Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:53 am

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by longdog »

JimUk1 wrote:https://m.facebook.com/ChapmansFitness/ ... 4431639004

Anyone come across this Guru in the making?

It's Facebook, but it's an open post.
From that...
In 1297 Parliament passed the Parliament Act which in-short, was an edited version of the 1215 Magna Carta. Article 61 and anything that related to lawful rebellion was removed and establishment propagandists have since attempted to make it function as a replacement for the Magna Carta. However, according to UK contract law, when new acts or charters conflict with existing ones and their existing articles, these new acts and charters then become unlawful.

To summarise; if an agreement, contract or charter states that clauses and articles can only be repealed or modified with the mutual consent of all parties, then according to UK law, no additional separate agreements, contracts or charters can replace the original agreement. Laws, acts and charters do not become obsolete without repeal and as none of the articles within the 1215 Magna Carta have ever been modified or repealed by any of the involved parties, the Parliament Act of 1297 becomes unlawful.
Two paragraphs lifted more or less at random from the usual TL;DR and, as usual, completely and utterly wrong wrong in every particular.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
JimUk1
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1260
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by JimUk1 »

You did exceptionally well to read all that longdog.

Th second I became aware of the "British government funds terrorising the Middle East via council tax"

I switched off....


Because there is clearly evidence that local finance pays for the funding of ordnance,

And not VAT, fuel duty, income tax and indeed all the taxes.

Morons!
longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:53 am

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by longdog »

JimUk1 wrote:You did exceptionally well to read all that longdog.
I didn't :mrgreen:
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 11:12 am
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by Bones »

How long until one of the freetards gets arrested for assualt ?

https://www.facebook.com/globalfaction/ ... 3534686523

Image
TheCoz
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by TheCoz »

I can almost guarantee this ended with her paying. I really doubt they would press charges as it takes far toI much time and effort.

The amount of misinformation she is spouting is typical of someone who is constantly pursued by bailiffs and visits the anti bailiff groups. Always looking for a loophole or a way out instead of paying their debts.

Uploading a video of yourself proudly assaulting someone is never a good Idea. The circlejerk going on in the comments is worrying. Not a rational person among them
JimUk1
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1260
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by JimUk1 »

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Iz7LIHfXYU

It's all because Ceylon bailed I tell ya!

Not because the arguements were likely misconceived, and just maybe because you tried to avoid paying!
longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:53 am

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by longdog »

JimUk1 wrote:http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Iz7LIHfXYU

It's all because Ceylon bailed I tell ya!

Not because the arguements were likely misconceived, and just maybe because you tried to avoid paying!

I love the logic in that thread...
EVEN THOUGH THE COPY OF MY CREDIT AGREEMENT WAS ON A MICRO FISCHE AND WAS ILLEGIBLE, THEIR SOLICITOR ENLARGED IT ON HER IPAD IN COURT, THE JUDGE WAS THEN SATISFIED HE COULD READ IT.
And then...
still feel that I had the case won, but during the recess their solicitor was allowed to introduce new evidence via the better copy of the credit card agreement which then enlarged via her i pad in court. I'm sure if i had a solicitor he or she would have objected, I did but fell on deaf ears!
They produced a credit agreement which wasn't legible which was unfair and then they made the credit agreement legible and that's unfair too. :mrgreen:
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
JimUk1
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1260
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by JimUk1 »

Yeah that's what I thought to.

I also liked the bit were he/she seems confused about probability.

I assume it's easy (to a degree) to prove you haven't had credit. But harder to simply dismiss it if you have had the benefit.
Chaos
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 993
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by Chaos »

seems the ploy was to intentionally make it illegible thinking that would be a 'win' since it is such an issue. didn't know magnification negated signed agreements. :lol:
bmxninja357
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1108
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:46 am

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by bmxninja357 »

still feel that I had the case won
that's all the believers see.

peace
ninj
whoever said laughter is the best medicine never had gonorrhea....
JimUk1
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1260
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by JimUk1 »

More bad advice for 'cozybear66' from Dec 2016 on GOODF-

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... I0fQ4HfXYU

And further proof internet debt forums run by morons should be closed.

Seems he/she was told the debt was unenforceable....

Beggars belief that you would believe it's that easy to get away with 5k!
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by notorial dissent »

I'm betting his argument that the debt agreement was illegible was because it was on fiche and he couldn't see it unaided, and then they went and got it magnified to show properly. I don't know why they didn't just do that and certify it to begin with. You don't go in to court with no hardcopy documentation.

Did you notice the part where the numbnutz pointed out that they had used his whinings on GOODF to further prove their case. Talk about hoist by your own petard.

And they still don't get it, didn't use the magic words right, so they failed.
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.
longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:53 am

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by longdog »

notorial dissent wrote:I'm betting his argument that the debt agreement was illegible was because it was on fiche and he couldn't see it unaided, and then they went and got it magnified to show properly. I don't know why they didn't just do that and certify it to begin with. You don't go in to court with no hardcopy documentation.
Modern microfilm reader / printers are usually digital, like the photocopiers on which they are almost always based, and will output either as a paper hard copy or a computer image file. If the lawyer enlarged it on their tablet it suggests they had a scanned image but bollocksed up when they printed out their evidence 'pack' for the hearing.

Why the defendant thought that was unfair is anybody's guess.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by notorial dissent »

longdog wrote:Why the defendant thought that was unfair is anybody's guess.
They had actual evidence of his debt, that was really unfair, to his fantasy, and I'm sure that was more than enough. As to the thought part, seriously????
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.
JimUk1
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1260
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by JimUk1 »

Oh dear- Cozybear66 has issued a warning on GOODF and one of the mods IS NOT HAPPY-

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... I4ShoHfXYU
Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2166
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 9:58 pm

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by Hercule Parrot »

JimUk1 wrote:Oh dear- Cozybear66 has issued a warning on GOODF and one of the mods IS NOT HAPPY-

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... I4ShoHfXYU
Yeah, the same mod who previously assured him that it was unenforceable.... :haha: :haha:
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by Gregg »

SteveUK wrote:Another homeless soul washes up on goodf's shore.

Although I suspect there's far more to this than the OP states


Image

Get some boxes and start looking for a bridge to live under?
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:53 am

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by longdog »

Gregg wrote:
SteveUK wrote:Another homeless soul washes up on goodf's shore.

Although I suspect there's far more to this than the OP states


Image

Get some boxes and start looking for a bridge to live under?
The rules are very clear for housing benefit and council tax benefit. If you have 'guests' staying for anything other than at most a fortnight you have to inform the council. The fact that your 'guests' don't pay anything is irrelevant. They will be treated as if they were and a proportionate deduction will be made from HB and CTB subject to a few exceptions.

If this idiot's guests genuinely weren't making a contribution it was still said idiot's responsibility to forward income details and if they didn't have any income... Which is highly unlikely... They should've made their own claims for their share.

Just another 'I fought ignored the law and the law won' moron.


ETA This from my local council website....
www.hullcc.gov.uk

In Person at any Hull City Council Customer Service Centre or Information Point.

Please telephone (01482) 300 303 for details of your nearest Customer Service Centre or Information Point.
Or you can write to us at

Freepost RLUA-YRHR-AKTS, Hull City Council Revenues and Benefits Service,
P.O. Box 128, Hull, HU1 2BR
M a k i n g B e n e f i t s
A c c e s s i b l e !

You need to report your change in circumstances straight away or you may lose money that you are entitled
to. If you have received too much Housing Benefit you may be asked to pay it back and your Council Tax
account will be adjusted where you have received too much Council Tax Reduction.
Do not rely on someone else to inform us of a change in your circumstances. It is your duty to tell us about any changes
that may affect your benefit.

We need as much detail as possible. If you need to continue on a separate sheet. Please quote your Name,
Address, National Insurance Number and Case Reference Number, if known. We may ask you for additional
details. If we do we will write to you.

Filling in this form

Use dark blue or black ink, do not use pencil. If you make a mistake, just cross it out and put the right
information next to it. Do not use correction fluid.
If you need help to fill in this form

If you need any help, contact the Council’s Benefits Service by ringing
(01482)
300 303, textphone 300349 or by going into any of our Customer Service Centres or Information Points.

Evidence
We may not be able to re-calculate your entitlement without supporting evidence of your changed
circumstances. If you are unable to supply evidence with this form it can be sent later.
Your payments of Housing Benefit may be stopped while we wait for your evidence. We will write to you
about this. If you fail to supply information we may end your award.
Acceptable evidences include:-
For proof of identity: a Birth Certificate, Marriage Certificate or Civil Partnership Certificate, Passport,
National Insurance Card, Driving Licence, UK Residence Permit, EEC Identity Card.
For proof of benefits, income, tax credits, earnings and or capital.
●Current benefit award notices or a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions confirming the amount.
●Pension slips from a former employer,
●For recent employment or change to earnings, the wage slips available and or a letter from the employer
detailing the expected future earnings,
●Consecutive wage slips; either five weekly or two monthly, or an Earnings Certificate.●
●For recent self-employment, a projection of expected earnings, or a summary of trading so far.
Self-employed accounts or a Self-employed Income and Expenditure Form which can be obtained by
telephoning (01482) 300 303. Textphone customers please use (01482) 300 349.
●Up to date Bank, Building Society or Post Office books, full bank statements of which we need evidence
for at least the last two consecutive months
Couldn't be clearer.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2137
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 7:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by SteveUK »

Goodfer idiot of the week Rjtuning has been dipping his toes in the old 'copyright the name' waters. Seems he didn't like it...
So I followed the instructions of posting the trademark declaration and I have been getting this one company contacting me by email and letter so I sent them a email containing the copyright declration we make in a public place and also a copy of the copyright notice and I recieved a reply asking - "am I suggesting my name is of copyright "! Am I to do more to this copyright name position to make it concrete or do I need to respond with a serious reply or even bill?

can someone please do me a reply that will wipe there smug attitude off

Thanks in advance
Why do I mention this? Well, we have a rather Curt admission in reply
Rjtuning1 wrote:
So curious why it's suggested to do it ?

Probably because the people who suggest it do not know what they are talking about and if you try to correct them you get banned.
You cannot copyright your name.
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????
littleFred
Stern Faced Schoolmaster of Serious Discussion
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:12 am
Location: England, UK

Re: Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

Post by littleFred »

Carey v HSBC ruled that to satisfy Consumer Credit Act 1974 s78 etc, creditors could reconstruct agreements. They didn't have to produce signed originals because the purpose of s78 was for information, not proof. A signed original might no longer exist, but the agreement would still stand.

Faljay and others have repeatedly asserted that Carey doesn't apply to pre-2007 agreements and that the original of those had to be produced. They never said why they thought this, and I always assumed it was a misreading of s127, or a total fabrication.

GOOFy "hypothesis" says:
hypothesis wrote:I have received a reply from the Solicitors and they don't believe that the Cary v HSBC only applies to post 2007 agreements and have asked for the legal authority on that.
Well, here's the chance for the legal beagle of GOOFyland to explain.
Tiggy wrote:Ask them for their legal authority that it does apply.
Tiggy, you are catching stupidity from Faljay etc. On originals versus reconstructions, the Carey judgement doesn't distinguish pre- and post-2007. So it applies to both.

The GOOFy assertion that for pre-2007 agreements the original must be produced has no legal authority. It is wrong, unless and until it is successfully argued in a precedent-setting court.