You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
[16-Jan-2020] DarksydePhil is filing for bankruptcy (general thread) - and has officially done so on January 31 2020, meaning a lot of his finances have become public
I'm wondering what everyone's predictions for the future are... Personally I think there's like an 80% chance his bankruptcy is just going to be converted to a Chapter 13. He has lots of income and the creditors are going to want to tap into that. He's not going to keep the Patreon Palace and he'll be on a pretty strict payment plan that gives him little wiggle room. Then he will fail Chapter 13 at some point and may be eligible for Chapter 7, since his income has sunk low enough.
I doubt it. They could have filed Chapter 13 to begin with. Now, showing that Phil has BELOW ZERO expendable income, he clearly doesn't qualify. Unless they addend this to Phil suddenly having thousands of expendable income which is shady as fuck, but that might be something Jew lawyers do, I don't know.
A lien would certainly make things interesting as that entitles the entity that placed the lien, which in this case would be the federal government for unpaid taxes (or in Phil's case the state? or so he claims), to completely repossess the property if payments aren't made on time. This might also set him up for a possible bank levy (installments taken from account) or wage garnishment.
I doubt it. They could have filed Chapter 13 to begin with. Now, showing that Phil has BELOW ZERO expendable income, he clearly doesn't qualify. Unless they addend this to Phil suddenly having thousands of expendable income which is shady as fuck, but that might be something Jew lawyers do, I don't know.
I think that's exactly how it's going to happen: They will show that he has lots of expendable income and has been fudging the numbers. Suddenly he clearly doesn't qualify for Chapter 7, but they don't want him to go to jail (if he goes to jail he won't be able to make money for them by streaming), so instead he'll be allowed to convert it to Chapter 13 and then they'll squeeze him for as much as they can get out of the piggybank.
I think that's exactly how it's going to happen: They will show that he has lots of expendable income and has been fudging the numbers. Suddenly he clearly doesn't qualify for Chapter 7, but they don't want him to go to jail (if he goes to jail he won't be able to make money for them by streaming), so instead he'll be allowed to convert it to Chapter 13 and then they'll squeeze him for as much as they can get out of the piggybank.
I have to think his $10,000 of monthly "expenses" with no apparent cause would make the trustee ask for receipts, especially when it just happens to be enough to 1) get Phil into Chapter 7 and 2) leave him without any "extra" income.
The only way for him to convert to Chapter 13 at this stage is to say "Actually I don't have $5,200 of business expenses each month, I lied."
He then still might to fail Chapter 13 immediately because he, believe it or not, might not have enough debt. He needs to have so much that he can't pay it in five years, unless I'm wrong.
So if we get a chance to see the transcript or hear the audio from the trial what are the chances Phil will at least once say something about either trolls, detractors, internet harassment, internet stalkers, harassing potential sponsors?
The only way for him to convert to Chapter 13 at this stage is to say "Actually I don't have $5,200 of business expenses each month, I lied."
He then still might to fail Chapter 13 immediately because he, believe it or not, might not have enough debt. He needs to have so much that he can't pay it in five years, unless I'm wrong.
He better pray to the Gods of Greed he doesn't get a judge who wakes up pissed off. The amount of lies and omissions would piss me off, and God forbid he try to throw his lawyer under the bus.
We should give King Pigbert the Fourth some slack. Us lowly idiot kids peasants are not cut from the same robust polish italian lineage cloth as he is.
He paid the most expensive scribe in the kingdom of washington to file in his financial woes, which by the way is none of it's fault. Some of the information is incorrect? Go fuck yourself he doesn't care.
By the way the best way to pay the high interest rate on the 13 credit cards he has would be by tipping, he gets those immediatly.
Correct if I'm wrong. By going through the form again, I gather that Phil is planning to keep EVERYTHING that he owns except the CT condo. Seriously, everything that he has in Washington is claimed as exempt.
He better pray to the Gods of Greed he doesn't get a judge who wakes up pissed off. The amount of lies and omissions would piss me off, and God forbid he try to throw his lawyer under the bus.
You forgot one crucial detail in your analysis: this is Philip Burnell. He’s not going to take the cheapest option. Using the same methodology you used, I took a top of the line 2020 Toyota Corolla XSE with a few options.
MSRP: $27,700
Down payment: $0
APR: 0%*
Payments: 72
Car Note: $384/month
*I remember Philip saying he got 0% APR when he bought the car. Someone can fact check me on this, but I’m sure I’m right.
I just wanted to transcribe this part word-for-word and analyze it a bit, because I found it remarkable:
People will sit here and say, ‘oh, things are wrong!’ Maybe they are, maybe they're not, I don't know. I'm not a bankruptcy attorney. I don't know how it works. You know, things as ludicrous as ‘well, we know Phil has a cat’, and I guess on there, there's a section that says something about pets that was checked off as ‘no, Phil does not have a cat.’
Now, if you use your head, you will think ‘why would that section be on there?’ That section would be on there because, probably there's an allowance for having a pet, right? Like saying ‘oh, if you have a pet, it's expected that a certain amount of money every month will go towards the pet and the budget for the pet,’ or whatever, right?
Now, me coming from a background that I had a little bit of accounting training—not a lot, but I had a little bit of accounting training at one point—I can tell you that, in accounting, things are not 100% black-and-white, that sometimes things can be swapped around. So, I'll give you an example: sometimes you can say ‘oh, a pet expense is a pet expense,’ but sometimes you can group that into living expenses, and say ‘that's apart of living expenses,’ OK?
So, yes, my attorney is well aware that I have a cat. Yes, my attorney is well aware that we spend some money on said cat every month, but maybe the attorney didn't necessarily fill out that one section saying that I have a cat, OK? But instead, took it into somewhere else, right?
So, that's how it works. I don't know, OK? I literally don't know how it works on that document. I have nothing to do with it. I didn't file it. I didn't fill it out. All I did was give information and the document got filed, OK? So, you know, it is what it is. If there's things on there that are wrong, they're gonna get fixed, right? They're gonna get amended and fixed. This was just the initial filing.
This is one of the only points in the entire stream in which he addresses a specific problem people found in his filing, and attempts to give a specific answer.
Apparent problem: he claims not to have a pet, but lists pet food as an expense
Explanation: First, he insults the questioner a little bit [‘use your head’], then we get some credentialism [mentions ‘little bit of’ training]. At this point, the audience is primed for an explanation that will seem obvious in retrospect, something that they could have used Common Sense™ to figure out, but Dave's ‘training’ (required accounting course as an undergrad) will enable him to explain with even more detail and clarity. He even has an example to give them, to show how normal this is.
But wait, he uses the exact contradiction he is attempting to untangle, with reference to an example, as the example that resolves the contradiction. It makes sense that my lawyer checked off ‘no’ on the ‘do you have a pet’ question, because of the example of someone filling out a bankruptcy form, and checking off ‘no’ on the ‘do you have a pet’ question. And that's all we get in the way of explanations.
And then everything just falls apart: ‘So, that's how it works. I don't know, OK? I literally don't know how it works on that document.’
I just wanted to transcribe this part word-for-word and analyze it a bit, because I found it remarkable:
People will sit here and say, ‘oh, things are wrong!’ Maybe they are, maybe they're not, I don't know. I'm not a bankruptcy attorney. I don't know how it works. You know, things as ludicrous as ‘well, we know Phil has a cat’, and I guess on there, there's a section that says something about pets that was checked off as ‘no, Phil does not have a cat.’
Now, if you use your head, you will think ‘why would that section be on there?’ That section would be on there because, probably there's an allowance for having a pet, right? Like saying ‘oh, if you have a pet, it's expected that a certain amount of money every month will go towards the pet and the budget for the pet,’ or whatever, right?
Now, me coming from a background that I had a little bit of accounting training—not a lot, but I had a little bit of accounting training at one point—I can tell you that, in accounting, things are not 100% black-and-white, that sometimes things can be swapped around. So, I'll give you an example: sometimes you can say ‘oh, a pet expense is a pet expense,’ but sometimes you can group that into living expenses, and say ‘that's apart of living expenses,’ OK?
So, yes, my attorney is well aware that I have a cat. Yes, my attorney is well aware that we spend some money on said cat every month, but maybe the attorney didn't necessarily fill out that one section saying that I have a cat, OK? But instead, took it into somewhere else, right?
So, that's how it works. I don't know, OK? I literally don't know how it works on that document. I have nothing to do with it. I didn't file it. I didn't fill it out. All I did was give information and the document got filed, OK? So, you know, it is what it is. If there's things on there that are wrong, they're gonna get fixed, right? They're gonna get amended and fixed. This was just the initial filing.
This is one of the only points in the entire stream in which he addresses a specific problem people found in his filing, and attempts to give a specific answer.
Apparent problem: he claims not to have a pet, but lists pet food as an expense
Explanation: First, he insults the questioner a little bit [‘use your head’], then we get some credentialism [mentions ‘little bit of’ training]. At this point, the audience is primed for an explanation that will seem obvious in retrospect, something that they could have used Common Sense™ to figure out, but Dave's ‘training’ (required accounting course as an undergrad) will enable him to explain with even more detail and clarity. He even has an example to give them, to show how normal this is.
But wait, he uses the exact contradiction he is attempting to untangle, with reference to an example, as the example that resolves the contradiction. It makes sense that my lawyer checked off ‘no’ on the ‘do you have a pet’ question, because of the example of someone filling out a bankruptcy form, and checking off ‘no’ on the ‘do you have a pet’ question. And that's all we get in the way of explanations.
And then everything just falls apart: ‘So, that's how it works. I don't know, OK? I literally don't know how it works on that document.’
Here's the problem with his lie in a nutshell and it really boggles the mind he thinks he's smarter than everyone else in the room. IF the lawyer was actually the one to fill this Rorschach Bankruptcy out, she would have been asking him questions line by line and filling in his answer. How does he not see that? Is he reeeeeeeaaaaally going to say she asked "do you have any pets?", he says yes, and she checks 'no'? I mean.......cmon dude. At least put a little effort into trolling those that have you dead to rights.
Here's the problem with his lie in a nutshell and it really boggles the mind he thinks he's smarter than everyone else in the room. IF the lawyer was actually the one to fill this Rorschach Bankruptcy out, she would have been asking him questions line by line and filling in his answer.
Pretty sure that's not how it works. She uses some kind of software where she fills in information on the client and it spits out the finished form.
There's probably defaults for all kinds of things that she doesn't explicitly change. Of course Phil probably should have read the finished document, but hey, that's him. The stupid cat question or how many clothes Phil owns won't matter anyway in the long run...
The main question the trust is going to ask is where the $10k of income are disappearing to (besides cat food) and why he can't manage to pay off his debts if he's earning so much,.
Pretty sure that's not how it works. She uses some kind of software where she fills in information on the client and it spits out the finished form.
There's probably defaults for all kinds of things that she doesn't explicitly change. Of course Phil probably should have read the finished document, but hey, that's him. The stupid cat question or how many clothes Phil owns won't matter anyway in the long run...
The main question the trust is going to ask is where the $10k of income are disappearing to (besides cat food) and why he can't manage to pay off his debts if he's earning so much,.
