Rekha Patel loses her house

[SteveUK]

The whole bunch seem to be a thackstone short of a full roof.

[Gregg]

The whole bunch seem to be a thackstone short of a full roof.

You win Quatloos today.

[AndyPandy]

Please tell me that she hasn't told her parents about this until this weekend. Did they think she was in the basement because she was just visiting?

I read it that she hadn’t told them that she could be imprisoned, suspect it’s a bit difficult to hide that you’ve lost the house they’d paid for....... but then again this is Wreka, so I guess anything is possible!!

[exiledscouser]

Sadly i fear this will gnaw away at Rekha for the rest of her life. I read from the FB extract someone who remains as obsessed with this as ever, convinced by the fools surrounding her that she’s the victim here, not through her own questionable decisions in doubling down time and again through successive doomed litigation but some conspiracy engineered entirely by the police.

The new owner seems to have dodged the trial having achieved his objective in buying, renovating and possibly spinning on or letting out the property in question. RP, in describing his actions as “amazing” fails entirely to see the irony given the actual outcome of this saga, all reported in the preceding pages above.

The DJ at the trial felt Rekha was sufficiently not guilty to impose a restraining order preventing her from going back to her former home for the next five years.

A sure sign of complete success 11!!11!

Interesting that she appeared to have an actual real solicitor instructed this time to whom she probably owes her acquittal. The other legal geniuses, those behind the “sell your house for a tenner to a trust” gambit, the Tunkashila crew appear to have melted away. I wonder what the actual cost to Patel was arising from their involvement.

So, what next? She reminds me of old Tom C, always just about to unleash a genius legal attack to reverse the clock, restore ownership and send all enemies off to prison. The cunning plan is always big on theatre, short on actual detail and either is never implemented or shown to be the hopeless musings of the truly obsessive.

How sad all this is.

[TheHallouminati]

The new owner was at the trial according to the Daily Heil

Mr Turner confirmed that he was content parties to remain there. I don't know if Miss Patel was already in there at that time.

The paper described him as an 'estate agent' but he is actually the owner and resident of her ex cottage

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I read back through our posts from last year and as a hive mind we seemed to predict the outcome pretty damn accurately, as in predicting acquittal (it was always a stretch once she'd got real solicitors in).

But let's map out this win. She was arrested and spent 22 hours in a police station. Was ordered to stay away from the property whilst awaiting her court date. Has been further ordered to stay away from the property. No longer has her house. !!!success 1!!

[ArthurWankspittle]

Amusing side line: Given the following statement

Mr Turner confirmed that he was content parties to remain there. I don't know if Miss Patel was already in there at that time.

The end of the prosecution evidence is then the correct time to ask "No case to answer?"

[longdog]

now the opportunity is there as a ruling in March from he Supreme Court has ruled there is no statute of limitation on FRAUD so watch this space my friends

Which bit of "You lost" does she have a problem understanding?

[aesmith]

In reality she did win the criminal case. The recurring Freeman fallacy is the belief that being found not guilty of a criminal offence means any prior civil proceedings must be overturned. I expect we'll hear the same fallacy from Mr Bait if he's found NG next month.

[TheNewSaint]

The whole bunch seem to be a thackstone short of a full roof.

You win Quatloos today.

Yes, that's Post of the Year material. Very funny.

[Wakeman52]

now the opportunity is there as a ruling in March from [t]he Supreme Court has ruled there is no statute of limitation on FRAUD so watch this space my friends

She presumably is referring to this case:

https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/201 ... d-victims/

IANAL. But. It's difficult to see how that applies as the 'fraud' is all in her and her few remaining adherents' minds. IIRC, she has lost all the civil cases brought both by and against her. There's also the problem of funding representation. Part (most?) of the large sum she ended up owing was down to legal costs accumulated on the back of repeatedly losing. She has also lost her main asset.

Who's going to take someone with her history on?

[Gregg]

(dramatic musical flourish)

Edward Ellis

(do the flourish thingy again)

Private Equity Lawyer!

(big finish flourish)

[TheNewSaint]

Fraud?

Ignoring the complete lack of merit to Rekha's case for the moment, if she wanted to reclaim ownership of the house, wouldn't that be a civil lawsuit? Or perhaps an appeal of the ruling that took ownership away from her?

Is she really going to file fraud charges against... well, probably the wrong people anyway?

[AndyPandy]

There's also the problem of funding representation. Part (most?) of the large sum she ended up owing was down to legal costs accumulated on the back of repeatedly losing. She has also lost her main asset.

Who's going to take someone with her history on?

There's also the problem of her Extended Civil Restraint Order, expires November 2019, if she starts up again they'll simply slap another Order on her

[ArthurWankspittle]

IANAL. But. It's difficult to see how that applies as the 'fraud' is all in her and her few remaining adherents' minds.

Exactly. What actually was the fraud? Someone won a court case against her? How do you actually prove that a court case you lost was fraud, given that presumably you took part, were represented or made the decision not to attend. Unless you have discovered some massive organised conspiracy which you were not previously aware of (which is unlikely since people have been claiming fraud for years) I can not see how this could go anywhere. Plus, as has been said, you will need lots of money for presenting the case.

[Comrade Sharik]

IANAL, but my reading of the case summary is that it refers to a situation where fraud is discovered after proceedings have concluded.

if the fraud was raised in the earlier proceedings, any application to set aside the judgment may not be entertained.

As I understand it, Patel has been claiming fraud throughout this saga, so the case cited would not apply to her.

[aesmith]

I think for the FMOTL types the word "fraud" is considered some sort of magic bullet that can reverse any decision or be used to dispute any sort of liability. There'll be a technical term for her specific case, similar to Woman Neelu's example of the "wrong size numberplate fraud" suffered by her son.

[noblepa]

I think for the FMOTL types the word "fraud" is considered some sort of magic bullet that can reverse any decision or be used to dispute any sort of liability. There'll be a technical term for her specific case, similar to Woman Neelu's example of the "wrong size numberplate fraud" suffered by her son.

Fraud, like treason, is defined as anything they don't like, such as having to pay taxes or repay loans.

[NYGman]

Don't they have some sort of flowery legal maxim having to do with fraud as a foundation renders everything from it invalid?

I would look it up, but my all important required, Maxims of Law book, has gone missing from my law library.

[aesmith]

"Fraud unravels all". But of course that applies to actual fraud, not just mentioning the word.