Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

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

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

Post by Amy » 21 Apr 2016 11:54

She reminds me of a female version of Chief Inspector Dreyfus.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6012
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 12:06

So the "shocking" case law advice actually came from one of JK's books? Ergo, Sheila must believe that JK's advice is shocking.

Oh and according to the chimp, we are currently roundly condemning Jason.

I've said it before, but there can only be one person feeding Sheila this misinformation, a certain aggressive solicitor who fights for the bailiff companies - yet still no-one over there questions how healthy this friendship is.
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
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4126
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

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

Post by Amy » 21 Apr 2016 12:16

"A lot of further information will be forthcoming shortly" [when Peter Felton gives it to me]

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14826
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 21 Apr 2016 12:46

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
I don't have the book on seizure of goods. Its all from Practical Law.

It could be JK based his book from the same source material.

There are other sources such as westlaw Sweet & Maxwell.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 12:48

Sheila is right about one thing though.

All these cases are very similar and all involve sham sales to friends or relatives that are easily disproved. Usually the debt is a PCN.

Nobody likes paying PCN's, least of all me. The gamble involved in trying to fight them though is not one that any rational person should consider. Who in the right frame of mind would risk a 12 grand Merc in order to evade 2 PCN's that in all honesty were probably lawfully incurred?

Jason is his own worst enemy because he never seems to consider that the bailiff could be right and the debtor could be wrong. There are just as many dodgy debtors out there as there are dodgy bailiffs. He takes on a case regardless of the facts and somehow manages to convince himself that it is winnable in court.

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 12:52

jasonDWB wrote:
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
I don't have the book on seizure of goods. Its all from Practical Law.

It could be JK based his book from the same source material.

There are other sources such as westlaw Sweet & Maxwell.
Your quotes are very often word for word to what JK writes, often only furnishing the tiny piece that JK has covered, when there is more material available elsewhere. I don't think I've ever known you to post a case that isn't in that book.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14826
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 21 Apr 2016 12:52

Mark1960 wrote:
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.
That pretty much sums is up.

I tried to get a specialist solicitor in case law to look it over and represent, but the time scales were way too short to put together a defence and the was no appropriately skilled solicitor available on all three days of the trial. Not even I was available for all of it.

I have also shown Johnson the Sheila CAG thread, and he will be having a word and setting the record straight.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14826
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 21 Apr 2016 12:54

Mark1960 wrote: He takes on a case regardless of the facts and somehow manages to convince himself that it is winnable in court.
The decision to take on cases do not reside with me. Only the solicitor can.

I attended Johnson because he asked for me.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14826
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 21 Apr 2016 12:56

I have been given permission to upload the bundles, but only in members board. They can be discussed publicly but nothing that contains hsi address may be given anywhere in open forum or search indexable.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 12:56

Speaking of the liars:
I have to say that perhaps if they hadn't supported his daft theories and in the first place their protestations may get more credence
For someone who always insists on evidence or a source, you certainly post a lot of hearsay yourself chimp, you grubby, self-confessed liar. :lol:

Now if what you have quoted really is correct then surely some examples won't be hard to dig out-Even for an uneducated cretin like you.

I think we both know that none will be forthcoming though-You have just made this up to sling your mud-In the absence of any ability to actually help debtors, it is what you specialise in.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14826
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 21 Apr 2016 13:42

This is worthy of comment, but not on the CAG board.
I find all of this bizarre. If this chap sold his car to a friend, then there will be evidence of the sale proceeds having gone into a Bank account and the new owner would have registered with DVLA. If this had all been done properly, the car would not have been taken or the new owner could have applied to a court to get the car back.
The buyer of the cae made an interpleader claim for the car and it failed.

Contrastingly, Recorder Judge Campbell QC on 21 April 21 at City of London county court found the car was indeed, owned by the applicant buyer after considering the same set of facts.



Why would any MF represent/help someone in this situation, where the circumstances are a bit odd ?
He phoned me and asked if I could accompany him to court.
It sounds like someone trying to avoid paying PCN's and bailiff fees at the time.


The court only said the PCNs were Johnsons responsibility. Nothing about trying to avoid them.

The car was taken by bailiffs and sold because nobody believed it was not the property of the debtor. Then add on top the musical element, for which there was allegedly no proof it was ever in the boot.
The court accepted the goods were in the boot, as well as the CD and that both were exempt. The claim failed because there was insufficient evidence as to their value and consequential loss of earnings.


The other thing that is difficult to believe is being asked to attend a court without any notice to sit by someone as a LiP. Why would anyone want to be put in a position of helping someone at such short notice,
Have you never travelled by tube before? or are you a country bumpkin like Sheila and the oddball who rely on the Green Line coach that comes 3 times a day.

I don't know about you but I have travelled by tube unaccompanied by an adult since I was 9 years old when I worked at my grandmothers shop sorting out newspapers. In fact you can be just about anywhere on the tube map in under 45 minutes.

I can be at the HC on the Strand in under 10 minutes to represent a client (under authority of a solicitor) for procedural stuff like writ set asides and assessments hearings. That's what I call short notice.





when it has been going on for over 5 years. No person however well informed on general issues is going to be of much help against defendants council who had prepared thoroughly. Why risk being associated with this ?
There is no risk to me.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 15:01

Odd how he claims to only be called in at the last moment and then goes on to argue an in-depth knowledge of the case
Its not odd, its fact, you uneducated, semi literate cretin. Do you think we all have to resort to lies like you & Lady Hardon do?

FYI Johnson sent Jason the bundle over on 29.03.16 with the following line:
Dear Jason

Its Tex here.

Here are my docs I was requested to serve on court and defendants by 24.3.16

Regards
I don't know how many times we have to go down this road but you never seem to learn do you?

I'll be the first to criticise Jason but I can tell you 100% in this case, he had not heard from Johnson from 2013 until the emails of mid March of this year. Johnson is currently trying to join CAG himself to put Hardons nonsense right-Why don't you ask him, instead of your usual style of making (incorrect) assumptions?

I will also add that Jason tried to get Johnson a solicitor on a no win no fee basis-I don't think he's done a MF since Larnyou. If you have evidence that Jason charged a fee as a MF then please share it with us or why not ask Johnson himself when he joins CAG-Until then can you please stop making assumptions? Your track record for doing so is currently standing at a 0% success rate.

PS do you do the lottery? If so, can you let us know what numbers to use please? I'll have to ensure that I avoid them like the plague as you are the proverbial walking disaster.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14826
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 21 Apr 2016 15:14

I don't think he's done a MF since Larnyou
And the reason is the representation for the bailiff company has made factual errors and mislead a judge to believing a HP car gives a beneficial interest. The same solicitor is now defending a claim involving 2 clamped cars (excessive levy), and he argued the bailiff had to determine whether either car was on HP. The case transcript of Reiss v Barnet is being given in evidence which contradicts that defence being made by the same solicitor and Newlyn.

Another case, Larnyou, the solicitor said the multiple charging of £235 for was computer software error and it would be remedied. I now have a long list of identical detailed assessment claims all involving Newlyn charging multiple £235 for simultaneous enforcement. These claims are mounting up because I am waiting on the Larnyou transcript from Court Service.

Larnyou and Reiss are the reasons why I switched from MF to solicitor.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 15:15

He also is still under the mistaken impression that an MF can represent anyone
And you're still under the mistaken impression that costs are going to be recovered in this case :lol: Good luck with that.

Could well be a fmotl stunt being pulled off here-Knowing its a subject close to your heat, I thought I'd break the news to you gently as I know that you're not in the best of health. I can see someone ending up heavily out of pocket here and its not going to be Mr Johnson.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6012
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 16:43

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: 6012
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 16:58

It seems that despite Mr Johnson posting the facts himself, he is being surrounded by the usual gang of idiots and being called a liar. I think there will need to be a good harvest of humble this year for the pies on CAG.
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: 14826
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 21 Apr 2016 16:59

and Sheila has done her usual runner leaving the lackeys to run the flame war.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6012
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 17:05

josephbloggs wrote:Wonder if that outburst was drafted by someone on his behalf as well!!
Just so Mr Johnson is aware, this poster is a bailiff - a particularly aggressive individual with a history of sending abusive messages to a woman when he was a used car salesman. On a plus note, a debtor did shit on his leg.
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: 14826
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 21 Apr 2016 17:10

He has an interesting facebook profile, but the location of the screen capture is buried down in the members board.

The press like talking about him. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... d-him.html

http://metro.co.uk/2014/06/24/youre-a-m ... n-4774149/
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6012
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 17:18

Oh dear oh dear... it seems someone on CAG has shit their pants (keep clear JB). The entire thread has been removed.
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: 6012
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 17:48

I guess there's nothing stopping anyone offering apologies on the other thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... ost4892192
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: 14826
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 21 Apr 2016 18:31

It was only a matter of time Sheila would be ringing around desperately getting that post deleted.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14826
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 21 Apr 2016 18:33

  • Dear Ms Saturn Five,

    I am the Mr Johnson who lost my claim against L B Newham and Newlyn PLC Bailiffs. Yes, I am the one you are having a good laugh at, but that is not a problem to me because I have very THICK skin :)

    The fact that I lost my claim against your Bailiff friends is 100℅ MY fault and had nothing whatsoever to do with Jason Bennison.

    This incident happened in October 2010. I found Jason's website shortly after and asked Jason to help me draft a letter of complaint to the London Borough of Newham. When Jason gave me the letter I changed 80% of its content. Had I used the letter as Jason had originally given it to me, I would have been much better off. The letter you have in your possession is NOT the original letter which Jason wrote for me, it is the letter I had amended by some 75% to 80%. Furthermore; you only have that letter in your possession because you tricked and deceived me into emailing it to you.

    Some 5 years after the letter was written, the matter finally came to trial in April 2016. I was in court by myself as a Litigant in Person. It was a 3 day trial and at the end of the 1st day of the trial I felt a bit overwhelmed as I was up against a very good Barrister (And your criminal Solicitor friend Mr Peter Felton of Newlyn PLC Bailiffs). At the end of the 1st day of trial I went back online to search for Jason's website again because I could not remember it.

    When I managed to get hold of Jason, I told him that I was in court in the midst of a 3 day trial. This was some 4 to 5 years after writing that letter for me, and Jason did not even remember who I was. He eventually did remember me and I asked him if he could pop down to the court and take notes as a McKenzie Friend (i.e. if he was not doing anything). I also felt he was much more knowledgeable than me and I may have been able to refer to him regarding the old Bailiff points of law whilst in court.

    For absolutely NO money whatsoever, Jason agreed to come down for the 2 days. Throughout the whole 2 days that Jason was there I only referred to Jason twice on a couple of legal points I did not understand. The Judge appreciated him being there to take notes. How many people do you know (Who is not a friend) that would come down to a court, at the drop of a hat, at such short notice, NO money? NOT VERY MANY I can assure you. Jason felt that win or lose, the issues were going to be of interest to him, and therefore he decided to pop down on the 2nd day of the trial to provide some moral support. It is rare that you find people of Jason’s calibre and although I lost my claim, I value and appreciate the fact that Jason was there in court providing that moral support when I had nobody else there with me.

    Let me repeat myself to you again Ms Saturn Five.......Apart from the initial letter of complaint to L B Newham (80% of which I REWROTE, i.e. the letter you managed to trick and deceive me into sending you), Jason played NO ROLE in helping me draft, process or execute my claim. In fact, there was a point in the trial where Jason advised me NOT to say something, but because thought I knew best and I had heard this thing said by one of the Defendant’s; I went ahead and told the Judge what I had heard. That did not go in my favour

    So I say again.........The work done on my claim was 100% MY work and the fact that my case failed at trial is 100% my fault and no one else’s!

    If I have ever felt cheated by anyone throughout this whole matter then it was being cheated, tricked and deceived by YOU Ms Shelia Harding and the money I wasted and was conned out of when using your premium rate phone line.

    Yes, Newlyn PLC claims that they are going to hit me with £30K in legal costs. The only problem is…….I am UNEMPLOYED!!! I therefore do not have any money to pay your friends and further; I have NO assets for your friend Mr Peter Felton of Newlyn PLC Bailiffs to seize. So you can tell your criminal Bailiff friends (Whom you quietly work with behind the scenes) to stick that in their pipe and smoke it!

    PS – in closing Ms Harding, should you dare to post any of my private details online then you are going to pity the day you ever do that!

    PPS – Please do not expect me to respond to any further posts by you or your other associates because I have better things to do.

    Mr Johnson
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

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

Post by Amy » 21 Apr 2016 18:33

Pote Snitkin wrote:Oh dear oh dear... it seems someone on CAG has shit their pants (keep clear JB). The entire thread has been removed.
Haha, first we had The Pink Panther and now we have A Few Good Men - truth, handling and CAG are never seen together.

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

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

Post by Amy » 21 Apr 2016 19:31

Sheila wrote:I desperately wanted to have the right to reply and had not realised until I started typing that the moderators had removed the entire thread. The timing was regrettable as I was in the process of uploading a copy of the final judgment.
I have a proposition for you Sheila, how about I give you the "right to reply" here?

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 19:33

They never seem to learn though AND still take everything that Lady Hardon tells them as Gospel. When are they going to see through her lies?

As for the chimp, if he wasn't such a nasty piece of work, you would almost have to feel sorry for him-His total lack of understanding of the law sticks out like a sore thumb and his low IQ gives him an extremely one dimensional outlook on things (rights of entry recently being a prime example)

This week he has decided for some bizarre reason that one of his fellow Caggers had decided to cut and paste other peoples comments instead of posting their own-Quite why anyone would want to do that, I'm really not sure. Even when told by that person that no such thing had happened, the chimp still maintained that it had. Then today he finds it "odd" that Jason had only just been called in at the last minute maintaining this opinion even after the Claimant himself had confirmed this.

The hapless UB then found the whole episode bizarre and difficult to believe. Unfortunately, this is what happens when you simply take Lady Hardons word for everything and the advice to UB has to be to get a mind of your own and stop following that stupid woman like some lost sheep.

Finally our very own odd couple Clive & Sue couldn't resist their little digs-Sue is unfortunately beyond help as she is so in awe of the dominant, controlling Lady Hardon that she really is a lost cause. There is still hope for Clive but he does appear to be on a downward spiral.

No doubt an apology to Mr Johnson from any of this motley crew will be out of the question. From a personal point of view, I would just like to say keep on keeping on guys- Purely for entertainment value, you lot never disappoint.

A special mention should also go to our old friend "Fair Parking" who claims to know more about parking matters than the courts, judges and solicitors, despite being a hairdressing events manager. Whilst Jason very kindly and to his credit, travelled to court and offered Mr Johnson help and support free of charge, Ron, as he's known to his friends appears to have charged Mr Johnson an extreme amount of money. Quite what for, is anyones guess. An example of Rons professionalism can be seen in his invoice-5 hours @ £35 per hour £210 (work it out and have a look at 2.2 hours @ £35 per hour as well)

I have been the first to criticise Jason in the past over previous court cases but a big pat on the back is deserved on this occasion-As Mr Johnson says, there are not many who would go to court two days running, free of charge to help a stranger.

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 19:37

Amy wrote:
Sheila wrote:I desperately wanted to have the right to reply and had not realised until I started typing that the moderators had removed the entire thread. The timing was regrettable as I was in the process of uploading a copy of the final judgment.
I have a proposition for you Sheila, how about I give you the "right to reply" here?
Whats the point? All we'll get is more lies. She's a compulsive liar-I doubt she has an honest bone in her body.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6012
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 19:46

A final copy of the judgement. Once again, Felton is passing on information for her to post. His vendetta against Jason is only second to hers.
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: 14826
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 21 Apr 2016 19:51

Sheila says she cant edit posts, but she can get an ENTIRE THREAD deleted when it suits her.

Actually I would be surprised if PF is working with Sheila. At the moment, I'm privy to knowledge he has created too many enemies and cant afford to piss anybody off.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6012
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 19:54

Assneck wrote:Anyway might be better to let sleeping dogs lie, and we will have to search for the judgment.
No, no, no-no-no, oh no, no, NO! This cannot be brushed under the carpet. Sheila has embarrassed the boards, again, posting lies and misinformation supplied by Mr Felching, and even when Mr Johnson himself posted a reply stating the facts, it was dismissed and ridiculed. She promptly disappeared leaving the rest of you to take the flack, only reappearing once the thread was removed, saying she has the judgement but refuses to post it.

She is taking you all for fools.
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.

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 20:04

Pote Snitkin wrote:A final copy of the judgement. Once again, Felton is passing on information for her to post. His vendetta against Jason is only second to hers.
Perhaps he works on some kind of an agreement with Newlyns whereby if costs aren't obtained, he doesn't get paid?

As most of Jasons clients are "men of straw" as Felton puts it, there would normally be little prospect of ever physically obtaining costs, even if they were awarded. Rudey being the obvious exception as he was a home owner.

I got the feeling that getting money out of Larnyou was going to prove difficult and in this case yesterday, harder still.

Somebody is going to be out of pocket be it Newlyns or Peter Felton. Theres £40k thus far on this case alone and another pointless, futile hearing to come to determine costs. Given the length of time this has dragged on and the size (allegedly) of Feltons bundle yesterday, a lot of work has gone into this. There appears to have been a separate Form 4 for Gideon as well.

Either Newlyns o Felton are going to have to take a fairly big hit on this.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6012
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 20:56

The silence is deafening. The inboxes are overheating. The humble pie is getting cold. Not a single hint of contrition.
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.

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

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

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 21:08

Pote Snitkin wrote:The silence is deafening. The inboxes are overheating. The humble pie is getting cold. Not a single hint of contrition.
Its their MO (just for you Sue-I know you like that phrase)

When they are wrong, they prefer to leave their mistakes, rather than correcting them for the benefit of others.

Hardon did it recently with her joint liability nonsense and the chimp followed suit with his Schoolboy like assessment of who may receive instructions from the creditor.

Both statements have been completely ignored by our loveable dinosaurs- In true soppy chops style, they have let sleeping dogs lie.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6012
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 21:10

It is further regrettable that his post from here has been reposted on another social media site but strangely, it has been posted by the McKenzie himself (as opposed to the claimant), Thereby of course blocking the claimant from answering any queries.
Good God - what is she wittering about? Mr Johnson can answer any queries he wants. It was CAG that blitzed the thread to deny him a platform there.
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: 6012
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 21:31

And still the denials continue - Assneck continuing with the accusation that Jason wrote the post. This is despite Mr J posting with a CAG account he opened in 2010.

Still no comment on Ron's £1700 bill.
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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest