Quatloos!

Chaos wrote:

notorial dissent wrote:It used to be that they would do a test run of .01¢ to validate ACH, but I'm not even sure they do that anymore

Some banks still do this. they will send, then remove 2 random amounts, say one for .06 and another for .20. you get an email telling you to enter the 2 amounts sent/removed into their site to verify.

For security purposes or as part of getting verified you may be asked to add your bank account to your PayPal account and confirm that you're the owner of that bank account.

To confirm your bank account:

1. Go to Wallet.
2. Select the bank account to confirm and click Confirm.
3. Click Continue, then review and submit the Direct Debit details. (If the bank account is a business account or more than one person is required to authorise debits, you must print and sign a paper Bank Funding Instruction and post it to the address provided.)

We'll deposit 1p in your bank account. You'll find a 4-digit code next to the 1p deposit on your statement. This should appear in your bank account within the next few minutes, but may take up to two hours, depending on your bank.

When you know the 4-digit code:

1. Go to Wallet.
2. Click Unconfirmed next to the bank account to confirm.
3. Enter the 4-digit code and click Confirm. (You can make 3 attempts.)

If the bank account is for a business or more than one person is required to authorise debits, you must print and sign a paper Bank Funding Instruction and post it to the address provided on-screen.

Siegfried Shrink wrote:I think he is in Curacao, they seem to have some potent drugs down there.

Siegfried Shrink wrote:Well, I guessed that wrong, now international financial consultants, personified by some poor British chap, are in the firing line.

I'll give the boy an A for productivity, if nothing else. What can be next?

This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.

A call out to the whiteRabbit
Post by handle on Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:28 pm

I have a continuing case (part against Lloyds for my Financial Instruments to be disclosed.The bank refuses to deny their existence and yet will not tell me as they say it is commercially sensitive.

If Whiterabbit, or anyone else has info on this, I am attending a directions hearing within the next few weeks. - queens bench

The banks has raked up costs against me of £23k, and all they have done is to say that they have sent me copies of the mortgage deed, but they will not say that they have used my name under the power of attorney to conduct financial activities.

If the whiterabbit has info on this,it would be useful for all if he attends.

Tiggy wrote:Can someone please point out to me where in the County Courts Act (or any of the Courts Acts) that a Judge needs to have a bond etc.

Assassin wrote:Magistrates have to be bonded and they work for free and have to pay their own bond.

Judges do have a bond, but unlike magistrates they dont pay it as it comes as a part of their job and the employer pays it, this is why you cannot sue a judge, you have to sue the company.

Tiggy wrote:But where does this come from? To be able to use something successfully in Court you need to reference either a case law or an actual statute / statutory instrument and I can see nothing in any of the various Court Acts that says that a Judge has to have a bond.

Assassin wrote:They never advertise it but it is a requirement of the position and is simply insurance with premiums.

Assassin wrote:When you take up a position of magistrate, court clerk, or other position where you are in a position to make judgements you have to have some form of insurance, in the case of a magistrate or clerk they are the ones who make decisions and have to have some form of insurance.

Surety or security bonds are this insurance and if a magistrate or clerk makes an incorrect decision and causes a loss the claimant/defendant has the right to appeal, if this goes to the High Court and they overturn the magistrates decision you/they automatically claim against the magistrates bond which is either the surety or security bond. Without them they cannot take on the role or position of magistrate or clerk to the justices.

Tiggy wrote:So if they don't advertise it where did you get your understanding from? Where does it come from that there is a requirement to take out insurance? Without written evidence this is just hearsay.

Assassin wrote:

When you take up a position of magistrate, court clerk, or other position where you are in a position to make judgements you have to have some form of insurance, in the case of a magistrate or clerk they are the ones who make decisions and have to have some form of insurance.

Surety or security bonds are this insurance and if a magistrate or clerk makes an incorrect decision and causes a loss the claimant/defendant has the right to appeal, if this goes to the High Court and they overturn the magistrates decision you/they automatically claim against the magistrates bond which is either the surety or security bond. Without them they cannot take on the role or position of magistrate or clerk to the justices.

assassin wrote:Friday was a good day, we had issued a commercial lien and gone through the process, nothing was rebutted and we went to enforce the lien against the Tortfeiser, then it all began.
..blah..blah..blah.
judge simply said "its already been established its a Court de Jeure (common law) court and the jury have the power, I cannot get involved unless the jury ask me to, I am here as a recorder for the High Court and to offer advice if they request it".
..blah..blah..blah..
After a quick chat they decided to increase the lien by 50% to deter such fraudulent actions from other multi-nationals trying to throw money around to win a legal action against the common man. So it went to court as a £50M lien and came out as a £75M lien. (more blah..)

magic1 wrote:Wow assassin........W.I.C.K.E.D

mareo wrote:how comes tuesday of this week you did not know where to register a lien, then friday you are in court with a jury??? what happen to the 90 day trust law of liens?

This does not make sense, what court, what judge, what recorder

mkerr wrote:So its all fuckin shite then

assassin wrote:Freeman sites are the best places to look; learned most of mine myself.

aesmith wrote:Lest we forget ... MY DAY IN THE HIGH COURT
Extracting only the stupid or juicy bits ..

assassin wrote:Friday was a good day, we had issued a commercial lien and gone through the process, nothing was rebutted and we went to enforce the lien against the Tortfeiser, then it all began.
..blah..blah..blah.
judge simply said "its already been established its a Court de Jeure (common law) court and the jury have the power, I cannot get involved unless the jury ask me to, I am here as a recorder for the High Court and to offer advice if they request it".
..blah..blah..blah..
After a quick chat they decided to increase the lien by 50% to deter such fraudulent actions from other multi-nationals trying to throw money around to win a legal action against the common man. So it went to court as a £50M lien and came out as a £75M lien. (more blah..)

Siegfried Shrink wrote:It's the comedy remake of '12 Angry Men'