Robert 'Crab Bait' White consents to losing his houses

[aesmith]

Admitting two separate criminal offences of breaking and entering on Facebook.

To be pedantic there's no offence of "breaking and entering" in England. The appropriate offence would be Burglary defined (in short) as entering as a trespasser with the intention of committing theft or causing unlawful damage. Sadly it's statute not common law. Theft Act 1968. I guess there's still a change of Aggravated Burglary if he turns up with anything that could be classed as a weapon. (10 (2) A person guilty of aggravated burglary shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for life.)

[mufc1959]

It'll probably all kick off tomorrow, as the agents have now been sent his latest Facebook post, including the photos. Once NatWest's asset managers are informed, I'm sure they'll take appropriate action to take the property back.

Note: This repossession is nothing to do with his bankruptcy - it's mortgage arrears on his residential NatWest mortgage. The Trustee in Bankruptcy has first call on the net proceeds of sale (after the mortgage and costs of sale have been deducted). But Crabbie's actions are making sure there'll be nothing left over to go to his other creditors.

[SteveD]

Better give the agents another call...
He was out, went back over and removed all the security covers (again) and is now back in again...
I see jail time in his immediate future, nothing else will stop him

Hmmm setting up traps are we???

[Chaos]

I see jail time in his immediate future

well, he does need a place to live

[Tevildo]

A quick question on procedure - in a case where social media posts are admissible as evidence, how are they presented to the court? As this is a live case, perhaps it's best not to discuss whether these particular posts are admissible.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

A quick question on procedure - in a case where social media posts are admissible as evidence, how are they presented to the court? As this is a live case, perhaps it's best not to discuss whether these particular posts are admissible.

I think if we keep clear of accusations with regards guilt or otherwise in his case of assaulting emergency workers there's no problem. The "re-occupation" would seem to be a separate legal matter.

[AndyPandy]

A quick question on procedure - in a case where social media posts are admissible as evidence, how are they presented to the court? As this is a live case, perhaps it's best not to discuss whether these particular posts are admissible.

I think if we keep clear of accusations with regards guilt or otherwise in his case of assaulting emergency workers there's no problem. The "re-occupation" would seem to be a separate legal matter.

For which charges have yet to be brought, soon as they are it will be a different matter.

[Dr. Caligari]

To be pedantic there's no offence of "breaking and entering" in England. The appropriate offence would be Burglary defined (in short) as entering as a trespasser with the intention of committing theft or causing unlawful damage. Sadly it's statute not common law. Theft Act 1968.

The phrase still crops up in many American states-- a legacy, ironically, of the English Common Law, which defined burglary as having five elements: (1) breaking (2) and entering (3) a dwelling house (4) in the night time (5) with the intent to commit a felony.

[Pottapaug1938]

One of my favorite definitions of burglary -- whether or not it is current law -- is as follows:

A dwelling’s the key in Burglary One,
And it has to be nighttime for Burglary One,
In addition to that, you must have a gun,
Or while in the dwelling you must hurt someone,
Or threaten him with the aforementioned gun,
For it to add up to Burglary One.

A dwelling’s a building in Burglary Two.
Unless it’s at night, like in Burglary One.
But once in this building, if you’ve got a gun,
Or once in this building you hurt anyone,
Or threaten him with the aforementioned gun,
That’s Burglary Two, not Burglary One.

No mention of dwellings in Burglary Three.
No mention of nighttime in Burglary Three.
No mention of guns like in Two or in One.
No mention of threats or hurting someone.
A building’s a building in Burglary Three.
And breaking and entering is Burglary Three.

The key to all this is the dwelling, you see.
The building’s a dwelling at all times in One.
The building’s a dwelling at nighttime in Two.
The dwelling’s a building in daytime in Three.
And none of it makes any damn sense to me.
-- from “Doors”, by Ed McBain.

[mufc1959]

The bank's asset managers have taken the property off the market. This points towards a police-assisted eviction and a quick sale at an auction.

[D-C]

More rubbish from his Facebook feed

Eviction update. Visited the estate agent today who were trying to sell my home, they have been told to take the property off the market, not sure who told them to do that. Letters and notices have been sent to natwest and Kent police chief constable updating them on the situation, and insisting the chief constable gets his gang to investigate the crimes all involved have committed and to reply within 7 days. Should be an interesting few weeks ahead, here’s a copy of the letter sent to Mr Pughsley chief constable, apparently immune from doing the right thing, we shall see.

Robert White



Date: 29th March 2019

Alan Pughsley - Chief Constable
Kent Police Headquarters
Sutton Road
Maidstone
Kent
ME15 9BZ

c.c. Lord Burnett of Maldon, The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
The men and women under the jurisdiction of the Common Law Court

LAWFUL NOTICE
REPORTING CRIMINAL OFFENCES AND ATTEMPTED THEFT OF PROPERTY

29 Park Road, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 1UY

Alan Pughsley,

I write to forward prima facie evidence and to confirm various crimes which have been committed against me. In relation to the above property I have already lodged a criminal complaint against the police for their part in the attempted theft, this complaint is currently ongoing.

For your assistance I now wish to draw your attention to the following:

1. I write to confirm that the crimes that I wished to report were committed under common law, various acts of parliament and statues.
2. My understanding is that these acts and statutes were created by government and passed by the queen in to legislation.
3. Given that the crimes that I wish to report were established under common law, by the crown and parliament, do you wish to support the stance adopted by your Police Officers when they attended my house on the 5th February 2019.
4. The use of the form N49 is unlawful, fraudulent and establishes the crime of uttering.
5. The use of the EX96 is unlawful, fraudulent and establishes the crime of uttering.
6. The failure of your Police Officers to investigate this matter may mean that they are also accessories and abettors.
7. The threatening and intimidating behaviour of your officers and the court bailiffs during the unlawful re-possession of my property, caused fear harm and distress, which is also a crime.
8. The bailiffs were also guilty of causing additional criminal damage to the property.
9. The bailiffs were demanding property with the use of forged documents.
10. The courts were unable to deal with this issue as they failed to identify the defendant, failed to establish authority or jurisdiction and carried on regardless.
11. The Judge refused to recuse himself when asked to do so, he had shown clear bias, had acted unlawfully and may be criminally.

R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy is a leading English case on the impartiality and recusal of judges. It is famous for its precedence in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision. It also brought into common parlance the oft-quoted aphorism:

"Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."

Court: High Court of Justice. Cases cited: KB 256, EWHC KB1 Judge(s) sitting: Lord
Hewart CJ, Lush and Sankey JJ

12. The Judge had failed to accept a lawful defence put forward and had failed to establish who the defendant was in relation to the action.
13. The Judge is guilty of trying to criminally coerce me into an inequitable resolution under duress while knowing that he had no locus to use the legal entity without dominion.
14. The Judge has chosen to ignore lawfully issued documents from a superior court, confirming the existence of a living man, ownership of the legal fiction and ownership and transfer of the property to the jurisdiction of the Common Law Court.
15. The Judge has acted for vested interests, against the rule of law and as a corporate employee.
16. The Judge has failed to accept and acknowledge the authority of the people.
17. Referring to a previous lawful precedent set, the Common Law Court has already confirmed the criminal behaviour of the individuals concerned.
18. Previous statutory orders issued against me have been annulled.

In addition to the above I wish to confirm that I have also been subjected to criminal, threatening and intimidating behaviour by your Police Officers which has put me in to a state of fear and alarm.

The issues that I put before you have already been dealt with by a superior court (Common Law Court) and the county court has no authority or jurisdiction to deal with this.

I require that these matters are investigated immediately and that until such time as they have been addressed, I write to confirm that no further action may be taken against me or my property.

As I have enclosed prima facie evidence to confirm these crimes, I require a response within seven days to confirm your position, a response should also be forwarded to the Lord Chief Justice and the Common Law Court (info@commonlawcourt.com) as they are interested parties.

Signed __________________________
Robert White
Subject Solely to Common Law

[Arthur Rubin]

Anyone remember what form EX96 and N49 might be?

[NYGman]

So basically Crabby doesn't agree with the real court, so will just ignore it all, in deference to the superior (in his mind) Common Law Court. This should go exactly the way he expects.

[D-C]

Anyone remember what form EX96 and N49 might be?

The EX96 form is a notice that is sent from the court to the claimant
confirming the bailiff appointment time. The claimant will need to
complete the end part of the form and send it back to the court confirming
that the claimant will be there at the appointment.

The Form “ N49 Warrant for Possession of Land” is the document issued by the Court authorising the Court Bailiffs to obtain possession of Property.

[SteveD]

I saw the house was off the market and quite frankly was expecting him to start claiming it was because he had moved back in ergo the house was his!!!



If it indeed is sold at auction, then it is likely to fetch even less than on the open market, and he is still running up the bills re security etc...
It doesn't seem unlikely that he could still end up owing $$$ even after the sale at this rate!

Stupid stupid man, he could still have walked away with a nice pocketful of cash, but now he's a bankrupt (with all the issues that brings with it) and any money he may have gotten is disappearing fast
To quote "So much winning!!!"

[grixit]

Can we start calling him Robert Crawford?

[Gregg]

Can we start calling him Robert Crawford?

I would propose that he be the inaugural recipient of the "Crawford Prize for utter stupidity in the field of destroying equity in complete contempt of common sense" The Straw Hat Award, with mantel decoration, First Class.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Stupid stupid man, he could still have walked away with a nice pocketful of cash, but now he's a bankrupt (with all the issues that brings with it) and any money he may have gotten is disappearing fast

But is that true? That the mortgage company has first claim is not disputed, but it was a known asset at the time of his bankruptcy. Wouldn't all "profit" from a sale beyond Nat West recouping and ancillary costs of sale go to the receiver, hence why he doesn't care?

[SteveD]

I was thinking of when he first fell down the freeman rabbit hole and still had multiple houses that he could have sold for a nice profit
Now of course- he's stuffed
(even now I suspect that if he dropped the FOTL crap and tried to work with the receiver (sincerely), he could still get something out of it
But he won't, and he won't...

[notorial dissent]

As I recall, he has a whopping big council debt, that got this dumpster fire started in the first place, and he undoubtedly had other debts he quit paying on when this started to go south, as well as a residential council debt from another county now that is owed, I would imagine the other properties also have council debt owing as well, unless the mortgage is taking that out and paying, and I can't help wondering if the taxman is, or will be, looking for him as well. His latest stunt with the house will now end up costing him the way it did Wrekha, particularly depending on how much is realized from the auction sale of the property, and the security they will undoubtedly add after they turf him out. Sucks to be our little Quail.