Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[SteveUK]

I've just had a look, what the hell is sovereign national credit and how the hell has it been proven to work???

Here's one of their nutjobs thinking he's actually called Buckingham palace and spoke to the Queen!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... =613622535

Sovereign national credit is the vast empty space between their ears I believe .

Could we be looking at the resurrection of the Roger Dollar perhaps ?

[longdog]

I've just had a look, what the hell is sovereign national credit and how the hell has it been proven to work???

Here's one of their nutjobs thinking he's actually called Buckingham palace and spoke to the Queen!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... =613622535

Sovereign national credit is the vast empty space between their ears I believe .

Could we be looking at the resurrection of the Roger Dollar perhaps ?

I wonder what happened to Rodge after that sold washed out meeting in Liverpool last year.

[SteveUK]

"mr o" is not someone you want to decline a loan to. No sirree.

complaint Mr O complains that Provident Personal Credit Limited (trading as Satsuma Loans) declined his loan application after it’d said it would lend him the money. background Mr O says he applied for a loan of £1,000 with Satsuma Loans online and he was told that it’d agreed in principle. He says that it’s now refused to lend him the money. Satsuma rejected this complaint. It said Mr O didn’t meet the eligibility criteria – he’s not a UK resident – so it was right to decline his loan application. Our adjudicator looked at this case and said she didn’t think it should be upheld. She said that Mr O didn’t meets Satsuma’s lending criteria so it was ok for it to decline his loan application. She explained to Mr O what Satsuma’s lending criteria are and told him that if he were to comply with them in the future, he would be able to apply again for a loan. Mr O disagrees and has asked for an ombudsman to issue a final decision. He says he’d like to be granted legal aid for representing himself in this complaint. And he thinks he should be given £56,000 to cover his costs and a further £100,000 in compensation. He’d also like face to face meetings with the financial organisation here in London and says he should be given first class airline tickets to London, £350,000 so that he can prepare his case and a 3 bedroom flat in Croydon where he can stay when he meets with them. Mr O requested a hearing to discuss his complaint. I looked at the evidence and his reasoning and decided that a hearing wasn’t appropriate or necessary because I had all the information I needed to decide this complaint. And I wrote to Mr O to set out my reasons. Mr O disagrees, but he hasn’t given me any new evidence or reasoning that suggests his complaint can only be resolved by holding a hearing. So I’m now issuing my final decision. my findings I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I’ve decided that this complaint shouldn’t be upheld.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=109325

[notorial dissent]

Mr O sounds to me very much like someone you wouldn't want to do business with, and I think his actions prove that.

[Pox]

"mr o" is not someone you want to decline a loan to. No sirree.

complaint Mr O complains that Provident Personal Credit Limited (trading as Satsuma Loans) declined his loan application after it’d said it would lend him the money. background Mr O says he applied for a loan of £1,000 with Satsuma Loans online and he was told that it’d agreed in principle. He says that it’s now refused to lend him the money. Satsuma rejected this complaint. It said Mr O didn’t meet the eligibility criteria – he’s not a UK resident – so it was right to decline his loan application. Our adjudicator looked at this case and said she didn’t think it should be upheld. She said that Mr O didn’t meets Satsuma’s lending criteria so it was ok for it to decline his loan application. She explained to Mr O what Satsuma’s lending criteria are and told him that if he were to comply with them in the future, he would be able to apply again for a loan. Mr O disagrees and has asked for an ombudsman to issue a final decision. He says he’d like to be granted legal aid for representing himself in this complaint. And he thinks he should be given £56,000 to cover his costs and a further £100,000 in compensation. He’d also like face to face meetings with the financial organisation here in London and says he should be given first class airline tickets to London, £350,000 so that he can prepare his case and a 3 bedroom flat in Croydon where he can stay when he meets with them. Mr O requested a hearing to discuss his complaint. I looked at the evidence and his reasoning and decided that a hearing wasn’t appropriate or necessary because I had all the information I needed to decide this complaint. And I wrote to Mr O to set out my reasons. Mr O disagrees, but he hasn’t given me any new evidence or reasoning that suggests his complaint can only be resolved by holding a hearing. So I’m now issuing my final decision. my findings I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I’ve decided that this complaint shouldn’t be upheld.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=109325

I sometimes think if you don't ask, you don't get but that is a big ask.

[SteveUK]

You've gotta be in it to win it !

[KickahaOta]

That decision actually points out a problem with current UK financial law. If I have an axe to grind against a financial institution, I can engage in the following petty act of revenge:

• Ask the financial institution to do some unreasonable thing.
• Let the financial institution tell me to pound sand. (If by chance the institution actually does the unreasonable thing, hey, I win.)
• Appeal to the Financial Ombudsman's Service. No payment is required.
• Financial Ombudsman's Service politely tells me to pound sand.
• Financial Ombusdman's Service charges financial institution a case fee of 550 pounds, with no exception for frivolous appeals.
• The financial institution is legally forbidden from recovering the case fee from me, or even suggesting such a thing.

(Note that this may not work for very small institutions, because every business is allowed 25 fee-free cases a year. But institutions of any size are bound to exceed this limit.)

[Forsyth]

Mortgage defaulter Charles Chestnut has been in the news in the UK today after being sentenced for burning down the house that was repossessed from them. There's not a lot about them on the net, so it's difficult to tell if they subscribe to any of the popular loony beliefs or just their own, but there are a few hints in the news, particularly in the earlier story where they received a restraining order:

Man who torched dream home after row with building society is jailed (Guardian)

A man who set fire to his dream rural retreat after a bitter dispute with a building society was found strumming a guitar and cooking on a barbecue next to the burning building by firefighters who arrived to help.

The court was told that in fact Chestnut was no longer the legal owner of Pontyrhodyn because he had stopped making payments. A county court had granted possession to the building society in 2014.

Scapens said: “Two years of further legal hearings followed because Chestnut refused to leave the property entirely and eventually he occupied a caravan in the grounds.”

When asked by the judge, Geraint Walters, if he had any submissions to make, Chestnut, who represented himself, said: “I would like to go free please.”

“The reality is this was their property not yours. You played cat and mouse with them for years. Then you decided to have the last laugh, or so you thought, by burning it to the ground. The offence was plainly deliberate. It was pre-planned.”

From back in 2014:

Farmer banned from his own home (The Pembrokeshire Herald)

A RESTRAINING order has been issued to prevent a farmer returning to his property after he was evicted. Charles Chestnut, age 52 and from Whitland pleaded guilty to illegally entering a residential property with a view to living in it at Llanelli Magistrates’ Court. Chestnut was asked to state his full name and said: “My name is Charles, just Charles.”

He failed to provide any further information to the court. Chestnut lived at Pant yr Odyn Farm up until June this year. He had a mortgage with Yorkshire Building Society but had accumulated over £114,000 in areas so his property was repossessed. Prosecution Solicitor Vaughan Pritchard Jones said: “He was evicted by bailiffs in July but he has on a number of occasions gone back to the property.

Representing himself in court, Chestnut said: “I am still in possession of Pant yr Odyn. There has been no High Court Order. I can not be a trespasser if I am still in lawful possession.” Chestnut was made aware that because he had not appealed to the High Court, which he confirmed, that they would not have any recollection of the case so would therefore not make any decision on the farm.

Although Chestnut pleaded guilty he still continued to plead his innocence and believed he had done nothing wrong. During proceedings Chestnut spoke continuously and at one point Mr Jones requested that he should be held in contempt of court if he did not stop speaking.

Following the reading of the verdict, Chestnut refused to accept the sentence: “I cannot consent to this order.”

[rumpelstilzchen]

During proceedings Chestnut spoke continuously

Definitely a footle.

[Hercule Parrot]

Anthony Badaloo has a new client

https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-re ... u/18822365

18 DEC 2016 — Law Student Keeda Wood being subjected to Fraud Upon The Court - Committal Hearing in the Civil Court. This SCAM is being used to subject thousands of families to Aggravation, Harassment and Torture, for personal gain.

Blimey, he's started another one....

https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-re ... =474429362

As a result of requesting figures from Neil Eccles and Hamish Kean of my bank, Kleinwort Benson (Channel Islands) Ltd., myself and family, like many others, are being the subject of Terror and Hate Crime, without any lawful foundation. The fact that they were bankers to Hitler, of Nazzi Germany, was concealed from us. We have been deprived of our home and worldly belongings, in circumstances of terror, from Gangsters and British Police alike.

Presumably Mr Badaloo's forensic skills were insufficient to avert the loss of his own home, even while he was purporting to represent others who were facing eviction.

[notorial dissent]

Seriously delusional.

[mufc1959]

There's a FOTL idiot on "Cops UK: Bodycam Squad" which is on Sky now, 8pm (Dave, Ch 111), and will probably show up on catch-up.

The preview of what's coming up later in the episode has someone arguing that he doesn't need a driving licence because he's not driving, he's travelling. This'll end well ...

[rosy]

I just watched that on Dave ja vu.

He was being a bit of a knob both with the officers on the road and then at the cop shop, where he refused to tell them who he was. The police were perfectly polite and got his identity from his credit/debit cards - he ended up being charged with failing to stop, driving without a licence, and driving without insurance. Naturally, being a fruitloop, he didn't consent to that and failed to turn up at court, so at the time of making the programme there was a warrant out for his arrest. I've no doubt he'll count that as a win.

[Gregg]

I find it amusing that your sov'run idgits have picked up the "I'm not driving, I'm travelling" line which of course derives from a clause of the United States Constitution in regards to the right of free passage among the states, a right written into our Constitution because it was NOT protected when we were 13 separate colonies and there were sometimes taxes to be paid when crossing the borders from say, Virginia to Maryland.
So once again, your nutjobs have taken from our nutjobs a misconstrued right that we have because under English law we didn't have. A right that in England I'm not sure you have to this day, is it possible for you to need papers of some kind, or some tax to pay to cross from England to Scotland or Wales with any goods?

[littleFred]

A right that in England I'm not sure you have to this day, is it possible for you to need papers of some kind, or some tax to pay to cross from England to Scotland or Wales with any goods?

The borders between England, Wales and Scotland can be crossed with no papers or taxes. Likewise Northern Ireland, as far as I know, above the commercial cost of the boat or aircraft.

A favourite pastime of UK SovCits is mis-quoting from old foreign dictionaries, especially Blacks, and some editions of that can be misinterpreted to mean that operating a private car isn't "driving".

[AndyK]

Don't forget their reliance on the UCC.

[arayder]

There is no right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways.

Freemen and the like have convinced themselves that there is such a right the same way they talk themselves into everything else: they fish through statues and constitutions (which ironically they don't recognize as law) for something they can misconstrue.

The way most folks test such ideas is to do some sold research, check the case law or test the theory in court. But the way freemen check the validity of their theories is to put it out on the web and see if it gets some traction in the subculture.

[Arthur Rubin]

The way most folks test such ideas is to do some sold research, check the case law or test the theory in court. But the way freemen check the validity of their theories is to put it out on the web and see if it gets some traction in the subculture.

There places on the web which are generally reliable. Wikipedia, this board, and misc.legal.moderated come to mind.

[littleFred]

German soldier: "What's your name?"
Cpt Mainwaring: "Don't tell him, Pike!"

But GOOFy "werwe" takes this joke to the next level. He has been off the electoral roll "for 10+ years now". But other members of his household are on the register. So our hapless hero phones the council to ask for them to be removed from the edited register. (This is a legitimate request, no problem, but I expect it should come from those individuals.) And he gives his name and address. And he mentions that he's not registered at all.

Doh!

So then he gets the inevitable letter asking him to register, or possibly be fined.

He wants advice. Perhaps "get a brain" might help.

[Wakeman52]

There's also the problem of it being an offence, I think, to complete a false electoral return. If our hero is a member of the household, but his name has been omitted, then someone else has presumably signed for it being complete. Unless he did so....

Good Grief!