Billboards stating "It's illegal to use a legal name".

[NoXion]

Well in the case of drinking orange juice "curing" colds that would be because of regression to the mean, but yeah the perception that fotler nonsense has any traction at all would be down to confirmation bias.

 

[bimble]

placebo effect. But orange juice salesmen pretty harmless compared to this lot.

 

[editor]

Just saw one of these loonboards in Southampton.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Spotted a second one in Reading, less of a prime spot than the town centre one, being outside Tilehurst station, at the quiet end of Oxford Road, and partially obscured by trees unless you're looking from the right place on the road. So their funding must be somewhat limited/drying up, or they'd have plumped for one of the primer spots on the same road, a lot closer to town, like Reading West station or something. Utterly manical behaviour, though. I just cannot fathom how someone with this much money to burn can have got so wealthy in the first place - has to be inherited or something. Being so detached from reality as to not only believe FOTL nonsense but also to spunk many many grands on such a fruitless ad campaign (who's true effectiveness can surely not be measured in any meaningful sense) is not conducive to being a bread winner, in my experience.

squirrelp - you sir are an idiot. You have not actually explained the outcome of the court case. They threatened to hold you in contempt, there was a security guy there, then....what? Did they adjourn? What happened at the next hearing? You need to explain things fully as your account lacks credibility. These things don't just go away, generally. I've worked as a court officer for a drug treatment service, and have observed how magistrates courts function close up for nearly two years. The most likely way to get off a charge is for someone to fuck up the admin and literally forget to book your case for the next hearing, or the police/cps to balls up the investigation/pre-trial work, or a witness not showing. They will never let FOTL arguments win, on general principle. Why would they relinquish their authority like that? Authority, btw, which is backed up by police and prisons, more than any real or imagined legal technicality.

 

[squirrelp]

squirrelp - you sir are an idiot. You have not actually explained the outcome of the court case. They threatened to hold you in contempt, there was a security guy there, then....what? Did they adjourn? What happened at the next hearing? You need to explain things fully as your account lacks credibility.

I think I explained it in fair detail. What do you find not believable about it?

 

[existentialist]

I think I explained it in fair detail. What do you find not believable about it?

I can't speak for jon-of-arc, but speaking for myself, I'd say "everything".

 

[squirrelp]

I can't speak for jon-of-arc, but speaking for myself, I'd say "everything".

Do you want to explain further? I have at least one poster saying there is nothing remarkable about my account all, and now one saying it is totally incredible.

 

[existentialist]

Do you want to explain further? I have at least one poster saying there is nothing remarkable about it all, and now one saying it is all totally incredible.

I'll put it another way.

Everything about the way you've reported the situation you described stinks to me of a very selectively drip-fed narrative. You started out trying to imply that you'd gamed the system with your fotlery, and slowly retrenched to a position where you admitted to little more than being bloody-mindedly provocative towards the magistrate, but with no particularly significant outcome.

What is truly incredible is that anyone would be foolhardly enough to go in for such tactics, whether as part of a sound legal strategy, as you appeared to be implying at the start of your tale, or for mere shits'n'giggles as you seemed to be dismissing it as by the end.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

I think I explained it in fair detail. What do you find not believable about it?

You've not stated the outcome. You've said your strategy was effective, so what was the effect?

existentialist said it much better, though.

 

[squirrelp]

So, neither of you are actually questioning the credibility of my account.

You've not stated the outcome. You've said your strategy was effective, so what was the effect?

I'm not sure what quote you are referring to when you say "You've said your strategy was effective". I said I'd been around the block with stuff and one of those things included facing down a magistrate who was threatening me with imprisonment.

As existentialist notes, that's not something you do every day, I do consider it a little out of the ordinary.

 

[butchersapron]

So, neither of you are actually questioning the credibility of my account.

What happened? What happened to the charge? I thought you'd be all over publicising it?

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Do you want to explain further? I have at least one poster saying there is nothing remarkable about my account all, and now one saying it is totally incredible.

Not "incredible", but lacking credibility. I've seen FOTL videos of people in court trying these tactics. It causes confusion and annoyance to the magistrates and professionals, but there is nothing "incredible", in the sense of being remarkable or improbable, about what follows. You lack credibility because you fail to say what happened.

 

[brogdale]

You lack credibility because you fail to say what happened.

That's how all FOTL shite concludes. Can't imagine why.

 

[bi0boy]

So, neither of you are actually questioning the credibility of my account.



I'm not sure what quote you are referring to when you say "You've said your strategy was effective". I said I'd been around the block with stuff and one of those things included facing down a magistrate who was threatening me with imprisonment.

As existentialist notes, that's not something you do every day, I do consider it a little out of the ordinary.

Was it like when you go into a shop but they've just closed, and a member of staff says "sorry we're closed now" and instead of going "oh, ok" and walking away, you say "closed? but it's only 17:29, you don't close until 17:30" and an exchange of words carries on for a while until you walk away. Because that what it sounds like.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

So, neither of you are actually questioning the credibility of my account.



I'm not sure what quote you are referring to when you say "You've said your strategy was effective". I said I'd been around the block with stuff and one of those things included facing down a magistrate who was threatening me with imprisonment, and walked free from the courtroom.

So you got an adjournment by being a dick and causing loads of confusion? And what happened at the follow up hearing? Did you continue to not acknowledge your own name? Let us know how that went. That's what matters here.

I once got pulled over by the filth on the way to a midnight scoring mission, and had all sorts of paraphernalia on me (pins, pipe, citric, etc) but nothing illegal. One of the coppers tried it on by demanding that I reveal information about my dealers, and I responded with the question "what happens if I don't tell you anything?"

"We make it open season on you..." he replied, quick as a flash. Although I have a drug problem, though, I work for my money, so this was essentially a hollow threat.

"What's your collar number, mate?" I replied. A risky and somewhat antagonistic response.

"I don't think there's any need for that. You be on your way, and don't let us catch you coming back", the other officer said, clearly aware that his partner was stepping over some boundaries that could get them both into some kind of shit.

Did I game the system? Did I do something incredible? No. I gambled that he was chancing it. The stakes? An inconveniently timed strip search at the station, possible raids on my house, and getting pulled over every time a cop car passed me... Or everyone walks away and nothing more was said about it. It doesn't mean I have the cheat codes to the legal system, though.

 

[squirrelp]

You think a magistrate in a court lacks jurisdiction? Lols.

It is not the case that a magistrate in a court of law has jurisdiction over everyone in the country.

In another matter, I had a claim against a limited company and a personal claim against the director of that company, who was not present and had simply returned the mail the court had sent. While he later awarded the claim against the limited company, the judge threw out the personal claim, stating one of the reasons as "we do not have jurisdiction". They take it seriously.

 

[existentialist]

Not "incredible", but lacking credibility. I've seen FOTL videos of people in court trying these tactics. It causes confusion and annoyance to the magistrates and professionals, but there is nothing "incredible", in the sense of being remarkable or improbable, about what follows. You lack credibility because you fail to say what happened.

And the endless squirming and hair-splitting - itself rather too reminiscent of in-court fotlery - just cements the impression of it all as no more than particularly naively incompetent barrack-room lawyering.

 

[squirrelp]

Not "incredible", but lacking credibility.

Incredible can mean the opposite of credible. I think I explained pretty much what happened in post #391

 

[two sheds]

It is not the case that a magistrate in a court of law has jurisdiction over everyone in the country.

In another matter, I had a claim against a limited company and a personal claim against the director of that company, who was not present and had simply returned the mail the court had sent. While he later awarded the claim against the limited company, the judge threw out the personal claim, stating one of the reasons as "we do not have jurisdiction". They take it seriously.

Don't think so. Directors of limited companies aren't personal liable - that's what limited means - limited liability.

 

[squirrelp]

Don't think so. Directors of limited companies aren't personal liable - that's what limited means - limited liability.

That's precisely why I had the director named on the suit separately. You can claim against multiple parties on the same case. Of course, I wanted the personal claim to stick so the debt wouldn't go if the company went down.

 

[bimble]

Squirrelp told the tale of his day in court with such drama that it was perhaps easy to miss an important aspect of the story. (my bold)

It was a business rates thing. I'd gone in to try to stop them rubber stamping a liability order and my name wasn't on any of the stuff. I didn't succeed.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

That's precisely why I had the director named on the suit separately. You can claim against multiple parties on the same case. Of course, I wanted the personal claim to stick so the debt wouldn't go if the company went down.

So you basically respect the jurisdiction of the court service when it suits you, but don't when it doesn't?

Kinda fits in with the whole individualistic assessment of FOTL beliefs and practices. There's very little ideology to it - just a bunch of desperate people who think that the rules don't apply to them, only to others.

 

[keybored]

That's precisely why I had the director named on the suit separately. You can claim against multiple parties on the same case. Of course, I wanted the personal claim to stick so the debt wouldn't go if the company went down.

So who owed you the money; the company or the director (personally)?

 

[two sheds]

That's precisely why I had the director named on the suit separately. You can claim against multiple parties on the same case. Of course, I wanted the personal claim to stick so the debt wouldn't go if the company went down.

But that's why the court had no jurisdiction. As keybored said, unless he owed it to you personally there's no claim against him.

 

[squirrelp]

But that's why the court had no jurisdiction. As keybored said, unless he owed it to you personally there's no claim against him.

Whether the court had jurisdiction, and whether my claim against the director personally had merit or not, are not quite the same thing.

 

[two sheds]

Whether the court had jurisdiction, and whether my claim against the director personally had merit or not, are not quite the same thing.

Why did you think you had a claim against him/her?

 

[squirrelp]

Why did you think you had a claim against him/her?

Respectfully, I don't wish to go into that. The point is not whether my claim had merit or not. The point is, jurisdiction is not something that automatically exists. And I don't think I granted it in the earlier story.

 

[two sheds]

No, if I take out a case against my dog for shitting on my carpet a magistrate might well say that the court has no jurisdiction and also that the case has no merit.

If the law states that your case is actually against the company then a magistrate won't be able to admit a case against the director.

 

[squirrelp]

I don't see the contradiction. A case might be said to have no merit if a court has no jurisdiction; but it does not have merit simply because a court has jurisdiction. They are not the same thing.

 

[rubbershoes]

It is not the case that a magistrate in a court of law has jurisdiction over everyone in the country.

In another matter, I had a claim against a limited company and a personal claim against the director of that company, who was not present and had simply returned the mail the court had sent. While he later awarded the claim against the limited company, the judge threw out the personal claim, stating one of the reasons as "we do not have jurisdiction". They take it seriously.

You clearly know fuck all about jurisdiction