jimmywx11

[NYGman]

Would it be appropriate to contact Jane Koochie the Solicitor listed on the post, to give her a heads up on what she is getting involved in, I am guessing her fee is way too low, although it is likely that the name is false.

[AndyPandy]

Would it be appropriate to contact Jane Koochie the Solicitor listed on the post, to give her a heads up on what she is getting involved in, I am guessing her fee is way too low, although it is likely that the name is false.

I suspect it's a false name especially, as she put her name as Jade at the bottom.

Still sniggering about him using Solicitors, thought he despised 'legal advise', always slagging Tiggy off over there for helping people sort out their legal problems. Pity he didn't ask her to begin with, would have been a lot cheaper

[vampireLOREN]

Would it be appropriate to contact Jane Koochie the Solicitor listed on the post, to give her a heads up on what she is getting involved in, I am guessing her fee is way too low, although it is likely that the name is false.

" Koochie"? Why not Jane Doe?.
Gotta love our Jim!.

[AndyPandy]

Particularly like this bit from the Solicitors:

As I mentioned, because currently you do not have all relevant documents, I cannot say definitively what your options are. We first need to contact the relevant parties to obtain those documents, consider whether or not anything is owed and then decide on the best course of action thereafter.

He hasn't got them as the knob sent them all back under his trade mark 'Return to sender, not known at this address'

[PeanutGallery]

Would it be appropriate to contact Jane Koochie the Solicitor listed on the post, to give her a heads up on what she is getting involved in, I am guessing her fee is way too low, although it is likely that the name is false.

I suspect it's a false name especially, as she put her name as Jade at the bottom.

Still sniggering about him using Solicitors, thought he despised 'legal advise', always slagging Tiggy off over there for helping people sort out their legal problems. Pity he didn't ask her to begin with, would have been a lot cheaper

Jade would most likely be a para-legal or a PA working under the solicitor. Of course the SRA doesn't list a Jane Koochie or a Jade Koochie. But that's not really relevant. Whoever the lawyer Jimmy has tried to approach, they won't be able to do much to help him, he's been made bankrupt by his own idiocy and is about to find out just how hard the hammer does fall.

All lawyers would do is take £900 from his creditors to tell him that he really shouldn't have thrown his paddle away when he started going up this effluent ridden creek.

[Chaos]

any true solicitor will find out what the deal is as soon as he tries to pay the retainer in Re.

[exiledscouser]

This really is priceless. The list of stuff demanded of Jim reads like the very anthesis of everything Jimbo hates and advises others not to give or provide.

Jimbo wrote;
1. Full name
2. Address
3. Length of time at address and previous address if less than 3 years
4. Date of birth
5. Place of birth
6. National insurance number
7. Photographic ID

Give a false address says Jim. Don't ever give your name and d of b says Jim. Now he must be getting desperate as he could have had a brief for nowt at his ill-fated last appearance before the beak. Never get a solicitor says Jim, they work for THEM. I wonder why the change of heart?

So the delicious irony here is he'll have to stump up real cash, in advance. No phoney cheques, no accepted for value true bills, Promissory Notes and Lord Denning says-so bullshit, just a pile of crisp £20 notes if you please. Plus VAT (ooof!) another tax Jim won't be able to wriggle out on.

And whilst you are at it, explain to your Turstee where just short of a grand has been all this time, hidden away from his beady eye.

Overcome that hurdle, assuming there's still a shekel or two left in the war chest and it's time to give your name, your real one, the one you lost. And address - again, your real one, not your last one where your mate "un-friended" you following a 1am visit from the Feds. And ID with NI number. And all the case papers that you ANRRTS'd when you still believed in all that shite.

It all boils down to the fact that none of the stuff you've been advocating over the years actually works, in fact the polar opposite, it'll properly fuck you up. And you are providing all the proof anyone tempted along that road needs in order to truly wake up.

No, Jim has come down hard if at this stage he's even considering stumping up for representation and advice from m'learned friends.

Jim, you're going to find that solicitors are far bigger leeches than your local authority. This is going to cost you.

[mufc1959]

Knowing all the law firms in the area, I'm guessing it's Jane Gregory, Litigation Manager in the Dispute Resolution department at Eaton Smith in Huddersfield.

[Hercule Parrot]

As others have said, I imagine One-Cell will be paying £900 to be told he's up sh1t creek without a paddle. But if I was in his position, I would happily spend that to get a (real) expert to check the paperwork. But I would've done it at the beginning, so that I was able to make informed decisions pre-bankruptcy. I fear he's left it too late now.

[littleFred]

While I doubt Jimmy will get the answers he would like, I applaud him for at least considering taking advice from people who understand real law rather than pretend GOOFy law.

If he has finally started to see the light, I wouldn't mock him for that.

[ArthurWankspittle]

All lawyers would do is take £900 from his creditors to tell him that he really shouldn't have thrown his paddle away when he started going up this effluent ridden creek.

Couple of things. The £900 is for starters and theoretically could go up. However, the solicitors haven't got all the paperwork and, once they have, they will realise that Jimmy is bankrupt. At this point I suspect they keep most of the money they have received and tell Jimmy's receiver that he somehow found £900 he probably hasn't told the receiver about. Whatever happens, if Jimmy hands over £900 he won't see any of it again.

[mufc1959]

I'm sure Jimmy's told nothing but lies to the solicitors - that they're "trying" to make him bankrupt and he doesn't know why. Lawyers generally don't object to clients who are stupid - often people can't help being stupid, and as long as they're prepared to take direction and do as they're told, it's not a problem. But nothing will piss off his lawyer more than finding out he's lied.

[notorial dissent]

I would have said the £900 is a retainer you can consider gone from the get go. I wonder what kind of solicitor he went to? I will have to agree with mufc1959 here that Jimmy can't have told them the truth or even much close to the truth, otherwise I suspect they would have shown him the door. I would suspect that once they find out he is trying to fight an already accomplished bankruptcy they will tell him there is really very little they can do for him, since he is already dead in the water, has not cooperated with the trustee, and has very likely concealed assets. The concealing assets thing is a serious crime here, don't know about UK.

I think our boy is still in deep denial and in deep doo doo.

[AndyPandy]

Section 333 - Insolvency Act 1986 Duties of bankrupt in relation to trustee.

(1)The bankrupt shall—
(a)give to the trustee such information as to his affairs,
(b)attend on the trustee at such times, and
(c)do all such other things,as the trustee may for the purposes of carrying out his functions under any of this Group of Parts reasonably require.
(2)Where at any time after the commencement of the bankruptcy any property is acquired by, or devolves upon, the bankrupt or there is an increase of the bankrupt’s income, the bankrupt shall, within the prescribed period, give the trustee notice of the property or, as the case may be, of the increase.
(3)Subsection (1) applies to a bankrupt after his discharge.
(4)If the bankrupt without reasonable excuse fails to comply with any obligation imposed by this section, he is guitly of a contempt of court and liable to be punished accordingly (in addition to any other punishment to which he may be subject).

There's also Concealment of Property Section 354, under the general heading of Wrongdoing on the part of the Bankrupt before and after bankruptcy. Starts off 'bankrupt will be guilty of an offence if ......'
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/section/354

[SoLongCeylon]

Would it be appropriate to contact Jane Koochie the Solicitor listed on the post, to give her a heads up on what she is getting involved in, I am guessing her fee is way too low, although it is likely that the name is false.

" Koochie"? Why not Jane Doe?.
Gotta love our Jim!.

Jimbo shows his class by changing the name of the female solicitor to "Koochie". Koochie is a slang term for female private parts. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=koochie { Don't look if easily offended }

eg Mark Colon Haining is a "Koochie"

If this lady solicitor can be traced, she may be interested to learn of Jimbo's choice psuedonim for her. Shows what goes on in his mind.......... must be the bees wax.

[mufc1959]

Interestingly, there hasn't been a single response to One-Cell's post in the GOODF thread about going to see a solicitor. Oh dear, maybe his audience of sycophants aren't as stupid as he thinks they are. His example of how to 'lose the name, win the game lose the house and all your money' has only served as a warning, not a rallying cry.

[exiledscouser]

Interestingly, there hasn't been a single response to One-Cell's post in the GOODF thread about going to see a solicitor. Oh dear, maybe his audience of sycophants aren't as stupid as he thinks they are. His example of how to 'lose the name, win the game lose the house and all your money' has only served as a warning, not a rallying cry.

This just in from DBD;

hahaha - it's their game; you have to follow their rules - plum

He's not "Wyld" about Jim, not at all.

[AndyPandy]

Interestingly, there hasn't been a single response to One-Cell's post in the GOODF thread about going to see a solicitor. Oh dear, maybe his audience of sycophants aren't as stupid as he thinks they are. His example of how to 'lose the name, win the game lose the house and all your money' has only served as a warning, not a rallying cry.

I think you're right, he'll be used as an example of how NOT to deal with debt.

[longdog]

Latest idiot post...

jimmy what a shocker a lawyer demanding cash and legal identity before it will ACT for the legal identity as long as it is getting paid upfront of course.... legal murder always has a price stuck on it...

Imagine that... Somebody insisting on knowing who they're working for and insisting that they be paid up-front because the person is /will be bankrupt and they probably won't get paid otherwise.

Truly it is a completely corrupt system!

[mufc1959]

Latest idiot post...

jimmy what a shocker a lawyer demanding cash and legal identity before it will ACT for the legal identity as long as it is getting paid upfront of course.... legal murder always has a price stuck on it...

Imagine that... Somebody insisting on knowing who they're working for and insisting that they be paid up-front because the person is /will be bankrupt and they probably won't get paid otherwise.

Truly it is a completely corrupt system!

It's actually a Law Society requirement that you know who your client is, because of money-laundering and the Proceeds of Crime Act.

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-se ... /#aml4_4_6