Is this where Ex-Goofers have gone to play?

[morrand]

It used to be that they would do a test run of .01¢ to validate ACH, but I'm not even sure they do that anymore

Some banks still do this. they will send, then remove 2 random amounts, say one for .06 and another for .20. you get an email telling you to enter the 2 amounts sent/removed into their site to verify.

This is still, apparently, the process on the US side of Paypal. The UK side is a bit different:

For security purposes or as part of getting verified you may be asked to add your bank account to your PayPal account and confirm that you're the owner of that bank account.

To confirm your bank account:

1. Go to Wallet.
2. Select the bank account to confirm and click Confirm.
3. Click Continue, then review and submit the Direct Debit details. (If the bank account is a business account or more than one person is required to authorise debits, you must print and sign a paper Bank Funding Instruction and post it to the address provided.)

We'll deposit 1p in your bank account. You'll find a 4-digit code next to the 1p deposit on your statement. This should appear in your bank account within the next few minutes, but may take up to two hours, depending on your bank.

When you know the 4-digit code:

1. Go to Wallet.
2. Click Unconfirmed next to the bank account to confirm.
3. Enter the 4-digit code and click Confirm. (You can make 3 attempts.)

If the bank account is for a business or more than one person is required to authorise debits, you must print and sign a paper Bank Funding Instruction and post it to the address provided on-screen.

So, for all the people just guessing at sort & account codes, even if they happen on a valid set, in at least some cases Paypal will still want verification that they have access to the account. It troubles me a bit that they don't clearly seem to do this as a routine matter—though perhaps that depends on whether the Paypal account has some other validated funding source associated to it, as, if it does, then Paypal can still get their money even if the attempted bank withdrawal fails. Say, if the actual account owner files an (ironic, with this gang) DD clawback.

[Siegfried Shrink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwMkISc1LEU#t=46.9315

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgFumOy7L1w

Well, you can all forget Paypal and cheques, because Jacob Rothschild is going to get the Bank of England to pull the plug on the dollar and bring the entire system of everything and stuff down.

This is apparently to hide the evidnce of secret accounts. Seems a bit drastic.

[grixit]

Next stop: the Vatican bank. Or possibly the Hanseatic League.

[notorial dissent]

I always liked Die Hanse, they were a fun group. The Vatican Bank, not so much.

[Siegfried Shrink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6aFukLxkpE

Todays episode seems to have abandoned any practical aspect and the world crash is nigh!

The Committee of 300 is involved somehow. He seems to mainly blame Britain and Europe
are somehow responsible. You can see a sort of evolution in the rapid fire video production. He may one day realise there are no funds.

[Siegfried Shrink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw4_oGTdMQk

Now all the banks are going to go bankrupt and all trust funds will be returned, all mortgages and foreclosures cancelled, everything will be reversed.
Not sure when. All the lawyers will have to go home.

Not sure when this will be announced but don't worry about it bros and sisters. Forget all the other stuff I said a day or two ago. Awesome!

I think he is in Curacao, they seem to have some potent drugs down there.

[The Observer]

I think he is in Curacao, they seem to have some potent drugs down there.

Maybe they could introduce him to curare.

[The Observer]

Well, I guessed that wrong, now international financial consultants, personified by some poor British chap, are in the firing line.

I'll give the boy an A for productivity, if nothing else. What can be next?

How about getting shutdown and locked out?

This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw4_oGTdMQk

Additional edit:

His other Youtube account is still open.

[aesmith]

This guy has the meter running on a mortgage dispute. He doesn't say what his underlying beef is, maybe he's in arrears and looking for a way out. Or maybe it's purely self-inflicted. Thread here .. A Call Out to the Whiterabbit

A call out to the whiteRabbit
Post by handle on Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:28 pm

I have a continuing case (part against Lloyds for my Financial Instruments to be disclosed.The bank refuses to deny their existence and yet will not tell me as they say it is commercially sensitive.

If Whiterabbit, or anyone else has info on this, I am attending a directions hearing within the next few weeks. - queens bench

The banks has raked up costs against me of £23k, and all they have done is to say that they have sent me copies of the mortgage deed, but they will not say that they have used my name under the power of attorney to conduct financial activities.

If the whiterabbit has info on this,it would be useful for all if he attends.

[aesmith]

Trouble at mill now, as Tiggy challenges or corrects some of Assassin's more fanciful assertions, in this thread for example where the suggestion that Magistrates must pay a bond arises ..

Can someone please point out to me where in the County Courts Act (or any of the Courts Acts) that a Judge needs to have a bond etc.

Magistrates have to be bonded and they work for free and have to pay their own bond.

Judges do have a bond, but unlike magistrates they dont pay it as it comes as a part of their job and the employer pays it, this is why you cannot sue a judge, you have to sue the company.

But where does this come from? To be able to use something successfully in Court you need to reference either a case law or an actual statute / statutory instrument and I can see nothing in any of the various Court Acts that says that a Judge has to have a bond.

They never advertise it but it is a requirement of the position and is simply insurance with premiums.

When you take up a position of magistrate, court clerk, or other position where you are in a position to make judgements you have to have some form of insurance, in the case of a magistrate or clerk they are the ones who make decisions and have to have some form of insurance.

Surety or security bonds are this insurance and if a magistrate or clerk makes an incorrect decision and causes a loss the claimant/defendant has the right to appeal, if this goes to the High Court and they overturn the magistrates decision you/they automatically claim against the magistrates bond which is either the surety or security bond. Without them they cannot take on the role or position of magistrate or clerk to the justices.

So if they don't advertise it where did you get your understanding from? Where does it come from that there is a requirement to take out insurance? Without written evidence this is just hearsay.

http://goodf.forumotion.com/t1235p25-counter-claims

This comes hard on the heels of the "Prepay Meter" thread where she helped shoot down Assassin's dogmatic assertion that a warrant could only be granted on safety grounds and not as a result of arrears.

[Siegfried Shrink]

My partner took up doling out justice in her recent years, I know there was a lot of training but no mention of any bond or insurance, and I think I'd have known.

[notorial dissent]

Mental giants the lot of them, and it would help if they quit stealing totally irrelevant and bad and/or totally erroneous info from the American branch of Idjits are us.

[longdog]

Assassin wrote:

When you take up a position of magistrate, court clerk, or other position where you are in a position to make judgements you have to have some form of insurance, in the case of a magistrate or clerk they are the ones who make decisions and have to have some form of insurance.

Surety or security bonds are this insurance and if a magistrate or clerk makes an incorrect decision and causes a loss the claimant/defendant has the right to appeal, if this goes to the High Court and they overturn the magistrates decision you/they automatically claim against the magistrates bond which is either the surety or security bond. Without them they cannot take on the role or position of magistrate or clerk to the justices.

This is a complete and utter fantasy. Magistrates enjoy judicial immunity for all actions taken in the course of their duties as a magistrate. An incorrect judgement is not actionable either criminally (except in the case of corruption) or civilly under any circumstances so there's zero reason to have a bond, surety, insurance or anything else.

Assassin doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

[exiledscouser]

Assassin is so dim that I think his personality might just be an invention. He might actually be someone playing a long-term wind-up. I mean Tiggy increasingly calls his bollocks out on that forum where dissent is instantly stomped on yet both survive a booting.

Assassin’s advocacy single-handedly wins millions (or was it.......billions mwah ha ha) through court room brilliance.

Assassin gets beaten to within an inch of his life and hospitalised by the evil police.

Assassin lives an idyllic pastoral existence trapped forever in an unending episode of the Darling Buds of May.

He’s an off-grid self-sufficient cider-mashing multi-millionaire bulshitter par excellence.

Hilarious.

[aesmith]

Lest we forget ... MY DAY IN THE HIGH COURT
Extracting only the stupid or juicy bits ..

Friday was a good day, we had issued a commercial lien and gone through the process, nothing was rebutted and we went to enforce the lien against the Tortfeiser, then it all began.
..blah..blah..blah.
judge simply said "its already been established its a Court de Jeure (common law) court and the jury have the power, I cannot get involved unless the jury ask me to, I am here as a recorder for the High Court and to offer advice if they request it".
..blah..blah..blah..
After a quick chat they decided to increase the lien by 50% to deter such fraudulent actions from other multi-nationals trying to throw money around to win a legal action against the common man. So it went to court as a £50M lien and came out as a £75M lien. (more blah..)

Wow assassin........W.I.C.K.E.D

how comes tuesday of this week you did not know where to register a lien, then friday you are in court with a jury??? what happen to the 90 day trust law of liens?

This does not make sense, what court, what judge, what recorder

So its all fuckin shite then

Followed by 20 odd pages with 50/50 mix of scepticism and adulation.

And on another thread where someone asked him where to learn more about these liens ..

Freeman sites are the best places to look; learned most of mine myself.

[ArthurWankspittle]

So no one in the media noticed a multi-national losing a £50-75m court case?

[JimUk1]

Even Tom Crawford makes an appearance on that thread (tommc), page 24.

Well, in convinced all freemen are delusional unemployed morons after reading that.

But I will give credit to Assassin, he does seem to have a good command of the English language, something not common with FMOTL.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I wonder what the Black Law dictuinnary (sic) has to say about 'a tissue of lies' and 'cut from whole cloth'.

It's the famous missing scene from 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty'

It's the comedy remake of '12 Angry Men'

All that is missing is a Maypole Dance.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff of 7 billion ounces of gold.

Next Episode: Our hero marries Neelu Berry,with Hilarious Consequences.

[Hercule Parrot]

Lest we forget ... MY DAY IN THE HIGH COURT
Extracting only the stupid or juicy bits ..

Friday was a good day, we had issued a commercial lien and gone through the process, nothing was rebutted and we went to enforce the lien against the Tortfeiser, then it all began.
..blah..blah..blah.
judge simply said "its already been established its a Court de Jeure (common law) court and the jury have the power, I cannot get involved unless the jury ask me to, I am here as a recorder for the High Court and to offer advice if they request it".
..blah..blah..blah..
After a quick chat they decided to increase the lien by 50% to deter such fraudulent actions from other multi-nationals trying to throw money around to win a legal action against the common man. So it went to court as a £50M lien and came out as a £75M lien. (more blah..)

No account of this childish Walter Mitty nonsense is complete without "I looked at the judge, he looked at me, and we both struggled not to burst out into laughter..."

What's astonishing is that even after he's been repeatedly proven to be a grandiose fantasist, the GOOFYs still seem to regard him as a reliable source of advice. It seems they really don't care what is true or real, only what appeals to their own wants and beliefs. Asinine is deservedly the figurehead and exemplar of their 'movement'.

[The Observer]

It's the comedy remake of '12 Angry Men'

"25 Angry Barons?"