"Ceylon" the UK's top Goodfer nothing

[LordEd]

He doesn't like those on dynamic addresses because it's too hard to IP ban them.

IP bans being stupid because you'll block an entire mobile network if you block a few external addresses.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Ceylon is wrong. The BoE Act has got nothing to do with consumer debts being assigned . Ceylon has shown himself to be an idiot so he threatens to ban the member who dares to tell the truth. What an odd way to run a website. I see the member has deleted his posts and has apologised. Ceylon has no interest in the truth. It's his way or the highway even if his way is full of blatant lies.

[Bones]

Ceylon seems to think that a constantly changing IP address is a sign of a worldwide conspiracy. This is because he's an idiot who doesn't know how the internet works, probably doesn't bother to whois lookup where the ip resolves and has a vastly overinflated belief in the importance of his tiny group of guano covered fruitbats in shaking up the global elite and what not. He assumes that a different IP must mean a person logging on from a different country and that the shadow illuminati cabal are monitoring and sending agents to his site to derail and troll discussions, in order to keep the people in the dark, because that's the real meaning of illuminati.

I think Colon just uses the ip argument as justification to ban someone that disagrees with him. Colon and his bald mate did a video once about not being able to use a tor browser to sign up to Quatloos and many SovCit's also use tor browsers. Colon himself will have a different IP each when using a tor browser.

Just more evidence of his dictatorship and arrogance. He says, look for yourself and prove me wrong - yet when someone does, instead of debating the point, he goes straight for setting them up to ban them.

Pony tailed idiot, is so transparent that he makes Jimmy look intelligent

[Bones]

This SovCit nonsense was the brain child of John Witterwick
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... es-economy

After a bit of research, I realised the debt collectors buy debts for less than 10p in the pound, after the bank writes the debt off. I also found out that under the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the debt collector is actually paying off our debt when they buy it.

However

Jones v Link Financial Ltd [2012] EWHC 2402 (QB) (22 August 2012)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/2402.html

30. Where, however, there is a legal assignment the debtor's liability will be owed to the assignee and it is the assignee who will have to perform the statutory duties relating to enforcement. This is not because he becomes under a contractual obligation to perform those duties, but rather because he cannot assert his rights under the regulated credit agreement without accepting the statutory obligation to perform duties under the 1974 Act relating to enforcement of those rights.

31. The legal assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor. The enforcement of the assignor's rights under the regulated credit agreement was subject to performance of the statutory duties laid down in the 1974 Act, and the legal assignee's rights are similarly so subject.

Ground 1

37. In the light of that conclusion Ground 1 does not arise since Link, as legal assignee, is a creditor under the 1974 Act. As such, the main points made by the Appellant on this issue fall away. It was suggested, for example, that it would undermine the intended scheme of the Act if proceedings in relation to a regulated agreement could be brought otherwise than in accordance with s.141. It was also pointed out that difficulties would arise if a party who is not a creditor is entitled to sue for the debt because it is the creditor who is required to give the requisite notices. Neither of these issues arise if the legal assignee is a "creditor".

38. However, if I was wrong on Ground 2 and a legal assignee is not a creditor under the 1974 Act I would agree with the judge that section 141 would not preclude the assignee from bringing legal proceedings.

39. Section 141 provides that:

"Miscellaneous

141 Jurisdiction and parties

(1) In England and Wales, the county court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine—

(a) any action by the creditor or owner to enforce a regulated agreement or any security relating to it;

(b) any action to enforce any linked transaction against the debtor or hirer or his relative;

and such an action shall not be brought in any other court.

(2) Where an action or application is brought in the High Court which, by virtue of this Act, ought to have been brought in the county court it shall not be treated as improperly brought, but shall be transferred to the county court.

(3)–(3B) . . .

(4) In Northern Ireland the county court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action or application falling within subsection (1).

(5) Except as may be provided by rules of court, all the parties to a regulated agreement, and any surety, shall be made parties to any proceedings relating to the agreement."

40. If an assignee is not a "creditor" then he does not fall within section 141 and is not subject to the requirements as to before which court proceedings must be brought. In such circumstances there would be no reason why the assignee could not bring a claim under the section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 county court jurisdiction or the courts' general jurisdiction.

41. The legal assignee has a substantive right to the debt by virtue of the assignment to him. If section 141 does not apply to the assignee he is entitled to enforce his substantive right by bringing legal proceedings in the ordinary way. The consequence would simply be that he does not do so pursuant or subject to section 141 of the 1974 Act.

42. I therefore agree with the judge that if the legal assignee is not a creditor under the 1974 Act then neither the 1974 Act in general nor section 141 in particular is intended to or does deprive the legal assignee of his substantive right to bring an action for the assigned debt.

Conclusion

43. For all the reasons outlined above the appeal is dismissed.

This of course relates to Legal Assignment as per s.136 of the LOP 1925
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... ection/136

136 Legal assignments of things in action.

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

(a)the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b)all legal and other remedies for the same; and

So Colon, as I know you read this site, I did as you said and checked for myself. When I did, as is usually the case, I found that you are wrong. Could luck with GOODF getting FCA approval, hope you and Jonny enjoy spending the money

[daveBeeston]

It shows the mentality of the members over there that anyone that tries to offer the correct advice is instantly shot down and insulted(so much for offering truthful advice), and the hostility shown towards member here is not only infantile but completely unjustified.

I was going to join up and engage them in discussion to try and see why they see the world the way they do to get a better understanding of how they have arrived at the FMOL/SOVcit/GOODF door but i feel i would be wasting my time.

I just wish that Ceylon and the others over there would allow honest and open discussion.

[PeanutGallery]

I just wish that Ceylon and the others over there would allow honest and open discussion.

If Ceylon wanted honesty or truth he'd allow it. He doesn't because his bullshit lets him be a big turd in a small sewer.

[rumpelstilzchen]

This SovCit nonsense was the brain child of John Witterwick
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... es-economy

Strange that he doesn't cite the relevant part of the BoE Act. He can't because he is wrong. One major flaw in his argument is that a bill of exchange is not even a contract. It is an instruction from "A" to "B" instructing them to pay "C".
Ceylon is repeating Witterick's nonsense. Ceylon tells us to go and check it ourselves but he is repeating it without having checked it himself. He really is as thick as shit.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I think Colon just uses the ip argument as justification to ban someone that disagrees with him.

Yeah he banned me for that. He sent me a message telling me if I do not stop using multiple ip addresses I would face the bannination hammer. He is shit scared of people proving he is constantly talking out of his rectum.

[Bones]

This SovCit nonsense was the brain child of John Witterwick
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... es-economy

Strange that he doesn't cite the relevant part of the BoE Act. He can't because he is wrong. One major flaw in his argument is that a bill of exchange is not even a contract. It is an instruction from "A" to "B" instructing them to pay "C".
Ceylon is repeating Witterick's nonsense. Ceylon tells us to go and check it ourselves but he is repeating it without having checked it himself. He really is as thick as shit.

This should make you laugh, despite making a video claiming what the BoE Act states, Colon doesn't actually know where it states what he has claimed. When challenged today he said he thinks it is s.43 lol

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 09#p466401



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vic ... section/43

43 Dishonour by non-acceptance and its consequences.

(1)A bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance—

(a)when it is duly presented for acceptance, and such an acceptance as is prescribed by this Act is refused or cannot be obtained; or

(b)when presentment for acceptance is excused and the bill is not accepted.

(2)Subject to the provisions of this Act when a bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance, an immediate right of recourse against the drawer and indorsers accrues to the holder, and no presentment for payment is necessary.

Colon doesn't have a clue

[rumpelstilzchen]

That is priceless!
Colon believes a consumer debt is a bill of exchange? Or does he believe assignment is a bill of exchange? Whatever he believes he is wrong.
Colon, you idiot, the BoE Act defines a bill of exchange as

A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer

A bill of exchange involves three parties. It is not a contract. A debt sale is a contract and involves two parties.
The BoE Act has got nothing to do with the sale of consumer debts.
Colon, you really do talk out of your rectum.

[Firthy2002]

I think Colon just uses the ip argument as justification to ban someone that disagrees with him.

Yeah he banned me for that. He sent me a message telling me if I do not stop using multiple ip addresses I would face the bannination hammer. He is shit scared of people proving he is constantly talking out of his rectum.

He does seem awfully fond of abusing his banhammer and overstepping his authority. Curiously none of the other mods seem to call him out on it.

[longdog]

I think Colon just uses the ip argument as justification to ban someone that disagrees with him.

Yeah he banned me for that. He sent me a message telling me if I do not stop using multiple ip addresses I would face the bannination hammer. He is shit scared of people proving he is constantly talking out of his rectum.

He does seem awfully fond of abusing his banhammer and overstepping his authority. Curiously none of the other mods seem to call him out on it.

I suspect that if they did the banhammer would fall just as quickly as for anybody else.

[Chaos]

He doesn't like those on dynamic addresses because it's too hard to IP ban them.

IP bans being stupid because you'll block an entire mobile network if you block a few external addresses.

in this case it would be great as less and less people will have access to getting ripped off.

[Firthy2002]

Given that they want to raise £30,000 (even though Jon says £25,000 in the video) in 17 days and that the only person to have donated is the person that set up the page, I think they might struggle

And struggle they did, the final total is a whopping £2,365!

[Bones]

Just as a recap

In the video posted by Colon he states

"Under the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, it quite clearly states - once a debt is paid off, it is extinguished, which means when that debt collector, brought your alleged loan, debt, credit card or whatever - when they buy it, they pay it off, for you... That's in the Bills of Exchange Act, don't believe me, have a look for yourself. Prove them wrong, prove me wrong. I have been doing this for so many years now, it just happens, it is... go and check it out... No one has been able to prove me wrong... No one has been able to prove any of us wrong.. The the power, is with you, the people."

When challenged, as to where in the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, it clearly states that when a debt collector buys a debt, they pay it off, Colon isn't actually sure where it states this and thinks it is section 43 but is not sure



However, s.43 has nothing to do with the sale of debts or the repayment of a debt and relates to "Dishonour by non-acceptance and its consequences."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vic ... section/43



Whilst the Pony Tailed idiot, asks people to prove him wrong, if anyone does, his reaction is to ban them and to delete their posts.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 09#p466559



The only person "spouting shit" would be as usual Colon.

Whilst the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 has 100 sections (nice round number) and two schedules, the word "debt" only appears three times.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vic ... section/27

1)


2)


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vic ... ection/100

3)


So Colon and Jonny, you are both wrong as proven above.

[Skeleton]

You get banned for disagreeing with Ceylon, proving him wrong or merely for being in possession of a dynamic IP address, but its ok to post personal details such as addresses and publish photos of Bailiffs and Policeman, threaten violence and encourage "visits" which has happened on countless occasions and continues to happen. Check out poor hurt Assassin's latest bailiff and Policeman findings.

[littleFred]

Thanks for the transcription, Bones. I started doing exactly that section, but got distracted with something else.

Certainly, Ceylon is wrong. The way he deletes posts and bans people who point this out says clearly this isn't an innocent mistake. As often happens, I can't decide between:

1. He is deliberately lying, so has to conceal the truth.

2. He has deluded himself into thinking he is being truthful, so deletes what he genuinely thinks are untruths.

3. He's a megalomaniac.

[Bones]

Thanks for the transcription, Bones. I started doing exactly that section, but got distracted with something else.

Certainly, Ceylon is wrong. The way he deletes posts and bans people who point this out says clearly this isn't an innocent mistake. As often happens, I can't decide between:

1. He is deliberately lying, so has to conceal the truth.

2. He has deluded himself into thinking he is being truthful, so deletes what he genuinely thinks are untruths.

3. He's a megalomaniac.

As a test lets find out shall we

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 09#p466671

[SteveUK]

Shill!

[Bones]

Colon is a pathetic idiot



So much for all the claims that are made about GOODF, challenge them with hard facts and evidence and you get banned