"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[Burnaby49]

But there is a difference between a shareholder (Or Limited Partner in an LP) personally guaranteeing a debt of the limited company, and making that specific debt recourse to them, personally versus other unsecured non-recourse debts of the same limited company. Typically, in limited companies, liability is limited to the assets of that company, although there are exceptions, which can pierce the limited liability of the company. Which is why the cost to borrow is higher for a limited company, unless someone is willing to Guarantee.

Back in my tax auditing days I reviewed the financial statements and debt obligations of a lot of small companies. Generally family businesses, husband and wife, maybe a few employees. The banks invariably made the shareholders personally guarantee any loans to the company. Essentially the banks treated them as proprietorships in respect to debt. I can't recall if there were provisions transferring the debt directly to the shareholders if the company defaulted. I doubt it mattered to the bank since the shareholders were liable either way even if the company went bankrupt.

[NYGman]

Back in my tax auditing days I reviewed the financial statements and debt obligations of a lot of small companies. Generally family businesses, husband and wife, maybe a few employees. The banks invariably made the shareholders personally guarantee any loans to the company. Essentially the banks treated them as proprietorships in respect to debt. I can't recall if there were provisions transferring the debt directly to the shareholders if the company defaulted. I doubt it mattered to the bank since the shareholders were liable either way even if the company went bankrupt.

True in those cases, but I doubt that if you bought IBM Stock, that IBM would come to you to sign their bank debt, in case of default. Back in the late 90s, Early 00s, I formed an LLC with my brother to do some property dabbling. Went to a bank for a loan, and not recalling the exact amounts, I believe it was 6-7% higher to borrow in LLC name, versus in my name. So while I could get non-recourse debt, it would have cost me more.

[Hercule Parrot]

Yes, Robert White's £31k debt is over business rates for the nightclub. See https://www.facebook.com/groups/practic ... 316667936/ and earlier in this thread.

He has a record:

More to the point, does he have a house? Over £40k of debts, plus legal and administrative costs, it's hard to imagine that being recovered from anything but property. Could be an amusing re-run of Castle Crawford coming soon. Kastle Krusty Krab .....?

[SteveUK]

Success!!!1!!!

I present the posting of my rights to block access to Bristow & Sutor, and also showing the 3 pages of the letetr that they sent back to me. I will enjoy writing back to them, with the 4th letter included. I have only quickly glanced at the 2/3 pages of a badly scanned copy of their letter to me, but at the TOP of page 3 "they speak that A JUDGE went on to say that as a liability order had already been granted by the magistrates court, he had no reason to look behind the validity of the application." 1*, that means that someone challenged in a Court of LAW, the Liability order and this sitting Judge has admitted that he was not bothered to review the case at all, which is what he was being asked to DO...thus he BROKE then LAW.
2. In 1979, I had a APPEAL COURT JUDGEMENT against HMG/POLICE/CPS for being CORRUPT, in that they took me to court instead of my attacker, whom kicked in my front door as I tried to shut it to prevent the attack that was forthcoming, I landing on my hallway floor, then had my attacker leap upon me, and aiming 30/40 punches at all head etc... to this day, that man has never been arrested etc. The appeal Court Judge called the POLICE/CPS and HMG CORRUPT, the wrong man in Court etc...THUS ALL JUDGES are DUTY BOUND to OBEY this JUDGEMENT, but in 1998, the Corrupt police vtwice issued those QUASHED CONVICTIONS against me ...more to that , but even to today, HMG/POLICE/CPS will not answer why they are in VERY SERIOUS CONTEMPT of COURT...

[JimUk1]

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 1737872527

I suspect this I'll be filled in the draw "wtf".

Isn't it about time the Barons publicly came out and ended this insanity?

[SteveUK]

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 1737872527

I suspect this I'll be filled in the draw "wtf".

Isn't it about time the Barons publicly came out and ended this insanity?

Insanity???? But this has a 100% success rate - FACT!!1!!

Failure to rebut that in 2 seconds means it stands as the truth.

[JimUk1]

Warning: Mass failure impending-

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... _tn__=%2As

[longdog]

Warning: Mass failure impending-

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... _tn__=%2As

That's the same shit he posted yesterday and so far his hope that people will unite en masse in defending Ollie Pillock from the evil machinations of the courts seems to have been less than 100% successful.

I was just browsing through Meads vs Meads again (as you do) and while this isn't quite a fee schedule the following paragraphs seem relevant...

[526] It occurs to me that ‘fee schedules’ may also have a potential criminal effect. Documents of this kind are intended to impede the legitimate action of government, law enforcement, and court actors by purporting to assign very sizable penalties for actions that are not only a part of their jobs, but very often a duty. These penalties are a threat of “damage to property”. Since ‘fee schedules’ have no legal force, the threats they contain are by definition unlawful.



[527] If so, it seems that perhaps when a person advances a ‘fee schedule’, that may be prima facie evidence of the act and intention of the Criminal Code, ss. 423.1, intimidation of a justice system participant offence. Advancing a ‘fee schedule’ and claims based on the same, may perhaps also prove other criminal offences. Mr. Meads’ ‘fee schedule’ claims damages that clearly escalate in a manner that offends the Criminal Code, s. 347 criminal interest rate prohibition. Documents of this kind may have relevance for whether bail should be granted or denied: R. v. Boisjoli, 2012 ABQB 556 (CanLII) at para. 51.



[528] In summary, unilateral foisted agreements have no effect in law: Papadopoulos v. Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII) at para. 4; Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312 (CanLII) at para. 3, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 138. Operationally, these alleged agreements would deny the authority of the court to determine the substance of a legally binding agreement and all parties intentions. Their effect is to say the court has no authority to implement legislative rules and prohibitions, and instead purport to allow a litigant to fine the court, judges, and peace officers for the proper exercise of their authority and duties. Foisted unilateral agreements are therefore a prohibited attempt to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts, and merit civil, and possibly criminal, sanction.

The fact that this garbage is being organised (and I use the word in its loosest possible sense) on Facebook would seem to add a conspiracy charge to the whole thing

The best thing about this is that not only are they attempting to pervert the cause of justice they're not even doing it like normal people would do it... Up a dark alley with a blunt instrument... They're doing it in writing to the court with their home address on the letter

[JimUk1]

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 0311121003


"Can I had down a tax paying job and still be in LR?"

You won't guess the reply!!! It's brilliant!

[SteveUK]

Indeed - it's insanity o'clock

[NYGman]

Other experts spout rubbish, but not David, he has high quality recyclable refuse

[longdog]

Yet another post from David 'fuckwit' Robinson about Ollie Pillock...

Good afternoon rebels....

Please add your name to the list of people serving Notices in support of Ollie Pinnock as he tackles that beast 'The Council Tax' as a pioneer for the rest of us.....He is not the only one using Article 61 to do this but he is arguably the closest to the finish line and, has been so thorough with his process that they have NO wriggle room whatsoever...Will they be the first to commit High Treason against this Movement?....We WILL go after anyone that does with everything we have. These crooks need to realise that they are standing in outlawry as outlaws!...the law does NOT protect outlaws and no prosecution can be brought against anyone who takes any actions against them.

Please just add your name and keep the thread clean....It would be nice to know how many Notices they receive..thanks brothers and sisters...

While I'm reasonably certain that they are all mouth and trousers the bit about "the law does NOT protect outlaws and no prosecution can be brought against anyone who takes any actions against them." does make me wonder if the recipient of these 'notices' should be warned that there might be a risk to their safety.

[JimUk1]

Your not wrong Longdog!

It does seem to imply that they would maybe just overstep the mark.

Now if only they had some cars, and money, and a coherent leader, and the ability to organise a piss up in a brewery in Nottingham.....

[SteveUK]

Yet more win !!!1!!

I had this letter yesterday in reply to my Notice of Lawful Objection which i had sent to the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police dated the 15th April 2017. I had posted this to the Group before. I had to laugh how they stated that the Chief Constable gets a lot of mail...YES HE DOES, about how CORRUPT and BENT his police force really is. It is not me who needs much legal advise, but them and to ADHERE to the LAW.

[AndyPandy]

Someone needs to pass that video of David 'parasite' Robinson at the so called Moot to the DWP, looks fairly mobile to me - shows him standing, talking, moving around - didn't he say he couldn't even raise his arms to wash his hair - maybe it's just his preference for long, greasy hair rather then any genuine disability!!

[JimUk1]

Jezzzz, When did the super-information highway make people such morons?

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 0261069008

[AndyPandy]

Jezzzz, When did the super-information highway make people such morons?

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 0261069008

No idea, but it's highly entertaining

[notorial dissent]

I think the innerwebs has become what they were claiming TV had become. There is an immense amount of information to be found and accessed out there, the problem is that you have to have the sense and discrimination to tell what is fact from fiction, and many of the current users lack that ability either through education, experience, or inclination. In other words they look for what they want to find not for what they should be looking for.

[littleFred]

Indigo Child, aka Sovereign Paralegals, apparently aka David Jason Jeremeter, has put up another long rambling video vaguely about the Nottingham Moot, mostly PLD when he can stay on track: Evoking Article 61 1216 Magna Carta..Update on MC Conduct.

Only the original one matters, he says, the 1216 version, with article 61. He repeats this: 1216.

Huh, what? MC was revised in 1216. And 1217, 1225 and 1297.

The original was in 1215. Unless there has been a Mandela thingy.

It's only a small slip, but given their insistence that versions from 1216 onwards were invalid, you'd think this small detail would matter.

[JimUk1]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/1477379 ... nal_boxer/

Seems Ollie Pinnock is a professional Boxer. Although he was due to fight in December 2016, I can't find anymore lined up?

Perhaps his freeman beliefs are hampering him!?