He's doing a damage control blunder where he wants two things to be true at the same time in way that doesn't make sense. He wants his identity being stolen to be real, but also for some reason they would make up literal months of financial transactions instead of just posting the very real ones they apparently had access to.
So far as I know,
boooof just got Dave's Bank of America info from the bankruptcy docs and used that to get the automated customer service line to read out the account transactions. That's it, there's no proof that he tried to steal from Dave. There's nothing to indicate that was going on with Dave around the time, since his only reaction was to just completely ignore the entire situation and ban anyone who typed 16.51 in the chat.
Yeah he's been spinning a tale that is contradictory and says things that are nuggets of truth but imply things that aren't true. Somehow it managed to stick pretty well, probably because the children and wheelchairs that listen to him have no real life experience.
I haven't heard every attempt he's made to spin the leaks but I think I have an idea of what he is saying happened verses what actually happened. The bank leaks were possible because the bankruptcy revealed a partial social security number and his bank account number.
Phil's bank account was set-up with default security settings. BoA offers telephone banking, which by default can be accessed with the account number and social security number. Knowing when and where Phil was born significantly narrows down the possible valid numbers for him. Once a combination was found that would grant access to the account you would have positive confirmation. As far as the BoA account is concerned nobody had more than read-only access.
Phil claims that money was stolen from his account and implies heavily that the years worth of charges are something he was clueless about and were fraudulent. In truth his account was drained as he said, but it was by BoA itself as a fraud response. Nobody actually tried to steal a million dollars from him. I think the volume of calls accessing the account may have been what triggered this response but I'm not sure.
Phil claims he had to pay a lawyer the magical $1500 to resolve the issue. He may very well have consulted with a lawyer to assist him with securing his accounts and consult on what legal remedies he has but none of this was strictly necessary and only an expense that he volunteered to take on if at all. Many people noted that fraud costs nothing to resolve and this is true, however in this case it is true that it did cost him money.
Phil claims that he lost a lot of money and uses this to imply that the money was directly taken from his account by identity thieves. What actually happened was that his account was frozen and he made zero effort to proactively fix the payments that are pulled from that frozen account. He should have called everyone he pays bills to to notify them of the situation and request a delayed payment date. He should have stopped all automatic payments drawn from that account. He should have opened a new account to work with while his other one was being held up. So when the payments processed he bounced a bunch of checks and got hit with lots of fees. Those fees are real and he did lose money because of them but he also had the means to avoid them. Nobody stole money from him.
Phil claims his identity was stolen, this is true in a strict sense of the word. What initially tipped Phil off was an alert from a credit monitoring service. Phil's credit reports were pulled and said individual tried to open a credit monitoring account which is what resulted in the alert going out. Phil uses this fact to claim that "accounts" were being opened in his name. He uses the common meaning of "identity theft" and what "opening accounts" typically means in the context of identity theft to imply that thing like credit cards and loans are being taken out in his name. Normally when someone fraudulently uses someone's identity it's for the purpose of fraudulently making money off that person, not to release their personal finances. So him being an odd case allows him to imply things that aren't true without saying them.
Phil accepts that his identity was stolen and that his bank account was compromised but then in the next breath says everything you hear about it is a complete lie. These are of course two contradictory statements. If identity thieves have access to your account, what use is there in faking the information? Additionally, faking the year+ worth of transactions that all happen to line up with dates and places that Phil has claimed to shop would be an astronomical effort. Easy to get wrong, difficult to get right. He could maybe get away with claiming someone with no life made it up whole cloth but he would have to deny his accounts being compromised for that to work and he can't pass up an opportunity to be the victim.
Nugget of Truth Phil managed to pignotize his way through the bank leaks but WWEC happened on his own YouTube channel, there's no way to confuse his way out of this one so he is totally unprepared to confront it and in doing so has only dug the hole deeper.
