Hercule Parrot wrote:
Her parents could buy it (again) if they have the means. The neighbour's insurer will just want this over and settled, so if Mr & Mrs Patel offered £225k I suspect they would happily sell.
I don't see that the parents would have to buy the property again. The law firm just want their bill paid so I would have thought that a genuine offer to pay the legal costs could result in the property being temporarily removed from the market and then if the money is actually paid the legal stuff could be sorted and Rekha would get her house back.
This is probably all academic as the more likely scenario is that Rekha refuses to accept that she owes the money. But it is possible that she has come to her senses.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
If I had done such a huge woopsie in my bed, I'd not be at all keen to jump back into it.
Neighbours can be a gamble at the best of times. Who wants to live next door to someone who has good reason to do whatever comes along to cause you grief? And the rest of the village can't be all that keen either.
NYGman wrote:Perhaps she will try to pay with an Letter of Credit, a form 1099OID, a Promissory note, Giro, a or use her Birth Bond. The possibilities of her craziness are endless.
I just can't imagine the neighbor wanting her back, she sounds like an absolute nightmare.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
If she could afford it, that would certainly have been my solution. It certainly would be worth it to prevent a similar problem down the road.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
notorial dissent wrote:If she could afford it, that would certainly have been my solution. It certainly would be worth it to prevent a similar problem down the road.
Although, if the neighbor wanted it, she should have purchased for less, when Rekha did. I doubt neighbor wants it, and if she did, I am sure Rekha will think that was the plan all along, to get the house on the cheap, believing the neighbour gets the money, discounting the fact that it is for legal fees.
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.
I understand that the windows of Hanover Cottage have now been completely boarded up. This may indicate that an auction is pending.
Our future is like that of the passengers on a small pleasure boat sailing quietly above the Niagara Falls, not knowing that the engines are about to fail. James Lovelock.
Wakeman52 wrote:I understand that the windows of Hanover Cottage have now been completely boarded up. This may indicate that an auction is pending.
Could also indicate that hope of an early sale is receding, and they're securing the building for longer delay (rather than paying for 2 security guards on-site 24/7). Maybe waiting for Wrecka's court appearance for example, so that they can request an injunction against interference. It's all just speculation, until something official is announced.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
Hercule Parrot wrote:Could also indicate that hope of an early sale is receding, and they're securing the building for longer delay (rather than paying for 2 security guards on-site 24/7).
Solid reasoning. I can't see them boarding the place up if a sale were imminent.
Rekha Patel and her fellow arrestee, Cheryl Leezack are both at Stockport Magistrates Court on 14th August, 9.30am according to the listings. Anyone around that day?
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
He Who Knows wrote:Rekha Patel and her fellow arrestee, Cheryl Leezack are both at Stockport Magistrates Court on 14th August, 9.30am according to the listings. Anyone around that day?
If this is the first hearing and the offence(s) can be heard in Crown Court won't they opt for a jury trial?If so this will just be a procedural hearing to move the case. What exactly are they charged with?
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
It's very similar to the hearing Rekha's mate Chrisy Morris had last May at Manchester and Salford Magistrates court for obstructing a High Court Enforcement Officer. http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/My-Loca ... ndley.aspx
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
ArthurWankspittle wrote:My reading so far is making me think it is a Summary offence so Magistrates Court only.
No doubt, she'll try to escalate this into a Crown Court appearance so she can 'PROVE' the house is hers (fraudulent warrant) / isn't hers ( sold to company) and therefore, couldn't possibly have obstructed anyone.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
AndyPandy wrote:No doubt, she'll try to escalate this into a Crown Court appearance so she can 'PROVE' the house is hers (fraudulent warrant) / isn't hers ( sold to company) and therefore, couldn't possibly have obstructed anyone.
AndyPandy wrote:No doubt, she'll try to escalate this into a Crown Court appearance so she can 'PROVE' the house is hers (fraudulent warrant) / isn't hers ( sold to company) and therefore, couldn't possibly have obstructed anyone.
And racism. Don't forget racism.
oh yes, I'd forgotten the playing of the race card against the Insurance Company
Is it OK to dislike people of whatever race if they are simply nasty people? Is this a safe thing to do now? I'm not that keen on religious people and people with piercings. Are they protected yet?
I have yet to witness an occasion where someone responded to an accustation of racism with the response "I don;t dislike you because you are Slurvian, I dislike you because you are nasty".
