Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post Reply
User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#141 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Sep 2017 18:52

If the creditor is VAT registered, the creditor reclaims it. Otherwise, the debtor pays it.

Andrew Wilson recently suggested that reclaiming VAT is optional.

The official position is explained in more detail here: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manual ... 0#IDAKNJQH

This article differs http://www.lawgistics.co.uk/read-news/8 ... iLqAs.dpbs which says: VAT should not be charged on top of those fees.

Reclaiming VAT on fees from a VAT registered creditor is straightforward in the small claims court.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#142 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by JimUk1 » 21 Sep 2017 19:43

Why would anyone want to ask the chimp anything? I personally wouldn't even bother asking him the time of day as he'd probably get that wrong as well.

Who cares what the chimp has to say? He is the epitome of lack of achievement.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

Tuco
Posts: 1838
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#143 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Tuco » 25 Sep 2017 22:32

More staggering stupidity of the highest order from a Quatlooser, this time, some character calling himself "The Observer":
Ironically, it was locked in response to your wanting proof about you lying to which wserra kindly provided a number of quotes showing that you did lie.
Oh really? So Wes provided evidence that I lied did he? Let's have a look at the evidence provided by the hot shot NY lawyer shall we?
I have approved every single application for at least a month. Lie #1.
A truly amazing legal argument and certainly conclusive enough evidence to send a man straight to death row. Well done Wes.
All of you charming people have been able to post here throughout this last brouhaha, starting with Bennison. Lie #2
I'm sold - Another incredible delivery from Wes
Nope. It was to refute what even you guys now admit was a lie
More compelling evidence. Can you imagine the uproar if one of us had said that? The place would have gone into meltdown with all the geeks posting "evidence please" :lol:

Is it any wonder that OJ Simpson got off that murder charge with Whizz kids like Wes about?

Finally, not only are we continually banned for posting what the poor little mites don't want to hear but they also have to have their last pathetic little say, before locking the thread, thus denying us the opportunity to respond. This is shown in both Jason posts.

Still if they keep on telling themselves that we're wrong enough times, they'll eventually begin to believe it.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#144 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Sep 2017 08:05

At the time, I tried 3 times to create a new account with each one failing to be approved - I managed to sneak Ted Striker in a few months later (perhaps even a couple more :xmas_mrgreen: ). Maybe all that fat around his head affects the flabby fecker's memory.

On another note, I wonder what the IP of Davyboy22 is?
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: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#145 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Sep 2017 21:42

I notice Mr Shifter has painted himself into a corner by insisting that EA fees are not subject to a percentage uplift. He also believes that writing 'accept' rather than 'except' is a spelling mistake rather than using the wrong word. It's another of those instances where he's heard a word used in a sentence but never understood it. Perhaps he'll insist that he typed 'excerpt' and his spellcheck changed it to 'accept'.
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: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#146 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Schedule 12 » 30 Sep 2017 22:16

Wesley is about exposing tax fraudsters and cheats. We all know someone who is a thrice car tax cheat. I'm amazed she has escaped the Quatloos net.

Be interesting if Wesley when allows it despite it being reported in public media.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#147 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 01 Oct 2017 17:08

Just having a quick read back through the current CAG flame war and Mr Shifter said that if a debtor refuses to enter into a CGA then EA can remove goods straight away - that is correct. However, he then ruins it by saying that this would not trigger the sale stage fee as the EA is only storing them - holding them hostage in a way, until the debtor pays up. He believes if the debtor then pays the kind old EA will just return the goods at no extra charge. He seems to believe that goods cannot be taken for sale at the first visit.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#148 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by JimUk1 » 01 Oct 2017 17:30

Going back to his "HCEO accepting" payment drivel, can anyone work out his response when corrected?
this is why I put accept HCEOs in the parenthesis."they charge the same whatever the amount due, and are not calculated as a percentage of sums owed.(accept HCEO) "
What is he trying to say? As the educated among us are aware, no form of enforcement charge the same whatever the amount due - All have a ceiling where the percentage kicks in. Does he now (cough) accept this? If so, what was the original drivel all about. To me, it is a classic example of the chimp displaying all the traits of a chimp.

As for his "spelling", actually getting the correct word to begin with would be a step in the right direction. We can then worry about whether its spelt correctly at a later date.

Also, does anyone know the official reason for his buffoonery? I've read the following:

1. He suffers dyslexia
2. His spellchecker has a mind of its own (which is more than the chimp has, it has to be said)
3. He is often drugged up to the eyeballs on painkillers
4. He hits the wrong key because he is half blind

Of course, none of the above actually explain his idiocy and the bottom line ids that he is just plain thick. However, I was just wondering what the official excuse was as I could do with a laugh.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#149 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by JimUk1 » 01 Oct 2017 17:41

Pote Snitkin wrote:
01 Oct 2017 17:08
Just having a quick read back through the current CAG flame war and Mr Shifter said that if a debtor refuses to enter into a CGA then EA can remove goods straight away - that is correct. However, he then ruins it by saying that this would not trigger the sale stage fee as the EA is only storing them - holding them hostage in a way, until the debtor pays up. He believes if the debtor then pays the kind old EA will just return the goods at no extra charge. He seems to believe that goods cannot be taken for sale at the first visit.
HaHa I only just read that. I find his latest drivel difficult enough to shift through, without looking at older stuff.

Perhaps everyones favourite chimpanzee would care to explain how his silly theory sits with a writ of control, in which the HCEO is commanded to remove and sell goods to raise the sum detailed on the writ?

Perhaps it should include the following at the end:
Just don't remove them on the first visit because if you do, you won't get paid for it
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#150 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 02 Oct 2017 08:26

It made me laugh that alreadyexists asked him to show where he'd said he wasn't going to post on that thread anymore - the chimp then spent over 3 hours searching for a thread from 2013 about implied rights. Another example of his inability to understand what is written.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#151 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by JimUk1 » 02 Oct 2017 10:40

Yes - Ironic that only a couple of hours earlier, he'd announced that he wasn't going to post further on the thread unless "some on topic post is made" Now unless I'm missing something here, implied rights is completely off topic in a thread dedicated to discussing the sale fee - Not least because the post he quoted was in reference to the old legislation. Call me old fashioned but you couldn't get any more off topic than that. Finally, it wasn't even a quote from "Alreadyexists" in any case. The bloke is not only a complete buffoon but he's also a total head the ball. He seems to be getting worse as well.

I really do wonder about what goes on inside his pea brain. He then has the added dimension of accusing others of "transference"
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#152 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by JimUk1 » 02 Oct 2017 15:46

I'm not sure whether he's doing this on purpose or whether he is just unbelievably thick:
What Civea said was that it was not the case and all that was needed was a positive indication that a sale was about to happen, some of us said that it was not enough and goods had to be removed and a valuation letter sent in line with the regulations.
Right - So a positive action is different from taking control of goods then? Because if it wasn't, they would just have said "taking control of goods"

Even more astonishing is his claim that a valuation letter needs to be sent before the sale fee is activated.

I give up, I really do give up. Where in God's name has this walking, talking buffoon of all buffoons come from? He has posted some ridiculous comments over the years but that one takes the biscuit. He thinks that a valuation must be given before the sale fee can be added. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'll say it now - That is his best comment ever.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#153 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 02 Oct 2017 22:14

The Peter_Moxon thread throws up an interesting possibility. He says a new EA co is now enforcing the balance of £62; following previous debates this should have attracted another £75 compliance stage fee. The fact that it hasn't implies that the previous EA co have had to forfeit all of their fees. I'll watch this one with great interest.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#154 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by JimUk1 » 02 Oct 2017 22:32

Sheila "Mrs Angry" Harding also appears to be digging a nice deep hole for herself on that thread as well. Oh for the days when you could come out with any old crap and nobody challenged you eh Sheils?

I see that even the chimp is now editing his own incoherent drivel as well.

They sure as hell don't like it "up em" do they?
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#155 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 03 Oct 2017 11:45

It's interesting that Shifter brings up the Bola case in Sheila's latest LGO thread. Wasn't it agreed in that case that to argue that a direct payment must be apportioned between the debt and the fees would be a "legal nonsense"? This is of course the exact opposite of what Sheila is trying to prove - and failing once more.

The LGO case has nothing to do with direct payments being split as the complainant paid the EA. Why Sheila reads this as proving her stance is beyond me. The fact still remains that fees can only be collected from proceeds - no matter how many different ways she tries to dress it up.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#156 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by JimUk1 » 03 Oct 2017 13:35

I'm absolutely amazed that even now, she still doesn't understand. My God the woman is dense.

Harding you idiot. Even your semi-literate chimp understands that legislation does not require the compliance fee to be deducted from money paid directly. Whoever it was who told you that back in 2014 was wrong. Even in the case that you posted, the legal argument was that a bailiff can recover fees pursuant to regulation 4. At no point anywhere did anyone say that the compliance fee should have been paid first and indeed, it wasn't.

Just give it up you idiot.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#157 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 03 Oct 2017 16:28

NO it isn't, payments are not supposed to be made directly to the creditor in any case.
Once again he spouts any old tosh even when he knows it's wrong. A debtor has no obligation to deal with the bailiff and is well within their rights to pay a debt to the person it's owed to, and any court would laugh if a creditor refused. There is nothing in law that forbids paying direct. Why this upsets him is anyone's guess - the creditor has been paid and all that remains is the bailiff's fees. Is he fighting their cause again?

He seems to be arguing that the bailiff suddenly owns the debt. :lol:
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: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#158 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Schedule 12 » 03 Oct 2017 18:42

I see a moderator on the CAG board has defaced someone's profile.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#159 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 03 Oct 2017 18:51

Schedule 12 wrote:
03 Oct 2017 18:42
I see a moderator on the CAG board has defaced someone's profile.
Yep, pathetic innit?

Why is Shifter now frantically copy and pasting huge swathes of legislation that offer nothing to the debate? He's quietly shifted his stance hoping no-one would notice - he was claiming that the sales stage fee couldn't be applied without a controlled goods agreement. He's now dropped the word 'agreement' after realising he was wrong. What he now fails to grasp is that the moment the EA starts to remove and itemise goods, they instantly become 'controlled goods' being taken for sale and the sale stage fee will be applied.
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: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#160 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Schedule 12 » 03 Oct 2017 19:07

Pote Snitkin wrote:
03 Oct 2017 18:51
What he now fails to grasp is that the moment the EA starts to remove and itemise goods, they instantly become 'controlled goods' being taken for sale and the sale stage fee will be applied.
Goods become controlled when any of the four methods of taking control of goods is started. Paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 12 of the TCEA.

The sale stage fee only applies when the bailiff starts removing them. The line is drawn using county court judges decisions at what point the sale stage fee applies.

If a bailiff calls a truck, the sale stage fee does not apply.

When the truck arrives and the lorry-mounted crane is positioned over the top of the vehicle to lift it off the ground, the sale stage applies.

In the latter of the two above claims, the enforcement still failed because the car was parked in someone else's allocated parking bay contrary to paragraph 15(6) of Schedule 12.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#161 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by JimUk1 » 03 Oct 2017 21:52

The one saving grace with the chimp is that his stupidity is generally restricted to his pathetic little spats. He rarely tells debtors the same nonsense, which means that they are not given misinformation by him. He drags every discussion thread down to a level found in a playground and I doubt anyone other that Harding and a couple of other regulars force themselves to read it.

The dangerous one is Harding, who many people know by now is mental. She actually believes that people are in awe of her, she actually believes that people believe her when she claims to have had "many queries" about a certain subject. Harding probably genuinely believes that her information is correct, unlike the chimp, who knows that his information is just guess work.

Also unlike the chimp, Harding does furnish debtors with misinformation on a regular basis. To me, that is the danger, not the chimp and his constant shifting.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#162 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 03 Oct 2017 22:24

JimUk1 wrote:
03 Oct 2017 21:52
,she actually believes that people believe her when she claims to have had "many queries" about a certain subject.
It's hilarious that no matter what the subject of debate, she just happens to have dealt with several clients in that very scenario. She does it time and time again without fail.
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: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#163 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 06 Oct 2017 08:25

Sheila's in full flame mood.
.Why have you waited a year and a half to obtain information form the Police? Should that not have been the first step that you took.

Would you mind answering the following questions?

You have now lost the main key so you cannot make a claim for that key. Before losing it, did you obtain an estimate for the cost of a 'replacement' key?

How state that you advertised the bike on eBay (I think). What price was offered?

Since May 2016 (when the bailiff visited), has the bike been serviced?

Is the bike taxed and insured?
What relevance do these questions have regarding the EA failing to return the key?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#164 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by JimUk1 » 07 Oct 2017 01:28

Quality from the chimp:
spotted you error straight off
Oh right, so there was no breach then? Lets just remind you what you said "straight off" shall we?
At most a statutory breach but with no damages
So was there a breach or wasn't there? Or is this another of your "may" means "may not" moments? :lol:


As for:
Just other things to do.
What other things have you got to do? Go to one of your hospital appointments? You have nothing, absolutely nothing in your life other than the internet, you sad, pathetic waste of space.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#165 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 07 Oct 2017 08:04

Perhaps he was dealing with his property empire.

Even the OP has politely told him to feck off. As for Sheila, why does she continue to grill him about irrelevant details just because she misunderstood matters? Between them they are showing what absolute scumbags they truly are.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#166 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by JimUk1 » 07 Oct 2017 09:39

Spot on. The other vile creature and her electric legs joined in as well last night which resulted in the thread being locked.

None of them have attempted to help the OP and none of them give a damn about his plight - They argue that just because Collectica claim that nothing was taken, that, that means the OP has to accept it and do nothing about it.

Harding has interrogated him like he was a criminal, no matter how many times he responds, she still won't stop. He even said in post #1 in April that the key had been taken. She even appears to be suggesting that the OP can't claim a replacement key id the bike wasn't taxed or insured. The woman should not be let loose near a debtor. Harding you idiot - It doesn't matter if the bike is a heap of scrap and not roadworthy. The OP is still entitled to be left in the position he was before the bailiff turned up. You can't refuse to compensate someone on the grounds that the bike is worthless.

The chimp then demonstrated his total failure to read and understand what has written again. Because of his lack of intelligence, he views things in a very one dimensional manner. This led to him thinking that proceedings were being encouraged, even though "alreadyexists" had clearly stated that the fines manager should be contacted. He then decided that the complaint was going to be about no notice of entry being issued, despite nobody suggesting this and despite it having nothing to do with the OP and his predicament regarding the key.

Both have said that there is nothing more that the OP can do so both are clearly only returning to use the thread for their own motives.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#167 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 07 Oct 2017 10:45

Yeah noticed it was locked. So another scum bag of a mod decided that the OP should get no further advice. Didn't get to see what Ironside posted. Did you capture anything?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#168 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by JimUk1 » 07 Oct 2017 11:02

I wouldn't blame the mods, the thread needed to be locked because it had become infested with the three imbeciles.

She of the electric legs took advantage of the mention of DWB and turned it into an anti-Jason thread. She is another piece of sh#t who cannot advise on bailiff matters so seeks flame wars. Both her and the chimp are evil, sick individuals who can't function without being nasty to people on internet forums.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#169 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 07 Oct 2017 11:47

It would've been better for those three mouth breathers to be modded rather than punish the OP by stopping any further advice. Thing is, once they'd been exposed as the olid bluffers they are it would've been their aim to get the thread closed.
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: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#170 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 08 Oct 2017 18:20

She's off on an illogical rant again. Seriously, I believe she has a deep mental health problem and cannot stop herself from attacking anyone who disagrees with her narrow view. She always has to have the final say (no matter how many times she promises to refrain from posting), her ego never allowing any humility or contrition. When will the mods wake up?
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: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#171 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 08 Oct 2017 19:01

Doing something for 10 years means nothing if you've been doing it wrong or not actually understanding it. Just ask Judge Amir Ali Majid .
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: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#172 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 08 Oct 2017 20:00

Has Sheila just posted a segment of a client's file? Is this the same case she's posting about on her and Peter's blog? Has anyone seen sight of her ICO registration yet? So many questions.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#173 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by JimUk1 » 08 Oct 2017 20:36

Pote Snitkin wrote:
08 Oct 2017 20:00
Has Sheila just posted a segment of a client's file? Is this the same case she's posting about on her and Peter's blog? Has anyone seen sight of her ICO registration yet? So many questions.
More importantly, has she interfered with a witness by contacting him?
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#174 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by JimUk1 » 08 Oct 2017 20:37

LOl.

You cannot just write a letter to a court and say. I think this fellow is a bad man please keep am eye out for him. Of course the court will either disregard it or consider it a complaint.

Dear oh dear.
Funny that chimp - It is something that Sheila Harding has been recommending for years

Dear oh dear :lol:
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#175 Re: Wesley Serra. Disgraced New York Attorney - Bats in the belfry.

Post by JimUk1 » 08 Oct 2017 22:52

Pote Snitkin wrote:
08 Oct 2017 19:01
Doing something for 10 years means nothing if you've been doing it wrong or not actually understanding it. Just ask Judge Amir Ali Majid .
And how many times did she feel the need to drop that one in tonight?

Just in case there are any Caggers reading this who are totally confused by the drivel spouted by Harding tonight, I will attempt to explain as follows:

The correct procedure under CPR 84.20(2) is to submit a complaint using the prescribed form (EAC2)

However, should a complainant instigate a complaint by way of letter, the court has the power to rectify procedural errors, pursuant to CPR 3.10

Had her pet chimp been half the armchair lawyer that he tries to make out that he is, he would have picked up on this, rather than spend his entire Sunday evening lurking on the thread before posting his usual brand of pathetic, irrelevant drivel.

So a complainant may issue a complaint in writing and the court may then consider it to be a complaint about a bailiffs fitness to hold a certificate, if it sees fit to do so.

This does not mean, as the moronic Harding seems to think, that a request for a note to be left for a judges consideration at the nect renewal hearing can be deemed a complaint about a bailiffs fitness to hold a certificate.

Harding - How many times do you have to be told not to play around with the big boys? Are you that thick that you can't see what a fool you make of yourself time and time again? 10 years? I learned more in 10 minutes than you did in 10 years. :lol:
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

Post Reply