to the sinking of the General Belgrano.

He was clearly as guilty as hell and the judge dismissed his argument of acting in the public interest saying that the public interest was whatever the government of the day said it was.

The jury sided with Ponting and gave the finger to the judge.

I can't see "I stopped paying the mortgage blah blah common law court blah blah mortgage swindle blah blah Megan Carter I get to keep the house" having the same effect on the jury. I doubt the judge will allow any pseudo-legal arguments about the validity of the possession order or any attempts to undermine the civil case.

[John Uskglass]

The jury sided with Ponting and gave the finger to the judge.

IIRC the aquittal was a shock to Ponting, as well as everyone else. He expected to get sent down. Others may know better, but my impression is that jury nullification has to come from within the jury, of their own volition, and isn't something the defendant can request. It certainly feels as if such a request would be shocking bad form, aside from any legal considerations.

[NYGman]

Perhaps I am missing something, but even in the unlikely event Jury Nullification happens, with respect to the assault, how does that get him his stuff back? It has no impact on the Bankruptcy, foreclosure, or him being given the boot from the crabby home. What's his genius plan for that?

[BoomerSooner17]

Perhaps I am missing something, but even in the unlikely event Jury Nullification happens, with respect to the assault, how does that get him his stuff back? It has no impact on the Bankruptcy, foreclosure, or him being given the boot from the crabby home. What's his genius plan for that?

I believe that in his delusion, Crabby thinks that nullifying the assault case will also somehow, magically, nullify/reverse/wave a magic wand and *poof!* and make nonexistent/ the bankruptcy, foreclosure, and eviction. It seems to be a common theme with sovcits and FMOTLs.

[longdog]

What's his genius plan for that?

I'm pretty sure his entire plan is that an aquittal would undo everything. The fact that the criminal courts don't have jurisdiction over civil matters is something he either doesn't know or doesn't care about. This is a man who thought the Common Law Play Court was going to save him.

The plan of the underpants gnomes comes to mind.

1) Collect underpants.
2) ?
3) Profit.

[notorial dissent]

It's pretty much step for step the one Tom followed to such resounding success. Stop paying your mortgage, get tossed out on your proverbial, make lots of noise, get arrested for some criminal act, relitigate your civil foreclosure in criminal court, and walk away free and clear. And we all know how well that worked for Tom, it will work as well for Crabby. Originality is not a sovcit/fotl trademark.

[NYGman]

However, where TC at least had a connection between his charge "Trespass" and his theory, as in, You can't trespass on your own home. So at least in TC's mind, being found not guilty of trespass would support his position that it was his property.

Assault on the other hand, doesn't prove anything? So While I agree, neither get that a non-guilty finding in a criminal case wont do anything for their civil cases, not that crabby has one outside the common law court. .

[notorial dissent]

However, where TC at least had a connection between his charge "Trespass" and his theory, as in, You can't trespass on your own home. So at least in TC's mind, being found not guilty of trespass would support his position that it was his property.

Assault on the other hand, doesn't prove anything? So While I agree, neither get that a non-guilty finding in a criminal case wont do anything for their civil cases, not that crabby has one outside the common law court. .

I think you're assuming a lot more thinking on Crabby's part than there was/is.

[AndyPandy]

Perhaps I am missing something, but even in the unlikely event Jury Nullification happens, with respect to the assault, how does that get him his stuff back? It has no impact on the Bankruptcy, foreclosure, or him being given the boot from the crabby home. What's his genius plan for that?

I believe that in his delusion, Crabby thinks that nullifying the assault case will also somehow, magically, nullify/reverse/wave a magic wand and *poof!* and make nonexistent/ the bankruptcy, foreclosure, and eviction. It seems to be a common theme with sovcits and FMOTLs.

I think, he thinks (and I'm being generous that he does actually have some form of organ you could call a brain) that if the Jury nullifies the charges it's because the whole possession was unlawful, so then he'll be able to somehow sue for its return, presumably the High Court (Queen's Bench naturally) rather than the Comedy Court, because obviously, it was unlawful.

[The Seventh String]

I think it’s possible that he might convince a jury not to convict by arguing the police assaulted him not vice-versa or that the prosecution hasn’t enough evidence to show that he did. It’s quite open to a jury to find someone not guilty in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt should they wish to. Which became a problem not just with the death penalty in the early 19th century but also in the 20th.

Which as I understand it isn’t quite the same thing as jury nullification - unless he’s daft enough to try and convince the jury that the law regarding assault and battery is so unjust it needs replacing or doing away with entirely.

So he might pull it off, or not. Personally I doubt he will, especially if he’s his usual obnoxious self in court.

But, as has often been said, had he simply done the bleeding obvious and thought “they’re into me for £X. I have property worth far, far more than £X. Therefore I shall sell sufficient of it to clear the debt and as a consequence keep my home, the rest of my property, not be made bankrupt with all the bad stuff that entails and carry on with my life” all this unpleasantness and financial loss to him would have been avoided.

He could have arranged an IVA if his creditors wouldn’t wait while he sold some of his assets and still not gone bankrupt. He might even have managed to borrow sufficient, secured against property, to pay off the debt. But no, he decided to do everything the hardest way possible, seemingly without it ever occurring to him that the British state has vast experience in dealing with the likes of him.

[longdog]

Which as I understand it isn’t quite the same thing as jury nullification

As far as I know that's right. I fear the simpleton doesn't really understand the difference between a defence and jury nullification and he's going to agree with the prosecution case but then try to convince the jury that the law is unjust... Which will almost certainly fail.

If he pleads not guilty and his nullification argument fails the judge is not going to look kindly on him if he's convicted. He'll have wasted the court's time and declared that he thinks he's above the law... Not a good idea.

[Gregg]

I am still almost sure that if he starts talking about jury nullification himself, the judge is going to shut him up. In the US, having friends of yours pass out flyers about it outside the courthouse will get you and them in deeper trouble. A jury is free to be outraged by the law, but you can't suggest it in court. In a trial, the only one who can say what the law is, is the Judge.

[Mike_p]

There seems to be a vague assumption within the company of my learned friends in this forum that Monsieur Crabby actually retains valuable equity in his BTL portfolio. It appears to me be a strong possibility that he's mortgaged to the hilt on the whole caboodle.
In short, he might be totally stuffed.

[notorial dissent]

There seems to be a vague assumption within the company of my learned friends in this forum that Monsieur Crabby actually retains valuable equity in his BTL portfolio. It appears to me be a strong possibility that he's mortgaged to the hilt on the whole caboodle.
In short, he might be totally stuffed.

I can't speak for others, but my suspicion, and as you point out, is that our little Quail is a cooked bird. I am fairly sure that he is/was barely ahead of the payments on them and that by the time Casa Crab is ultimately sold and the receiver settles on the rentals and pays however much he now owes, that there won't be much if anything left.

[Hercule Parrot]

by the time Casa Crab is ultimately sold and the receiver settles on the rentals and pays however much he now owes, that there won't be much if anything left.

Not forgetting his own significant part in driving up the costs, by gleefully causing as much trouble as he could. As with Princess Wrecka and so many others, he just couldn't grasp that he himself would be paying for the extra legal costs, the 24hr security etc.

[He Who Knows]

Hercule Parrot wrote
Not forgetting his own significant part in driving up the costs, by gleefully causing as much trouble as he could. As with Princess Wrecka and so many others, he just couldn't grasp that he himself would be paying for the extra legal costs, the 24hr security etc.

And Princess Wrecka is doing a similar thing to Crabby ie she's hoping that by winning her squatting and criminal damage case it will nullify all the civil court stuff that has gone before. The next magistrates hearing is in May - my betting is that she'll try and commute this to Crown Court for similar nullification or a not guilty verdict.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

The next magistrates hearing is in May - my betting is that she'll try and commute this to Crown Court for similar nullification or a not guilty verdict.

Are you sure about that? I have to admit that I'm not sure if she is facing a triable either way offence but my (thankfully) limited participation in the process left me with the impression that the venue has to be decided at the first magistrate hearing. She's already gone past that.

As for running up bills, any excess from the sale will be given to the official receiver so I don't think he cares about eating into the sale profits.