- Joined
- Dec 13, 2019
Clearer Nancy sounds stronger and more informative. Also, it was Rochelle giggling at WHY AM I TOXIC? not Nancy.
[26-Mar-2020] Philip's 341 Creditor Meeting - When what should be 5 minutes becomes an eternity.
- Thread starter nohandsboi
- Start date
- Status
PieceofShet
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2017
Oh boy, hopefully no one will dox Steven... he just put himself in the autistic circle.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2019
Steven Ellis outed himself in Rekieta's chat after Nick suggested what he did was illegal. He seems quite confident he did nothing wrong.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2017
Nancy I swear to god if you have read this dumb thread. Make an account after all this is over and give your True and Honest thoughts on bankruptcy
BallBuster
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2017
Called that one.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2017
the only i learned from this was that phil doesn't remember when he was in default.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
It's Steven (or Stephen) Oulette not Ellis
Tomssu
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2020
He did everything correct
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
So the guy's exact words were "I'm here representing Citibank, I see the debtor has three lines of credit with us". Sounds like a lie, unless he really does work at Citibank, which isn't the story he told publicly.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
Wasn't Citibank the one Phil owed like $35,000 to? If so, 3 lines could be right.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2019
Yup, Phil has three cards with Citi, with 15 grand on one card alone.
Citibank guy was definitely lying and doubt he used his actual name.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2017
What’s this whole Steven thing? I guess I missed this but I’ve tried to keep up with everything else relative
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
The name the guy who streamed the call gave to the trustee. He had hidden it while streaming the call, but the court audio did not. Question now is whether it was his real name and whether he really represents Citibank or bought debt from them or whatever. Obvious bet is on no.
joeblowspumoni
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2019
The guy who made a KF account the day of call, wanted to "own da trolls," using his autistic version of DSPisms, streamed the call on a sock Twitch to go deep cover on the 341 call, and then disappeared when @actually tried to work with the dood to verify he's a legit POI in the bankruptcy?
coffeepencil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2020
Either
a.) a person named Steven Ouellette who already knew about KF really did pay thousands of dollars to buy DSP's debt (dumb in it's own right), accidentally misrepresented himself as a CitiBank creditor, and doxed himself
or
b.) a troll illegally appeared in DSP's 341 with the hope of getting the trustee to question his business expenses, but didn't manage to do it, leaving DSP still completely in the weeds of debt and likely screwed, but adds to his persecution complex
either way the result is what we already undersood: DSP is terrible with finances and you should never personally get involved with cows.
a.) a person named Steven Ouellette who already knew about KF really did pay thousands of dollars to buy DSP's debt (dumb in it's own right), accidentally misrepresented himself as a CitiBank creditor, and doxed himself
or
b.) a troll illegally appeared in DSP's 341 with the hope of getting the trustee to question his business expenses, but didn't manage to do it, leaving DSP still completely in the weeds of debt and likely screwed, but adds to his persecution complex
either way the result is what we already undersood: DSP is terrible with finances and you should never personally get involved with cows.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
Whether this dood is fake or not, is irrelevant. The fact that Phillip Paul Burnell is on the record, audibly irritated, saying, "And we've already explained it, so why are you asking about it?" and "if you want me to explain it further in detail behind the scenes" in regards to a simple question about whether he bought stuff on credit after he was insolvent is good enough for me.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
It's actually an interesting question. It could range from seriously illegal to barely illegal to not even illegal at all. I hope whoever it is doesn't have to argue about it in court because that would mean bad things and the whole thing was kind of amusing.
I wonder if there's ever been a case where someone has dumbly admitted shit like Phil did, where the issue is whether he can exclude it from evidence because the questioner was an impostor. I mean, Phil did say this shit under oath. Maybe the other guy lied on his oath, who knows? But Phil was definitely under oath.
The obvious charge is identity theft. That usually involves some profit to the criminal, though.
Unless the FBI or some other entity gets interested, this retard will probably get away with this. Or Phil could go after it somehow. Good luck to him, the fat fuck.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2017
My takeaway from the court's audio: as dodgy as DSP's explanation of his Paypal was, it sounded a lot worse to Nancy. She thought he said "fix page," and the two explanations she heard were the isolated phrase "charitable contribution" (due to audio cutting out) and "it's like tipping your waiter."
Sir Wesley Tailpipe
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2019
Phil was already in trouble, made clear by being held to go last and grilled like he was, but he put his own head though the noose with that shit. Bankruptcy hearings are about answering to the trustee and any creditors who decide to attend, to account for how the debt became unmanageable. Phil offering to answer the question only off the official record like that is borderline contempt of court and really makes it look like he’s being totally dishonest.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
What she heard was "I have lots of money I didn't tell you about."
- Status