[26-Mar-2020] Philip's 341 Creditor Meeting - When what should be 5 minutes becomes an eternity.

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, 74 Screaming Armadillos, Army Burger and 1 other person
Iamfrigide said:
A thought occurred. People are really worried he will hide his tips income, but doesn't he upload the evidence to YouTube daily? Wouldn't she just be able to browse through a day of his streams, tally up the tips, and say where is this money?
Click to expand...
If he hides his tip income then he has to explain where money comes from that appears on his taxes. He would have to fudge the numbers on his taxes and the filing. This is truly playing with fire and although he won't get the slammer for lying on these forms, the IRS will buttfuck him gladly.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, ConSluttant, Honzou and 1 other person
detractorzer0 said:
If he hides his tip income then he has to explain where money comes from that appears on his taxes. He would have to fudge the numbers on his taxes and the filing. This is truly playing with fire and although he won't get the slammer for lying on these forms, the IRS will buttfuck him gladly.
Click to expand...

It doesn't even really matter and this is why gay ops are so dumb at this moment. He's certainly made contradictory claims to the IRS and to his creditors.

This shit is going to fuck him up the ass without gay ops.
 
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Proper Pangolin, Iron Hamster and 11 others
darkwingosonichugorl said:
I'm probably hypothesizing too much, but I think Phil's parents were likely too frugal and protective. We know they've lived in the same house for decades which is in a more ghetto area, and they could afford better. There's the infamous Wolverine story and Phil bitching how cheap they are. It's common for folks of Polish descent to save their money a little too much with their ancestry of being peasant slave labor in the industrial era.

I think Phil is still rebelling, which is sad for a man in his upper 30s, but it doesn't look like he got that out of his system in his young adult years like most do. He was class valedictorian and sounds like he was a Mama's boy.
Click to expand...
I think it was very telling that during the April 2019 Connecticut visit, Phil got the 10 Year Plan and $4k Tax Money from Mama Burnell instead of Dave Burnell, Sr. You would think that the parent who is teaching as an adjunct faculty member of the local business college would be the one to sit down with Phil and give him the financial advice, rather than the stay-at=home parent with minimal educational or career credentials/experience.

This suggests to me that at some point in the past few years, Dave Burnell has entirely washed his hands of his progeny's financial mishaps, probably after becoming tired of cleaning up his past mistakes.
the khat quaffer said:
One of the things that really fascinates me is the fact that Phil didn't snort once during the 40-something-minute call with Nancy. Some throat clears I guess. Someone said it earlier in this thread, but if Phil doesn't want to snort, he won't. It's quite obvious he can control it. I have only a mortal understanding of his gouty post nasal drip so I don't know if throat clears can mitigate the need to snort.

The fact that he snorts constantly on his streams at his audience is pretty damning evidence of how much he hates them and how little he cares about his 'business'. He knows it's disgusting, he knows people hate it, but he's like 'ehh, fuck it, watch me let 'er rip' on every stream. Like I know life dealt his audience of wheelchairs a bad hand, but do they really deserve to be snorted at by a pig that can clearly control it?

I'm not saying he has to show up in business casual attire to his streams, but ffs, put a modicum of professionalism into the product you're delivering, Phil.

savescummin bottle crunchin phlegm snortin throat clearin wireless keyboard usin baldspot hidin adult larpin bottom-shelf-gin chuggin gout sufferin tax evadin vest wearin hulk hogan worshippin amazon wishlist makin smelly pukin' PIG

View attachment 1206289
Click to expand...
One of the first damned things that he did when getting onto the pre-stream after the 341 was to snort straight into the microphone. He had been live for something like all of five seconds before snorting.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: RemoveKebab, twattycake, spiritofamermaid and 6 others
DSP tried to time all of his paperwork and amendments so that he could "be honest" and submit everything right at the perfect moment it would be empty. For example, he submitted his Paypal the day before he would receive his Twitch money.

This is probably unlikely, but I wonder if DSP throws his "tax guy" under the bus enough that eventually a trustee is going to want to know who this guy is. At one point, Nancy asked who was doing DSP's taxes, he said "my tax attorney" and there was a long pause.

One of the weirdest things to me is that DSP has two Paypal accounts, yet he didn't separate them as one personal and one business. They both have business funds going into them: one is for his tips and one is for his monthly Twitch payment. Why the hell are those in separate Paypal accounts? It can't be to hide stuff, because he's not that clever. This had to have been laziness: he set up the "business" account for tips when he became a "full time Twitch streamer" and then just never switched everything else over to it.


















 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Kosher Salt, spiritofamermaid, 74 Screaming Armadillos and 6 others
Salubrious said:
DSP tried to time all of his paperwork and amendments so that he could "be honest" and submit everything right at the perfect moment it would be empty. For example, he submitted his Paypal the day before he would receive his Twitch money.

This is probably unlikely, but I wonder if DSP throws his "tax guy" under the bus enough that eventually a trustee is going to want to know who this guy is. At one point, Nancy asked who was doing DSP's taxes, he said "my tax attorney" and there was a long pause.

One of the weirdest things to me is that DSP has two Paypal accounts, yet he didn't separate them as one personal and one business. They both have business funds going into them: one is for his tips and one is for his monthly Twitch payment. Why the hell are those in separate Paypal accounts? It can't be to hide stuff, because he's not that clever. This had to have been laziness: he set up the "business" account for tips when he became a "full time Twitch streamer" and then just never switched everything else over to it.

View attachment 1206723
















View attachment 1206725
Click to expand...
The appearance of dishonesty in a bankruptcy proceeding is just as dangerous for the claimant as actual malfeasance, as it will lead to things being examined in far finer detail than they would if things hadn’t seemed off.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Kiwi Lime Pie, ConSluttant and 6 others
Some people have already touched on it. But do you think he’s still declaring his “fundraiser” tips as voluntary to try and get them exempt from taxes?
What happens when the trustee sees this? Does she have to check with the irs to see if he’s declared it as income or other?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid and the khat quaffer
DiabeticSP said:
It is when its a direct gift because you got married in an old suit in front of a court judge and had no ceremony or reception.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, that's why I said it. They didn't have to pay for any other gifts, ceremony or anything. Weddings are easily 10 to 20k affairs easily.
 
I'm not sure people have the right mindset when thinking about Nancy.
Just like with many things in life, it's all about the money, so you have to follow the money to see why people do things.

Nancy, the trustee, gets a commission on everything that gets liquidated and disbursed to creditors. That means that it's in her best interest not only to liquidate as much of Phils stuff as possible, but also to make sure the Chp 7 bankruptcy goes through.

That's why Nancy didn't question the legitimacy of the bankruptcy, but rather what items were for personal or business use. Nancy doesn't want to have to throw the bankruptcy out, because then she won't get a commission. As long as no creditors challenge the bankruptcy too hard, she can push to approve it and collect her commission. All of Nancy's questions were there to show that Phil is lying about business assets, and she's doing that to allow her to liquidate all of Phils assets, and not to throw out the bankruptcy.

The dumb citibank detractor who called in and asked about the $5000 in business expenses did it the wrong way - he challenged the legitimacy of the bankruptcy, which is not in the best interest of either Nancy or Rochelle. That's why she was like "Do you understand the process" to the dumb detractor since this isn't the time and place to question such a matter. It would be far more appropriate to question what assets Phil is acquiring with such purchases, which allows Nancy to investigate and collect on whatever Phil is hiding.

This is also why Rochelle may not be as dumb as we think, since she usually knows she can get away with pushing bankruptcies through since its in both the bankruptcy lawyers as well as the trustees interest for the bankruptcy to be successful. It's only the creditors that want to push to stop it from happening.

That's why I'm throwing it out that, if Phil has something of value (such as a WWE champions account with $40,000 in purchases), then maybe someone out there would be willing to purchase phils WWE champions account in a liquidation. This is in the best interest of Nancy, who will get a commission on the sale of the account, as well as screw Phil over since that's clearly his addiction and he thinks he's going to keep his account.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Leo Bonhart, killuminati, twattycake and 14 others
darkwingosonichugorl said:
Phil's WWE Champions account has no value. Scopely (game publisher) bans people who buy accounts, and especially will with a huge paypig account like Phil's.
Click to expand...
You're thinking about it wrong. Scopely and their terms of service are not the law.

Things have value if people are willing to pay for it.

It can be as simple as buying Phils phone with WWE champions still active on it. There is no automatic sync across devices, so if it's active on Phils old phone, he won't be able to use it anywhere else.

The idea is to get Phils treasured WWE champions account out of his hands.
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Leo Bonhart, My Knee is Growing, kcbbq and 5 others
I think my favourite part of the whole conversation when DSP just started mashing buttons, and pretending he wasn't at fault in the situation. Kinda reminded me one of the early troll Chris Chan phone calls, when Chris would get unconfortable or not know how to answer a question, and pretend his phone was fucking up. Most of the call though I felt was what we all expected, the hearing consisting of the creditors baffled on how the fuck he could claim WWE champions was a "business expense" for his "office".
 
  • Like
Reactions: draculapenis, spiritofamermaid, ConSluttant and 1 other person
Bliss said:
Nancy, the trustee, gets a commission on everything that gets liquidated and disbursed to creditors. That means that it's in her best interest not only to liquidate as much of Phils stuff as possible, but also to make sure the Chp 7 bankruptcy goes through.
(snip)
As long as no creditors challenge the bankruptcy too hard, she can push to approve it and collect her commission. All of Nancy's questions were there to show that Phil is lying about business assets, and she's doing that to allow her to liquidate all of Phils assets, and not to throw out the bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

....One of the big issues is that he almost certainly does not actually qualify for Chapter 7. And his single biggest asset, the WA condo, would not be able to be sold if Nancy accepts the bankruptcy as-is because of the $125k exemption in WA. Further, the creditors (MidFirst, especially) absolutely do not want a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, because they're out anywhere from a few thousand to around $50,000 they're owed.

Maybe you're trying to say something else, but I think I'm missing it.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: killuminati, My Knee is Growing, draculapenis and 10 others
actually said:
....One of the big issues is that he almost certainly does not actually qualify for Chapter 7. And his single biggest asset, the WA condo, would not be able to be sold if Nancy accepts the bankruptcy as-is because of the $125k exemption in WA. Further, the creditors (MidFirst, especially) absolutely do not want a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, because they're out anywhere from a few thousand to around $50,000 they're owed.

Maybe you're trying to say something else, but I think I'm missing it.
Click to expand...
They way I see it, Nancy will benefit if the bankruptcy is approved. She will benefit even more if changes are made that allow her to liquidate more of phils assets. Since the WA condo is very obviously not exempt, I'm guessing Nancy already has a plan in place to take it, and needs no further information from phil (since all she needs is the actual valuation).

The reason Nancy asked about the electronics is because it's something that she needed to get out of Phil to prove that they are partially personal use and therefore allowed to be liquidated.

I don't see Nancy fighting tooth and nail to get the bankruptcy dismissed since she makes less money that way. Her official moral and legal duty is to do things the right way, but for personal monetary benefit, Nancy would want the bankuptcy to happen.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: twattycake, draculapenis, Yaniv’s Hairy Balls and 2 others
Bliss said:
They way I see it, if Nancy will benefit if the bankruptcy is approved. She will benefit even more if changes are made that allow her to liquidate more of phils assets. Since the WA condo is very obviously not exempt, I'm guessing Nancy already has a plan in place to take it, and needs no further information from phil (since all she needs is the actual valuation).

The reason Nancy asked about the electronics is because it's something that she needed to get out of Phil to prove that they are partially personal use and therefore allowed to be liquidated.

I don't see Nancy fighting tooth and nail to get the bankruptcy dismissed since she makes less money that way. Her official moral and legal duty is to do things the right way, but for personal monetary benefit, Nancy would want the bankuptcy to happen.
Click to expand...

To do that, she would have to completely ignore his likely bogus "business expenses" and potentially fraudulent tax filings while also challenging just his WA condo valuation so that he can just barely hit the Chapter 7 income requirements while also having his WA condo not be covered by the exemption. And then there's the question of which part of the money her percentage actually comes from: is it the entire sale price of the WA condo, or is it whatever remains after the WA mortgage (and CT condo deficiency?) is paid off and Phil gets his $125,000 from the WA exemption.

If it's the latter, there is no reason for her to even bother with it. I guess I'm not seeing why she would risk her career, given that a judge is going to look at this too, over maybe $20,000. She gets guaranteed money for however many tens or hundreds of bankruptcies roll through with an occasional bump from liquidations. I get your point about dismissing the bankruptcy completely not being her best financial decision, but check the role of a trustee here and when debt shouldn't be discharged in Section J (as Chapter 7 would allow): https://www.justice.gov/ust/handbook-chapter-7-trustees

Section 727(a) provides that the court shall grant a discharge unless the debtor:
2. conceals property with intent to defraud;
3. fails to preserve or conceals financial records;
4. makes a false oath or account; presents or uses a false claim; gives, offers, receives money, property, or advantage for acting or forbearing to act; or withholds books and records;
5. fails to explain satisfactorily the loss or deficiency of assets;

I'm not even sure where I'm going with this. We'll see what happens :lol:
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: killuminati, twattycake, Mesh Gear Fox and 8 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back