jimmywx11

[rumpelstilzchen]

longdog, NYGman I disagree.
"None of them have not cleared". Admittedly it is grammatically incorrect because "none" is not a plural. As my old English teacher took great pains to point out to me it should be written "None of them has not cleared", but we can ignore that because it is jimmyspeak. None of them not clearing must mean there is not one that has not cleared.

[NYGman]

longdog, NYGman I disagree.
"None of them have not cleared". Admittedly it is grammatically incorrect because "none" is not a plural. As my old English teacher took great pains to point out to me it should be written "None of them has not cleared", but we can ignore that because it is jimmyspeak. None of them not clearing must mean there is not one that has not cleared.

Precisely. If they had all cleared, I would have expected him to say, "ALL of them cleared." That is clear, concise, and leaves no uncertainty. Even the corrected "None of them has not cleared" still doesn't tell me if anything has actually cleared. I would describe his statement, as a transient stage between clearing [All of them cleared] and being rejected (NOT cleared) [NONE of the checks cleared].

[wanglepin]

Or maybe I am giving Jimmy one cell too much credit here.

Far to much.

[FatGambit]

[quote="Skeleton"][quote="mufc1959"][quote="ArthurWankspittle"]CT Benefit goes to Jimmy's account. [/quote]

That's not quite right, with respect. CT Benefit was abolished in 2013. It's now CT [i]Reduction[/i], an exemption or rebate from paying all or part of the CT. It's not an amount paid to the claimant so they can then use it to pay the full amount of the CT.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benef ... il-tax-red
uction-what-you-need-to-know/

So Jimmy won't have been able to save up his CT benefit as it's not something that would ever have been paid to him. No doubt he's claiming all sorts of other benefits to which he's probably not entitled though.

Did I read somewhere in his CT thread where some numpty was sending back his CT demands marked ANRRTS, even though they were correctly addressed to him ... at his council house?!! The stupidity of these people is mind-boggling.[/quote]

That was Jimmy, he even produced a video showing it.[/quote]

If Jimmy is in one of the Universal Credit areas then his Council Tax benefit will be paid to him, this is Dave's great idea for 'preparing' the unemployed/disabled/no good scroungers for their transition into the real world, pay them the benefit directly so they learn how to manage money.

Nobody seemed to tell Davethat the reason it went from paid to claimant to paid to account was that people were hoarding up the benefit and not paying the council tax, or spending the benefit on the latest big screen TV, something that is be if repeated in all the Universal credit test areas (massive, increase in Council Tax/Rent arrears), but that's a conversation for another day.

[ArthurWankspittle]

No doubt he's claiming all sorts of other benefits to which he's probably not entitled though.

I can make a good case for DLA.

[FatGambit]

Indeed you could since I never said that

[rumpelstilzchen]

NYGman, I still disagree.
Consider this. Let us assume jimmy has sent a total of five cheques. If all five bounced you would say "Five have not cleared". If one has cleared and four have failed. You would say "Four have not cleared." If two were successful and three were unsuccessful it would be correct to say "Three have not cleared". If three cleared and two bounced: "Two have not cleared", if four cleared and one failed: "One has not cleared". Then we get to the situation where all five have cleared and none has bounced it would be correct (but clumsy) to say "None has not cleared. If no cheques had cleared you would say "None has cleared" you would not say "None has not cleared".
"None has not cleared" means that all five have cleared. It cannot mean all five have failed because then we would have the ludicrous situation where "Five have not cleared" and "None has not cleared" both mean exactly the same thing. Impossible situation I would say.
I really do not see that jimmy's statement is ambiguous. I believe his intention was to claim that all cheques have cleared.
Obviously in the real world none of jimmy's cheques has really cleared because the WeRe bank is a con.

[Losleones]

Meanwhile over on goofy new recruit Common Law Again is sticking it to Jimmy & some other nob mrflibble. Very amusing exchanges & something tells Mr CLA is heading for the trap door. Ol Jimbo seems to take criticism quite well but interesting to hear his retort to CLAs excellent post. Here's the link;
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... hKqN5R4WrU

[Joinder]

Common law again is on thin ice, ponytail must be in a coma if he hasn't banned him yet.

[Losleones]

Jimmy openly admits his bowel movement is 3-4 times daily with his vegan diet. I'd be inclined to disagree with that admission in that Jimmy has a constant flow of excretion from every orifice. Nothing wrong with your weight loss plan one cell, but your name loss plan is as useful as a WeRe cheque book. Where's the follow up video of the BG encounter where the operator informed you that you're forged instrument was fake Jim? Is it because you know it's forgery Jimmy & therefore you haven't proclaimed you're victory? You suggested that subscribers "donate" a fee for the dud cheques? Is that an admission you know (prob not you're as thick as shit) it's a scam but, par for course, won't pay? Has Dante paid you via a WeRe cheque to legally drive your car or done some meaningful chores in your council house to pay down your PN to Petey?
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... h1LZJR4WrX

[AndyPandy]

His drivel just gets better. He's been threatened with a Statutory Demand over 4 years of CT non payment, which he's returned NKATA and will be taking a Judge to task if they dare to try and impose a Charging Order for a 'fake debt' that he's 'not aware of'.

Has no idea the consequences of being made bankrupt, from his bank account being seized and emptied to his house being taken in possession by the Official Receiver !!

I can hardly wait

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... h2fxpR4WK0

[notorial dissent]

Saying that the stupid is strong in this one is kind of like saying the ocean is deep, descriptors fail. I keep wondering just how dumb this child is, and he keeps finding whole new depths of stupid to aspire to.

And the ever helpful Ceylon.

[Jeffrey]

. He's been threatened with a Statutory Demand over 4 years of CT non payment, which he's returned NKATA and will be taking a Judge to task if they dare to try and impose a Charging Order for a 'fake debt' that he's 'not aware of'.

I'm having trouble finding where he says that.

[Jeffrey]

By the way I'm not sure if this was posted in the thread yet but Jimmy posted this to Youtube on the sixth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbT86J6a28A

It's him attempting to pay off £1,205.69 on his Barclay's card, so it's not just council's he's trying to rip off, it's also his bank.

He also posted a Santos Bonacci video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vmQMNI146Y

[AndyPandy]

. He's been threatened with a Statutory Demand over 4 years of CT non payment, which he's returned NKATA and will be taking a Judge to task if they dare to try and impose a Charging Order for a 'fake debt' that he's 'not aware of'.

I'm having trouble finding where he says that.

The bit about the Statutory Demand what it was for and how he dealt with it (return to sender) was on a previous post. He refers to it again here this time daring a Judge to impose a charging order for a fake debt 'he knows nothing about' (well he wouldn't would he if he returns all his mail to sender). You have to tab to the bottom of the page to see the pool of drivel !

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... h2fxpR4WK0

[Skeleton]

Top
Re: Charging Order? The myth!

Postby deadbeatdad » Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:24 pm
banker.....are you bollox any banker...you're just a wind up merchant....and not a particularly clever one at that....you're talking criminal law (capital crime) contrary to the common law - to make a point about....a civil matter......what muppetry

a name isn't needed? go the fuck away....dullard

jimmy....do you ever read anything? I mean what the fuck are you on about here....you have managed to confuse and conflate Liability Orders with Charging Orders

you will not have a Charging Order or a Restriction as a result of unpaid Council Tax...Ok! more muppetry


there is plenty they can do to recover unpaid Council Tax and monkey bollox is right about that much but a Charging Order is not one of them

What utter bollox these people talk and the way they present it as absolute fact is just unreal, I do not know which planet this idiot is from but he needs to go back.

You can't use a charging order to recover CT. Unreal. Even a quick search of GOODF the site he posts on pulls up many results that says yes they can and yes they have, and the woo has not stopped them once.

[Losleones]

Our Jimmy at his belligerent foul mouthed best seeing off a Council Representative (temporarily) for what i would imagine to be for unpaid Council Tax. He seems surprised he's received a visit for his antics. We all know you're name Jimmy Wyld so I'm pretty sure you're neighbours will Bellend.
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... h5YPJR4WrU

[exiledscouser]

I've watched Jimmy's foul mouthed rant. Which he's titled something to the effect "this is why they are worried". The video is worth a watch as the only one worried is One Cell himself. You can see the character of the man or rather his lack of one. Dante the car owning mutt puts an appearance in though, seems a nice hound.

The process server was unfazed by the torrent of abuse and he'd clearly been seen, by Jimmy, speaking to the neighbours which seems to have REALLY upset him.

I'm thinking given his reaction that he isn't on the best of terms with those around him.

He threatens to call the police - imagine the call; dring dring police emergency can I help - a man on your property you say? Can I have your name? What do you mean you've lost it? I'll just be putting you through to the hanging up department. Drrrrrrr.

Death and taxes Jimmy, death and taxes.

[NG3]

Death and taxes Jimmy, death and taxes.

Apt quote given it's also the title of a documentary about Gordon Kahl (Who was a TP & Freeman)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0182962/

His story was also portrayed in a 1991 movie called In the Line of Duty: Manhunt in the Dakotas (aka Midnight Murders, and in the Netherlands as In the Line of Duty: The Twilight Murders), starring actor Rod Steiger as Kahl and Michael Gross as the head FBI agent.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102112/?re ... lmg_act_49

[YiamCross]

Our Jimmy at his belligerent foul mouthed best seeing off a Council Representative (temporarily) for what i would imagine to be for unpaid Council Tax. He seems surprised he's received a visit for his antics. We all know you're name Jimmy Wyld so I'm pretty sure you're neighbours will Bellend.
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... h5YPJR4WrU

Loved that bloke, he was perfect in his responses. You could hear the fear in Jimmy one cell's voice, even he must suspect that the game is almost up for him.

4 years, eh? The courts are not going to like that one little bit. Trouble is, the burden of putting this idiot up at Her Majesty's Pleasure falls on those who do pay their tax.