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

[Chad Nasty]

he must know that the name he gave is going to show up on the real recording. but the fact he muted it makes me wonder if its his real name. what happened to LSB or his guy who was supposed to be recording the call? why did that recording never come out? we only have cititroll's version.

i suspect its fake but who knows.

I hope he doesn't get doxxed and shit on. I don't advocate interacting with cows, but this was better content than if we waited for the public access info to come out.

 

[actually]

I hope he doesn't get doxxed and shit on. I don't advocate interacting with cows, but this was better content than if we waited for the public access info to come out.

If he had known his shit, I might agree, but the only thing he kinda got was that Phil maybe knew he was insolvent before he met with Rochelle. Otherwise, he didn't have his shit together enough to ask cogent questions, and he didn't get Phil to describe his business expenses in any detail.

 

[Shokew]

I hope he doesn't get doxxed and shit on. I don't advocate interacting with cows, but this was better content than if we waited for the public access info to come out.

Sorry, but he's kinda begging to get called out just a little bit more than normal, at this point. He really is wasting too much (and I mean TOO MUCH.) money on vidya - if he had a real job or had spent some time in the military (scary as that can be at first), and more importantly - actual budgeting skills.... Well, this thread and a lot of others wouldn't exist, would they?
Just let it burn. Let. It. Burn.

 

[Chad Nasty]

Sorry, but he's kinda begging to get called out just a little bit more than normal, at this point. He really is wasting too much (and I mean TOO MUCH.) money on vidya - if he had a real job or had spent some time in the military (scary as that can be at first), and more importantly - actual budgeting skills.... Well, this thread and a lot of others wouldn't exist, would they?
Just let it burn. Let. It. Burn.

Are you talking about Phil? Because I was hoping the citi-troll and company fade away since I don't know if we would have been able to get as much as we did without their efforts. I don't know how the public info that gets put out from this instance would work.

 

[Stationary aszs]

Somebody tipped her off about the consoles and the exorbitant number of them, and their value too. The fact that he admitted to them means that whoever tipped her off has gained credibility. It’s highly likely that she did not ask all the questions she has during the call, including the most glaring of all: you don’t own a single television?

As was previously mentioned, lawyers generally do not ask questions they don’t already know the answer to. Her questions were all pointed, and she usually didn’t care what the truth was but rather what Phil recollected. I’m not smart enough to see the whole picture or strategy of her questioning, but it was pretty clear when some of the questions were related. Wwe network, as an example. We all noticed the intent behind that question, and she slyly left the discussion about personal electronics and shifted the questioning before circling back with it. How many of her other questions were also related? I think it’s reasonable that the majority of her questions were for a specific reason, related to other questions or to information she was provided. It’s literally unbelievable in 2020 for someone making six figures to not own a television, just as its unreasonable for an average person to not consume some content wether movies, tv shows, or even YouTube for entertainment. He tacitly admitted to having at least one television by admitting to having consoles. Even if she is a boomer Nancy doesn’t have to have played one to understand they must be plugged into a Tv, she’s seen ads and at least some pop culture. Does she really believe that there isn’t a television in his house that at least occasionally isn’t used to watch shit?

The one time she admitted having been tipped off, the portion she asked about was 100% accurate. I would absolutely bet that tip included that he likely has 3 TVs, She asked enough to verify, but not enough to play her hand. If she’s to take Phil at face value, he does absolutely nothing for fun, has no hobbies, and no entertainment. Despite having plenty of means to entertain himself and his wife with his “business related” “equipment,” honest injun Phil would never use those personally and instead stares out the window for fun...

The questions she didn’t ask were almost as telling as those she did.

and by the way guys you are really missing the importance of the tax returns. Based on the difficult and diligent work @actually and @SoapQueen1 did he filled out his taxes relatively correctly, i.e. with smaller and believable expenses and including his tips. y’all have it backwards, the problem is that he is claiming business expenses on his bankruptcy that if true would decrease his taxable income dollar for dollar: 5k of business expenses are present on his bankruptcy filing but are absent on his taxes, because he would owe a lot less if they were claimed on his taxes.

edit grammar

 

[ReentryPhantom]

Somebody tipped her off about the consoles and the exorbitant number of them, and their value too. The fact that he admitted to them means that whoever tipped her off has gained credibility. It’s highly likely that she did not ask all the questions she has during the call, including the most glaring of all: you don’t own a single television?

As was previously mentioned, lawyers generally do not ask questions they don’t already know the answer to. Her questions were all pointed, and she usually didn’t care what the truth was but rather what Phil recollected. I’m not smart enough to see the whole picture or strategy of her questioning, but it was pretty clear when some of the questions were related. Wwe network, as an example. We all noticed the intent behind that question, and she slyly left the discussion about personal electronics and shifted the questioning before circling back with it. How many of her other questions were also related? I think it’s reasonable that the majority of her questions were for a specific reason, related to other questions or to information she was provided. It’s literally unbelievable in 2020 for someone making six figures to not own a television, just as its unreasonable for an average person to not consume some content wether movies, tv shows, or even YouTube for entertainment. He tacitly admitted to having at least one television by admitting to having consoles. Even if she is a boomer Nancy doesn’t have to have played one to understand they must be plugged into a Tv, she’s seen ads and at least some pop culture. Does she really believe that there isn’t a television in his house that at least occasionally isn’t used to watch shit?

The one time she admitted having been tipped off, the portion she asked about was 100% accurate. I would absolutely bet that tip included that he likely has 3 TVs, She asked enough to verify, but not enough to play her hand. If she’s to take Phil at face value, he does absolutely nothing for fun, has no hobbies, and no entertainment. Despite having plenty of means to entertain himself and his wife with his “business related” “equipment,” honest injun Phil would never use those personally and instead stares out the window for fun...

The questions she didn’t ask were almost as telling as those she did.

and by the way guys you are really missing the importance of the tax returns. Based on the difficult and diligent work @actually and @SoapQueen1 did he filled out his taxes relatively correctly, i.e. with smaller and believable expenses and including his tips. y’all have it backwards, the problem is that he is claiming business expenses on his bankruptcy that if true would decrease his taxable income. the fishy part is that the 5k of business expenses are present on his bankruptcy filing but are absent on his taxes...

I believe she asked the WWE Network question for a very specific reason. Phil gave her the exact answer she wanted as well. "It's non-business related". I hope that she was wise enough to put 2 and 2 together and realize that means that he has a method outside of his "business-related" electronics to enjoy his underwear man-drama.

 

[AnOminous]

As was previously mentioned, lawyers generally do not ask questions they don’t already know the answer to. Her questions were all pointed, and she usually didn’t care what the truth was but rather what Phil recollected. I’m not smart enough to see the whole picture or strategy of her questioning, but it was pretty clear when some of the questions were related.

More or less to get him on the record so if there is some kind of motion, and we're depending on Phil's version of facts, whoever files the motion (whether the trustee or one of the creditors) has the information to say "well the records say X but Phil the lying fuck said Y under oath" and go down the list where he's repeatedly lying about things they already know the answer to.

Then they establish him as a liar whose sworn testimony is worthless and tell the court to accept their version of the facts instead, whereupon the court finds Phil's lies are entitled to no weight and therefore, the other side wins by a preponderance of the evidence if they have even a scrap of evidence for their version, and Phil loses whatever it is.

 

[Sir Wesley Tailpipe]

Somebody tipped her off about the consoles and the exorbitant number of them, and their value too. The fact that he admitted to them means that whoever tipped her off has gained credibility. It’s highly likely that she did not ask all the questions she has during the call, including the most glaring of all: you don’t own a single television?

As was previously mentioned, lawyers generally do not ask questions they don’t already know the answer to. Her questions were all pointed, and she usually didn’t care what the truth was but rather what Phil recollected. I’m not smart enough to see the whole picture or strategy of her questioning, but it was pretty clear when some of the questions were related. Wwe network, as an example. We all noticed the intent behind that question, and she slyly left the discussion about personal electronics and shifted the questioning before circling back with it. How many of her other questions were also related? I think it’s reasonable that the majority of her questions were for a specific reason, related to other questions or to information she was provided. It’s literally unbelievable in 2020 for someone making six figures to not own a television, just as its unreasonable for an average person to not consume some content wether movies, tv shows, or even YouTube for entertainment. He tacitly admitted to having at least one television by admitting to having consoles. Even if she is a boomer Nancy doesn’t have to have played one to understand they must be plugged into a Tv, she’s seen ads and at least some pop culture. Does she really believe that there isn’t a television in his house that at least occasionally isn’t used to watch shit?

The one time she admitted having been tipped off, the portion she asked about was 100% accurate. I would absolutely bet that tip included that he likely has 3 TVs, She asked enough to verify, but not enough to play her hand. If she’s to take Phil at face value, he does absolutely nothing for fun, has no hobbies, and no entertainment. Despite having plenty of means to entertain himself and his wife with his “business related” “equipment,” honest injun Phil would never use those personally and instead stares out the window for fun...

The questions she didn’t ask were almost as telling as those she did.

and by the way guys you are really missing the importance of the tax returns. Based on the difficult and diligent work @actually and @SoapQueen1 did he filled out his taxes relatively correctly, i.e. with smaller and believable expenses and including his tips. y’all have it backwards, the problem is that he is claiming business expenses on his bankruptcy that if true would decrease his taxable income dollar for dollar: 5k of business expenses are present on his bankruptcy filing but are absent on his taxes, because he would owe a lot less if they were claimed on his taxes.

edit grammar

Everyone replying to posts like these explaining the real logic used in bankruptcy, which is a court proceeding, where it is made clear how Phil is fucking his whole life over with his amateurish attempt to get one over on his creditors, with optimistic ratings must just not understand that literally EVERYTHING he tells the court in answers to the trustee or on his paperwork that isn’t true is perjury. Perjury is a crime, although whether or not they go after him with charges for that is a matter of discretion, and a small fish like Phil probably won’t go downtown to meet Tyrone over it, but it can’t be totally ruled out. Furthermore, when a bankruptcy trustee encounters information indicating a likelihood of tax evasion, it is their duty to report that to the IRS, and the IRS is compelled to pursue the information.

The law is the law, and no amount of double-talk or excuses will save him from some considerable legal trouble, so save the rainbows for something else.

 

[Stationary aszs]

I believe she asked the WWE Network question for a very specific reason. Phil gave her the exact answer she wanted as well. "It's non-business related". I hope that she was wise enough to put 2 and 2 together and realize that means that he has a method outside of his "business-related" electronics to enjoy his underwear man-drama.

Correct, and I am nearly certain that’s what she had in mind.

More or less to get him on the record so if there is some kind of motion, and we're depending on Phil's version of facts, whoever files the motion (whether the trustee or one of the creditors) has the information to say "well the records say X but Phil the lying fuck said Y under oath" and go down the list where he's repeatedly lying about things they already know the answer to.

Then they establish him as a liar whose sworn testimony is worthless and tell the court to accept their version of the facts instead, whereupon the court finds Phil's lies are entitled to no weight and therefore, the other side wins by a preponderance of the evidence if they have even a scrap of evidence for their version, and Phil loses whatever it is.

Absolutely right and more eloquently than I could have said. My long winded post was really trying to say that applies to a lot of questions and to try and get people to connect the dots beyond the easy to see wwe network->has personal electronics deduction

 

[DNA_JACKED]

Everyone replying to posts like these explaining the real logic used in bankruptcy, which has is a court proceeding, where it is made clear how Phil is fucking his whole life over with his amateurish attempt to get one over on his creditors with optimistic ratings must just not understand that literally EVERYTHING he tells the court in answers to the trustee or on his paperwork that isn’t true is perjury. Perjury is a crime, although whether or not they go after him with charges for that is a matter of discretion, and a small fish like Phil probably won’t go downtown to meet Tyrone over it, but it can’t be totally ruled out. Furthermore, when a bankruptcy trustee encounters information indicating a likelihood of tax evasion, it is their duty to report that to the IRS, and the IRS is compelled to pursue the information.

The law is the law, and no amount of double-talk or excuses will save him from some considerable legal trouble, so save the rainbows for something else.

No one is going to put int he effort to put Phil into prison for prejury. He's not a small fish, hes a plankton. Prejury is usually sued for people who hide tens of millions of assets, usually business related or when hiding said assets fucks over the government.

Phil doesnt make his creditors any money in prison. That is their only priority.

 

[myone]

No one is going to put int he effort to put Phil into prison for prejury.

On the other hand, having him on the hook for perjury is a great opportunity to offer him a deal that he'd better accept: "Mr Burnell, say please and thank you and then leave."

 

[Shokew]

No one is going to put int he effort to put Phil into prison for prejury. He's not a small fish, hes a plankton. Prejury is usually sued for people who hide tens of millions of assets, usually business related or when hiding said assets fucks over the government.

Phil doesnt make his creditors any money in prison. That is their only priority.

On the other hand, having him on the hook for perjury is a great opportunity to offer him a deal that he'd better accept: "Mr Burnell, say please and thank you and then leave."

Basically, let Phil Burn Out all by himself. Understood wholeheartedly.

 

[Iron Hamster]

Somebody tipped her off about the consoles and the exorbitant number of them, and their value too. The fact that he admitted to them means that whoever tipped her off has gained credibility. It’s highly likely that she did not ask all the questions she has during the call, including the most glaring of all: you don’t own a single television?

As was previously mentioned, lawyers generally do not ask questions they don’t already know the answer to. Her questions were all pointed, and she usually didn’t care what the truth was but rather what Phil recollected. I’m not smart enough to see the whole picture or strategy of her questioning, but it was pretty clear when some of the questions were related. Wwe network, as an example. We all noticed the intent behind that question, and she slyly left the discussion about personal electronics and shifted the questioning before circling back with it. How many of her other questions were also related? I think it’s reasonable that the majority of her questions were for a specific reason, related to other questions or to information she was provided. It’s literally unbelievable in 2020 for someone making six figures to not own a television, just as its unreasonable for an average person to not consume some content wether movies, tv shows, or even YouTube for entertainment. He tacitly admitted to having at least one television by admitting to having consoles. Even if she is a boomer Nancy doesn’t have to have played one to understand they must be plugged into a Tv, she’s seen ads and at least some pop culture. Does she really believe that there isn’t a television in his house that at least occasionally isn’t used to watch shit?

The one time she admitted having been tipped off, the portion she asked about was 100% accurate. I would absolutely bet that tip included that he likely has 3 TVs, She asked enough to verify, but not enough to play her hand. If she’s to take Phil at face value, he does absolutely nothing for fun, has no hobbies, and no entertainment. Despite having plenty of means to entertain himself and his wife with his “business related” “equipment,” honest injun Phil would never use those personally and instead stares out the window for fun...

The questions she didn’t ask were almost as telling as those she did.

and by the way guys you are really missing the importance of the tax returns. Based on the difficult and diligent work @actually and @SoapQueen1 did he filled out his taxes relatively correctly, i.e. with smaller and believable expenses and including his tips. y’all have it backwards, the problem is that he is claiming business expenses on his bankruptcy that if true would decrease his taxable income dollar for dollar: 5k of business expenses are present on his bankruptcy filing but are absent on his taxes, because he would owe a lot less if they were claimed on his taxes.

edit grammar

^sigh^Jasper is ignored again.^sigh^

 

[NotreallyPutin]

I'm telling you. DSP will be streaming from his parent's house or some cheap apartment by Q3.

 

[FamicomGorby]

I'm telling you. DSP will be streaming from his parent's house or some cheap apartment by Q3.

Squatting saga, Phil ain't gonna leave till the Sheriff comes in to physically remove him.

 

[Beavis]

If he had known his shit, I might agree, but the only thing he kinda got was that Phil maybe knew he was insolvent before he met with Rochelle. Otherwise, he didn't have his shit together enough to ask cogent questions, and he didn't get Phil to describe his business expenses in any detail.

Phil was never going to give his expenses in detail and I don’t believe he was required to. He would have just kept saying “my monthly expenses are listed on the BK form” no matter how hard the debt buyer pressed.

 

[Sparkletor 2.0]

I wonder if Phil has three televisions each with DVR? Let's see what Phil has to say

 

[Sir Wesley Tailpipe]

Phil was never going to give his expenses in detail and I don’t believe he was required to. He would have just kept saying “my monthly expenses are listed on the BK form” no matter how hard the debt buyer pressed.

He didn’t have to give fully itemized details at this stage, but more clarity in what he did give them would be expected. It wouldn’t help him, but all he managed to do so far is make it look like he’s hiding things by giving selective details. He made the problem himself, really.

 

[Beavis]

He didn’t have to give fully itemized details at this stage, but more clarity in what he did give them would be expected. It wouldn’t help him, but all he managed to do so far is make it look like he’s hiding things by giving selective details. He made the problem himself, really.

Phil wouldn’t be able to clarify without admitting to his detractors that he was spending thousands a month on in app purchases for pay to win mobile phone games.

 

[Ruthless54]

time to start thinking outside of the box, i'm gonna go out on a limb and say the $7,000 was the cost to replace the engine in his corolla after he didn't change the oil for 3 years, that's why it was fuck all miles on it

Toyota's are better than that, and built specifically for negligent women driver's. I'm sure he has lifetime free oil changes that they text him about.