Robert 'Crab Bait' White consents to losing his houses

[John Uskglass]

A pedant writes -

the anglo-saxon vernacular for "trump"

As I suspected, in the sense you mean, it turns out to be from Old French.

5. (intransitive) British slang
to expel intestinal gas through the anus
Word origin of 'trump'
C13: from Old French trompe, from Old High German trumpa trumpet; compare trombone

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... lish/trump

[Pottapaug1938]

I appreciate the explanation as "nobble" isn't in the dialect for us across the pond.

I recently discovered that the anglo-saxon vernacular for "trump" is also not well known in the former colonies

I used to use the word, on a semi-regular basis; but despite my extreme distaste for the current occupant of the White House, I have stopped using the word, since people might think that I am necessarily making a political commentary or comparison, when I am doing nothing of the sort

[exiledscouser]

Drifting into politics a little bit but to “trump” equates roughly to talking out of your arse, whether spelt with an upper or lower case first letter.

[Pottapaug1938]

Drifting into politics a little bit but to “trump” equates roughly to talking out of your arse, whether spelt with an upper or lower case first letter.

The politics angle is why, as I said, I avoid using the word, so that people will not think that I am criticizing the President when I'm not.

[longdog]

Drifting into politics a little bit but to “trump” equates roughly to talking out of your arse, whether spelt with an upper or lower case first letter.

The politics angle is why, as I said, I avoid using the word, so that people will not think that I am criticizing the President when I'm not.

Here in the hollowed halls of the UK forum you would be unlikely to find anybody who viewed The Orange One as having anything to do with politics. More in the line of a barely believable character from a third rate soap opera.

[mufc1959]

As anticipated, it seems Crabbie is attempting to defend his charge of affray by challenging the validity of the warrant of possession. Of course, he hasn't a clue what he's doing, so he's asking for help from the legal scholars of his Facebook Group.



Needless to say, the advice he's receiving is priceless and guaranteed to ensure that the Judge at Crabbie's retrial will immediately scuttle out of the court, thus abandoning ship.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Priceless feckwittery!

[longdog]

I'm still putting my money on the last trial going down the toilet because the judge ruled he wasn't competent to conduct his own defence.

If some of the crap he posts reflects his "understanding" of the law then he's clearly too delusional to understand a criminal trial.

He's been given a certified copy of a N49 and he's making an appointment to see the certified copy with his own eyes? Seriously? What the actual fish-fork does he think a certified copy is?

[notorial dissent]

I'm still putting my money on the last trial going down the toilet because the judge ruled he wasn't competent to conduct his own defence.

If some of the crap he posts reflects his "understanding" of the law then he's clearly too delusional to understand a criminal trial.

He's been given a certified copy of a N49 and he's making an appointment to see the certified copy with his own eyes? Seriously? What the actual fish-fork does he think a certified copy is?

He doesn't know.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I'm looking for N49 details with "the manner in which possession was taken" where the judge has written things like "the use of trebuchets is permitted".

[longdog]

Is that trebuchet to gain entry to the property or the means of chucking the "contents" back out in the gutter?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I'm still putting my money on the last trial going down the toilet because the judge ruled he wasn't competent to conduct his own defence.

I don't think it would be competence. The slashing in funding to legal aid means that, not withstanding *****wits who think they know the law, more and more cases are being heard without legal representation. It is one's right to put forward an incompetent case, as long as a person is not mentally incompetent, so he is perfectly entitled to do so. Judges are under instruction to compensate for this.

My original draft had a expansion of what I suspect went on based on his own postings and my call to the court for details, but it started drifting into commenting on the individual case so I'm not posting it!

However, this is the detail I got from the court so it is qualified privilege in reporting of fact. The trial was halted pending a document. I think we now know what that document was.

[longdog]

It is one's right to put forward an incompetent case, as long as a person is not mentally incompetent, so he is perfectly entitled to do so. Judges are under instruction to compensate for this.

I'm pretty sure the rule on competence to conduct a case has nothing to do with mental competence in the general sense. The person has to have sufficient understanding of what going on in the court and what's needed to conduct the defence. If they have deeply entrenched beliefs that the law and the legal system is other than what it is in the real world that would count as not competent.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

If they have deeply entrenched beliefs that the law and the legal system is other than what it is in the real world that would count as not competent.

I'm not sure that that is correct.

If that was the case, then every case involving the "deeply entrenched beliefs" of Freeman of the Land defending themselves pro se would by definition be invalid. I don't know about the rules in Scotland, but most English legal sites state that the court cannot compel you to hire a solicitor and you have a right to address the court.

I can't see separate rules for defendants acting for themselves but the legal definition of competent for a witness is:

A person is not competent to give evidence in criminal proceedings if it appears to the Court that they are unable to understand questions put to them as a witness and give answers to them which can be understood.

Feigning or actual stupidity is not evidence of incompetence, and I suspect that any attempt to do so (such as refusal to state name and I don't recognise this court) would be dealt with as contempt rather than invoke a competency hearing.

But you've given me something to research!

[AndyPandy]

This is an extract from the Bailiffs Manual issued by the Ministry of Justice, Section dealing with Warrants of Possession and Police Assistance.

Section 12 – Warrants of
possession


Bailiff Manual


Introduction

A warrant of possession authorises you to take possession of land or property. The
warrant of possession provides legal authority for what would otherwise be a
trespass. You are therefore legally authorised as regards entry to premises in order
to take possession by acting within the authority of a warrant that directs you to take
possession.

There are two different forms of possession warrant, both of which may instruct you
to levy for the payment of rent, mortgage or squatter’s arrears or costs. The exact
address you are to take possession of is shown inside the warrant. It might be
different to the address shown on the outside. Read the form carefully. If you have
any difficulties with the correct address contact your office.

Checks to be made upon receipt of possession warrant:



The warrant has been sealed.

The address is within your Courts jurisdiction.

The warrant has not expired – 12-month lifespan.

Notice of appointment

Use form EX96 to tell the claimant of the date and time of the appointment to
repossess the premises or land. The form requests the claimant to tell you if they
expect the eviction will be difficult, but you should make a preliminary visit to check
the situation for yourself. The EX96 has a tear-off slip for the claimant to confirm the
appointment. The form makes it clear that the appointment must be confirmed by
completing and returning the tear off slip, to arrive at the court at least 3 working days
before the appointment date otherwise the appointment will be cancelled.

It is the landlord’s responsibility to arrange for a locksmith to attend the eviction to
secure the premises against re-entry after the eviction has taken place.

Preliminary visit
You must make a preliminary visit to the property or discuss with your Bailiff Manager
your reasons for not doing so.

Advantages for visiting are:



To see the situation for yourself.

To enable you to carry out the eviction more smoothly and therefore benefit you.

To find out if there are any tenants in the property.

To assist with the risk assessment.


You must give the occupants the Notice of Eviction (N54) personally or leave it at the
address in an envelope addressed to the occupants by name and “any other


Bailiff Manual


occupiers”. This gives them the date and time of the impending eviction; this will also
inform them of their rights.

Please note: If you visit an eviction address and find problems, withdraw and report
back to your Bailiff Manager.

The eviction

The Notice of Eviction will warn the occupier of the issue of the warrant and your
intention to evict – this must be delivered in every case.

Inform your Bailiff Manager if you or the claimant thinks there might be violence or
other difficulties when you evict. Your Bailiff Manager may arrange for other Bailiffs to
go with you and if necessary, for the police to stand by to prevent a breach of the
peace.

The Bailiff will enter the property first. The eviction will have been carried out when all
persons have been ejected. The possession warrant covers everyone on the
premises.

You have the authority to evict everyone on the premises. If you find an occupant
who would suffer undue hardship if evicted, contact your Bailiff Manager or Delivery
Manager for instructions.

You do not have to remove furniture or personal belongings from the property
(although you have the authority to do so if you wish). This is the responsibility of the
claimant. The claimant may allow the defendant to remain a short while to clear out
personal belongings. That is the claimant’s decision and you should not wait until that
is done before the claimant signs the warrant to acknowledge receipt of the property.

When taking possession of open land you do not need to remove caravans, camping
equipment or personal belongings (although you have the authority to do so). This is
the responsibility of the claimant. Similarly, in the case of livestock or animals their
continuous care becomes the responsibility of the claimant.

If you have levied, remove the goods at the eviction.

Use of force by Bailiffs
You may lawfully use reasonable force to execute a possession warrant – both as to
entry and as to the physical removal of occupiers. The only exception is where there
is a local prohibition on the use of reasonable force as directed by your District
Judge. While the drafting of EX96 is being considered the following guidance should
be noted:


Whenever the use of reasonable force is being considered the police should be
notified so that police officers can be present to prevent any breach of the peace.


Bailiff Manual



Where the police advise that, in the particular circumstances, it is inappropriate to
attempt an eviction, action should always be delayed until such time as the police
believe that it is safe to continue.


The issue of what is ‘reasonable force’ is a question of fact to be decided in all
the circumstances of each individual case. If there is any doubt – do not attempt
to use force.

If an occupier refuses to leave when told to do so by a Bailiff with a possession
warrant then that occupier is disobeying a court order and may be committing a
criminal offence. This will depend on the circumstances. If an occupant refuses to
leave, you may use the minimum force necessary to remove them. If you have to use
force, have a witness present and do all you can to avoid an allegation of assault. If
possible, withdraw and call the police who will stand by to prevent a breach of the
peace.

Do not use or threaten force unless in your judgement you need to do so. Force
is only needed in a minority of evictions. Always encourage the occupier to leave
voluntarily. But if in your judgement, you need to warn an occupier that they can be
physically removed (with the help of the police if necessary) then you are entitled to
give that warning.

If an occupier uses or threatens violence against you, withdraw immediately
and get help from the police even if that means that an eviction has to be
postponed. If there is a known risk of violence or obstruction by an occupier then the
claimants should have warned the Delivery Manager or Bailiff Manager, or you may
have found out during a preliminary visit. In that case, the police should have been
asked to attend. The police are better equipped than Bailiffs to deal with the
disturbances. They have a legal duty to prevent breaches of the peace. They have
the legal power to arrest for criminal offences (such as assault or criminal damage).
Like you, they are legally entitled to help the landlord use reasonable force to remove
an occupier, at the claimant / claimant’s agent’s request – even if there is no breach
of the peace and no criminal offence. But remember that you have no right to tell the
police what to do or how they should do it (and nor has the claimant).

It is important that good liaison between Bailiffs, the police, the landlords and local
authorities is encouraged and improved to help ensure that evictions are carried out
effectively and safely.

Attendance by the claimant


The confirmation slip that the claimants return to the court includes this paragraph:


‘I confirm that, I or my agent will attend the appointment(s) on the date shown. Any
agent attending on my behalf will have my authority to authorise you (and the police,
if necessary) to use reasonable force to carry out the eviction’


Bailiff Manual


The claimant or their representative must sign the warrant to acknowledge receipt of
the premises. If they refuse, note the reason on the warrant and refer it to your Bailiff
Manager when you return to the office.

Refusal to leave

If an occupier refuses to leave when told to do so by a Bailiff with a possession
warrant, then that occupier is disobeying a court order and may be committing a
criminal offence. This will depend on the circumstances.

If there is aggressive resistance then withdraw and liaise with the police.


If there is passive resistance, the Bailiff may use reasonable force when requested
by the Claimant, to evict the defendant if the warrant is in form N49.

If the warrant is issued under Order 24 procedure, form N52 or N51 if the defendant
resists or obstructs the Bailiff, the Bailiff can arrest the squatter under Section 10 of
the Criminal Law Act. A further option for the Claimant is to apply for a committal
order.

Caution – Have assistance where possible (other Bailiffs or police to prevent breach
of the peace only) to avoid allegation of assault.

Belongings

The defendant may be allowed a short time to remove valuables, belongings etc.
After that, it will be the claimant’s responsibility.

Securing the premises

The locksmith should secure the premises. The possession will be carried out when
all persons have been evicted.

Proceed to get the warrant signed by the claimant / agent.


The eviction is completed if the persons are ejected. Make a note on the warrant if
the claimant refuses to sign.

The Bailiff is the person who executes the warrant. If you are unhappy about a
situation at an eviction, you have the discretion to withdraw to seek guidance
immediately from your Bailiff Manager in the first instance, then the judge. However,
it is vital that you inform the claimant of the circumstances. The language you use is
essential. You would be deferring / postponing the eviction, NOT suspending it. You
have no power to suspend eviction for the claimant – this must be by order of the
court.

[noblepa]

I'm still putting my money on the last trial going down the toilet because the judge ruled he wasn't competent to conduct his own defence.

If some of the crap he posts reflects his "understanding" of the law then he's clearly too delusional to understand a criminal trial.

He's been given a certified copy of a N49 and he's making an appointment to see the certified copy with his own eyes? Seriously? What the actual fish-fork does he think a certified copy is?

I'm sure that he believes that the copy he was given is a fraudulent forgery and that the real copy will reveal something entirely different.

If the original document matches his copy, that will (to him) prove that BOTH are fraudulent.

[Arthur Rubin]

Someone else think's he is real property.

[mufc1959]

However, this is the detail I got from the court so it is qualified privilege in reporting of fact. The trial was halted pending a document. I think we now know what that document was.

Given this, I suspect the purported defence is one of justification, based on the (completely erroneous) argument that the Warrant of Possession was fraudulent/invalid. So Crabbie considered the level of force he used to fight off the bailiffs and the police was justified as they were carrying out what he considered to be an illegal act.

That's my guess, anyway.

[noblepa]

However, this is the detail I got from the court so it is qualified privilege in reporting of fact. The trial was halted pending a document. I think we now know what that document was.

Given this, I suspect the purported defence is one of justification, based on the (completely erroneous) argument that the Warrant of Possession was fraudulent/invalid. So Crabbie considered the level of force he used to fight off the bailiffs and the police was justified as they were carrying out what he considered to be an illegal act.

That's my guess, anyway.

IIRC, this charge (affray) is the result of Crabby forcibly resisting the police and/or bailiffs in the execution of the warrant of possession.

He may well be claiming that the warrant was, for some reason, invalid. Would that absolve him of the crime of using force against an officer?

IANAL, but I've always believed that, even if you are convinced that an officer is completely wrong to arrest or cite you, you do not have the right to forcibly resist arrest. You go along peacefully and sort it out with the judge. If the court agrees with you and finds that the officer acted wrongly, especially if he/she was egregiously wrong, you may have a valid claim for false arrest.

The court might find that you were wrongly arrested but still allow the charge of resisting arrest to stand, especially if you harmed the officer.

I can understand that, in the real world of overworked courts and prosecutors, the choice might be made not to prosecute in such a relatively minor case, but it doesn't mean you were right in your actions. However, it appears that the Crown Prosecuting Service has already made the choice to prosecute him.

[Burnaby49]

longdog wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:09 am
If they have deeply entrenched beliefs that the law and the legal system is other than what it is in the real world that would count as not competent.

That's certainly not true in Canada. That would let all of the sovereign criminals I've followed off the hook. Michael Millar, a Poriskyite tax evader, is a firm a believer in a bizarre alternate reality that makes no sense to anyone but himself. He was "deeply entrenched" to the point of an overwhelming obsessive certainty that the court he was being tried in did not actually exist and that Canada, the country prosecuting him, did not exist either. I have no doubt that he completely believes everything he's argued in court no matter how demented. Yet he was found guilty of all charges. It's settled law in Canada that a lack of understanding of the law or an erroneous interpretation of the law is not a defense. Check this thread where I explain it (as I have a half dozen times in other threads, the argument comes up a lot in sovereign cases);

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 76#p152837

Klundert has been cited by the Crown in virtually all of the Poriskyite trials I've followed.

The right to defend yourself at trial is firmly established in Canada. Competence is an issue but only in respect to whether the defendant is mentally competent. This is the ability to understand and participate in court proceedings. Having, or not having, any legal understanding is irrelevant. Both Michael Millar and Keith Lawson defended themselves with totally doomed pseudo-legal positions that, as the Crown stated were "unknown in law". Yet they were allowed to argue them because there was no question (at least to the court) that they were mentally competent. Being in the thrall of an overwhelming obsession or living in an alternate legal universe doesn't factor into a mental competence evaluation.