UK - Neelu Berry opens my eyes

[exiledscouser]

The rules for mortgages where the borrower dies are settled; if you die the debt is not extinguished and it has to be paid. Usually the borrower will have a life insurance policy in place designed to repay the balance. Some lenders actively insist they do and that it’s tied to the mortgage but sadly most do not.

A sufficient period of time has now passed since the sister’s death for the lender to want the debt settled. Neelu or someone else could take out a new mortgage (you can’t simply take over the existing one) but as Owl says, Nelly has well and truly burned her bridges with mortgage providers.

So, the fact that things have now moved towards repossession tells me that no repayment provisions were in place when the sister died, no meaningful engagement has been made with the lender, possibly the lunatic himself was entrusted as executor. The princess appears to be living at this property as we see lots of videos showing the usual Nelly-related goings on; plod at the address, debt collectors and health professionals calling by and a car being towed away for unpaid fines.

Another perfect storm is on the horizon, a rinse and repeat of the earlier repossession. On the one hand it is sad that the consequences of mental illness (hers and Eddie’s) is going to play out this way but, on balance sod it - I’m buying shares in popcorn manufacturers and look forward to the entertainment.

[longdog]

To my reading it's fairly clear that the Ellis character regards himself as Executor. Who made that appointment we can only guess.

Yeah. I was assuming that was bullshit and he had been appointed by Neelu after her sister's death but I'd forgotten that the sister had bought into the crazy so maybe not. A will drawn up by EWE would be a sight to behold I'm sure

Do we know who, if anybody, drew up the paperwork for the 'family trust'? This might have already been covered but my brain has trouble holding onto any "facts" from this lot.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Do we know who, if anybody, drew up the paperwork for the 'family trust'? This might have already been covered but my brain has trouble holding onto any "facts" from this lot.

I think we can guess EWE drew up something. This is quite a good read.

https://equitygovernance.uk/royal-commi ... ft-orders/

Note: when reading it, the references to "The Mother" means Neelu's sister.

It seems that not all the Chaudharis are nut cases as the oldest and youngest siblings appear to have prevailed in probate (of course, this became a Family Probate Estate Management Fraud) and handling the funeral arrangements, but it also looks like they and the baby's father may have prevailed in finally having the niece laid to rest from storage in the Indian morgue:

Body Destruction Proposals by the Baby’s Father got Destruction Consent Refusals by the Equity Lawyer and [Neelu].

I must have been distracted that week when he posted it.

[longdog]

Interesting gibberish there from EWE. From that I deduce that there was a valid will and at least one invalid will drawn up by the equity lawyer. But I could be wrong of course.

I'll try reading it again tonight with a big cigarette and see if it makes any more sense.

[Albert Haddock]

A will drawn up by EWE would be a sight to behold I'm sure

“Once a grant of probate has been issued, a will becomes a public document and anyone can apply to have a copy.”

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... s/sn03194/

[AnOwlCalledSage]

“Once a grant of probate has been issued, a will becomes a public document and anyone can apply to have a copy.”

I did a search a couple of weeks ago and nothing came up for "Chaudhari" (her sister's name) and I don't know what her husband's surname was if she was using that. May have a further dig through my old records, as it is probably in the 2004 contempt hearing.

Just checked. Nope. It was just against her and Neelu. Husband is not mentioned. Unfortunately I've lost the link to their HMO judgement which would probably have had it as it was against both husband and wife.

[aesmith]

I did a search a couple of weeks ago and nothing came up for "Chaudhari" (her sister's name) and I don't know what her husband's surname was if she was using that.

Given as Kumar at various times, for example ..

2h)On 23 October 2000, Sadhana Chaudhari & Rajesh Kumar, parents of baby Sunaina, reported to London Borough of Redbridge officers that doctors had deprived the baby oxygen and intended to kill the baby.

https://icj2.webs.com/notarised

And something I quoted earlier but didn't cite the source (sorry) ..

MISS BERRY: I have already sent documents to this firm of solicitors which they're denying. They're committing fraud. Mr Kumar is actually not Mr Kumar, he has another name and he also is an Indian citizen. He also has properties in India. He has – he’s a multimillionaire in India. This is called foreign shopping where men come to this country to, to marry women in this country—
...
MISS BERRY: And he’s been able to afford very many other fancy ladies on the side, been living off my sister who’s severely disabled, that’s why she can't attend today.

https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewto ... 30#p290330

[aesmith]

Found part of the HMO case. It's Kumar there as well.
https://icj13.webs.com/evidence

[John Uskglass]

Judge David Charles Mitchell committed Treason on a routine basis since 2008 ongoing to date, in the Central London County Court in robbing the Chaudhari Clan and many other victims of their homes, property and damages in their claims against insurance companies in road traffic accidents in the sum of over £20,000,000 (twently million pounds).

Hmm. Failed 'Crash for Cash'?

On 'What do They Know' there's long chain of FOI correspondence between Neelu and the authorities regarding Judge Mitchell.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... _against_h

Neelu cites the fourth annual report of HHJ David Charles Mitchell, which states inter alia:

10. Sadly there is another type of litigant in person who becomes totally preoccupied with the court processes and takes up a disproportionate amount of time of the judiciary and staff. The type of litigant of which I speak is often the claimant but almost invariably makes numerous applications in the case – often giving rise to a great deal of increased cost to the party on the other side who whilst represented may not be particularly well-off. There are a number of orders which can be made to restrain excesses but an Extended or General Civil restraint Order is perhaps the most effective. An ECRO is appropriate where the litigant keeps issuing proceedings against the same person or entity and a GCRO where numerous different persons or bodies are sued. No judge wishes to bar litigants from the court but with a very small minority it becomes necessary.

11. As a result during the current year I had made 5 extended civil restraint orders and 18 general civil restraint orders. I doubt if members of the public and more particularly the vast majority of court users, have any idea just how much of our valuable resources are devoured by the litigants who simply refuse to accept any order which the court makes with which they do not agree. They make applications to set aside or applications for permission to appeal. Invariably, but not always, they are fees exempt and so there is no disincentive. They often file volumes of totally irrelevant material on many different occasions, which has to be dealt with by staff, and again taking up valuable time. When a judge refuses an application they spend hours of court staff time complaining either at the counter or on the telephone or by way of lengthy correspondence. The knock-on effect is that staff time is taken up when it would be more reasonably used attending to the cases of those who use the court in the way in which it is intended.

12. Last year I drew attention to the overwhelming number of fraudulent insurance claims which we get at all the courts. Because of the nature of the cases we deal with at Central London we probably get the most, certainly on the multi track but they are also on the fast track and the small claims track. They have received a lot of publicity recently and legislation is currently before Parliament trying to outlaw the practice of claims companies passing on the details of persons involved in accidents for money. This will not stop this industry but it will help. I am afraid experience in all courts indicates this type of fraud is even more endemic than even the press is aware. This not only puts up insurance premiums but any innocent member of the public could be accused of causing an accident when they had done no such thing. What is equally insidious is that when an innocent member of the public makes a claim on his or her insurance the insurance company may suspect fraud simply because of experience of this type of claim. The ingenuity of these claims seems boundless but we have developed systems to try to discourage them. Needless to say we are not always successful. This issue is always high on the agenda when I meet with the London Association of District Judges at their bi-annual meetings. I hope it will not be too long before there is enough evidence of dishonesty – because that is what it is – to enable us to refer a case or cases to the Crown Prosecution Service with a view to bringing criminal proceedings.

[Albert Haddock]

Found part of the HMO case. It's Kumar there as well.
https://icj13.webs.com/evidence

MRS BERRY: I am arresting you now for—
[Court adjourns]

[longdog]

MRS BERRY: I am arresting you now for—
[Court adjourns]

See also; "I am removing you from office for failing to uphold your oath to god to..." <click>

[John Uskglass]

Failed 'Crash for Cash'?

Ah, from the final transcript in the link given by Albert Haddock it seems that there was a question over the extent of the injuries suffered by Neelu's sister in an accident, and thus the level of compensation. The hearing appears to have concerned a related dispute about the fees due to her lawyers.

That evidence had been obtained in that intervening year, or thereabouts. The evidence of all the other experts confirmed, in essence, that Miss Chaudhari’s injury was a six month lasting whiplash type injury and nothing significantly more than that. Miss Chaudhari at that point (and this is what I had anticipated at the start might be the case) then became wholly reliant on the psychiatric evidence to hold together the claim that she wanted to make and wanted to win.

For example, Sadhana claims she has a spinal cord injury, the MRI scans seem to show that she doesn’t

It looks as if the costs of bringing the action ended up as more than the settlement, but this is unclear.

In any event, the result of Neelu's intervention on this point?

HHJ May then proceeds to award over £4,000 costs to the Claimant solicitors' firm and their barrister Miss Camilla Ter-Haar against the seriously injured Miss Sadhana Chaudhari

One wonders if, in addition to the mortgage, there were legal bills due from the estate.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

One wonders if, in addition to the mortgage, there were legal bills due from the estate.

Not beyond possibility but last time I downloaded the XXX New Road land registry entry (yeah, we all know she and EWE keep publishing the address but we have some standards here!), it wasn't against the property.

[longdog]

It seems that not only was she trying to milk a stiff neck for £35,000 she was also trying to milk it for psychological carnage taking the total bill to over £100,000.

Now I'm not one to mock the afflicted (unless I find it funny) but she had a car crash... Big deal... Whatever happened to the concept of a stiff upper lip? Or a stiff upper neck at least. How the hell can whiplash injuries last for six months and not show up on the MRI? My neck has all the resilience of a protestant's knee-caps at an IRA convention and even my most idiotic attempts to injure it more take no more than a couple of months to heal.

[aesmith]

As far as I can make out, regarding the accident claim it seems to have gone as follows ..
1. Sister has accident, at some point she's offered £35K compensation, but on Neelu's advice she was chasing a higher figure, using at least three sets of solicitors
2. First solicitors on no-win no-fee basis with insurance to cover any liability for the other party's costs
3. Second solicitors also on no-win no-fee, but no insurance
4. Third solicitors on what they call a "private fee", ie not a no-win no-fee arrangement

We don't see any of the actions by any of these solicitors regarding the actual case, but what we see in the last transcript is solicitor (3) going after her for their fees of £54K. And then being awarded another £4K for their costs of this action.

It's not clear what happened regarding the actual claim, but since that web page starts off with Sister and Neelu trying unsuccessfully to appeal against a County Court judgement it seems they didn't get what they were looking for.

Not clear what a happened regarding the other party's costs, the defendant in Sister/Neelu's claim, I presume they would be liable for at least some these but no figure appears anywhere. Or what happened with solicitors (1) and (2) - if they took the on a case on a CFA and the client then switches solicitors would they not be entitled to something?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Or what happened with solicitors (1) and (2) - if they took the on a case on a CFA and the client then switches solicitors would they not be entitled to something?

Might depend on their contract. I saw one years back which had a "if we get this started and you change your mind/go to someone else/dick about then you owe us £1200" clause in it. Equally if the payout was 35k and there's 58k of fees to pay, they know they are wasting their time trying to get some money out of the client.

[exiledscouser]

At some point I suspect that the other side in the sister’s action made a Part 36 offer. This can be done to save costs & a day in court and you don’t have to accept it but if the judge hears and then settles the case at an amount lower you may fall liable for parts of your own and the other side’s costs.

Of course no party has to accept a Part 36 offer but there are always litigation risks, the ultimate outcome might not necessarily go your way. I suspect that a trillion dollar US-style settlement was not achieved by the sister in her case.

[longdog]

Getting back to the Matrix Freedom scam I found this via an email to one of my imaginary friends...

https://www.sovereignreserve.info/our-story

It's basically the "birth bond" nonsense but in my view it's crossed well over the line into outright criminal fraud.

What makes Sovereign Reserve special?

We act for you which makes the process very simple.

Pay our fee via a credit card and we will include the credit card liability in the payment process, which means that ultimately our services are free.

I think a report to the powers that be is in order... For all the good it will do.

[John Uskglass]

I think a report to the powers that be is in order... For all the good it will do.

Looks like someone got there before you.

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/warnings/se ... ix-freedom

SENJ Limited (Seychelles) / Mortgagefree / Natural Justice / Sovereign Reserve / Matrix Freedom
Warnings First published: 08/03/2021 Last updated: 05/08/2021

We believe this firm may be providing financial services or products in the UK without our authorisation. Find out why you should be wary of dealing with this unauthorised firm and how to protect yourself.

[CrankyBoomer]

Does the princess have any YT channels aside from the Neelu Chaudhari Lou Lotus one? I'd read something online that there was a possibility S McNeill's early release might be postponed because she (SB) was possibly going to be charged with something relating to an old website. This news item was supposed to have come from the princess but I can't find anything verifying it.