The comedy court of Common Law

[hucknallred]

Yes, that's the case. I went through to the checkout and that was the only option. It's like they don't want your money!

PayPal threw a very large spanner into his grift when a cursory glance at CLC.com showed that it was clearly an online shop.
As with any other business on their platform they asked for some pesky proof of said business. They'll accept all sorts, a supplier invoice, VAT registration, company registration if a Ltd., UTR document from HMRC if a Sole Trader, business bank account statement, & so on.

I used to run the eBay outlet for my last employer, completely above board, but periodically the PayPal algorithm would freeze the account & I'd have to scan a supplier invoice, or provide Director's names etc. to unfreeze it. Painless for a legit operation, painful for a scammer.
I'd love to know how much is frozen in the account.

[noblepa]

It's just the font he's chosen, lower case appears as smaller upper case. In any case (see what I did there?), email addresses aren't case sensitive.

That's true when they are used as email addresses.

When an email address is used as a userid, it may be case sensitive, although, on most sites, userids are not case sensitive, unlike passwords, which are almost always case sensitive.

[aesmith]

They say research purposes, but then go on to give dosage information ..

Recommended dosing is 0.3ml every 3 days, therefore one vial will last approximately 50 days or 7 weeks.

And they state or estimate it's effect on cancer ..

Activity tests: Cancer cell viability reduced by >40% in 72hrs & Reactive oxygen species generation (macrophage activation)

[aesmith]

A massive fail is that the Login isn't working as it puts my sockpuppet email address into upper case rather than lower and won't let me change it back. The login must be case-sensitive, thus preventing anyone with lower case letters in their email address from logging in.

I think the case might be a red herring. I reactivated my account by using the "forgot password" link.

[longdog]

They say research purposes, but then go on to give dosage information ..

Recommended dosing is 0.3ml every 3 days, therefore one vial will last approximately 50 days or 7 weeks.

And they state or estimate it's effect on cancer ..

Activity tests: Cancer cell viability reduced by >40% in 72hrs & Reactive oxygen species generation (macrophage activation)

Ah... I missed that but in my defence the site is a mess and I was in a rush to go to the pub for the first time in many months, only about the fifth time since the pre-covids era and the first time indoors. We sat at the same table we sat at during our emergency drinking session the night lockdown was announced for midnight. The beer was shockingly bad

[aesmith]

Reply from MHRA ..

Thank you for your email.

We have reviewed your request and will need to redirect your query to our inspection, enforcements and standards colleagues for further input.

In the meantime, should you have any other questions or requests please feel free to call us on 0203 080 6000 or email at info@mhra.gov.uk

Our opening hours are Mon – Fri 9am to 5pm (excluding UK Public Holidays)

Kind regards

[name removed]
MHRA Customer Service Centre

[CrankyBoomer]

This isn't strictly speaking common law but the party involved was mentioned some pages back so I'm popping it here (though if any mods think it's in the wrong place do tell me - and suggest a better location). Does anyone know what the rules are regarding registering a company at Companies House? I know that small companies don't have to register. In the past I've done small bits of home typing but the amounts earned were so small that I didn't have to register anything at Companies House albeit HMRC had to be told about any earnings. But this isn't about me - Jon Wedger, the ex-cop and alleged whisteblower and campaigner has a gardening sideline now https://www.facebook.com/outofthebluegarden/ I've been looking on the Companies House site to see if it's registered. I looked under "Jonathan Wedger location Hemel Hempstead" and "Out of the Blue - Garden & Building Services". Any matches thrown up were not exact matches though admittedly I only looked at the first couple of pages because I thought an exact match, especially when I'd searched between double speech marks (inverted commas), would have come up at the top of the search. Now it's possible the company is small and doesn't need to be registered. The reason I was looking was because in the first box under the picture of paving on the Facebook page it says "Garden and property maintenance. Est since 1992." However further down the page under an entry dated 19 August 2019 it says "What a highly successful few months since the company was launched. I’ve even managed to gain employment overseas . Superb". So I looked on Companies House to see if it could throw any light on just how long the company has been going but no luck. Of course there's nothing wrong with him having a gardening and building sideline and the gardening business isn't a secret because a YouTuber named Barbara mentioned it more than a year ago. The possible scam is/was that his foundation (supposedly aiming to help abused children) was not registered with the Charities Commission - I don't know whether it's been registered subsequently or not. Also he refused to show any accounts for money in and money out. He went quiet for a time but the most recent interview I can find for him is with Gareth Icke (son of David) in September 2021. He's one of those not important enough for his own thread people.

[CrankyBoomer]

My previous post was getting long but I'll just clarify that JW sometimes tells the tale that he went through hardship because of problems with his former job but if he's had a gardening sideline for a number of years that doesn't ring true. If the gardening business has only been going since 2019, i.e. since he left the Met that's different.

[John Uskglass]

AFAIK you can call your business anything you want. You would only need to register with CH if you are trading as a a limited company.

What does concern me given Wedger's history as detailed by Hoaxtead
https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/?s=wedger
is this from his business's Facebook page

Retired police detective. CRB checked and authorised to work within the vulnerable community.

[hucknallred]

He's probably working as a sole trader. Nothing wrong with that. You are required to register with HMRC & do an annual tax return & pay what you owe.
A gardening business is more of a cash transaction thing, so you can play fast & loose with the taxman.
A friend of mine in mobile catering summed it up to me, "The taxman has no idea how many portions of chips you can make from a sack of spuds."

Registering as a Ltd. company has benefits, the main one being protection of personal assets should you get in a bit of financial bother.
No idea if it's still the case but the term 'Phoenixing' was commonplace in the UK. Company gets into bother, so the directors fold it, then relaunch under a new name & company & walk away from all the debts.

[longdog]

Registering as a Ltd. company has benefits, the main one being protection of personal assets should you get in a bit of financial bother.

More in theory than in practice for us mere mortals unfortunately. Limited liability is all fine and dandy but if you start a new business as a limited liability company you are probably going to be asked for personal guarantees before anybody will extend any significant line of credit.

[Burnaby49]

Registering as a Ltd. company has benefits, the main one being protection of personal assets should you get in a bit of financial bother.

More in theory than in practice for us mere mortals unfortunately. Limited liability is all fine and dandy but if you start a new business as a limited liability company you are probably going to be asked for personal guarantees before anybody will extend any significant line of credit.

That was always my experience from 35 years as a tax auditor reviewing small companies. It was standard practice for financial institutions to require that small corporation owners personally guaranteed company loans.

[noblepa]

Registering as a Ltd. company has benefits, the main one being protection of personal assets should you get in a bit of financial bother.

More in theory than in practice for us mere mortals unfortunately. Limited liability is all fine and dandy but if you start a new business as a limited liability company you are probably going to be asked for personal guarantees before anybody will extend any significant line of credit.

That was always my experience from 35 years as a tax auditor reviewing small companies. It was standard practice for financial institutions to require that small corporation owners personally guaranteed company loans.

That is true for liability for loans and other debts owed by the company. Of course, incorporating technically DOES shield the owners assets. That is why most lenders will insist that the owner pledge his/her personal assets. If the owner has enough cash to start the business and operate it without availing himself of credit, he remains protected.

But is it true for liability due to lawsuits? Imagine that the owner operates the business properly and does not comingle personal/private funds by paying personal debts with company money, but is sued by a client/customer for some sort of malpractice. For example, say one is a contractor, building a home for a client, and the client is injured on the jobsite while inspecting the progress of his new home. The client sues the contractor and wins a judgement in court that exceeds the company's assets. In such a case, can the client go after the contractor's personal assets to fulfill the judgement?

I realize that, if there is fraud involved (real fraud, not crabby's definition of fraud), then the phrase used in the US is "piercing the corporate veil". In my scenario, I am presuming that there is no fraud or other mishandling of the company.

I know that the lawyers here are probably going to answer "it depends".

[hucknallred]

But is it true for liability due to lawsuits? Imagine that the owner operates the business properly and does not comingle personal/private funds by paying personal debts with company money, but is sued by a client/customer for some sort of malpractice. For example, say one is a contractor, building a home for a client, and the client is injured on the jobsite while inspecting the progress of his new home. The client sues the contractor and wins a judgement in court that exceeds the company's assets. In such a case, can the client go after the contractor's personal assets to fulfill the judgement?

This is where public liability insurance comes into play. A reputable contractor would have this as a matter of course.
In the building scenario there should be risk assessments, method statements, safe systems of work & so on, all documented to back up said contractor should they end up on the end of a claim.

Going back to our gardening friend, would he have any of this in place?

[Dr. Caligari]

I realize that, if there is fraud involved (real fraud, not crabby's definition of fraud), then the phrase used in the US is "piercing the corporate veil". In my scenario, I am presuming that there is no fraud or other mishandling of the company.

I know that the lawyers here are probably going to answer "it depends".

Yes, there is a thing in the U.S. called "piercing the corporate veil" whereby the owner of a business can become personally liable for a tort judgment against the corporation. Standards vary from state to state; veil-piercing is relatively hard in New York, for example, and much easier in California.

I am not, and have never been, a U.K. lawyer, but I read an article once that said that, in the U.K., "piercing the corporate veil" is (a) called some thing else (I forget what), and (b) much harder to do than in the U.S.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Ooh. Looks like at least some of the press have woken up. Hopefully next will be a joining of the dots between Common Law Courts/Practical Lawful Dissent/Hoaxtead/White Pendragons/Council Tax is unlawful/Jeanette Archer... etc.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 47186.html

Edited to use direct Independent news Item link

[noblepa]

But is it true for liability due to lawsuits? Imagine that the owner operates the business properly and does not comingle personal/private funds by paying personal debts with company money, but is sued by a client/customer for some sort of malpractice. For example, say one is a contractor, building a home for a client, and the client is injured on the jobsite while inspecting the progress of his new home. The client sues the contractor and wins a judgement in court that exceeds the company's assets. In such a case, can the client go after the contractor's personal assets to fulfill the judgement?

This is where public liability insurance comes into play. A reputable contractor would have this as a matter of course.
In the building scenario there should be risk assessments, method statements, safe systems of work & so on, all documented to back up said contractor should they end up on the end of a claim.

Going back to our gardening friend, would he have any of this in place?

That is true, but it is always possible that the contractor would be sued and the plaintiff awarded more than the insurance policy provides. Two or more people could be injured and the court awarded them one million pounds, while the policy only pays 500,000 pounds. The contractor's business assets could be sold to pay the remainder. If there still were not enough, I imagine that the court could attach his personal assets.

I can't imagine that the courts would tell the plaintiff "We awarded you a million pounds. Good luck collecting it".

[The Observer]

I can't imagine that the courts would tell the plaintiff "We awarded you a million pounds. Good luck collecting it".

Here in the US that is exactly what courts tell those who secure judgments, just not in those words. It is up to the plaintiff to pursue the defendant and their assets to satisfy the judgment. Of course, the plaintiff will have to go back to court if this means seizing property, attaching funds in a financial institution or garnishing a salary. The plaintiff can ask the court to require the defendant to provide a list of assets that can be used to satisfy the judgment, but they will still need to pay fees for the engagement of a court marshal to physically take and sell the assets in those cases where the defendant refuses to voluntarily turn them over (or sell them to pay the judgment). If the defendant can persuade the court that they can only make payments to satsify the debt, the court can order the plaintiff to abide by this arrangement; however, it will be up to the plaintiff to monitor the payments and to notify the court if the defendant defaults. If there is an issue with hidden assets or fraudulent transfers of assets, it is up to the plaintiff to prove to the court that there are assets placed by the defendant beyond the reach of the plaintiff (which includes providing evidence proving that they belong to the defendant) as well as the value of the assets as well as their location and who may be possessing them at the current time).

People tend to think that a successful judgment has resolved their issue, but it is typically only the beginning - especially if one has gotten a judgment against one of the freeman/sovs we discuss here.

[Hercule Parrot]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 47186.html

Two weeks ago, an anti-vaxxer group led by Michael Chaves, a 55-year-old paramedic from Kent, visited the home of BBC Radio 2 presenter Jeremy Vine, protesting against his reporting of Covid-19. The group served him a notice of liability for what they dubbed “crimes against humanity” for his stance on vaccines, weeks after doing the same at the home of TV’s Dr Hilary Jones. Just days ago, the same anti-vax mob descended on a hospital in Colchester, where they tried to serve frontline health workers the same notice before threatening them with a common law Nuremberg trial.

I thought paramedics must be subject to a professional regulatory body, and could be struck off. It seems Mr Chaves doesn't need to worry about that, because he was sacked in 2005 for stealing from patients. Fairness requires mention that the subsequent criminal prosecution ended in acquittal, but that would not compel the NHS to reinstate him. I wonder what he was doing between 2006-2020? Maybe a less fussy health organisation re-employed him.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/a ... tim-559020

[Footloose52]

I thought paramedics must be subject to a professional regulatory body, and could be struck off. It seems Mr Chaves doesn't need to worry about that, because he was sacked in 2005 for stealing from patients. Fairness requires mention that the subsequent criminal prosecution ended in acquittal, but that would not compel the NHS to reinstate him. I wonder what he was doing between 2006-2020? Maybe a less fussy health organisation re-employed him.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/a ... tim-559020

They are and have had to register with the HCPC since 2000. Mr Chaves is not on the register and therefore should be described as a former paramedic. Sloppy reporting again but seems to be confined to The Independent from what I can trace.

Indeed the Times are a bit more accurate;

A former paramedic who was sacked after a patient accused him of stealing £800 is the ringleader of an anti-vaccination movement that protested at the home of Jeremy Vine.

In 2005 Michael Manoel Chaves and Mohammed Ali, a colleague, were dismissed by the London Ambulance Service, but were later acquitted of theft by a jury.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate says that Chaves is the leader of Learn Something New Today, a group which believes that Matt Hancock, the former health secretary, is a murderer, vaccinations will kill children and Joe Biden is not human.