UK: win or lose, Marshall wins

[littleFred]

Marshall is trying to get a load of money from a debt collector. He doesn't provide details but it seems he won a case for harassment, getting £500 from them. Now he wants to win another £20,500. I suspect this is for the invoices he has doubtless been sending them -- £500 for opening a letter and so on. Perhaps the debt collector accidentally fell into a contract by estoppal so, naturally, is obliged to pay Marshall's invoices.

Encouraged by his success, Marshall is fighting on. Sadly he lost some battles, having to pay costs on top of court fees and so on. What is a poor GOOFer to do? The solution: crowd-funding! It works for weird and wacky business ideas, so why not for weird and wacky lawsuits? Investors will get, umm, nothing. Well, I suppose they will get a warm glow from donating money that will eventually end up in the pockets of solicitors and courts; causes that are close to the hearts of many, I'm sure.

If Marshall wins his £20,500, will he reimburse his investors? Nope. But he will tell everyone how he won, and we all know that knowledge is more valuable than mere money.

You can get details (well, a few hints) in a very long thread with hardly any meat and the crowd sourcing announcement.

[PeanutGallery]

I do like how he's not exactly clear on what he needs the money for or in fact how much money he actually wants. Am I being cynical for thinking he could be trying to pull a fast one and taking those poor GOOFs for what little they have.

Of course the notion that someone might try to take a group of people who have already shown themselves to be somewhat gullible if approached in a certain manner and asked for money to help someone "stick it to the man". Or that a 'guru' in the OPCA scene might be in it for a fast buck.

[littleFred]

He says he wants £300, but adds that he needs to pay £1000 in solicitor fees so far. In 2 days, £115 has been donated, less about 7.5% in fees. GOOFers are not renowned for generosity towards the legal profession so this may have curbed their enthusiasm.

A GOOFer has called him, "an artist at work," without the expected "con-" prefix.

[PeanutGallery]

If I'm reading the gofundme bar of success that Marshall has posted, all he's gotten through that site is £30, from Kittie Belltree and an anonymous donor. The rest seem to be offline donations, which I presume Marshall is updating himself and getting through the PayPal account he posted.

If I read the gofundme correctly doesn't Marshall owe PayPal a not insubstantial sum.

On an unrelated note I had an ex-girlfriend who was an occasional busker, she would always remember to have some coins to put in her guitar case as when people perceived that others had donated they seemed to be a bit more generous.

[littleFred]

Marshall has closed his campaign and returned contributions. He is not publicly saying why.

Right everybody, the campaign has been closed. All contributions have been refunded to the respective payment methods used, and all contributors (bar 1) have been e-mailed/PM'd, unless I can't find your e-mail/username

Hopefully that e-mail will clear some questions up

Please do not release any of the information from within that PM here, just in case

I hope to reveal all around the 5th February-ish.

Marshall

He has said that the court case is set for February.

Oddly, the gofundme campaign still seems to be running. Collected £125 so far from 8 donations. All of these are now flagged as "offline", so I suppose these were keyed in by Marshall and the money came from some other site.

All very strange.

[PeanutGallery]

Well it's quite possible that PayPal got wind of the fact that he was using another persons PayPal account and may have pointed out to the account holder that their account was not being used in an appropriate manner.

After all he was using PayPal to solicit donations to fight his legal battle with the nasty people trying to collect on a debt he owes PayPal.

Of course how PayPal found out about this is something on which I couldn't possibly comment. But in a completely unrelated conversation with a friend of mine who happens to work for PayPal I was told that if anyone has any information on Sov's trying a Mary Croft, or something that looks like suspicious use of an email account, or of people fundraising for various Sovrun causes that you can email spoof@paypal.com and let them know.

[rogfulton]

Well it's quite possible that PayPal got wind of the fact that he was using another persons PayPal account and may have pointed out to the account holder that their account was not being used in an appropriate manner.

After all he was using PayPal to solicit donations to fight his legal battle with the nasty people trying to collect on a debt he owes PayPal.

Of course how PayPal found out about this is something on which I couldn't possibly comment. But in a completely unrelated conversation with a friend of mine who happens to work for PayPal I was told that if anyone has any information on Sov's trying a Mary Croft, or something that looks like suspicious use of an email account, or of people fundraising for various Sovrun causes that you can email spoof@paypal.com and let them know.

Should 'on which I couldn't possibly comment' be accompanied by or perhaps ?

[PeanutGallery]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz8RjPAD2Jk

[Marshall]

If anybody would like some clarification on anything just give me a PM on GOODF for the truth, you won't find it here.

[littleFred]

Welcome, Marshall.

You are welcome to tell us the truth here, if you wish.

[Pottapaug1938]

If anybody would like some clarification on anything just give me a PM on GOODF for the truth, you won't find it here.

We actually like to have the truth set out here for all to see. If you have something to say, then say it; but be forewarned that we do expect more than "just asking", or unsupported "alternative" hypotheses.

[PeanutGallery]

We also tend to not purge threads here. Like the one you asked the mods over at GOODF to delete because it made GOOF and Response! look like giant idiots.

You know the one, it was about Mr Ebert and how he was evicted in spite of the response of Response, you were the one begging the GOOF mods to delete it, I must ask why? Why were you, Marshall an honest man supposedly standing in honour so very interested in hiding that truth?

[Marshall]

I am not entirely sure of what the agenda of this website is. I certainly haven't registered here to cause any trouble. I would consider myself a nice person, simply offering further clarification of the situation via PM on GOODF.

I stated that you wont find the truth here, because I have already seen several assumptions and allegations above which I simply do not have to answer, which answers the next question

why don't you enlighten us then?

, I don't have to.

I am more than happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability, through my previously mentioned preferred method. I totally accept that Quatloosians have a different set of beliefs and am prepared to totally set that aside in order to have a passive and civil discussion.

Simply posting to let you all know the offer is open, I certainly hope that doesn't offend anybody.

Thanks.

[PeanutGallery]

As far as I understand the agenda of this website is to document and record failed attempts at scamming either the gullible or the government through a number of scams, this particular subsection of this site is dedicated to what have been termed "Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments" (Meads v Meads 2012 ABQB 571 (Canadian)) and the Freeman on the Land movement and it's derivations and how these scams are being advanced outside of the US and Canada. The aim is simply to observe and record those involved because eventually the proponents of these arguments up and leave. Some, like Mary Croft, make a last ditch grab for cash before vanishing.

This thread began because you started to crowdfund to pay lawyers fees. Now you did do that. We saw the GoFundMe page and the paypal link. This prompted speculation on why:

a) It seemed that you needed to pay lawyers fees, you see in all our experience with the courts, costs are only determined at the culmination of a case. You don't get a bill for costs mid way through an action. Now we understood that you were self-represented, so you weren't paying your lawyers. It's quite rare for a winning claimant to be made to pay the defendants costs (although it does sometimes happen - generally when the claim is technically right but morally wrong and nominal damages are awarded by the court). In fact you weren't very clear about how much you needed to pay, who you needed to pay it too and why such an order had been made.

b) You weren't promising anything back in return for the funding. You weren't offering to cut your investors in on a slice of your damages. You were offering knowledge. Now this seemed a bit beyond the pail for us, because we believe that knowledge about the law should be free and accessible to anyone who wants it. This is why people with an agenda similar to ours created websites like Bailii, why we support www.legislation.gov.uk and why we cite sources when we need to support our arguments. Saying that you would only give knowledge of the law in exchange for money is a little avaricious.

c) It was then recorded that you closed the campaign and apparently refunded the contributors. Personally I think that was good of you. If you didn't need the money any longer it did rightfully belong to those who had donated it, many of whom may be in financial need themselves. It certainly suggests that you weren't trying to pull a Mary Croft, or that if you were you changed your mind and did the right thing. Either way it's a commendable action.

Now you also say that you do not have to answer the assumptions above. Which is true. But I feel I should remind you that according to a lot of OPCA beliefs an allegation un-refuted is accepted. It seems odd that you would accept all of these negative accusations that are being levelled at you and then only offer to provide an honest account on a different forum.

You went to the extent of registering and posting on here, twice, you don't seem to have an issue with posting on this website so why not put your truth here? After all you are here now, reading this and surely have nothing to hide or fear from being truthful.

[JamesVincent]

I am not entirely sure of what the agenda of this website is. I certainly haven't registered here to cause any trouble. I would consider myself a nice person, simply offering further clarification of the situation via PM on GOODF.

Thanks.

Welcome to Quatloos. The agenda of this site, PeanutGallery's lovely post notwithstanding, is to expose scams and scammers. If you get mentioned here it means that, somewhere or somehow, you have been alleged to have scammed someone/someones publicly, someone caught it and posted it here. We seek to preserve these scams so that they can be found again. We do this since it seems to be likely that scammers go to great lengths to remove the history of the scam afterwards. If you take a look at other threads and sub-sections you will see that we have a large range of scam types that we cover, and we have experts in fields that are all over the map to show why these are scams and why you should avoid them. I've been here since 2010? and have yet to see anyone moderated or banned without some pretty serious breeches of the forum rules, even scammers that come here to attempt to scam people. (Outside of the Great Purge but we don't talk about that )

We don't do communication via PM unless there is a real good reason for it. We do visit other forums and offer opinions or quote law but we are never very well received doing it so it is not one of our primary means of business. We do, however, have an open invitation to anyone who is mentioned in one of our threads to come here and explain why it is they should not be considered a scammer. Some people take us up on that invitation but, quite frankly, I have yet to see someone entirely falsely accused on here. They may not have been as bad as they were portrayed but they still had some pretty poor business practices.

Anyway, any insight you might have to offer into GOODF or any of the actions already mentioned would be appreciated and you are more then welcome to bring any thoughts or ideas that you have about the law here. We do not take offense unless you actively try to offend us which, quite frankly, is hard to do.

[Marshall]

a) It seemed that you needed to pay lawyers fees, you see in all our experience with the courts, costs are only determined at the culmination of a case. You don't get a bill for costs mid way through an action. Now we understood that you were self-represented, so you weren't paying your lawyers. It's quite rare for a winning claimant to be made to pay the defendants costs (although it does sometimes happen - generally when the claim is technically right but morally wrong and nominal damages are awarded by the court). In fact you weren't very clear about how much you needed to pay, who you needed to pay it too and why such an order had been made.

Where an application in the Court is dismissed, Costs are payable irrelevant of the outcome of the Claim.

b) You weren't promising anything back in return for the funding. You weren't offering to cut your investors in on a slice of your damages. You were offering knowledge. Now this seemed a bit beyond the pail for us, because we believe that knowledge about the law should be free and accessible to anyone who wants it. This is why people with an agenda similar to ours created websites like Bailii, why we support http://www.legislation.gov.uk and why we cite sources when we need to support our arguments. Saying that you would only give knowledge of the law in exchange for money is a little avaricious.

I am not claiming Damages. I was offering further clarification of the situation which could not be posted on the public forum. All knowledge of the Claim will be disclosed when there is an outcome to the Claim, this has always been said.

c) It was then recorded that you closed the campaign and apparently refunded the contributors. Personally I think that was good of you. If you didn't need the money any longer it did rightfully belong to those who had donated it, many of whom may be in financial need themselves. It certainly suggests that you weren't trying to pull a Mary Croft, or that if you were you changed your mind and did the right thing. Either way it's a commendable action.

Thank you, the reason for the refund has not been made public yet, apart from I have since received knowledge that in my circumstances, I am not required to pay at this time.

I will add that at no point have I said I am a FMOTL, Sov, or any other. I respect the right of all individuals to be whatever they want to be, be it a Quatloosian or a Sovereign.

[PeanutGallery]

Where an application in the Court is dismissed, Costs are payable irrelevant of the outcome of the Claim.

That's not quite how it works, the rules governing costs are covered in section 44 of the CPR (it's available here).

Now the first section relevant to your claim is 44.2 which gives the court discretion as to whether costs should even be awarded and who the court should award costs too. The general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be required to pay the costs of the successful party (CPR 44.2 (2)(a)). The court takes into account the conduct of the parties involved, including if their have been any offers to settle, if the pre-action protocol has been followed etc.

Even if costs are awarded the court doesn't have to award the full amount claimed. Again my understanding is that the Judge lowered the original amount that was claimed.

It would seem from my understanding of the CPR that your claim was dismissed and that you were the unsuccessful party. That is why costs were awarded.

You also said that you had encountered some difficulty with your statement of claim being accepted by the court and that the Judge had ordered you to submit a new one, this suggests that the claim was struck out under CPR(3.4), a strike out under this would be granted for deficiencies with the statement of claim (such as it disclosed no arguable ground or provided no proof of claim (3.4(2)(a)) or was an abuse of process (3.4(2)(b)). The court is entitled to make an order for costs in these circumstances.

Taking into account the CPR and specifically rule (3.4)(4)(abc) it would seem that in order to continue with your claim and make another submission you that new claim could have been stayed at the request of the defendant until the costs from your first action were paid. I would submit that this is likely why you thought you needed to cover the costs.

The court did consider that your claim might have some merit which is why the court did not make an order under CPR(6)(b) which would have prevented you from making a claim.

Now here's what I think happened. It's my best guess based on the limited amount we've been told and the CPR.

The court looked at your statement of claim and couldn't work out if money was or wasn't owed. It told you that it couldn't find in your favour and would be dismissing your claim. It awarded the defendant costs because they had been successful. You were then advised that if you wanted to continue your claim the defendant could ask for your claim to be stayed until you paid them the costs. You didn't have the money at hand with which to pay the costs in full and this started the fund raising.

During the fund raising I would surmise that either the defendant did not request that the claim be stayed, they likely want to get rid of you by now and staying the claim may well be only delaying the inevitable or somehow you managed to secure funding to cover the costs or something else happened which meant you did not need to immediately pay that amount (as you first thought) and your subsequent claim was able to continue.

[Marshall]

Nice detective work.

You are more than welcome to your own opinion - however this is no longer a conversation about the 'scam' that is the crowd funding campaign, but more of a conversation about my Claim.

I am very happy we have managed to have a civil discussion, I've even answered some questions for you which I didn't have to. As you have said you do not wish to PM me on GOODF, it looks like this is the end of my input towards this conversation.

[PeanutGallery]

That wasn't detective work. That was just reading the Civil Reading Practice Rules and applying them to the little you have posted. I'm not making any statements of fact just giving my opinion.

Now the reason your claim is interesting to us, is because it's an example of a scam called a foisted unilateral agreement. You refer to it as a 'fee schedule'. These have been tried over in Canada a hell of a lot of times. In fact a rather famous Canadian Judgement Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII) describes what they are (in VI(d)) and how much standing they have legally. While this decision is only binding in Canada, however the court in your claim may take it as a persuasive authority if it were brought to their attention.

The reason we don't have an authority such as Meads v Meads is simply because until now no claim using OPCA techniques has made it to a high enough court that would create a binding precedent (claims heard in the County Court are only ever persuasive) for our Common Law system.

It seems you have claimed some success with a previous fee schedule claim and this has emboldened you to make a greater claim. This claim is above the small claim court level. It appears that your original claim was uncontested, which resulted in a default judgement and then the Defendant paid the claim. We don't know why they did this. It may have been a business decision or it may have been after receiving legal advice (if the latter I think the legal advice was very poor as was the decision not to pursue the set aside motion). However I do not know what the Defendant thought or why they decided to pay and won't speculate on this matter. Certainly it's muddying the waters and their decision to pay has confused the issue somewhat.

I wouldn't take your earlier claimed success to mean that you will win this second round, as the decision of the County Court is not binding. The court is free to make the decision anew (as you no doubt discovered with your more recent failure at court with a near identical claim).

I would suggest that the following is likely to happen should you pursue this:

1) The claim will be defended, the amount is much greater than the previous amount claimed. If the Defendant took the decision not to pursue the set aside on business grounds, they will proceed with the defence of this simply because nobody wants £20k to walk out the door.

2) Your statement of claim will likely not show where Akinika agreed to be bound to your terms. Your argument will most likely be based around the fact they failed to pursue the set aside and paid the previous amount claimed, that is in truth your strongest point, it suggests that an agreement might have existed. However crucially it will be apparent to the court that they did not in fact 'agree' to your fee schedule, they instead ignored it. I would consider it likely that you will fail to prove that the defendant agreed to your fees.

3) The claim will be dismissed and this time the Judge will be confident to make an order preventing it, or a claim on similar grounds to be filed by you again. You will receive another bill for costs, which may be greater than the previous amount claimed for.

4) Even if your claim succeeds the defendant would have grounds to appeal. This would not be good for you and other followers of GOODF, it would lead to the decision being made in a court of record and a binding precedent being set. While I am already fairly sure your claim will fall at the first hurdle, if it doesn't, I would wager it will fall at the second.

I'd wish you luck with your claim, but I don't think any amount of fortune will lead to your enrichment.

Of course this is just my view and just my personal opinion. I won't be contacting you on GOODF, for the simple view that I've seen what happens to those who enter that site with my views. We generally get accused of spreading s*** and being trolls or a member of the dark forces or other such insults. I prefer much more civility in conversation and welcome a frank exchange of views. At any rate you are more than welcome to post here, I would be very interested in understanding what attracted you to GOODF in the first place and whether you agree with all the theories posted on that site?

[The Dog]

a) It seemed that you needed to pay lawyers fees, you see in all our experience with the courts, costs are only determined at the culmination of a case. You don't get a bill for costs mid way through an action. Now we understood that you were self-represented, so you weren't paying your lawyers. It's quite rare for a winning claimant to be made to pay the defendants costs (although it does sometimes happen - generally when the claim is technically right but morally wrong and nominal damages are awarded by the court). In fact you weren't very clear about how much you needed to pay, who you needed to pay it too and why such an order had been made.

I don't know if it is relevant to this case, but it is possible for a defendant to make an application for "Security for Costs" during the case if it is believed that were the defendant to prevail, then the claimant may be unable to pay.
http://www.pinsentmasons.com/PDF/SecurityforCosts.pdf