Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post Reply
User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14810
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#141 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by jasonDWB » 28 Jul 2016 16:57

That Sheila is a blabbermouth.

Can't keep her trap shut, can't stay off that telephone.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Tuco
Posts: 1827
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#142 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Tuco » 29 Jul 2016 18:49

Funny how it's always someone elses fault isn't it?

The exact same thing happened when the Oddys were discovered. If it wasn't for Sheila the blabbermouth, we'd never have worked out who Nightowl was. However, according to Sue, it was someone elses fault entirely. You have to understand the mind set of these silly, small minded people-They never allow facts to stand in their way of fiction, if the fiction makes a better story and a bit of drama for them.

Meanwhile, I understand that nobody knows more about car auctions than Fair Parking

Tuco
Posts: 1827
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#143 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Tuco » 26 Oct 2016 08:57

I've just received a large file on Mr Johnson that Sheila ordered to be compiled. Her instructions were: "find out everything you can on Johnson"

Why would she want this information? What possible use could it have been to her?

Very odd behaviour.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14810
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#144 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by jasonDWB » 26 Oct 2016 09:55

She could have asked me, I have a copy of the entire bundle.

I would have told her its none of her concern.

Johnson did mention Sheila, but I don't recall in what capacity. I'll give him a call and see what her involvement was.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Tuco
Posts: 1827
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#145 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Tuco » 26 Oct 2016 10:10

You don't have any of this stuff. It includes his Linkedin page, Facebook page, Companies House checks and various pages on his singing career.

Quite why someone who has no interest in the case would go to these lengths is beyond me.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14810
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#146 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by jasonDWB » 26 Oct 2016 10:16

Peter Feltons MO is to dig up dirt on people and present circumstantial information as fact. If he has been getting Sheila to obtain that information, then she ought to explain why she asked for Johnson to be investigated.

The date of that email will most certainly be BEFORE the Johnson trial and AFTER Peter Felton's notice of acting.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4126
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#147 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 26 Oct 2016 10:44

Who did she instruct to compile it?

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14810
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#148 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by jasonDWB » 26 Oct 2016 11:07

Did she ask him to get background information on Larnyoh?

Which other Newlyn claimants were investigated in this way?
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4126
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#149 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 26 Oct 2016 11:27

Vile specimens, the pair of them.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#150 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Oct 2016 13:16

Sheila 'ordered' it? Who is she to order a check on anyone. Who did she 'order' and why did they obey? That's another nail in her coffin.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14810
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#151 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by jasonDWB » 26 Oct 2016 14:02

She is very beaky. She was offered a 'Treaty of Versailles' which required her to cease distrupting DWB and making investigations into my private life and having other people post it on the Internet. The return would be a cease fire and we all delete permanently any references to each other on the Internet made directly or by having someone else do it.

She refused.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4126
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#152 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 26 Oct 2016 14:05

jasonDWB wrote:She is very beaky. She was offered a 'Treaty of Versailles' which required her to cease distrupting DWB and making investigations into my private life and having other people post it on the Internet. The return would be a cease fire and we all delete permanently any references to each other on the Internet made directly or by having someone else do it.

She refused.
Did that include BHF because I did not know about this.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#153 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Oct 2016 14:18

I wouldn't want anything about her deleted - the public needs to know what she's really about. This latest revelation shows just how nasty she is and how she will fight on behalf of the bailiff. If anything of mine was deleted I'd just post it again.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14810
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#154 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by jasonDWB » 26 Oct 2016 14:51

I wanted to demonstrate to a solicitor a first-hand sample of Sheila's behaviour.

I've also been contacted by Public Policy Exchange who holds a symposium on civil enforcement. They revealed that Sheila had telephoned them earlier this year with a mega-rant about me. It was actually quite bizarre, and defamatory. I've asked for more information, preferably a statement.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#155 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Oct 2016 14:56

I wonder if she does the same with Ron and his scheme?
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14810
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#156 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by jasonDWB » 26 Oct 2016 14:58

I don't think so.

His detroitexpress name suggest he works in concert.

I'm beginning to read between the lines, it is DWB that is the target, and that is because it's a commercial entity solving peoples bailiff problems. Looking back at all those complaints, they follow a theme to discredit me. The malicious stuff such as an attempted denial of service attack was Clive, but I think it was at Sheila's request. That only stopped because their ISP saw from their server logs the subscriber was performing an attack and they intervened and restricted their account. I don't think Clive was aware his own ISP can see every fingerprint.

I've asked Nominet for a statement about their complaint received on DWB's domain name, and I will approaching Kings Court and ask for a statement in relation to, yet a further complaint. It looks like they both point to Clive, I just need that confirmed before I can approach him to discuss a redress.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#157 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Oct 2016 15:03

jasonDWB wrote:I don't think so.

His detroitexpress name suggest he works in concert.
How true. She is a total nutcase though ain't she? Once again manipulating others to do her dirty work. It's even worse this time as she was doing it on behalf of the EA company and their aggressive solicitor. She was actually providing information so they could build a case against the debtor, and for what reason? Simply because Jason was involved. Evil woman.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14810
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#158 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by jasonDWB » 26 Oct 2016 15:12

I don't think we will be seeing much more aggressive solicitor. He became over-confident following Reiss and Larnyoh and figured he can defeat schedule 12 on the basis of finding spurious information on the internet about claimants and giving it to court as fact. It encourages risky enforcement, and is now only a matter of time it comes unstuck.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4126
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#159 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 26 Oct 2016 15:14

So Sheila and her accomplice are acting as investigators for Felton?

I didn't think either of them could sink any lower.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#160 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Oct 2016 15:18

Lower than a geriatric slug's bollocks.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

Tuco
Posts: 1827
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#161 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Tuco » 26 Oct 2016 15:26

Just for clarity, the person who carried out the investigations did so on behalf of Sheila and nobody else. Here is what he said:
. Back in April Sheila phoned and asked me to look into Texford Johnson for her
I've no idea who for or why Sheila wanted this information. I simply posted about it because I thought it strange and that people ought to be made aware of the matter. It was also wrong of me to say that the person was "ordered". As you can see by his own statement, he was asked.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4126
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#162 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 26 Oct 2016 16:45

Tuco wrote:Just for clarity, the person who carried out the investigations did so on behalf of Sheila and nobody else. Here is what he said:
. Back in April Sheila phoned and asked me to look into Texford Johnson for her
I've no idea who for or why Sheila wanted this information. I simply posted about it because I thought it strange and that people ought to be made aware of the matter. It was also wrong of me to say that the person was "ordered". As you can see by his own statement, he was asked.
I should imagine he leapt at the chance, he would not have needed asking twice.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14810
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#163 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by jasonDWB » 26 Oct 2016 16:57

Would I ever?
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4126
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#164 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 26 Oct 2016 17:00

tisgs3.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#165 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Oct 2016 17:10

Wtf is going on with this woman? She is completely obsessed. I seem to recall hearing Jason's little boy in the background during that call he recorded. I also recall Ron providing a case number for the supposed 'child maintenance' case; when it was revealed the ref number actually referred to some case he was involved in he threw a proper wobbly. I'll see if I can find that again.

She is completely off her head and I hope more eyes will be opened following this.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14810
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#166 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by jasonDWB » 26 Oct 2016 17:33

I wouldn't say he is little. They all used to be.

I think Sheila reads too much facebook.

Today, she threatened to call the police.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#167 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Oct 2016 17:37

jasonDWB wrote:I wouldn't say he is little. They all used to be.
They're always our little babies no matter how old they are. :xmas_smile:
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#168 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Oct 2016 19:54

Perhaps it's time to bring this little gem out for all to see.
Full file.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14810
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#169 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by jasonDWB » 26 Oct 2016 20:08

Oops busted!
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest