This is a case of criminal trespass, of a boundary dispute and of original title map deeds versus UK Land Registry General Boundaries. It is also of false claims, potential false address and the rich Claimant’s abuse of legal system.
Place of Crime – Kings Lynn, W. Norfolk England. Victim – 82 year old Lady and her Son, who has a spinal injury.
April 1 2009 – Claimants destroy old boundary fence, over 50m and plough 200sqm of Defendant’s Land. Replace fence with stronger poles and upright the pushed over straining post. Three times on 3 April, May and June, fence is broken, cut and finally ‘shredded’ as barbed wire replacement is cut into a 100 pieces of dangerous loops left on the garden. Pets & wildlife at risk.
Tractor driver says – ‘you are not using it, so we will’. Works for agent Velcourt on behalf of Eaubrink Farm GmbH. Show Victims deed map ownership to workers, Farm Manager and Director.
No letters or phone calls returned from Velcourt or local farm. Police called but they say – boundary dispute, it’s civil.
Lawyers from Velcourt, representing all Velcourt and Eaubrink GmbH accuse a 82 year old of trespass and building a fence on their land. Issue claim from Christian-F-Hansen Strasse 19 address in Hamburg. Mother and Son sued. He has heart attack on eve of hearing, so in hospital for Hearing. Mother informs Court reception on way to hospital. In absence, Claimant insists carry on and transfer case to Norwich 160km across County round trip. Case awarded to a Claimant who also demands a penal notice and injunction if walk on or put up owner’s fence again. Prison for 82yr old who has never touched the fence.
Case in joint names and jointly and severally liable. However, charge is in name of Herr Bernard Reemtsma, with a Hamburg Address. Must contact him for his permission, if want to raise any money from property – to fight, or pay off the alleged ‘debt’. Claim is for crop and for removal of fence. Approx £360 with a handful of sugar beet planted in rough soil in April 2009, which failed.
Cost of Injunction, Lawyer, Barristers is now £9,000. Case appealed to London but no oral hearing granted and Court delay provision of transcript to victims.
Path blocked to any higher appeal Court, with no oral hearing allowed to speak.
Charging order now put in sole name of Mother and Son refused entry into Court, despite being witness to fact, a party to debt and litigant friend. Court refuses any entry and as Mother unable to attend Court for Health reasons, she has GP and MP letters to support, they award Order of Sale on 30th July 2012.
Application for retrial and an Appeal is blocked, until Circuit Judge who made original decision rules no retrial and no Appeal, with sale to commence 23rd September 2012 for forced sale price around half its market value, by Valuer employed by Claimant, Seller of all surrounding land to Herr Reemtsma for six million pounds and Lawyers of Reemtsma and Velcourt, Shawcross of Herefordshire, whose Senior Partner is a founding Director of Velcourt and is a conflict of Interest lawyer of Reemtsma.
Submissions of Fact
1) B.Reemstma/ Eaubrink Farm GmbH was not the owner of the adjacent land in April 2009, when his agent removed the boundary fence. A boundary track was also removed, as aerial shot shows.
2) Claimant and Court relied on plans of General Boundaries not Root of Title Conveyancing maps, as per House of Lords case law (1999)and in precedent cases of Steward v Gallop & an (2010)
3) Claimant used a forged LR map with an exaggerated extension into field by hand drawn means, claiming to be of Land Registry.
4) Claimant withheld root of title deeds showing our ownership. A Court fraud.
5) No attendance, either by a medical absence, supported by medical report or GP letter, or barred from Court entry – Infringes rights to present a defence.
6) Initial request to transfer to a local Court and another jurisdiction ignored.
7) Claim form address is neither place of residence of place this business is in fact carried out. This makes claim void so an appeal challenge made to Order for Sale on Thursday 20th September to RCJ. A more local appeal to vary the order also made as second position to allow a means back into Court and for a challenge on valuation, timing and a means to raise funds, when Reemtsma is contactable, at a working address?
8) Crop damage claimed is for a weak crop planted into unused soil of 40yrs, in April 2009, when Claimant did not own the land. This is a fraudulent claim.
Our contacts: 07919 497 144 and this email, which you may forward to any German Journalist who is interested in this case. Please do circulate to ‘help’.
Bernard Reemtsma is claiming he works from Christian F Hansen Strasse with the Eaubrink Farm GmbH, but the telephone numbers given at Firm 25 and Unternehmensregister are those of World Imperial Tobacco and they say he has not worked there for 12 years. Bernhard has caused tremendous grief and stress to an 82 year old Lady with a history – Father took surrender of 1st World War German Fleet at Scapa Flow & personally saved drowning German Sailors – he used to say “they are all some Mother’s Sons”. Mother lost twin brothers in her sight during the Blitz.
We have German friends now and had met many extremely honourable and pleasant Germans, until this Bernhard Reemtsma, who is causing extremely draconian pressure and measures for a few metres of land that are on all old deeds & we had owned it for 12 years previous to his coming. The land is on deeds going back until 1970 for here, so this aggressive theft is horrendous. Throwing Barristers, Penal Notices and not once speaking, or writing first, was a very un-neighbourly act.
Reemtsma Family is trying to do some good, with their charity in Hamburg – elderly, sick and disabled catered for, then you see a very different side – elderly victim 82 and disabled Son, aggression and this Charity Address in Hamburg runs this International Company and a few more with Swiss foundation and telephones go through to a Tobacco Company that sell 90 billion cigarettes to Ukraine (so that is bad for the ‘youth’ of Ukraine), and apparently sell individual ciggies to African Children aged as young as 8 to get them all addicted young, when they cannot afford a packet. A duality of minds and profiteering that harks to a much darker time.
Does Reemtsma need 200sqm of our land when he has 1800 hectares? Does he need to sell our house, or buy it so cheap?
Since then, Herr Reemtsma found some nasty henchmen who were physically violent to the home owners. DISGUSTING when brute force rules and when ‘the law’ has become ‘the criminals’!…