Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post Reply
User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#1 Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Schedule 12 » 20 Apr 2016 20:17

A long running case about a vehicle taken in 2010 by Newlyn for 2 PCN’s was dismissed today.

The claimant had gallantly fought for nearly six years, preparing all his own statements and evidence of his own back, and delivered his claim right to the very end to plead to the court to give him back the content of his CD Masters and recording equipment that that was in the boot of the car.

The court held the CDs are exempt and followed the case of Bruno Brookes when his DJ records were taken, and were exempt goods.

The court did not accept the claim because it made a finding the claim had no standing as the car belonged to the buyer and not the claimant.

I only came to be aware of this claim after a solicitor for the defendant mentioned me by name and on the first day of the hearing, said that I was a “bailiff guru”. The claimant searched Google and discovered me and asked for me to attend the 2nd and 3rd day of the hearing at City of London County Court before HHJ Campbell QC. He had previously been working under the advisory of Fair Parking.

The noteworthy points in this claim is not so much the grounds of the claim, are not so much the case law that was in force at the material time of the seizure of the vehicle, but the extraordinary levels the defendant's solicitor went to obfuscate the claim, resulting in a fees bill for the defendants solicitor & barrister nearly £40,000.

The claimant is a person is no means, he lost his livelihood as a music producer and recording artist when his recording equipment was in the boot of the car when it was taken by Newlyn back in 2010. He has been unemployed since, and brought the proceedings on a Form EX160.

There is no real prospect of the costs made against the claimant ever becoming paid, and the liability dies after 6 years.

The creditor becomes a new client for a Family Protection Trust (FPT) to protect future property he may own from statutory liabilities, and vehicles will be owned and operated in a Ltd company. If a vehicle is subsequently controlled, a director can run an interpleader claim and the costs are thrown at the creditor. This will enable him to start to rebuild his life without being hampered by the effects of enforcement, third party or a charging order.

There is also a large VAT on top of the fees. As there is no prospect of the fees ever being paid, the VAT liability, thought to be about £8000, will have to be paid by the firm as output tax in the relevant tax period. After six years, the bill becomes a bad debt, however it will be out of time to reclaim the unpaid VAT as bad debt relief.

In short, the legal team lose 100% of their fees. Plus any costs of enforcement efforts, and landed themselves a VAT bill of nearly £8000 to pay.

It would have been more cost effective to have arranged a settlement with the claimant at an early stage when he had requested instead of creating a dog's breakfast.

The vehicle was a Mercedes with a replacement cost of around £10,000, but was sold on Ebay (A1 Environmental Ltd) for £4001.00. None of the proceeds of that sale was paid to the debtor. It had been trousered, and it was never fully explained where that money went.

The owner of the car, the person who the court found to be the owner, now has a right to recover the replacement cost of the car and deprivation of its use (almost 6 years), however the claimant had refunded the buyer some of the purchase price because he was responsible for the 2 PCNs. This claim is to be tendered out to solicitors. Not a strong claim, but sufficient if the buyer's assets and property is protected against statutory liabilities, such as a costs order for a failed claim.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Apr 2016 20:28

That post seems to be full of contradictions. Who was the claimant? You say the CDs were exempt yet the claim was dismissed. Claim for what? You need to clarify and put some context into it.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

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

Post by Schedule 12 » 20 Apr 2016 20:36

There is lots of contradictions. The Claimant is Johnson.

He claimed for the car, his Master CDs, labels and a mixing desk in the boot of the car. Damages for loss of income.

The car was taken from another persons property, and not the warrant address. Under schedule 12, that would have been an enforcement fail, but under old pre-2014 rules, the defendants argued Southam v Smout 1964 where a bailiff saw goods from outside, he could enter and seize them.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Apr 2016 20:38

He claimed for the car, CDs, labels (?) and mixing desk. Did he succeed with any of those?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

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

Post by Schedule 12 » 20 Apr 2016 20:42

No because the court was unable to determine the value of the claim from the evidence it was presented with (half a dozen witness statements). The court wanted the witnesses to give evidence in person because the statements alone, although accepted by the court, were not persuasive.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Apr 2016 20:44

So the court held they were exempt yet still dismissed the claim?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

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

Post by Schedule 12 » 20 Apr 2016 20:47

Yes. But we will have to wait for the transcript of the lengthy judgment.

I missed day 1 of the trial.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Apr 2016 20:52

So this was one that Ron was running with?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

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

Post by Schedule 12 » 20 Apr 2016 20:58

It was. And left a big bill.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Apr 2016 21:02

Well I fully expect Sheila to post a full breakdown of this 'horrendous' case. Of course, it will still be your fault.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

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

Post by Schedule 12 » 20 Apr 2016 21:04

She will have to get it from her mate PF.

He completely ignored me during the proceedings, surprised after what he wrote in his correspondence bundle.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 01:15

Seems like another victory right up there with Rudey & Larnyou.

I take it you & Sarah got your fees paid?

Is the form 4 being shelved now or will you be continuing towards another victory?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

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

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Apr 2016 08:53

No fees asked for and Johnson was unrepresented. I attended voluntarily at short notice to document the case. Johnson funded it all on an EX160.

I didn't build the case. He worked all off his own back. He was much the same as Culligan in the manner he put the case together. Culligan was successful and he had Judge Avent who sat in an earlier Johnson directions hearing.

The form 4 was dismissed. Grundelingh was present and looking at his case I didn't think a form 4 was sufficient just because he took a car situated on someone else's land that was not the warrant address.

It was established in Johnson that old rules, bailiffs can take goods from another address if they can be seen from outside. Southam v Smout 1964. This is in contrast to upcoming Miller case which goods were removed from an address not being an enforcement address specified on the writ.

The only fees I will earn is for his FPT to insulate his future property and assets from previous liabilities. An LPA and some estate planning. He is currently a man of little means but he wants to give directions nonetheless.

FPT clients come about if they are at risk of a liability. Typically it's divorce and long term care home fees, but in this case it's protection from high costs orders. It renders schedule 12 enforcement inoperable as well as charging and 3rd party orders inneffective. It causes the order to expire under its own accord. It's all 100% legal.

It's a DWB product not advertised. It's only offered to prospective clients.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 09:03

I thought he had counsel?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

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

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Apr 2016 09:13

No. Newlyn Newham and Grundelingh all had counsel. Johnson was on his own. I thought he did a Stirling job of delivering his case to the court in the face of what he was up against. He was overcome with emotion at one point.

More surprisingly. The barrister was asked to prepare a draft minutes of the order and inserted a factual error by saying I had assisted Johnson as MF when I had only been present for part of the proceedings. I thought that was a devious move to imply my presence throughout. I've since discovered a solicitor tried a similar move by surreptitiously deleting a whole paragraph from a draft order in a hope the opponents solicitor wouldn't notice. The drafting solicitor reacted explosively down the telephone when approached, which indicates a guilty mind.

This is the kind of behaviour that gets solicitors struck off.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 09:35

According to the 'Guru' he would have us all believe he came to the case 'late' and therefore played little part in the preparation of it!!
Actually Mrs O, the Guru would be correct-He did indeed come to the case late (6 weeks ago)

There was initial dealings in 2013, then after that, Johnson was forced to represent himself due to being unemployed.

Please try to get your facts right between getting your knickers in a twist-I don't know how many times you have to be told.

EDIT: Sorry, it was 4 weeks ago, not 6.
Last edited by Mark1960 on 21 Apr 2016 09:43, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 09:43

I'd like to know more about the £5k bill for 'research'. That sounds more like one of Ron's type of charges, like the one posted on here somewhere.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

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

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Apr 2016 09:45

Ron's bill was in the Johnson bundle.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 09:47

jasonDWB wrote:Ron's bill was in the Johnson bundle.
Did you catch sight of it?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

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

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Apr 2016 09:50

Yes I did and a copy is posted in members noticeboard.

Also the grundelingh Facebook profile posted up in members is the same one at court yesterday.

I'll ask permission to upload the bundle. I'm assuming he is not pursuing it further.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 09:57

Do I really have to sift through it all?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

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

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Apr 2016 09:58

It's in members. Let me go and find it!!
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 10:58

Aaaaand.... we're off -
Yesterday yet another case that he has been extensively involved in for at least the past 3-4 years (if not more) concluded after a three day trial and the claimant (Mr Johnson) has been ordered to pay substantial costs (to be assessed).

The local authority (London Borough of Newham) and Newlyn Plc were represented by Counsel. Mr Johnson represented himself as a Litigant in Person and was assisted on the 2nd and 3rd day by the McKenzie Friend (who was not allowed to address the court).

Given the significant past involvement of this McKenzie in this particular case, the court decided that the judgment should record the fact that Mr Johnson had been assisted by the person and his real name should also featured alongside Mr Johnson's in the Judgment (which should hopefully be made available in the next few days).


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... ng%29-nbsp
So the fact that the claimant contacted Jason about 6 weeks ago and asked him to attend for support, which he did for no fee, gets ignored.

The fact the claimant has been challenging this for 6 years and was a client of Ron's gets ignored. Hopefully Ron will disclose what he charged before we need to.

The fact that even though the judge accepted the goods in the car were exempt, yet the claim was still dismissed isn't worthy of debate.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

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

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Apr 2016 11:02

Given the significant past involvement of this McKenzie in this particular case, the court decided that the judgment should record the fact that Mr Johnson had been assisted by the person and his real name should also featured alongside Mr Johnson's in the Judgment (which should hopefully be made available in the next few days).
Sheila is getting her facts wrong.

The court did not decide for my name to be any judgment.

This happened after the Judge left court and the barrister, Mr Clements added it in surreptitiously before the Judge returned to court.

That was why the barrister reacted angrily when I picked up on it. It was NOT what the judge ordered. In fact the judge asked Mr Clemens to write the minutes of the order and made a factual error by saying I assisted the Claimant as MF.

I was only present for most of day 2, and the first half of day three. I had other commitments.

Also for the record, I didn't draft any documents.

I didn't charge any fees. City of London County court is on the District Line from me. Johnson is also on the District Line but in the opposite direction. I gave as much free time as I could.

This was the draft order as Mr Clements tried to pass it off before I intervened and corrected him.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4052
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

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

Post by Amy » 21 Apr 2016 11:08

The silly old bat has been here all morning using various proxies to read (even though it's only Thursday) when she couldn't read anything she drafted in old faithful aka the donkey to have a look for her and report back.

Nothing better to do, any of them, than try to find fault with this forum and more specifically Jason.

She doesn't have any cases or receive any calls of her own, she is nothing but Bailiff-can-take-my-hire-purchase-car's puppet, he uses and abuses her at will and she positively laps it up.

Very odd behaviour indeed. I might have to start a thread on this very IMPORTANT subject.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

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

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Apr 2016 11:16

This is the only fee that Johnson had in his bundle...

You can make up your own minds.

I am going to ask Johnson for permission to upload his bundles. He might decline, or only allow it in members. I don't yet know if he plans to take things further. He mentioned an SRA complaint but I have not explored the grounds and evidence. I would have to refer him to an SRA compliance officer at a law firm.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 11:20

No further comment from the Chimp or the Oddy's as yet. I think Fenella's been rumbled.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 11:22

jasonDWB wrote:This is the only fee that Johnson had in his bundle...

You can make up your own minds.
I wonder what actual advice Ron gave. Did it convince Tex to pursue the case? We need to be told.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4052
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

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

Post by Amy » 21 Apr 2016 11:22

They'll have to log in to see that.

So for the sake of CLARITY, that is an invoice in the sum of £1,720 from Fair-Parking (time charged at £35/hour!)

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 11:29

Come on Amy, in full....

Consultant fees for reading papers associated with claim - £210
Research case law, precedents and how + where vehicle was sold - £770
Preparation, collation, composing and typing of statement - £560
Preparation of appendices - £105
Dealing with emails, faxes and telephone calls to client - £75
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 11:33

£35 an hour?

The old crank organises hairdressing events for a living-He probably only earns £35 for half a days work.

That £1700 was money well spent then wasn't it? It gained Johnson absolutely nothing.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

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

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Apr 2016 11:48

addressed to London Borough of Newham that he confirmed had been prepared for him by the McKenzie Friend. The correspondence was simply shocking and cited at least 72 legal cases (most from the 1800's with one from 1623). Other correspondence was also provide and naturally I have copies.
Johnson has confirmed that no MF prepared any documents. We are in consultation with legal with him as I speak.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

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

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Apr 2016 11:51

Pote Snitkin wrote:
jasonDWB wrote:This is the only fee that Johnson had in his bundle...

You can make up your own minds.
I wonder what actual advice Ron gave. Did it convince Tex to pursue the case? We need to be told.
No evidence Ron was the driving force behind Johnson.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 11:52

I think perhaps Johnson was referring to Ron when he spoke to Sheila. Naturally she has copies of 'your' advice, so let's see them.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 11:54

Lady Hard On is getting carried away on CAG so lets hear from the horses mouth shall we? This is an extract from an email from Johnson to Jason on 16th March this year. If anyone thinks it shouldn't be revealed then I apologise and please feel free to edit/remove it:
Just updating you on my case that I first contacted you about in 2013.

It looks like the matter will be resolved by the end of April this year.


18th March 2016:
I have had to represent myself for the last few years because ever since my CD masters were seized and sold, I had to close my label and have been unemployed.

I'm not sure if PF thinks that Jason has always been involved and has told Sheila this but the truth is in those emails. Johnson contacted Jason about it in mid March of this year. That is the first communication since 2013.

I don't doubt that Jason was involved in 2013 and those case laws quoted (taken from JK's book "The Law on the Seizure of Goods") are as good as a fingerprint leading back to Jason. He always quoted them without fail.

The case was hopeless & doomed to fail-It never had any realistic chance of succeeding but this was all Johnsons call, not Jasons. There had been a hearing just before those emails that Jason had nothing to do with. It was only after that hearing that Jason was contacted.

My own feeling is that Jason tried to get Johnson a no win no fee solicitor but couldn't find one because it was so blatantly a lost cause-Jason claims to have simply been there to support. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt on that.

This is the truth, not Sheilas fantasy story on CAG. I know the truth dos interesting reading but Sheila and her chimp are continually fantasising and making things up-It is confirmation that they are a pair of old fools who have to resort to lies because they are so often wrong and found to be wrong.

Post Reply